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.


Population Control: Do we really have a choice?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:25 PM
I went and did a little mountain climbing today up Camelback Mountain in Phoenix, AZ, and one of the things that really troubled me when I was taking in the view was the amount of pollution that was just hanging in the air here in the Valley of the Sun:

This got me to thinking. When I was a kid there were only 3.3 billion people. In 1999 we passed the 6 billion mark, and now we are over 6.8 billion and growing. Current trends say that there will be over 9.4 billion by the year 2050. Source

Exactly when is enough going to be enough? When will we run out of resources to feed, shelter and clothe the entire human population? Exactly at what point will just our sheer numbers be too much for the world's ecosystems to bear? How many other species will we drive into extinction before we finally wake up, and will it be too late at that point to save ourselves (if it's not already)? Will we procreate ourselves into extinction, or will there come a point where we will have no choice but to follow China's lead and limit couples to only one child per couple?

Now I know that many will say that to limit such a thing is a violation of their basic human rights, but do they have the right to procreate us into non-existance? Or worse, into a world like that of the movie Soylent Green?

When I was only a teenager in the 70's, I made the decision to not have more than two children, because I saw this coming when we crossed the 4 billion mark (a decision I kept as I only have one child). I look at having children as not a right, but a solemn duty and resposibility, but I am one of the few. So many children are 'boo-boos', so many are raised by daycare centers and babysitters, so many are... well, just so damn many!

It's coming, folks, make no doubt about it. Only two possibilities exist: We start limiting the number of humans on the planet, or we go the way of the T-Rex... The choice may already be out of our hands...

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:50 PM
Of course we have a choice.

We can kill or surreptitiously sterilize vast numbers, or we can enforce pollution controls and learn from the countries whose populations are decreasing to find the cause.

You might have noticed fears that non whites are reproducing faster than whites are. This is not a plot to out-breed whites, it's simply an inevitable result of the whites, (on average,) being better educated, having better health care, better survival rates for their children and better aged pension plans.

Instead of fighting in other countries, we should be helping countries improve these aspects of their living conditions. Educated women with careers have fewer children, especially when they can be reasonably confident of the children they do have surviving, and of not needing children to care for them in their old age.

[edit on 16/12/09 by Kailassa]

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:53 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Dear JaxonRoberts

100% agreed now how do we reduce the population or indeed just keep to the present level which in my opinion is way too many??

Who will make and enforce the decision??

Why do we have such a high population now??

I think I know but let see what you think.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:57 PM
My libertarian side is now at war with my other side which says people should be required to get a license before procreating.

That aside, we DO have a choice.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 09:58 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

i think perhaps rather than working on population 'control' we could work on ethics that extend beyond simply the human sphere and incorporate the natural sphere. however i am not sure that humans, generally speaking, are ready for developing such an ethic.

the bottom line is that we live in a physically closed and finite system. exponential human growth will either be check by the collapse of the system that supports it and thus the human population or the human population will chose to adopt practices that prevent such a collapse and ensure the indefinite well being of our species.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:08 PM
Eventually, if it hasn't happened already, a virus will be developed that attacks people with dark skin or a particular genetic trait. They will get sick and die and there will be plenty of resources left for the master race.

The ranting of a crazed paranoid?.....we shall see.

Or perhaps Malthusian theory will kick in and save the Master race the trouble.

Merry Christmas everyone

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:11 PM
That's why IF we decide to have kids, my partner and I are stopping at one. It makes it rough though when you go out and see dead# parents with like 7 kids just creating more mess. Ugh.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:18 PM

Originally posted by MAC269
100% agreed now how do we reduce the population or indeed just keep to the present level which in my opinion is way too many??

The Chinese model will work, as long as we don't also adopt their cultural attachment to male children as superior. One child per couple will reduce the number significantly within a few generations.

Who will make and enforce the decision??

Since it would have to be done by law... Oh, crap... And people think Universal Healthcare is socialism...

Why do we have such a high population now??

For some (the religious), it's there God given right and duty to "be fruitful and multiply", as well as their stance against birth control and abortion rights for those who do not wish to have children. For others it's a lack of responsible thinking, forgoing birth control and just letting the chips fall where they may. I find it hard not to vomit in my mouth every time I hear the phrase "My Baby Mama", and it now crosses all racial barriers...

I think I know but let see what you think.

Now you know...

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Interesting thoughts JR! Many people claim that the world can support billions more people but I tend to differ. In theory, sure, it's possible - but in reality you have the developing nations like India and China all wanting to become westernized consumers and therein lays the problem. The earth can barely support the insatiable appetite of the west, let alone another few billion.

There would need to be a radical shift in lifestyle for everyone if the earth was to survive that many people. Especially with our current (outdated) politics, industries & infrastructure.

In short, it ain't gonna happen. War is a great lever for keeping those in the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. This Star Trek Utopia where everyone is fed, clothed, housed and educated is simply unrealistic. It's too hard... too expensive! Especially if we're talking more than 9 billion people. It's much easier & cheaper to bomb!

Personally, I think someone needs to hit the reset switch.

Merry Christmas Everyone!


posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:35 PM
This myth of "running out of space" that drives so many to question the validity of population control is, as is the global warming nonsense, something totaly based on emotions and very little fact. Here in my state there are literally hundreds of thousands of acres of uninhabited land. Period. We humans are simply not over populating the earth. Of course you will see polution in the air above a highly populated city but that doesnt mean the world is falling apart. It only means that where you were in a small part of the world there is a high concentration of people living there. Thats all. Nothing more, there are vast areas in the world that are void of any development or humans, where nature is un spoiled. The moment we allow the few in control to dictate our ability to have children we are fools...especially when the reason to control our reproductive rights is based on a lie.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:38 PM
Hmmm. Population control. Wonder who would be alive today if it had been a law before all of us where born? You? Me? Now listen to what your saying. You want to deny a future lives, to cling to your own. That sounds not just a little selfish. What is so special about your own life that makes it more special than any other life? Past, Present, or Future. Our time of life is nothing when comparing it to the life of the universe. I think I have heard of someone else who thought much the same way. His name was Hitler. No matter what the reason to want a reduction in world wide population because it is a hinder to the way you want to live your own life is wrong. But if it ever happens would you be the one to step up and say you will be the first to end you and your families lineage? I would not. Call it instinct, evolution, or just your God given right, anything you want to call it, but as we each fight for our own lives when faced with death we nonetheless fight on. That says any life is worth fighting for by someone. So I disagree with any notion of population control and look forward to having more people to get along with. We will have to get along after a while, we will be shoulder to shoulder.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:47 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

well as far as your pollution concern, I live in the East Valley and planes were Chem-trailing the city all morning today and so I think the poor visibility has more to do with that then the pollution.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 10:49 PM
Where's the Conspiracy?

Nice opening post.

The world population has more than doubled in my lifetime and yes I contemplate on that fact often.

edit: link fixed

[edit on 16 Dec 09 by Gools]

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Rockstrongo37
This myth of "running out of space" that drives so many to question the validity of population control is, as is the global warming nonsense, something totaly based on emotions and very little fact. Here in my state there are literally hundreds of thousands of acres of uninhabited land.

We can't say whether it is a myth or not. There may be thousands of acres of uninhabited, pristine land... but perhaps the earth needs that land the way it is in order to combat the human footprint. When is 1 more, 1 too many? Truth is, none of us really know beyond guessing.

One thing you did not address was, are all these extra people going to be poor, or are they going to live with all the trappings of the first world? Who's going to pay for that? How is the earth going to cope with the industries needed to support those lifestyles?

Do you have some of answers/solutions that make this larger population you envisage sustainable/viable.


[edit on 16/12/09 by InfaRedMan]

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:04 PM
do we need to be controlled by laws or do we need to do it on our own .interesting question.
Africa continues to have a birth and death rate which is out of whack with the amount of food that they can grow.
other countries have overpopulated due to the economic boom taking place .
the rice producing nations just announced earlier that they could no longer supply the worlds need .
in most industrialized nations our children and the drug culture are starting their own population boom -the problem is we have the pill and other means and still they want to grow up and play house way to young so how do we teach them to be responsible with their acts and actions.or are they afraid that they won`t grow up due to the military`s weapons of mass destruction in their arsenals [detaunt what a joke]
we are eating our selves out of house and home in every nation and we waste so much food -look at the plates in a restaurant and see just how much we throw out-smaller portions would help.
we have raped the fish out of the oceans world wide look at the cod fishing on the grand banks they collapsed about 10 years ago to over fishing and they have never come back due to us .
we have all of these forms of birth control and we don`t give it out to stop this growth it is all about money and greed and the cost of our future is oh how little
we have all of these high-rise apartments that we could use to grow food on the roofs and we dont ,it would cut down on the pollution and save heat as it would act as an insulator on the roofs
our faiths screaming out more people to feed our coffers .

and the outcome for the path that we chose is what a world full of countries that are nothing but cities with no land to grow on no water left that is drinkable -think of the steel cities of the future where that is all that you can see as far as the eye can see.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:05 PM
It's a simple choice really: do you want freedom or not. The only way population control will work in the western world and specificaly the US is by sheer force and brutal enforcement. Forcible chemical castration would be the norm and not the exception in such a world. But the larger question I have for population control proponents is this: how would you feel if someone started telling YOU how to live your life so that it would benefit them? That is in essence what would be happening; forcing your will upon others. In such a scenario it becomes inevitable that further oppressions will follow because the slope is far too steep to tread on safely.

Posted Via ATS Mobile:

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:08 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Hey there Jaxon, I more or less agree with you on having to have some sort of population control measures put into place. Having kids is not a right, it is a privilege. Nothing annoys me more than people who have kids as a result of an accident. Given the amount of birth control options out there these days, there is no excuse to have kids if that is something you can't afford to have - and I don't bother with the excuse of you find ways to make ends meet reasoning. People who can't afford to have kids end up having kids and they expect the govt to help them out which means that people who don't have kids have to help out the irresponsible. I have zero sympathy for anyone who falls into the category of having too many kids and expects help from everyone else to help take care of them. I don't care what the reason is, practice birth control or else. I realize I'm starting to ramble on here, there are plenty of other factors related to why people have children and I don't feel like going into detail considering that it may offend some people.

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:10 PM
reply to post by Rockstrongo37

And what happens when we run out of available farm land? We can only possibly grow x amount of food, which is enough to feed y amount of people. Then there is the ecosystem question. Perhaps you should give this question a great deal more thought before you tell us what is myth and what is not...

Just sayin'...

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by JaxonRoberts

Ok, well first of all, even though you didn't say anything about it, that pollution that you see is NOT atmospheric CO2. CO2 is not part of smog/pollution.

As for your question if there is ever going to be a time when we run out of resources? Well, if the Socialist/Globalist plan to sequester atmospheric CO2 occurs, then you can be certain that there will be less harvests, and much less productive harvests. Not to mention that with less atmospheric CO2 trees, plants, and all green biomass use more water to get nutrients, which leaves less potable water for animals, and humans.

So the Socialist/GLobalist plan to sequester atmospheric CO2 will cause massive starvation around the world, not to mention that it will be the worse environmental problem EVER caused by mankind.

As for what can we do to supply more food, and water for the growing populations? Allow for atmospheric CO2 levels to increase more, meanwhile sequestering the real culprits of pollution like nitrogen oxides (NOx) sulfur dioxide (SO2) methane (CH4) peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN) Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and aldehydes (RCHO)

It is safe to sequester those gases which form the smog that plagues big cities in the U.S. and most of these are the gases that cause health problems.

Also nitrous oxides/nitrogen oxide as a greenhouse gas has 298 times more impact per unit weight than atmospheric CO2. Sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxydes combining with carbon produce acid rain. If you sequester sulfur oxide, and nitrogen oxydes there won't be any acid rain.

Those are the gases that the Earth, and humans are better off without, but atmospheric CO2, just like carbon, is needed for life on Earth to thrive, including the environment which benefits with atmospheric CO2 levels at at least 1,200 ppm to 1,500 ppm which will solve the problems of not enough food, and not enough water for us humans.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

posted on Dec, 16 2009 @ 11:13 PM
reply to post by InfaRedMan

Again you are proving my point exactly, that the over population myth is based on emotion and not fact. Everything you are say is based on theory, opinion, and emotion. Where are the numbers that show that our planet is unable to sustain more people?

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in