Population control Isn't it about time?

Originally posted by AllUrChips
i reported him to the mods he off this site lol

Really I am? that's funny good luck with that. You have brought nothing to the table and once again no counter no nothing.. stay on topic and quit trying to derail this thread.

Originally posted by generik
here is a non unique idea--those who believe the world is overpopulated stand up and commit suicide thus helping bring this supposed over population a least a little bit more down to what you consider practical levels. you can really prove that you support population control with a statement like that.

Originally posted by Reaper2137


1.) our current population is around nine billion and continues at an exponential rate. In the next 25-30 years that number will double. We are well over the Earths carrying capacity of 2 billion for the way we live. If we still lived as hunter gathers we could further populate the planet to 40-100 billion but we are too late for that.

well i think being hunter gatherers would actually be able to support LESS population since at least with farming we are raising our food. i think if everyone were out hunting that we would soon run out of wild game. as for crops, the way of hunter gatherer farming isn't near as efficient use of land space.

2.) Our current resources are getting depleted faster than we can find renewable or reuse-able replacements as well as our dependance on fossil fuels. While we still have vast land that is pretty much uninhabited. That doesn't mean we have the resources to support people should they move there.

if research wasn't hampered by the big oil CORPORATIONS we would likely have more reliant alternative energy sources. as for living in uninhabited areas why not, if we had a better cleaner source of energy we could easily. with irrigation the warm deserts of the world could be inhabited easily. adding more green to help with creating more oxygen would help support even more animal life.

3.) Food, Food is what makes the world go round. As we continue to grow food is becoming harder and harder to produce. The average American Farmer produces enough food for about 55 people by most estimates. While company's are working harder than ever to produce genetically altered food. Its not being done fast enough and we are already seeing millions starving world wide.

yes food DOES make the world go round. if we didn't force farmers to destroy so much of it we would have more then enough. we WOULDN'T see MILLIONS starving, the food is there but it gets DESTROYED not distributed. i wouldn't even call that an estimate as since the amount of food a farmer can produce is REGULATED it is more of a fact. Gm food is more like a plague then a help for humanity thank you. all work on it should be stopped and what there is destroyed BEFORE it destroys the real food that we have.

4.) loss of bio-diversity, and loss of life, and pollution these things are farther factors hindering the human race.
As we try and progress we are finding that many plants are going extinct to the point we are making seed banks to help if we ever need to bring them back in the future.

the real reason for the seed banks is to insure that it is available in case some disaster, like say GM FOODS destroying everything happens.

something i agree with pollution IS BAD. we could lessen it if we could just get off using oil, coal,nuclear power, and hydroelectricity, and go to a cleaner type of fuel. too bad TPTB, and corporations have been doing their best to stop research into it.

Loss of life not just in humans but as humans we are driving hundreds of animals to the brink of extinction and beyond. What can we do here? how do we know that we wont have a need for these animals in the future? or at least have them to tell our children that they were not myths?

Pollution that is another of the worlds biggest problems, no I'm not talking about global warming. I'm talking about crapping in our own back yards. Its not we who are going to pay for it its our children, They are the ones who are going to get sick, and possibly die.

again something to agree with too bad corporations and TPTB seem not to care. humans have screwed up where animals and nature is concerned. many want to stop it, but the BIG BOYS do as they will without regard. just as an example clear cutting is not supposed to happen but CORPORATIONS continue to do it. trees are supposed to be replanted but again that is ignored to a large extent (you really would think that corporations would do it voluntarily as to continue in business longer but hey they only care about short term, and planting costs money).

Major Corporations spill millions and millions of pollution into our air, water and land each year. At what point do we say enough is enough?

we have CORPORATIONS DON"T LISTEN to us peons

So should we look to sustainability in the future?
What would it take to bring us down to a manageable size?
Because if we don't come up with some thing soon, some one may do it for us and we might not like their plan.

many of us have been trying to look at sustainability but TPTB interfere with it as well as the money needed to fund research is in the hands of those that wish to keep us slaves on things like oil.

we don't NEED to be brought down to a reasonable size. for one thing there is a huge galaxy out there if we could get things moving in that direction. in fact as a child i was totally obsessed with books about the future how we would have space stations going in 2000, both for farming as well as living. strangely those books all disappeared without a trace, funny that. but it never happened as there was no money for independent work and the government likes to keep space for itself. we could still start now, better late then never as they say. we just need to get a hold of secrets that many of us feel the governments keep in hiding.

of COURSE WE WON"T LIKE their PLAN to cull the heard as it were. and guess what they have been planning it for a VERY LONG TIME. they WANT it to happen why do you think they have been stopping us from achieving technology that will help?

as for population control by limiting how many children we can have. well that's been working out really well in China hasn't it? they even murder babies at the moment of their birth.

I would also agree with most of these statements but big corps aren't always were the most problems are by third world countries were there is little resources and little food.

That is were the main population problems are right now they don't have much.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
[SNIP]

AS I said I'm still not banned any keep on topic, you have nothing to counter nothing just derail and personal attack.. I'm done with it stay on topic or get the hell out

reply to post by Reaper2137


I am a hardcore Conservative. I support the troops, and I support gun rights. But you are changing my mind on those two issues and that is a very sad thing.

Originally posted by EmVeeFF
[SNIP]

Its not a fascist Ideal, its also being worked on by all major country's or forms over it.. being told its a fascist ideal is not a debate its I'm too lazy to look it up..

Originally posted by BrianC
reply to post by Reaper2137

 

I am a hardcore Conservative. I support the troops, and I support gun rights. But you are changing my mind on those two issues and that is a very sad thing.

none of those topics is on topic I don't care about either in this case stick with the thread or don't post that easy

I am against the NWO's method of depopulating the Earth, but that doesn't mean they don't have a point. They just go to far and say the Earth should be under 1 Billion people. I think we are overpopulated, but the Earth should have around 5 billion people ideally.

Some in this thread think that we can continue to expand the population past what it is now, that the Earth can handle more humans if resources are managed properly. Maybe it can, but what kind of life will these people have? We already are overfishing, hunting animals to endangered status and extinction, and destroying the enviroment with urban sprawl. What a horrible future for those maases of humans to live in a completley urbanized world with most species extinct except for farm animals. Not having enough room for every human to hunt regularly or own their own farm and live at the mercy of factory farms.

I'm sorry but humans are taking up enough of this world already, its not just for us, its for all other species also. I'm not saying we should unleash a virus or war on anyone, but when the droughts and famines happen in overpopulated areas, we need to step back and let nature take its course in order to bring the population back in balance with the enviroment. In the long run that will be good for the countries because they will be more self reliant.

A good example is the current famine in Somalia, too many idiots think we need to get aid their despite the risks of attacks by Al-Shabab, who have stated they do not want aid, they are willing to accept the famine in order for the country to no longer rely on outside help. But no, the do-gooders will force aid onto those areas anyway and doom the area to be overpopulated and future famines.

Originally posted by Unilluminist
I am against the NWO's method of depopulating the Earth, but that doesn't mean they don't have a point. They just go to far and say the Earth should be under 1 Billion people. I think we are overpopulated, but the Earth should have around 5 billion people ideally.

Some in this thread think that we can continue to expand the population past what it is now, that the Earth can handle more humans if resources are managed properly. Maybe it can, but what kind of life will these people have? We already are overfishing, hunting animals to endangered status and extinction, and destroying the enviroment with urban sprawl. What a horrible future for those maases of humans to live in a completley urbanized world with most species extinct except for farm animals. Not having enough room for every human to hunt regularly or own their own farm and live at the mercy of factory farms.

I'm sorry but humans are taking up enough of this world already, its not just for us, its for all other species also. I'm not saying we should unleash a virus or war on anyone, but when the droughts and famines happen in overpopulated areas, we need to step back and let nature take its course in order to bring the population back in balance with the enviroment. In the long run that will be good for the countries because they will be more self reliant.

A good example is the current famine in Somalia, too many idiots think we need to get aid their despite the risks of attacks by Al-Shabab, who have stated they do not want aid, they are willing to accept the famine in order for the country to no longer rely on outside help. But no, the do-gooders will force aid onto those areas anyway and doom the area to be overpopulated and future famines.

I would agree, there are other methods of population control that wouldn't involve killing any one but people don't want to hear it.

I would also agree that we shouldn't send aid if they don't want it. If they don't than that is their problem.I don't think we should be sending aid to any one when we still have so many problems that need addressed here

You will always have those "doo gooders" that don't care what is best for the entire planet and only care about themself's

Thread temporarily closed for staff review.

Edit: Thread re-opened.

ATTENTION

Can we please get back on topic. And NO personal insults!

Thank you!

I will try and recap my thread, here so we can get back on topic

I in no way advocate killing for the sake of depopulation. There are many ways that you can control a population with out having to kill them.

science.howstuffworks.com...
en.wikipedia.org...
www.ritholtz.com...
www.realtruth.org...
www.youtube.com...

Here is a bit of research to get you started again..

Please keep in mind that this is a bit of a Controversial topic I understand that..
Please keep it to debate and real plans and thoughts

reply to post by Reaper2137

Let me ask you, in this grand design of population control; who would make the decisions to limit births?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Reaper2137

 

Let me ask you, in this grand design of population control; who would make the decisions to limit births?

I would think a max of two depending on research of sustainability. After the second you would be sterilized I would also think that it should be made that you get two shots and that is it. Two boys or two girls? Oh well..

reply to post by Reaper2137

Who would make that decision?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Reaper2137

 

Who would make that decision?

a legal panel of voted in people I would think.. one must have some sort of freedom.. but we must also take heed for the future generations as well don't you think?

reply to post by Reaper2137


Since you've worked for the government, perhaps you can also identify these issues;
1. What about inherent biases in the system?
2. If I only had one child, would I be able to sell the other option?
3. How would you insure no racial, sexism, genetic flaws wouldn't play into factoring said secisions?
4. You don't see this as a way of creating an artificial class structure? (ie 1 vs 2 vs no kids?)
5. This works poorly in China with the deaths of hundreds of thousands of infant girls, how would this be better?
6. What would the fines or punishments be for more children? (see artificial class structure)
7. How closely would this me monitored? (Big Brother?)
8. How long would this program be in effect?
9. Would deaths be a reason to have more?
10. Who would pay for the enforced sterilization after the 2 children?
11. Where would it be done?
12. What kind of infrastructure would be needed to monitor, sterilize, enforce such a program?