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: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 




increase the population, once it becomes critical is the only time we will actualy succed in finding the technology and managment we need, the more people we have the more efficient we will become, not vise versa


Or we dont succeed, and people will die in great numbers. And all the risk for what? Why do you think 16 billion people is better than 8 billion?



"only at the precipice do we evolve" we need the problem before our species is concerned enough to look for the solution, we do need the numbers before we will care to look for the method,


Why do you think its better to look for solution just for the sake of it, when we can just eliminate the problem (high population growth), and solution wouldnt be needed at all? Instead of creating problems so we can solve them (maybe), why just not create problem at all? Its a pointless waste of precious earth resources.




posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOneElectric
 


Actually the responsible sustainable thing to do would be to exterminate man kind. We are the only species that is incompatible with the local environment and literally have to build our own environment just for ourselves. We don't belong here.

So really you have two choices. Accept that humanity and sustainability are incompatible, or just die.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't be clean, shouldn't recycle, nor improve things. But the simple fact is that nature and man are incompatible. This is why we have to lock our own selves away from the natural world.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by pryingopen3rdeye
 


Also, reality proves you wrong. Overpopulated societes produce only famines, wars and disease. Solutions come from wealthy per capita (even quite underpopulated, I would say) societes with plenty of resources to spare, available to throw at luxuries like science and technology.
edit on 23/6/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 





Actually the responsible sustainable thing to do would be to exterminate man kind. We are the only species that is incompatible with the local environment and literally have to build our own environment just for ourselves.


birds build nests, beavers build dams, bees build hives so that is not true, mans huts are on a par all be it bigger when we consider the way we were meant to live, tribal communitys.

it is the stepping away from that and trying to sustain a living filled with gadets and possesions for the most part we do not really need, but people want them, or have been trapped in this way of living, that is the problem rather than man as a being.

man fits in perfectly when he lives in tune with nature, but due to his ability to think and problem solve he has moved out and away from nature into world where prestige and power is far more important than simple survival needs.

there are still tribes who live that way, i consider them to be fine, not a problem. i do wonder though why they have not moved forward themselves with technology and why they would only be aware of it via outside influence. you'd think with their brain power and same problem solving capabilities they would of advanced in their own way.

it makes me wonder how all this stuff even started, if tribes today have no need to change or a lack of desire to change and advance, what the hell happened in history that made some community take the first steps of advancement when tribes today seem to need outside influence rather than their own creativity sparking an advancemnt among themselves..

if we look at todays tribes and some in the recent past they only seem to advance once there is outside influence and they are exposured to things, rather than them just having a idea and then creating the new invention.
edit on 23-6-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:37 PM
link   

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



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Man is not the enemy of nature, Greed is.

Man lived arguably for thousands upon thousands of years in perfect equilibrium.

Only since the Industrial Revolution have we begun the death march towards destruction.

Population spike as a result of 'better' living through chemistry.

This is a problem that all human civilizations have dealt with, none too successfully.

Easter Island comes to mind...



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 


Nests, hives, and dams from animals don't dramatically alter the environment Our dams, nests and hives do. Our dams change the courses of entire rivers and destroy whole valleys, our hives aka the city, are literally a force of destruction across the Earth, and our nests, the suburbs, are one of the most destructive forces in the world today, in both nature and diversity. Yes we could build them green, but that does not stop them from being destructive. No green building doesn't prevent the destruction of a plot of land for its construction.




it is the stepping away from that and trying to sustain a living filled with gadets and possesions for the most part we do not really need, but people want them, or have been trapped in this way of living, that is the problem rather than man as a being.


What you call trapped, I call the future. I don't much see why technology and bounty are traps or bad things. Now I may not like having lots of crap, but plenty of people do.




man fits in perfectly when he lives in tune with nature, but due to his ability to think and problem solve he has moved out and away from nature into world where prestige and power is far more important than simple survival needs.


This is called progress, and man hasn't been in tune with nature since he evolved. Even our ruins and sites bare the signs of pollution, waste, and destruction. We simply died too often to be a problem. We don't die as much, so now we're a bigger problem. We always were a problem, but never beyond the ability of the environment to manage us. There were only a billion people on Earth just 200 years ago. We've exploded. Fewer people doesn't solve the problem, it just manages it better. And people don't like having fewer people nor being told they should be less. Thing is, when you say that, you are, in essence, saying they are the problem. The average man doesn't like being called a problem when all he wants is a family, car, house, and food. Ergo, our species is not compatible with Earth.




there are still tribes who live that way, i consider them to be fine, not a problem. i do wonder though why they have not moved forward themselves with technology and why they would only be aware of it via outside influence. you'd think with their brain power and same problem solving capabilities they would of advanced in their own way.


Those tribes die more often then us, so their population is controlled. As for technology, those people have no challenges. They are, as you said, fine. Because they are happy, they have no need to invent. But ignorance is bliss, and once seen, they desire the life. Bit of a balance between ultra tech and ultra nature in order to become something. Fictional Doctor Mordin Solus explains it much better.






it makes me wonder how all this stuff even started, if tribes today have no need to change or a lack of desire to change and advance, what the hell happened in history that made some community take the first steps of advancement when tribes today seem to need outside influence rather than their own creativity sparking an advancemnt among themselves..


See video.




if we look at todays tribes and some in the recent past they only seem to advance once there is outside influence and they are exposured to things, rather than them just having a idea and then creating the new invention.


No need, no reason. once seen, reason created.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


o.k. i simply cannot reply to that, you have lost me, missed the point. may as well just leave it there. you compare nests to modern buildings as proof man is out of place, yet i was comparing them with tribal huts proving we are not out of place, but rather our way of living is although there are still tribes whos way of living DOES fit in.

so may as well just forget it. as you seem to of compared everything with modern man as proof we don't belong here or we are out of place as a species.
edit on 23-6-2011 by lifeform11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by lifeform11
 


Tribalism is not even in place. It's just like a zit on a teenager. It's a manageable infection.

Modern life is just that. Modern. Most people don't want to go back to the tribal way of life, where we die from every infection and every bacteria, where most children die before the age of 10, where women suffer at childbirth, and where art and architecture is limited to fruit dyes and wood and leaves.

This way is not the way forward. It is the way to nothingness.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by lifeform11
 


Tribalism is not even in place. It's just like a zit on a teenager. It's a manageable infection.

Modern life is just that. Modern. Most people don't want to go back to the tribal way of life, where we die from every infection and every bacteria, where most children die before the age of 10, where women suffer at childbirth, and where art and architecture is limited to fruit dyes and wood and leaves.

This way is not the way forward. It is the way to nothingness.


lol you did it again, i did not even say it was a way forward, i said it proves we fit in as a species. it the system we live in and our way of life TODAY that does not fit in.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
whats wrong with controlling the human population i mean we do this with animals...lol animals do allot less destruction to the planet.
We are like virus the more humans the more destruction to nature to make room

i refuse to bring a child into this screwed up world we liv in



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:14 PM
link   
reply to post by e11888
 


Gore should push population control in Chine and India, first, then.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
reply to post by 3xil3
 


Because we are human. That's just that. We are free people, who have the right to do what we please. Bringing another person into the world is part of that right. And anybody who attempts otherwise, quite frankly, is going to get themselves dead real fast by said free peoples.
edit on 23-6-2011 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Guys seriously it isn't nwo to be for population control, the earth cannot sustain more then 10 bilion people and frankly thats were we are going and each of those people want the same standard of living as the westeners do which the earth cannot provide.

So either the "civilized" world starts changing its habits of consumption and start setteling with less or we must tweak the population growth. I have chosen not to have children because I think it is unresponsebly toward my child and the world. I personally think this is logic, we are copulating like rabbits and we forget that the earth is finite in it's giving yet our mentality is that of taking with no end. This does not go well together.

If you are critical of the population control idea then try to come up with a way in the future that can provide the whole world about 10-20 bilion people with all of their needs and still maintain harmony on this planet. Try to think of a realistic way and I'm sure you will come up with nothing because I have thought about it for years and there is no perfect solution. There must be a reduction in our population wether you like it or not and just because the nwo has it on their to do list doesn't automaticly mean it is bad.

If china didn't introduce it's one child policy they would be jam packing that country like a friday night in a city club. No room, hot, sweaty and no fun.

Intelligent people tend to have fewer kids, I think that is saying something. If you want to make as many children as you want because you feel it is your right then you are wrong, you're right is to be a responsible citizen of the world and if you ignore the problems of today and throw you're own little bundles of joy onto the mess then you are equally responsible for the death of this planet.

Treat people with respect have fewer children respect the earth and perhaps we will have some survivers when this ends.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by colloredbrothers
 


Yes, it is. You are saying to control people's ability to reproduce. Anything involving controlling people, all people, involves a global governing body.

Also, the Earth can sustain as many people as we need. Technology is the only limiting factor. We can build up, build down, plant in space, and many other things. In the end, we could have billions more people on this planet. We just don't have the ability to support it. All humans need technology of some sort to support them. We are not like the rest of the life on Earth. We die without our tools. Without our tools, we would only be able to drink water, pick a fruit, and die an early death.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Yeah, you know what?....The OP is right, Al Gore is being hypocritical....thus, we should ignore the message.


Honestly, this is not about population control. This is about being responsible. This is about stewardship of the land. This is about sustainability. This is about future generations.

But hey, what the hell, let's call a hypocrite a hypocrite and do just the opposite because we all like sticking it to the man.

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



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Being responsible would not include sacrificing liberty for security. In fact that's quite the contrary to responsibility.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Being responsible would not include sacrificing liberty for security. In fact that's quite the contrary to responsibility.


How would one be sacrificing liberty? Keep in mind, it was a comment/suggestion; not an ultimatum.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 06:05 PM
link   
The elite hate freedom and hate it with a passion. They believe that they are ordained by God to control the masses for their own benefit.


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




top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join