DEPOPULATION - where would you start?

You cant take personal feelings into account then, it would have to be a forced loterry.

Originally posted by c0ldPhr34k

Originally posted by Ampelios
I would start with making the individual or individuals who are wanting to have children get a license to have a said amount of children based of the current numbers and the income and life style of the applicant.

Apply to have children????????????? Are you MAD!!

I don't need to be given permission to have children.

But then again, you could be onto something.....because it seems to me the people from the Middle east and Asia have the most amount of children per family. They have bucket loads of kids. So we should consider your idea.

However, it does not answer my question. 6 billion on earth now, we need that reduced by 2 billion tomorrow.

I would bring back the death penalty.

Originally posted by c0ldPhr34k

I would choose the 1 billion Islamic people on Earth.

This comment earns you one l-less Flag.

2nd line.

At the top of the list are murderers, child molesters, kiddie porn possessors, those who have severely abused their children, those who've severely abused animals, those convicted of any other violent crime (save assault, unless it was severe), and anybody on death row or serving a life sentence. Even if they've served their time, they're the first to be offed. If in doubt as to whether or not the crime was "severe", they get the ax.

Secondly, hate mongers. Those who want to ban religion, those who want to ban all other religions, those who actively go about spewing racism and other bigotry.

Thirdly are vegetables and those that require machines simply to live (aka breathe for them and pump their heart every second of every day and will for the rest of their lives).

Fourth on the list are terminally ill patients that will die directly from their disease (this does *not* include those who'd die from complications related to it).

Fifthly, those who will within the next year or so very likely die from complications of their disease.

Sixthly, those who are incurably mentally ill (as in, they're committed for life) and the profoundly mentally disabled (I.Q. under 40 or so). Beyond that, I'm not sure. I think that would go a long way, though.

As much as I don't like the idea of doing it at all, that's the order I'd pick if I absolutely had no choice.

Erm...

It has to be an immediate solution?

My first choice would be, logically, the "developing world". Not based on race or religion, but cold hard logic. For the most part, large swathes of the planet are filled with people who continually breed without the means to support themselves and rely on other people to send food. At a push, a place like the UK can support itself on food, power and water, other places are not so lucky.

If, however, we could drag this "final solution" out over a few decades, I would much rather a more human solution. License's to have kids granted to those who have proven their worth through either academic ability, service to society (military or otherwise) or similiar. Kind of like what they have on Starship troopers. Grant every couple the right to have one child, but anymore and a license would be required up to a max of 3 per couple. That way, everyone can have kids and the population would shrink.

Originally posted by infoquest
I would bring back the death penalty.

and I would apply it to everyone involved in the first non guilty execution

PS I'll bet the Jewish folks on ATS are running from this thread in droves...
and I don't blame them one bit

In the last Family Guy episode, Stewart goes to the North Pole by entering through a gate with two poles and a golden triangle above it. They meet Santa and he begs them to kill him. Christmas demands have made them weak and over burdened. Their environment is polluted by factories. The elves have genetically mutated due to inbreeding. Watch if if you can find it. Many messages in their.

Basically, the way I see it, the elites see themselves as separate from everyday people around the world. Most likely, they know more about the worlds past and what purpose that drives them to conquer and subjugate. It takes a lot of resources to supply an economy and to feed the masses. Plenty of minerals have been extracted over the ages. They have placed their companies over other useful resources such as oil, fresh water and minerals. If you are running a big business and you start having too many guys standing around (unemployed or surrounding cities planned to be abandoned, you need to lay people off to remain profitable. What bank do the bankers bank at? I imagine money does not deeply motivate them,but control does. The large corporations and banks can not fail or so we are told. I think they are tired of the game and don't need all of us. It's their survival plan which has been planned out for a long time it seems.

My first Post ever

I would cull all those in opposition to the banning of Religion and religious practices. I have little love for religious people and their fabrication has caused many deaths and upheaval of regulations.

Exactly, everything in moderation. But lets say licencing was implemented ect ect, they would have to also complete revamp the healthcare system along with the educational system along with who knows what else. Because you cant just be like "oh hey btw you all have to have a licence to have a child" with out having other benefits for the society.

Originally posted by stumason
Erm...

It has to be an immediate solution?

My first choice would be, logically, the "developing world". Not based on race or religion, but cold hard logic. For the most part, large swathes of the planet are filled with people who continually breed without the means to support themselves and rely on other people to send food. At a push, a place like the UK can support itself on food, power and water, other places are not so lucky.

If, however, we could drag this "final solution" out over a few decades, I would much rather a more human solution. License's to have kids granted to those who have proven their worth through either academic ability, service to society (military or otherwise) or similiar. Kind of like what they have on Starship troopers. Grant every couple the right to have one child, but anymore and a license would be required up to a max of 3 per couple. That way, everyone can have kids and the population would shrink.

lets see ...crash the currency make food and fuel expensive and in very short supply then cut food/elec and all services to all reciepents of goverment money .... there will be mass riots and mayhem as violence takes over ...... estimated dead USA alone 75 million ....then China/India will no longer have economic stability and willl fall shortly afterwaeds because the worlds hog consumer in the USA has been bled dry ...the NWO is killing the golden goose and hoping that China will be be their new instrument to fleece the people.

Where would I start? I'd start with the one place that could make everything better - Washington DC. After that? We'd move towards all the members of alphabet agencies hell bent on controlling the people. Geez, that alone would make for a country people are better off living in. There there's the implicitly corrupt Judicial branch...

Every now and then the tree of Liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. Let's start with the tyrants and see if that doesn't quench the thirst of the Liberty Tree?

reply to post by Ampelios


Indeed, you could give incentives NOT to breed.

But ironically, alot of developed countries are actually trying to up their birth rates with finacial incentives, so I am not convinced there is such a problem as is being claimed. I have read in science books etc that the earth can, given the right methods and tech, support twice the population now, but the way we do things at the moment skews the balance of resources.

True. But the real matter is that certain people because of situations and environment they have willingly placed themselves in do not deserve or hold the right to have a child as well as having the means to raising a child properly. Thus i think some type of licencing needs to be in place.


reply to post by stumason

reply to post by The19Keys


My second post ever.

You have justified your choice, but may i ask,
choosing them to die for causing death is being better than them how?

reply to post by AnotherYOU


As I recall, the vast majority of religious people these days have not caused deaths due to their religion. What stupid people 500 years ago did is not their fault.

You start with Food Source - Honey Bee's and Drinking Water - Plain as day. Don't know what else to say. But if I may, the Bayer company owned by Khzar Jews. Oh how it makes me stew - they think they own the world, but if they knew. The world is a dream, we are the stream. Makes wonder, when we will wake from our slumber.....

reply to post by gnosticquasar


and if you care to explain me where did i say or imply that when i was replying/asking another poster?

you might want to go back and re-read because your reply to me was sort of like talking back to the TV.

even though you can do it, it doesn't make much sense.

I would start with the so-called "progressives," and move on to the democrats, and then to the socialists, and then to the marxists and then to the communists, and I would make their demise painful, hateful, ugly and suffused with fear, loathing and horror.

The extermination of this set of creatures should result in an age of peace, enlightenment and tranquility across the globe and potentially across the heavens.

Killing off two billion people would not work, if you were to do that it wouldn't take long before the population again reaches 7 billion.

If the earth can only sustain X amount of people, then we need to limit how many people are born (unless of course you want to continually kill off large sums of people).

Most likely this would be done by limiting how many children you are allowed to have. I agree with what someone else said...2 children per person. Of course there are some problems with that, ie. triplets

If instead you'd prefer to kill off people it'd have to be a much larger number of dead in order to have a real impact, say about 6-6.5 billion

Well I would assemble several large 1KM man made asteroids on the back side of moon made from iron and rock. Then I would dump them on several strategic locations around the world in order to start a no holds barred conflict around the planet. The resulting damage to the climate would eliminate or weaken any victors.
DUMBS, moon bases, seed vaults etc. would already be in place before hand.