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.

 

The world population must be reduced at all costs

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
I am not sure if this is the place for this subject so if any mods see fit to move it I understand.

The world is overcrowded and we need to reduce the population any way we can.
You hear of the elite spouting lies that suggest that the world is over crowded and we need to cull the populace, I suggest they may be spot on with their calculations.
Taking say one continent, I’ll use Australia. Probably because I have aussie buds online and if I had to pick a secondary place to live they say it is beautiful country.
Now the world population is 6,800,000,000 people approximately (source is Wikipedia)
If you argue this you are silly and won’t read this seriously anyway.
Now we use Australia there is 2,967,892 square miles (Source Wikipedia also)
Same thing if you argue you are silly.
Now 1 square mile is 640 acres (Same source plus common sense)
I will stop stating sources as all of this information is common knowledge or quite easy to verify, and that is all that is important to me, as I am not the intellectual type.
I use the K.I.S.S. method Keep It Simple Stupid.
Now that we have a bunch of big numbers let’s do the crunch.
Australia is roughly 2,967,892 square miles and 1 square mile has 640 acres so
2,967,892 square miles x 640 = 1,899,450,880 acres in Australia.
Now we take 1,899,450,880 and divide by the population of the earth which is 6,800,000,000.
1,899,450,880 divided by 6,800,000,000. Is 3.57 persons per acre.
Let’s just call it 4 people per acre to make it a round number as I am not a fan of half people, it just seems barbaric.
So the world’s population could fit inside Australia with 4 people per acre.
I think that is a quarter acre per person in the world man woman child elderly Etc.
So is my math correct? Can you see now that the world is overpopulated?
If we put the world population in Australia.
Otherwise I think we are doing just fine.



+11 more 
posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   
I must be bored to respond, because this is the stupidest argument I have ever heard. Simply because IF all the worlds people were put on the ONE continent of Australia allowing one 1/4 acre each does NOT mean the world is overpopulate OR that it should be "reduced at all cost."

We have more than enough resources to support the current population and much more. I agree that TPTB want the population decreased, but only so it is easier to control them.

I'm not even going to argue on making better use of resources, living vertically or anything else, because the whole premise of this thread is entirely asinine.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:40 PM
link   
i really dont know what to think about population reduction........i mean maybe it would be good to start working at curbing the world population of the next few generations....not murder but through endorsing birth control pills condom use and planned parenthood..........but then you have to think what if an event was coming and the world would be destroyed.....what would we humans need to do? well first we would want as many ppl as possible thus making the survival chance of a man and woman better........we have to have a bare minimum of a man and woman off this planet tho so humanity can survive................but who knows maybe there are other humans out there.......all things are possible in the universe......the best solution of overcrowding would be leaving this planet

[edit on 3-7-2010 by JTpirate]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Obviously I was being sarcastic, 1 person per quarter acre is quite a huge piece of land. we could do that just inside of Australia, and not use any of the other continents.
But there are people that would have you believe this obvious myth, I figured by putting absolutely in stoopid terms I understand , that everyone else could too.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by g146541]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:48 PM
link   
eveyone who truely thinks that the world is "overpopulated" and that a great culling is gravely needed, should start the culling with themselves. if you think the human race needs to be thinned out to save earth then kill yourself, do the right thing and really rid the earth of its virus starting with you.

but the elites and idiots that belive in this garbage wont do this because they are gods gift to man. it's everyone else who should die, in their view!.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by invisibleman11
 


Agreed, I think the next candidate for said culling should be the next person to speak up and claim that the world is truly overpopulated.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


NO! its everyone else who has a dissenting or opposing views who should die!!!
these people are sad and need to take a long look in the mirror.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:16 PM
link   
I have to agree it seems the norm for,how can i put this,
people who have now settled in England who are not white
like to have as many children as they can pop out regardless
whether they can support them themselves or not.

where us white original English people have on average
2 or 3 kids

yes i know its possibly the worst written unstructured
piece of bad grammar etc but i cant seem to get the rite words
without sounding like a racist bigot.

our goverment struggles to cope supporting these families
and our planet as a whole is way overpopulated.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
you're missing the point. the world is not over populated because of land, its over populated because we cannot produce enough food to go around. we just do not have the resources to keep everyone alive. people need to die and they are going to die real soon, lots of freaking people are going to die in world war 3.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthyaroura
 


we have the same issue in america. but its not the populace thats the problem. its the greedy power hungry governments misappropriating funds and resources. the illegals in my country get treated better then i do, a natural born citizen...and they dont pay 20% of their income into our retarted social programs in taxes like people as i. the governements are creating this illusion for power and money! wake up!!



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I certainly agree with you that "overpopulation" is a lie, but the title of your thread is going to get you lots of replies from people who won't really read anything but that.

This idea, of overpopulation, has had a lot invested into it over the years. Our masters truly must laugh as they come up with this nonsense, and then see how easy it is for (usually) "smart" people to buy into it.

The media (THEIR media), so easily paints these pictures for our minds. Photos of overcrowded cities, ingenious juxtaposition, starving African kids, accompanied by mood-setting music, etc. Next thing you know, it has become a "fact" in the popular (Western) imagination.

It would be nice if we had more of a "choice" in the matter, but it seems that our masters are "dead" serious shall we say, about population reduction, and they're not terribly squeamish about how they go about it, although there is a method to their madness.

You will surely get your die-hard believers in this fable shortly, who will explain all kinds of sordid things, from their perverse "economy of scarcity" notions (fed to them by our masters, but they are oblivious). They will not care to hear about how just ONE human person, with a high IQ, a true genius, can be born, and that one person's ideas would feed billions, with so little effort. But, today, with high abortion rates, family planning, etc., that genius is far less likely to be born.

Let's "do the math"...WHAT IF, only one person in a 100 million would be that genius. Further, not all of them will live so long, thanks to our masters, there are many hazards for us all to get through! And then, what of their "environment"...no, we don't want to turn it around just yet...Mozart's father was instrumental in his development, so it is important too.

Really, it all can be lots of speculation, but my point is, we can just as easily argue for a sort of "maximum" generation, to get to that "one" genius. They are THAT valuable to the human race!

All of this will soon get us into eugenics anyway. Of course, let's all build that superman. Let's encourage genius. But there are dangers there too, and our masters are painfully reminded of them, every time one of these geniuses comes along and upsets their applecart. Like Tesla. Yes, they succeeded in getting him under control, but had they failed, many believe we would live in a world of plenty.

But again, we hardly have a choice in the matter. Right now, our masters are planning on getting rid of billions of us "useless eaters". Of course, plenty of people will be quite happy if they finally get rid of all the Africans, or gays, or (insert your favorite here). BUT, that's not the way they operate! Sure, they developed AIDS, which got lots of birds with that stone, but don't think for a minute that they would just spare you, because you're smart, or educated.

Look what happened in Cambodia. They killed millions, and they focused especially on the intelligentsia, the older generation, anyone who could "challenge" their regime. Read it as a possible blueprint for what may come. If you can effectively challenge, your days may be numbered!

And for all the folks who think it's so hopeless, and that's why it's all nonsense, well, remember what I said above about the genius factor. It only takes one, a Tesla, an Einstein, even more dangerous, political geniuses like a Napoleon (yes), an Alexander, and God help them if a Julius Caesar showed up....

Our masters well know this, and are incrementally making progress. One day, they shall never be challenged again. If they succeed, they may have their horrid plantation, their vile utopia, but it will be a very dark age for mankind as a whole.

Our masters are psychopaths. They perpetrated 9/11. They won't hesitate to kill billions at a time if they think it is in their best interests.

OK now, let's all fight back, and go have that genius baby now! It will be fun to try anyway...

JR



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by invisibleman11
 


Agreed, I think the next candidate for said culling should be the next person to speak up and claim that the world is truly overpopulated.


That is non sequitur. Its like saying, if there are too many cars on the road - and its grid locked all the time - suggesting that anyone who mentions it should sell their car. Its a stupid argument.

The solution is not selling cars, or killing people - but the problems associated remain.

The problem with population is this, it is increasing on an exponential curve. When we hear 1% or 2% population growth - people usually think it means its linear, its not. It is just like compound interest, something that Einstein (even though he is just a poster boy of the NWO - he could still think) called, 'the most powerful force in the universe' (paraphrasing).

Population growth is a problem, the current population level is probably ok - but in future we need to think about managing it.

Now, we can manage it with education, birth control, family planning - or we can just let it sort itself out, with famine, disease, war etc.

It will become a problem - if we aren't prepared to put it on the table, then we will suffer the consequences.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DOADOA
 


I do not understand your thinking, we have plenty of animals for useable materials plus if you plant 1 piece of corn in the ground you get thousands of seeds, it is that way with all plants.
I don't understand how you could say we don't have resources.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


You said non sequitur, I don’t care if a person does not sweat.
Remember you got to speak in lay terms as people like me must spend an overwhelming amount of time on the Merriam Webster site to find out what things mean.
Either way you look at it and I think cars are kind of a crazy analogy to use for humans.
We have the resources we need to feed and cloth the world, we could even do it with twice the populace, just some people are better than others and think they deserve more.

And itn is arguably true that without war we would not have famine or disease, due to people doing "good mans work" building, farming, teaching and studying Etc. rather than just killing for an elite dictator.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by g146541]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:45 PM
link   
overpopulation is a power structure issue. if the world totally utilized land mass and resources everything would be fine...starvation is a political repercussion not a populace one. although eventually yes population may be a problem i have a strong hunch disease and war often take care of this. look at the black plauge and the wars of the last century alone and see how much the population has thinned itself. human behavior and mothernature have historically and will continue to work in a very symbiotic relationship.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by invisibleman11
 

Agreed, it is a power structure issue that would make it a Gubbmment issue of their making not ours. Disease and famine I have addressed in the previous post in an edit though sorry.
All that I think that I am saying is if we all rowed the boat in the same direction and no one was deliberately trying to drill a hole in or capsize the boat this world would have no problems. The problem we have is, what is the root of this cancer and how do we eradicate it?



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by invisibleman11
 


Yes. Exactly. Starvation and pestilence in most places are failures of governance and organisation. The planet can support us at this level of population but its a matter of organisation.

It cant support unlimited amounts of people though.

We are in a race. Our rate of technological progress against our rate of depletion of resources. If we can expand offworld before we deplete the useful materials we win. Otherwise its back to the dark ages.



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


I think you should do some more research and see how much arable land exists vs the population size. See how much oil is left in major reserves, and how without oil, civilization as we know it would cease to exist. I hope you realize that a billion people are undernourished. Try to think about the fact that it's not black and white. It's not simply how many people there are, but how many people living certain unsustainable lifestyles. If every person on earth had the diet of the average U.S. citizen, we'd need 4 earths to provide the resources! The easiest solution truly is to limit the population. The crisis has been seen ahead of schedule and programs were implemented decades ago. What's lacking is education to the rest of the world. A friend made a good point that religion is a huge problem. The philosophy of, "Go forth and multiply" , is utterly insane in this day and age. We should encourage women to have two children maximum or better.

Lastly, I hope you're aware that over 120,000 species will go extinct THIS YEAR, and the rate is only increasing. I hope you realize that we've only got one earth, and if this insanity doesn't stop soon, our status as virus of the earth will be universally realized.

One way or another, either through wars, global struggles, etc, or by education and equalizing standards of living worldwide, we'll be much less in numbers by century end. It's best to be proactive, especially here. The biodiversity we chance to lose through our continued willful ignorance is too great a risk.

[edit on 3-7-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 07:08 PM
link   
Reply to post by g146541
 


Great argument if you actually believed that humans shared this planet with no other wild life. Could you imagine all the over fishing off australias coasts? Good bye already diminishing coral reefs. Or maybe we could raise plants and animals in cages on our quarter acre piece of land and just forget about all other wild life other than the ones we raise ourselves lol. The world as a whole may not be over populated but the stupidity in the fact that you use australia as a lone example is purely ignorant and ver numerous
.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Jul, 3 2010 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


Agreed if we could move offworld we would be able to have the resources we need, but then we would just further the Military Industrial complex.
That said the Dark Ages do not seem so bad compared to where we are taking ourselves intentionally.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join