It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids

page: 5
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sliadon
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 




I'm not sure intelligence is that genetic, I think it's more individualistic though genes of course have some bearing on the chance someone will be smart.


If my stance came across that way let me immediately apologize because that is not what I meant at all. In no way do I believe, nor suggest that intelligence is a genetic issue. What I meant was that people who happen to be uneducated tend to be more willing to follow leaders without question. There are numerous examples which contradict my statement in both the respect of highly educated who do the same as well as uneducated people that question TPTB and try to bring change. That being said, my concern was simply meant that it seems fishy to target the Educated class who already buys into the Green Revolution more.

Does that help? I hope I didn't miss your point get us both lost


-Sliadon


yup sure does. not offended.




posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Always a pleasure to run into you Jkrog
Haven't crossed paths in a little while...

By any chance are you seeing the same possibility I am of Conspiracy in the works? A covert method of convincing people via the Green Revolution to cut back on population control.

I always enjoy the insight you bring to the table (whether I am on the agreeing party or opposing
)

-Sliadon



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Sliadon
 


Thanks, but in my opinion I see no conspiracy in the works in this case. Now it very well could a type of fear mongering to help the green revolution--But I must agree with it, it is just smart in my humble opinion. Always a pleasure my friend.


[edit on 8/4/2009 by jkrog08]



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by jkrog08
 


Not a problem


A thought I threw out in a way to try and debunk myself earlier was that the target audience was chosen in a way as to create emulation. Sort-of a "monkey see monkey do" between the educated people that already buy into the green craze, and those who want to emulate their richer counterparts.

It got a little bit of attention but I am still caught up on why the Scientists said,



The researchers note that they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, but say they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices.


In my experience, such statements are usually guilt-ridden or are trying to cover up their tracks about something behind the scenes and this is the one question I have had that has not been answered. By any chance do you have an opinion you could give concerning this?

-Sliadon



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Sliadon
 



The researchers note that they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, but say they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices.


In my opinion that statement is a nothing more than the proper scientific and official way to clarify a statement. It is clarifying the statement that they made, making it known that they are only suggesting that we as individuals keep in mind the consequences of having many children. In my own personal opinion it is just saying we all should consider the larger issue here, not just our own personal desires (ie; to have a large family, or whatever other reasons people have many kids).



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Makes perfect sense to me... if the Government really wanted this, one simple way:

STOP giving huge tax breaks to people with large numbers of children! .. Give the tax breaks to those who have 2 or fewer children, and tax those with more then 2 more!

I'd be allllll for that bill.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Here's something to think about...
Uneducated people tend to have more kids. Look at rednecks and people with very low IQ's, they have kids early and keep reproducing til death.

but look at people with higher IQ's. They use condoms, birth control, wait until they are stable etc. and have less kids.

So our gene pool is being diluted by the idiots while the smarter ones are lesser and lesser with each generation.

So if you have an IQ above 130, have alot of kids.

Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? If the gene pool keeps being diluted by low IQ's that's what we have to look forward to.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by skeetontheconspiracy
 


I used the Idiocracy argument earlier...

But in a different manner.

I don't think it is an issue of "washing down" intelligence in the sense that intelligence is a genetic trait. More along the lines that the uneducated procreate more. Educational achievement doesn't always indicate intelligence, it simply isn't fair to assume that uneducated people are less intelligent than people with formal education.

-Sliadon



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by jkrog08
In my opinion that statement is a nothing more than the proper scientific and official way to clarify a statement. It is clarifying the statement that they made, making it known that they are only suggesting that we as individuals keep in mind the consequences of having many children. In my own personal opinion it is just saying we all should consider the larger issue here, not just our own personal desires (ie; to have a large family, or whatever other reasons people have many kids).


I read the article and I see it the same way.

Now, for my personal opinion: I think people should have an IQ test before being allowed to have children. I also think that if you can't send your kid to college, don't have one. And furthermore, if you are welfare, you best be on birth control too.

I'm just a mean person.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


I'm really sorry that you feel that way.

However, if you recommend people on welfare (I.E. people who don't have money) to go on Birth Control, how do you expect them to pay for it? Your plan would raise your taxes in the process.

-Sliadon



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Sliadon
 


Dont have too many kids
Dont increase pollution
Dont increase carbon footprint

What do they all have in common? The more people the more problems.

Why do you need so many kids?

IT ALL boils down to people only needing 1-2 kids... a lot of people have 5 and a lot of them have psychological issues.

I think the article has a very valid point.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by rjmelter
 


There are a couple of things wrong with your post. The first being the use of "you" which I am going to assume you meant in a collective sense as in people in general.



IT ALL boils down to people only needing 1-2 kids... a lot of people have 5 and a lot of them have psychological issues.


Could you please show me examples of how families that decide to have 5, or that 'a lot' decide to have that many?

Evidence points to 2.3 (I know, silliness of having a third of a kid
)

www.ling.rochester.edu...

It's from a University post and is full of multiple citations and sources.

What is most troubling to me is your statement that having many kids means that someone has "psychological issues." Please keep topics more focused on facts backing up your opinions. I thoroughly enjoyed the posts you gave earlier at the beginning of this thread...

-Sliadon



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sliadon
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


I'm really sorry that you feel that way.

However, if you recommend people on welfare (I.E. people who don't have money) to go on Birth Control, how do you expect them to pay for it? Your plan would raise your taxes in the process.

-Sliadon

Is ok, I'm not sorry I feel this way. I'm old and grumpy. I'm tired of silly, irresponsible people having kids they can't and don't look after.

Let the welfare pay for it. That's still cheaper. Bring back Norplants. One implant good for 3-5 years. It's just a shame they don't make them for dead-beat dads that don't pay child support.

en.wikipedia.org...

Despite its discontinuation in the USA and the West, Norplant is still used in the developing world. According to one study 6.2 out of 100 rural women interviewed in one region in Bangladesh use the device, according to the United Nations Population Fund.[citation needed]

Norplant and other implantable contraceptives are especially effective in the developing world, as they do not require daily administration or access to a hospital to be effective. In addition, no continual contraceptive supplies (pills, condoms, etc.) are necessary, and it is a highly effective, low cost contraceptive over the long term.



posted on Aug, 4 2009 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Sliadon
 


Im not referring to facts at this point...

Im referring to actually experiencing people like this where i live. All of the families with atleast 5 kids, some of them have attachment issues or other obvious psychological issues. With moms and dads going to work kids have to fend for themselves and learn for themselves. What is the need in that extra kid? Really? When the kids say their parents dont love them and cry all the time? Trust me i know, I try my best to be there for folks when others are not there for them. It may not be a decent ratio for the U.S. but hands on experience its 100% accurate.

I was going to try to be arrogant and bring up some facts but all of the older families avgd like 4 kids but now its at like 2.3 as you said. and its continuing to decline... but those certain pesky individuals are still popping out too many kids.

**edit to add:
my fathers brothers daughter is mentally retaded (legally) and she has 7 kids and has lost custody of them, and they are all problems kids except one who made it into an overly christian family... but they still ahve to keep on her... and all of them are also slightly mentally disabled...

The mom also chooses to be permiscous and normally selects other mentall handicapped men so she doesn't have to marry them and commit... but have plenty of babies... and why... she says she loves how cute they are, but when they are older she has to give them up due to neglect. Social services cant do anything about it... because of her rights..... its a joke sometimes...

I see things hands on, when i deal with it its more emotional for me because my hands have gotten dirty because of the topic. People can spout statistics all they want... but i see the truth in the works... Maybe the numbers are different nation wide... but all i can deal with is my little side of it and the people im around.

**

www.msnbc.msn.com...
www.psychologyinfo.com...
www.iser.essex.ac.uk...

Just a bunch of interesting articles related to the topic.

I love people, and if a family can manage 3 kids or 4 kids im all for it, but When i see a person go to waste (the kid as a seed in a garden)... It really angers me. The facts add up to the extra burden on society and realistically everyone knows its true, its just hard to soak up the water and the rays of sunlight. Because... who wants to be told what to do?

[edit on 4-8-2009 by rjmelter]



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by rjmelter
 


RJ,

I can really respect the situation and background you bring into this. I can't understand and will never claim to "know" what you do. What you have seen first hand in your family setting is tough, and I won't try to take that away from you.



I love people, and if a family can manage 3 kids or 4 kids im all for it, but When i see a person go to waste (the kid as a seed in a garden)... It really angers me.


I will agree with you 100% on this statement. Maybe the key issue with what you are mentioning is everyone helping to figure out a way to spread knowledge for these people who claim to do so. While I still maintain a more skeptical view on the matter, maybe it is as Jkrog and others have suggested, just an avenue in which people are trying to find a way to make things better. Re-educating and helping those who either don't know, or understand, or don't have the resources could help them find out more appropriate ways to handle such situations.

Regardless the case of conspiracy or not, I do wish you and your family the best and am truly sorry if anything I have said in my replies to you struck a nerve or brought upon offense.

-Sliadon



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
For example some countries are projected to peak and then decline in population such as china
in thousands)

2025 ---1 453 140
2030 ---1 462 468
2035 ---1 462 351
2040 ---1 455 055
2045 ---1 440 289
2050 ---1 417 045



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by amazing
 


You aren't the first one to post about the 'peak' levels with population growth. Forgive me as it has been a while since freshman year in high school when I took Biology


With this being the case, would promoting this Green Revolution with your data levels in mind be necessary if population will peak anyways followed by a decline?

I'm guessing that your data backs my claim that this is silliness, however I will admit my little knowledge of peak populations.

Thanks amazing!

-Sliadon



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:22 AM
link   
www.worldometers.info...
Current world population in real time


Population in the world is currently growing at a rate of around 1.15 % per year. The average annual population change is currently estimated at over 77 million.

Annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2% and above. The rate of increase has therefore almost halved since its peak of 2.19 percent, which was reached in 1963, to the current 1.15%.

The annual growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue to decline in the coming years, but the pace of the future change is uncertain (1). Currently, it is estimated that it will become less than 1% by 2020 and less than 0.5% by 2050.

This means that world population will continue to grow into the 21st century, but at a slower rate compared to the recent past. World population has doubled (100% increase) in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). It is now estimated that it will take a further 42 years to increase by another 50%, to become 9 billion by 2042.

United Nations projections (Pdf document) indicate that world population will nearly stabilize at just above 10 billion persons after 2200.



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
They wanna save the planet, and we havnt even learned to care for one another yet? lots fo sense this makes. Thiers nothing wrong with the planet, everything we know of, came out of earth..the planet isnt going anywhere WE are! its kinda misleadi. earth's been around 4.5 billion years, and has been throgh alot worse than us..volcanos, plate techtonics, magentic reversal of the poles, world wide fires and floods, yuo get the idea.. and we are a threat to this planet? more like a threat to eachother



posted on Aug, 5 2009 @ 01:28 AM
link   
They wanna control population..stop giving welfae checks to women who pump a kid out every 9 months, to stay on the program..



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join