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.

 

almost 7 billion Humans, Lets Talk ...

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I continue to hear conspiracies this and conspiracies that, It aint WORKING~!
these are the tools of the populations demise, I have researched and believe
it or not. the chinese 1 child rule is leanant compared to what has to happen
-- before 2025 for sure... at which time we will be cresting 10 - 11 billion ...
I know I hate to think of humans as numbers but like I said Lets Talk ...
I wanted to see the first second of peoples faces when I asked them if they thought the world was over populated...? and if they say Yes ... I asked them if they will volunteer for this planetary depopulation down to 2 billion... and at first they actually consider the question ... its amazing - people actually considered volunteering for it, and then realized that they had a 5 - 2 odds of being exterminated and said I dont think so... which is also interesting since they considered volunteering for it... they think ... ok, well how many people out of 7 billion dont think ... none ... they all think thus is human, and I'm sure there will be percentages that would volunteer and some of those would assist... the law of averages suggests.

what hitler was really up to: was a method of controlling populations, the third reich was extremely successful in modernizaiton of transportation, medical, physics and several other sciences, propoganda, various agents like Flouride to control human beings Concentration Camps were like labratories human guenea pigs. *note, german & american POW's were treated very well considering other wars we have been engaged in. (Germany and Union Bank Corp., IBM, etc.) say's Nazi's changed venues instead of losing the war... the numbering of the Jews was like RFID, and special treatment means to die basically. and that was determined by an American Computer Built and Serviced by IBM... and in addition, we sold them fuel and oil additives /// there I go again... now, I'm depressed...
sigh~

I really dont have an answer for what needs to happen and in which the speed and scale is monsterous and the need very great, every system you can name is in a verticle decline.. the chages them selves will kill us we will not be able to adapt to the speed of the collapse, if we push forward with even more mouths to feed. we are destroying the earths ability to heal itself... like a smoker with lung cancer and he cant quit smoking..... understand...

Since it appears our wonderful technology has brought us on the cusp of total break down of our bioshere, we humans just might go extinct. after all do we live with or without nature... and nature always wins... so, in my mind the choices are clear - risk 100% extinction or reduce the population down to a level of in which we have the might to repair, and the earths ability to rebound after the industrial revolution... so 50 years we are all dead... or 500 years ... with a communist style management to include population culling - cuz, your useless for 20 years, you live 20 years and you die for 20 years... they will opt to legislate the later 20 years of life, a which time the only thing you have to look forward to is a long dirt nap. I believe they will terminate at age 65.



[edit on 12-10-2009 by Anti-Evil]




posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:19 PM
link   
The world is not overpopulated. Resources are mismanaged and greed and dishonor are the problems. People are also subjectively herded into population centers and technology to support large concentrations of people are suppressed. Rethink required. Over and out.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:20 PM
link   
Except Hitlers version of Eugenics and population control was pretty bias against the Poles, Jews and Russians..

Asia is where the problem lies with the Global population at the moment.. Nuke Asia maybe?


Doubt that would work either..

Judging by what is happening in the EU and the wealthy populations across the planet, as society becomes more advanced and people become wealthier, the population decreases.. so with the boom in Asia at the moment, its very possible that their populations could start to decrease by 2050.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I prefer the idea of building arcologies so we can maximize available land for habitation and vertical farming to reduce land usage for crops. Couple that with more sustainable activities such as recycle everything rather than dumping it in landfills and we just may have a better chance at surviving rather than going extinct.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:10 PM
link   
The problem is not overpopulation it's mismanagement of resources.

1 billion people living like we do in the west is not sustainable neither is 100 million, it's just a question of postponing the inevitable exhaustion of natural resources.

What we need to do is to use our resources better this means that things like the consumer society & fossil fuels need to go.

It wouldn't necessarily mean a lower standard of living except maybe for the very rich & powerful.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
we have been told "global warming" well, what if I said it's the Oxygen that is depleating, would that scare you. it should, for us to exist without breathing apparatus we require oxygen at a certain level and certain pressures, with a comfortible nitrogen mix. O levels have declined just below 20% PPM, I suspect that is due to deforestation, but the Oceans have more to do with it than the trees.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:40 PM
link   
It doesn't automatically mean that a lower population will help the economy. Take Japan for example. Their biggest problem right now, and even before, is their aging population which affects their economy due to the lack of demand for their goods that appeal to the younger generation.

Population control is never the answer. Forget that it advocates murder, or sterilization. There is simply a lot more space on the planet for more people. Last time I read, humans are only occupying around 7% of the planet.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Great thread! Star and flag...

Volunteering to lower the human population doesn't mean killing anyone or yourself.... it simply means we need to stop reproducing... and FAST! Condoms... birth control... very viable methods of not having a child!

And before any of you come in here and say 'well we have sex to make children' this is simply untrue. That's like saying, you eat food to poop, or drink water to pee. No, you have sex because you enjoy it. True, animals may do it to reproduce but, unlike us, they actually have a need to reproduce and make more of themselves... we don't.



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
Everybody wants to live....it's certainly a little greedy, but look around, most every invention is for living, allowing one to live longer, saving lives, etc....medicine, food, guns, bombs, houses...all of it about LIVING...

Voluntary population control is a wonderful idea until it's ME that has to 'volunteer.' Until I can get over that hurdle individually it seems a little unfair to expect anyone else to embrace it...even when I DO come to grips with my temporary nature and decide that my 'useful' time has expired, it's still a little creepy on my part to think that there is someone on this planet, some committee, some 'working group' that can decide, on whatever criteria they would deem necessary, the value of extending a life, or allowing a new life to be brought into this world.

The reality of it is that we don't NEED voluntary population control. Mother nature is going to take care of that for us. For all of our intelligence, we are animals. We are animals in a closed system with limited resources. We may not be anywhere close right now to that line where we haven't enough, but animals without a predator will grow unchecked. Disease, overcrowding, competition for available resources WILL enforce an optimum population. We are delusional to think that we can manipulate that fact of nature.

We live in a world of greed and until that fundamental flaw is addressed and corrected (good luck), we are doomed to resource limitations and shortages. It's not the earth, she could support thirty or forty billion easily, given the correct attitude of cooperation and the elimination of personal wealth and therefor greed.

You ARE right in that the world needs a major shift in behavior in order to sustain the current population growth, but by limiting that growth to the forced or voluntary artificial system maintenance by way of 'population control', you never address the core problem with humanity and as such, will always end up in the position we are in now. Too many people for everyone to live comfortably.

It's not the number of people, my friend. It's the greed.


Awesome thread AE.




[edit on 12-10-2009 by KSPigpen]



posted on Oct, 12 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   
I'm sure there will be a pandemic starting in China, which will wipe out half of SE Asia. Problem solved.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
I'll chime in since I love these overpopulation threads...

Anti-Evil,


I have researched and believe
it or not. the chinese 1 child rule is leanant compared to what has to happen
-- before 2025 for sure... at which time we will be cresting 10 - 11 billion ...

China is an example of a country that absolutely saved itself by only allowing one child per home. And yes, we will be screwed this century is we don't start combating the problems associated with huge populations. However, in nature there is a tendency for populations to level off at a certain point. A professor once told me that some scientist believe that humans will start to naturally level off around the 9-10 billion mark. I for one have a tough time swallowing this one, but on the other hand we do see a slow down in population growth of collectively more aware nations.



I asked them if they will volunteer for this planetary depopulation down to 2 billion... and at first they actually consider the question ... its amazing - people actually considered volunteering for it, and then realized that they had a 5 - 2 odds of being exterminated and said I dont think so... which is also interesting since they considered volunteering for it... they think ... ok, well how many people out of 7 billion dont think ... none ... they all think thus is human, and I'm sure there will be percentages that would volunteer and some of those would assist... the law of averages suggests.

Or perhaps they are like me and don't assume that voluntary population reduction means extermination. What if we started dropping the birth rate down to, one of every 10 people, then one of every 50, then 100..... No one needs to be exterminated....yet. If we collectively volunteer to do it, and stop having kids and a controlled rate, then population control could work, and it's the smoothest transition I can think of from very large, to easily manageable populations.



what hitler was really up to: was a method of controlling populations,

and then you kind of ramble after that, anyways not a method anyone advocates(I hope) so I'm not sure where you're going with this or what yer point is..




I really dont have an answer for what needs to happen and in which the speed and scale is monsterous and the need very great, every system you can name is in a verticle decline.. the chages them selves will kill us we will not be able to adapt to the speed of the collapse, if we push forward with even more mouths to feed. we are destroying the earths ability to heal itself... like a smoker with lung cancer and he cant quit smoking..... understand...

yeah i get it, you're saying to the inevitable "there's enough resources the elite just hogs em all" crowd that even if resources were used more efficiently it really is moot, because we're growing too fast to fix the problems that are already here things will only get worse. I agree with you but watch out for all the breeders who will show up and flame you.



Since it appears our wonderful technology has brought us on the cusp of total break down of our bioshere, we humans just might go extinct. after all do we live with or without nature... and nature always wins... so, in my mind the choices are clear - risk 100% extinction or reduce the population down to a level of in which we have the might to repair, and the earths ability to rebound after the industrial revolution... so 50 years we are all dead... or 500 years ... with a communist style management to include population culling - cuz, your useless for 20 years, you live 20 years and you die for 20 years... they will opt to legislate the later 20 years of life, a which time the only thing you have to look forward to is a long dirt nap. I believe they will terminate at age 65.

Pretty grim depiction of the future. I think the bigger the population gets the more need for control and regulation. Many on ATS rant about how our freedoms are being stripped....what do expect? 300 million and growing to just be able to do whatever they want? Cause and effect tells a bleak story indeed.....




we have been told "global warming" well, what if I said it's the Oxygen that is depleating, would that scare you. it should, for us to exist without breathing apparatus we require oxygen at a certain level and certain pressures, with a comfortible nitrogen mix. O levels have declined just below 20% PPM, I suspect that is due to deforestation, but the Oceans have more to do with it than the trees.

Yes, i do believe that humans have an impact on the environment, more humans, more impact.

Revdrdrsunshine,


The world is not overpopulated. Resources are mismanaged and greed and dishonor are the problems. People are also subjectively herded into population centers and technology to support large concentrations of people are suppressed. Rethink required. Over and out.

Maybe people are "herded" because we are overpopulated...I mean how do you define overpopulation? Is the technology suppressed or simply incapable of being utilized for a host of reasons: economics, resources, labor, etc etc...
Do you seriously think that utilizing high technology would not be easier with LESS people? I bet you haven't thought or rethought about any of this have you?

DERMO,



Asia is where the problem lies with the Global population at the moment.. Nuke Asia maybe?

Africa may be a bigger problem than asia. And talking about nuking people as a form of population isn't a reasonable solution, or funny, or clever. Why not just make a few poop and fart jokes while yer at there, middle school.



Doubt that would work either..

ya think?



Judging by what is happening in the EU and the wealthy populations across the planet, as society becomes more advanced and people become wealthier, the population decreases.. so with the boom in Asia at the moment, its very possible that their populations could start to decrease by 2050.

true, but that's probably too slow of a process for stabilizing the population before a huge disaster of some kind. The easiest way to distribute wealth and a higher standard of living worldwide, is too....duh, have smaller, smart, more efficient populations.


Sirnex,


I prefer the idea of building arcologies so we can maximize available land for habitation and vertical farming to reduce land usage for crops. Couple that with more sustainable activities such as recycle everything rather than dumping it in landfills and we just may have a better chance at surviving rather than going extinct.

Those are all lovable ideas, but it's going to require money, manpower, science that isn't all the way there, research and development, etc etc...all the while continuing to grow, and continuing to make waste, a 100% recyclable world is waaaay off. Unless you wanna go back to living like native americans? Instead of completely changing our way of life, don't you think it would be easier to just, reduce our population? I don't get you guys...are you all really this hell bent on having kids?

MrVertigo



The problem is not overpopulation it's mismanagement of resources.

1 billion people living like we do in the west is not sustainable neither is 100 million, it's just a question of postponing the inevitable exhaustion of natural resources.

What we need to do is to use our resources better this means that things like the consumer society & fossil fuels need to go.

It wouldn't necessarily mean a lower standard of living except maybe for the very rich & powerful.

it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible to realize your vision with, THE REDUCTION OF POPULATION.

to be continued....



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 



Those are all lovable ideas, but it's going to require money, manpower, science that isn't all the way there, research and development, etc etc...all the while continuing to grow, and continuing to make waste, a 100% recyclable world is waaaay off. Unless you wanna go back to living like native americans? Instead of completely changing our way of life, don't you think it would be easier to just, reduce our population? I don't get you guys...are you all really this hell bent on having kids?


Granted a lot of R&D is still needed, but that doesn't inherently make it an impossibility either. Personally, I think we could reach a one-hundred percent recyclable society, it's a matter of developing the right technologies and recycling processes rather than keeping our current pace of wastefulness. It probably would be easier to depopulate the world, but I also think taking human life or limiting human right is going to far for any individual. What if I were in charge of depopulation and I ordered your family exterminated or unable to breed continuing your genetic stock successfully ending your family line?

We can't just start killing people or limiting their rights by imposing ridiculous laws, not when we have other alternatives or the ability to develop other alternatives. It just seems rather barbaric to depopulate the world just so we can keep current societies wastefulness in full swing. Eventually there will come a time where either waste will become to huge a factor to ignore or human population increases again. It sounds like nothing more than someone trying to justify killing billions of people for their own greediness. Would you be one of the people to volunteer dying for the sake of only a few billion people?



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
I think we need to start building a masive base on the the moon and start populating the moon, we have the technology to do almost anything and now we know thier is water.

Its time to start build our own Stargates miles long and start traveling through space, they need to stop playing with nukes and wars and work together to build our Stargate Fleets.

Then we can searching for new planets for us to live on, stop worrying about money and everyone should be equal no rich no poor if you work and help do things you get pretty much whatever you want might have to wait a month or so but you will get it and food everyone should be fed and given a home.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:08 PM
link   
continued,

Unregistered,



It doesn't automatically mean that a lower population will help the economy. Take Japan for example. Their biggest problem right now, and even before, is their aging population which affects their economy due to the lack of demand for their goods that appeal to the younger generation.

Yeah, yer right, it will hurt the economy, thats why you don't wanna reduce it too fast. So.... can you think of any way that a never ending growing population might help society? What might some cons be? What side wins...be honest now....



Population control is never the answer. Forget that it advocates murder, or sterilization. There is simply a lot more space on the planet for more people. Last time I read, humans are only occupying around 7% of the planet.

No it does not advocate murder and sterilization. It advocates a more responsible and richer society. I suppose we should start living under the oceans? We occupy way more than 7%. Get real.

sacrosanct,



Volunteering to lower the human population doesn't mean killing anyone or yourself.... it simply means we need to stop reproducing... and FAST! Condoms... birth control... very viable methods of not having a child!

Holy #^&%&!!!! Someone else in here who actually gets it, except, I'm not sure FAST reduction is the best way to go.



And before any of you come in here and say 'well we have sex to make children' this is simply untrue. That's like saying, you eat food to poop, or drink water to pee. No, you have sex because you enjoy it. True, animals may do it to reproduce but, unlike us, they actually have a need to reproduce and make more of themselves... we don't.

Some people do it as a career move. LOL We're definitely not animals....lets see what KSPigpen has to say about that.

KSPigpen,



Voluntary population control is a wonderful idea until it's ME that has to 'volunteer.' Until I can get over that hurdle individually it seems a little unfair to expect anyone else to embrace it...even when I DO come to grips with my temporary nature and decide that my 'useful' time has expired, it's still a little creepy on my part to think that there is someone on this planet, some committee, some 'working group' that can decide, on whatever criteria they would deem necessary, the value of extending a life, or allowing a new life to be brought into this world.

You've watched Logan's Run a few too many times. I don't see it that way.




The reality of it is that we don't NEED voluntary population control. Mother nature is going to take care of that for us. For all of our intelligence, we are animals. We are animals in a closed system with limited resources. We may not be anywhere close right now to that line where we haven't enough, but animals without a predator will grow unchecked. Disease, overcrowding, competition for available resources WILL enforce an optimum population. We are delusional to think that we can manipulate that fact of nature.

Humans, maybe nothing more than cows, in some regards, but hey, we're more like pole dancing cows. To put us on the same level as animals is a copout. The reasons you listed are exactly why need population control. I can't get why it's easier for you to deal with mother nature killing us all off, then some humans sterilizing or killing YOU off. I see a healthy amount of selfishness, egotism, and lack of desire to change or be proactive coming out of the pro-population argument. Anyone else catching this?



We live in a world of greed and until that fundamental flaw is addressed and corrected (good luck), we are doomed to resource limitations and shortages. It's not the earth, she could support thirty or forty billion easily, given the correct attitude of cooperation and the elimination of personal wealth and therefor greed.

who wants to live in an super populated world? Can someone find me a specialist in societal engineering that advocates massive populations? How hard is it to just not reproduce more than once....dub tee eff. Can we just get on the same page here....mine....the one that makes sense.



You ARE right in that the world needs a major shift in behavior in order to sustain the current population growth, but by limiting that growth to the forced or voluntary artificial system maintenance by way of 'population control', you never address the core problem with humanity and as such, will always end up in the position we are in now. Too many people for everyone to live comfortably.

It's not the number of people, my friend. It's the greed.

it's both. everything makes more sense if the behavioral shift is in the direction of population reduction. Isn't cranking out kids just another form of greed? Isn't the ultimate form of greed?

stevegmu,



I'm sure there will be a pandemic starting in China, which will wipe out half of SE Asia. Problem solved.

about a million problems caused. why don't you just read along for a while before injecting comments. Maybe you'll have something remotely worthwhile to say....



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





Granted a lot of R&D is still needed, but that doesn't inherently make it an impossibility either. Personally, I think we could reach a one-hundred percent recyclable society, it's a matter of developing the right technologies and recycling processes rather than keeping our current pace of wastefulness. It probably would be easier to depopulate the world, but I also think taking human life or limiting human right is going to far for any individual. What if I were in charge of depopulation and I ordered your family exterminated or unable to breed continuing your genetic stock successfully ending your family line?


when, when could we reach this 100% recyclable society? I don't see how increasing our population makes more sense in reducing our current pace of wastefulness than decreasing it. In case you haven't read anything that I've said, I DO NOT ADVOCATE EXTERMINATION AS A FORM OF POPULATION CONTROL!!!! Everytime I get into one of these threads I get attacked for positions that aren't my by a buncha narrow minded breeders who can't even read my own words. Don't let that be you. As for me, you don't need to be in charge of depopulation. I won't be having kids. Why would I? I'm not hellbent on passing on my genes, and whoever I mix em with is only gonna make em worse anyways...
kids=




We can't just start killing people or limiting their rights by imposing ridiculous laws, not when we have other alternatives or the ability to develop other alternatives. It just seems rather barbaric to depopulate the world just so we can keep current societies wastefulness in full swing. Eventually there will come a time where either waste will become to huge a factor to ignore or human population increases again. It sounds like nothing more than someone trying to justify killing billions of people for their own greediness. Would you be one of the people to volunteer dying for the sake of only a few billion people?

it seems barbaric to depopulate the world to keep wastefulness in full swing.....think. Please. There's this thing called logic and you should really give it a go. Thoughtless reproduction is barbaric IMO, and why would smaller populations mean that we would increase wastefulness? It would in fact make it easier to deal with, and why would we just stop looking for cleaner ways to live? I mean serisouly....what are saying?

I never advocated or tried to justify killing billions, and therefor would not volunteer, I've talked about other solutions, you're jumping to conclusions, and I will eat you alive for it if you don't wise up.

This thread has lost it's mind! as usual.
god help me I love this site.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by slipknotrules2009
 





I think we need to start building a masive base on the the moon and start populating the moon, we have the technology to do almost anything and now we know thier is water.


Do I really need to explain how horrible and unrealistic of an idea this is....I'd rather volunteer for extermination than live on the moon....LOL pure insanity in this thread, I love it.



Its time to start build our own Stargates miles long and start traveling through space, they need to stop playing with nukes and wars and work together to build our Stargate Fleets.

BWWWAAAAHAHAHA, yeah that'll solve that population problem, we'll just build some star gates!!! Look bro, if we ever have star gates, it'll be in some distant future were humans have figured out how to maintain reasonable populations and thus have time to focus on cool stuff like zipping thru the universe via star gates.



Then we can searching for new planets for us to live on, stop worrying about money and everyone should be equal no rich no poor if you work and help do things you get pretty much whatever you want might have to wait a month or so but you will get it and food everyone should be fed and given a home.

great dream, you'll never come close with a run away population tho.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
What we really need is a new invention, something like electricty, or the atom, there has to be a new discovery that will gets us closer to the point where we will not need to use any of the earths resources, we are still in the computer age, which is the information age, humanity has to find a way to lap into a new level.



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by thebluemoon
 


according to geniuses like michio kaku, we still haven't even graduated to being a type 1 civilization yet. And even the type one still uses the earths resources. So wemay be a long way off from not needing the earths resources...I mean really who could live like that? Greyliens maybe?

I think the invention or discovery you're looking for is some sort of realization. It's people realizing that traditional lifestyles and big families or any family at all may not be the best idea for everyone. I for one am perfectly ok with never starting a family. People on this site always talk about the elite taking their freedoms away, you do it to yourself. Don't believe me? have a few kids...



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by liquidsmoke206
 



when, when could we reach this 100% recyclable society?


Who knows, it's a good question, but like I said, I understand there is still a lot of R&D needed.


I DO NOT ADVOCATE EXTERMINATION AS A FORM OF POPULATION CONTROL!!!!


Bend over, I'll give you a hand with that stick. In other words, I'm sorry if I failed to read any previous post by you in this thread as if it were the holy word of God.


I won't be having kids. Why would I?


Well, the reason I'm going to have a third due in a couple months is because... I like kids. I see no reason to not have kids just because people like you don't wish to make any meaningful changes. Why should I suffer for your faults? Sounds pretty childish and arrogant to demand everyone should stop having kids just so you can continue wasting resources and space with petty greed.


I never advocated or tried to justify killing billions, and therefor would not volunteer, I've talked about other solutions, you're jumping to conclusions, and I will eat you alive for it if you don't wise up.


Great, so now your advocating cannibalism as a form of population control too?! JK...

Your solution calls for imposing your beliefs upon others by force of law. Yet, I see no real value to imposing someone's dislike for having kids upon those who do enjoy raising their own children. There are other solutions, but like you say... too "narrow minded" to care. My way or the highway right?

[edit on 13-10-2009 by sirnex]



posted on Oct, 13 2009 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Horible yet plausible thought just what if the forced H1N1 Vaccine is engineered to make the victim sterile?




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join