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.

 

World Depopulation Plan On Fox News!!!

page: 8
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by HistoryIsOnlyHisStory
 
What a ridiculous moron this fool is. The ENTIRE population of the globe could stand shoulder to shoulder and fit within Jacksonville County Florida.

If it's "crowded" where you live then..

MOVE.



BS I highly doubt your conclusion. I can guarantee you that your conclusion is hogwash. By your "logical" thought you are forgeting over weight people in that equation of yours.
Do the math, there is more than enough room left over for overweight people.

But for the sake of argument I agree with you, then lets be extremelly conservative.

The ENTIRE population of the world can fit into the STATE of Florida.


Aggggain, if it's crowded where you happen to live,..

MOVE somewhere else.

Don't for a second buy into this BS from the NWO that there needs to be population control, it's ludicrous.


LOL you forgot to enter MASS into that equation of yours.




posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by HistoryIsOnlyHisStory
 


This is part of the reason why I love Fox News...that reporter was kicking that's man's behind....


I am TIRED of every ahole that claims "there are too many people we got to do something about it" yet they don't volunteer themselves... or throw their behinds down a deep hole... nooo, they want SOMEONE ELSE to sacrifice themselves...
that fat bastard should be one of the first to volunteer himself...he shouldn't even be allowed to procreate, and the same goes for every ahole in the world who wants to "depopulate the world"....


What we need is to have the world depopulated from the aholes who want to depopulate the world.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by ROBL240
 


i nominate you, and those who voted for you to volunteer yourselves to "save the species and allow more resources to be used for future generations"... Lead by example right?...

BTW, which form of "depopulation" do you like/want? The Socialist/Commnunist type, which btw eugenics even by Hitler was/is a Socialist idea, and which many world leaders have picked up because they think they are higher, and better than anyone else and they can choose who should live, and who shouldn't...

Capitalism, at least true Capitalism, is all about expansion, and growth, meanwhile Socialism/Communism is all about "rationing/depopulation aka to have only desirables living in society"...



[edit on 13-6-2010 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


What a clearly uneducated, irrational post.

You focus on emotion because you cannot argue fact.

Evidently you enjoy human suffering since you want to perpetuate more of it.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


How do you propose we hydrate 10 or 20 billion people?


There is already low energy, desalination technology. It will literally purify the water out of any liquid product, including urine. It is fairly low cost, as well.




Energy?


Look, i am no engineer. But I do know that nanogenerators are a promising energy creation technology, despite being ignored. Imagine using a building material that contains billions of tiny, nanosized generators creating current by the vibration of a switch tuned to ambient energy, such as noise, RF, or microwave.

Expensive up front? sure....but pays itself off relatively quickly.



Food?


See the above two. Hydroponic food is better, healthier, and within reach if the first two points are taken seriously at all.




Transportation?


That is the smallest of issues. more people means more folks to build the increased infrastructure needs.




House?


you build more infrstructure as it is needed.




And who would cover the cost of your little plans?


what plans? i mention no plans. i am just playing devils advocate. i have argued both sides of this issue in this thread, strangely enough.
if a point pops up tha ti think needs addressing, i address it.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by HistoryIsOnlyHisStory
 


that lady is why i can't stand FOX news...



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The only retarded belief here is the one where ignorant people think the planet can support more and more people.

It simply cant.

A R B I T R A R Y


Where are yous STATISTICS to support this claim???



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pellevoisin
I am quite serious. If they think there is a problem -- which there isn't -- then let them off themselves, take their friends and family with them, and contribute concretely toward the goal which they regard with more fevered devotion than a holy roller in a tent revival.

Why not? After all, the only "crime" that cannot be prosecuted is suicide. The closest they can come with prosecution is for attempted suicide, which means literally that the attempt had failed. But when you consider that your suggestion also involves mass murder then suicide, it would be presumed that the final act of suicide should be planned to the extent that there would be no way to fail & face prosecution...that's only common sense.

The only real losers would be the fund-raising court-machine would miss out on some serious income, should such a crime actually succeed. I mean, really, the next of kin of those who were murdered before the suicide would have no one to sue...



Originally posted by -PLB-
The population will eventually regulate itself. Although it will not be pretty if we let nature do its work.

But if over-population of this planet really does become a concern, rest assured that Mother Nature will balance the scales...If the People, on the whole, don't see it as a concern, then we should be looking at our governments...After all, with all of the governments interfering with the free market system, they are the ones who handle "resource distribution!" After the governmental ideas of distribution have had effect for a while, they can turn overpopulation into a public concern by pointing out massive starvation, poverty, disease, etc has been getting worse...When all the while, the government has been stopping vital supplies from reaching areas that the free market would have caught already!

When the government taxes people into poverty, charity for others take a big hit too! It's hard to contribute to charity when the government makes personal survival & prosperity more difficult!

It has absolutely nothing to do with the "laws of man" or how some people take a self-proclaimed authority to "prosecute" other people. These are "the Laws of Nature as Set Forth by the Creator"...Wow, that phrase certainly rings a bell!



Originally posted by ROBL240
Depopulation would be beneficiary for the species as a whole in that sustainable resources would be plentiful in the future, and in the event of a global catastrophe the few left would have strong enough genes to carry on the Human race.

A much bigger threat to "sustainable development" of our natural resources originates with governments that allow big corporations to strip the world naked in their pursuit of money & profit...A few examples include: the (literally) millions of tons of toxic gases being pumped into the air; industrial wastes that are dumped just "out of sight" & soaks into the water tables, rivers, lakes & oceans; the Exxon/Valdez spill, BP spill & nearly countless other accidents (& sometimes deliberate actions) that never make the news & we never even know about; rampant deforestation of the Amazon Basin & other such areas...etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

The list literally goes on & on. If the government would just get their fingers out of the free market, such corporations would NOT go unregulated, ya' know...The free market has its own regulations, such as public opinion that could effectively boycott the worst companies & put them out of business, the insurance underwriters already impose their own regulations concerning risk-managment & a whole host of other "natural forces" on the free market system. In short, letting the government do anything at all, short of actually providing for legal punishments to corps that violate the law & harm the public, is part of the problem.


Originally posted by Mr Poopra
The average college educated couple might have a kid, maybe two, after years of debating and deciding on how to pay for college etc. Poor people and immigrants are multiplying at an absolutely alarming rate. And before anyone starts, i'm an immigrant myself. A LEGAL one. It might be very politically incorrect to do so, but this needs to be addressed for the good of everyone.

And I commend you for immigrating legally. The USA accepts more legal immigrants per year than the next 5 or 6 nations in the world that take in legal immigration at all.
Still, I agree with you that the government should really only inform the people, not regulate against us...Let the schools take up sex education again & let communities organize for educational purposes such as planned parenthood. The only counter to governmental stupidity is a universally well-informed public.

Let's take the illegal immigration for an example: If the US government hadn't gone beyond Constitutional limitations with all of these "entitlement programs," then immigrants would have little incentive to come here illegally. But now that immigrants have a strong motivation for "free" entitlements, they'll come even if it means violating our laws to get here. This is where border enforcement would help as well: Arizona (& an increasing number of other states) are beginning to enforce the federal immigration laws on the State level. This is only right, since the federal government openly refuses to enforce them! It should also be noted that the Executive Branch of the federal government has zero authority delegated by the Constitution to act as a State-level "policing force" anyway. The feds are charged only with securing our national boundaries for the "common defense." If illegal immigrants get past federal border enforcement, the States have every lawful right to protect State Citizens too.


Originally posted by ovenden
I don't think the issue here is "population control" it is "controlling the population". They want us to be scared and submissive. They want to control our patterns of behaviour and dictate our beliefs.

Control is what it's always been about...All down throughout the history of human civilization. The problem with Big Government is that they first use fear-mongering (by creating the problem & then putting it through media to get the public to "go along" with it)...After all, we've see it in the (mostly left-wing liberal) media lately how the far-left liberal politicians first screwed up & dropped their "popularity ratings," then start "demonizing" conservatives as they start winning the elections. This is a repeating trend in politics, every time there's any kind of "shift in power."

If fear-mongering doesn't work, then they demonize a "new public enemy" & move into committing mass murder; Sometimes they'll commit murder first & then demonize, in order to "justify" the murder. Does Ruby Ridge or Waco ring a bell? If not, then how about the Nazi-inspired Holocaust? How about Tinnanen Square? History is chock-full of examples like this. It's idiots, control-freaks & empire-builders that cause the proverbial "repeating mistakes in history," because they've been using these same tactics against the People all along!

In short, most of the problems in society today (in any nation, anywhere in the world, in any era of history) are caused directly or indirectly by too much government interference into the local & personal livelyhood. I'm not advocating anarchy (ie: no government at all), but merely wanting to decrease government to a reasonable size & to take actions in a limited scope of authority. This is what our US Constitution has been all about, right from the day it was ratified!



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Poopra

Originally posted by NOTurTypical


What an completely arbitrary concept!!!!!

You guys had better pray it's something else, because to claim we're "overcrowded" is beyond retarded.


No, what's "retarded" is your "everyone in the world can fit in one county" argument. The amount of physical room a person takes up is a beyond worthless point to argue. I could fit every 2010 Formula F1 team in my backyard. What good exactly does that do?
No my claim isn't, the thought that this planet is "overcrowded" with humans is absurd, and math has proven that right. Every human on Earth can fit within 1/1,000,000 of the acreage of the globe.

That's "SPARSELY" populated with humans. Your statement about F1 teams is a red herring fallacy.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:19 AM
link   
Well honestly...does every single person really matter?
Does every single person contribute to the betterment of humanity?
All of you have known people that you feel the world would be better without...and don't you dare pretend that you haven't.
More people = more crime, disease, resource wasting and genetic bottlenecks.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


What a clearly uneducated, irrational post.

You focus on emotion because you cannot argue fact.

Evidently you enjoy human suffering since you want to perpetuate more of it.
LOL!!!


Says the guy who hasn't posted anything except his arbitrary opinions.

That's the pot calling the kettle black!!!



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Target Earth
The United States has flat lined in population growth as far as natural born citizens...
almost all of our population growth is from mass immigration. I really don't think this guy is talking about anything Sinister like getting the population back down to half a million.
world wide, but I agree with the fact we can't keep letting everybody who want's to come here to come here.


I have to agree. I do believe that there is a plan for the reduction of the Earth's population for the sole purpose of control by TPTB, but this guy is not talking about killing anyone. He's talking about getting control of our borders, and God knows, anyone living in the border states can relate to that, at least in relation to ILLEGAL immigration. If his figures are correct, and 85% (or whatever he said) of the population growth in the U.S. is from immigration (both legal and illegal), then it's time we take a serious look at that, starting with stopping ILLEGAL immigration.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


How about water shortages all over the planet?

Ever seen all the starving people in Africa? No? How about Bangladesh? India?

You present zero ideas on how to clothe, feed, energize, or hydrate all of these people who you think this planet can support. It simply cant.

What I present isnt opinion, it is fact, and all of the sources in the world wouldnt change your little BS idealogical views.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by brainwrek]



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 04:07 AM
link   
I have to be honest, I am for some form of depopulation, probably down to around 1 billion people...and no, I am in no way advocating any sort of killing of those currently living. I think that would be the most horrendous crime imaginable. Only little less of a crime than mass murder would be forced sterilizations, so I'm not advocating that either.

On paper limiting families to a single child seems like a good idea, that way in a few generations you get down to a more sustainable population. The problems with enforcing such a law, never mind the gross imposition it poses on how people want to live their lives is another matter. Then there were the problems the Chinese have had with the law where, because of certain cultural beliefs, a lot of baby girls were being killed because it was considered better to have a male child - horrible outcome of that law.

I'm not about to say I know what the answer is, but I do think there are far, far too many of us in this world and there's only more and more of us being born, never mind living longer lives, too. It can't go on forever. Either there's got to be a way to get it under control or we'll wear out the entire world, eat all the animals and plantlife, or so much so that we have a terrible dying off of our species because there's simply no way to feed us all.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Not sure if anyone has brought the term ecological footprint up.




For 2006, humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.4 planet Earths - in other words, humanity uses ecological services 1.4 times as fast as Earth can renew them.


Think about that for a second. This includes all people on earth. Now imagine if all people on earth would live by the same standard of living as Americans, how many earths would we need to support everyone in the world? The answer is about 5.

And still some people think its a good idea to increase the population of this planet?



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


BS.
We cannot distribute resources to everyone, just look at what is happening in the world. Famines, diseases, wars, overcrowded slums are common. Poorest people are procreating the most, that is a statistical fact. Population control would help to alleviate this problem.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 06:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Sure, people can fit in a quite small part of land. But they would soon start to die from starvation, diseases etc. We need more land to support a good living:




The total world ecological footprint is 2.6 global hectares per capita. The ecological reserve, or biocapacity - the amount of land available for production, is 1.8 global hectares per person, a deficit of 0.8 global hectares per capita.[40]


en.wikipedia.org...

You are encouraging people to spread out. But people dont want to spread out, they are clumping to cities instead, because thats where the resources are. In these overpopulated cities, we NEED population control immensely!!

I am not advocating population control in unpopulated territories.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:02 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


If someone cannot suport themselves, he/she should not be allowed to procreate, period!

This simple guiding principle is what I am talking about. It does not matter what is the reason they cannot support themselves - people have been trying to fight these various reasons for ages, and victory over poverty is still not in sight, altough some progress was achieved.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matthew Dark
Well honestly...does every single person really matter?
Does every single person contribute to the betterment of humanity?
All of you have known people that you feel the world would be better without...and don't you dare pretend that you haven't.
More people = more crime, disease, resource wasting and genetic bottlenecks.
Okay, well lets get rid of ALL humans then. If we can justify morally offing several million, then we can just as easily justify offing 7 billion.

Let's kill everyone.



posted on Jun, 13 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by brainwrek
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


How about water shortages all over the planet?

Ever seen all the starving people in Africa? No? How about Bangladesh? India?

You present zero ideas on how to clothe, feed, energize, or hydrate all of these people who you think this planet can support. It simply cant.

What I present isnt opinion, it is fact, and all of the sources in the world wouldnt change your little BS idealogical views.

[edit on 13-6-2010 by brainwrek]


pssssst.....someone else has provided at least a sample of solutions.

i think his term "arbitrary" applies. Do you have data or just faith?




top topics



 
42
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join