DEPOPULATION - where would you start?, page 10

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 01:52 AM by ChaosMagician

Originally posted by JesusChristSr
reply to post by ChaosMagician

Your words were well spoken and your message is clear. While most, including myself, looked to bloodshed and savagery as our solution you came up with a much less primitive answer. For a student of Austin Spare your mind illuminates a certain uniqueness. Maybe you should find a more sophisticated path that can nurture your intelect. Who knows, maybe even a bright future with the big /G\. Remember, all you have to do is ask.

You mean "Steppin out" with the Big Gangstah?

Okay, you probably didn't mean that but Thank You... and I'm not really a student of Austin spare... I just play on one the internet.

I have actually studied more about God to tell you the truth. Take that lightly because it's not as though I've always had my nose in the bible and I am not traditionally religious but I have had quite an interest in that whole situation.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 02:02 AM by NoHierarchy

Overpopulation is a serious problem, more specifically consumption of resources, but this is a result of a combination of population and lifestyle.

The question is- can lifestyles be changed in a manner that will allow 7+/- billion people to live sustainably on this planet? Probably not.

It sucks... but it doesn't therefore mean it disappears as a problem. It's also very difficult to address, like many of our cluster-f*** problems we face on this planet.

Speaking ecologically/biologically... population is merely a function of food supply, in ANY species. Increase the food supply=population increases, decrease the food supply=population decreases. Are humans still bound to this law? Overall, yes.

We have created a civilization which conquers/assimilates the planets' balanced ecosystems and literally turns Earth's biomass into more humans (and human products). Things like industrialization, genetic modification, totalitarian agriculture, etc. have only amplified this. The population used to take thousands/millions of years to double from several million to several million more... the last doubling took only 35 years and jumped populations from billions to more billions. The next doubling may be faster or slower than the last, but the fact remains that we're far past the sustainable level of population/consumption. This creates a problem of conscience and of science for both ecosystems and humans... we WILL suffer the karma of our collective actions, so decreasing world population/consumption is ultimately a good idea if we want to be moral/ethical/intelligent/wise about our future and our world.

To make a simple analogy- if 5 people can live on an island comfortably/indefinitely, but 10 people can't, then adding 5 more to the original 5 out of a short-sighted desire/greed for more humans to enjoy the island will only make EVERYONE miserable AND deplete the island completely. The goal of humans should be to retreat from a mindset of unlimited wants and limited means and instead to limited wants and unlimited means to achieve those wants. Balance, humility, and sustainability are key to human/ecological freedom and well-being.

Here is a great slideshow which explains population in terms of food surpluses:
World Food & Human Population Growth

Depopulation doesn't necessarily have to be bloody/immoral, at least not any bloodier than our current world is, behaving the way it does.

However, in the hypothetical case of some kind of forceful/intentional depopulation as postulated by the OP... I'll have to agree with the first response that the top tiers of the richest, most powerful, and most despicable people (of any stripe) should be taken out absolutely first if we are to consider such a forceful extermination AT ALL moral/ethical/justifiable.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 02:03 AM by JesusChristSr

Originally posted by ChaosMagician
I have actually studied more about God to tell you the truth.

Which one?

Don't worry brother I started on a similar path and look at me know. There is truth in the book you read but don't take it as gospel. But one must learn there own lessons I suppose.

edit on 18-12-2010 by JesusChristSr because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 02:39 AM by NewAgeMan

Originally posted by schuyler
Pretty scary how many people would be willing to implement a Final Solution. I see Hitler and his cromies have plenty of fellow travelers. If I had to choose, I would start with anyone who actually believes they have the right to choose life or death for another human being.

So you're basically saying that you would do the very same thing!

In all seriousness, I just can't believe what I've been seeing here on this thread, and ATS in general. It's, well, there are hardly words to describe the degree of ignorance, and the hardened hearts of these kids, and most of them surely MUST be kids, or it just get's even scarier, to think that many of these people are American adults, some of them parents no less.

If it keeps up, the absurdity of the utter stupidity, I'm not sure what to DO, other than start laughing out loud, maniacally and for no reason at all.

I beginning to think, based on everything I'm seeing around here, that it might be time to quit ATS altogether. Most of the people around here, or a LOT of them, just don't deserve what I have to offer, and wouldn't be able to even begin to understand it for the life of them, and no, that is not an arrogant statement, just an observation.

It's HORRIBLE.

Many of you people, just SUCK, you offer NOTHING, nada, ZILCH, except more of the depravity, as it becomes increasingly apparent that the human being is DEVOLVING, not evolving any more at all.

It's very sad, and no I am not directing that at you, the person I'm responding to, although you're not much further ahead, wanting to kill the peoiple who want to kill people.

I don't know - I've always likened myself as the eternal optimist in the face of any negativity and adversity, but ATS on the whole just isn't very encouraging..

edit on 18-12-2010 by NewAgeMan because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 02:55 AM by loveguy

Originally posted by c0ldPhr34k
Well, there seems to be a lot of talk on the NWO or the Elites wanting to depopulate the Earth.

Even Bill gates the Microsoft Idiot said we need some form of "population control".

If the Earth can not sustain the growth of people that we are experiencing what are we to do?

So, people of ATS, where would YOU start?

What would be your ideal method of depopulation? WHO would you choose?

Remember it has to be enough to make a change worldwide.

I am keen to hear what the people on ATS have to say on this matter, if push came to shove and you HAD to select near enough 2 billion people to "remove" how would you do it? AND most importantly WHO would you choose.

(If you choose not to answer do not leave a stupid remark as some of you are prone too. Just move on to another topic. For those who do part-take I thank you in advance.)

I would choose everyone with a Gross Personal Fortune (including money, property and assets) of over $100,000,000

And

I would choose the 1 billion Islamic people on Earth.

Something nudged at me to re-read the OP.

And it's mackerel, IMHO. Can it and ship it off to consumers world-wide. Not humble opinion, honest opinion.

Over population is as bad a farce as global warming, and/or "the cost of living." Take a drive twenty miles away from civilization. How many, and how far is the expanse of these unpopulated areas individually? Could you survive? We gotta be parked on top of each other?

And the biggest farce of all creation is the concept of needing to pay for this or that.

Did Adam and Eve get kicked out of Eden for non payment of rent? Did cavemen A,B,& C tell caveman D to hit the road because he wasn't carrying his own weight? Be careful with this one; caveman D has a fifty percent chance of being a female, who risked her very life to keep the population from going extinct, and surviving child birth. Nobody knows the answers. I don't. But I do know that who we consider to be elite are completely full of themselves. They are so out of touch with reality...Or they are "banking-on us being" out of touch with reality.

Go ahead and call me delusional.

I've got a tremendous amount of respect for the Amish, I think they are doing something right. They're not really in the MSM hardly at all...Hmmm.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 03:16 AM by exo87

Borrow a b-52 or similar aircraft and 30 b83 nukes, id drop them on....
1- Jakarta
2- Manila
3-Mumbai
4-Delhi
5-Tehran
6-Calcutta
7-Shanghai
8-Beijing
9-Guangzhou
10-Karachi
Now 3 nukes over each of these cities should kill about 100-200 million people instantly then take into account fall out and sterilization of several generations and it should help alot to depopulate the world, although there would have to be some time between each attack due to nuclear winter lol.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 03:57 AM by JesusChristSr

Originally posted by exo87
Borrow a b-52 or similar aircraft and 30 b83 nukes, id drop them on....
1- Jakarta
2- Manila
3-Mumbai
4-Delhi
5-Tehran
6-Calcutta
7-Shanghai
8-Beijing
9-Guangzhou
10-Karachi
Now 3 nukes over each of these cities should kill about 100-200 million people instantly then take into account fall out and sterilization of several generations and it should help alot to depopulate the world, although there would have to be some time between each attack due to nuclear winter lol.

Moronic answer to an honest question. First off the combine populations for all the cities listed is not even close to 100 million let alone 200 million. Second, the blast radius could not kill all those people as well. Why not just poison the water supply or something?

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 05:02 AM by IceHappy

reply to post by c0ldPhr34k

How about those how feel like they must populate the world Mormon's are a fine example. My sister in law cranked out 6 boys who now are 19 - 25 and yep they are all cranking them out one has four another has three 3 of them have two in which two wifes have miscarriage several times and are attempting to catch up and the last one he just got married 3 months ago and he is very blessed his wife is now with twins growing..... The first two are still trying for more.....

We had two against my better judgment and got fixed after the second both are lovely ladies today who starting a family is not on the game plan improving their lives is as the costs of living is growing for the selfishness of people like their cousins which of course is based on supply and demand and surplus is being stripped out by the masses as it takes a lot of resources for folks to live. Some are more selfish as more. I say lets start taxing over two kids as a luxury items! More sons more cars less fossil fuel higher prices. Tax the breeders!

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 05:17 AM by dubiousone

I'd start with you.

Most people would start with you rather than themselves.

So, let's be honest. We'd all start with the other person.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 05:18 AM by Speak3asy

reply to post by ANOMALY502

And ever and ever....your right on the money my friend. But in my opinion I still would say if today were anything like in the wild west days then we wouldn't have this over population....or is terminator a more appropriate thing to say?

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 05:53 AM by CthuluPrime

It would be as simple as creating a virus that was similar to one that had killed many people in an age prior. Let's say I take the 1918 spanish flu that killed millions even with the benefit of fairly modern disease control practices. Then you mix it with another strand that has highly lethal traits such as bird flu. Then you take the new virus and inject it into a bunch of people while making sure the elites have their vaccines up to date on this super flu.

Actually Exactly like this!

Wait! someone else ACTUALLY already tried this! Awww :*(

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 12:40 PM by majesticgent

Originally posted by ChaosMagician
right now you get tax breaks for having children... that's backwards.

This sounds good in theory, but you know why people get a tax break to have children right? The children are future tax payers. There you have it. In some way shape or form, all the children that are being produced will be taxpayers which means more money coming into the government.

Taxing people to have more children means they'd have less and then there would be less people in the future to tax, and therefore the government will have less revenue.

Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes. ~ Benjamin Franklin

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 01:10 PM by JesusChristSr

Originally posted by majesticgent

Originally posted by ChaosMagician
right now you get tax breaks for having children... that's backwards.

This sounds good in theory, but you know why people get a tax break to have children right? The children are future tax payers. There you have it. In some way shape or form, all the children that are being produced will be taxpayers which means more money coming into the government.

Taxing people to have more children means they'd have less and then there would be less people in the future to tax, and therefore the government will have less revenue.

Certainty? In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes. ~ Benjamin Franklin

What makes you think they will be tax payers and not a tax burden? I think traditionally success breeds success and failure breeds failure. Therefore, those productive members of society whom can afford to have kids are most likely to produce responsible offspring that does the same. Considering that the top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all taxes then I can't see how your argument is valid. If fact, we could kill off 50% of the population right now and tax incomes would stay relatively the same. Also, think about how much money we could save by getting rid of all these social welfare programs that enabling these unproductive eaters to breed at twice the rate a normal person.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 02:02 PM by GodIsPissed

Taxes and money all together won't mean squat if/when there is a food shortage because there are too many people on the planet.

People will care about food not money.Trade will once again become currency.Imagine if there wasn't any diseases,wars or murders and whatnot how many people there would be?

If you control the births you will control the population.I don't get why that isn't obvious to our almighty government.

It would also make people try harder to better themselves so they can have a baby.There are too many drunken nights where people just don't realize what the hell they are doing.One drunken night can mean the rest of your life,especially if you're broke.

Killing off people seems harsh but if you had to for the good of mankind,should you?Millions of people are starving and dying from starvation isn't that proof that there is a population or food problem?Should they just let them continue to starve to death?

If something isn't done there will be no food left.

Just take a look at the population clock.
www.worldometers.info...

Look at the births and deaths.Big difference.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 02:12 PM by lance_covel

Originally posted by Anthony1138
reply to post by lance_covel

you sound like, you are trying to sound tough, a foolhard attempt at trying to show your ego, on an internet forum (you cant be that bright)

We can depopulate the earth, without killing one person. Those who are genetically inferiour, wouldnt be killed. They would be allowed to live thier lives in peace, with everything they need to live (home water food) just they arent allowed to reproduce, ever!

Those with a high gene pool or high intellgence, will be allowed to procreate, it is controling the number of people, not violentlly murdering them, let us be civilizied.

I think you may have me confused with another poster, your post pretty much reflects what I said.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 02:21 PM by majesticgent

reply to post by JesusChristSr

I will assume that you are talking about the situation in the USA, so I will stay with that context instead of talking about the broader global depopulation topic at hand.

Let's say we halved the population of the United States. I honestly think that the majority of the states would totally collapse financially. Only the few states with enough population left to tax may survive. For example, the infrastructure of said states would crumble because on the state level there would be not enough income to support it as a result of population decrease. The federal government, who receives the unaffected federal taxes you were speaking of, would have to step in and take care of the states that are in ruin. Then that tax money would have to be shifted from what it was used for federally, i.e. national defense, to help support the states, so that they could stand own their own and not depend on the federal government which has its own issues to deal with.

The 50% that are paying 96% of the taxes before the population decrease will have turned into the 99% paying 100% of all the taxes after the population decrease. With that being said, the problem is not with the population; The root cause of the issue lies somewhere else which is another topic entirely.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 02:25 PM by lance_covel

Actually, there is no need to come up with an idea for population control. In the end the human population will be decreased through our own stupidity or nature will just plumb get tired of us, if we are lucky we wont drop below the line of not being able to Re-Populate.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 02:34 PM by majesticgent

reply to post by GodIsPissed

Food shortage??? Are you serious. I live in the US where there are laws that state that a restaurant has to throw away any leftovers that it has at the end of the business day because it's a "health hazard." If there was a food shortage, or any danger of a food shortage coming soon that law would be lifted immediately. Laws would be in place to limit leftovers and ration laws would be in effect.

Presently, the places where there are food shortages come into play where there is a hostile environment not conducive of growing food, but a massive population center. Well I can assure you that the people in these environments would not be there anymore if they had the resources to move. Surely the ruling parties of these areas have no shortage of food or wealth.

Which goes back to my original post that states that the most effective means of world depopulation is having 3% of the world's population effectively control 99% of the world's resources & wealth. Eventually, those without it will kill each other off fighting for, or die as a result of not have access to these resources. Then the 3% who control will kill each other off fighting to gain 100% control of the resources and wealth. The result of the aforementioned will be famines, pestilence outbreaks, global conflict, which will decrease the population drastically. Until there is a ruling elite that restores order, controls 100% of everything, and is comprises of 70% of the world's population after depopulation in my scenario.

edit on 18-12-2010 by majesticgent because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 03:08 PM by wookiee

I'd use neutron bombs on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Israel and anywhere else a certain population exceeds 55% of the local population. One particular place I'd use a high yield nuke that would forever leave the land cripplingly radioactive so no one would ever be able to touch foot on it. You can guess which one.

reply posted on 18-12-2010 @ 03:45 PM by bekod

as of 21:30 UTC the world pop is 6,888,640,187, that is a lot of people on this world and there is 4.2 being born every sec. so how to depopulate ??? a world war would not do it even if nukes were used then you defeat your hole goal, no the real way is through germ bio weapons, then you can weed out the unneeded as you want to, DNA IQ and health as well as income based, in 96 hours you could reduce the world pop by 2/3, the reaming 1/3 in 1/2 in a 48 hour time frame.