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.

 

Population Control: Do we really have a choice?

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
The self organizing system that has endured for billions of years is suddenly in jeopardy from a tiny speck on a single grain of sand on the infinite pile that is time/space.

You cannot go against nature, because when you do go against nature, that's part of nature too.



[edit on 17-12-2009 by Deny Arrogance]




posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   
I think population control would be a necessity on a long enough time line, logically, we will eventually run out of space, resources etc, if the population continues to multiply.

Perhaps some sort of eugenics program could help, we could cull or sterilize those individuals and bloodlines with below average intelligence and those with a high susceptibility to genetic deseases. Would at least put a dent in population growth.
Might sound a little inhumane but what is necessary or benificial isnt always humane.

Of course we could just keep multiplying until nearly every land mass is encased in concrete, where city planners contemplate the construction of cities over water and people are moving to other planets to repeat the cycle.

OR an object from space or a disease will wipe out the entire human virus before we mutiply to much.
That would alleviate any population concerns.



posted on Dec, 17 2009 @ 08:14 PM
link   
There doesn't need to be population control. What people need is sex education, free, easily-accessed, embarassment-free birth control pills and condoms, and a government that actually gives a damn about improving people's lives and intelligences so they don't find a need to have 6 or 9 children just because 'God told us to go forth and multiply" or any of that trash, and not be afraid of any garbage religion that says it's wrong to have sex without procreation.

Why are we not building taller apartments, building homes on the sea, building underground, underwater, outer space! This is a scam! It's all about power and control! They want to control people, they want to control you.

Seriously, get a brain, you depopulation folks. If we we went from Wright brothers gilder to a trip to the moon in 60 years we sure as hell can build space colonies in 100 years. Ok think about it folks. We still have rocket technology, and we went to the moon, how many years ago, 50? and we're still using rockets! Come on!


I'm pretty sure the 'elites' have technology that can unleash us from the bonds of this Earth, but they won't because, you see, you're just a bunch of slaves to them and you have to stay on Earth because you're easier to control that way.

There is no need for population control! Population control means a world where there are too many boys and too few girls just because you can only have one kid and in gender equality backwards countries boys are preferred over girls. What's the boys going to do when they can't find girls... Export their problems to other groups of peoples?



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by sicklecell


Perhaps some sort of eugenics program could help, we could cull or sterilize those individuals and bloodlines with below average intelligence and those with a high susceptibility to genetic deseases. Would at least put a dent in population growth.



so, what is it, do you wish to eradicate the 'sub-humans' or reduce the population to a given (arbitrary?) level? the first is a qualitative argument, the second is quantitative.

i see the same when it comes to quotas, the excuse in place is to maintain quality, the underlying reason is that some people are apparently too far into micromanagement and would love to see a manageable number of 'units'. the whole con trick reveals that (most of) you don't truly believe what you say, you're just massaging your environment in various ways to see if it's susceptible to your degeneracy. rest assured, the answer is no and will always remain 'no'. your substitutes are worse than the real thing.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Star in a jar says: “Seriously, get a brain, you depopulation folks. If we we went from Wright brothers gilder to a trip to the moon in 60 years we sure as hell can build space colonies in 100 years. Ok think about it folks. We still have rocket technology, and we went to the moon, how many years ago, 50? and we're still using rockets! Come on!

I'm pretty sure the 'elites' have technology that can unleash us from the bonds of this Earth, but they won't because, you see, you're just a bunch of slaves to them and you have to stay on Earth because you're easier to control that way.”

****You think we should just go ahead and infest the whole Universe with our capricious idiocy?

And long lance asks: “so, what is it, do you wish to eradicate the 'sub-humans' or reduce the population to a given (arbitrary?) level? the first is a qualitative argument, the second is quantitative“.

****Eradicating sub-humans would be a big step forward. How about we even out the numbers in 3 main racial categories? Since White folk comprise the smallest percentage, we mandate that each of the other races can have no numbers exceeding the white population. That should put the entire Earth population of humans at a much better, easier to sustain position.
You do believe in Equal, don’t you?

Any race who outbreeds the ability of its land to support it just pays the consequences of overpopulation for that area. Each race must stay in their assigned territory. For the religious, their book says that God created the races and the bounds for their habitat.
They were separated by Oceans, desserts and mountains. They were not supposed to mix.
And remember God looked at his Creation and said it was Good. It was your so-called Free Will that messed it up.



posted on Dec, 18 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 





so, what is it, do you wish to eradicate the 'sub-humans' or reduce the population to a given (arbitrary?) level? the first is a qualitative argument, the second is quantitative.


Why must it be one or the other?
I was thinking along the lines of killing two birds with one stone.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 05:28 AM
link   
I think were already at the brink of what current technology, food supplys and natural resources can support.

I would support adopting a chinese style one child per couple or even stop reproduction all together for Ten years untill we get a handle on the problems we all face now. Were not going to get anywhere if our problems keep growing with the population.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone



You do believe in Equal, don’t you?

Any race who outbreeds the ability of its land to support it just pays the consequences of overpopulation for that area. Each race must stay in their assigned territory....



why include artificial caps (and trades ?
) to an already sufficient solution? if you limit migration to cases where mutual consent exists, there will be much fewer problems within an instant. Note that fewer problems means fewer forcible 'solutions', reducing the elites' power. the resulting conflicts will inevitably run their course now, with all these ever more aggressive minorities within western countries gaining political influence. i don't pretend i can predict the future, but i understand one thing: the western people brought it onto themselves, they let the elites take control, then they watched them undermine their world from within. no amount of hostility towards what you seem to perceive as the undeserved 'winners' of these developments will change that and nothing can be derived from externalizing a lack of the means of self-determination.


i find it quite funny how you believe that swallowing distractive PR hook line and sinker will somehow change anything let alone help - but hey, keep striking at the branches while the root grows unmolested, at least you'll be busy.

PS: i think you implicitly answered my question, it seems you don't care why you want to destroy people, there are plenty of (real or imagined) reasons apparently. i hope you don't mind that this netizen doesn't find it all very convincing.
======================================



Originally posted by sicklecell
Why must it be one or the other?
I was thinking along the lines of killing two birds with one stone.


these two are really very different, can't you see that? one reason is centered around the environment (the cap), the other is about eugenics.

i think i just want to know if you'd keep happily harping depop after all alledged 'unworthy people' have been eliminated or not. it's really an immaterial question though, because worthiness lies in the eye of the beholder and the standards will be set so that the desired result is achieved.

PPS: can't you not tell that you are arguing in favor of your own execution here? are you in a position of power? will you be hammer or anvil? heck, i won't pretend to be capable of surviving your little dys-topian world for any amount of time, but what on earth would you, the proponents expect from it, except being led to the slaughter like a useful-idiot sheeple?

[edit on 2009.12.19 by Long Lance]



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 




these two are really very different, can't you see that? one reason is centered around the environment (the cap), the other is about eugenics.


Yes the reason is very different for each but the results, if done right can be similar. I am in favour of de-pop first and formost for the natural environment, i dont know how many humans the earth could support, but i think its best we dont reach a point of infestation (and if our numbers do continue to rise we will eventually run out of space, resources etc it is illogical to think we can multiply without consiquences).
The eugenics angle would come in when deciding who exactly would be culled, environmental de-population would need atleast 2 billion removed from the earth, to be implemented alongside eugenics all that needs to be done is remove those with below average intelligence, predisposition to genetic deseases, people genetically predisposed to obesity etc. simple.



can't you not tell that you are arguing in favor of your own execution here


Of course.
But as the saying goes, if you want to make an omelette you gotta break a few eggs.

And as to what i expect would happen as a result of this de-population, well besides that there would be less humans overall, that cant be a negative really, i would hope the eugenics side of it could curb this trend of accepting and embracing ignorence, apathy and stupidity that is becoming common place in society.
I'd expect, overall, that this would work for the better of our species.



posted on Dec, 19 2009 @ 07:00 PM
link   
Where did I say anything about "cap & trade"?

Limit migration..yes. Actually I'm for halting it altogether.

We didn't bring any of this on ourselves. We were all just being good law abiding citizens.
The ballot box doesn't work. No matter who you vote into office, the same people control him.
He can only dole out crumbs that make you think he is on your side, while he gives the big slices of the cake to the corporations et al.

You say:
"i find it quite funny how you believe that swallowing distractive PR hook line and sinker will somehow change anything let alone help - but hey, keep striking at the branches while the root grows unmolested, at least you'll be busy. "
Again, where did I say this?



posted on Dec, 20 2009 @ 09:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
Where did I say anything about "cap & trade"?

Limit migration..yes. Actually I'm for halting it altogether.

We didn't bring any of this on ourselves. We were all just being good law abiding citizens.
The ballot box doesn't work.



it took you / us how long to find out? tsk tsk. as you can probably i'm in favor of solving more immediate issues first, such as reclaiming the world from the elites, while i consider global overpopulation (for now) a more esoteric problem. resource use is another matter entirely, but as long as Siberia remains empty, no significant efforts have been made to ameliorize deserts and distribution as opposed to production is a primary concern, i can hardly subscribe to the paradigm.

i apologize for my cap&trade reference, it was a little too tempting, but it's not entirely fabricated, a total population limit is a 'cap', after all.


How about we even out the numbers in 3 main racial categories? Since White folk comprise the smallest percentage, we mandate that each of the other races can have no numbers exceeding the white population.


i understand how you arrived at these categories, but i'm hard pressed to follow the logic. if human beings were nuclear weapons, such idea of 'balance' might be arrived at through some mental acrobatics, but a quick peek at a world map will tell you what's wrong with that proposal. besides, why would all groups want to follow the smallest? what if one went extinct?, do the others have to follow? i truely wonder how one can possibly believe that these ideas have any merit.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JaxonRoberts
Population Control: Do we really have a choice?


Yes we have a choice. Population control will happen eventually either by nature or by us.

I have no doubt that there are sound natural mechanisms in place to control a species population when it oversteps it's natural place (new diseases, increasing infertility rates, famines, increasing natural disasters...hurricanes, tsunamis etc. or even simply our waring nature) that can and will cull the human population.

It could be noted that the last time the earths population took a step backwards was during the "great plague".

I think the more palatable choice would be simply making less children. But that gets complicated fast if it becomes actual policy.



posted on Dec, 21 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
So you want to see horizone to horizon people?
You are not doing the logistics.


Um... To accomplish this "horizone to horizon people," you would have to have a billion times more people on this planet than we do now.

ALL the mass of those now living can fit in the volume of one small side canyon at the grand canyon - not even close to filling the canyon proper.

If you examine this fact, you can understand that ALL the mass, spread out (clumping as socioeconomics might create) on the vastness of this planet would be lost completely in a statistical analysis.

So... Logistics are foremost here in consideration.



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 09:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Conclusion
 


your just an ignerant person that only thinks of them self like most of the human population witch is the reason why we are over populated to begin with.its not hard to see the effects of our population look around you nature is disopearing before our eyes. traffic has gone up , more deceases have grown along with us, must be natures way of trying to slow us down. but we come back with some defence to protect our self destructing lives humans are the route to all the the worlds problems how could you even question are we really over populated or are there any affects from it. people need to start realizing its a serious problem as our population grows we create more animal collisions in turn we blame nature for getting in our way but its just the increasingly growing population that the wildlife cant keep up with as we race through our man made roads through the animals home that we continue to develop for our homes and wipe it off the face of the earth for good hopefully this makes you think about whats really going on in this world



posted on Jan, 1 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Helig
 


i agree i think we should have shear force because as humans we wont make this change on our own until its to late. people just need to look forward and stop thinking about pore me. there will be no nature for anyone to enjoy because it will be lost forever under our buildings and roadways.in my area since 911 happen my area north of new york city has gotten developed like crazy already you see fiewer deer numbers because road crossing are like instant death for them and many other wildlife i am an outdoorsman and love fishing and hunting but now with all the development going on theres fiewer deer and open land to hunt it comes down to us im a 25 year old man and i have made the choice that i wont have chilldren because of the over populated earth we live in already. i would love to but theres somthing out there much bigger then me that is much more important.



posted on Jan, 2 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amaterasu

Originally posted by OhZone
So you want to see horizone to horizon people?
You are not doing the logistics.


Um... To accomplish this "horizone to horizon people," you would have to have a billion times more people on this planet than we do now.

ALL the mass of those now living can fit in the volume of one small side canyon at the grand canyon - not even close to filling the canyon proper.

If you examine this fact, you can understand that ALL the mass, spread out (clumping as socioeconomics might create) on the vastness of this planet would be lost completely in a statistical analysis.

So... Logistics are foremost here in consideration.


Your logic about putting all the world's people in any one spot is totally falacious. The only way that would work would be if they were all dead.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join