DEPOPULATION - where would you start?, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times


reply posted on 17-12-2010 @ 02:22 AM by gnosticquasar
reply to post by AnotherYOU




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


I was pointing out that very, very few religious people these days have caused death because of their religion, and the phrasing of your response is rather confusing given that.



reply posted on 17-12-2010 @ 03:00 AM by AnotherYOU
Originally posted by gnosticquasar
reply to
post by AnotherYOU





I was pointing out that very, very few religious people these days have caused death because of their religion, and the phrasing of your response is rather confusing given that.


that part i understood, but why were you pointing it out to me? i never said anything about religious people causing deaths or not, i was asking a personal question to the other poster...

but i have to disagree, religion is still killing alot of people, look at most regional conflicts, if it isn't about water and resources it's about religion.


reply posted on 17-12-2010 @ 04:50 AM by pepsi78
reply to post by c0ldPhr34k


If I were the NWO first I would start with drugs so kids would go insane and give up on life, then I would introduce one world religion, something like budism or zen so you can meditate then kill your self for spiritual enlightment, then I would add chemicals to water and food so many would get cancer, I would make health care imposible, scam people with medical insurance so they can't cover it. The rest of the people then I would make them my minions, slaves, twik then so they respond to my TV remote control. Of course I would not do this since I'm not the NWO and even if I was I could not do it, but some can since they don;t feel nothing at all.



reply posted on 17-12-2010 @ 05:26 AM by spikey
reply to post by c0ldPhr34k



When people go on about so called 'overpopulation' and unsustainable populations, what they are *really* saying is '*economically* sustainable populations'

It all comes down (again) to money and wealth being more important to those that have it, than human life is.

Our world, has plenty of water, plenty of empty land, plenty of natural resources.

There is only a threat to profits, not to the survivability of our world. In other words, a human population of double what we have now, is easily manageable, BUT it would take investment in energy, alternative farming methods such as high rise farming, multi tiered terraces, combined floating offshore agriculture and energy production farms, solar desalination plants and so on.

The way to support, and easily support many more people than we have now is simple to achieve, although initially it would not be cheap financially to set up.

The way or how, is there, it's just that the will isn't.

'Overpopulation' is a myth which relates primarily to less profits due to the required addition investment. It doesn't mean 'Oh no! We are all going to starve and run out of room to live'. We won't.


reply posted on 17-12-2010 @ 07:38 AM by Maslo
reply to post by spikey





When people go on about so called 'overpopulation' and unsustainable populations, what they are *really* saying is '*economically* sustainable populations'


Of course it is economical. How does that make overpopulation any less of a problem? Overpopulation does not mean that whole Earth is gonna explode - it means that population is increasing faster than the capacity of the habitat, resulting in increasing poverty.
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5    6  >>    ^^TOP^^



‘Barcode everyone at birth’
  Posted 6 days ago with 20 member flags
Pentagon Source Alludes to Martial Law Around July 1st, 2012
  Posted 4 days ago with 19 member flags
FBI Seize Email server, then return it
  Posted 17 days ago with 16 member flags
Bilderberg Scheme To Save The Euro
  Posted 13 days ago with 9 member flags
Martial Law in Montreal
  Posted 5 days ago with 9 member flags