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.

 

Mass Depopulation

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   
There is a lot of talk about vaccines, pandemics, mass graves, and so on. This might happen in the developed world, but what about the rest of the world?

You see, military technology today would be able to wipe out most of the world's population in one day. Why don't they? Because many people in the developed world would be screaming "genocide" and "brutality" and so on. Who would be screaming that, if for example, all of Asia was destroyed in one day?

That's right! The same people who would be against wiping Asia off the map, are the same who would be waiting in line for the "swine flu vaccine" ... aka, their last vaccine.

What a great plan! Kill those against war first, then kill everyone else.




posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
They already do many things to try to depopulate the earth. Abortion, refusing the elderly medical care because they are too old, poverty, wars; our whole society is set up to cause stress. This could lead to suicides. They have so many weapons at their disposal they will just keep coming at us until we are all dead.
I am going to fight no matter what.
I know I sound cynical but I woke to up a world that I do not agree with.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by bettermakings
 



You see, military technology today would be able to wipe out most of the world's population in one day. Why don't they? Because many people in the developed world would be screaming "genocide" and "brutality" and so on.



If everyone is wiped out, who's gonna complain..?


A fresh start might be in order anyways.





posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings
There is a lot of talk about vaccines, pandemics, mass graves, and so on. This might happen in the developed world, but what about the rest of the world?

You see, military technology today would be able to wipe out most of the world's population in one day. Why don't they? Because many people in the developed world would be screaming "genocide" and "brutality" and so on. Who would be screaming that, if for example, all of Asia was destroyed in one day?

That's right! The same people who would be against wiping Asia off the map, are the same who would be waiting in line for the "swine flu vaccine" ... aka, their last vaccine.

What a great plan! Kill those against war first, then kill everyone else.


S&F for you my friend

One would have to wonder. What is this all for at the end?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
Too late. The depopulation of North America has already begun.

Soft Drinks, Twinkies, potato chips, super-size McDonald's meals, driving everywhere instead of walking. Obesity epidemic, massive drug use, alcoholism, prescription drugs for EVERYTHING.

Now all the perpetrators of this fiendish plot have to do is just sit back and wait a while.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
If they dont like the world, they should just kill themselfs instead of killing the world.

Makes more sense, no?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

If they dont like the world, they should just kill themselfs instead of killing the world.

Makes more sense, no?


It isn't that they don't like the world.
It is that they don't like you in it.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone

Originally posted by Copernicus

If they dont like the world, they should just kill themselfs instead of killing the world.

Makes more sense, no?


It isn't that they don't like the world.
It is that they don't like you in it.



Trust me, they wont like the ones who get to survive either. The problem lies with them, not us. In the end, there is only one man standing with their way of life. Everybody else has turned on eachother.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
The fact of the matter is, the world is overpopulated. Those in third world countries reproduce the most (mainly on the African continent). The population growth of most first world countries is pretty negligible, and a few have negative population growths.

At first blush one might think education about birth control is the answer, but this requires willing participation by those who reproduce most; I think the effect of this would be negligible.

The only options left are pretty crappy ones: genocide and mass sterilization. Mass sterilization has logistical problems (how do you deliver the sterilizing agent, how do you make sure enough people are exposed, etc.). This leaves the OP's theory: bomb the hell out of Africa and Asia. It's not an option that I personally would choose, but I can see those in power deciding that this was the only way to save the planet.

It's a conundrum, that's for sure.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by LiquidLight
 


I think we could do a lot if we wanted to. But its easier to just kill people.

Instead of throwing out old technology and invest a lot of money in producing alternatives, old corporations make sure every last drop of oil will be turned into profits before they want to start doing anything. Humans are doing this to themselfs.

If anything, its the western world that deserves to get nuked. We are 20% of the planets population and we are consuming 80% av the planets resources. USA is the absolute worst.

Africa has more people, yes, but they dont consume a lot of the planets resources. We are the ones who do. They are not the problem.

But lets nuke Africa. Who cares about them. Not us anyway. We need to have our microwaves, flat TV screens, cars etc.

Just one thing. I would like to see the person who orders the nukes be able to go up to the mother of a child and shoot her son in the head first. It wont be as easy as ordering planes to bomb a map.


[edit on 20-8-2009 by Copernicus]



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
You know, I wonder about depop theories. See, TPTB are only so powerful because there are so many of us with no power who can be economically or physically coerced into doing their bidding, so they play whilst we work.
Wealth is relative tho. If you've got a loaf & someone else hasn't, you can exercise power over them. But if there was so much space in the world not being used by our huge population, the loafless could just wander off & find some wild food...
See what I'm saying? Wealth only works when it is scarce. After a mass depopulation, the rich would have to actually do their own work, because how could they prevent people from just leaving to start a new life working for themselves? Uber-police? Where is the incentive for the police to do such a job?
Deliberate depop makes no sense.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
Thank you for the comments (of such a variety of opinions).

I don't think the world is very overpopulated. Certain places are (Egypt, India, etc.), but generally the world has enough resources for at least 10 billion. The problem is controlling and organizing the large number, with most of the 10 billion wanting to live in luxury like North Americans often do. The world couldn't support EVERYONE living in luxury, only a handful.

My point was:

The future would contain 2 types of people, the "primitives" and the "civilized". Very shortly, this century, machines would be able to do all the work. The "civilized" would all be living in luxury, and the "primitives" would be living the way humans evolved to live, in nature.

For example, the future of America would have a small number of "civilized" people living in luxury in a few cities. The rest of the country would be full of "primitives" trying to survive on a day-to-day basis.

The wild areas of The South (Appalachia, Louisiana-swamps, etc.) will likely still have "primitives" hunting deer, fishing, making moonshine, etc.. They will live separate from the "civilized" people of the cities.

A whole world like that (similar to a 3rd world country, with no middle-class) would naturally have a VERY low population. I estimate in America, for example, 5 million "civilized" people with extremely low birth-rates, and another 5 million "primitives" who are struggling to survive, have high infant-mortality, low life expectancy, etc... and if the "primitive" population gets too high, or the "civilized" gets too low, they just "civilize" a few "primitives" for the sake of balance.

Think "Brave New World"...



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by bettermakings
I don't think the world is very overpopulated. Certain places are (Egypt, India, etc.), but generally the world has enough resources for at least 10 billion.


In physics, we say it's not the number that overly important, it's the trend. It's going to take a relatively short time to go from 10 to 20. This happens in face of actual resource crisis, such as deepening shortage of fresh water due to climate change, soil erosion etc.


The future would contain 2 types of people, the "primitives" and the "civilized". Very shortly, this century, machines would be able to do all the work. The "civilized" would all be living in luxury, and the "primitives" would be living the way humans evolved to live, in nature.


And how would you enforce such segregation?



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by logicalfallacy
 


Yes, but just who are we 'starting over' with? Our controllers?

Oh, but I'm sure they'll leave enough for a slave population.



posted on Aug, 20 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Nah, I just dont see Brave New World. That would be scientists solution.
1 thing we can count on those who have wealth & power to do is try to stay on top of the heap. That requires a heap to be on top of...



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join