It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Would you support, open, voluntary depopulation?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 10:54 PM
reply to post by Blaine91555

i know this is gonna sound paranoid but you're on ats so i'm sure you're accustomed to it.

i don't think it's about population control or food shortages. it's no accident that the majority of the planet is patriarchal and it's also no accident that people such as the op and a few others in this thread, are willing to look the other way while ungodly amounts of females are killed off in the name of depopulation.

it has been historically and apparently still is, the singlest largest group to be genocided enmasse for whatever reason, overshadowing any other class of genocide, period. it's only rebalanced during war.

personally, i think it's an ET thing. the current overseers resolve over population of their slave planet by appealing to things like fear of resource loss, survival of the fittest paradigms, and male superiority over female. they do this in several ways, least of which is misdirecting attention from the really obvious and infinitely more humane solutions.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by undo]

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:16 PM
I should maybe say at this point that a friend of mine got herself sterilised. It was her choice. She said that she didn't want to bring children into this terribhle world. I said to her that surely her husband would have been easier to sterilise, that operation is easier but she preferred it her way.

I guess very few people can think with logic over emotion. She has my utter repect because she didn't just speak, she acted.

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:24 PM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

the planet is not overpopulated. and if the big wigs of the planet were that worried about it, they'd consider letting the rest of us in on their planetary colonization plans. currently, we aren't being dragged off to slave in some mining camp on the moon (not cost effective.. .too much cost in life support at this juncture) but that'll change as the tech advances. the leaders of the nations know what to do, and it doesn't require being cruel, insisting on sterilization or vaccinating us out of existence. they just refuse at the moment because it would cost them more than they are willing to pay and the frontier is currently the playground of the elite.. .why muss it up with peasantry.

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:42 PM

Originally posted 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

Actually I think you might be onto something. Paying a bonus to people each year for NOT having kids rather than paying incentives to have kids.
I think a lot of people would go for that and delay parenthood for as long as possible. I also think that the governments who spout population control are also the ones who reward having children , they can't have it both ways.

Not to mention that now that we control our fertility and have a 2 child family, we are now told that immigration levels have to be upped to help pay for aging populations with no younger generation to pay for pensions.

I mean, how can you plan in a system that is so schizophrenic?
Unless governments say one thing and do the same thing and stick to it, we'll just go along our merry way and do as we please as we keep getting told conflicting and mixed messages.

[edit on 22-9-2009 by Flighty]

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 11:42 PM
reply to post by undo

Only on ATS could ET's come into this conversation. Not to worry, I'm open to most anything with proof but tend to be a pragmatic realist that requires evidence.

You have an obvious point about females paying the price. Given a choice, yes the male child would be desired even by the Mothers themselves. It depends on the culture. Western Culture is far removed from the rest of the world.

Food however is life-giving. The problem of people in India needing to have many children for labor to survive is not easy to overcome. They are simply at the point we were a mere hundred years ago.

My Father was the youngest of 11 in a ranching family. My Mother the youngest of 12 in a Farming family. Childhood disease we don't see now due to vaccines killed about a third of their siblings. The rest were absolutely necessary for their farms and ranches to survive. Modern equipment and techniques are what happened to end that need for the child labor to feed us. I have a friend in Idaho who Dry Farms 60,000 acres with just him and his adult Son. Giant articulated six wheel drive tractors that memorize the fields with their GPS systems and they lie back and listen to the stereo in air conditioned comfort while the machinery does all the work.

As advanced as some nations are becoming now, what is reality here is still a few generations away. To often people have grandiose dreams that are just fine but untenable in the real world. When I was young and dumb, protesting the Vietnam War and singing "Kumbaya" I thought a world like we envisioned was possible in short order. Then I grew up into the real adult I thought I already was and found that reality and dreams bear no resemblance to each other. Much of what we discuss here are dreams.

If a reduction in population is what we want and it should be, only when the rest of the world joins us at our level of development will it be possible to even dream that it will happen voluntarily.

Personally I allowed myself only one child before I went in for a Vasectomy. Not because I had delusions it would matter in the scheme of things but for the purely pragmatic selfish reason I wanted more freedom as I aged and more income to enjoy my life.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:00 AM
reply to post by Blaine91555

well i had an odd experience that preceeded my knowledge of female it is
after that experience, i realized that i needed to read up on the fate of women in history and how it might or might not play into prophetical texts regarding the fate of humanity.

and you can guess what i found. china wasn't the only one killing their females, so were the vedic hindus, the pakistanis, koreans, vietnamese and some places in africa as well. and they hadn't just recently started this trend, but had done so intermittently through out history. they were joined at one point, by the greeks, who lost their empire to the romans, when they killed so many female children the men turned to pederasty (man-boy relations).

it's not a pretty picture but it so carefully integrated into patriarchal systems that most don't even realize it . i certainly didn't, till i had that oobe.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:07 AM
I think there are very pragmatic reasons for this that no longer matter in Western Culture. I'm sure you considered that. Our reality has changed.

As to your OOBE I've never doubted that many accounts like that are real experiences. What they are I could not say.

Speaking of Females, my Wife is prompting me to go. Nice talking to you but in my home it is a Matriarchal Society.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 12:34 AM
g walley, wouldn't that be great if that was all it was about. unfortunatly! the same
way you know about" the fitting every person in australia" thing. so
do the elitists. there isn't a pop problem. unless you consider how much hoarding they plan on doing,and only they know that. sorry, but a new world populated by only their own prefered bloodlines , with a one world govt.
one world religion and a one world language. that will be ushered in by
the largest human sacrifice ever in the history of the universe to
to appesae the same Gods they have worshipped for thousands of years.
above top secret

be for warned

this same insanity still reigns today and is what we are dealing with doubt it not.
so no it's pointless.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by randyvs]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:39 AM
reply to post by kiwifoot

kiwifoot, in answer to your question?


I would be sickened if I had to imagine a society where some power that was, was able to dictate what you could or couldn't do in terms of children.

If you really wanted to be draconian, then arguing the issue about killing the old people would make more sense. They take up more space, more resources.
But then this society would have to pick an age. Have to be fair, now. So, 65? 75? How about 55?
Just kill them off so we have more food and space.

Interesting thread, but disturbing implications if it ever came to fruition.

And apologies if someone has already posted something similar. I just read the OP and felt the need to reply.


posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:44 AM

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
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.

Vertical hydroponics can support more food per square foot than
conventional farming methods.

Also we end up growing a lot of plant material to feed livestock,
and would be better off moving to protein from plant sources.

As for limited water I went over it in a prior post in this thread,
but I will just say we need to stop all the lawn watering, filtering
and purifying water that goes to flush toilets, and catchment can
be installed on houses.

Solar stills can turn sea water into freshwater, this is already done
in Cuba extensively.

The false scarcity is a joke, they have to keep the rabbit population
down in Australia by law. If two different medicines were given to
the rabbits there would be a population explosion among them.

Rabbits - and their forced culling

That alone could feed the world.

The ppl spreading the over population myth are the same operation
paper clip descendant act-alikes that are on the NWO payroll.

The Eugenics crowd.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:54 AM
Most western nations have relatively stagnant populations. I honestly don't see the need to want to depopulate them - infact, in Australia, my impression is they are trying to INCREASE birth rate.

Voluntary one child policy in some countries (like China) is a good thing. However, I think more has to be done in finding ways to increase productivity. For example, cheap and abundant power such 4th generation Nuclear, and also improving farms - for example, vertical hydroponics. Remember, farmers in the United States are now over 300% MORE productive than they were in 1950.

[edit on 23/9/2009 by C0bzz]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:05 AM
It's hard to see this as a problem because we are still on the brink of entering the "last few minutes" of it.

The problem is exponential population growth. The story used to explain it;

If you are handcuffed in a stadium that is filling with water exponentially, starting with a drop, everything looks safe and fine until the last few iterations, when suddenly the stadium is 1/4th full, then 1/2 full, then all the way full in just three steps.

This is about proactive vs reactive, reactionary societies are used to going "Problem, what problem?" until they are smashed in the face with it.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:46 AM
Forced sterilisation and abortions are NOT the way to go, Sure , change the law to say " you can ONLY have ONE- THREE child depending on the pregancy" then state that anymore and you'll have to pay for them yourself, it would stop all the benefits spongers who think the welfare state can pay for them to have more and more kids, The max should be 2-3 kids ( I'm a twin btw) and make people realise that having triplets is ok, as a first pregnancy but anymore will be paid for by the parents not the state.
If there were penalised by having to pay cash for having lots of kids then they'd stop reproducing.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:23 AM
reply to post by kiwifoot

I believe that everyone should have as many children as they want.

The one child policy in China has turned into a lot of fat spoilt kids.

I think we should go with the flow and not be so anxious.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 04:42 AM

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by kiwifoot

I would be sickened if I had to imagine a society where some power that was, was able to dictate what you could or couldn't do in terms of children.


Hey mate, yes we would all be sickened by this, but guess what?

If we don't do something NOW, your Great Great Great Grandkids will be living in a world 100times sicker than being intelligent enough to CHOOSE gradual depopulation.

We are a ME ME ME NOW NOW NO Live in the moment society, we will never think of the generations to come, that in my opinion is far more sickeniong.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 05:48 AM
i'd happily volunteer to end my life at 70 or 75, or whatever was needed if it meant my kids had a better world to live in... i don't see a one child policy or the 'sacrifice' that some people deem necessary of having no children as needed if we reduce the old...
it happens de facto anyway as health care goes down...

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 10:44 AM
reply to post by getreadyalready

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

I think it did not affect the overall population more drastically because they got caught fairly early on. We also do not know whether these were just trial runs.

One of the things I did not mention was the Saudi Royalty/Rockefeller/Bush/Strong connection. Have you noticed the increase in Islam in Europe, Latin and North America? The fact that Ruby Ridge, Waco and the Henshaw Incident were the subject of military type raids but the Pakistani paramilitary training camps and the ex-con recruitment direct from federal prisons are off limits?

The Rockefellers were the first to discover and develop oil in Saudi Arabia. As I said Mauice Strong worked for the Rockefellers in Saudi Arabia. Adnan Khashoggi, the Saudi Arms dealer, friend of bin Laden, sold AZL to Maurice Strong. Googling Adnan Khashoggi is a real eye opener. Khashoggi was one of the middlemen between Oliver North, in the Iran-Contra scandal.

SIGHHhh boy what a can of cobras this is.

The Bush family,... the Saudi royals....—and other rich and influential Saudi families [Khashoggi ] were naturally drawn to one another as they share similar ideologies and goals: the “new world order” which is to be governed and controlled by a small ruling class elite, That is, the
“Brotherhood”. In the 1960s, and certainly by the 1970s, they were all doing business together. However, in the case of the Saudis, that new world order will be a world-wide Islamic state, governed according to Sunni Wahhabi interpretations of Islam (15). Although that goal is not shared by the Bush-Wall Street-corporate elite, the Bush team and the Saudis are nevertheless willing to work closely together, to increase their wealth and their power, and to combat and eliminate common enemies and competitors for world domination . Indeed, due in part to Saudi efforts, since the 1980s, Islam has become the fastest growing religion among Latinos in the Americas .... Bush business partner and friend, Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi billionaire oil and arms trader, admitted in a television-interview, that he funneled $5 million dollars to help finance arms shipments to the Contras who were terrorizing Nicaragua. In addition, the Sultan of Brunei — the richest man in the world — pitched in another $10 million. Let us recall that Saudi billionaire, Adnan Khashoggi, was providing millions of dollars to support the Contras, as was the Sultan of Brunei, and the royal family of Saudi King Fahd .

[edit on 23-9-2009 by crimvelvet]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:15 AM
interesting my edit did not appear.

The Rockefeller sterility program DID have an effect on the African birth rates!

However, until the late 1980s there was little evidence of any change in fertility. Since then, many changes have occurred in sub-Saharan Africa. Although population growth rates remain high, signs of reductions in fertility are appearing in several populations once regarded as having little or no prospect of lower levels of reproduction in the short term...

Barney Cohen reviews levels, differentials, and trends in fertility for more than 30 countries from 1960 to 1992. He finds evidence of fertility decline in Botswana, Kenya, and Zimbabwe, confirming the basic results of the DHS. What is new here though is his finding that the fertility decline appears to have occurred across cohorts of women at all parities, rather than just among women at middle and higher parities, as might have been expected on the basis of experience in other parts of the world. He also presents evidence that fertility may have begun to fall in parts of Nigeria and possibly in Senegal.

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 11:28 AM
reply to post by Blaine91555

Food however is life-giving. The problem of people in India needing to have many children for labor to survive is not easy to overcome.

That in a nutshell is the reason for lots of kids and multiple wives in third world countries. Self generated SLAVE LABOR! Even the Amish/Mennonite here in the USA do the same thing, lots of kids to work the farm. The kids are seen as contributing to the families wealth while in first world countries they are seen as a drain on the families wealth. Simple economics.

There over 300 million child workers between the age of 5 to 15 in the third world countries The concept of "Childhood" is a recently invented luxury.

My ex husband here in the USA was driving a tractor by age 5 and did farm chores like 4 AM milking every day until we married.

[edit on 23-9-2009 by crimvelvet]

posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 02:41 PM
I am a fan of population reduction until such time as we have a society that is worthy of expanding. As is, we are dumbing down our population. Scary fools are breeding far faster than intelligent and productive citizens and we plow ever closer to some form of Idiocracy.

That said, I have to laugh at those who buy into the whole "TPTB want to reduce the population by 90%" nonsense. The simple question would be: WHY? The people who are calling for massive population reduction tend to be granola crunching environmentalists with an anti-technological bent. The NWO/PTB/Ruling Elites are fare more likely to be privy to the scientific viability of a Technological Utopia along the lines of the one envisioned by Bucky Fuller when he observed that human technology used to it's maximum potential would allow every man woman and child on the planet to experience the quality of life of a Billionaire.

Those who are in control already have everything that they could rationally want. They are free to do as they wish to whomever they wish to do it. They control the technology and the resources and will be the last to feel the pinch in the event of worldwide catastrophe. In fact, it is my belief that their entire goal is the suppression of relevent technologies so that they may continue to live above the masses. They fear that is everyone was as free as They are, that it would be only a matter of time before nearly everyone else was living a more fulfilled/fulfilling life than them. They lack the creativity and joy to truly relish what they have. Centuries of in-breeding and indoctrination have turned them into joyless sociopaths who live only to preserve their decadent lifestyle.

If nothing else, they need legions of people to live and die on the hamsterwheels of commerce and industry in order to support and subsidize their lifestyles. And the more of us there are fighting over scraps at the bottom, the less likely we are to rise up and take what They hold dear.

So, can any of the 90 percenters around here explain the official motives of TPTB when it comes to this initiative?

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in