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: 12
162
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:17 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 





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.


Humanity needs to learn to live in harmony with nature and its laws. One of the most basic laws is, when resources are tight, there will simply be not enough for you and plenty of your children.
We can witness the results of disobeying this law in nature in many species, where production of more offspring than can be supported leads to selection.
We can also witness it in humans in the third world currently, and the process of selection is not nice.

If we want equal opportunity, we also need equal responsibility. Responsibility for every child you bring to this world. This includes poor people having a limit on children. It is common sense, nothing more.




posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 





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.


How would that help? Yeah, having multiple children is more demanding than having one child, but such cases are rare under this policy, and can be solved by more welfare if needed. What really matters is preventing poor families from having LOTS of children, so that the resources and their distribution is in harmony with demand.




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.


I am no fan of redistribution. It will only lead to further population explosion and more and more poor being dependent on working class. Not to mention that even with redistribution, securing good quality of life for those disadvantaged segments of society in developing nations is very hard.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Im done with this thread. It makes me sick to my stomach. People would rather argue about why the "problem" exists than find solutions to it. Ill never understand why actually helping people is seen as such a horrible solution.
edit on 19-4-2011 by AndrewJay because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:15 AM
link   
To the original "OP" I can sum up your whole point here by writing the words to something we all know and love.

"And the itsy bitsy spider when up the web, down came the rain and washed the spider out"
"Out came the sun and dried up all the rain, nd the itsy bitsy spider went up the web again."



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:31 AM
link   
OP (and all supporters) - I just want to know: WHY?

- Why do you want more people on the planet?
- Why do you want more urban sprawl?

I understand that you fear population cull might be an NWO agenda, and you want to provide evidence to demonstrate why we need to fight them in this. I'm with you on that! I don't want a global holocaust either. However, what you're proposing is actually an increase in global population and I'm struggling to understand why.

Those not born (probably) don't know the suffering of not existing here on Earth. We're not slighting anyone by maintaining a balanced, limited global population. In fact, we're making life better for the humans who are here, as well as the animals and fauna.

Take a look at my thread (link in my signature): "I know why the world is so sick". It suggests that as global population increases, the number of new, inexperienced souls does too. This would suggest that the world is, spiritually, better off with a limited number of humans/souls because the ones here are 'older', more experienced and can create a healthier civilisation.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:32 AM
link   
Brilliant.
Thats what the zeitgeist guys say.
I agree.
There is no lack of resources.
What we need is to use the best clean technologies and methods available, to be in harmony with mother earth.
That technology exists!
They are withholding it.
But our eyes are opening.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   
The raison d'etre of the elites existence, or at least the selling point for their exitence to the NWO factions, is as the responsible adults making tough decisions for the irresposible animalistic unteachable masses - and population growth is a must adress issue!.

Irresponsible animals will breed themselves into catastrophe - because their only criterion is to spread their genes.
Global population limits demand a global government to enforce them.

The one other hope is the example of the Wealthy liberal democracies who have zero or negative pop growth due to expanded life options - and of whom it could be argued have transcended as a groupwave their biological imperatives.

Interestingly this is the very group that the machinations of the NWO are clearly designed to eradicate and replace with - Africans, Arabs , Chinese, Slavs etc.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:55 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!!

Dude you are so naive who do you think starts the wars? spreads decease, pollutes our water and holds back technology...............yes the very same people you think will fix your so called overpopulation problem, the only way they will fix this problem is to shoot you bomb you or infect you with one of their new virus's.
Are you people here in this forum for learning about the reality of our current political structure or just come in here and read the headline and maybe one post throw your own little piece of ill-informed crap on the heap and run away, the latter I think................I can not emphasise this enough guys,DO YOUR F#$@^NG HOMEWORK start researching, then bring something worthy of posting to the topic.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


I agree with your solution, of course we also need to help poor people (welfare, child benefits, charity etc.) in conjuction with population control program. BOTH are needed.

If we have only population control without help, number of poor people would not increase, but they will stay poor.
If we have only help without population control, our help will be directed to poor having more children (demographic trap, welfare moms, third world population explosion), not increasing their quality of life.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo

Originally posted by Jezus

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by davidgrouchy
 


Dont take in as an insult, just calling a spade a spade. Overpopulation and high population density are different things.


Yes they are different things.

High population density is true, and can cause problems.

Overpopulation is a myth and a myth used as a tool.


You have it backwards. High population density is not a problem, there are many densely populated cities with very high standard of living.

Overpopulation is the problem, when population growth exceeds available resources and lowers quality of life. That is happening or has happened all over the world, but in the third world, not developed world.


The densely populated "high standard of living" has negative externalities that reach far.

Again, the fact that we waste resources and have unequal distribution of resources causes these problems.

Overpopulation is a blameless scapegoat.

The problems are caused by people making decisions. It has nothing to do with the amount of people.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by JohhnyBGood
 





Chinese, Slavs etc.


The chinese and slavs have less than 2 children per pair on average, and their population should start to decrease soon (Russian population has been decreasing since 1990s already).



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


I am with you my friend, there are solutions and hopefully we will start seeing them very soon, helping each other is why we are here in the first place, this is the basis of the original teachings that ALL of earth's religion's are built from, the problem is that they have ALL been distorted to control the masses and strengthen their own agendas, the Roman catholic church is who should bear the blame for creating the Judean Khazarian Zionists as part of their agenda to make the world conform to their ways of thinking, our only chance is for these earth traitors to go down.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Jezus
 




The densely populated "high standard of living" has negative externalities that reach far.


Unless your alternative is to have low standard of living everywhere I dont see your point. And densely populated areas have the same if not lower negative externalities than the same population spread over more land, due to better efficiency.



Again, the fact that we waste resources and have unequal distribution of resources causes these problems.


More equal distribution of resources without also adressing and preventing overpopulation would cause two things - population in third world overpopulated areas would more rapidly increase, but their quality of life would stay the same (our help will be directed to poor having more children (demographic trap, welfare moms, third world population explosion), not increasing their quality of life), and quality of life in the first world would decrease due to redistribution of their wealth. The net effect is reduction of average quality of life.



The problems are caused by people making decisions.


That I agree with.


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

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



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by AndrewJay
 




People would rather argue about why the "problem" exists than find solutions to it.


Thats exactly what you are doing, arguing why the problem exists (elites, TPTB, economic system..) instead of finding the real practical solutions to it (providing help coupled with condition to actually use it to increase quality of life, not amount of children).



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by AndrewJay
 


I agree with your solution, of course we also need to help poor people (welfare, child benefits, charity etc.) in conjuction with population control program. BOTH are needed.

If we have only population control without help, number of poor people would not increase, but they will stay poor.
If we have only help without population control, our help will be directed to poor having more children (demographic trap, welfare moms, third world population explosion), not increasing their quality of life.

Welfare? child benefits? charity? you are still thinking in the dark ages my friend, haven't you ever heard the Chinese proverb "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"
This is the way you should be thinking a piece of land some seed a cow, a dam with fish, chickens this is where we start to remedy the supply and demand factor not with hand outs just hoping the problem will go away.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   
reply to post by CouncilOfNine
 


It depends on the location. Poor people in developing world (and their children) would benefit more from money help and education than fishes and cows. Of course I did not have the third world in mind when I was talking about welfare or child benefits. More poor people need exactly what you said.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:32 AM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


Very good thread but i don't think you understand fully when people say 'overcrowded' or 'overpopulated'... it is overpopulated in the Cities!!

It is overcrowded in the Cities!

You can't deny that fact!

I should know as i live in a City which is overcrowded...

Now when you chat about the suburbs then you are chatting a whole different ballgame and yes there is plenty of room in the suburbs with no overcrowding or over populated areas!!!



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:45 AM
link   
I quit reading when water was so quickly glossed-over because it covers 74% of the earth. I am an environmental scientist, and I can assure you, even of the water we can drink (only 2.5% of the Earth's water is fresh; of that, 70% is inaccessible in the icecaps, deep aquifers, or as humidity and moisture) the water is so polluted by nitrates or halogenated solvents or gender-bending endocrine disruptors that it is impossible for a society to survive beyond a few generations without a significant loss of life.

Water is the key limiting factor here - and what we can actually get at, will kill us without extensive treatment and energy input. The earth absolutely has a K value, and our actions are lowering it. You don't need a global elitist conspiracy to see that.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist
 


Overcrowded =/= overpopulated

City may be overcrowded, but there is no shortage of resources to sustain high quality of life of all its inhabitants so it is not overpopulated (see Zeitgeist Venus project cities).

On the other hand, even areas which are not densely overcrowded may be overpopulated, if there is shortage of resources to sustain good quality of life of even all current people living there.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   
It is obvious that overpopulation only applies to a narrow perception of the inequal system we presently live in. Only when we take control away from the powerful elites can we restructure the way we live into a fair system and thus have all we need. The money, food and land is taken by the greedy rich and denied to us.




top topics



 
162
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join