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.

 

Working Backwards

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Ok... I have been plugging away at this for some time, and I realize that I have been going at it ALL the wrong way.

So here is how it is going to be.

This is Thought Experiment Number 1: How to reduce the population of the planet.

Your limits, are those that anyone attempting to execute this plan would be limited by... namely:

1. The population does not WANT to have their numbers reduced.

2. The population sees their reproductive abilities as inherent rights (and all that implies for your goal of population reduction.)

3. You have immense resources at your disposal (Capital)

4. Your have few supporters

5. If the population ever found out what you were doing, you would likely be killed in some spectacular fashion.


So... How would *YOU* reduce the population in a rational, and workable plan?


Please list benefits / weaknesses in your plan

-Edrick




posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
Probably through an atmospheric seeding of an aerosol contraceptive. I have enormous capital reserves? Also presumably enormously talented and slightly amoral scientists at my disposal.

The delivery could be via the seeding of a tropical storm or hurricane forecast to make landfall in a certain area, or maybe through the contrails of an aircraft. (note to self - that one has potential! :lol


A cheaper (and less likely to raise immediate alarm bells) way of administering population control is at birth or soon thereafter, through the administration of a sterilising agent along with childhood vaccinations. The percentage of children thus administered could be adjusted, depending on the degree of the overpopulation in that area, and the likely socio economic consequences. The sterilisation wouldn't become obvious for years, by which time I and my dastardly crew of amoral scientists would be well away from the scene of the crime.

I rather like the at birth approach to sterilisation, however. The onset would be gradual, and combined with natural attrition of both children and the elderly, population control could be achieved over a decade or so without raising too many alarm bells.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by tangotemper
 


Good, Good.... I like your thinking.

Just some minor critiques aimed at helping you tweak your plan before implementation.

1. Flora and Fauna.

You would not want to implement a chemical aerosol that causes the crops and livestock to not multiply... so general chemical agents that disrupt reproductive systems would be somewhat counterproductive, unless a form of famine is in your agenda also.

On second thought, that would work out well also, I suppose.

2. The long term effects of chemical sterilization techniques are somewhat sketchy... as for some people, they don't work at all.

Some people live in high or low humidity areas that could increase or decrease the effectiveness of this plan, etc...

3. A generalized sterilization technique that works over a period of a generation would inevitably breed a human that reproduces earlier and earlier at each iteration, so this strategy might work against you in the end.

4. The "Vaccination" approach seems to be the ideal candidate for forced sterilization, but this can only happen in countries that are industrial and financial sound enough to afford mass vaccination.

So third world nations would be somewhat unaffected by this plan, unless of course, you were willing to foot that MONSTER bill yourself, in which case, any harmful side effects (LOL, Main Effects) would inevitably be traced back to you, and the pitchfork / Torch wielding mob would not be far behind.


All in all, I think your head is in the right place.

-Edrick



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by tangotemper
 



4. The "Vaccination" approach seems to be the ideal candidate for forced sterilization, but this can only happen in countries that are industrial and financial sound enough to afford mass vaccination.

So third world nations would be somewhat unaffected by this plan, unless of course, you were willing to foot that MONSTER bill yourself, in which case, any harmful side effects (LOL, Main Effects) would inevitably be traced back to you, and the pitchfork / Torch wielding mob would not be far behind.

-Edrick


Hmmm - the finer details escaped me. Righteo - we genetically modify the primary foodstuffs of the aforementioned third world countries - corn, maize, rice - all in the name of increased agricultural productivity, of course.

They might not take the vaccine, but they'd like to eat - no?

Presto! Increased food supply - grateful third world countries - Nobel prize for humanitarian stuff for me - and a population with greatly reduced breeding capacity.

As for the pitchforks - damn - another detail. Okay - I forgo the Nobel prize and work in the background using a third world country's leadership. They get turned over on a regular basis anyway ...



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Outlaw clothing.

















posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:09 AM
link   
reply to post by tangotemper
 



Hmmm - the finer details escaped me. Righteo - we genetically modify the primary foodstuffs of the aforementioned third world countries - corn, maize, rice - all in the name of increased agricultural productivity, of course.


Genetically engineering the food to reduce reproductive capacity?

Nice...

They would have to buy the seeds from you each harvest though, so there might be some resistance there.

But all in all, I like that plan.


As for the pitchforks - damn - another detail. Okay - I forgo the Nobel prize and work in the background using a third world country's leadership. They get turned over on a regular basis anyway ...


Yes, but it might be better to work through an intermediary corporation to do all of the dirty work for you, and just be an anonymous shareholder of the company through some sort of opaque holding company or mutual fund management firm.

You might still have problems with the "Vegans" or Whole foods eaters (Organic societies, etc) that will only consume things from "Mother Nature"

They would comprise a significant portion of your target population, and eventually, through weeding out the people with less "Healthy" lifestyles, you would breed a population whose society dictated the eating of only healthy natural foods.

Remember... when dealing with multi-generational forced sterilization programs, Darwinian survival of the fittest, and evolutionary adaptation comes into play.

So you would have to take adaptation, and resistance (Biological and Societal) into account.

-Edrick

[edit on 21-8-2009 by Edrick]



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by THX-1138
Outlaw clothing.


There would be resistance to this form of legislation whose backlash you would not be able to handle...

The logistics of such drastic and obvious measures would be countered immediately, and irrevocably.

Not to mention pressures from Clothing manufacturing multinational corporations that would be none too pleased with your approach.

The key here, is subtlety.

-Edrick



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick

Originally posted by THX-1138
Outlaw clothing.




The key here, is subtlety.

-Edrick




Thankyou for that. I'll check in again after a night's sleep and further consideration of the problem of Darwinian selection.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:32 AM
link   
I think tangotemper's on the right lines looking @what people will do voluntarily, ie eat, because then you'd not have to coerce people into anything & add risk of exposure. So... my dastardly plan:
I would look for or have modified/created a disease that is incurably fatal but takes a long time before any symptoms show & kills quickly once they do. It would need to be able to be delivered through food, but since I couldn't rely on that to get to enough people, it would also have to be communicable between people, but not so easily that it would wipe everyone out. Say, through sexual & direct blood to blood contact.
To deliver it I'd take clandestine control of, or secretly infiltrate, a large & ubiquitous fast food chain in the developed world & also get operatives into charitable food aid in 3rd world countries.
I'd also fund vocal hardline religious groups promoting abstinance from sex & denouncing condoms. I'd also fund such groups into political office so they could force their views into law if possible, but @least have the ability to set educational agendas. As we all know, people will have sex & if they're unprepared because "fornication is evil so I dont need a condom to be prepared to do evil" then the disease would be propagated.
So, the disease would spread amongst the working & lower middle class & become endemic in the 3rd world before anyone noticed symptoms & by then it'd be too late.
The problem is that unprotected sex also creates babies, but if the disease was passed from mother to child & killed before puberty, that'd be ok.
Now this plan would still leave educated & rich people alive & also those in isolated self sufficient areas, but hey, there's the new "master race" & their slaves!
Other survivors would be the deeply religious who would make a perfect "overseer class".
Prions anyone?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


It is a very good strategy... the only problem that I could see, is that viruses tend to mutate rapidly.

These mutations (Thousands of generations in months or so) would have a detrimental effect to your carefully programmed virus, and would make it somewhat benign, uncontrollable, nonlethal, or completely curable.

People would also devise cures for this disease, and bypass the worst effects of it.

Also, the amniotic barrier typically protects unborn children from most pathogens while gestating, so that would lower the probability of transmission through progeny.

I do like the Sociological control / Behavioral conditioning method that you espoused, but I believe that it could be taken farther.

Perhaps using behavioral conditioning to reduce the reproduction rate?

What do you think?

-Edrick



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:58 AM
link   
How powerful are your supporters? Cause if we're going right to the top here, just go to war.

Institute conscription, recruit everyone and those that show potential should be promoted to keep them separate, and those that are deemed unnecessary are sent to the front lines, or used for some drug testing.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cultist
How powerful are your supporters? Cause if we're going right to the top here, just go to war.

Institute conscription, recruit everyone and those that show potential should be promoted to keep them separate, and those that are deemed unnecessary are sent to the front lines, or used for some drug testing.


You have to keep in mind... you have allies, but they are few, although powerful.

Maybe a few thousand, with potentially trillions upon trillions at their disposal.

Also, keep in mind, that many in the armed services of ANY country would not willingly obey a "Kill All Civilians" order... they are still people, after all.

Nuclear bombardment would wreck the ecosystem more than you are prepared to survive (10,000+ years of radioactive wasteland), and even vast ammounts of wealth are ... for all intents and purposes... Just paper and useless lumps of metal.

You cannot destroy the system of money, economy, commerce, industry, etc... without destroying your own power base, because your power base are essentially ONLY these things.

A full scale war against the population of the planet would end in disaster as your soldiers begin fighting against you.


It doesn't seem like it from all the conspiracy theories going around, but enslaving an entire planet has some pretty SEVERE logistical hurdles.

Ya know?

There *ARE* ways around these problems, but they must be clandestine (Secret), subtle, and Patient.


-Edrick



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I never said anything about full scale nuclear war (that's messing), or killing civilians (might as well start the military revolt on yourself by yourself). I never even said this would be a quick fix.

All I was saying was start a war and enforce conscription, that way you have tabs on everyone. The ones you want get promoted, those that have to been eliminated are sent to the front lines.

This isn't setting up to eliminate power or money supplies, that would just be ridiculous and suicidal. I'm also not talking a war against the world's population, just one at a time (start high and move down, offer treaties willing countries and say they have to set up the same structure).



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 10:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 

It is a very good strategy...
Why thank you sir! Muahahaha!

the only problem that I could see, is that viruses tend to mutate rapidly
Thats why I mentioned "prions" - not a virus, simply a protein: very stable & 100% deadly.
Prion-Wikipedia
Not completely understood, but I've got trillions for secret research...

People would also devise cures for this disease, and bypass the worst effects of it.
Only if they knew to look for it, but if people were asymptomatic for 10-15 years, the bulk of the target populace would already be infected by the time the 1st groups started to die. Once huge sections of the populace began to show signs of spongiform encephalopathy, there'd be no chance to maintain the kind of ordered society in which complex medical research can be carried out.
In fact, to survive the chaos, I & my co-conspirators would probably need an island fortress!

Also, the amniotic barrier typically protects unborn children from most pathogens while gestating, so that would lower the probability of transmission through progeny
I'm pretty sure that proteins do pass from mother to child.

Perhaps using behavioral conditioning to reduce the reproduction rate?
Well, I expect so, but there's 2 problems: 1) Reproduction is a basic instinct & I'm not sure that behavioural modification could be imposed thoroughly or quickly enough for the "slack" not to be taken up by some other group & 2) The logistics you mentioned. How to implement such control in so many different cultures all @once?
Seriously tho, I've found myself wondering if western funded christians in Africa may be attempting this scenario via HIV/AIDS
www.independent.co.uk...

www.medicalnewstoday.com...



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
A quick thought Edrick. Has not your mentor, the late and great Frank Herbert, already addressed this issue in "The White Plague"? Although from memory I do believe his heroes found a solution. Curses and foiled again!

I understand he created a somewhat disillusioned character who posted virus infected banknotes. The ensuing pandemic killed only women. Not subtle of course, one of the requirements of our master plan, but certainly effective.

Might one ask for your thoughts on the matter?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Do you want to decrease the population in just one area or a General Population WORLDWIDE decrease?

If I were going to plan a Worldwide decrease - just to lower the Overall Earth's Population - sorry this is going to sound Harsh! - I think the easiest way would be to 'hit' the poor areas of Africa, So America, India - populations that are already starving or sick. If these/this population would Decrease Faster than they already are - not many would notice.

Also - WHAT TYPE of population am I trying to decrease? Would I want to target lower class, 'ethnic only' (as in keep 'pure arian race'?) or as above - Overall decrease?



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
I would go to a underfunded uni , and give them a grant to find a virus cure for diabeties .
demand results in a short term .

distroy the reputation of a gene splicer bio engineer , then guide him to that uni , and have them hire him .

guide a saudi bioengineer to the same project . he will have a questionable personal history ( fall guy ) .

your inside guy will be totaly loyal , but not to bright .

goal : two virus's that will make insulan in every blood cell in the body .
with a switch virus to turn on the production , and a input virus .

one goes in muni water supplies

one goes in the air filters of international commerial air craft .

then you wait . saft in your private compounds



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 12:49 AM
link   
All of you on this thread have dark and twisted minds
Fascinating. Here's my two cents.
Well, a lot of my energy is spent researching holistic remedies and natural cures from all over the world. One thing I've learned is that an alkaline body is an environment where no pathogens can survive.

The concept of acid alkaline imbalance as the cause of disease is not new. In 1933 a New York doctor named William Howard Hay published a ground-breaking book, A New Health Era in which he maintains that all disease is caused by autotoxication (or "self-poisoning") due to acidosis in the body
www.ionizers.org...

A long story short. I just reverse my healing natured thoughts for a moment and turn them , in order to answer your question, towards destruction. My answer lies in the Municipal Water supplies like some of the other ideas but it's far simpler than anyting listed and is virtually undetectable. I'm not a chemist, but the world water supplies could be filled with some form of acidic base which would then systematically prevent every human body that drinks it from being able to reach an alkaline state, or even from coming close to reaching one. If it could reach the body with every shower and glass of water not even one person could reach any higher than an extremely acidic internal state. Immune systems across the world would shut down. Birth rates would drop and so would the bodies of the living.



posted on Sep, 1 2009 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Is this just a mental exercise? This forum does have the potential to act as a kind of think-tank, and hosts quite a few very intelligent thinkers. I'd personally hate to see those people unwittingly participating in what I (and probably they) would consider reprehensible social engineering. Just a thought to consider.



posted on Sep, 3 2009 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by joechip
 


that's quite a brilliant point there, mate. in fact i get it completely. think tanks. terrorist cells, cia, fbi, . seriously it's scary what we all just did on that thread. i am metaphorically oppenheimer. we all are on this thread. we are the hypothetical destroyers of worlds. but god#$%$ it was fun.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join