DEPOPULATION - where would you start?

I would chose you, op.
I would also chose everyone who teaches extremist ideals.
Then i would chose all that have done wrong more than 2 times in their life.
By that i mean they have done harm, to damage others well being, more than twice.
Then i would chose myself for considering the extermination of people to solve problems in the world.

Hmm.. this is a touchy topic, but I'll throw my two cents in.

First, I'd start with the severe and repeat offending criminals. The worst crimes, such as murder, rape, child abuse, and the like, especially when it is a repeat offender. There are people who can become rehabilitated, and those who are wrongfully convicted, so I'd be reluctant to say 'off with their heads' to a single act, unless it could be proven 100% beyond any doubt. If someone is convicted of one of these crimes again, though, I'd say they are incurable, and most likely rightfully convicted.

I'd also like to see lower birth rates. Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? It's a comedy, but the general premise that stupid people have more kids than smart people is true in general. I don't really want to see a cap on family sizes, but I would like to see some sort of parental licence or the like to prove fitness to have children.

Honestly, I'm not sure what I'd suggest after that that isn't subjective and based on personal bias.

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.

Inform all Nations to bring their populations down to 1 million or else face Nuclear Annihilation.

All inhabitants to be put down over the age of 32.

Any Persons under 32 with disabilities to be put down

Any Person under 32 with criminal records to be put down

Any Person under 32 out any skill or education to be put down

This would indeed work how ever it is extremely cruel and I would fight till the end to prevent it from happening to me, which is probably why the powers that be who are seeking this kind of population reduction have done so in secrecy.

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.

• Murderers
• Rapists
• Child Molesters

I don't know how many that would be world wide, but I don't want to kill anyone else.

I believe we need to take extreme and drastic efforts to live in balance with earth and its creatures. If we do not, we either have to start a depopulation/sterilization campaign, or just keep sucking the earth till there's nothing left but pollution, garbage, and humans.

To kill 2 billion people... if the Murderers, Rapists, and Child Molesters are not even close to enough, just start a World War and let survival of the fittest go into effect. Create another gene-pool bottleneck. That's probably how TPTB solved these kinds of problems during our last great age.

I would choose the 1 billion Islamic people on Earth.

This is the problem with ATS these days, Nothing but discrimination. By the looks of it 1 billion people would be happy to start with you!

On a serious note they would start at Africa with famine then move on to the middle east, Asia and lastly south America before depopulating their first world countries. Why? simply because you can do anything in or with Africa and get away with it.

SOYLENT GREEN

I would poor money and resources into into altering peoples opinions on reckless sex resulting in unplanned children, make birth control universally available and infiltrate the cultures who don't believe in birth control to sway them into believing it is acceptable and the same with the cultures who believe having as many children as they can to out breed those who don't agree with them.

However I believe that it might be possible that there is a conspiracy to convince a target group of overpopulation so that they will think they are believing they are being responsible by not having children while the other group(s) plan out breed the first group so they can easily over power them with sheer numbers.

If I wanted to take over the world, that's how I would do it. I would encourage my followers to have as many children as possible whose children would turn around and have many children, and all these children would be indoctrinated into what I wanted them to believe, and then I would find a way to convince those who oppose me that they are causing harm to bring children into the world with out them ever suspecting a thing.

I think people who live in large cities are more pron to believe in over population than those who live in rural areas or those who have ever traveled across the western U.S.

Lets start with the highly Religious, there way of thinking does not belong in the New World, a place which would value a persons self belief rather than a belief in the preposterous.

Well first things first.

All males below the age of 26 must be killed off.
All males and females above the age of 30 must be killed off.
All females below the age of 15 must also be killed off.

There we have it. Males in the prime of their life have many females in the prime of their lives to choose from and breed with, and new girls coming of age each year until the end times of 2012...


Operation Depopulate complete.

And please don't comment and say how sexist this is. I am of course, kidding. But if there is a place to start with, it would be those who say we are over-populated. They can lead by example. Off with their heads.

To be honest though. There is no need for depopulation. It happens naturally through natural disasters, and man-made disasters such as war.

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.

I have to ask the OP, why would you choose all the "Islamic people"? Why not Christians? Catholics? Why make a choice based on someone's religious beliefs?

I personally would not choose anyone, it is not my place to pass that type of judgment. I like to think nature will take care of overpopulation all by itself. It does not need my help.

I would however encourage and support any idea that would require people to get a license to have children. Let's be really honest here, I am sure we all know or have seen someone who quite frankly should never be a parent to begin with. Unfortunately, I would not trust the Government to make the decision who can and can not have children. They screw up everything they touch anyway, so I have no reason to believe they would use such an idea for the greater good of mankind.

I would stop bitching about our wars with each other and start planing the colonisation of the moon and mars (terra formed or not)

Regulate the births so if you can't sustain 3 children then you should have 2.


And why kill the islamics? ... they are people too, they feel pain too...

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.

There are solar flares intensifying on to earth and closer to the end of 2012 they will become a far greater problem especially if they hit our electrical grids and suddenly we have no power for months or even years; the possibility of that causing deaths among our population is high, possibly 100 million or so and that's just a mere conservative guess.

So in terms of "depopulation", where would you like to start? How will these solar flares affect YOU, your family, your friends? You better think VERY carefully about it because without electrical power grids all communications shut down, no electrical cooking, no fridges to keep food, sewage shuts down, water taps go off, hospitals over crowded, street lights off, emergency services at full capacity, etc.

And thats just for starters.....

Originally posted by bluemirage5
You better think VERY carefully about it because without electrical power grids all communications shut down, no electrical cooking, no fridges to keep food, sewage shuts down, water taps go off, hospitals over crowded, street lights off, emergency services at full capacity, etc.

The Third World lives like that already... and has for a while.

So why won't we? We may be spoiled, but survival is still in the human essence.

I would destroy the intelligence, education institutions, disrupt wealthy first world countries and upper class. This is the cornerstone of our modern society, and the sole reason why it is even possible for 7 billion humans to live on Earth. Then I would just watch the people drop like flies all over the world until the population is reduced back to industrial revolution levels.

But why the hell would anyone want to do something like this?

Peaceful population control programs like child licences and China-like policies are the way to go if we ever want to live in harmony with mother Earth. Not killing.

I wouldnt .. All life is valuable..

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.