Obama's Science Czar, says: Forced abortions and mass sterilization needed to save the planet, page 4
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 63 times


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 03:52 PM by CAPT PROTON
Old news people....

en.wikipedia.org...

I remember reading a story a few years back where an 18 year old girl was sterilized for shoplifting in either Virgina or West Virgina.

They considered repealing the law when word got out and people were outraged by the story. Its definitely something they don't like to admit, but the laws are on the books in some places, but rarely if ever used.

So you better watch out folks.


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 03:53 PM by Neo_Serf
reply to post by JScytale



Check population growth in industrialized nations. Most parts of Europe and the NA have negative growth.

Remove the boot from the face of the brown skinned folks and watch their pops decline aswell.


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 03:53 PM by JScytale
Originally posted by antonia
reply to
post by loOranks



North Americans waste enough food in two days to feed some third-world populations for a month. Food and Water is plentiful, it's is mismanagement of these resources that is the problem.


oh god, it isnt. just because americans waste so much (which is a huge, huge problem btw) does not mean it is plentiful. have you ever actually lived in a third world country? i have, for most of my life in fact. trust me when i say necessities are NOT plentiful in most of the world, and the fact some priveleged people WASTE them is so immoral it hurts to think about.



reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 03:53 PM by JScytale
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to
post by JScytale


Remove the boot from the face of the brown skinned folks and watch their pops decline aswell.


what are you even talking about?


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 03:54 PM by antonia
Originally posted by JScytale
reply to
post by Neo_Serf




china's approach is probably the most moral one i have seen applied, and it *IS* a very significant necessity.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by JScytale]


China's approach has also caused a serious social problem. There are simply not enough females in china since it is more advantageous to have a male child.

www.cbsnews.com...

This problem will manifest itself in any country which follows a one child policy because of sexism. Good luck getting laid in the future Hetero men.


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 03:56 PM by JScytale
Originally posted by antonia
Originally posted by JScytale
reply to
post by Neo_Serf




china's approach is probably the most moral one i have seen applied, and it *IS* a very significant necessity.

[edit on 13-7-2009 by JScytale]


China's approach has also caused a serious social problem. There are simply not enough females in china since it is more advantageous to have a male child.

www.cbsnews.com...

This problem will manifest itself in any country which follows a one child policy because of sexism. Good luck getting laid in the future Hetero men.


it's not actually a direct cause of that, but one-child does make it more common. look at india, where i believe killing daughters is actually more common, but no one-child policy exists.

culture, watson. culture.


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 03:58 PM by Neo_Serf
reply to post by JScytale



Youre not aware the the world power structure is fully exploitive and destructive towards the 3rd world and views them as recource extraction zones which leads to rampant poverty and thus 'overpopulation'?


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 03:59 PM by loOranks
reply to post by antonia



I realize that there is resource mismanagement. I fail to see how that changes much about having a exponentially growing population against a set of finite resources... just thinking about the space we occupy on the habitable mass of land on earth.


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 04:02 PM by Neo_Serf
reply to post by loOranks



Its been pointed out that every human on Earth could fit into southern Alberta with 1/4 acre of land.



reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 04:03 PM by JScytale
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to
post by JScytale



Youre not aware the the world power structure is fully exploitive and destructive towards the 3rd world and views them as recource extraction zones which leads to rampant poverty and thus 'overpopulation'?


of course im aware of how countries like the US treat the third world (i lived in latin america, the US's # you now give us your oil, food and money zone). it is however naive to think simply stopping the US altogether would change the level of poverty in latin america any time soon - countries take a long time to recover. i was fortunate enough to live in one of the few south american countries to see through the US's free trade deal and how it would completely destroy low-income families, though. you can't make a living when you have to compete with multinational corporations putting your product on the market for less (thanks to no import taxes).


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 04:03 PM by antonia
Originally posted by loOranks
reply to
post by antonia



I realize that there is resource mismanagement. I fail to see how that changes much about having a exponentially growing population against a set of finite resources... just thinking about the space we occupy on the habitable mass of land on earth.


3% of the earths inhabitable space is occupied. The math only holds true under one set of circumstances.


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 04:04 PM by JScytale
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
reply to
post by loOranks



Its been pointed out that every human on Earth could fit into southern Alberta with 1/4 acre of land.


ok. where is their food coming from? you fail to realize that all the world's agriculture isn't even capable of feeding every single human being on the planet adequately.

Originally posted by antonia
3% of the earths inhabitable space is occupied. The math only holds true under one set of circumstances.


you do realize that cutting down all the world's forests would lead to complete and utter doom very quickly, right? that and we are reaching our limits for sustainable agriculture.

en.wikipedia.org...
Overpopulation does not depend only on the size or density of the population, but on the ratio of population to available sustainable resources, and on the means of resource use and distribution used by that population


[edit on 13-7-2009 by JScytale]


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 04:07 PM by loOranks
Originally posted by antonia
Originally posted by loOranks
reply to
post by antonia



I realize that there is resource mismanagement. I fail to see how that changes much about having a exponentially growing population against a set of finite resources... just thinking about the space we occupy on the habitable mass of land on earth.


3% of the earths inhabitable space is occupied. The math only holds true under one set of circumstances.


Oh? Can you please point me to the 97% that mankind left out so far?


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 04:07 PM by Mumbotron
Originally posted by Neo_Serf
Im not one to spout about stuff I'm totally unlearned on. Sure Ive read the Manifesto. The stated intentions of these ideologies vs their real world implimentations are light years apart.

In *practice* its all Statism, which is of course the *true* goal of those who funded the birth and growth of all these types of governments. Communism was created by the globalists as a counterforce to capitalism in a grand game of divide and conquer, this is all recorded fact by historians like Carrol Quigley and should be apparent to you folk who tell me I should go do some more reading.


Totally off topic. (but related as these globalists who created Communism are the same bunch who put together this wonderful little text were discussing) Ecoscience should be the main topic and should shock and stun anyone with an ounce of humanity left in them.


When I was in school learning about Marxism, my teacher told a story about Lenin having contacted Marx after reading the communist Manifesto to ask him for advice on the attempt to implement Communism in Russia. Marx replied by saying as long as there are competing Capitalist (centralized) interests that would interfere with the act of decentralization (Moving from Socialism to Communism). Russia would never evolve beyond Socialism. That means Marx felt it would be impossible to institute Communism since a central government and military would be necessary to prevent the influx of the Capitalists. Marx said only after Capitalism destroys itself (which is inevitable) would an attempt at Communism be possible.
I don't know where you might find a copy of that letter but the content seems self evident.


reply posted on 13-7-2009 @ 04:10 PM by antonia
reply to post by JScytale



I did not say anything about cutting down forests. I simply stated a fact, that fact being only 3% of the inhabitable world is inhabited. It's also been shown that in the developed world there is negative population growth. The solution then is obvious. Develop the whole world and the population will go down as a result. Even the UN own data says population should begin to stabilize and go down after the 7 billion mark.

But really does anyone have more information on the book? I'd really like more information on it.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



While we were Distracted with Gay Marriage news This happend today
  Posted 17 days ago with 81 member flags
People are marching in the streets all over Quebec
  Posted 3 days ago with 70 member flags
Breaking: Ron Paul to end active campaigning - cnn
  Posted 13 days ago with 26 member flags
President Obama Affirms His Support for Same Sex Marriage
  Posted 18 days ago with 24 member flags
Anon has released 1.7 GB of files....
  Posted 6 days ago with 24 member flags
Police Tasings Might Finally Be Ruled Brutality
  Posted 11 days ago with 23 member flags