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: 6
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Nobama
 





the concerned is when a government chooses to make it a law thus limiting your freedom of giving life


You should not give life unless you can properly take care of it, period. Maybe our government is too corrupt to enforce this principle in practice, but from an ideological standpoint, this so called inalienable "right" to procreate does not exist.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 

"There are too few human beings on this planet"? How could you say such a thing? Just what is your logic?

Mankind is the scourge of the universe. Depopulate NOW.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:18 AM
link   
imo government should never regulate or control who is allowed to give birth and to how many children,

any issue that is ever considered to be caused by overpopulation ought to be resolved by other means,

and like they say there is always one way to skin a cat,

example, africa colonizing other planets,

there is no reason why this couldnt already have been put into act, our planet has already shown full capability to pilot groups to mars or the like,

of course there is always that one thing holding us back, money,

in fact, money is the exact same reason for all the issues claimed to be caused by overpopulation, it could all be solved easily with enough money, even the supposed "global warming"

mechanicl trees have already been invented, www.npr.org...

machines that not only can absorb carbon dioxide and monoxide but also methane, converting it to oxygen and other common elements in the air non detrimental to ozone and do so at a rate 1000's of times more efficient then a tree, problem is money,

food production to feed the poverish, limited by money - cost to produce,

electricity production .... well, on that topic my own opinion is that energy without fuel has been around since tesla, likely longer, it just doesnt profit companys to be giving it out for free so they need fuel simply for .... money.


and the ones who control all these decisions over the centuries are of course the ones with the most money.

doubt that? you tell me that in this society money doesnt give you more power control and freedom, over everything and anything,

the ones with the most money have been designing our soceity to be this way for so long, think about it, 60 years ago, it wasnt that uncommon for someone to survive without money, growing or hunting and providing for themself,

now a days, barely anyone lives without reliance on money, none of this is unintentional, neither is this belief they have pounded into your heads of over population, everyone of you who supports population control in any way have fallen victim and accepted their propaganda as truth.



and doing the math you could actualy fit everyone on earth into the state of rhode island,

put them in texas and you got atleast 1000 square feet of space for each person, so in texas the whole world could fit with room to breath. do the math,
edit on 6/23/11 by pryingopen3rdeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


and also, another note on this post of mine on the subject of race extinction, new article out now on yahoo.

- news.yahoo.com...


this line from the article

"WASHINGTON – For the first time, minorities make up a majority"...... is pretty funny when you read it, im pretty sure thats an oxymoron, how can anything be a minority and a majority at the same time?



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   


Also, not directed to you, but some people I think are confusing overpopulation with land area. No one is saying there is no room for humans in regards to land area. What overpopulation means is the amount of people on the planet and it's strain on ecosystems and resources that is needed to sustain all life on the planet. You could probably fit all of the worlds population in Alaska, but that is not what the subject is about.

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



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by Milleresque
 


No There isn't too many humans there is enough space for every human on the planet to have 1000 Sq ft of space if we were to all live in the State of Texas.

1000 sq feet per person equates to about 32X32 feet and this is only if we had everyone living in Texas

Now expand it to the whole world.

Keep touting and spouting that non-sense you are only helping bolster the Elites depopulation Agenda

There is plenty of Room for More humans.


It's not about how much physical space can be given to you
, it's about the sustainability of our natural resources that keep us alive.

Either way, who did your math? Texas has 900,000 acres, that's about 40 billion square feet... 6.7 billion people can split up 40 billion and get less than SIX square feet, not ONE FREAKING THOUSAND. I'm amazed at how you proudly posted this non-fact that could be disproven by anyone with a first grade education and a calculator... and I just did it in my head...
edit on 23-6-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   
As an Afghan commenting this, all I know is that I'm gonna bring a lot of kids because my nation's population is at an all time low because of all that damn fighting hahaa!



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by e11888
Its really sad when humanity has been taught that humanity is bad. I cant even begin to argue with the above posters because the thought of it makes me want to puke.


people should have as many children as they can take care of ,in the US we have so many people ( illeagals and just palin old trash; pick your favorite color) having more kids than they can possible take care of on their own. Then guess what happens....... sucking off the government tit. I truly believe that if you have to go on public assiatance and you cant afford to take care of the kids you have now, no more kids for you



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by tonypazzohome
 


Sry if it's a little off-topic but i had to respond to that user..

Lol! There's not enough ressources? Are you serious? How much food and stuff do we spoil due to big corporations greed ? They probably store enough food and goods to feed an entire country at any given time and they often lose a big part of it. Think about how much food get throwed away by groceries stores?

I think that a good way to overcome this problem is to buy local and not more than we need. We must stop to overconsume and just take what we need so there will be plenty for everyone.

Peace out.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Cyprex
 


What's the problem with the "low IQ" ppl having more children?

Does having "low IQ" means that you are a bad person?

Does having "low IQ" means that if you have children, they will be evil and parasites?

Does having "low IQ" means that your children will never be smart and do great things?

Anyway, don't we need ppl with less ambition to do the jobs that "high IQ" ppl like "you" dont want to do?

Peace out.
edit on 23-6-2011 by bigwig22 because: typo



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
ME! ME! Its all about ME! and MY Needs!!!!!!!

Well its pretty obvious reduction of population isn't going to happen on a personal level.

You know what that means. That means the government must make it happen. That they must make laws and enforce it.

So much for less government. Oh - but that requires personal responsibility. Let's blame it on the other guy. It's certainly not my responsibility.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Leemo
As an Afghan commenting this, all I know is that I'm gonna bring a lot of kids because my nation's population is at an all time low because of all that damn fighting hahaa!


I assume you are joking.. if not:







Afghanistan population is at all time high, and continues to grow by more than 2 % every year.

EDIT: In fact, Afghanistan has the third highest population growth from the whole world. See for yourself:

en.wikipedia.org...


edit on 23/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
The country will further go into debt and turn into a bigger pile of dung if poor folks keep having a million kids that they can't afford.

It's not just poor folks too, it's single parents. Criminals come from broken/single parent families most of the time.

And not only that, but we need to get rid of the idea of the "If I have another kid that'll be another check from the government" mentality. Kids are expensive and poor folks are keeping themselves impoverished by having them.

Unless you're a christian right-winger, I can't see how you have a problem with a public figure telling people to have less kids. How many times have you said in your head "man, I wish dumb people couldn't breed sometimes" ?? Of course you weren't really serious, but I'm pretty sure everyone's had that thought.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
ME! ME! Its all about ME! and MY Needs!!!!!!!

Well its pretty obvious reduction of population isn't going to happen on a personal level.

You know what that means. That means the government must make it happen. That they must make laws and enforce it.

So much for less government. Oh - but that requires personal responsibility. Let's blame it on the other guy. It's certainly not my responsibility.


All they really need to do is cut off government funding after a certain amount of kids. Make it less appealing to have a ton of them, and hey, I don't think it's a bad idea.

If you're in a lower bracket income, and on your 3rd or 4th pregnancy, the government sends you a $400 gift certificate for Planned Parenthood, and that's it



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
Although I have been convinced that the overpopulation hypothesis is in fact based on bad science, I do believe that areas can become overpopulated.

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.

So, in areas such as say, india, bejing, etc...population control is beyond necessary, its now absolutely critical...someone in podunk australia or rural nebraska is fine with their breeding.

The overpopulation game really needs to be redefined, however, a conversation about it tends to lead to accusations of racism and westernization...oh well.

Give a new energy source (clean/unlimited/cheap) and this planet will be able to support 100b people with no worries...but for now, our oil economy destroys the local (and effects the global) environment...so, yes, overpopulation is a issue on local scales and should be discussed...but these discussions are not meant for some country farmer or even suburbian dweller...its for poor 50m+ metros



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigwig22
reply to post by tonypazzohome
 


Sry if it's a little off-topic but i had to respond to that user..

Lol! There's not enough ressources? Are you serious? How much food and stuff do we spoil due to big corporations greed ? They probably store enough food and goods to feed an entire country at any given time and they often lose a big part of it. Think about how much food get throwed away by groceries stores?

I think that a good way to overcome this problem is to buy local and not more than we need. We must stop to overconsume and just take what we need so there will be plenty for everyone.

please do a search for the impending food shortage crisis. not the mention the lack of drinkable water. you'll be shocked.

Peace out.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheOrangeBrood
Either way, who did your math? Texas has 900,000 acres, that's about 40 billion square feet... 6.7 billion people can split up 40 billion and get less than SIX square feet, not ONE FREAKING THOUSAND. I'm amazed at how you proudly posted this non-fact that could be disproven by anyone with a first grade education and a calculator... and I just did it in my head...
edit on 23-6-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)


Texas is 268,581 square MILES

1 square mile = 27,878,400 square feet.

At 900,000 acres Texas would be 1,406.25square miles...approx 31/2 times the size of Dallas.

So, Texas has 7,487,608,550,000 square feet, divided by a population of 7,000,000,000 people, equals 1069.65 sq feet / person.

1000 was close enough.

Edit to add: Rounding error on acre to square mile conversion. Amazing what the 3 and 4 decimal places can do when everything is in the thousands
.
edit on 23-6-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:04 PM
link   
i really hate to somewhat agree with al gore,,,, its more responsible for everyone to voluntarily limit themselves to 2 children so that in the long term we have a more stable poulation not the doubling we have now.untill we have advanced science enough and developed a way to solve our problems without war we really dont want to see 14 billion people. i remember when they said the world pop. was 2.2 billion now i here 6 to 7 depends on the source. thats still triple if you are young you need to understand what triple will mean. not in a 1000 yrs but in the next 30 to 40 years. imagine in america 330 million showers a day how much soap we pump into the oceans what about bleach, kitchen cleaner, or human waste per day/month/year? we dont currently have the tech for the population level we have, much less double or triple. i know we totaly spend/invest in science and education like we should no worries(sarcasm)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Although I have been convinced that the overpopulation hypothesis is in fact based on bad science, I do believe that areas can become overpopulated.

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.

So, in areas such as say, india, bejing, etc...population control is beyond necessary, its now absolutely critical...someone in podunk australia or rural nebraska is fine with their breeding.

The overpopulation game really needs to be redefined, however, a conversation about it tends to lead to accusations of racism and westernization...oh well.

Give a new energy source (clean/unlimited/cheap) and this planet will be able to support 100b people with no worries...but for now, our oil economy destroys the local (and effects the global) environment...so, yes, overpopulation is a issue on local scales and should be discussed...but these discussions are not meant for some country farmer or even suburbian dweller...its for poor 50m+ metros


100 billion people, really? You think oil is the only thing causing pollution? Look all around you, chances are you are either in your home or at your office. Everything around you is made from materials that are made from lumber, metals, chemicals, plastics, glass etc.. The process it takes to mine, ship, refine, shape and so on and so forth requires chemicals, energy and resources. These resources are finite. The process of extracting these raw materials and fashioning them into usable material destroys habitats, ecosystems, forests and processes chemicals which produces wastes which then gets dumped into the environment.

We are at 7 billion people, and if you look at my other links in this thread, a report came out in 2005 stating that we have used 2/3's of the earth resources. I see nothing mentioned in your post about our current way of life, or lifestyle nor any mention of our economic model. Do you honestly believe that simply just "economizing" and using better "distribution methods" will allow 100 billion to live on this planet? How will we feed them? What would we do with wastes? New cities, highways, transportation systems would need to be build which would require more resources. Where would we get the resources needed to build 5-10 times the amount of cities that we have now?

How could we be able to sustain material and resource extraction to accommodate an additional 93 billion people, when we are running out of resources with 7? Granted if we had an unlimited energy supply (which we do not have now as far as we know) would we technically be able to have more people living on this planet? Sure. Is 100 billion people possible even with a unlimited energy source? Not with 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)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by citizen3273676
i really hate to somewhat agree with al gore,,,, its more responsible for everyone to voluntarily limit themselves to 2 children so that in the long term we have a more stable poulation not the doubling we have now.untill we have advanced science enough and developed a way to solve our problems without war we really dont want to see 14 billion people. i remember when they said the world pop. was 2.2 billion now i here 6 to 7 depends on the source. thats still triple if you are young you need to understand what triple will mean. not in a 1000 yrs but in the next 30 to 40 years. imagine in america 330 million showers a day how much soap we pump into the oceans what about bleach, kitchen cleaner, or human waste per day/month/year? we dont currently have the tech for the population level we have, much less double or triple. i know we totaly spend/invest in science and education like we should no worries(sarcasm)


America already has 300 million potential showers everyday.

As for the technology to clean the water...it is all there. Governments are just very slow to utilise it.

Here is a link to a study done on my city. We have reduced the amount of wast going into the water to the same levels as 1920. With 10 times the population.

Study on Edmonton's Waste Treatment Facilities - Goldbar


What has Edmonton bought with this huge investment? This report looks at what the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant and related programs has achieved, and what conditions might be like if we had done nothing. Edmonton does have a healthy river, and the report shows that water quality has improved significantly since the 1950s. In fact Edmonton has rolled back its impact on the river to the same level as in the 1920’s


Not there yet, but we are getting much better. We are currently building 4 more WWTP of equal or better (dependant on construction start date) technology to supplement Edmonton and Northern Alberta.

They have even planned SWTP (run off and storm service) upgrades and expansions to Goldbar. They will be built in in 3 of the 4 new projects.

We have the technology to bring consumption and waste in North America down to this level in almost every field. The technology is not being used widely.


Edit to add:
This isn't the only area that my city is addressing. Other ares are:
1) 100% of all garbage is sorted to remove recyclables and biodegradables.
2) Road salt and gravel (winter for 6 months) is 80% recovered and reused.
3) New, low floor, high efficiency, public transit is getting built (wont be complete for decades though
)
4) Our in city airport has been closed (we have an international airport as well) and has been given to an architecht/developer (from Vancouver) based on their self sustainability designs.
5) Zoning has been reworked to allow much higher population density buildings to be built where existing single family homes are.

My city has recognized for a long time that our current ways are not sustainable. Now, if only the would restrict new developments to a certain population density, I would be very happy...it would lower my taxes mostly
.

They even have a guy that wants to turn 55km of river side (100ft at 65 degree slope) into the world's largest open air, community run, hanging garden. He figures it would have the capacity to provide all required vegetable servings for the entire metor population.
edit on 23-6-2011 by peck420 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join