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: 16
162
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   
Let's not make this personal.

Stay on topic and resist the personal attacks




posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   

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)


And then how are you going to stop it from going to 14,18,28 billion?
WHen it reaches 12 billion, are you going to sterilize everyone?

ANd...no one has yet stated why we need more people on EArth.
NO one has stated how this benefits those already here or how it will benefit those yet to come.
And no one has stated how the wealth is to be divided.
From each according to his ability to each according to his need?
.....From the productive worker to the lazy non-worker?



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
It doesn't matter how many people earth could "sustain", there are just too many people. Human populations rarely co-exist with nature and doubling our current population "because we can" is retarded with no forward looking sight.

Our oceans have trash gysers at our current population, do you want a whole trash ocean? Any epidemics would ravage OVERPOPULATED citys. I would rather see more open spaces and natural ecosystems. Physical space seems to be the one resource many of you are forgetting. Some of us don't want to live in scycrapers that feed and sleep us because wanting to go outside is apparently insane now. When humans use all the good land to sustain humans, what will the rest of the animal kingdom do?
edit on 4/19/2011 by LordBaskettIV because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:39 PM
link   

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)



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   

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)


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?

Those who are saying that grocery stores throw out tons of food....
Yes, it is Rotten.
What did you think they should do with it?



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 09:43 PM
link   
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".



posted on Apr, 19 2011 @ 11:16 PM
link   
actually water CAN be wasted.
You see all those plastic water bottles laying around?

Or any sealed containers that get thrown out?
Those contents won't be released for millions of years unless we manually unscrew the cap of each and every single one out there thats been thrown out.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 04:41 AM
link   

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.

Dude the tech is being suppressed because the people in control can not make money from it, is it really that hard to believe?? China has made it and distributed it to 120 countries world wide in an effort to end the NWO what do think the whole wiki leaks and Julian Assange getting death threats thing is about, the Chinese have been feeding him info, and he has a # pile of documents that could sink the whole deal, Julian Assange has set up a dead mans switch to keep himself alive, he has documents not only on alien tech but just about everything about the extraterrestrials, this is all about disclosure, just check out this link Disclosure Project and this one will give you all the evidence you need Briefing Documents
edit on 20-4-2011 by CouncilOfNine because: (no reason given)
Technology and Science
edit on 20-4-2011 by CouncilOfNine because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 04:55 AM
link   

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)


Sorry buddy but it doesn't really matter, your mind set is still in the dark ages and you will soon see the big picture, I have said this in this topic alone at least 5 times RESEARCH and read, I have done this for a very long time, you guys really have no idea what is actually going on out there and im done trying to give you the initiative to have at least one reasonable thought, it doesn't matter what you have done to make YOUR life better because there is a much bigger picture and your thinking is one letter of the signature in the corner........you are in for a hell of a surprise



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 05:10 AM
link   

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 can not remove the instinct to survive, this is programmed into our bodies, it is the base chakra or red ray energy centre, but you can evolve past this instinct, once you clear the green ray energy centre you are into the realm of love and compassion and your views change greatly, it is the path of our evolution and it is up to you if you want to evolve past selfishness and greed into love and compassion, this is why some of the posters here just can not grasp what others are saying.........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



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Nice thread. I agree that we could easily support a doubling of the population if we managed resources more efficiently, but I don't think we need to double the population. The elite obviously don't want the human race to increase in population - the Georgia Guide stones and the ethos of the misanthropic Agenda 21 report stands as testament to that. However, I believe there's enough of us as it is, and we're not exactly the most environmentally friendly species on this planet and we don't live symbiotically along side nature like other species do. Instead, almost like a virus - we move from one section of the planet to the next voraciously consuming all the natural resources in our path and anthropocentrically destroying animal habits all in the name of rampant consumerism. As I see it, we simply do not need more humans. The argument that the planet could sustain a larger population if it was better managed I think is irrelevant, because increasing the population growth would only increase the strain on other species. Peter Jones makes an interesting argument in his video (Zeitgeist: Moving Forward) and suggests that the natural resources on the planet should be managed algorithmically by a computer program that calculates how much of the natural resources we can strip from the environment without negatively affecting other species.
edit on 20-4-2011 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
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)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus
 




And please tell us what more humanitarian methods are available to reduce population?


I am talking about reducing population growth, not killing already born people, so there are plenty of methods which are more humanitarian than the alternative - starvation and wars. Two child policy (one is too extreme and unnatural, bad for the child), free birth control, abortion, even sterilisation of people who have proven that they are unable to procreate responsibly is more humanitarian than children living in bad conditions etc.



Abortion is out, since it's not humanitarian.


Abortion (not in the third semester of course) is perfectly humanitarian IMHO, fetus is not sentient.



Do you think that limits on resources such as water should be enforced?


Certainly not. If would be actually counterproductive, since the reason why we want to limit excessive population growth is to increase average quality of life, so it would defeat the purpose. Actually we should increase help after the policy is implemented, that would be most optimal.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
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.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

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


So you are saying that our ideal "evolution" is to become Borg-like; having a Hive mind?

I see things exactly opposite. That is being our own gods and creating our own universes.
Does the Hive-Mind set make you feel secure?
Isn't this what all the problems on Earth are about;
everyone wants to make everyone else just like him/her?
How boring.

Taking your ideal a step further would be to synchronize all frequencies that make up the Universe into one frequency. That is counter to the very nature of the Universe, which is to create diversity and to continue to create ad infinatum.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 11:27 AM
link   
The Solution?

Develop an economy that serves people.

Lose the idea that people are here to serve "the economy."



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   

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.


So something is nonsense just because you say it is.........and because you swear?

The Georgia Guidestones cost an absolute fortune to make and erect. Many believe they do indeed express the intent of the NWO.

You'll probably also beliee that the murals, etc, at Denver airport are innocent, and those in the BofA too.

You're right, it's 500 million, my mistake. That means they intend to cull approximately 6 billion. That may seem ok to you - it absolutely isn't ok with me. I guess you'll be volunteering.

IMO that's what GMO is about. They will totally control the food supply, and pull the plug when and where they want to eliminate populations.

You're entitled to your opinion, as I am equally.

Swearing doesn't make your argument more true. Learn some manners.




edit on 20-4-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-4-2011 by wcitizen because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 12:31 PM
link   

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)



So true. Human Species nowadays is like Cancer Cells, breeding, breeding and breeding, while consuming their host.
What is even the point with having four kids if you can neither take care of your own economy even less than showing respect for Earth?

Nowadays, I am picking up trash regularly in the neighbourhood I am living in, Descretely, ofcourse, but you can bet there is always new trash been dumped within a week again, and it heck isn't the Government that have thrown the lolipapers, ciggarettes, receipts, papers and bottles there.
People obviously just CANNOT take responsibility for their surroundings and respect this Planet, so what in the World would be the good with even MORE people running around and trashing the Planet?

In my opinion, the people doing this could just aswell be collected, rounded up and shot, while the remaining part that DO care about this beautiful planet, turns it back into the Paradise it once were.



posted on Apr, 20 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Nathan-D
 


Thanks Nathan-D.

Reading through the posts, i see that there are quite a few people making incorrect assumptions about the thrust of this thread.

I'm speaking *specifically* of the regular charge that our planet *is currently* overpopulated. Which i strongly dispute, based on the logic and analyses of WAFLE.

It's an arbitrary figure of course, when i say the Earth can comfortably support twice our current levels, but not only am i saying that the often spouted charge of overpopulation is complete bunk, based totally on an unwillingness by the power brokers and wealth hoarders to drop the drive for profit in favour of a drive for an amicable future for all of our species.

I'd like to make it *absolutely* clear though, that i am *not* saying there is a need for more people, or that we should aim for double our numbers, only that if our numbers did double within the next three or four decades, with the correct
management and distribution of our more than plentiful resources, with the right mindset, with the right infrastructure...IOW a completely new system of living, we can literally have what we should have had centuries or even millennia ago, a virtual heaven on Earth for all of us.

To add also, that i have no political affiliations.
I do not wholeheartedly support any of our systems, as i see the same potential for corruption and suppression of people and ideas in all of them. My thinking is not based on Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, or any other 'ism' i can think of, except perhaps for humanism.

Thanks for your post mate.
edit on 20/4/2011 by spikey because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
162
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join