Population control Isn't it about time?, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 20 times

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:45 PM by shadowreborn89

Originally posted by Reaper2137
reply to post by kro32

I have done extensive research on this subject and yes it is a problem. Its Part of one of my majors in college.

gotta agree with ya... Did u know u can look up a public record by the federal gov.. saying depopulation should a first priority

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:45 PM by BrianC

edit on 26-7-2011 by BrianC because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:47 PM by Reaper2137

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by Reaper2137

I think the Earth can probably sustain 10 -100 times more humans than are currently on Earth.

Through technology we will progress.

And through technology and sustainability and efficiency. It is possible.

reply to post by EmVeeFF

Thanks for posting the link about the food thing...

1 million pounds of food grown on 3 acres ,10,000 fish 500 yards compost.

edit on 25-7-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)

No problem, I'm not just going to go one sided I really am not on one side or the other. Just wanting a good debate.

I like some of your ideals as well as others but the food is going to be a problem. What good tho is going to have one million pounds of food or 10,00 fish if the population needs triple that?

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:48 PM by Skywatcher2011

Originally posted by BrianC
reply to post by Skywatcher2011

Does it rhyme with Whack people?

Why are you asking ME this question? I am awaiting the OP's response. I remain objective to the discussion at this moment and will not comment on whether de-population should be or should not be occurring.

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:48 PM by TheUniverse

reply to post by Reaper2137

FBI Document
=======================================
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

–Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991

Link- Source- Nine Documents from the last 89 years, you should be aware of.

edit on 25-7-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:49 PM by Reaper2137

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by Reaper2137

So...which population do you suggest goes first?

How about none? you can have population control with out killing any one. Its call limiting the amount of children you have. to keep in with sustainable means.

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:50 PM by Reaper2137

Originally posted by BrianC
reply to post by Skywatcher2011

Does it rhyme with Whack people?

I'm not advocating whacking any one, There are was of control with out killing see a few posts up.

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:51 PM by AllUrChips

Originally posted by Reaper2137
reply to post by kro32

I have done extensive research on this subject and yes it is a problem. Its Part of one of my majors in college.

Well come back and discuss when you graduate. It would appear you still have learning to do.

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:51 PM by Reaper2137

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by Reaper2137

FBI Document
=======================================
"In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."

–Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991

Link- Source- Nine Documents from the last 89 years, you should be aware of.
edit on 25-7-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)

That is pretty good, thanks for posting that. but if that was the goal to unite people I think they only managed to drive us farther apart.

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:51 PM by Skywatcher2011

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by Reaper2137

So...which population do you suggest goes first?

How about none? you can have population control with out killing any one. Its call limiting the amount of children you have. to keep in with sustainable means.

That sort of policy sounds like it could be implemented by a New World Order. So that being the case, would you suggest that unplanned pregnancies would constitute being a crime if the soon-to-be-mother should have the baby birth?

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:53 PM by Reaper2137

Originally posted by AllUrChips

Originally posted by Reaper2137
reply to post by kro32

I have done extensive research on this subject and yes it is a problem. Its Part of one of my majors in college.

Well come back and discuss when you graduate. It would appear you still have learning to do.

as do you I admit I have yet to graduate, yet I don't see you saying what makes you so qualified to speak?

were are you degrees? PHD's? anything? Thank you for not contributing any thing but your worthless two cents..

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:54 PM by Reaper2137

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by Reaper2137

So...which population do you suggest goes first?

How about none? you can have population control with out killing any one. Its call limiting the amount of children you have. to keep in with sustainable means.

That sort of policy sounds like it could be implemented by a New World Order. So that being the case, would you suggest that unplanned pregnancies would constitute being a crime if the soon-to-be-mother should have the baby birth?

Why does it have to be new world order? No but I would say after she is born to sterilize the mother

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:54 PM by BrianC

edit on 26-7-2011 by BrianC because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:54 PM by EmVeeFF

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by Reaper2137

So...which population do you suggest goes first?

How about none? you can have population control with out killing any one. Its call limiting the amount of children you have. to keep in with sustainable means.

Haha, who doesn't get to have kids then? Do you wana have the world turn into old china, with dead baby girls in dumpsters?

The fact that you even want to debate this proves you desire to control people. Guess what that makes you: a fascist.

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:55 PM by mileysubet

Originally posted by EmVeeFF

Originally posted by Reaper2137

I'm not advocating killing any one

You are aware that your profile pic is you (I'm assuming) lookin like a "cool guy" with a sweet sniper rifle. Don't kid yourself. Have you ever even seen another human being die? You'd probably wouldn't think twice if some sociopath in the UN required every other person in the world to be sterilized like dogs.

How naive to think that his profile picture has anything to do with the subject of the thread.

In fact he stated the opposite opinion in a post on his own thread. Population control does not preclude to the idea of killing people, but controlling the future birth rate. If the world population took the measures to control their own breeding habits this could solve the problem.

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:57 PM by mileysubet

Originally posted by EmVeeFF

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by Reaper2137

So...which population do you suggest goes first?

How about none? you can have population control with out killing any one. Its call limiting the amount of children you have. to keep in with sustainable means.

Haha, who doesn't get to have kids then? Do you wana have the world turn into old china, with dead baby girls in dumpsters?

The fact that you even want to debate this proves you desire to control people. Guess what that makes you: a fascist.

Its called self induced common sense for the common good for all of humanity.

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:57 PM by gaurdian2012

such a narrow vision population control. I wonder If the govt mandated sterilization would you be at the head of the line? Our population growth is not being capitalized on, only complained about. Every single person on planet earth has value, as for resources there is more than enough for 2 or 3 earth planets. Big multinational corporations are the problem. Greed corruption that is the problem. what is needed is new industries (new jobs) to feed clothe and shelter the growing populace not control or what is going on now with the current depopulation campaign ie somalia drought, fukashima meltdown etc.. you say your in college what are they teaching you? kill the excess. there is more than enough for everyone not just big business

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:57 PM by Skywatcher2011

reply to post by mileysubet

I guess it is time to tie off the tubes and neuter the plumbing of the human race

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:59 PM by Reaper2137

Originally posted by EmVeeFF

Originally posted by Reaper2137

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011
reply to post by Reaper2137

So...which population do you suggest goes first?

How about none? you can have population control with out killing any one. Its call limiting the amount of children you have. to keep in with sustainable means.

Haha, who doesn't get to have kids then? Do you wana have the world turn into old china, with dead baby girls in dumpsters?

That would get into a whole slew of problems in its own right. are you going advance another solution? I didn't think so.

Also If we invested more into genetics we could learn to control which one a couple wants a boy or a girl. Or put a limit of how many times you could try say twice and that's it. no more after that weather its a boy or girl.
The fact that you even want to debate this proves you desire to control people. Guess what that makes you: a fascist.

reply posted on 25-7-2011 @ 11:59 PM by Skywatcher2011

reply to post by gaurdian2012

It's big business that allowed you to type on the computer, drive a car, watch tv/internet, drink milk, etc...where would we be without big business? We'd be back in history riding horses and watching the wood burn in the fireplace for entertainment.