It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Overpopulation? Elitest Propaganda and Damned Lies Lies Lies!

page: 11
162
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:00 AM
link   
I had sent some graphs to people showing population vs time vs energy sources not long ago. The population was flat forever then came coal. It started to ramp up a little. Then came "OIL" and the population ramped up one hell of a lot. Almost went vertical. I've read a lot of oil industry papers and I'm pretty sure we've hit peak oil and are very likely at the beginning of the down side. As a tangent, I think this explains what is going on in the middle east more than anything. But, back on track. When you have a fine sweet ass BIG tractor you can farm a lot of land and feed a lot of people. Try that with some fellow with one plow behind a mule and no pesticides or fertilizer.

We have all of the tell tell signs of population collapse be it via the PTB or just you and I fighting desperately over a chicken wing in the bottom of a trash can. Just about every square inch of farmable land is being used. Places that are too hilly (or mountainous) look like they have the mange because patches of trees are cut out everyplace. Our oceans cannot produce enough food, we are fishing them to oblivion.

This planet has a plague and it is humanity. It's appetite is voracious beyond compare and it serves self before any and all ideals or great goals. Idealism is fine but reality is a harsh teacher..




posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Short read = Technology being suppressed makes the concept of overpopulation a reality. New energy sources are needed and when they are available, food, water, transportation etc, will not be a problem.

Mathematically you could fit every single person on earth into the state of Texas with aprox. 1200 square feet per person. That is not including the fact we can build upwards. The problem being we are not living the lifestyles that support this, we as a whole are not willing to change how we live to accommodate for the future.

When the energy problem is solved. Converting sea water in to fresh water will not be a problem nor will growing plants under lights in complexes. Recycling waste including human wastes (if only the people weren't expelling medications and chemicals down the drain) would be more easily accomplished.

It's all about humanity embracing a new way of life that is sustainable really. If you aren't willing to change and compromise, someday you will have to kill or be killed.


-Regards



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:07 AM
link   
The sad part is, if it were not for these "elite", not only could we double our population, but nobody in that population would starve. None would go thirsty. None would die of disease, cancer or have to live through poverty. The human species would thrive on not just this planet, but many others aswell.

Are they the only problem? No, of course not. But its like telling a puppy its okay to piss on the couch. At some point the cats going to come over and piss on the couch too.
edit on 19-4-2011 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by dbriefed
On a personal level, I've been crowded out of each home town I've lived in, and I hate it.

It would start off as an orchard, then developments take over orchards, then commercial moves in, then industrial.

The two lane roads replaced by four lane, and the small rural home lots turn into apartment complexes. Mass population and economic cycles turn friendly neighborhoods into poverty and gang territory.

A casual drive to the market and to work turns into gridlock.

Electrical systems are overloaded. Sewer system is overloaded. Water systems are pushed to the limit. Roads go unmaintained. Then comes the restrictions on personal liberties in order to control the crowds. I hate this.

7 Billion people in the world in 2011, just thirty years ago (1981) it was 4.5 Billion. This is unsustainable.

We can thank the people of the third worlds and Englund, for they are the ones whe let in the churches who preach to have a good life is to have a large famalie, why do you think China kicked all the churches out after ww2 when mao toke over he saw the problem, but india, is still caught up in religious fortitude.and they all run over here because they think the grass is greener.

edit on 19-4-2011 by ibegood2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OrionHunterX
 





The question is, why aren't the PTB concentrating on mega de-salination plants along suitable locations along coastlines (that don't have an adverse impact on the environment)?


Desalination plants are expensive, and lack of water is primarily in poor areas that cannot afford such plant. Desalination also consumes lots of energy (there are some concepts that do not involve boiling the water, tough).
edit on 19/4/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:12 AM
link   
If overpopulation was a problem, which its not, how would you go about 'fixing' said problem? Because thats really what this thread is talking about. You have people that are living on this planet that literally hate you simply for being alive.... yet you defend them. I simply cannot understand the logic.

Instead of handing these traitors money, how about you fund a REAL space program to go out and colonise the moon or mars. 2 planets fixes the "problem" now doesnt it? I guess most simply cant think "outside the box" or even, the world in this case.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 





If overpopulation was a problem, which its not, how would you go about 'fixing' said problem?


One (or two) child policy in overpopulated countries, distribution of condoms and sex education, birth control available for free.
edit on 19/4/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by AndrewJay
 





If overpopulation was a problem, which its not, how would you go about 'fixing' said problem?


One (or two) child policy in overpopulated countries, distribution of condoms and sex education, birth control available for free.
edit on 19/4/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


And what would be the punishment if someone refuses to listen to that policy? What happens if someone has twins or triplets? Do we shoot them in the head at birth?

Im just trying to understand your Nazi logic.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this thread is nothing I haven't seen before.

You'll probably get a few hundred flags and stars, and people will get a kick out of what you've written; but how much of this will you actually take into consideration and act upon?

It feels like all anyone ever does is post their concerns and hopes in these forums, and hope someone who reads them will act on it for them.

I'm not trying to be a pessimist, I'm really not... I'm just being a realist.

Also, every single person on the planet could have their own Texas-sized piece of land?

I have to call horse-manure on that one. Sorry.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:30 AM
link   
I think you are very wrong!! Overpopulation is a huge problem and I hate to write this, but I believe that the we actually need the so called NWO to deal with that problem. If we had a world with no deceases, no wars, clean drinking water and food for all, plenty of clean energy etc. we would all be doomed!!



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 





What happens if someone has twins or triplets? Do we shoot them in the head at birth?


This policy is only called one-child policy, but in fact it is one-birth policy, so twins or triplets are not a violation.




And what would be the punishment if someone refuses to listen to that policy?


There are many alternatives, just as with any other violation of the law or regulation: increased tax, fine, reeducation, public work, low amount of jail, forced sterilization... you name it.




Im just trying to understand your Nazi logic.


Nazi? It is a policy of communist China, not nazism.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Definition for the "limits to growth": what we the elite can control and dominate without working up too much of a sweat.

That definition will have to be made obsolete in order for humanity to survive and eventually migrate off the planet.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   


This policy is only called one-child policy, but in fact it is one-birth policy, so twins or triplets are not a violation.


Oh so its okay to have more than one child as long as the children are born at the same time? That makes sense. Kinda like how the people behind these one child policies all have huge families huh? Its okay for THEM to have large families, but the slaves are only able to have one to continue the slave race. Did I get that about right?



There are many alternatives, just as with any other violation of the law or regulation: increased tax, fine, reeducation, public work, low amount of jail, forced sterilization... you name it.


Like being loaded on a train before being shot in the head in shallow ditch? Oh, this time they can just FORCE the slaves to be sterile. That sounds humane.




Nazi? It is a policy of communist China, not nazism.


And the difference is?
edit on 19-4-2011 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by niels fjord
I think you are very wrong!! Overpopulation is a huge problem and I hate to write this, but I believe that the we actually need the so called NWO to deal with that problem. If we had a world with no deceases, no wars, clean drinking water and food for all, plenty of clean energy etc. we would all be doomed!!


Oh you think overpopulation is a huge problem and actually helping people would doom us all? Okay, well why dont you go volunteer to help them with our overpopulation "problem"?

You say its okay as long as its not you? Thought so.


edit:

Sorry for the double post. Im trying to defend those that arent even born yet.
edit on 19-4-2011 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by ViperChili
reply to post by Amaterasu
 


Starvation and disease would eliminate a large portion of 3rd world populations. As long as said diseases are contained, it would be quite effective. Your problem is you involve too much emotion in the thinking that "Oh no!!!!!, we can't let people starve, that would be horrible!!!!!". Animals starve in an overpopulated ecosystem every day. It is no different with humans.


No. There is plenty on this planet for all of us several times over. It's ETHICS that drive me, and it is UNETHICAL to starve Humans when we can feed them. It most surely IS different between animals and Humans. First, Humans are Beings (cap the "B"). Second, Humans have the ability to feed everyone - this is NOT an overpopulated planet.


Eliminating money? That will NEVER happen.


Good naysaying.
Money is a representation of meaningful energy expended. If we add effectively infinite energy into the system, we get infinite money. Infinite money has no social application. Therefore, plenum energy = the dissipation of the need for money.


As for Kamen's purification technique, this appeared on a site detailing the process:


produces 10 gallons of clean water an hour on 500 watts of electricity


Is that scalable to the size needed in order to be effective? Where will the energy come from to power it? Who will pay for it?


Again, we live in a sea of energy, and the methods of extracting energy from this plenum are presently hidden - mainly because it would spell the end of the power elite. With the addition of the energy, money will dissipate and there will be no need for money.


No offense intended, but it sounds like you are living in a bit of a fantasyland. Lets deal in reality here.


No, I live in the reality of a world controlled by a few with billions in poverty. I have studied this world for over 50 years and have carefully made my analysis. I have a decade and a half in banking, which gives me a good idea of how money flows and why. I have experience of being shown science and the world it would create - and then being told it was "secret for now" as it went into black ops fifty years ago.

Not a fantasy land at all. Just better informed and more keenly observant than most.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 





Oh so its okay to have more than one child as long as the children are born at the same time? That makes sense.


Yes, it does.





Kinda like how the people behind these one child policies all have huge families huh? Its okay for THEM to have large families, but the slaves are only able to have one to continue the slave race. Did I get that about right?


When they can afford to pay the fine, why not? The purpose of the policy is to limit children of the poor. Why limit children of those that can easily take care of them?




Like being loaded on a train before being shot in the head in shallow ditch? Oh, this time they can just FORCE the slaves to be sterile. That sounds humane.


Yes, it is humane, contrary the the shooting. What is inhumane is allowing the poor to have many children, so that they live in bad conditions.




And the difference is?


Reduction ad Hitlerum
edit on 19/4/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:01 AM
link   


Yes, it does.



Oh okay because you quote below that the reason behind this is to limit the children of the poor because they cant pay for them but as long as their born at the same time that poor family can pay for them....... you've lost me.



When they can afford to pay the fine, why not? The purpose of the policy is to limit children of the poor. Why limit children of those that can easily take care of them?







Yes, it is humane, contrary the the shooting. What is inhumane is allowing the poor to have many children, so that they live in bad conditions.


It would be more humane to make a system that doesnt hand the rich more money by stealing from the poor and middle class so these people have equal opportunity to have a family and enjoy life like those that are more well off than them. This is like saying that those people are more human because theyre wealthy and there for should be able to enjoy something that is natural and expected not just in the human species, but every animal on this planet.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 





Oh okay because you quote below that the reason behind this is to limit the children of the poor because they cant pay for them but as long as their born at the same time that poor family can pay for them....... you've lost me.


No, it makes sense from simple biological standpoint. There is no way how to choose the number of children mother brings into this world in one birth, twins and triplets happen (heck, I have a twin). Therefore we cannot punish anyone for having more than one child at once. One-birth policy.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by AndrewJay
 





Oh okay because you quote below that the reason behind this is to limit the children of the poor because they cant pay for them but as long as their born at the same time that poor family can pay for them....... you've lost me.


No, it makes sense from simple biological standpoint. There is no way how to choose the number of children mother brings into this world in one birth, twins and triplets happen (heck, I have a twin). Therefore we cannot punish anyone for having more than one child at once. One-birth policy.


But is that not exactly why the law is in place? In your own words you state that its in place because its believed by the state that a poor family cannot raise more than one child. So would you willingly hand one your twins to the government is the question? It doesnt matter if it makes sense in biological terms.

I also like how you ignored my other point. We can argue all day about a bad law, but the moment I bring up actually trying to help the people and therefor not needing said law, the conversation halts.
edit on 19-4-2011 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JessicaS
I keep wondering where this idea of over population keeps comming from, or the idea that we can't substain our own species. Do you think every bit of food in the grocery store is consumed? No, in fact the stores throw out a great deal of food.


Yes, grocery stores throw our hundreds of thousands of tons of food a month. We have no shortage - just horrible distribution - based on profit and not need.


How about water.... this planet is covered by it. How do countries like Japan survive with it's numbers. Surely there isn't that much underground water to drink.... oh yeah, the purify the ocean. It's not hard, cosidering the tech is out there.


Yes again.


How about farmable land? Ok.... you got me there... but... oh wait... I live on the 5th floor of a building and i have a small garden on my balcony. It's called potting soil, and compost.... Compost, our everyday bio-degradable trash.


And yes. Another poster showed how food is being grown vertically, too.


How about energy... we can't live with out our oil...cept... we have the sun, the wind, and various other renewable sources for energy. If the oilmen would let us even try to make that more practicable. And why is it infinately more to own a hybrid or biofuel car?


And plenum ("dark"/Zero Point/radiant/orgone/...) energy.


"But how many is two many... if we aren't over populated now, when and what then?" First of all, lets face it, 7 billion people is alot of people. A record high of living humans on this planet. However, we aren't maintaining the same growth levels seen in the past. In the US we topped out with the largest population increase of almost 6 percent, during the year 1946. Since then, it's been a steady decline to the now 1 percent of residents.... and that's not all us citizans. "Globally, the growth rate of the human population has been declining since peaking in 1962 and 1963 at 2.20% per annum. In 2009, the estimated annual growth rate was 1.1%." (Wiki) All it takes is a series of natural disasters to happen, to put us in the negitives.


Also, if we all were living richly, as the present day rich, we would have things to do besides have sex, and we would be having the fewer children that the rich and middle class have. And we CAN all live richly with an infinite supply of energy.


"But we need to save the earth." Nevermind the fact that greed has put the planet in it's peroloius position in the first place, lets pretend that just our mere natural existance is causing pain to the planet. I have 1 word for you guys. Dinosaurs. They were taxing the planet of their day and what happened? They exinct. I'm sorry, I have to go with George Carlin on this. It's not the Earth we need to save.... The Earth will be just find after our exinction. WE WON'T!!


We can "save the planet" (save Humanity) by eliminating motivation based on profit - by getting rid of money through the introduction of plenum energy. Personally, I think Humanity is worth saving.



new topics

top topics



 
162
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join