Would you support, open, voluntary depopulation?, page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 7 times

Topic started on 22-9-2009 @ 10:46 AM by kiwifoot

Before you reply to JUST the title, please read the entire OP!

We have all heard the plans of the Global Elite. %90 percent reduction in the world's population. Now obviously this could only come about through a mass slaughter, catastrophe or some other barbaric NWO plan that will not be pleasant.

But if there was a way to reduce the population of the world slowly, but over time to a manageable level would you agree?

Okay, this is where someone comes out and says we could all fit in Australia so there isn't a problem, we just need to get on. Clearly this is desirable, but obviously impossible. Humans are social beings who live in hamlets, villages, towns cities and mega cities, we can't all just grab a plot of useless land and hope for the best. We need natural resources, water, food, air and quality of life to enrich our own lives and not cause too much of an impact on the natural world.

If there was a way to depopulate the world, slowly but surely, safely and above all OPENLY, would you agree?

Would you agree to a one child policy? Is it feasible, effective and above all fair?

Would it take so long to make an impact on the population of the world that it wouldn't be worth it?

China's one child policy was introduced in 1979. it has been 'credited' ( I use that term very loosely) with preventing more than 250 million births from its implementation to 2000. The graph below does show a decreased rate of population growth since 1979.

A complete coincidence, I was looking for an article about baby girls being unwanted in China, I came across this article TODAY!

One-child China is a success, says Labour aide Adair Turner

China's one- child policy - which has resulted in forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilisation - has had a 'positive impact' on the country's economic performance, one of Labour's leading advisers says today.

Lord Turner, head of the Financial Services Authority, claims the laws on family size played a crucial role in China's economic take-off and allowed the country to develop without 'severe political and social tensions'.

But human rights campaigners criticised Lord Turner for appearing to support the draconian laws, claiming they had led to untold misery for women and children.

But it highlights some of the problems:

"which has resulted in forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilisation"

Would this really happen if it was implemented in Western Nations? Is it the nature of Chinese society putting so much on the continuation of the family line that has caused these issues to be so prevalent?

The real question is this - As we approach this uncertain time of Swine Flu and its vaccine, wars and the NWO threats of depopulation, would it be wiser to accept this OPEN and gradual form of depopulation, rather than succumb to an apocalyptic scenario of disease and war?

We'd all (myself included) like to believe that when the time comes we will fight the good fight and stick it to them, but is this realistic and even possible? Would it be better to and turn the tide of our bulging population voluntarily now rather than have it force on us through disease and mass depopulation?

These are just thoughts my dear ATSers, don't lynch me as usual, I'm asking the question, not stating how it should be!

Peace, Kiwifoot

[edit on 22-9-2009 by kiwifoot]

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 10:51 AM by Hazelnut

I've been considering stepping out of this ridiculous world sometimes seriously, sometimes in frustration. But I always realize in the nick of time that you all need me! Without my constant thoughtforms of peace and human decency I don't know where you all would be right now.

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 10:52 AM by kiwifoot

Originally posted by Hazelnut
I've been considering stepping out of this ridiculous world sometimes seriously, sometimes in frustration. But I always realize in the nick of time that you all need me! Without my constant thoughtforms of peace and human decency I don't know where you all would be right now.

Does that mean you don't agree with one child policies?

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 10:52 AM by menguard

I will tell you why I would say no is we have the technology to support a rise in population, killing off people isn't always the way.

wars that are created are part of that.

new viruses being created in labs are part of that.

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 10:55 AM by Hazelnut

reply to post by kiwifoot

I would never presume to dictate behavior to anyone else. I do however, try my best to behave in a way that people admire and wish to emmulate. I believe completely in live and let live. Hopefully, my belief becomes contagious at some point.

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:00 AM by dreamseeker

We could spread the population out more evenly slowly. Areas would have to be made substainable for living.
I am not for depopulation that would kill or harm anyone. Even if it is voluntary that would be suicide. You are not suggesting that are you?
It is people's rights to have as many children as they would like as long as they can support them. I would be ok with a temproary 2 child policy until the population is resorted out if the country was at an unsunstainable population level. We are not there yet; we just need to spread the population out more.
This would all be voluntary and the government would supply a home,temproary income of some form and job resources.
I would also be against forcing people to get rid of children if they have more than two. The child policy would not be a law per say but more like a reomendation. I am against abortion or child abandonment.
This is really a tricky topic because how do you do depopulation without voliating someone's rights somehow?

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:02 AM by kiwifoot

Originally posted by Hazelnut
reply to post by kiwifoot

I would never presume to dictate behavior to anyone else. I do however, try my best to behave in a way that people admire and wish to emmulate. I believe completely in live and let live. Hopefully, my belief becomes contagious at some point.

Very noble and in an ideal world, perfect!

But in a world running out of oil, a world overstretched and mismanaged, is it not time to act perhaps?

look at it this way, I'm allowed to go off and do as I please, have as many kids as I like, but what about my great great great grand kids, by limiting my offspring now, will I make Earth a better place for them?

I stress, I am undecided, this is thinking out loud, I am waiting for a barrage of abuse as usual!

If everyone on ATS really believes in the NWO and the threat of depopulation, would it be a little stupid not to put our hands up and say, "Hey we know what you are up to, we know about FEMA camps, Vaccines and depopulation, how about we don't do that and just limit ourselves where possible to one kid,~?"

That HAS to be better than dying in a camp, being burried in a mass grave! Surely Hazelnut!?

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:05 AM by kiwifoot

Originally posted by dreamseeker
We could spread the population out more evenly slowly. Areas would have to be made substainable for living.
I am not for depopulation that would kill or harm anyone. Even if it is voluntary that would be suicide. You are not suggesting that are you?
It is people's rights to have as many children as they would like as long as they can support them. I would be ok with a temproary 2 child policy until the population is resorted out if the country was at an unsunstainable population level. We are not there yet; we just need to spread the population out more.
This would all be voluntary and the government would supply a home,temproary income of some form and job resources.
I would also be against forcing people to get rid of children if they have more than two. The child policy would not be a law per say but more like a reomendation. I am against abortion or child abandonment.
This is really a tricky topic because how do you do depopulation without voliating someone's rights somehow?

No mate, lets get this out!

No FORCED giving up of CHILDREN
No FORCED sterilisation
No KILLING or HARMING
NOT DEPOPULATION by any other means except slowing down the rate of POPULATION, by an OPEN one maybe TWO Child policy

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:09 AM by Hazelnut

reply to post by kiwifoot

I hear you kiwifoot. Yes I do and I feel your pain. The world has lost its balance and people are reflective of that. I have no answers or solutions to the crimes committed against humanity except to believe in the power of free will. I must believe in that and hope that more people will find inner strength that compels them to behave humanely.

I wish I could make stupid people realize the harm they cause with their selfishness and greed, fear and loathing, hypocricy and bigotry. But I can't. Its not my place. My place is to be the best person I can in all circumstances. Making mistakes, owning up to them, accepting the repercussions for them and purposefully not repeating them again.

No one has the right to dictate to another. That is what I believe in.

Like I said, I have considered stepping off this world because of the scope of the problems. I'm not a quitter though. Dang it!

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:11 AM by maus80

Originally posted by Hazelnut
I would never presume to dictate behavior to anyone else. I do however, try my best to behave in a way that people admire and wish to emmulate. I believe completely in live and let live. Hopefully, my belief becomes contagious at some point.

Forgive me, but I think your ideology is seriously flawed. Seriously flawed. This is why super heroes are so popular in the pop culture of developed nations. Because most people know that humans are not capable of controlling themselves, and secretly wish that we were all controlled with absolute force, by a power that knows what is best for us.

Live and Let Live is the mantra of a spoiled, passive, reactionary society. "You go on ahead and destroy the natural habitat of species too numerous to count. I'll finally react when I can no longer ignore it." etc.

I say pooh on your philosophy, and I say that in the name of all Earthlings, human and non-human, who NEED might to make things right.

So my answer is YES! Please let's control humans before everything gets destroyed.

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:12 AM by getreadyalready

reply to post by kiwifoot

NOT DEPOPULATION by any other means except slowing down the rate of POPULATION, by an OPEN one maybe TWO Child policy

That isn't "voluntary"! I would support voluntary population control. Maybe a bounty paid for sterilization procedures (already in place in some communities!) Maybe a tax rebate for having less children instead of more! I definitely support penalties for becoming pregnant while on government assistance!!

But, I don't think we should limit anyone, if they choose to have more children. I have seen Mormon families of 8, 10, 12, and they were smart, well-behaved, polite, etc.! I would never limit the amount of children someone could have, but I see nothing wrong with trying to reward people for volunteering to have less!

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:15 AM by Hazelnut

reply to post by maus80

The issue is SELF control. Giving away your responsibily in exchange for security is the problem. From what I gather about your perspective, you advocate trading individual responsibility for complete authority of force in control of human behavior. I have a problem with that. I happen to believe that there are more people alive who would prefer to accept responsibility for their lives, families, property but can't because the law overrides individual sovereignty and responsibility.

It is an ideal that does not lend itself very well to today's world. Have you ever wondered why? When you trade responsibility for security you lose.

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:16 AM by kiwifoot

reply to post by Hazelnut

Ahh Hazel you couldn't, have you seen that movie Roadtrip?

There's a character that says:

"I can't die, I have a feeling that the world needs me!"

That's you!

As usual you are right, what I'm trying to voice is my frustration and fears for this world, and sadness at the self centred nature of mankind.

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:17 AM by KSPigpen

"Logan's Run', 'Soylent Green'

Two dark-tilting views of the future that both endorse a sort of 'voluntary' population control.

Voluntary always seems like a good idea, until it's MY turn to 'volunteer.'

I see it being very difficult to find enough human beings with enough concern about the rest of the world to volunteer to ease the population.

It seems as though China was fairly successful, but you have to admit that efforts to this point have fallen quite a bit short of what they would need to be. Although limiting the number of children seems like a valid idea, in practice, we end up skewing gender concentrations due to cultural ideals.

I don't think it's ever going to work. I don't think you can have population control of any kind and still live in freedom. Reproductive choice is a pretty essential component to a free society.

Logically, we all KNOW that we have too many people on this planet, but I don't think we're ever going to 'get it.' Even after catastrophe, I would bet that we just keep doing the same thing, over and over again.

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:19 AM by nine0099thousand

reply to post by kiwifoot

No because there are some good parents out there who should have an unlimited child policy and some bad parents out there who should have a 0 child policy.

I'm all for a voluntary suicide program where people who want to die can be used as space monkeys for testing deep space. Maybe try to land a man on the sun!

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:21 AM by Hazelnut

reply to post by kiwifoot

I never saw that movie. I was only half joking by the way. It makes me very sad. I do feel the pain in the world. Empathy or Sympathy or both. I believe in people. Not governments or politicians or financial wizards or sports celebrities or hollywood stars, not doctors, teachers, experts or gurus. I believe in YOU!

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:21 AM by getreadyalready

reply to post by KSPigpen

It seems as though China was fairly successful,

Depends on how you define successful! Sure, population levelled off, but now they have roving gangs of Single Males, and communes of mateless Males, and infanticide, and a steady stream of their best and brightest females exiting their country via adoption to rich Western families!!

Thanks China!

I love those cute Chinese Girls with rich parents!

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:23 AM by Ophiuchus 13

No I dont agree with it I do know that 1c the mass depopulation does begin some may be the last to go but all will go

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:24 AM by Aggie Man

I'm all for voluntary depopulation. My wife and I are practicing this by NOT having children. No need to thank me...unless the governments of the world want to pay me an incentive bonus for helping keep the world's population in check.

Just my 2-cents

reply posted on 22-9-2009 @ 11:37 AM by Jechu

I AGREE!

If it is not mandatory, not forced, what is wrong with voluntary depopulation?

Why have more children than earth can support? We are struggling right now with 6.786 billion people, UN projections for 2050 range from about 8 billion to 10.5 billion. (World population)
Almost 50% of the world live with less than US$ 2.50 a day (Poverty facts) and lets face it, this ratio is not going to change, since poor countries have the highest fertility rate (Fertility rate map)

I would agree in government programs to teach about one child policy, and slowly depopulate the earth to a level where it is sustainable.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^