It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Prince Philip - too many people on the planet

page: 2
<< 1    3 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 07:53 PM
reply to post by

I respect the notion but in many places of the world the soil is simply not suitable, too polluted, erosion, clear more forests or be able to afford hydroponics, greenhouse in urban setting which is pricy. Sad but true, farming can't be for everyone.

Examples... Africa -

Google "arsenic contamination india china"

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:08 PM
Surely when he says "voluntary family limitation" he is likely talking about specific populations who contribute to demographic imbalance in the UK. In the USA we can it ZPG movement. It's a fair enough remark, true story nowadays. He does often tell it like it is, I respect that. No need anyone get panty in a bunch... besides, he's 90, can say whatever he likes and get away with it.

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 08:09 PM
The Duke is not saying anything that anyone with a shred of common sense, doesn’t already know. It is not the ability to feed or house, the current population, it is our ability to sustain a world with this many people at a 20th century economic standard of living and technological level. Longer life spans, and higher consumption rates of energy and raw materials of current 20th century societies, is already straining our ability to supply the vast amounts of resources needed. The monstrous amounts of raw materials needed to maintain the current levels are simply destroying our environment. Consider just the water usage of the current manufacturing technologies. This is over and above the population’s water requirements. Long before Peak Oil hits we are going to hit Peak Water. Emerging third world cultures are rapidly advancing and modernizing their technology, energy and manufacturing bases. All having to compete on the market for raw materials that are already at peak production levels to such a point that it is not technologically feasible to harvest, process, and transport, the vast quantities needed. Not withstanding the dwindling supplies of easy to obtain and mine minerals and rare earths currently demanded by a high tech economy. No we are not capable of sustaining the current population of the world at a 20th century technological level.

The fact that fertility rates in the 1st world countries have leveled out and in some cases fallen below the level of replenishment while reproduction rates of 3rd world countries continue to stay high, only exacerbates the problems as many of these people do not contribute to maintaining or advancing the worlds current level of development. Eventually they will force the world to lower its standard of living simply due to a lack of population with the abilities and knowledge to maintain it.

we really don’t need to worry to much about this though, From my reading of history, overpopulation seems to be a self limiting process, whether through voluntary means or through involuntary means.

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:05 PM
reply to post by Gooseygander

I agree that there's already too many people on the planet. That's why I'm going to either not have children or adopt. Do people really need 3+ kids to be happy?

posted on Jun, 10 2011 @ 09:23 PM
WelI I will happily volunteer all those greenies, environmentalists, hippies etc to kill them selves. It is always good to lead by example I believe. This will help the planet population problem.

But in reality the UN 's long term population predictions show that we will eventually go into decline. sometime between 2050 and 2100. All ready 60+ countries happen fertility rates already below replacement levels.

According to the U.N. Population Database, using the historically accurate low variant projection, the Earth's population will only add another billion people or so over the next thirty years, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline.

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:06 AM
Here is a eye opening video with some surprising information (for me anyway) about our current population.
However I am inclined to agree to a point.
We should limit the number of children some of us are having but not by murdering the ones already existing. Genocide is NOT the answer here.
Is there really a need for a family to have 8 kids, intentionally I mean.
I also think maybe we should exterminate the elites and distribute their wealth to the poorest of us and balance things out a bit.
idk, there are many things that should and shouldn't be done, the above are just some of my thoughts.

Anyway, check out this video I found it to be quite interesting.

7 Billion reasons to think about 7 Billion.

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 01:14 AM

Originally posted by
reply to post by Gooseygander

Too many lazy people. If everybody (myself included) would grow and raise their own food, we'd possibly be ok!

(I realize FAR easier said than done. I'm a dreamer.)

Well that'd be fine and dandy if we could all just walk onto any nice big chunk of land we wanted to and start building and farming, but you see there's the fact that POS bankers (AKA WANKERS) and Governments own everything and they're grabbing more and more each day, so there's many whom would love to raise all their livestock and grow all their vegetables but we can't afford the extortionist's cost for land and we have to live in what amounts to a cubicle. I guess that's because we're just "lowly" to you.
I do grow what I can in the limited space I do have, but livestock would definaetly be out of the question,

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 02:08 AM

Originally posted by Version100

It is ironic how people with multiple children are always the ones crowing overpopulation.

Just because someone made mistakes deacdes ago doesn't mean they haven't learnt the error of their ways

And for the record, I have no children.

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:16 AM
Isnt this why so much money is spent on space exploration and dreams of going to Mars.
No one gets left behind.or is that just in the movies?The Prince has a heart of gold!!

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:34 AM

Originally posted by WhoKnows100
So his own four children exceed the western replacement rate of 2.1....

And they're just the ones we know about.

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:52 AM
reply to post by ldyserenity

And in case you don't believe me.
My garden (well part of it)

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 03:24 PM
reply to post by Blackmarketeer

Nice answer, but you obviously assumed you would be one of the chosen. Who would you like to ultimately judge the worthy, your friends obviously im sure they would let your live.

Likelihood is the people who can don't care about you or your family the Elite will choose, as far as they are concerned you are just cattle for the slaughter.

You still agree with depopulation, or is it only OK when it doesnt involve you, you will probably be unlucky ( if it ever happens) by the way sir ?

ps last edit - When I say you Sir, I mean your future generations. And I wish you many, think about it.

edit on 11-6-2011 by Gooseygander because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2011 by Gooseygander because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-6-2011 by Gooseygander because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 01:54 PM
If only the dumbest amongst us including most politicians would do us a favor and leave the planet oh well. We can all dream.

posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:01 PM
If that's what Phillip believes, perhaps he will lead by example and take leave of the planet himself and take his parasitic family with him.

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:34 PM
There's often another sinister undercurrent to those who beat the eugenics drum, under the guise of concern about ''over population''.

Let's just say that birth-rates in Africa and Asia are far larger than those in Europe, North America and Australasia...

The fact of the matter is that in more developed countries the population levels are pretty steady, and in some instances they are actually in decline. As the rest of the world reaches the same developmental standard, then their birth-rates will similarly drop - so there's really no long-term over-population problem.

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Signals

500,000,000 !!

Indeed a very low number....

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:47 PM
It's a question of sustainability. Malthusian theory dictates that eventually in a crowded environment, disease, wars, murder and famine and suicide will limit the population.

I predict that in the near future a virus will unwittingly be released [or perhaps on purpose] that will target a segment of the earths population depending on their dna. Then those with the antibodies; natural or prescribed can have more stuff, and space without all the riff raff mucking up the place.

Read between the lines of those big stones. It's all spelled out.
edit on 8-9-2011 by whaaa because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:52 PM
I think, at one end of the scale, boredom...the lack of urgency...speaking from a position of ultra comfort...having more money than sense
makes you say all sorts of things.

So, he personally produced 2, and 'lost' another 'leech' on his precious world resources, in return.

Princess Di had a bad habit of trying to save lives...what does this say?

Luckily, i guess, Camilla is no longer equipped or interested in adding to the problem.


posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 02:57 PM
reply to post by greenfruit

You beat me to it. If they don't want to take themselves out of the picture there is always voluntary sterilization.

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 03:04 PM
reply to post by whaaa

I drink more Alcohol than would be good for 10 people. You just made me jump sir

If there was ever an unsocial anti-establishment substance provided to the masses it is Alcohol,

Imagine , just Imagine TPTB trigger in me a controlled virus/chemical reaction thing when the chemical weapons hit due to my alcohol changed dna

Long shot but still, you may have hit the nail on the head

edit on 8-9-2011 by Gooseygander because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1    3 >>

log in