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: 7
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Overpopulated! nah i dont think so.
Thats what TPTB would like you to think.

There is room for everyone and a lot more!!




posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:19 AM
link   
We have 7 billion people on the planet and the problem is not space or food. Its that the rich 20% of the planet use 80% of the resources.

Nobody in the west really cares if babies in Africa die from starvation while they stuff their face with cheese burgers though. Thats fine. Typical human behavior is that we only care about the people we know, or who happen to live in the same country, or speak the same language. At least its honest. We are not better than that and we shouldn't pretend we are.

Looking at this objectively, we have 20% of the population who needs to die. Then we have +80% of resources for the others.

So do we start with killing off America or Great Britain or Germany? I cant decide.

Because god forbid that we start putting money into technology to feed the planet when we can put it into stealth bombers or intelligent missiles.

This is how money is spent in America: www.postbourgie.com...

2.5% for Science, Energy AND Environment.
44.4% to the military.

Thats a nice # you to the future of this planet.

Ooops, bashing America again. Well, maybe you can point me in the direction of some other country who spends half their money on the military? I will bash them too.


[edit on 4-7-2010 by Copernicus]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus
We have 7 billion people on the planet and the problem is not space or food. Its that the rich 20% of the planet use 80% of the resources.

Looking at this objectively, we have 20% of the population who needs to die. Then we have +80% of resources for the others.

So do we start with killing off America or Great Britain or Germany? I cant decide.



Well, I sure wish you were in charge! Oh so many more of us would get to live! "Only" 20%?? Sadly, you are not in charge.

Let's see what some of our masters think, since it is what they think that actually matters. (Remember, they are so much wiser than we are!):

-----------------------

“We humans have become a disease, the Humanpox.”

Dave Foreman, Co-founder of Earth First! and member of the Club of Rome.
“World population needs to be decreased by 50%”

Henry Kissinger, , Former National Security Advisor, Former Secretary of State, chairman of Kissinger Associates, member of the Club of Rome.
“We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren’t enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

Mikhail Gorbachev, Former President of the Soviet Union, member of the Club of Rome
“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor, member of the Club of Rome.
In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it is just as bad not to say it.

Jacques Cousteau, French naval officer and explorer. Member of the Club of Rome.
"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."

Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, member of the Club of Rome.
-------------------

Yes, a lot of these quotes are old hat, but people forget. And worse, people don't seem to be interpreting world events in the light of what our masters have said.

Anyway, all you ATS depopulators are in good company, but I do think our masters are way ahead of you!

JR



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


My post was meant as sarcasm. Our leaders are morons, specially the individuals from Club of Rome. Nobody needs to die.

Great people have also said "640k of memory is enough" and similar idiotic things. People *always* fail to predict the future, but never stop trying.

1. “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. (DEC), maker of big business mainframe computers, arguing against the PC in 1977.

2. “We will never make a 32 bit operating system.” — Bill Gates

3. “Lee DeForest has said in many newspapers and over his signature that it would be possible to transmit the human voice across the Atlantic before many years. Based on these absurd and deliberately misleading statements, the misguided public … has been persuaded to purchase stock in his company …” — a U.S. District Attorney, prosecuting American inventor Lee DeForest for selling stock fraudulently through the mail for his Radio Telephone Company in 1913.

4. “There is practically no chance communications space satellites will be used to provide better telephone, telegraph, television, or radio service inside the United States.” — T. Craven, FCC Commissioner, in 1961 (the first commercial communications satellite went into service in 1965).

5. “To place a man in a multi-stage rocket and project him into the controlling gravitational field of the moon where the passengers can make scientific observations, perhaps land alive, and then return to earth – all that constitutes a wild dream worthy of Jules Verne. I am bold enough to say that such a man-made voyage will never occur regardless of all future advances.” — Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube, in 1926

6. “A rocket will never be able to leave the Earth’s atmosphere.” — New York Times, 1936.

7. “Flight by machines heavier than air is unpractical (sic) and insignificant, if not utterly impossible.” – Simon Newcomb; The Wright Brothers flew at Kittyhawk 18 months later.

8. “Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible.” — Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society, 1895.

9. “There will never be a bigger plane built.” — A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247, a twin engine plane that holds ten people

10. “Nuclear-powered vacuum cleaners will probably be a reality in 10 years.” -– Alex Lewyt, president of vacuum cleaner company Lewyt Corp., in the New York Times in 1955.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Copernicus]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 


No, I got your sarcasm, sorry if you felt lumped in. I agree with where you're coming from, the military spending is horrific, and certainly puts things in perspective.

But I liked your "20%", mainly because, sarcastic or not, it helps highlight what so many like to do. They pick a number. Then, they pick a population too (yes, usually Africa, good point, what if it was one of "our" countries...It was good to bring that out.)

And that 20% is such a "small" number in comparison to what our masters are contemplating...No sarcasm with my remark that I would much rather you be in charge!

JR



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


I dont want to be in charge. We should all be in charge of our fate together. Unfortunately there is no real democracy so we arent.


[edit on 4-7-2010 by Copernicus]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
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.


Where's your logic in here? I don't see it.

If all of the world's population could fit in a large undercrowded country like Australia or Canada, then why are you calling for depopulation?

All we would have to do is to open the borders of these countries (or relax their immigration policies) then the problem would be solved... Turns out Australia and Canada have some of the toughest immigration policy on the planet... guess why.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


Tell ya what, since you think the world is so over populated and people need to die off...Why don't you lead by example and be the first to go?


Edit...

Just sarcasm, please don't take it seriously.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Lunatic Pandora]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   
i dont think world is over populated. examine chickens in high tech farm. 1 chicken per 1 A4 page. if we put 1 man on 1 m2, we could easly grow over 100 billion people and rest of land we could use for growing food. more, better, cheaper. yum!



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JR MacBeth
 


Can I ask where you got those infamous quotes from? They certainly don't mention anything like that within mainstream sources.

I am not calling you a liar. I just have a hard time believing such utter absurdity.

Who gets to decide what a sustainable population is and how? Do they ask for satan's input while performing perverted rituals or is it a COCKtail party thing?

Maybe they should get over their superiority complex, have less sex, find a hard working job that pays less and more-or-less join the "everday club" to see what it feels like being out-of-the-loop while having make-believe morons decide your fate.

AMAZING is the understatement of a life-time!



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthCitizen07
 


I agree, they are some pretty wild quotes, and if a person has never encountered them before, they certainly should question.

As usual, the real question becomes, where do we begin?

First of all, realize that some people may think that there is no real "Club of Rome", it is just so much conspiracy nonsense, etc. Yes, I've seen some of that here on ATS, which is surprising considering the kind of site it is. But I'll continue anyway, assuming sincerity, not to mention, others may be curious about it as well.

Anyway, my recommendations to anyone usually include an attempt at independent verification, from several sources, before putting too much stock in what you see. If you've been following this general issue for decades, well, none of this aplies, as some of these are very well-known quotes by these famous people.

Otherwise, start by Googling "Club of Rome", try the Wikipedia article first (many people are used to their standardized format), and read some of the history. What you find is that this whole modern notion of "sustainability" originated with this group. Before that, well, you could get all the way back to a famous guy named Malthus, but that's for extra credit!

Next, I would choose any name on that list of quotes that you recognize, "respect", or maybe even strongly dislike, take your pick. I could throw out some real good names I would think everyone knew, but I'm usually surprised when I find that many people draw a blank. Some of it can be the age difference. For example, I personally think Gorbachev is an excellent choice, since he has made many public statements, and he's not just one more American (gets old). BUT, if I was to guess, there are people who are wondering, "Who the heck is that?" Anyway, you get the idea.

If you're "lazy" (and I have no idea if you are), or if anyone else out there is lazy, check the website I copied these few from, these are all in one place, but there is so much more there, for those who have the time.

New World Order Report

And for those who will immediately find something wrong with the site, good for you. Lots of websites are far from perfect. Remember, my first piece of advice was to use multiple sources. And if you should find something out of place, it is intellectually dishonest to then use it as a blanket excuse to trash everything else. But, I see it all the time, so why not mention it?

The fact is, I think you will find what I find, namely, that there are people out there, massively wealthy and powerful, and they have publicly gone on record with their intentions. Put this together with the fact that these folks also have the MEANS to carry out their "threats" (if you will), and we may just have a serious problem!

Oh of course, it's all decades in the making, so who cares? And that really would be a good question. I do wonder sometimes when we are going rise to the moral challenge of caring about our grandchildren.

Thanks for questioning, this is what we all need to do more of!

JR



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
The world population must be reduced at all costs

The world is overcrowded and we need to reduce the population any way we can.




SIR, YES SIR!



who am i to call you a liar?
g146541

Mission Accomplished, Sir











p.s.


you feel the urge to give this post a star
do not fight the urge to give this post a star
ET is collecting stars to add to ET's avatar



[edit on 4-7-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   
to the powers that be you are a human resource.
if they use you up and spit you out
then yes -they have to many old used up -depleted- resources to get rid of.
please go die.
- at least kids can be used as cannon fodder.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by g146541
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.


I don't think reading a dictionary has ever killed anyone.



Either way you look at it and I think cars are kind of a crazy analogy to use for humans.


Why? Some idea of human supremacy? An analogy of humans and bacteria is probably a better analogy.




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 we could do it with 10x more - sure - but what living standards? What about an environment that we constantly degrade due to our long held belief that 'someone will figure a solution one day'. That is the ultimate in irresponsible thinking - we can do something about it today, it is happening today - if we aren't going to man up and take care of our own problems, then we are no better than bacteria.




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]


Well, this last part confused me the most. My argument is that we either chose management or chaos to control our population - and your argument is .. what exactly?

That neither is necessary? That we can continue exponential population growth indefinitely, and all live happily ever after? Your fairy story will come to a ruinous and crushingly bad ending at some point.

Exponential growth in a finite space is not possible - we have no idea how move any population to another planet, and even if we did, we could not find and colonize planets fast enough to keep up with an exponential growth curve. We would populate the entire galaxy very quickly, then what?

We need to figure out how many people we want, and then stick to that number.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by g146541
 


don't take my earlier posts as being too critical of you. i may not have given you a S&F for your op, but i did you a F for your thread, and a star in another post(top page 6), and your diligence with trying to have a fruitful exchange here.

at least you are sharing your thoughts, and that i can respect.


i was just trying to interject a little humor and offer a different perspective other than the participation overtly or covertly concerning the culling of life, on any scale.

magneloquences,
ET

[edit on 4-7-2010 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 05:45 PM
link   

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.


what would the facts half to be in order for what they are doing to anywhere remotely be morally, ethically, or anyway correct?

i'm not being condescending here, not at all.

rather supportive, i thiink.

ask the right questions.
follow them as far as you can.
then ask the next logical question(s) that come to mind.

maybe more than we are currently ready to accept is going on.

g146541
fellow ATSers may be a little defensive or offensive against the purported suggestion and thread topic material.

maybe they don't want to be dead, or live in australia.
not that australia isn't a nice place, and doesn't have nice people.

but most australians may not want the entire the entire chinese population moving in, let alone everyone else.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   
It really comes down to the ability to adequately house. feed, employ, provide energy for all.

Eventually starvation will spread from severely impoverished regions into the major industrialized nations and will impact people who will never see it coming.

At some point decisions will have to be made, a first step will have to be mandatory forms of birth control... From there who knows what will be next?

Will you be able to ignore your starving neighbors when they number in the thousands around you?

We've been lucky so far, natural methods of population control have been held back for a very long time.

Everyone has been afraid of vaccinations, when you should be afraid of the day that they decide to make them completely unavailable to everyone but the elite. It will happen eventually!

Then nature will take its course and eliminate hundreds of millions worldwide and leave the population where it should have leveled off about 80 years ago.

Nature will find a way, when they let it happen.



posted on Jul, 4 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
my first post on ats was totally ignored, well that was a welcoming. well heres my second post.

so i read a few posts here stating the world is not over populated. just look at usa, more populated than indonesia by now, look back a decade 1-2-3-4-5 and so forth(backwards). you have to be ignorant fools to disbelieve we are getting overpopulated. and to those who suggest killing oneself: kill your kids! you who have 2-6 kids. humans arent the problem, the elbow room and the fuggin cars are the problem. and eventually the earth does grow, neither does the water or seas, rainforest, the fish, whatever food is out there.

i dont expect any replies here, as i didnt get any replies in my first post, where i asked for replies. i am not asking replies, especially in this thread.

[edit on 4-7-2010 by chapzeroevolve]



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Heh, the world aint over populated... the real problem is the space we do have is so poorly managed.

If you can have a thousand acres of grass to accommodate a few hundred farting cattle to produce small, pointless, resource inefficient, unhealthy products like meat and dairy while if used the land to grow crops or house people for the local populations it would be 100 percent better. I mean hell we have thousands of square miles of farm land in western countries designed to grow corn... corn that is then used to feed cattle taking up a thousand more square miles for f sakes... I mean wheres the logic in that?.. its a waste of space to produce a slab of meat thats overpriced, and that will sit in your colon for days doing you no good.

And as I always point out in threads like this, large families are a product of a poor populace... its the old system of having kids to look after you when your old, but with high infant and child mortality rates you have to buffer your offspring to make sure when half of them die before their 5 of starvation and disease you have a few left over to make it to adulthood, especially when the children are directly contributing to the income of the family in order for the family to feed itself.

Make the poor countries richer and reduce the inequality to almost nothing and you have instant population control... but some would call that Socialist and scoff.

A rich or well to do populace automatically restricts their population growth through lifestyle, good health and commodities... just like we do in the west currently. We have kids much much latter, more have no kids putting career first, some dont want kids period. The average family stick with the 2-3 kid setup throughout their life time, and its purely because we have a larger middle class and the perceived differences between rich and poor are far smaller.

Over population is a lie... hell if we hadnt stopped the moon missions and we didnt pump a few trillion dollars a year into the military weapons budgets and straight into the pockets of the super rich we could have been spreading our 'over populated' population onto other nearby planets by now.

Money (or should i say the unequal distribution and miss use of money) is the root of all evils.

**Rant mode off**

Err yeah, I guess I dont like the Overpopulation argument



posted on Jul, 5 2010 @ 01:03 AM
link   
I don't understand why you would say one thing in your title and opening paragraph and then go on to contradict yourself.

Is this some sort of joke? Are you trying to be confusing on purpose?

Anyone who believes the world is overcrowded needs to move to someplace less crowded. There is tons of space, and the whole overpopulation myth is simply that, a myth.

I don't believe the powers that be actually have a population reduction agenda. More people = more power for them. What they really want to eliminate is our consciousness, not our numbers.




top topics



 
16
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join