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: 15
162
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRemedial
 


Speaking of energy and wealth, don't you find it really odd that the environmentalists have kept the owner of a gold mine from mining his own land in the Yellowstone region? This would keep more gold from entering the world system, where the Rothschilds have hoarded most of the world's gold reserves.




posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by ViperChili
 




The fact is we can and should let people starve.


No we should not. We must fight against overpopulation, but with humanitarian means like education, birth control and laws. Either the excess growth will be regulated through laws, or through poverty, hunger, diseases and wars. Giving governments the power to regulate human procreation during demographic trap is bad, but alternative is much worse. Just compare China and Iran (both had some form of national population growth control program) with nations that started on the same line and didnt have it.


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


Well don't you sound like the perfect poster boy for the UN and world communism, and for the promotion of the vile philosophies of thomas Malthus, the Rockefellers, and John Holdren. You think some govt should regulate that very sacred principle of the Holy Family. Karl Marx also hated the family.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by babybunnies
Massive flaw in your reasoning.

74% is covered by water, sure.

However, only 3% of that water is actually DRINKABLE, fresh water.

It's like saying that 26% of the planet is covered in land, so why can't we grow food. Sure, but very little of this land is actually ARABLE.


Hi babybunnies,

Thanks for posting..you make an accurate point about fresh/salt water, and also about relatively low % of arable or quality farmland.

If you remember my thread (it was quite a long read, but it did have some pictures!), i mentioned several points about our water cycle and various techniques that are effective and proven in the field, that right now, today in fact, create clean, potable water from brackish, saline or sea water - even from urine if required (and why not? It would evaporate in nature anyhow).

Solar energy is making monumental leaps forwards these days. It can (and is in trials) make this happen. The right technologies, with the right positioning, with the right amount of lateral thinking can facilitate and furnish our fresh water needs....all of ours.

The land issue was addressed in my OP, quite at length too.

Not to say you're incorrect with your assessment, but rather the solutions to the land issue for farming isn't only a key point, it's tried, tested and validated and found to be effective. Modern hydroponics, vertical wall or multibay systems are *currently in trials* producing up to 20 times the volume of food, in the same amount of space as it took to grow just one (tomato, corn, lettuce, whatever).
That's 2000%. Not only that, but growing the 2000% more food used around 80% or four times *LESS* resources than a traditionally farmed foodstuff would have consumed, that's amazing isn't it?

All it needs is the will to change our approach and ways of viewing the world and ourselves. And then implement those changes. It's really *all* very simple in concept. It would still take immense planning and organising to implement, even for it's simplicity. The difficult part is going to be encouraging human beings to see a better way for us and our futures.

Thanks for your post.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by rwfresh
 


..eh? I was not defending starvation and killing people. I fact, my reply was against it - we should regulate unsustainable population growth through more humanitarian means sooner than it causes poverty, suffering, starvation and wars.


And please tell us what more humanitarian methods are available to reduce population? Oh, right, you want taxpayers to pay for the UN's financial incentives? Abortion is out, since it's not humanitarian. What regulations would you use that are effective in reducing population???? Are you a proponent of the UN? Do you think that limits on resources such as water should be enforced? Please tell me, I'd like to know.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
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.


The point is simple.

Population density is one of the many causes of the problems associated with overpopulation.

It may be more efficient in terms of nominal variables but it still causes problems (in terms of real physical resources) that would not exist with a more balanced population density.


Originally posted by Maslo
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.


This is circular reasoning, you are assuming that overpopulation is a real problem outside of poor distribution of resources and economic warfare; it isn't.


Originally posted by Maslo


The problems are caused by people making decisions.


That I agree with.


Good, you can begin to understand why corporations support the myth of overpopulation.

They want to divert blame from their manipulation of resources, destruction of natural environments, and economic warfare and blame massive poverty on a myth.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
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.


TPTB are keeping us herded into the large inner cities. It is more difficult to form communities in outlying areas with no telephone, Internet, schools, etc. Living off the land as our ancerstors did(at least in the States) is not such an easy option. We have grown up depending on the local grocery store. From what I have read, the UN program is to keep us all living in apartments, while they control what and how much we consume. Expect to see rationing as the NWO advances.
Also, gun cotrol plays into this. TPtB have no intention of allowing us to live off the land. They plan to keep guns from all civilian populations. What did guns do for our ancestors? Got them food. Want us to be vegetarian? They control the land use.
edit on 19-4-2011 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



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

Originally posted by spikey

Originally posted by wcitizen
IMO the overpopulation story is a myth designed to form a (sick) rationale for a huge population cull. The real reason for the cull is so they end up with numbers they can FULLY CONTROL. They know they can't control current population numbers if enough of us rebel.


You might be right. Control is and always has been an essential in the elites toolbox.

I feel though that the same old problem, money/wealth, and the personal accumulation of it is at the root of most of the worlds problems, although yeah, control (and fear of losing it) is an issue too.

Another reason to do away with our current corrupt and ego/profit driven systems and start again fresh and focused on everybody, not just a handful at the top.

Cheers for posting.


Yes, and they can only extort vast amounts of wealth and keep it through having control of the governments and the legal system....and control of the people who would otherwise rebel.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by spikey
 


DisneyWorld has a special area devoted to hydroponic gardening. People think it's just for kids having fun, but there is real research going on there.



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

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by wcitizen
IMO the overpopulation story is a myth designed to form a (sick) rationale for a huge population cull. The real reason for the cull is so they end up with numbers they can FULLY CONTROL. They know they can't control current population numbers if enough of us rebel.


I'll roll with this reasoning for a second.

So how many of "them" are there?

10,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?

Let's go with a million...

okay, so right now we're almost at 7 billion, so the ratio of "us vs them" would be roughly 7,000-1

so they kill 80% of us, and now the ratio is 1,400-1

How is that much more manageable?

Try again, please.


So, you're trying to say that it's not easier to control 500,000 - which is their target according to the Denver Stones, than it is to control 7 billion? Or even, you're trying to say it's not easier to control 1.4 billion than it is to control 7 billion?

Your logic escapes me.

I would go with many more than a million if you include the combined numbers of the military, who, in case it escapes your notice, don't work for the people - they work for the NWO masters.


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



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

Originally posted by circuitsports
reply to post by spikey
 


whats the point of 21 billion people then ? just to exists - if less people means more focus on our future like space travel and science instead of non profits to feed the poor guess which one I want.


One could ask 'what is the point of one person?' Or one million people?

Does the point of existence cease being important at a specific threshold?
The point mate, isn't personal fortunes or lavish luxurious lifestyles or wealth..the point is *us*...life.

You're thinking about potential ramifications or lost opportunities if the same number of people or even double our current number of people, carried on in our present systems...not in a system comprising the examples offered in the OP..so relevant in today's world, hopefully not in tomorrows.

Thanks for posting.



edit on 19/4/2011 by spikey because: ripped a bit out



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


Great reply! I live in south TX and we haven't had significant rain in our area for well over a year. (well actually 5, but we did get a small break in the middle) So I would ask the OP, where's my runoff and condensation?

Overpopulation and limited resources go hand in hand. If there are not enough resources to support the current population then what you have is overpopulation for that area. Unfortunately humans are greedy sh*ts and will never, read that again, NEVER as a species find enough altruism to solve the world's problems.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by spikey
 


DisneyWorld has a special area devoted to hydroponic gardening. People think it's just for kids having fun, but there is real research going on there.


Yeah, read about that...sounds interesting doesn't it.

Think i have it in a 'Focus' mag from years ago.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by MasloIt depends on the location. Poor people in developing world (and their children) would benefit more from money help and education than fishes and cows.


Those in the third world need to fend for themselves…

The key to sustainable living is letting the world reach it’s natural equilibrium between the local population and the environment absent the intervention and machinations of governments or groups to “engineer” or “regulate” balance.

We make the issues worse IMO when it comes to resource competition by providing “aid” to struggling nations and people in the name of “good” or “humanity”. It does little good to send food aid to Haiti or other places that are in fact worse (Say, Sudan, Ethiopia and other places I have seen first-hand.) where the people have become dependent on it and have procreated way past the point of providing for themselves.

If we did not sustain their population with aid and let some die off like I do here on my farm with livestock when I don’t have enough fodder the problem would never have surfaced in the first place.

A struggling and hungry heard cannot in nature reproduce quickly. It may sound harsh and cruel and unfair but life is all of those things.

The key to the issue of resource scarcity is the opposite of intervention IMO it is the absence of it so people will have to suffer the consequences of their poor choices. Perhaps if people had to suffer watching their offspring die horribly they would no longer produce more than they can sustain.

We all know where babies come from and to create more than one can provide for with his/her own access to resources is the most selfish and inhumane act I can fathom. If one does not have enough resources to satisfy their own needs then they need to be, either smart enough, driven enough or violent enough (likely all three) to procure them or one will die – it’s fairly simple.

That applies to the individual, a family group, a village, a city, nation or the world itself. We (all of those groups) are not created equal and to force it through some arbitrary desire for the common good is actually a horrible force for evolution of the species.

Not all people (or groups of people) are as intelligent, physically gifted or unfortunately graced with a favorable geography at birth – to sustain artificially the weak, stupid and the lazy at the expense of the others is antithetical to nature and why we are in the current predicament.

It is one thing to posit (as have some in this thread) that all of the human population could indeed fit in X amount of space and opine that divided equitably there is plenty for all; however, it is another thing entirely to affect to take the possessions of others and handle the logistics (likely against much resistance) of rearranging the worlds population to the appropriate zones of profitable habitation. Who will decide who has too much and how to distribute it and who will enforce it and who will submit to it? Not I for one....

It is likely that people to whom the land belongs (me being one of them) would resist this redistribution and setting aside the fact it would be therefore theft immoral of the grandest order and in two generations time we would reach the same place but having already redistributed have no space left.

No, it is better to let things be; to let each nation’s people reach their natural balance with the lands upon which they live. Further, there will be competition (war and other conflicts) for the prime resources and space and this will ensure that the people who are most driven, industrious and intelligent and such will continue and those who are not will perish. The strong will survive.

Bottom line is nature is a magnificent manager and the earth will reach a tipping point and nature herself will cull the human population to the correct size – in the interim some will thrive some will wither and suffer…its simply nature.

Again, many think me cruel for this view; however, in the end it is nature in action and there is in my opinion nothing more perfect than nature and its own ability to manage and regulate its resources.

In the end I deal with what I can affect, which in my case is the 40 acres I live on and a newly acquired 100 acres it is mine; I worked my entire life to reach this point and no one is going to redistribute it to some nere-do-wells and underprivlidged so that they can continue their pathetic genetics of laziness to the world.

Some will opine I have more than my share – to others my lot is a trifle of no consequence. Whatever the imbalance of resources may apear to some I have I earned them through a combination of birth, genetics, providence, hard work and planning. They are mine and mine alone as long as I can hold them - by force if neccessary.

I will pass this land on to my daughter who will work it as I do and then she will pass it to hers. Likely at some point there will be those who say inherited wealth is wrong and the inheritors do not deserve it as people now do about some of the uber rich. I know that my line will continue and I set them for success if they should squander it they were not fit to have it.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
1) When a nation (bankers) is under attack; it calls on the people towards a single cause...Defense of your home at all costs.

2) When a nation (bankers) are unable to make ends meet at home, they blame everyone and everything under the sun. They starve the people and take everything and do anything they can to satisfy their greed. (war included)

Welcome to reaction vs inaction politics. Even in the mighty USofA they essentially let the people starve and lose everything during the great depression, 7-10million I believe lives lost during it. The fundamental difference between the Nation (bankers) waging war with it's subjects vs waging war with it's rival (those who can't pay or won't play the game).

Point being, we only do things as a whole that have the interests of the Bankers in mind, precisely the reason why they blame overpopulation as the problem in the media.


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



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
Move it to the rant section.

The earth IS overpopulated with humans, humans that rely on the state, not nature itself. Compare our species to every single other, we're parasitic, worse than ants and termites as far as coverage goes.



Hmmm...that's a deep issue to go into, the old humans Vs state resources debate, but suffice to say, it shouldn't be an issue living in the system that is being roughly envisaged in this thread.

Isn't *all* life parasitic?

To a greater or lesser degree, at least? I would argue it is parasitic by it's very nature. Think of procreation itself..in mammals for example, conception and pregnancy is by it's very nature totally parasitic. This is perfectly normal and acceptable of course, as we understand the process..but parasitic it is.

Animals in the wilds don't ruin their environments generally, i agree but would add that most of them cannot build nuclear reactors that go bang and poison their living spaces, or explode bombs that do the same either!...but would they if they could? who knows..maybe a thousand monkeys locked in a room for 200,000 years could work it out...ahem..

We're not even close to being overpopulated mate..just very badly misdirected.

Working out smarter ways to use and distribute our plentiful resources, is all that is required here..the will to give it a go, to do something monumentally challenging and life changing, that would lead to a greater and fuller experience for all of our kind, and all other life on the planet.

Cheers.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   
You cannot blame the third world for their prob;ems. It is global politics that cause the problems. Western Europe that has controlled most of the world to this point and has created this mess, in the main. We are all in it together and are all responsible. We need to transform the world and do away with controlling power elites and we can all share this earth without exploiting or killing masses of people.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by spikey

Originally posted by Essan
Try telling all the thousands of species becoming extinct every year due to human activity that there's room a-plenty for billions more of us.

There's more to life than you. In fact, in the overall scheme of things, you're as important as a passenger pigeon. And we all know what happened to them!

But more to the point: why do you want more people? Why would you rather there were 600 million Americans? Wouldn't 200 million leave the country a nicer place for all? More space?

edit on 18-4-2011 by Essan because: (no reason given)


Yes, human greed is what is causing flora and fauna to disappear from our world. There are a small number of 'natural' extinctions, but the majority is caused by greed and drive for profits/wealth.

Vast forests eliminated to clear grazing land for animals destined to become a burger lunch, animal habitats being decimated in the process...hunger driven? No, profit driven. The people that eat the animals farmed on these once flourishing habitats are not the starving...they're the lazy, the 'too busy/overworked' to prepare a proper, healthy meal..we don't need the burgers or the land being killed to 'grow' them.

The rivers and oceans are routinely polluted by industrial activity whose owners and operators drive for more profits and less costs...when faced with a drastic profit loss situation due to expensive waste disposal costs, a cheaper, less ecological solution is the choice that has to be made..and when profit is your driving motivation...

Yes, i agree humanity is responsible for much...that is *precisely* why there is an absolute need to change and employ the measures outlined in this thread...and more besides.

As mentioned already, there is truly an astonishing amount of physical living space on this world of ours, room for people, animals, plants in abundance.

Cheers for your reply Essan, it's appreciated.


I believe both of these are getting off topic.

The OP posted about the elites saying that the earth is running out of resources needed to support the human population.

The OP is NOT posting about human impact on the habitats we live in. Nor is the OP asking whether or not humans deserve to live.

@Essan, it is carrier pigeon and if you feel you need to -1 the population to make room for more bugs or birds feel free. After all, "there's more to life than you".



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66

Originally posted by MasloIt depends on the location. Poor people in developing world (and their children) would benefit more from money help and education than fishes and cows.


Those in the third world need to fend for themselves…

The key to sustainable living is letting the world reach it’s natural equilibrium between the local population and the environment absent the intervention and machinations of governments or groups to “engineer” or “regulate” balance.

We make the issues worse IMO when it comes to resource competition by providing “aid” to struggling nations and people in the name of “good” or “humanity”. It does little good to send food aid to Haiti or other places that are in fact worse (Say, Sudan, Ethiopia and other places I have seen first-hand.) where the people have become dependent on it and have procreated way past the point of providing for themselves.

If we did not sustain their population with aid and let some die off like I do here on my farm with livestock when I don’t have enough fodder the problem would never have surfaced in the first place.

A struggling and hungry heard cannot in nature reproduce quickly. It may sound harsh and cruel and unfair but life is all of those things.

The key to the issue of resource scarcity is the opposite of intervention IMO it is the absence of it so people will have to suffer the consequences of their poor choices. Perhaps if people had to suffer watching their offspring die horribly they would no longer produce more than they can sustain.

We all know where babies come from and to create more than one can provide for with his/her own access to resources is the most selfish and inhumane act I can fathom. If one does not have enough resources to satisfy their own needs then they need to be, either smart enough, driven enough or violent enough (likely all three) to procure them or one will die – it’s fairly simple.

That applies to the individual, a family group, a village, a city, nation or the world itself. We (all of those groups) are not created equal and to force it through some arbitrary desire for the common good is actually a horrible force for evolution of the species.

Not all people (or groups of people) are as intelligent, physically gifted or unfortunately graced with a favorable geography at birth – to sustain artificially the weak, stupid and the lazy at the expense of the others is antithetical to nature and why we are in the current predicament.

It is one thing to posit (as have some in this thread) that all of the human population could indeed fit in X amount of space and opine that divided equitably there is plenty for all; however, it is another thing entirely to affect to take the possessions of others and handle the logistics (likely against much resistance) of rearranging the worlds population to the appropriate zones of profitable habitation. Who will decide who has too much and how to distribute it and who will enforce it and who will submit to it? Not I for one....

It is likely that people to whom the land belongs (me being one of them) would resist this redistribution and setting aside the fact it would be therefore theft immoral of the grandest order and in two generations time we would reach the same place but having already redistributed have no space left.

No, it is better to let things be; to let each nation’s people reach their natural balance with the lands upon which they live. Further, there will be competition (war and other conflicts) for the prime resources and space and this will ensure that the people who are most driven, industrious and intelligent and such will continue and those who are not will perish. The strong will survive.

Bottom line is nature is a magnificent manager and the earth will reach a tipping point and nature herself will cull the human population to the correct size – in the interim some will thrive some will wither and suffer…its simply nature.

Again, many think me cruel for this view; however, in the end it is nature in action and there is in my opinion nothing more perfect than nature and its own ability to manage and regulate its resources.

In the end I deal with what I can affect, which in my case is the 40 acres I live on and a newly acquired 100 acres it is mine; I worked my entire life to reach this point and no one is going to redistribute it to some nere-do-wells and underprivlidged so that they can continue their pathetic genetics of laziness to the world.

Some will opine I have more than my share – to others my lot is a trifle of no consequence. Whatever the imbalance of resources may apear to some I have I earned them through a combination of birth, genetics, providence, hard work and planning. They are mine and mine alone as long as I can hold them - by force if neccessary.

I will pass this land on to my daughter who will work it as I do and then she will pass it to hers. Likely at some point there will be those who say inherited wealth is wrong and the inheritors do not deserve it as people now do about some of the uber rich. I know that my line will continue and I set them for success if they should squander it they were not fit to have it.


All I see here is mine,mine, me, them sounds like a good plot for an elmo movie



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:14 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



new topics

top topics



 
162
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join