Would you support, open, voluntary depopulation?

here's my rough summary of the near future.

october..maybe the 11th..d.c. nuke...

then forced death vaccinations to kill off up to 50 billion in u.s.a.

in all 194 countries....a total of 2 billion dead by spring time using re-engineered 1918 flu.

then this will be the start of ww3.

israel and iran will go at it.

china and russia will invade u.s.a. and orderly exterminate the rest of the elderly and 18 to 36 folks. the children will be spared because they are programmable.

the entire world will erupt into chaos, disease, war, and mass death.

a few ..maybe 3 or 4 nukes altogether will be used during all of ww3 because they are militarily useless. the production is all deep underground now and using nukes is pointless.

this will all be over by 2020 and the world restructering and clean up will begin.



and the roman catholic church will again re invent themselves from thier new world order command central that will be located in israel on top of the foundation to solomons temple.

long live the papacy! the emporers of earth!

reply to post by kiwifoot


Personally, I would support an education based system, where young people are taught the value of life, and the importance of being adequate parents.

We need to educate kids into not having children while they are too young, and we need to educate people on the whole about the basic mathematics and how population numbers are damaging our species.

This is not about space, this is about the resources available to support the population in any given area.
There simply is not enough to go around, and increasingly less while we maintain a monetary system where wealth will decide who eats and who doesn't.

We have to face this issue soon. But we have to do it through education and introduction of new moral standards based on science and not religious belief.

Personally I believe we have to do the following...

1. Force restrictions on religious teaching in relation to contraception. If a religion is brainwashing people into not using contraception they need to be confronted. They are working against the society they proclaim to be helping, they have no right to educate people on sex at all.

2. Teach children the value of life. Educate them on the responsibility they have to their future children. Do they want to have kids when they are 17 and loose half of their life? Do they want their child to grow up in poverty? Do they want their child to be limited in what they can achieve, just as they themselves will be limited by having a child so young?

3. Force fathers to be responsible for their children. No options to just vanish. If a man has a child they are responsible for that life by law, and there should be no opportunities to hide or escape from that responsibility.

4. Probably one of the most important things we could do is properly educate teenagers on every aspect of sex, honestly and thoroughly. No more of this political crap about teaching kids about gay relationships, masturbation, contraception... It exists, get over it already! If a parent disagrees then they need to remove their children from state education entirely. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot raise ignorant children in a world where such ignorance is no longer acceptable. To do so is an injustice to your child.
If you want a state to educate your child in every other respect, you have to accept that teaching about this subject should be a part of that education, with or without your input or inclusion of your personal beliefs.

That's just my opinion, I'm positively certain others will disagree.

reply to post by Hazelnut


My argument is that humans are incapable of controlling themselves, and absolutely need to be controlled in order to survive. If left to their own devices, modern humans will eagerly use up all of the resources that should be preserved for future generations, and in all probability completely destroy Earth's viability as a life sustaining planet.

The Baby Boomers exemplify this point to extremes. They consume and destroy with little consideration for those who will inherit the consequences. The proof is in the pudding.

Originally posted by detachedindividual
reply to post by kiwifoot

 

Personally, I would support an education based system, where young people are taught the value of life, and the importance of being adequate parents.

We need to educate kids into not having children while they are too young, and we need to educate people on the whole about the basic mathematics and how population numbers are damaging our species.

This is not about space, this is about the resources available to support the population in any given area.
There simply is not enough to go around, and increasingly less while we maintain a monetary system where wealth will decide who eats and who doesn't.

We have to face this issue soon. But we have to do it through education and introduction of new moral standards based on science and not religious belief.

Personally I believe we have to do the following...

1. Force restrictions on religious teaching in relation to contraception. If a religion is brainwashing people into not using contraception they need to be confronted. They are working against the society they proclaim to be helping, they have no right to educate people on sex at all.

2. Teach children the value of life. Educate them on the responsibility they have to their future children. Do they want to have kids when they are 17 and loose half of their life? Do they want their child to grow up in poverty? Do they want their child to be limited in what they can achieve, just as they themselves will be limited by having a child so young?

3. Force fathers to be responsible for their children. No options to just vanish. If a man has a child they are responsible for that life by law, and there should be no opportunities to hide or escape from that responsibility.

4. Probably one of the most important things we could do is properly educate teenagers on every aspect of sex, honestly and thoroughly. No more of this political crap about teaching kids about gay relationships, masturbation, contraception... It exists, get over it already! If a parent disagrees then they need to remove their children from state education entirely. You cannot have it both ways, you cannot raise ignorant children in a world where such ignorance is no longer acceptable. To do so is an injustice to your child.
If you want a state to educate your child in every other respect, you have to accept that teaching about this subject should be a part of that education, with or without your input or inclusion of your personal beliefs.

That's just my opinion, I'm positively certain others will disagree.

Thanks for you input, valid points! And if you think you're going to be unpopular, imagine the flak I'm going to get!

Sometimes on ATS we react with gut instinct against any kind of control or difficult issue!

I haven't made up my mind as yet.

But the problem, as usual would be implementing and policing, and making sure it STOPPED there. No one wants to see a full eugenics program forced on us.

Please note I chose not to have kids because of the health defects in my family tree (severe Asthma) instead I work with kids every weekend.....

On Topic
We have governments here and in Europe who PAY drones to have as many kids as they can. I know one welfare mother who had EIGHT kids by the time she reached twenty! I know a guy (black) who has fathered 52 kids and takes money from each of the Moms. So first get rid of the job classification "WELFARE MOTHER" then talk to me about "depopulation"


Despite the "welfare Mother" problem. The USA and EU have very low birth rates, close to replacement. Our "population growth" is mainly from immigration and second generation kids of immigrants. Population Implosion? Low Fertility and Policy Responses in the European Union

In order for a culture to maintain itself, it has to have a birth rate of 2.1%. Anything less then that means the culture is in decline.

Or perhaps, I should re-phrase that - instead of "culture", which is constantly changing and shifting, let us state that in order for a people group to survive every couple must have two or more children. If they don't, then when they die, their group shrinks - unless someone else picks up the slack.

This fact is all the more interesting when you realize that most of Europe and North America has a birth rate under 2.1%. Take the good old USA - according to the CIA World Factbook, the USA has a birth rate of 1.3% (2009 est).

France is at 1.3%; UK - 1.1%; Canada - 1.0%; Germany - 0.8%; Switzerland - 0.9%; Greece - 0.9%

Just for comparison sake, here are a couple of other countries: Georgia - 1.0%; China - 1.4%; Paraguay - 2.8%; Niger - 5.2%; Cambodia - 2.5%; Hong Kong - 0.7%

In fact, if you look at the birth rates for all the countries in the world, you will notice that 57% or 129 of the 224 countries are below the 2.1% benchmark. Of the top 50 countries with the highest birth rates, the majority are located on the continent of Africa.
The Death of Western Culture: Low Birth Rates and Changing Demographics

You will notice the USA at 1 .3% has a birth rate less than China at 1 .4% So does this mean we should go into third world countries and stop them from having kids? Oh thats right Rockefeller and Kissinger already did!

Under the auspices of the World Health Organization (WHO), UNICEF, more than 3.4 million women were recently vaccinated against tetanus. Beta-human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) has been discovered in samples of the vaccine, which has the potential of permanently sterilizing the women as well. Professor Hermela Pagayanan of
the University of the Philippines discovered anti-beta hCG in the blood serum of 30 women who received the tetanus toxoid vaccine." Link


Men are a targeted too!

A small California biotech company, Epicyte, in 2001 announced the development of genetically engineered corn which contained a spermicide which made the semen of men who ate it sterile. At the time Epicyte had a joint venture agreement to spread its technology with DuPont and Syngenta, two of the sponsors of the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault. Epicyte was since acquired by a North Carolina biotech company.

Astonishing to learn was that Epicyte had developed its spermicidal GMO corn with research funds from the US Department of Agriculture, the same USDA which, despite worldwide opposition, continued to finance the development of Terminator technology, now held by Monsanto. Covert Sterilization...

The Population explosion is just another con job just like HACCP and the food safety con job Bills in Congress right now will give the Ag Corporations a food monopoly, so kiss your home grown veggies good bye.

Reply to post by getreadyalready

Right. The reduction in the growth was fairly successful...the other points laid out, the disproportionate genders, the killings, the impending collapse, or gender swapping implications on this society have yet to be realized. It makes we wonder if we will begin to see changes in sexual reproduction a la Jurrassic Park and the spontaneous changing of genders of some other species...China's practices worked a little to curb growth, but they really dinked with the balance and I fear that will always be the case when we try to play God.



Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by maus80


You may be right and I may be delusional. I still believe that under the right circumstances, people are not hopeless fools and are able to self regulate.

Personally, and I am going to get shot down for this I know, I support the view of the world as set forth by the Georgia Guidestones.

I see nothing wrong with the picture that the guidestones paint, I see no reason why humanity should not strive to achieve what the guidestones outline either. It is, to be honest, a picture of eden on earth. One entirely obtainable and that would require no devolution from our technological society to a less advanced one.

Really, we as a species have two options for the next century:

A. You can stop bitching about NASA, put your money where your mouth is, and start supporting some real, hardcore space exploration that leads to the ability to colonize another planet within our lifetime. We could have sent 16 missions to mars with the money from the 1st bailout last year.

or B. You can take a long hard look at the world that would result from following the Georgia Guidestones and realize that it is the optimal way to erase the suffering of the 3rd world and the compression of the 1st. We would have a high tech society with none of the resource drains that are occurring as a result of our species having become analogous to the Maclear's Rat.

If you act like a typical "afraid of change and apathetic" modern human and choose option C. Stay the course and hope things get better via "Magickal tecknologies!", However, we'll all be eating soylent green and your great-grandchildren will be sterilized by their toxic environment. Optimal? Not particularly.

Bring on the calls of me being everything from a NWO patsy to an "Out of touch and unrealistic fool".

reply to post by Hazelnut


Oh, absolutely. Humans are capable of wonderful things. Idealistic viewpoints are useless though without a concrete plan of action.

It would also help to get to the roots of the problems. Organized religion was touched on - it's anti-birth control, and usually gives the impression that Earth and all non-human Earthlings were created as the play toys and property of humans. I'd imagine if we'd gone back to vegetarianism as a species a century ago, things would look so much brighter now it would appear to be like heaven on Earth to us.

It would also help if humans lived longer; they just don't live long enough to fully understand the consequences of their actions. "Enjoy now, pay later" is the mantra of a species who can pass on the bed they've made to future generations.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by maus80]

reply to post by D.E.M.


I'll call you worse than a patsy - you're a...minority!

If only that weren't true....

reply to post by Hazelnut

You may be right and I may be delusional. I still believe that under the right circumstances, people are not hopeless fools and are able to self regulate..

You are correct "under the right circumstances, people are not hopeless fools and are able to self regulate."

If you read what I wrote above you can see that the first world countries have "self regulated" into a major population decline. To keep the population constant you need a rate of 2 .1%. At rates of 0 .7% to 1 .4% for industrialized countries, you are looking at a declining population, especially those of working age. In fact, if you look at the birth rates for all the countries in the world, you will notice that 57% or 129 of the 224 countries are below the 2.1% benchmark.

You could say the best "Population Control" is a decent standard of living and that is a much "happier" solution for everyone!

You're forgetting to include one major problem with China's one-child policy -- the lack of women to marry.

Lack Of Women Threatens China's Long Term Stability
by Yan Tai
Hong Kong (UPI) Mar 09, 2004
A serious shortage of women is looming in China, threatening family and social stability in the world's most populous country. Official statistics show that in 2002, for every 100 newborn girls, there were 117 boys born. If this trend continues, China will have up to 40 million more men than women by 2020.
www.spacedaily.com...

What ultimately happens when families are only permitted to have one child, they keep a male child and discard the females.

Until women are able to (read: society accepts) maintain a family name, instead of losing it to marriage, males will generally be the preferred gender -- which, as you can see, would pose a problem in the future.

heres the problems with one child policy

1.Study shows that their are more females born than males so with one child policy we would end up with the whole world of females eventually and then our species will become extinct.

2.It is taught that in our society that the male carries on the name,so restricting only one child, what if you are the last to carry on your name and you have a girl.alas noone to carry on your name. I for one am the last to carry on my name and I had a girl does this mean you have the right to tell me I cannot have anoter child trying to have a boy to carry on my family genes. My father had to try 5 times before I was born and the way your proposing OP, I wouldn't even been born to carry on my genes

I'm sorry but some people are to arrogant to even be called human

reply to post by rtcctr


You are aware that your genetics will be carried on regardless of whether your daughter keeps your name, and that in todays world many people choose the wifes name over the husbands (as I will be).

Or do you seriously think that your genetics is tied to something as silly as a few letters strung together?

Some people would call wanting the death of the races vitality through overpopulation as opposed to not losing your freaking name rather...selfish...

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

Originally posted by D.E.M.
Some people would call wanting the death of the races vitality through overpopulation as opposed to not losing your freaking name rather...selfish...
[edit on 22-9-2009 by D.E.M.]

Selfish, and maybe arrogant and inhuman?

I think you are talking to yourself anyway. ATS seems to be a lousy place to espouse logic and reason in the hopes of changing hearts and minds - and more so by the day. You are always going to be either preaching to the choir or talking at those willfully apposed to your point of view.

Has anyone on ATS ever actually convinced anyone of anything? Or at least gotten someone to attempt to see things from another point of view?

We have the tech to sustain our population; the problem is that it wouldn't be immediately profitable to make that tech available to the public. I value life more than to kill it off or prevent it from thriving, especially if the only reason why we're doing it is to avoid losing a dollar.

My grandmother used to say to me: "people are more important than things."

What a brilliant woman my grandmother was.

Making the needed tech available to the population wouldn’t be immediately profitable, but the long-term value of it would far exceed any dollar that could be made.

reply to post by kiwifoot


I really wonder how many ppl on ATS are working for the NWO
with posts like this ?

We know we got a few NWO shills on here.

Growth is a problem, no doubt in that.

The easy answer is "kill off the useless eaters" for some of the Elite.

The problem is, what if you just aborted Einstein or Hawking ?

Due to greed, control, and a myriad of other mental illnesses we
have refused to step up to the solutions we have for all out problems.

Peak Oil is negated by the fact that we can grow our own oil via
vertical hydroponic systems developed by valcent.

These so called water shortages are due to poor management of resources.

Do we need to filter and chemical treat our water before it goes
down our toilets ? Water our lawns ? Wash our cars ? Etc etc.

This could be solved with rain barrels or cisterns and catchment.

We need clean water to drink, bath, and cook with is roughly it.

On to the food issue, Bio Dynamic Agriculture and Vertical Hydroponics
could feed roughly 20 times the ppl we have now, and with no oil
based fertilizers.

On the power issue...

The Sahara Desert alone has enough solar thermal power to provide
all the power needs for the entire planet a few times over.

The Antarctic current has over 100 times the flow of all the rivers
in the world and undersea shrouded turbines would provide safe
clean power 24 hours a day.

There are other currents in other places of the world with flows
greater than all the rivers in the world.

In the central US there is a Wind corridor that would provide all the
electrical needs for the US and pump water to higher elevations for
stored power effect like a mechanical battery.

Thorium can be used in special nuclear reactors and is much more
abundant than uranium, though nuclear power would be my last choice.

1% of the Jet Stream could replace all forms of energy on the entire planet.

This over population myth is just a well contrived excuse to bring
Eugenics like has been tried throughout history many many times.

The seeds of operation paperclip are bearing their bitter harvest.

If 10% of what was spent on Sports, Religion, and Entertainment
were spent to better the planet we would live in a paradise that man
has not even dreamed.

But instead we will spend Trillions on killing each over oil that
we know how to grow via algae.

Someone has a dark agenda, and we are its victims.

Good Luck to you all !



[edit on 22-9-2009 by Ex_MislTech]

Originally posted by maus80

Originally posted by D.E.M.
Some people would call wanting the death of the races vitality through overpopulation as opposed to not losing your freaking name rather...selfish...
[edit on 22-9-2009 by D.E.M.]

Selfish, and maybe arrogant and inhuman?

I think you are talking to yourself anyway. ATS seems to be a lousy place to espouse logic and reason in the hopes of changing hearts and minds - and more so by the day. You are always going to be either preaching to the choir or talking at those willfully apposed to your point of view.

Has anyone on ATS ever actually convinced anyone of anything? Or at least gotten someone to attempt to see things from another point of view?

There is your problem, you believe that you are right and that everyone who doesn't believe what you believe needs a reality check, well maybe you need the reality check.

The topics discussed here on this forum board are matters of "opinion" and are meant to be stimulating, intellectual, conversations, it's not a tool used to forcefully convince others of YOUR opinion.

Open your mind and be receptive to differeing opinions, if you are only closed off to yourself... well then that's just a very sad, very small little world, and people who live in isolation aren't typically the people others look up to and respect. Come out of your cave and explore a bit...

reply to post by Ms.Skies


Ah, but as I just pointed out in another thread on this very topic, your opinion on this matter means absolutely nothing, and neither does mine. In fact, the entire thread is an exercise in philosophical futility, because in reality it doesn't matter whether you would like every person ever to live, or if I want all the useless dregs to die.

Its a simple fact that Nature has built-in safeguards against rampant and destructive populations, as seen most clearly in the example of the Maclears Rat. You want humans to keep breeding without regard? That's fine then. Eventually the numbers will damage the biosphere enough that it will collapse and kill off a great many humans.

In the end my opinion still wins out (that we cannot keep breeding indefinitely, it is foolish) but both our descendants pay the price. And, in the end, neither of our opinions mattered because there is absolutely nothing I could do to stop 7 billion humans from breeding, any more than you could stop me from stopping them. The numbers are too great.

Clear enough?

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

I really wonder how many ppl on ATS are working for the NWO
with posts like this ?

If any of you are working for the NWO, please send me an application. I would love to work for you guys, I will expound whatever propaganda you give me, and I will go the extra mile of throwing in some logic and supporting your/my views with sources and charisma!

Posting disinfo for the NWO on websites sounds like a pretty good job! ACORN, if you are listening, $15 per hour is acceptable, I will push your agenda as well!

**crosses fingers and waits**