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.
Originally posted by Greensquad414
reply to post by spikey
I think that there is enough resources in the world to only comfortably support about 12 billion people, in which we only need 4 billion more people to reach this mark, which at the rate we're going now will be in no time.
edit on 18-4-2011 by Greensquad414 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by CouncilOfNineAll I see here is mine,mine, me, them sounds like a good plot for an elmo movie
Originally posted by AndrewJay
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)
The answer is simply the imaginary resource, the artificially created, worthless invention of *MONEY*!
Originally posted by jaxnmarko
So TELL me about all this Suppressed Technology! Remember, patents are only good for so many years........ why hasn't any of the Kept On The Shelf tech been copied as patents have run out? Where is all this tech? And if its such a good idea, why aren't the corporations making money off it? Industrial espionage.... China's number one import.... why aren't they making it? I hear the phrase a lot but little to back it up. Science can't save us if we can't use it correctly. Tech is a tool. Tech in the hands of immoral and unethical people will be used immorally and unethically. Science and tech created all the weapons of the world, is that what you mean by science saving us? How is a desalination plant different from any other kind of corporate central control that keeps the populace at the feed/drink trough? Do you think whoever builds them will sell the water for no profit? Profit is the name of the game. Using tech, suppressing tech.... what have you. So again, I hear a lot about suppressed tech that could "Save Us All!"; much of it myth, but if true..... give proof. At least the original science should show up somewhere, and up until the point it was suppressed or proven to be poor science and unworkable tech.
Originally posted by Golf66
Originally posted by CouncilOfNineAll I see here is mine,mine, me, them sounds like a good plot for an elmo movie
Curious still; you may be as dismissive as you like that does not change the fact that many people are not going to quietly sit by and watch their lifetime of hard work be redistributed to the third world so that we can live equitably.
Again I ask, who is the authority to whom people are going to submit to arbitrate the redistribution of all the land and resources?
What is too much land, wealth and or too much of anything for any one person to have and again who shall decide what "enough" is?
What body will then confiscate (a good deal of force likely required) the land and resources from those with too much and what organization will transport the goods and people all over the globe to reallocate the land?
I find it ironic and likely that most of the people who believe the "earth belongs to everyone" are usually those who have acquired little success or wealth for themselves. Likely their tunes will would change if they had something of worth or value to protect for themselves.
Besides I did not say that all I see belongs to me; I stated that the land and things that I have earned for the fair exchange of the fruits of my labor which I purchased with currency and to which I have the title and deeds is mine and mine alone.
Are you of the position that people should not own things and that you are somehow entitled to food, shelter, health care and clothing from the fruits of someone else’s labor?
If so how's that working out for you?
edit on 19/4/2011 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by wiredamerican
reply to post by spikey
The answer is simply the imaginary resource, the artificially created, worthless invention of *MONEY*!
Very nice thread, I am amazed actually truthfully.
Why do we do stuff for money???
Who made money worth doing stuff ???
I work 9 hours a day for ink with paper on it....
I think our civilization has made ink with paper on it a way of ends!
A way of a goal of gaining more of these ends.. paper with ink.
## I fear the only way to get away from this current (money) system is to become COMMUNIST and only work for the people and everything we do is for social greatness.
But human kind has an inner instinct ... That is to survive.. Our instinct to survive means do whatever it takes to survive... And that means to not be socialist, and to "screw your neighbor" until you have ensured your survival.
Get rid of the basic human instinct to survive "somehow" and you just may and you just may have an actual way of ensuring human civilization for a long time "maybe".
You and others seem to be saying that we should all Sacrifice so that there can be more people in the world. Why exactly should I give up my pleasures so that there can be more people somewhere in the world?
And please tell us what more humanitarian methods are available to reduce population?
Abortion is out, since it's not humanitarian.
Do you think that limits on resources such as water should be enforced?
Originally posted by CouncilOfNine
Originally posted by wiredamerican
reply to post by spikey
......our evolution requires UNITY, there are two paths, the first is "service to others" and the other is "service to self" service to others brings a feeling of joy and service to self only bring loneliness and self absorption
Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by wcitizen
Stop spreading NONSENSE.
First off, It's a bloody guidestone that NOBODY knows who put up.
NOBODY.
It could have been an eccentric.
Secondly, what is written isn't evil. It shows NO intent of it being so. In fact, most of what is said seems IDEAL.
Thirdly, It's 500 MILLION not 500 thousand.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by OhZone
You and others seem to be saying that we should all Sacrifice so that there can be more people in the world. Why exactly should I give up my pleasures so that there can be more people somewhere in the world?
Quoted for truth.
I am a compassionate person, and I have no problem with redistribution or welfare for the needy. But people who abuse the system seriously get on my nerves. Those who have lots of children while living on other peoples money are the worst abusers of all.
And those who procreate while knowing that they cannot take care of their offsprings at all (no welfare) are downright criminals.
I dare to say that the crime of irresponsible procreation has caused more suffering and deaths in the world than all the wars combined.edit on 20/4/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)