Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

What's wrong with population control?

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by PoorFool
Hey all, I'm new and this is my first thread here.

So a big deal about the NWO is that they will attempt to decrease population over the next few decades.

Is this necessarily a bad thing? (given that they use non-violent methods)

Now you may say that they will try to make us all stupid, unhealthy, weak, poisoned, etc.

But what can TPTB gain from making the majority of the human race weak sheep?

Thank you and please bear with my ignorance.


LET me answer to you, shortly:
You would know, if you were on the decreased side without ANY method for changing sides(what's obvious).
All about that.




posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Maslo
 


My point is I disagree. Population control is absolutely wrong, because it infringes on their natural rights. It is better we all starve than oppress people so some may have a more pleasurable life.
edit on 14-1-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


My point is that I do not consider procreation to be an inalienable right. If the parent cannot take care of their future children, he should not have any right to procreate. Right of a baby to grow up in good conditions is more important than "right" of people to procreate. When procreation infringes on this basic right of children, it is our moral duty to restrict it.That is not oppresion, that is a humane thing to do.
edit on 14/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)
edit on 14/1/11 by Maslo because: clarification



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   


Is this necessarily a bad thing?


Depends on which side of the gas chamber door your on
edit on 14-1-2011 by hillbilly4rent because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
The population of the world is aging so in 30 years the world population will be somewhat smaller when you also take in to consideration diseases, starvation, accidents etc etc.

The only population growing at a much faster speed than any other is India, Indonesia and Middle East.



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


What about people who are responsible enough to have kids but not brainwashed enough to have designer babies? What if people want to live their life not according to the whims of the scientific elite?
edit on 14-1-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Maslo
 


What about people who are responsible enough to have kids but not brainwashed enough to have designer babies? What if people want to live their life not according to the whims of the scientific elite?
edit on 14-1-2011 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


That should probably depend on the difference between quality of life of normal and designed person. Even today, parents have some degree of control over their childrens healthcare, but they cannot do (or refuse the care) something that would be harmful for the child. The same should apply for designer babies in the future.

People should be free to live their lives in whatever way they want, I definitely agree with that. It is just when other peoples lives are negatively affected, it is justified to restrict their freedom. Your freedom ends where another humans rights begin. This includes procreation that violates the right of baby to grow up in good conditions, and without preventable genetic defects, according to the state of science at the time.

edit on 14/1/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   
Well everything is wrong with it. The NWO want to kill off a lot of people with poisons. Think about it, you be poisoned also and all the people you care about will also get poisoned. The NWO want to put people in prison cities and kill a whole bunch of them and drugged them to death. I am against their method because it is terrible and it will kill so many innocent people and everyone I love. The most humain way to reduce the population is have all the 3rd world countries become industrialized and the population will drop, because they will have no need to have so many kids knowing all of them will make it. Also a good education and good job options will help also and women having equal rights and a right to a career. Most of all, don't let stupid people breed, too many those around.



posted on Jan, 26 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   
I'm no expert on this but it seems we have to do something about the total world population before it's too late. So far we have managed to feed most of the people most of the time but it must be a losing battle in the end.

I have seen estimates that this planet can comfortably sustain about 1000 million people without harming the environment or seriously compromising other species and we're running up to the buffers pretty quickly.

Only intensive farming and chemical fertilizers have brought us this far, and even that is at the expense of future generations. In a way we're living on our children's food and other resources!

OK. Enough scare mongering. I think most rational people see that there is a need to reduce the world population but how to do it?

First and foremost is education. Many of the Third World countries continue to deny education to girls and they, after all, are the very ones who will bear the next generation. So instead of draconian measures to strip people of the right to reproduce, let's give them the means to see that it is better to have fewer children.

This goes hand in hand with making simple birth control methods easily available and desirable.

All of us, yes, even in the West, still have the caveman mentality that wants to reproduce, and reproduce in quantity!

That was fine when the majority of children died at birth or soon afterwards - you needed plenty of children just to keep the population stable and not falling!

I'm not talking about thousands of years ago either. For most Western countries this is considerably less than 200 years.

Then we had the rise of awareness of health care and the means to implement it until today, again in the Western world, it is considered a tragedy if a baby dies, not just one of those things that happen all the time.

Social inertia is extremely high and it takes a long time to develop a new mindset. In the developing world health care is improving but still many babies die so they are not even up to our expectations yet.

Plus many of the Abrahamic religions place great importance on large families and some even prohibit the use of birth control as we know.

This all makes a viable population control system extremely difficult and, other than extreme dictatorships like the one child policy in China, no normal government would be able to implement such a control without immediatly being forced out of power!

So how to do it? Education will help greatly but there needs to be something else, especially when dealing with the large family religious groups. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not against religion. In fact I and my wife are both Christians, I'm from England and my wife is from Thailand. But we realise that we also have to limit our growth so we have only one child by choice.

For anyone who wants to take the religious ticket, by the way, don't forget that God told us to care for the planet, not to rape it!

So how about making it cool to have small families? One commentator here mentioned that TV often shows large families as being a GOOD THING. Surely a gentle way to introduce the concept of small families (only one or two children) being the ideal is to show this in the most popular TV shows, such as Soaps and sitcoms. These are astonishingly popular everywhere (yes - they're just as avidly followed in Asia as in the West) and the largest demographic of Soap Opera viewers is female.

TV can introduce the idea that only one or two children can be better cared for than many, and with smaller families there will more health care, food and other resources for everyone.

What happens in TV land really does influence people. If it didn't then why would advertisers even bother with it?

I know that some religious fundamentalist groups don't allow TV, but at least this could be a big start for most of the world. It just has to be implemented somehow. Just don't ask the advertisers, though, as they want MORE consumers, not fewer!

Good ideas would be welcome! And necessary!






top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join