The world population must be reduced at all costs

Truly, can no one see the sarcasm of my original post?
I seem to see a lot of “If you want to depopulate the world you first.”
This is not the case folks, I think what I am trying to convey is if the whole worlds population could fit into Australia comfortably, then why can we not do that if we have 6 more 5 that are useable worth of space?
Someday we may reach the critical number of people but we are not even close.
But greed of individuals puts us much closer.

reply to post by RestingInPieces


The starving people starve because of logistic problems and bad men with guns and a bit of greedy corporations.
While hope may not feed people you say, but it certainly does a lot better than despair can we agree on that much?
As far as manifesting something into reality, all of the things I say are common technologies, albeit the starting capital would be the big initial hill.
But we ship all kinds of humanitarian aid overseas to hundreds of countries.
Rather than shipping a band aid maybe we can ship a cure.
Now the next big problem is would the warlords and other greedies allow the peoples to become self sufficient? I seriously doubt it but there is still hope.
Renewable free energy could be a huge boon to society, imagine being able to effectively shutting down several industries that do nothing but prey on their customers and indigenous peoples of the areas they harvest.
Can you see that angle?

Originally posted by g146541
reply to post by RestingInPieces

 

The starving people starve because of logistic problems and bad men with guns and a bit of greedy corporations.
While hope may not feed people you say, but it certainly does a lot better than despair can we agree on that much?
As far as manifesting something into reality, all of the things I say are common technologies, albeit the starting capital would be the big initial hill.
But we ship all kinds of humanitarian aid overseas to hundreds of countries.
Rather than shipping a band aid maybe we can ship a cure.
Now the next big problem is would the warlords and other greedies allow the peoples to become self sufficient? I seriously doubt it but there is still hope.
Renewable free energy could be a huge boon to society, imagine being able to effectively shutting down several industries that do nothing but prey on their customers and indigenous peoples of the areas they harvest.
Can you see that angle?

Bad men? No, not bad men. If that, then we are all bad men. How many starving do you help?

I see exactly what you are talking about besides that. I'm saying that the viability of the system to feed all of these people is not in place, nor will it ever be in place with our current global economic policy/technological ability.

Without a doubt, there needs to be a technological (or moral) paradigm shift to allow the starving to be fed; to quell overpopulation.

reply to post by RestingInPieces

If it counts I kept 6 kids from starving to death and broke myself in the process.
Seriously take care of your body, it sucks when you are old and broken at the same time.
Back on target, Agreed I’m glad we can agree on something now if only our leaders could do the same.
Thank you!

The OP was being fascetious. There is plenty of food. Countries that have seemed to be starving are exporting food, such as India. They have more than enough to feed their populations.

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

LOL .. LOL ..LOL

If you want to put all those people into australia you'd better work out first where the water is going to come from.
You should also do some research on what the Australian landscape is like because I doubt very much that you will fit 4 people on 1 acre all over this country

reply to post by Jim Scott


Thank you for being able to read between the lines,not all people saw my blatant sarcasm.
I usually find a bat over the head gets attention alot more effectively than a tap on the shoulder.

Originally posted by Jim Scott
The OP was being fascetious. There is plenty of food. Countries that have seemed to be starving are exporting food, such as India. They have more than enough to feed their populations.

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

Hey buddy, there is plenty of money too... so why isn't it in my pocket!!!!

Plenty of water, so why is water an issue?

Plenty of food, so why are people starving?

reply to post by RestingInPieces


Well the money partr is easy, it is because the money hates you too, just like it hates me and everyone else i know. i grab it but it always leaves me.
The water and food i just attribute that to logistics problems, just another reason to get people farming if possible.
so the food and water we can fix, the money.... well that will always hate us.

IMHO.. it is not the world population that is the issue, it is the control the elite exert over the systems that control and supplies us with our everyday needs.. be it energy or food, they are the ones in control of the world resources..

It benifits the rich to keep us in a over populated state.. that is to say over populated in relation to the systems that supply us with our everyday needs.. since that places us, the poor in the position of fighting each other for what little we have, rather than deal with the inequalities that exist.

In the post black death era, there is an apt expression, "As the poor got fewer the rest got richer" the Black death is a perfect example of how depopulation works against the elite

At that time you would find the lords of the manner tilling the soil next to the peasant, if they didn't they'd starve, they where also forced to pay whatever wage and conditions their peasants demanded..

The same rule could be applied to today if a major depopulation event hit.. the factory owner would have to work on the factory floor if they wanted their business to survive, and they to, would face the same situation of having not choice but give in to whatever pay and conditions their employees demanded.

Right now, as the world stands, in this over populated state, the rich can sit back and pick which poor person to employ and at what low, low rate.. So as long as a elite keep us in an over populated state in relation to how the world resources are managed, they will continue to reap the benifits..

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Dead on, the true enemy is not space but how to get things to the space or get it to grow in said space without being confinscated.

You only need to know that the sea is being depleted of fish and once we run out of cheap oil used to produce and transport food then we are in big trouble.

The birds are vanishing from our skys and even Bees are having trouble.

The desorts already take up 1/3 the earths surface and Ice covers much of the rest of the earth at times and it seems people think all they need to do is dig up the back garden to feed themselves.

Yes we need a cull/reduction and TPTB will use this to produce clones of the perfect worker to replace us that are not gods chosen people as they see it.

reply to post by LieBuster


I believe you to be mostly right,the bees will impact our gardens alot.
No pollenation no growth, what a predicament.
At least I know if all the bees go so will I but then again, so will they.

reply to post by g146541


You may want to consider rethinking your formula for the population issue you are addressing......I would suggest you reframe from using rote sq. footage of land as the prime determinant .......but rather consider the land's sustainablity, along with its resource contents, and support level of the biosphere as the prime determinants.....any due diligence in regards to those issues will result in a picture that is in fact a very bleak one for our species......

In reality the Earth can support about 500 million people with a resource footprint similar to that of a US citizen (does that tell you how much of the lions' share of the Earths resources American's use?) However to manitain 6 billion plus on the Earth sees many (today 50% of the world's population lives on $2 or less a day) live in poverty. Of course the American standard of living is extremely wasteful and not necessarily the best bench mark to consider. For example, just the current US level of animal flesh consumption alone requires 75% of the world useable land to be dedicated for the feeding domestic animals for our consumption. There is not enough land left to even remotely feed others this way.

If China alone even develops 50% of the level of internal combusion engine useage the US has we will need 5 times the amount of all available oil on the planet right now to satisfy that need.

We can have a controlled level of population and live a reasonable standard of living for all in a sustainable process or rape the rest of the worlds resources and destroying each other in the process fighting over the last amount of those resources......

Where I differ from the elite is that their agenda to control population is hypocritical to their own life style and their treatment of the problem is malicious in its approach.................where I have significantly downsized my life and resource useage to practice what I preach and would like to approach it in a benevolent manner of which I don't have an answer for yet.

Understanding the impact of expotential growth in human population/resource useage and you will see the great problems we will face as a species in the future.

reply to post by futuretense


"In reality the Earth can support about 500 million people with a resource footprint similar to that of a US citizen"

Oh really?? Hmmm. Interesting number. Picked out of your master's hat perhaps?

That's the number given on the infamous Georgia Guidestones of course. No one seems to be sure who put them there, but Ted Turner is usually implicated. Make sure to report back to that monument for further instructions. Massa is waiting!

Regarding "sustainability", this thread has been there, done that, maybe check back a few pages and read up if you find yourself in the mood.

For those who's brain hurts to read too much, here's the reader's digest version: The simplistic notion of "sustainability", given to us by our masters, is utter foolishness, upon closer examination. It sounds "logical" perhaps, but then you encounter the fact that there are far too many unwarranted (and dare we say even illogical) assumptions that must be made, to get to any estimation of "sustainability".

If that seems too crazy, then read back a few pages. Lots of real smart posters here are weighing in, who apparently are smart enough not to take their instructions from the beastly elite. Some people still actually "question", even if they were taught something was a "fact" by Massa himself (in college usually).

I like what one poster said about India. Always the poster-child of starvation, they apparently export plenty of food, enough to feed their own, but they don't. No matter, a sad photo of a starving child, some weepy violin music, and the master's voice in the background "explaining" it all to us. That's all we need! At that point, "overpopulation" has become a "fact", in our caged minds.

In my previous posts, I mention the subject of "geniuses." It only takes "one", to upset everyone's applecart. For example, some say that Tesla long ago came up with more than enough technology to have us all enjoying an abundance of energy today. BUT, he was effectively neutralized by our masters, who feared losing control of their plantation. And so, we get none of that technology, and people may in fact starve, but it's other people who are making this happen, not a fictional "scarcity", that has been manufactured to keep us enslaved.

And then there's the issues of "natural" disasters, asteroids, pandemics, etc., even scientifically speaking, having a small population could be disastrous to the species, when these other reasonable "assumptions" are factored in.

As much as the depopulators would want it, there is no simplistic, linear approach to this issue that is even close to being valid in any real sense.

The truly scary thing is how many people have bought into this, hook, line, and sinker. They've effectively joined the "enemy" of mankind, of course they would be the last ones to know it, but how pathetic it all is. Our masters surely laugh as we go about thinking and doing, exactly what they have dictated.

So, here's a small challenge to all you "sustainability" drones: Give us YOUR number. Give us your methodology, how you (or Massa even) arrived at it, and then, if you dare, please inform us of your underlying assumptions as well.

After that, keep coming back to the thread, to see how many holes are poked into, whatever you come up with. You see, even as a "thought experiment", the whole thing fails. It's really absurdity on it's face, but please don't take this the wrong way. In my experience, people who seldom question, seldom really think things through anyway, so the same old rote nonsense will just keep coming back. The record just plays over, and over...

JR

Wasup, i think the kiss method is a very good one . but let me explain to you that the problem is not about physical space, the real problem is water supply, food, housing, the whole infrastructure needed to give life support to all this people. The top guys, don´t want to inve$t on this kind of thing. They don´t wan´t to spend their money, by creating new technologies that could help the world to live with three times this amount of people.

Anyone who advocates depopulation should set an example and begin by sacrificing themselves for their cause, otherwise how can you take them seriously?

Originally posted by Firefly_
Anyone who advocates depopulation should set an example and begin by sacrificing themselves for their cause, otherwise how can you take them seriously?

I've heard this statement so many times. Where does such idiocy come from? It must be common reasoning, but really . . it makes little to no sense.

How would the death of one person change much of anything on the grand scale? It wouldn't.

This is an emotional response. It's a cop out, and a means to look away from the issue.

I know that our numbers must be reduced one way or another, but refuse to follow your faulty logic. Reducing our numbers doesn't mean we must kill anyone. Education and increasing standards of living is the answer. It seems the only way to truly get this going is to collapse western civilization as we know it. Wait a second . . isn't that what's already going on?

Hmm...

reply to post by g146541


Instead of posting about it on ATS, why aren't you leading the way and offing yourself as an example for the rest of us to follow?

Population control is B/S and people spouting off about it saying "We must reduce it at all costs" are nothing bug ignorant alarmists.

The earth isn't over populated. It may very well be some day, but that day isn't today. Nor is it tomorrow. What we really need is governments who actually care about it's populace. Who make environmentally sound decisions, get off the oil bandwagon and start paving the way for what I like to call "safe and sound living". We're safe, the environment is sound and we can just live. That's my dream.

But as long as various countries are in the pockets of big oil, it's not going to happen. And as long as we have n00bs out there like you, claiming we're over populated, the government has enough cannon fodder on their side to continue their B/S agendas.

No offense intended, but put your money where your mouth is.

reply to post by g146541


We can have the basics of life for all. (Still). We can't have a villa and a car for all.
More here:

HOME - documentary

and:


[edit on 4-7-2010 by pai mei]