It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


$1m for person who reduces population

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 05:40 AM
i will not complete my reading of the eugenics fest that is this thread, just let me point out that overpop concepts have been around since the days of Malthus, at a time when there was only a fraction of today's population.

growth is self-limiting, ie. true overpopulation automatically results in declined fertility (not always pretty to be sure) on a local level, therefore all global 'initiatives' along the lines of depopulation is just the genocidal wet dream of would have been nazis (all imo of course).

The Overpopulation (Rate) Myth.

it says that the peak is expected to occur between 2020 and 2050AD. well, that's only 10 years at the earliest, isn't it? make no mistake, the next crisis will be much more real, because countries in the EU and Japan are going to disintegrate and vanish in a similar timeframe as a result of these concepts. In a way, it is Darwinian, exterminating itself over time. if you consider that a good thing, may i ask you what are you still doing here? how come i always suspect people want everyone else to die out so they can have the whole planet for themselves?!

just my 2c.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 06:51 AM
reply to post by deltaalphanovember

Yes, but your plan is based on Western economy countries.

Populations across Europe are actually falling.

The population explosions are predominately in 'third world' countries.
The reason is obvious. More children= insurance that at least one child will survive the harsh circumstances and live to pass on his or her genes.

The solution is to improve living conditions across the third world countries, and introduce strict birth control policies.

This is a double edged sword though, as although this would reduce the populations in these countries, dramatically, it also means that because they are now living in a 'Western' standard of living, their consumption would dramatically increase.

The only viable way to cope efficiently with a growing population as a whole, is through technology.

With technology, people will be able to inhabit remote and harsh environments which are presently considered uninhabitable.

With ultra efficient energy technologies, crop and food production together with fresh water production will be a 24/7 affair, and in areas thought impossible to grow crops.

Multi-story, vertical farming techniques have been shown to be very efficient.

They use a much smaller footprint than a traditional farm does, and only use about 20% of the water a normal farm does, while increasing food production
at the same time.

If we floated these farms on huge platforms out to sea, they would not take any of the land, and we could use solar, wind and wave power to operate the huge floating multi-story farms. The same thing can be done with desalination plants, producing irrigation and drinking water. Or use the wind,solar and wave power to condense water vapour into fresh water.
The salts and minerals taken from sea water, makes an excellent and non polluting organic crop fertilizer.

Or they can simply open the dark storage cupboards, let the suppressed technologies out, and arrange an economy on something other than petrochemicals, if not, seeing as money is more important to TPTB than anything else, including human life, this won't be viable, as nobody will invest the initial capital (which will be a large amount to start) needed to get these projects underway.

Shame, but for all the talk on global warming, pollution, overpopulation, famine and on and on, nobody will stick their hands in their pockets to solve it all.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 07:10 AM
It's easy to spot whose childless on this thread....

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 08:34 AM
Population reduction is not necessary.

What is needed is a reduction in the number of births per person.

Here are the two most relevant and simple facts:

1. Human population is growing.
2. The earth is not.

Based on these two facts, at some point in the future the human population
will exceed the Earth's capacity to sustain us.

I am not advocating anything here other than an application of
historical precedent, common sense, and logic.

If we do nothing to slow the growth of population, barring natural disaster
or man made disaster, we will reach this point of maximum sustainability
within the next few centuries.

Beginning in 1930's world population was at 2 billion.
Thirty years later.........3 billion....1960
Fifteen years later........4 billion....1975
Twelve years later........5 billion....1987
Twelve years later........6 billion....1999

I hope you can see that there exists a high probability for crisis.
The potential for a poisoned environment, human suffering, famine, and
disease are great.

This is something we SHOULD BE discussing NOW. It is shameful and
lazy for us to do nothing and pass this problem down to our children.

You can shoot the messenger if you like, but it is a wasted energy.
Better to be safe than sorry....

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:17 AM

Originally posted by badgerprints
We don't need to "reduce" populations. We need to deecentralize populations and get back to small farms and communities. We need people to support themselves. This takes intelligence and economy of consumption.

Too many cars, petroleum based products, wealth relocation, entitlements and large population centers. If we got back to a basis where everyone was responsible for their own upkeep and support then we wouldn't have so many people making babies because it's free.

The planet and people would be healthier.

Badgerprints has my vote. I've been saying this for years. All we need is to get rid of the corporate band wagon, let people have farming rights and give tax incentives to those who remove the burden of the populous upon government. Then there would be no need to control populations. Isn't that the government complaint in the first place?

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by badgerprints

Woo-Hoo. Good thing I have people like you guys to assure that the destiny of every human until extinction is being a subsistence farmer.

[edit on 2010/8/11 by Aeons]

Good thing I don't need to stake my own life and future on overpopulated cities, millions living off of the labor of others, rampant consumption, petroleum addiction, a mindless mentality of entitlement, the monoculture trust and a money system that has a derivative market that exceeds global assets by more than 30 times.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Danbones
Make all those that believe in, support, or are actively engaged in eugenics, go first.
Come on, you know who you are.
Set a good example and shoot your selves, castrate your selves,
tax your selves. abort your selves, eat a cobra, what ever...
but take one for the gipper...
go on
you can do it,
make the world a better place.

WoooHoooo! U r celebrated here Danbones! BTW love the comments on your avatar flag in your signature. Most don't know that the Civil War was the first attempt of the elite to remove individual wealth in the US at that time. All the elite had slaves back then. Also, the removal of hemp was the destruction of cheap reusable, renewable resource fuels and materials that were of the highest quality either.
Also has anyone ever done a population count and ratio? The reason I ask is because so many people, especially here in the US, think caucasian and white are interchangeable when there are many dark skinned caucasians in the world. Suppose later in the eugenic files they decide that it is the light skinned caucasians that must go? Do you think those who want depopulation here on ATS would agree to it then?
Just goes to show you, lack of good education leads to bad decisions in the future.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 02:13 PM
License child production.

Prospective parents must attend a parent boot camp, where their physical and mental prowess will be tested. Only those graduating from the University for Baby Making Excellence will be allowed to proc(s)eed.

Stop idiots breeding.

Illegal babies can be ground up to make Baby Oil or Baby Food.

Okay, my tongue is no longer firmly in my cheek.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:00 PM
The earth already has a system in place to reduce populations when they get too large.

Its called starvation.

posted on Aug, 12 2010 @ 09:43 PM

Originally posted by deltaalphanovember
Quite simply, my idea would be tax benefits/cuts for couples with one child or less.
Instead a lot of countries reward couples for each child that they have - doling out social benefits like candy thereby exacerbating the situation.

Reducing the population on Earth is not a bad thing, and should not be made out to be ... we have been spreading like a virus. It's time to add some penicillin.

Population "control" is a bad thing if what we're talking about is compulsory abortion, euthanasia, or family "limits". These policies are dangerous to the natural rights of humans everywhere.We don't need population control we need investment, of all kinds, in better ways to manage resources. This is really an economic discussion, but I don't want to derail this thread.

Oh, and penicillin kills bacteria not viruses.

posted on Aug, 13 2010 @ 09:24 AM
reply to post by Gaderel

About a billion people are starving apparently.

1/6th of the worlds population.

This could be an argument used for or against population control.

For example: 1 billion people are starving, this shows that there is already a strain on food supplies.

Or, 1 billion people are starving, there's no need for population control because it's already happening...

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by sligtlyskeptical

First thing is take measurement of exactly how much resources we can reasonably expect to harvest from the earth on an annual basis. assume that everyone that is able to work, did work in some type of meaningful capacity and that all wealth was distinguished. Then simply divide the resources by the number of people and limit consumption to that number

In a honest world this would work, but we live in a world where
things like climate gate occur and scientists being paid by the
ppl were caught lying to further an agenda.

So we need to be VERY careful who and how these choices are made
because if the neo-malthusians can peddle influence they can
buy off more scientists like the did at the hadley CRU.

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 08:58 AM

When economic well-being measured by the gross domestic product exceeds a threshold, birthrate drops sharply.

Gross domestic product is dependent electrical consumption per capita.


Give them electric power to boost their GDP, increase living stands, which lowers birthrates.

"I became obsessed with the Idea that humankind's whole future depended on the breeder. For Society generally to achieve and maintain a standard of living of today's developed countries, depends on the avaliability of relatively cheap, inexhaustible sources of energy."- Alvin Weinberg

Where's my million?

[edit on 15/8/2010 by C0bzz]

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 09:52 AM
reply to post by Chadwickus

What exactly is the idea proposed?

As to population, all you need is more food. Farms have, for the most part, remained unchanged for the past 10,000 years. Plant a field, grow, pick. Very primitive.

The answer to population growth is not depopulation. It is reinventing the farm. You could have vertical farms, you could have tax breaks for growing your own garden. You could have space crops for freaking sake!

The planet can support up to 9 billion with current technology, and 14 billion with the right management.

Arcologies and manmade environments could literally make the population limit as high as 100 billion. but that falls to a future generation.

Humans, always concerned about going extinct. You never stop to think, what if you make it.

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in