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.

 

Have Less Kids! Gore Pushes Population Control

page: 10
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by lifeform11
 


I told you why it doesn't fit in. We die fast. It doesn't work, we just die in such environments long before we have the ability. Tribal people are not living to their full potential. It's like buying a $5000 computer to do the work of a $100 calculator. The $5000 computer isn't fitting in, it's just not reaching its full potential to see if it is good or bad.


my god...... what does not fit in? man? man fits into nature had done for many thousands of years, it only seems to be the recent advancements of man that has caused all the problems. proving it is not man as a species that is the problem BUT the way we are living TODAY. for somebody who thinks mankind should be wiped out i find it strange your concerned about how long people would live under such circumstances.

and how can you say people who live a SUSTAINABLE life, living from nature with minimal damage and ensuring the survival of future generations are less smart than us? are they worried the economy is a mess? do they worry about all the wars and bloodshed? do they have to work 2 jobs which takes up all their time just to get by and even then still don't quite make it?
do they destroy their own enviorment for profits? i could go on and on.

some people are scared of not having their possesions, not simply being able to wave cash to get what they want. i can understand how some people would be scared of going back to nature, but with the way the world is going it will proberbly be that way anyway, we WILL destroy ourselves, and when we do those tribes will go on not even knowing.

i think i know who is smarter, and it aint us.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Forcing people to have fewer kids under the pretense of security from environmental destruction.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Forcing people to have fewer kids under the pretense of security from environmental destruction.


When this becomes law, then I will revisit your "sacrificing liberty" comment. Until then, try to get a grasp of the difference between suggestion and ultimatum. In the mean time I will research "liberty"....that way we both have homework.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 





what does not fit in? man? man fits into nature had done for many thousands of years

No, we died before we could have an influence, we had no technology to reach our full potential.




it only seems to be the recent advancements of man that has caused all the problems


And about 6 billion more people using them. than 200 years ago




proving it is not man as a species that is the problem BUT the way we are living TODAY


A billion people living the way we do today would be perfectly manageable. 7 billion is pushing it.




for somebody who thinks mankind should be wiped out i find it strange your concerned about how long people would live under such circumstances.


I don't think mankind should be wiped out nor do I think his population controlled. I'm just pointing out the facts. Our destruction rate would be lower than the repair rate of the Earth if we had 6 billion fewer people, and most certainly the world would be better period without us in terms of natural beauty and diversity.




and how can you say people who live a SUSTAINABLE life, living from nature with minimal damage and ensuring the survival of future generations are less smart than us?


I am not. But you are claiming tribal people are such people, which is simply not true. They simply have too few numbers to have any significant impact. Tribal people don't care much for future generations beyond their own children. Tribal people are not sustainable, the trash remains around Stonehenge and other ancient sites prove that. Tribal people do not live from nature. They merely do not destroy nor consume enough of it to have an impact on the growth rate. Tribal people take water where they find it, they sometimes grow crops, they simply consume. Many tribal people wiped out environments and destroyed themselves where the area of occupation was much smaller. Examples include Easter Island and a few other examples. You can call them civilizations, but the only significant difference from them and an Australian aboriginal is the fact that they cut stones.




are they worried the economy is a mess?


They don't have economies that can get into a mess, because their economies are very small. Though occasionally they do worry, such as in drought and disaster.




do they worry about all the wars and bloodshed?


Yes, they do. They fight with other tribes. Where do you think war began from?




do they have to work 2 jobs which takes up all their time just to get by and even then still don't quite make it?


Yes actually. This is why they don't destroy their environment. They die a lot. They worry a lot too. The only difference is the concept of what is life and what is work. For them, work is life. For us, Work and life are different things.




do they destroy their own enviorment for profits? i could go on and on.


Yes, but their rate of destruction is bellow the repair rate of the environment. Thus their damage is small.




some people are scared of not having their possesions, not simply being able to wave cash to get what they want. i can understand how some people would be scared of going back to nature, but with the way the world is going it will proberbly be that way anyway, we WILL destroy ourselves, and when we do those tribes will go on not even knowing.


Tribes aren't all that different. Priests and leaders wave their staffs and get what they want. Many people in those areas have important possessions. I like the fact that their positions and skills are what make them important, not their money. In many ways, the idea of a person and his skills being his own monetary value is a superior concept.




i think i know who is smarter, and it aint us.


Tribals and modern man are equally smart. We are simply different scales of the same machine. Our machine is simply bigger. Build an engine large enough, and eventually its output of waste is above the input of fuel. When that happens, it dies. Their engines are far smaller. Ours is larger.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


The thing is, when you make it "cool" to have fewer children, it also has other impacts. Life is decreased in value. Because you make it seem like life is a bad thing. There is some correlation to birth rate and happiness. Not that there is a direct correlation, they are merely two related factors whose relationship is indirect. Same thing like if you eat a lot and gain weight. Doesn't mean that the act of eating a lot is the reason you are gaining weight. Quality of food is a big factor. You wont get very fat overeating salad, for example.

Now the thing is with that, at least from what I can observe, the reason behind the desire to lower the birth rate, and the population, is directed at saying people are the problem. That is my problem with the idea. If people were having fewer kids because parents wanted to home-teach them and thought it was better idea than having a lot of kids and doing the same, I would not have a problem with it. It is the reason why this generation desires to make it cool to have fewer kids. And that is, at its heart, the decrease in value of human life.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 


It isn't like he can go back in time and NOT father those kids...He just knows better now that population needs to be addressed and I don't think he's wrong. And maybe we should have a birth limit AFTER you prove you can parent. And No more tax breaks for having kids either.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ReluctantBlossom
 


Tax breaks for kids isn't a bad idea, tax breaks for college bound kids and good grade kids are better though. Population isn't the issue, technology is. Also, a person doesn't have to prove they can parent. Parenting is a learned skill and everyone does it better. Do not nationalize nor standardize parenting. That's indifferent than state run religion. It's literally a belief of what is right and wrong without any clear right or wrong, other than obviously beating your kids senselessly is bad.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 



Any article in which the first comment I see is:

"Population Control should be for the weirdos who preach population control. They're the ones that need to be eliminated off the face of the earth, so that sanity will return. You would have to be so EVIL to hate God's creation of life, like these demonic people do. They have to be filled with evil spirits straight from he11. "

Is henceforth held as being highly dubious.

That said: what's wrong with being responsible global citizens? I'm not Capt. Touchy-McFeelie, but I don't see the wrong in limiting population as long as global resources are finite.

People already waste much in our society, and give nothing back, and that which we do is measured by how much currency we generate and dole out for "things". Yet another reason I'm off to the desert to practice.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Kaplan
 


Because you can't tell people what to do with their lives. People are free. Either make an invention that helps out, influence, or shut up, basically. But you cannot force people to obey. And if you can't see what's wrong with that, it's just more credibility why we shouldn't do it.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
We need more smart people, so smart people, start breeding. Maybe we can out breed the idiots.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:31 PM
link   
reply to post by calstorm
 


Intelligence isn't 100% genes.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Chewingonmushrooms
That's interesting, and in the 50's they said we would be traving to mars by 1985. I am all for technology that helps solve the problems we are facing, but until I see that technology in use it is nothing but science fiction. How long will it take to replace our current 200 old technology with new technology? 20 years? 30 Years? Don't give me cp about it happening over night before we both know that is not going to happen.

It could happen overnight, or could be delayed for another 100 years or more, it all depends on a number of factors...one being the growth of the east.
No, the west will not be the leaders in unveiling new technology...a capitalist society will always supress technologys that destroy commerce...however, a socialist nation will gladly unveil new energy and technology when it is feasable...so, we must wait for a few things to happen
1) the collapse of our economic system
2) the strengthening of far east socialist movements
3) the decline and fall of western civilization and the influence they once had.

This is happening today and unless we dramatically change our corporatist agenda, it will be a certainty to happen...and this is (believe it or not) a good thing. I won't go into it much...but ya, it needs to happen for the proper new world order to be established (not the corporatist world order it is now)

incidently, I am not a socialist, I find the purity of socialism will fail in the long term also...a new socio-capitalist society will come from the ruins of both eventually..



I totally agree, but I do not see that changing anytime soon do you? Until we reach the point when this new techonology that you speak of becomes reality, we will continue down the path along with our 200 year old technology.

I never suggested a timeframe...as that is a goalpost set in sugar sand...it will be moved constantly, but the outcome will certainly lead to it...we have been stalling our progression towards it for 100 years now...but it will definately come.
I hope to be alive at least during the initial conversion and population boom...this will come from advanced medicine moreso than a mother popping out 20 kids though...the 100b planet is not a bunch of tweens, I see it as a aged and advanced society, however, superficially we may all look quite younger than our birth certificate shows.

We are living in interesting times, and we actually have a shot at serious longevity, should we not kill ourselves in the process
the new energy source is not a nice idea...as time goes on, it will be the measure on if this civilization exists or stagnates into extinction. (the more dramatic we improve our lives and lifespan, the more dramatic measures need to be taken to curb the growth, or develop tech to allow for the expansion)



You clearly didn't read my post, else you wouldn't be asking such a question.


Here was the quote I was responding too -


for instance, the world may be able to comfortably hold 30 billion people if space is used properly...however its not.
Instead, we have incredible amounts of waste (food, energy, etc), and highly focused urban areas that causes a salted earth effect in the surrounding areas.


What you are talking about is better economizing and distributing of food by eliminating waste are you not? I simply said that is not possible with our current lifestyle. You also mention area density, aka megacities. See that's a problem isn't it because if you move people and spread them around you will need to build infrastructure to support it right? Again where will you get the materials from (please don't mention nanocarbons).

At the moment, 30b people could live in townships and rural/suburbian communities. We have mega citys holding stupifying amounts scraping the clouds...and then around it we have next to nothing...forests, sands, deserts, tundras, etc.
I think mini cities are best personally...have townships of about 100k people dotting the landscape everywhere...and each township focus on domestic farming and trade...local commodities suffer less waste than megacorp farming institutions that lose incredible amounts of food, due to a variety of reasons (supply cost fixing being one of them...less corn = more expensive and less cost in shipping).

Sadly, this is another area that is corrupted by capitalism...in a socialism, every grain of rice is divided up and sent to a home..there is far less incentive to waste food.

Infrustructure, yes...there needs to and smarter infrustructure for this...with a commercial center, a housing area around that, and farmland surrounding that still...each micro-city connected via maglev tubes for cheap and speedy trade and travel, and super-tubes going from nation to nation for the same
This can be done tomorrow, but it would require the people to demand it and governments to install it...no corporation will create such a infrustructure

With the evacuated tube transport system, even the concept of cars will become little more than a luxery item like owning a go-kart.

The reality is what we accept because we cannot bother to argue for better, even if better is in our grasp.

ETT should have been in the works 20 years ago...





-hands you a shovel-
Time to take note from gimli and friends..

reread the post I made and restructure your questions to be relevant..but until you stop misunderstanding what was written, its pointless to answer.


Why do I need to restructure my questions? I wasn't the one saying 30 billion people could live on this planet now, and 100 billion people with unlimited energy source (which I also disagree with). Regardless of better distribution and elimination of wastes, without a change in modern lifestyle and our reliance on resources there is no way to support that population currently.

I suspect we are arguing the same point...but your just having a somewhat cynical outlook, whereas I am seeing the potential and cautiously optimistic that we will change how we do things over time.
It may take a long while, but I do see it eventually changing...it has to..we have reached the end of our 19th century way of doing things...progressively more and more things change daily, from scientific developments, to revolutions in thinking. our political system reminds me of a rusted old carosel that is falling apart, still thinking its relevant..but the changes have always come from the people slowly but collectively reaching for something different that redefines how things run.
The new change will not be initiated in the west this time though (sadly imo) but from the east...the west will submit to the new methods, or become so insignificant that you might as well just label everything in the west as just dinosaur cuba




Our current lifestyle is focused around a petrolium product.
You ask a very broad question...choose one and lets go from there...transportation? food? jobs? water? each single topic you brought up does have a plan, but to try to answer them all would make a pagelong post that would be fairly unreadable.Our current lifestyle would automatically change globally with the new power source.,,overnight


Oh again I agree, yet the alternative you give is something that isn't even on the market. I like teleportation ideas to but I doubt people will stop building cars because there is a possibility that teleportation might come into the market once we have the technology.

no, well yes, well, debatable as to if it exists.
There is of course This
Which is cold fusion, which of course isn't cold fusion because that would embarass the scientists whom said for years it wasn't and have since changed their mind...its a nuclear reaction creating vast power at low temperatures..aka, cold fusion...or not...or erm..whatever, etc..
I think that will be the likely new candidate for our power issues..(imagine every average joe on earth having what amounts to a fusion reactor for their home..everyone with a hydroponics room, advanced water filtration systems, etc, all running for free and with no waste)

Point is, there is if not full blown techs out there (currently collecting dust or being studied) but also enough work on cutting edge new techs promising some great things...this is not "we will all own spaceships in 50 years" nonsense...only hollywood and fantasy dreamers spoke such nonsense...the scientific progression is pretty well documented, and on one hand, it rarely matches up with the fantasy claims of hollywood, but on the other hand, it often surpasses the science fiction claims of hollywood (good sci-fi, not crap syfy)

Here is a fun test
find and watch the original premere star trek episode...the very first one with kirk in it...
Besides aliens, and warp drive, look at everything else they use
everything in the video either has been accomplished, or surpassed.
Watch the whole series, and pretty much everything is matched or surpassed
Watch STTNG early episodes...that is where we are at now...replicators, alternative fuel, etc...

I wonder what our sci-fi will be dreaming up in 50 years from now when our view of 200 years from now seems so quaint and limited.

For now, the more people, the more active people online, is the greater the chance of these profound changes coming. through numbers we can defeat the bull and bear. I would love it if everyone on earth got a laptop and free broadband net access...contribute to the global intelligence and force change

I distrust the government...people and technology is easier to supress in small numbers...and I see an agenda to create massive waste and resource hoarding in order to justify a reduced population...there is power to consider here..



Lets stick to what technologies we know can be implemented, and what we have at hand now.

I do tend to spin on the sci-fi aspect of things, but short term sci-fi, not in the year 2525 thing
As far as what tech we know can be implemented and what we have at hand now...well, the biggest key is, what we will implement.
I recommend checking out Evacuated tube transport...this could be done tomorrow...we have the tech, we have the resources, and we have the research...its just a matter of us forcing governments to start this infrustructure (they won't, the oil companys don't want to see their profits shrink and the fuel industry become redundant)


Hemp has shown to replace many of the petro products now, but it is illegal. Whether it will become legal in the future or not is not something that I think we can wait for. Again unless we have a total revamp of our political, monetary (or currency, exchange form ), cultural, economical (separate from monetary), and power structure (TPTB), I doubt you will see any of those changes. Question to you would be can you see all those changes happening within the next 20 years?

No, I think we need to move past burning plants to make our machines go.
the hemp oil debate, and other alternative plant fuels = just moving from one crappy boat to another...we have tech already prepared for release
From tesla's work, to cold fusion, there are many, many alternatives already in place and simply not funded because it lacks profit margin in comparison to the supression the oil companys are doing (they are freaking evil corporations, and hell, I think walmart and mcdonalds are neutral to almost good in comparison)


I like your optimism, but lets stick to what doable now within the power structures that exist now and the technology that exist now (not in development). Without a realistic assessment on what's on the ground presently, then we will just be wasting precious time, because honeslty I don't think we can last another 20 years continuing our current lifestyle.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-6-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)


I refuse to stop knowing of alternatives
Its not optimism, its optimistic realism...I see a oar on the boat and suggest we can paddle the boat to shore...I won't accept that the oar probably doesn't work, that it would take too much time to row all 300 yards, and that we should just accept we are stuck in the lake and die quietly...its sort of pissed off more than optimistic


TL;DR j/k. You make several good points and I do see now that we are basically arguing the same point. I agree with the majority of your post, I just hope you are right. Thank god at least I know I won't be in a world with 100 billion tweens texting and twittering lol.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   
China does it. What's stopping us from doing it? I think it's a good idea because I also believe bringing a child into the world at this point in time, should be a crime.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Whats not manageable is not our population... whats not manageable is making a profit in a decaying world lacking stewardship. But since such stewardship is "an externality" to profit, it falls generally by the wayside.

The logical next step involves redirecting our efforts at food distribution systems... there's no reason for famine. And frankly, were we a real threat to this planet, we are just one catastrophe away from all becoming crude oil int the next 100,000 years.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:05 PM
link   
I am going to just post without reading past page one, because frankly it looks like a lot of back and forth jibberish on the morality of limiting child birth and the stupidity of anyone that listens to a single word uttered by Al Gore.

Here are the facts as they pertain to just the United States:

The continental US currently is made up of approximately 9.1m sq km of landmass. This exludes land covered by water.
The US at large boasts approximately 314m people, according to adjusted figures from the last census. This does not include any person that was excluded due to legal status. So, based on speculations, there are more likely to be 325-330m people actually living in the USA.
Do the math. Its really simple grade school stuff. The following numbers have been approximated:
9.1m sq km = 2.3b acres / 330m people = 6.8 acres/person

Now, how many individuals do you know that own 6 acres of land? Its not even really necessary. If you break up the available acreage into parts, you still come out great. Here is another math problem:

Average family = 2a 2c
Given the population can be ideally broken into this dynamic, that = 8.25m families
Given a family of 4 can live/prosper on 2 acres of land leaves 2.28b acres
If the remainder were to be divided evenly amongst farming, resource preservation and corporations, you are still offering up over 760m acres of land per title.

760m acres of forest, swamp and water preservations to protect species and allow for free range living animals
760m acres of land to raise cattle and fowl, grow grains, fruits and vegetables and harvest natural resources
760m acres of land to build skyscrapers and strip malls and business outlets and office space and casinos

All the while, the population of just this country lives in relative comfort and ease.

So, dont talk about how the planet is bulging at the seams by excessive procreation of man. We havent tapped even half of the available and habitable landmass. And we likely never will.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Control the borders first, then talk about population control. *Cough* Mexican border *Cough*



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Instead of kids why not just keep hamsters? They're really cute and they don't need to go to college.

I'm serious by the way

edit on 23-6-2011 by Fatgoblin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


Aaah, so the western world should have less kids meanwhile third nations keep having kids like rabbits?...

Al Gore is nothing more than another mouthpiece for the socialist PTB, masquearading their agenda of "globalism and One World Order" for "environmentalism" which is ALL environmentalism is these days.

The solution for the increasing populations worldwide is to allow atmospheric CO2 to continue to rise which in turn will increase the growth of all green biomass in this planet which in turn will produce more harvests which woud mean NO STARVING CHILDREN, or adults. But that is not what the socialist PTB want, they want a population they can control, and they can only control a smaller population hence all their "population culling" programs...

I vote for Al Gore to be castrated alongside the rest of the elites..
They reproduce like rabbits as well but demand the rest of the western world to have less children?...



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fatgoblin
Instead of kids why not just keep hamsters? They're really cute and they don't need to go to college.

I'm serious by the way

edit on 23-6-2011 by Fatgoblin because: (no reason given)


I wager someone is very happy that your parents weren't of like mind.

Not every human is the useless eater the elites say we are.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tonypazzohome
we need population control desperately. the alternative will become cannibalism. there just simply aren't enough resources to accommodate the growth booms.


Really?... according to whom?...

The ONLY real alternative we have is to allow atmospheric CO2 to rise, as it is the Earth is in a state of lack of atmospheric CO2.


Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

Right now atmospheric CO2 is at 380ppm, which is NOWHERE near the optimum levels for more green biomass worldwide and more harvests.

Can you imagine if worldwide harvests increased 25% to 60%?... We would be able to feed the entire planet, and there would be no need for starving children to go to sleep with no food in their stomachs...

But instead the socialist elites want to sequester/capture atmospheric CO2 which would mean LESS harvest and MORE starvation worldwide, and a lot of people are so ignorant and so naive that they go along with the depopulation programs being implemented, and they don't know that THEY are the target for population culling by TPTB.


edit on 23-6-2011 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join