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: 24
16
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


That belief is illogical when human history shows assumption in law is not fair and not good. You are innocent until proven guilty.

I showed you where in the US Constitution reproduction is free. In addition, America is a republic, not a democracy. Which is rule of majority without punishing the minority.




1. there is no reason to assume a wealthy country cannot protect its integrity against immigration.


People get to where they want to go, one way or another.




2. It is still better than the same situation with no reproduction control. There is less poor overall, and the poor from another poorer country get a chance to live better life and all that jazz.


Without reproducing? Yea good luck with that. You ever been to a ghetto? You even think you can force sterilization or 1 child policy in there? Good luck with that. You'll probably die a decent death from a ganster's uzi. There's a simple rule in the inner city you should learn. You don't F with the bros. Least they F with you.




It is not inaction versus action, there is absolutely no guarantee that one is somehow inherently better than the other, consequences of both approaches are important to judge what is better. There are many laws that prefer action over inaction. As for public opinion, in a democracy, you are right.


Sure there is. Don't screw with peoples rights, and they won't kill you. Simple rule. it's the better way.




posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





People get to where they want to go, one way or another.





Without reproducing? Yea good luck with that. You ever been to a ghetto? You even think you can force sterilization or 1 child policy in there? Good luck with that. You'll probably die a decent death from a ganster's uzi. There's a simple rule in the inner city you should learn. You don't F with the bros. Least they F with you.


So now you argue that law enforcement is incapable of enforcing the law. Sometimes this is the case, sometimes it is not, I can admit that. I do think you are seriously underestimating the power of governments, they are like a country within a country. 400 million unborn Chinese proves me right.




Sure there is. Don't screw with peoples rights, and they won't kill you. Simple rule. it's the better way.


What you consider to be peoples rights is not universally accepted.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Somebody needs to translate that into illegal alien language; they pop 'em out like jackrabbits in Arizona ...
Americans are doing their best. Last I read, I think we've aborted something like 53 million kids so far.
That's a medium sized city. Plus almost every young person I know doesn't want to bring a child into this world because of the way America is going atm.
And Gore can - well, you know.

edit on 8-7-2011 by AmericanDaughter because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-7-2011 by AmericanDaughter because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
The UN's studies have found the worlds population will plateau at 8.5 trillion... We could handle that easily... Assuming we get the hypocritical "manbearpigs" out of office. Which will probably be much harder than taking care of 8.5 trillion people.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeverSurrender
The UN's studies have found the worlds population will plateau at 8.5 trillion... We could handle that easily... Assuming we get the hypocritical "manbearpigs" out of office. Which will probably be much harder than taking care of 8.5 trillion people.


Define easily.

Define hypocritical "manbearpigs" and why they are hypocritical.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Define easily.


Currently, 14% of the world population (est.) is starving. That's approx 970million people.

It is also estimated that we waste 40% of food currently produced. Thrown out in developed countries, not harvested & lost in production for most developing countries.

Simple math makes it easy.

We can currently feed 86% (5.96 billion) of the world on 60% of our current production.

That means that our current levels of production could handle a maximum population of approx 8.9 billion (assuming a wastage of 10%, can't eliminate all of it).

We have ZERO food production problems. We have huge proccessing and logistics problems. Of course, we can still get an army anywhere in 24 hours...just not food...priorities, priorities.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


China has no ability to supply good poll data. With estimates ranging between 10 million to 100 million as to how many Christians there are in there, I really don't consider anything they say as valid. And they have no experience with freedom, so I would not expect much else from them. Not to mention their government has essentially operated the same way for 2000+ years.

Can you show me the same in the west? The only government to last nearly as long as that is the English, and even that's rifed with civil wars.


Freedom is one way. It started in the enlightenment and has been like a virus across the planet since. It will not end until every one is free.




What you consider to be peoples rights is not universally accepted.


Simply put, I don't care.



posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Vertical farm > horizontal farm.

Simple math, really.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by lifeform11
 


I take it as a part of the "NWO agenda" because population control is definitely something that's going to be crucial if one worldwide government is set up, and China passed that one-child policy back in 1978 which has prevented an estimated 400 million deaths (wikipedia'd), and this seems like it's just setting the stage for America to pass something similar.


Yes indeed.

And what is wrong with that?

A few years ago, I was able to unwrap my mind around the NWO as being 'evil'. It is actually the best thing for civilizations and is needed for advancement. Why support the policy of people having children just because they can> How productive is that to our society as we have 7 billion people, half of which are unemployed and starving?

Plus, look at how robots/technology is removing the need for humans in certain industries? Humans will have to be able to keep up or step aside.

And as another poster said, why keep having children for other people (tax payers) to support? This should no longer be supported by our government, and women should actually be deterred from further reproduction if they are not feeding the ones they already have.

edit on 9-3-2012 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Annee
 


Vertical farm > horizontal farm.

Simple math, really.


Except that we already produce more than enough food and there is no land shortage. It is the cost of production and distribution that is the issue. Vertical farms are thus most probably inferior to ordinary farms.



posted on Mar, 9 2012 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


not necessarily,Aquaponics can make them very competitive.Also innovation in energy systems will make vertical farming popular in the future.




top topics



 
16
<< 21  22  23   >>

log in

join