Would you support, open, voluntary depopulation?

reply to post by Ex_MislTech

You are not as evil as the NWO folks, your method is less forceful.

But none the less the slow gradual shift to their plan is how it
has been progressing for many years now.

I say that we can drop fossil fuels and have room for triple the
population we have now, but it will require changing the way we live.

So, you think the Earth can handle triple the current population. At our current growth rates, that gives us another 150 years or so. At that point, should we panic and begin discussing population control, or should we plan ahead a little?

Or, if we drop fossil fuels, and improve quality of life, and improve healthcare, then we may only have 50-75 years before a population growth becomes unsustainable!!

The OP was looking for ideas for a "voluntary" way to control this growth. It was not a suggestion for single baby legislation, or 90% reduction in population, it was just a question about "What can we do?"

Even by the most conservative figures, we will quickly reach a point that the Earth can no longer sustain the population, so we cannot have the kneejerk reaction of refusing to discuss it, and demonizing anybody that brings it up!

For those that absolutely and fundamentally oppose any type of restrictions, what is your idea? What do you suggest we do to live in harmony over the next couple of centuries? Colonize Space? Import Resources from space and export our pollution to the Sun? Instead of jumping on the OP, give us some constructive alternatives!

reply to post by getreadyalready


Thank you mate, someone who actually read the OP and not just the title!

Phew, ATS reading lessons on "ATS BTS what would you like to see?"

Originally posted by D.E.M.
reply to post by PolarityHorizon

 

Or are you going to go to work, go home and eat dinner, take pleasure in your life and then vent your frustrations here, possibly sign a meaningless petition or two, and go to sleep.

Hell you might even go wave a sign at a rally while the ones in power look on smugly, knowing that until you take route A you mean nothing to them.

Even I admit what you say here to myself and I realized long ago
that I would not thrw my life away for the many ppl that have
treated me like crap at the many places I have worked.

Hell most of my life my own family treated each other like crap.

I am sitting this show out far in the mountains with a crank radio
some good tea, some wild edibles, and what I can manage to grow
and hunt.

I will listen to THIS while the world falls totally apart, and think to
myself yet once again the world tears itself apart.

Good Luck to you all !

reply to post by getreadyalready


Man, I've been preaching to the choir all morning trying to get that freaking point across. Thank you for putting it so succinctly. Starred and Flagged for calling the logic instead of just ignoring the problem in the hopes it goes away.

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


Then you are part of the problem and have forfeited all of your rights to criticize those of us who are fighting tooth and nail to change this world. GO hide in your hills and don't come out when things get better thanks to us, we don't want you. You helped create the problem and are going to run away rather than face the consequences, you and your entire generation.



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

reply to post by getreadyalready

If anyone is pushing for population reduction, I would look at the "green" activists, and animal rights orgs! They would rather protect koala's and pandas, and whales, than humans!!

You need to follow those threads back to the source.

This is a capsule Bio. of the "father" of the "Environmental Movement" and "Global Warming"

In 1947 Maurice Strong was a dirt poor high school drop out. He worked for the UN, YMCA international and then in 1953 he worked for a Rockefeller oil company in Saudi Arabia. By 1954 he was building the biggest oil company in Canada. You do not go from dirt poor to President of an Oil Company without friends. Strong was also trustee of Rockefeller Foundation, Senior Advisor to the UN and Senior Advisor to the World Bank.

What is interesting is looking at who The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the Rockefeller Family Fund , the Rockefeller Foundation , and the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors give grant money to. The groups include Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Friends of Earth, World Wild Life Fund etc. The more interesting ones are Organic Consumers Association, which supports the food safety con job bills that will remove our right to grow our own food and the American Corn Growers Association. Think about what it means if you have no choice but to eat GMO franken food.... especially CORN!

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.

In the 1990’s the UN’s World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45, allegedly against Tetanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping on a rusty nail. The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are presumably equally liable to step on rusty nails as women.

Because of that curious anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the Tetanus vaccine being spread by the WHO only to women of child-bearing age contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. None of the women vaccinated were told.

It later came out that the Rockefeller Foundation along with the Rockefeller’s Population Council, the World Bank (home to CGIAR), and the United States’ National Institutes of Health had been involved in a 20-year-long project begun in 1972 to develop the concealed abortion vaccine with a tetanus carrier for WHO. In addition, the Government of Norway, the host to the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault, donated $41 million to develop the special abortive Tetanus vaccine... Source

Between 1963 and 1965 more than 400, 000 Colombian women were sterilized in a program funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. In Bolivia, a U.S. imposed population control program administered by the Peace Corps sterilized Quechua Indian women without their knowledge or consent...(Akwesasne Notes, 1977: 31). In 1967 the American Public Health Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists conducted a study and found that 54 percent of the teaching hospitals nation-wide "...made sterilization a requirement for winning approval for an abortion" link

"In 1995, a Catholic human rights organization called Human Life International accused the WHO of promoting a Canadian-made tetanus vaccine laced with a pregancy hormone called human choriogonadotropic hormone (HCG). Suspicions were aroused when the tetanus vaccine was prescribed in the unusual dose of five multiple injections over a three month period, and recommended only to women of reproductive age. When an unusual number of women experienced vaginal bleeding and miscarriages after the shots, a hormone additive was uncovered as the cause.

Apparently the WHO has been developing and testing anti-fertility vaccines for over two decades. Women receiving the laced tetanus shot not only developed antibodies to tetanus, but they also developed dangerous antibodies to the pregnancy hormone as well. Without this HCG hormone the growth of the fetus is impaired. Consequently, the laced vaccine served as a covert contraceptive device. Commissioned to analyze the vaccine, the Philippines Medical Association found that 20 percent of the WHO tetanus vaccines were contaminated with the hormone. Not surprisingly, the WHO has denied all accusations as "completely false and without basis," and the major media have never reported on the controversy. link

In 1975 alone, some 25,000 Native American women were permanently sterilized--many after being coerced, misinformed, or threatened. One former IHS nurse reported the use of tubal ligation on "uncooperative" or "alcoholic" women into the 1990s." An Introduction to Native American Women's Reproductive Health Issues by Jay Heavner

reply to post by crimvelvet


Thank you for that! I was just speculating, but you provide some solidity to the idea!

I was aware of the Tetanus vaccines, and some of Kissinger's ideas, and the experimentation in Africa, but I don't understand why none of it was more effective? I am glad that is wasn't! Nobody should have this done to them without consenting. But, if they did it for 20 years, why did it not affect the overall population more drastically?

reply to post by D.E.M.

"Then you are part of the problem and have forfeited all of your rights"

=====================================

Eager to take those rights away are you ?

Ahh, but Mein fuhrer would truly be proud of your new fatherland
you plan to create.

The master race, ridding the world of the useless eaters.

So, I ask you are you ready for those braver than me ?

Americans buy enough guns in 90 days to outfit the ENTIRE chinese and indian militaries

It appears they are getting ready for those who support the message
on the stones like yourself.

So if I see you in the woods next to me I will not be surprised,
and you can even come sit on my tribes land and drink from
our streams and grow your food here, there are few of us left.

But do not tell me or anyone on our lands how we are to lead our
lives after Europeans already wiped out 95+% of us in the past.

I served my time in the military, and I serve the Eugenicists in
one of their banks as long as they keep paying me til it is time
to walk away.

Coward I may be, but then you can call Gandhi a coward too
and I will find myself in good company.

I am speaking out on here and elsewhere, but I am not living
or dying by the sword unless I am forced to do so.

My sharpshooter's ribbon will just be for hunting food.

Come in peace and leave us alone, or else.

Good Luck to you all !


[edit on 22-9-2009 by Ex_MislTech]

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by crimvelvet

 

But, if they did it for 20 years, why did it not affect the overall population more drastically?

The NWO is not infallible, and they test their methods as they go.

There has been argument amongst them on the methods and the means,
and there is more than one faction to be sure.

Ted Turner and some of the things he says alludes to one group,
and then the Oil Crowd is more direct in their methods.

Prince Philip is more in line with killing by virus as he has said
so in public.

Pianka at UT was also of this mind that a virus would kill more
than nukes and leave the planet usable.

Ebolapox was one of the tools in their toolbox that was never used
so far, but who knows what the future holds.

If you are in a population center, expect to see some bad days.

When is it going to happen ? I have no idea.

Small pox blankets worked on the tribes before, me and my tribes
do not intend to stand around while a new variation on an old theme
gets played out again here on US soil.

We will fade to the mountains, and we may come out after the war.

reply to post by Ex_MislTech


Rights to criticize, my good sir. Selective quoting in general only hurts you in the end, it's tantamount to lying about what your opponent has said. Very poor debate decorum indeed.

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.

Actually, the moment you die, we all disappear....we are your thought forms.

"I'm your son from the future"...Dane Cook

Originally posted by kiwifoot
Ah the typical response to what is a hard question. But nobody said forced abortion, nobody said anywhere anything about dead baby girls or RFID chips!

You need to READ, god i am so sick of people going off the deep end!

Read the OP!

OH and FYI- you can still have sex as often as you like and not have kids, man you are showing your age!

I read the OP...

Tell me where there won't be a law put into place that tells me I can't have children or I can have only one? In this great society that we live in (USA) we vote for things... so tell me, how exactly would that be worked and put into place without destroying yet another NATURAL FREEDOM for myself and my children?

I see your point, but I believe the population "issue" can be solved with our current tech. We have the ability to create HUGE amounts of electricity and power without degrading the atmosphere one iota.

I'm not in agreament with the Green movement (entirely) and I'm not for the NWO... I do believe, however, that our advancements in science and tech SHOULD be and CAN be implemented to assist us with a better quality of living, for ourselves and our planet. I do not believe (willful or otherwise) that humans should have ANY of their GOD GIVEN (or "natural") RIGHTS (of child birthing, etc, etc.) taken away.

If one (an individual) so chooses to have his/her reproductive system compromised through sterilization, that is there choice and that is fine. We already practice this with vasectomies and tubal ligations. Such a thing is lawful and within the bounds of the American Constitution...

I just don't see how this "voluntary depopulation" would be constitutional. It says "voluntary" but I see no evidence of that.

Originally posted by D.E.M.
reply to post by Ex_MislTech

 

Rights to criticize, my good sir. Selective quoting in general only hurts you in the end, it's tantamount to lying about what your opponent has said. Very poor debate decorum indeed.

I was just being to the point, it is part of my free speech.

If you think I am to lose it for exercising it, my argument still stands.

I didn't think I would have to mention free speech as you seemed
to be intelligent.

I am still going to give you the benefit of the doubt there.

Now you know the answer to your question. Or, since the answer was so obvious, was the question rhetorical?

It was indeed rhetorical. I don't see the point in "venting" period if you are actually agreeing and happily complying with the agenda in the first place.

Ah the typical response to what is a hard question. But nobody said forced abortion, nobody said anywhere anything about dead baby girls or RFID chips!

You need to READ, god i am so sick of people going off the deep end!

Read the OP!

OH and FYI- you can still have sex as often as you like and not have kids, man you are showing your age!

Yes, this has everything to do with dead baby girls lying in streets and forced abortions. That is exactly what happened in China and that is the same exact "program" we are discussing.

And if you are going to let them make your reproductive decisions FOR you, then you might as well let them make every other decision for you, including forcing you to get the RFID chip implanted - because that is what is next if you hand over your rights. It was an example of where we are headed. Nothing more. I'm surprised you failed to make that connection.

I'm surprised that you all fail to see the hypocrisy. The "well, I guess you can take this right away from 'we the people' because it doesn't directly effect me, but not this right over here because I still want that one!"

Originally posted by PolarityHorizon
It was indeed rhetorical. I don't see the point in "venting" period if you are actually agreeing and happily complying with the agenda in the first place.

Yes, this has everything to do with dead baby girls lying in streets and forced abortions. That is exactly what happened in China and that is the same exact "program" we are discussing.

And if you are going to let them make your reproductive decisions FOR you, then you might as well let them make every other decision for you, including forcing you to get the RFID chip implanted - because that is what is next if you hand over your rights. It was an example of where we are headed. Nothing more. I'm surprised you failed to make that connection.

I'm surprised that you all fail to see the hypocrisy. The "well, I guess you can take this right away from 'we the people' because it doesn't directly effect me, but not this right over here because I still want that one!"

This is the crux, once you give the NWO an inch, they come back
later asking for inch #2 and use lies and the media to sell it to the ppl.

Thus the phrase this is a battle of inches not of miles, of decades not days.

This has been in the works at least as long as Eisenhower's and JFK's
warnings, and the depopulation agenda is part of agenda 21, and
part of the mantra of the Club of Rome.

Agenda 21 - what they plan for you - The Brave New World

This really is just the tip of the Iceberg when you consider things
like Codex Alimentarius.



[edit on 22-9-2009 by Ex_MislTech]

Alaska is part of America too... Lots of resources there. Move some people around. Don't need to depopulate.

I support all things voluntary.

I entirely support peoples choice to voluntarily depopulate.

However, I will not be joining that particular voluntary effort.

reply to post by kiwifoot


Population Control is Logical and Needed


I posted this thread ages ago. The simple facts, once again are that the earth can support a limited number of humans. If we continue as we are we will utterly destroy the biosphere and all of the insects and animals we rely upon will be gone. Not to mention the limited amount of fresh water we have. This will lead to mass starvation and disease which will balance out and reduce our population.

The question is simple.

Do we allow our growth to continue and let this scenario occur, or do we limit population now to reduce future suffering? I absolutely hate to eliminate our freedoms but this is the only way out.

reply to post by kiwifoot


Well, one could respond to this in a lot of ways.

All I have right now though (currently working on drink #4 btw lol) is this:

When people in China break that rule or law, w/e, they get fined. Pretty hefty if I remember.

I don't think any Americans want the government telling them what they can and cannot do anymore than they do already.

What would be the purpose in starting a program like this?

There are enough resources for everyone in the world right now as it stands.

We just have to learn to grow up and share, that is all.

Apologies if this doesn't make any sense.

I am drunk. lol

reply to post by mkross1983


Freedom is vital, i will fight every day for freedom and die for it. I am however a logical person. The mathematics are basic and beyond discussion. The world only has a certain land area, each person requires a certain land area to survive (food, water etc), therefore the planet can only support a certain number of people. We must limit population otherwise we will end up will famine and disease, death and decay and the ppopultion will sort itself by a mass die off.

Remember that humans are reliant on many "sub species". We have to calculate that into our calculations of how much space we need to survive. Without bees and other insects we cannot pollinate our crops, without these insects we cannnot produce micronutrients for our soil reliably, without large animals we cannot provide food. In the end human beings, despite us considering ourselves the top of the food chain are absolutely reliant upon the lower life forms.

The earth can only support so many people. This is a fact that the future must deal with and it is something that the world will never face until people are dying and starving. This is always the way, people cannot think ahead, they always wait until it is right in their face.

reply to post by kiwifoot


Since you chose China to make your point -

Dead Newborn In the Gutter...

To the Chinese authorities, abandoned girls are merely worthless trash. “I called the emergency services, but nobody came,” says the woman who found this latest little victim. (For fear of official reprisal, she wishes to remain anonymous.) “The baby was lying right near the government tax office, so many people in government just walked past.” Eventually, an old man picked up the child, put her in a box, and dropped her in a garbage bin. When the police finally arrived, they showed no interest in investigating her death. They instead arrested the woman who’d tried to save her. “I took some photographs, because it was so terrible; the police were more worried about my pictures than the baby,” she says. The police only released the woman once she handed over her film.



The chilling death of this baby, and countless others like her, reveals the gross inhumanity behind the enforcement of China’s one-child policy.

Yes, voluntary reduction in births is desirable, but we must never give the government that kind of power over us.

The fact in the US is that our population is shrinking unless you count Illegal Aliens. So since we are already voluntarily controlling ourselves as the numbers indicate, how would you force the Illegal Aliens to comply? If there were no Illegals, our population would have shrunk between the last Census and the upcoming one.

India from what I've read is far more problematic. How would you get the people of India to comply voluntarily? From what I've read they are in the same situation we saw in the Dust Bowl days and during the Great Depression. Farmers had large numbers of children for the labor they provided. I've gotten first hand accounts of that time from my Parents and our written family histories. Their Farms and Ranches would have failed were it not for the large numbers of children. India is in the same position.

Since US Citizens are already doing what you ask if you don't add in the surge of Illegals in the tens of millions, you are preaching to the choir here. Places like India are where you would need to get cooperation. In the Western World we tend to have for the most part only children we can afford and we no longer use them as a labor source. Other parts of the world are a whole other matter. How do you get a family that survives only because they have the free labor of their children to starve themselves by stopping having children.

Another issue in China is that it can not feed its people and never has. We only see what they wish us to see. Remember the Olympics?

The problem is not in your idea because it is good. The problem is we live in the real world. A world we don't control. A world of uneducated, illiterates who would never understand why they should stop having children to work their fields so they can eat.

I doubt they concern themselves with things like a Smelt reducing the worlds food supply by shutting down hundreds of farms and putting tens of thousands out of work in California's most fertile area's. They don't have Greenpeace or the Sierra Club around. They see the world only through the eyes of people who need food and need large families to produce that food and survive.

The reason I bring this up is that somehow peoples minds always turn to the West when they see a problem that needs solving while ignoring the Third World entirely. In this case like I said, we are not overpopulating so the message is lost here. You need to find a way to convince people who are not on the Internet, don't have adequate resources and don't have a clue about environmentalism to play along. I wonder, how do you do that? How do you get the message to them by proposing something we already do, to us?

The average household in the US for instance is 3.5 people. Eliminate the Illegals like I said and goes down to near 3 per household.

India has 13.94 times the density of population per square mile as the US.
China is 9.38.
Russia is 4.65.
Central plus South America is 5.91.
Asia not including China, India and Russia is 8.67.
Africa as a whole is 7.26.

Like I said, preaching to the choir. Those are the area's and the people you have to get your message to and get them to cooperate or it is a moot issue.
How would you do that?

[edit on 9/22/2009 by Blaine91555]