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.

 

Restricted Breeding

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


I can't argue against your post, I can't find any sense in it and it makes me tired. Humanity as a whole are responsible for the problems of humanity. "They made me do it! With their fancy plastic packaging and flavor enhancers! and infomercials!" doesn't work. You can't blame a tiny percentage of the population for the actions, and inaction of the whole.

So, the devil talks a man into selling his soul for a plethora of modern comforts. Who is to blame, the man or the devil? Evil temptation is not an excuse for evil indulgence.

Not a Christian, just using terms people understand.




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Also ..I see your sig. If we fed those 800 million people and they had babies, OH NOES!! How very contradictory .



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by maus80
 

Just keep believing the mainstream media. Yeah, we are overpopulated. We are running out of resources. There's not enough food for everyone. All the world's resources are running out. It's all our fault. We all need to take their vaccines. We all need to voluntarily volunteer to end our lives. We all need to be controlled even more. We all need to eat their gm rubbish food and their poisonous pharmaceuticals that will kill us all. We all need to pay even more so the few can have even more luxury. You can believe all that crud if you wish, but don't tell me to, as if it is fact.
There is no shortage of anything except common sense and a sense of autonomy. There is no shortage of anything except total outrage and the will to take the running of the world back from these corrupt fools.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Remixtup
 


I know you want statistics and facts, but this is the point in the argument where I have to admit defeat. I can only go by what I feel.

I feel that societies with quality food sources, education, and proactive management of resources produce a population that is far better equipped to also proactively manage it's own reproduction.

A drastic reduction in industrial livestock farming would be a great start at proactive resource management.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


Our planet is being consumed, polluted, and destroyed. If you can't see that, and really think our current rates of consumption and destruction are sustainable, you want to believe that too badly for me to argue against it.

Take a look at some footage of oil spills, dump sites, effects of plastic waste on wildlife, etc. Tell me that the status quo works and is fair to other species of Earthlings, and future generations of our own.

Who CARES if there is enough food for everyone? The simple fact is, the majority in developed nations are comfortable and ok with being overweight while children across the world starve to death. They are ok with taking more than enough, at the cost of lives, resources, and habitats.

It isn't just a matter of total resources, it obviously is about selfishness and distribution of resources, and the total cost of harvesting, processing, packaging, and distributing those resources.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by maus80]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 12:43 PM
link   
the earth knows how to take care of herself. She has for billions of years. If us humans are that much of a blight, she'll let us know. And it wont be pretty.
But if you think you/we can exert some kind of control over the entire planet, well, you and people who believe as you do are, well, kind of arrogant. Can we make ourselves feel better? of course. The whole theory that we can actually induce measurable change one way or another is something that has been sold to us. Sadly, a lot of people were waiting in line to buy when the doors opened.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Remixtup]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Remixtup
 


Aaargh! People with different points of view don't make me mad, but it's really frustrating. I don't know all the answers, and it's possible I'm buying into something I shouldn't. It seems to me like you are in a defensive position though, as if someone pointed a finger at you as a scapegoat for the worlds problems, and you wish to deny, deflect, and outright ignore the possibility they may be right.




Four species native to the continental United States are presumed extinct: the passenger pigeon, Carolina parakeet, the great Auk, and Labrador duck.

Furthermore, in the past 100 years the United States has lost 2.2 percent of its endemic amphibians, 1.2 percent of the freshwater fishes, 1.1 percent of the plant species, and a staggering 8.6 percent of the freshwater mussels forever.

Worldwide, the situation is even worse. Because of the incredible density of species in tropical regions that are facing rapid deforestation, we may be losing species at a rate of 30,000 per year, or an overwhelming three per hour. Many biologists predict that coming decades will see the loss of large numbers of species.

One quarter of all mammals, including lions, tigers, rhinos, and most primates, could be declared extinct by the end of this century, along with one in eight bird species, and thousands of plant species. Habitat destruction is widely recognized as the primary cause of species loss.

Dr. Edward Osborne Wilson is the Pellegrino University Professor Emeritus and honorary curator in entomology at Harvard University, where he has studied and worked for the past 54 years.




In the United States, habitat loss threatens about 85 percent of imperiled species. Worldwide, the figure may be higher. Agriculture, logging, urban development, dredging, damming, mining and drilling are just a few of the activities that eliminate or significantly degrade habitats.

Invasive species released intentionally or imported accidentally take over habitats and crowd out native species. Similarly, diseases imported to areas where the local flora and fauna have no resistance also wreak havoc on biological diversity.

Dr. Peter Raven is director of the Missouri Botanical Garden and adjunct professor at the University of Missouri, St. Louis University, and Washington University.

www.ens-newswire.com...



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by maus80
 

I am not willing to entertain the notion of RESTRICTIVE BREEDING on the premise of "the possibility they may be right."

Sorry.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
This is one of our proplems now on earth

Who makes the test to find out if you will be a fit parent and are able to breed

Dept. of children and families have too many workers employed by them that do not have children,,, how are you going to tell me I am an unfit parent when you have never been one yourself and you go by a book written unclear enough for a possibility of misinterpitation

Just an example so don't critisize me for this

You will not kill,,,, I can interpet that more than one way

1 I will not kill humans
2 I will not kill plants or animals
3 I will not kill anything

in order for there to by a book written on it and implimented the thing would have to be 100,000,000,000 pages long, written so a three year old cannot say I didn't understand and by time you are done reading it you will be 100,000 years old and the test will take you 300 yrs to complete

When you can do that I will agree on who should or should not have kids

[edit on 22-9-2009 by rtcctr]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by stereovoyaged
 


Maybe you should take the first step in human population reduction, and lead by example.



I am so sick of this philosophy. It's ok to tell others not to breed, but what is it that makes you better than the child someone wants to conceive? You are a human being too aren't you?

If you really think that there are too many people on the planet, you should kill yourself. It is that simple. And there lies the flaw in your philosophy.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


I see two major flaws in your "philosophy":

You assume that population increases are mostly driven by a willful desire to conceive.

You assume that suicide is the only way to help reduce population increases. Wouldn't a dedication to advocacy of birth control be potentially more productive?

Personally, I'm sick of seeing people respond with "Go kill yourself" when someone raises a real, important, and immediate issue.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by maus80
reply to post by downtown436
 




Personally, I'm sick of seeing people respond with "Go kill yourself" when someone raises a real, important, and immediate issue.


It was tempting
But thats why I didnt use it



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 02:43 PM
link   
I'm frankly rather disgusted by the views espoused by some people in this thread. Harvest the rivers lakes and oceans, and use every scrap of land?

Yes, you could do that. But why would you? Why would you want to eradicate and entire planetary biosphere just to enable the wanton breeding of an out of control species?

Would you sanction the destruction of an entire planet just to support a gross amount of low common denominator human beings that will never contribute to society other than to live their lives in abject poverty and then breed more creatures like them?

We cannot sustain 7 billion people at a western-middle-class standard of living, not even if we did bend the entire planetary surface to our whim. The vast majority of your increasingly massive population would live at an animal level of existence, giving no reason for their very existence.

Life for the sake of life itself is foolish. This is why we should not keep murders alive, this is why humans that are born vegetables should not be sustained. This is why we need to keep an upper bound on our population.

You can let your heart bleed all you want, but unless you want YOUR descendants to follow the example of the Maclears Rat, I suggest we start making changes now.



[edit on 22-9-2009 by D.E.M.]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by oneclickaway
We all need to take their vaccines. We all need to voluntarily volunteer to end our lives. We all need to be controlled even more. We all need to eat their gm rubbish food and their poisonous pharmaceuticals that will kill us all. We all need to pay even more so the few can have even more luxury. You can believe all that crud if you wish, but don't tell me to, as if it is fact.


You know, it's pretty sad and pathetic that to make your point you had to lie and say that I encouraged people to take a vaccine.

SHAME ON YOU!!!!!!

I'm so disgusted that you did that, how dare you? I'm considering trying to involve staff, you can't just claim that I am trying to get people to take a vaccine or eat GM crops and get away with it.

WHY did you do that?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
It's difficult because most (not all), but most people have a deep desire to have offspring from their own line. For most women, the desire to create a child in her own body and have that experience is very strong.

I'd say putting limits on how many children are born to any given person may be reasonable if you outlaw people who abort babies based on sex of the child.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Violet Sky
 


A simpler solution to a lower population is simply to remove the culture of support that has grow in the last century. No more child support benefits that allow people to breed for a living, no more care for people that are little more than vegetables, no more prisoners being allowed to sire children, and most of all no more aid for third world countries.

Remove the feeding tubes that allow the parasitic societies around the world to survive, and you would see the world population decline by 2 billion in under a decade, with no noticeable increase for at least a decade after. Best of all, the money saved can be used to develop technologies to benefit the entire species.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by downtown436
reply to post by stereovoyaged
 


Maybe you should take the first step in human population reduction, and lead by example.



I am so sick of this philosophy. It's ok to tell others not to breed, but what is it that makes you better than the child someone wants to conceive? You are a human being too aren't you?

If you really think that there are too many people on the planet, you should kill yourself. It is that simple. And there lies the flaw in your philosophy.


ahhh...what makes me better? Perhaps the fact that i'm actually a tangible real person. If you were reading my post you would see that I don't think anyone here should be killed but we should cut back on resource consumption and having kids, for the good for us all. Its ok for ppl to say oh well we are not using space properly to house people or there are plenty of resources, well you know what, people are scum and they don't want to share anything with anyone, esp not someone who is "not their kind". And oh yeah, Go F*CK YOURSELF for the suicide comment.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by maus80
 




So we need to be controlled, we badly need a 1984 situation because it's an absolute statistical fact that we will indeed destroy ourselves and all other Earthlings along with us if we are not completely controlled or drastically reduced within a matter of decades.




Malevolent or benevolent masters, either way I just hope like hell we are all shackled and controlled before we destroy everything.


Dear God, you are advocating and encouraging the acceptance of being controlled totally and it matters not to you whether that is by a malevolent force, and advocating depopulation and yet you are screaming about something that was not directed at you personally…lol
You are affronted at the thought I said that YOU are encouraging people to eat GM food and have the vaccine and yet want drastic reduction of humanity. Sigh… Get a grip. Here, I will attempt to help you comprehend what I actually wrote.

The point is that you are seemingly believing the hype and the fear mongering which tells us that the world is over populated, there is not enough food, resources, oil, space. That the media tells us GM is good, that we are to take the vaccines for our own good and the good of society.
Clearer?



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by oneclickaway
 


Not really, how do you extrapolate all of that from me saying that humans need to be reigned in before they destroy themselves?

I think you are the one who is buying into propaganda, the bandwagon that says humans cannot destroy ecosystems, cause species to become extinct, deforest huge areas, etc - it's all a big conspiracy to get us to all hate ourselves and submit to the will of evil elitists.

Couldn't it just be that our populations, desires, and abilities have outgrown our ability to fully comprehend the long-term consequences of our actions?

Don't we see micro versions of this all around us? Don't most tweens go through a phase where their ambitions outweigh their knowledge and experience? Don't a lot of people enjoy now, pay later, simply because they can?

I am saying in the meantime, we DO need to be reigned in and controlled, until such time that we can learn to control ourselves.

If we are allowed to learn every lesson the hard way, we may destroy ourselves and all other species with us.

I am an Earthling before I am a human. Forgive me for taking into consideration the preservation and well-being of all Earthlings and not just a single species.

If I was forced to choose between saving humans and saving every other species of Earthlings, I know which I would choose, and I honestly believe it would be a wise decision. Being the first species to achieve our level of sentience doesn't grant entitlement to destroy that chance for all others.

My viewpoints have zip to do with MSM.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   
i am up for restricted breading, people who can not afford kids should not breed and all benefits to be cut off, they should pay fine for having extra child like in china, so only rich could afford, poor should get a grip and start working otherwise too many worthless eaters,

wuh, did i just say that ?




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join