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.

 

I support the so-called depopulation agenda

page: 2
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Have you gone nuts to support such abomination?!!!

I do agree with your view on 'utilization and distribution'. But that's not the fault of humanity, but the fault of their elected representatives and their incompetence.

The value of human capital is the highest resource a nation can ever have, for intelligence is the key to progress and evolution, and every human being, no matter the differences, rich or poor have it in them IF THEY ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY!

Rather than to destroy, why dont we expand our minds instead to create?!! Have we as a human race gone soft and now addled in the brains to consider utilitarianism instead of egalitarianism? Are we to regress back to the jungles our barbarian ancestors once lived and ruled?

Where will the line be drawn before we watch those whom we love DENIED the chance to procreate and a CHANCE for a better life - a human right since the dawn of civilisation and a resolutely defended right for generations?!!!

[edit on 5-1-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]




posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by hikix
 


Yeah really smart , you think that's alright to put taxes on KIDS ?



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I completely agree with the OP to a certain extent. It's not really the population explosion, its what the population does to our environment.

We can not sustain this world by dumping chemicals, trash, wiping out species of plants, animals and the insects. All living things were made for a reason. We humans have harmed the natural process of the very thing that sustains us. Earth and all of its inhabitants!

I don't have and never plan to have children......but yes, I would step up to the front of line and be sterilised. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the betterment of the whole.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by brilab45
I completely agree with the OP to a certain extent. It's not really the population explosion, its what the population does to our environment.

We can not sustain this world by dumping chemicals, trash, wiping out species of plants, animals and the insects. All living things were made for a reason. We humans have harmed the natural process of the very thing that sustains us. Earth and all of its inhabitants!

I don't have and never plan to have children......but yes, I would step up to the front of line and be sterilised. Sometimes we have to make sacrifices for the betterment of the whole.


i think human life is more worth then life of insects , don't you ???

c'mon if that is your choice make but don't make decisions of other people



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


And if we don't manage to breed some super-intelligent kids to solve all our problems, we've just made them worse by breeding like rabbits trying to make them? Genius. It's like one massive crap shoot.

The world simply can not continue to have such a large population of people. As countries get more and more industrialised, the strain will also increase. Sure, we *could* fit billions more people on the planet, but the planet will just become one massive farm, covered with crops, cows, chickens, and pigs. The fish in the seas will only be the edible ones, and the only plants will be edible. Elephants will be extinct, as will tigers, pandas, and every other animal we don't eat.

That's the future you want. Brilliant.

We need to educate people as to WHY having loads of kids is a bad idea. It seems people just really don't understand. People keep spitting out kids, completely unaware that for every kid that's born the chances of that kid living in a healthy works is diminished. The future of that kid is put in jeopardy by their very existence. People talk about carbon footprints, but the smallest carbon footprint is none at all.

You seem to be asking for people to continue breeding so much that massive swathes of the population will die from hunger and disease. That, to you, seems more humane than teaching people why having too many kids is a bad idea. Brilliant logic! Ha!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by PunksNotDead

Originally posted by brilab45


i think human life is more worth then life of insects , don't you ???

c'mon if that is your choice make but don't make decisions of other people


Are you kidding me! Its scientifically proven that the bee population is dwindling. Bee's pollinate our crops. Without them... we better come up with a real high tech solution or surely billions of us will be starved out. Please think beyond your over exaggerated human life. Humans are a small PART of the world. We don't own it or make all the rules. Mother nature can be a wicked teacher.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
reply to post by Maslo
 


Have you gone nuts to support such abomination?!!!

I do agree with your view on 'utilization and distribution'. But that's not the fault of humanity, but the fault of their elected representatives and their incompetence.

The value of human capital is the highest resource a nation can ever have, for intelligence is the key to progress and evolution, and every human being, no matter the differences, rich or poor have it in them IF THEY ARE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY!

Rather than to destroy, why dont we expand our minds instead to create?!! Have we as a human race gone soft and now addled in the brains to consider utilitarianism instead of egalitarianism? Are we to regress back to the jungles our barbarian ancestors once lived and ruled?

Where will the line be drawn before we watch those whom we love DENIED the chance to procreate and a CHANCE for a better life - a human right since the dawn of civilisation and a resolutely defended right for generations?!!!

[edit on 5-1-2010 by SeekerofTruth101]


The point is, it does not matter who`s fault it is.
In underdeveloped countries, for every child which is given an oportunity or chance, there are many which are not simply because their family does not have the resources to do so.
For them, and therefore for the society in general, it would be better to "trade" their potential to have children for some wealth from the state.

Quality over quantiy. In this, I am an utilitarian.

If my loved one would live on welfare, I would agree with him/her having their right to procreate denied. It is not abasic human right IMHO. It should be a privilege, because it brings responsibilities.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by l77way
so you`ve fallen for the propaganda,the world is not over populated in the slightest,you could fit 7 billion in australia with ease,mind you it`s hot enough there allready without a concrete jungle


Yeah good plan.
6.9 billion at least would not survive the first month and having destroyed what was there for the ones left.
Also, i hate to be the grammar nazi but thats just terrible.
If you are going to make uninformed and stupid comments at least make the presentation decent.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Agree with you 110% on this. We have a built in primordial instinct to protect each other at all cost. It used to mean our survival. Now it just means that we try and save each and every human being on the planet. People get sick. People die. Every living creature on the face of this planet lives by these rules. It's our belief that we are above this natural order that jeopardizes our species. I will be the first to say this - If I get sick let me die.

We do population control on every other specie that comes to our attention. Domestic animals get spayed and neutered. Wild game populations are controlled by the swelling and constriction of hunting seasons yet we can't manage our own numbers. Everything on this planet is here for a reason. Disease and viruses are a part of it. I'm not advocating genocide. I'm not advocating forced sterilization (even though the feed the children commercials piss me off.. STOP HAVING KIDS IF YOU CANT FEED THEM STUPIDS!!) What I am advocating is that people need to be more realistic with health care. We as a society are more preoccupied with the length of a lifespan than we are with the quality of it and that's sad.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pazcat
 


i dont have to post a presentation because anybody with common sense can see that this planet is not overpopulated and that people on this rediculous thread wanting population control/reduction is a abomination to mankind, and should do the world a favour and sacrifice themselves if they care so much on saving mother earth, which really means saving more resources for the people at the top of the food chain



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
We in the west are already depopulating. In Canada, the average family has 1.77 children. I would imagine it's similiar in the US. I"ve also heard the same for Britain, but I'm not sure about the rest of Europe.
So I have to wonder how it is we're going to be able to tell people on the other side of the world how many kids they can have.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
We in the west are already depopulating. In Canada, the average family has 1.77 children. I would imagine it's similiar in the US. I"ve also heard the same for Britain, but I'm not sure about the rest of Europe.
So I have to wonder how it is we're going to be able to tell people on the other side of the world how many kids they can have.


Yes, the developed countries have the opposite problem. That is one more reason to support reasonable population "control", because it means that the ratio of wealthy people to poor people is diminishing.
Solutions? Increase the number of wealthy kids, and/or decrease the number of poor kids.
(of course, by decreasing poor people`s incentive to procreate, not by violence or forcing someone!
)

What is so wrong with that?


[edit on 5-1-2010 by Maslo]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goatflesh Gnosis


Personally, from a cold hard objective view, it makes a lot of sense to me. The world IS overpopulated, whether you want to admit it or not. Somewhere between 1 and 2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day and go to bed hungry every day. Most of the rest of the 6-point-whatever billion out there are not much better off.



[edit on 5-1-2010 by Goatflesh Gnosis]


The world is mot overpopulated, that's precisely what they want you to think, and if you live in a city it might very well look like that is the case. Go outside of the city and look at the seemingly limitless amount of land. Every man Woman and child could fit on Australia with a quarter acre block of land, enough to grow a lot of their own food. People aren't starving because of overpopulation, people are starving because the world is deliberately managed this way.

width="425" height="344"> "http://www.youtube.com/v/fwzCR7yZf84&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344">



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Watch this
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Goatflesh Gnosis
 


I agree on many levels. We need people responsible enough to NOT have children.

The problem is from day 1 it is beaten into our heads that life is a miracle and that there is nothing more wonderful than bringing another life into the world. It's part of the American dream, EVERYONE wants their 2.2 kids. Even the biologically incapable (people who are sterile, homosexual couples), want to have children.



George Carlin used to call it "Pumping out a unit". The truth is we cannot sustain these numbers of people for very long, 6 Billion is just about our limit. Soon there will be too many of us and rather than spending billions to terraform Mars or build colonies on the moon we're still cutting NASAs spending... We're not very smart apparently.

I think we have maybe 200 years before it becomes unsustainable and we start dying out naturally.

Just say no, to having children



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by someguy420
 


And Australia wouldn't work any more. There would be no clean water, all the animals would die, and the desert would be destroyed. We *can* fit billions more on the planet, but if we do, the planet will stop looking like the planet we currently call home, and look like Coruscant from the Star Wars movies. The only animals and plants alive would be ones that sustain us. We wouldn't have room for anything else..

Population control is the future. It has to be, otherwise we (and our kids) won't have a future.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
There is already such a system in place. Three hots and a cot, free medical, no reproduction,etc.
It's called prison. Is that how you want to live?

[edit on 5-1-2010 by xizd1]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by davesidious
 


take a look on google earth.DOES THE PLANET LOOK OVER POPULATED TO YOU!!!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Is the world over populated?? Or do we just need to learn how to use our resources better?

How can you say that because people live on a $1 a day, they all need to die.

Guess what, 200 years ago everyone in the USA lived off a dollar a day. Hate to break it to you, not everyone in the world needs MONEY to LIVE.

You ever heard of live stock? Yeah, you can breed them and walk around like a nomad feeding your livestock. Then you cut them up and eat them.

Or ever heard of seeds? You plant them and they grow stuff, and also make more seeds.

Not everybody needs "money" to survive, so saying that because half the world lives on a dollar a day doesn't mean that they should die.

We just need to make more fresh water and use technologies better (like water fuel cells).

The world isn't over populated, we're just "doing it wrong".

The OP has been brainwashed by their propaganda.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by l77way
 


I Do believe that you have it bas ackward. The problem right now is the poor marginal people of the world population who are reproducing like rabbits; while the more advanced and superior cultures are seeing their birthrates fall. The problem is not that there are too many people in the world, but rather that there are too many nonproductive people in the world trying to live off a dwindling producing class. The more advanced and productive nations of the world can no longer afford to spend the monies, time, and effort to continue supporting these drains on the world economies. Left to their own devices, and to the balancing influences of nature these populations would naturally go into decline as they should.
Reports I have seen say that 1 in 4 people living in some African nations have aids. 1 in 7 lives in abject poverty, and suffers from disease, malnutrition, lack of clean water or sanitation. The industrialized, high tech nations of the world have spend Trillions trying to support and help these people and the only thing that they have accomplished is to make sure that the populations of those living a marginal existence has increased.
I say we should look to supporting and encouraging the producers to multiply and allow nature and Darwin to take its toll on the parasites that live off others efforts and charity.



new topics

top topics



 
33
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join