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.

 

NWO world depopulation: George Noory again proves self to be idiot.

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:39 AM
link   
So I was listening to Coast-to-Coast AM this evening, and Georgy Noory was interviewing Jim Marrs.

I really enjoy Jim Marrs, and have a lot of respect for him, but what I heard tonight made me want to bang my head against my steering wheel:

Jim and George got on the subject of the popular belief that the architects of the NWO have a sinister plan to drastically reduce human population. In attempting to debunk the fact that we do have a huge overpopulation problem, George Noory provided the anecdotal evidence that when he flies across our country, he's able to look down and see vast, unpopulated areas. He further asserted that in Hong Kong, there is much greater population density than what we're used to in the States, yet everybody gets along just fine.

So, in Noory's feeble mind, the question of overpopulation is simply one of physical space. No, George, you IDIOT, it's not about whether you can physically fit more people into a finite space. Nobody, I repeat, NOBODY has ever asserted that our planet does not have enough physical room to accommodate our ongoing population explosion.

The problem is that for every increase in population, you must have a corresponding increase in farms to grow crops and forests chopped down to make grazing lands for cattle, two things which are horribly injurious to our ecosystem, and which you can only do so much of. Furthermore, it takes a whole lot of fresh, clean drinking water to keep all those billions of new people alive.

It is only a matter of time before nations are fighting wars over access to fresh water.

Also, those vast, unpopulated areas George looks down on during his cross-country flights? Yeah, those are called wilderness areas. Perhaps George thinks it would be perfectly fine to clear-cut them, pave them over, and turn them into sprawling metropolises, but I think it would be a crime against God and nature.

As for this looney-tunes conspiracy theory about the NWO trying to reduce human population, take a look at our rapidly expanding population statistics, look at how many more humans are expected to be choking the life out of our planet fifty years from now, and you'll know that the NWO is failing miserably. I wish there really was somebody in power who was serious about curbing our wild and unsustainable population growth, and if such a leader existed, I would wish him every success in the world, because the alternative is the path we're currently on, which will not end well.

Perhaps you will disagree with me. That's fine. But at least you probably understand that the problem of overpopulation is one of limited resources and pollution, and not one of physical space.

For George to dismiss this issue by citing all the unused square footage available here in America is about as intellectually sound as a so-called climate change skeptic noticing that it happens to be cold on a winter day and therefore concluding that global warming is not taking place.




posted on May, 10 2011 @ 03:56 AM
link   
reply to post by flightsuit
 


I couldnt agree more, how can chemtrails be polluting our skies to poison us and reduce our fertility rates, if we are living longer and having plenty of babies? I mean its ludicrous to believe that the illuminati are successfully implementing plans to reduce populations, because if they were truely all powerful then the evidence of their success would speak volumes. It doesnt. To those of you that think 9 11 was a population decreasing event, wake up! because in terms of population this has no effect on world stats.

I would agree that a leader with insights in to how to reduce our ever increasing population would be a fantastic futuristic thing, the illuminated idea of getting population down to a healthy small utopian city placed in a temperate part of the world, with the rest of the planet left to be mostly wilderness would be the best gift for our great great great great grandchildren i can think of, i hope that we as their predecessors manage to beggin to pave the way to this utopia.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:03 AM
link   
This is really very simple.

Either you believe we as individuals have the God given freedom to procreate as we please, or you believe that a top down bureaucracy should be in charge.

Do you really believe that TPTB will look out for our best interests?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:20 AM
link   
I agree -- in every single point.

Depopulation could never be a solution for the Earth resources issue. Depopulation would like fixing an equation when solving an X by changing the initial terms to make it fit. WRONG.

We have to work hard (and I'm sure we will) for better, new and non-agressive resources.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by MindF
 


Ok, who do you want to run our countries? its got to be humans right?
do you want it to be you? or maybe the tramp on the street?

or like me would you prefer the men and women that devote the time in their lives to getting in to the positions to get voted in , by you and yours.

I mean I know humans have proved again and again that they are terrible at running countries, but who else is going to do it??

I think unfortunately the best of the best people dont always rise up to be prime ministers and presidents, but they aint the worst humans either on the whole...

just saying i think you may be a bit blind to the actual world, because you take the illuminati too litteraly, the illuminati is anyone and everyone who is in the top 10% of society, the engineers, scientists, athletes, artists and politicians: the people that GOT THEMSELVES OUT OF BED in the morning and went and chased dreams, these people rightly deserve to influence the ebb and flow of our great societies, for it was their efforts that created them...



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by AboveTheTrees
 


@The best solution to a problem is to find the cause and thwart it actually, so yes, resources dwindle is the problem, and humans use it all is the cause. HMM solve the problem how again?
Use your imagination...
edit on 10-5-2011 by Lagrimas because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2011 by Lagrimas because: (no reason given)

edit on 10-5-2011 by Lagrimas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindF
This is really very simple.

Either you believe we as individuals have the God given freedom to procreate as we please, or you believe that a top down bureaucracy should be in charge.

Do you really believe that TPTB will look out for our best interests?


I certainly trust TPTB to be better for society than some idiot who thinks it's perfectly fine to never use birth control and just keep squeezing out as many children as they please.

No, procreating "as you please" is not your God-given right. If you're going to attempt to use the Bible as a basis for arguing otherwise, I would remind you that the Bible spends an awful lot of time talking about what your responsibilities are, and very little time elucidating your rights.

We do not have a God-given right to reproduce with reckless abandon; we do, however, have a God-given responsibility to be conscientious custodians of His garden, and we are failing to do so.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Depopulation is going to happen one way or another. Whether it be done willingly by us breeding less or some type of catastrophe, it really is going to happen.

A lot of Christians are arguing that God said 'go knock yourself out, breed as much as you want because I give you dominion over the planet' But they seem to have forgotten the dire warnings of the 'time of sorrows' and what follows in Matthew 24. ie our own bible warns of terrible catastrophes and mass die offs.

For non creationists, it is a simple matter of cause and effect. Yeah sure, we could squeeze a few more people on the planet, but the rate of degradation and loss to desertification of farm land is truly frightening. Many people seem blissfully unaware of the fact that for the first time ever there was a wheat shortage in 2010. This is the beginning of a very worrying trend with all the unstable weather events around the world meaning reduced or failed crops.

So yeah, go on, populate as much as you want but caveat emptor - mother earth is sending out warning signs that she can't sustain us for much longer at this rate. Open your eyes and take a look around you and talk to the farmers of this world, we will tell you that it is not all coming up roses any more.



edit on 10-5-2011 by markosity1973 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
A lot of the people who claim that the NWO has some sinister depopulation plan also happen to be people who have an insane hatred for Planned Parenthood. They like the depopulation conspiracy theory, because it enables them to paint anybody in favor of birth control or legal abortion as being complicit in the conspiracy.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:35 AM
link   
reply to post by flightsuit
 


my reason for being pro illuminati and pro de-pop stands apart fom my pro abortion stance and beliefs and yet it is weird that though i believe in them sperately for widely disparate reasons they make me more a certain kind of person when put together, i never noticed this about myself before.

I think pigeonholing people for beliefs is dangerous, because sometimes two beliefs in one direction can make u seem like a fascist, but the truth is a person may have other beliefs that pull in the opposite direction, yin and yan.

get me?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   
The world is not overpopulated.

The problem is we are not managing resources properly, and are not getting our energy in the proper manner. Add to that the fact that many in the western world think they are entitled to a huge house, hundreds of trinkets to keep them busy, this all takes a lot of resources, and is not required for life, and I'll go as far to say not even required to have a NICE life.

If we as a species get over those problems I have no doubt this planet could support many times the current population if not more, and do so comfortably.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:57 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


Im in to drum and bass, your way of thinking about the world takes away the 'trinkets' but my way of life requires none of the trinkets you mentioned, but some of the trinkets none the less, the industrial revolution is what made us 'come on' to where we are today, you sound a bit rousseau, and in my mind that philosophy just dont add up to much at all.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Lagrimas
 



By altering medicine and vaccines and creating infertile generations you can depopulate the Earth in a good hundred years... Now, how does the tax-based economic system we live in supports that?

The change required to depopulate the Earth is deeper and more complex than just earsing ppl double-clicking here and there...

Now,
how we do that?



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:03 AM
link   
reply to post by AboveTheTrees
 


Oh I never said that its going to be easy, quite the opposite I feel that in order to do it the world does have to go through very very uncomfortable periods, nobody would want to live through them, just be alive come the other side, but for the future of humanity?

whats best for every human on earth and their families, right now, is just not the same as whats best for the future of humanity as a species.

If you think of them as seperate entities you realise that fastforwarding to the future 500 years with 2 different points of view now, will get you wildly different futures. which one would you want to live in if you were born then?


Resources are not infinate, pop increase is somewhat exponential, find me another planet to house the new people, for in 50 years time, or de-pop.
edit on 10-5-2011 by Lagrimas because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Lagrimas
 



I think we all have the same vision of the future. A green clean Earth, lightly populated. The trees have grown and cover the pools of blood below. Where are the rest of humans? Maybe living in a terraformed Mars or just dead and gone? My point of view is this: DEPOPULATION will happen unless we work hard for an alternate solution to it. Your point of view cheers for it. But we just, in long-term pattern, believe the same.


edit on 10-5-2011 by AboveTheTrees because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:16 AM
link   
One of the better forms of population control is materialism, such as the "yuppie". In order to continue a population growth, 2 parents much have at least 3 children. The first two children replace the parents, the 3rd child is the "additional". So when you get people so wrapped up in having a career and buying new stuff, they rationalize that they either do not need a family or if they do only 1 or 2 children can be afforded. Thus the people themselves have decided to limit population growth.

I work with several white people who are in thier 50-60's and they come from families with 5-8 children and they say that was normal back then. And then the white poeple that are more my age (30 and below) you see 1-3 chidlren is much more common.

I believe some 1st world countries are already seeing the effect of this.

One thing that throws a curve in this though is that while people only want to have 1 or 2 children, they seem to want to do it with that particular spouse. And with how rampant divorce is now I know several guys that have 3-4 kids but they are spread out amongst 2-3 (ex)wives.
edit on 10-5-2011 by westrock2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lagrimas
reply to post by James1982
 


Im in to drum and bass, your way of thinking about the world takes away the 'trinkets' but my way of life requires none of the trinkets you mentioned, but some of the trinkets none the less, the industrial revolution is what made us 'come on' to where we are today, you sound a bit rousseau, and in my mind that philosophy just dont add up to much at all.


I've got no problem with you being a drum and bass man, and I would in no way propose we go back to the way we lived hundreds of years ago. Technology is here to stay, we just need to make it work for us.

If every single person grew all of their own fruits and veggies using natural fertilizer and rain water, that would cut down on the amount of land needed for farming. Many already have lawns and flower boxes that do nothing but look pretty and waste water watering them. If you used that land properly and grew your own food, we wouldn't need millions of acres of farmland to support people. Keep your own chickens for eggs, and then for meat after awhile. Rely on local small farms to get beef, pork, etc. And just eat less of it overall.

Stop using electricity for everything. Why does everything have to be powered? How ridiculous is an electric can opener? Electric washer and dryer? People cleaned and dried their clothes and dishes for a long long time and got by perfectly fine. Open the blinds and turn the lights off during the day, and keep lights off in rooms you are using at night. Walk to local places instead of driving. Use a solar water heater, and solar air heater. You can make these things out of mostly trash/recycled goods, and they work great.

These are all very basic ideas that have been around for a long time that have a huge impact on the amount of resources and energy you use. The less resources and energy you use, the more is available for more people. Pretty basic stuff, and you don't have to take a huge hit to your quality of life to do it, unless you are incredibly lazy.

I'll agree 100% that there aren't enough resources on the planet to give 7+billion people a mansion, 4 or 5 big screen TVs, several SUVs and lifted pickup trucks. If someone thinks they deserve these things more someone else deserves to live their life, then I don't know what to say. Why don't proponents of overpopulation kill themselves to try and fix the problem? I'm totally serious with that question. To know what the answer is? Because they don't want to, they want OTHER people to go without, or to die so that THEY can live an easy privileged life. Then they try to make people think they care about the planet and care about nature when all they care about is getting rid of other people so THEY have more stuff for THEMSELVES. That's all it is.

But we can argue forever about this, and none of it matters at all, because none of us have any power over any of it. Unless of course you want to put your money where you mouth is and kill yourself to alleviate this poor poor overpopulated planet.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
OP

you speak from fear of growth, you say we cant handle it, you sound like someone who is whining from fear of growth, you sound like you support stagnation,

we should never support depopulation if this earth runs out of space or ecosystem for us then we need to move on to other planets, theres and endless amount of space for us out there,

everything can be improved, our water desalinization, our farming techniques, the usage and farming of tree's everything can be improved 10 fold easy, for you to say the solution is population reduction is foolish,

besides the american average birth rate is 1 and a half child per two parents, do math much? that means our population in america is already on a decline, america is dieing, we are not birthing enough to replace the ageing parents, and you support that? want it to continue and be replicated by other countries?

if our economy is to much for the earth in some way, FIX THAT, dont just kill more people or limit births, thats dumb,

support growth not death,

you can fit everyone on earth into the state of rhode island, over population is BULLSH


edit - BTW all your points you so vehemently profess, have been discussed to the death in countless other threads, rather then continue your ignorant beliefs why not go read those threads and try to debunk them, oh i know why, cause youll fail, there is a very good case made for this earth being easily capable of supporting 50 times our population in those other threads, is that why you only start your own thread? cant handle the truths contained in the others?
its very easy, use ats search and type in 'over population' you will see the other threads

edit on 5/10/11 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by flightsuit
The problem is that for every increase in population, you must have a corresponding increase in farms to grow crops and forests chopped down to make grazing lands for cattle, two things which are horribly injurious to our ecosystem, and which you can only do so much of. Furthermore, it takes a whole lot of fresh, clean drinking water to keep all those billions of new people alive.


Do you have any evidence for anything int he above quote? The assumption you are making is that we have plenty of land but not enough farm land but of course most of the land in and around the Equator would work for farm land. The problem isn't that we do not have enough it is that it is not profitable under the current economic system.

I haven't seen any evidence that we are lacking in fresh water either, the water is there but again costly to purify. These are not human-problems that are economic-problems. Restricting a persons' right to reproduce or doing "soft-kills" to reduce population is evil no matter how abusive you are to the topic. 'Nuff said.



posted on May, 10 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
So instead of refining our techniques and technology to yield more while using less, we should just kill people? Countries all over the WORLD are in decline, as parents can't afford to have as many children. How are you going to say that the depopulation plan isn't working? People used to have a lot more kids decades and centuries ago as compared to now (www.google.com...:USA&dl=en&hl=en&q=fertility+rates+in+america).

Of course it doesn't mean for people to just procreate freely without responsibility. Consider all of the people that have died from preventable things, like people in Africa. They die not because their isn't food, but because they can't afford it. Are you saying this is a good thing? Yes, in our current world system, we could never be able to support 7+ billion people in fifty years.

You're advocating death. Survival of the fittest.. or survival of the wealthiest?




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join