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: 4
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


This has nothing to do with equal rights for women. Equality and manipulation/spin is not the same thing.




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Aeons
 




I'd like to see this point addressed in an open way, that explains how a society that doesn't breed does not just set themselves up to be taken over by one that does.


Limiting immigration solves this problem.


No, it just means that the society that isn't breeding eventually doesn't even need to be subdued. They'll just get taken over period and the remaining small population subsumed into the aggressive-breeding population.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 




No, it just means that the society that isn't breeding eventually doesn't even need to be subdued.


I dont understand this sentence, could you clarify?



They'll just get taken over period and the remaining small population subsumed into the aggressive-breeding population.


If they get taken over depends on military might. Military might no longer depends on numbers of people, but on science and technology (certainly in open warfare that would be required to breach the fortified borders of a state).



As long as our western science and technology will be better than that of the third world, we are safe.
edit on 22/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Unity_99
 


i agree with maxmars

we dont have the right to tell women what to do with their bodies.

but its their choice to have or not to have not al gores right to say



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:07 PM
link   
Again, it is quite possible to sustain 10 billion people on this earth (with zero population growth), IF the current paradigm is replaced. Distribution, waste, high consuption of goods, inferior made products, and short term pleasure along with gross energy use does not help the problem at all. Why must we have avocados from Peru when we can grow them in Cali? Why does so much food get tossed in the garbage? Why do we buy products that break after a few uses? Why do we waste so much paper in offices? We haven't we switched slowly to more alternative sources of energy? Even though all combinations of alternative energy sources (that we know of) combined wouldn't match the amount of energy we use now (it'll provide maybe 15%) at least it would be a step in the right direction.

The fact is that our lifestyle, consumption mentality, economic model (infinite growth based on consumption), and philosophy (direction) contributes as much to the problem as does the current number of humans on this planet. We are completely out of balance with nature, when we do not have to be. However, any changes at this point to our paradigm will likely cause billions of deaths because a good % of our population is living on borrowed time. Because of our food sources are dependent on fossil fuels, and because of our energy dependance that runs everything in our modern society. What happens when the cost of extracting oil outweighs the profit in producing it? That's when you'll see a dip in the population to early 1900 levels.
edit on 22-6-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-6-2011 by Chewingonmushrooms because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
To be frank, I think he should focus his comments on where the real problem with overpopulation has hit...mainland Asia. When just two countries hold about 1/3 of the world's population, maybe he should get a grip on commenting about the entire world, especially when a lot of European countries and Japan are expected to have heavy population declines over the next fifty years. Overpopulation is certainly an issue in his native country (I know because I live there), but we could fix that by simply making a better educational system.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 



Ten people with mighty weapons don't match a million people with feet and willingness to die.

A smaller population is absolutely less safe against an aggressive larger population.

A smaller population has fewer people on which to rely on to maintain a technological advantage. Few brains to maintain innovation.

A smaller population then has to outsource development, and therefore teach their more aggressive neighbours how to make their advanced technology, while at the same time losing the ability to make their own advanced technology.

Technological advantage is degraded over a couple of generations, as you teach a population that wants to kill you how to do it, and you make it easy by having breed yourself most of the way to extinction.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:24 PM
link   
Suspect in my country if there was no Child benefit from the State, we would have smaller families.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 




Ten people with mighty weapons don't match a million people with feet and willingness to die.


If they are for example in an underground bunker and have remotely conrolled UAV aircrafts, they are more than a match.


Look at Israel - all neighbourghing countries attacked it, and who won?



A smaller population is absolutely less safe against an aggressive larger population.


That depends...



A smaller population has fewer people on which to rely on to maintain a technological advantage. Few brains to maintain innovation.


Number of brains is not very important. Quality of brains, or education, is everything.



A smaller population then has to outsource development, and therefore teach their more aggressive neighbours how to make their advanced technology, while at the same time losing the ability to make their own advanced technology.


Then the agressive neighbours become educated, and their population growth and agressiveness will lower. Its a self correcting system.




Technological advantage is degraded over a couple of generations, as you teach a population that wants to kill you how to do it, and you make it easy by having breed yourself most of the way to extinction.


If the third world somehow becomes far more advanced than the western world, I would not mind if they take over us. And they most probably loose all current negatives in the process. They are the main reason why they are less advanced after all.


edit on 22/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread was just made not to long ago, which reminded me of some of the points made on this thread. Dunno how much more proof some people need to be honest.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


Winning strategies are not self-correcting.

I'd also like to point out that when in a take over, you probably end up being the Head, and I end up being the communal uterus property, you're lack of concern isn't surprising.
edit on 2011/6/22 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by Maslo
 


Winning strategies are not self-correcting.

I'd also like to point out that when in a take over, you probably end up being the Head, and I end up being the communal uterus property, you're lack of concern isn't surprising.
edit on 2011/6/22 by Aeons because: (no reason given)


I dont desire to own communal uteri, dont be quick to make assumptions. In fact, I largely agree with you, diminishing population of civilized world is not ideal. I just believe you are underestimating the military might superior technology can provide in conflict, especially in conflict where an attacked society fights for self-preservance, where there is little concern for restrain. We are capable of destroying this entire planet few times over.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Victor03
reply to post by e11888
 


AL Gore is the ultimate hypocrite. I work in Nashville TN where just one of his homes sits in upscale Belle Meade. The notion that he really cares about anything other than himself flew out the window a while back in this town. HE does not really drive a prius that was a publicity stunt. He is driven around in SUV convoys like he is president...he probably hasnt driven himself in 30 years!!! HIs house here is HUGE HUGE HUGE bigger than a castle!!! THe lights are always on, yard is watered and perfect...NOTHING i have seen him personally do matches the absolute lying arrogannce that flies out of his disgusting mouth. He wants to tell you to live like a hermit while he lives like a king. THe difference bbetween me and other folks on here regarding this subject is that people in my area see him firstthand for the crook,hack, and liar he really is.


You sure do know alot about the messenger, but did you bother listening to the message? Sure he may be hypocrite, we all are at times, but he's very right about this type of population control. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having less or no kids, that can actually SAVE this planet.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   
LOL - who cares! If the breeders are stupid enough to have 4 or 7 kids (or more!), then have fun feeding them when TSHTF!!! Your kids will starve to death - nice parenting. Idiots.

Al Gore is just trying to remind the mindless breeders that there could be consequences for you personally when TSHTF. Now they're all "Waaaa population control blah blah!"

Shut up - you have your 8 kids so quite your bitching about population control. Trust me - you are doing an excellent job making sure there are too many people on the planet!


edit on 22-6-2011 by Cryptonomicon because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 


"The Video Has Now Been Removed From The User"..

What the deuce is that all about??



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
And in return I call on Al Gore to do the following:

* eat less - to help conserve the earth's precious resources.

* talk less - to reduce all the hot air he is contributing to "human caused global warming".

And always remaining true to his hypocrisy, Al Gore has 4 children of his own.
edit on 6/22/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:26 PM
link   
C02 Is not a pollution as the Church of Climate change would have you believe. They are even finding ways to make money out of their Idea Carbon tax. No thank you. He does make some valid points. Using half truths to sell an idea and make it accepted is an age old Psi Op technique. Its also part of NLP.
Who can argue that educating women is good. Attach that to the second half of his presentation you get association. Repeat this enough times and and you get acceptance of his reality outlook.
I don't think he is a bad guy I just disagree with his agenda and his outlook on things.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 


how is planned parenthood a bad thing? i certainly wish i was more aware of the world and the state of it before i had kids. infact because i have learnt about that stuff i came to the conclusion years ago, i don't want anymore kids and i have told my partner the same, i explained why, she agreed. anyone wanting to bring a kid into the world with the state it is in should really think about what type of life they will have before doing so.

what al gore seems to be talking about is education, not mandatory injections/sterilization or forced abortion or a limit. he may well promote a limit but at the end of the day it is down to the parent and if they agree with the data or not.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Shirak
 






posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by e11888


WE HAVE A LOW BIRTH RATE BECAUSE OF ALL THE #ING # THEY PUT IN OUR WATER AND FOOD... God help me I cant do this argument. This planet is not overpopulated. Do you know how much land exists in this country alone that still has never even seen a human being? Do you know how much land can still be used in this world? KILLING PEOPLE is not the solution. Innovation, technology or possibly ADVANCING OUR SPECIES is the solution. We need to be #ing like rabbits. There are too few human beings on this planet.



Sorry for the late reply:


Nobody is advocating killing people. Al Gore is saying 'have fewer children'. That's just good advice, As I said in my earlier post, the advice would be more adequately aimed at developing nations with overblown birth rates and unsustainable populations, not developed nations such as the US.

As for your statement about overpopulation... You are drastically oversimplifying things. The issue isn't space, it's resources. Just because there is more than enough land for an increasing population, doesn't mean we have the available food, energy, shelter and clean water to sustain said population.

We have space for more people, but we can't feed more people. We could (theoretically) support a slightly larger population with better resource management. However, because of our system of trade and wealth distribution, a large portion of the earth's population is already living without proper means to meet the necessities of life. Expanding the population will only result in more going hungry, homeless, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join