I say we quit paying governments the money they use to build prisons, armies, death camps, and nukes, aircraft carriers, and all of the missiles guns bombs fighter aircraft you get the picture. Then we can use that money and scientific expertise to expand humankind into the rest of the local universe. Population problem solved and without killing anyone. Colonize the galaxy and you have no problem with population regulation.

Originally posted by LearningmanOver the last few years iv found myself thinking about this and it struck me that a brilliant (read 'diabolical') idea would be to create a generation with an extremely high infertility , ultimstrly reducing the population without direct murder. Its not ethical, but its the best I could come up with myself, so I don't see it as impossible that the conclusion hasn't been reached before. Radiation and poisons everywhere, microwaves and tvs in every house, I'm not saying that depopulation is the reason for all the fuzzy science concerning the safety of products we've grown to use everyday, but I think there could be something to it . Also, I apologise but my enter key is $ha99ed

What you are referring to is the "soft kill" strategy. Instead of butchering people, you stifle them.

Consider the oft recurring topics of vaccines and water fluoridation and chemtrails. I don't want to debate here whether or not any of those things are dangerous or safe or whatever, or that even if they are dangerous, whether or not they actually are part of such a strategy. What I'm saying is that plenty of people here on ATS in the threads on those topics see them as part of just such a "soft kill" strategy.

An obvious(or so I would hope) alternative would be good old fashioned proactive leadership. Get things done. Anticipate and solve problems. Lead people to work together and accomplish things. More people does mean more mouths to feed, but it also means more brains and more hands etc. As a species, we are now effectively more capable than ever before, aren't we?

For some people, it's very hard to accept the idea of leadership that is malevolent to its own followers. Others will face some choices in their life. To the extent that they lead, what kind of leader will they be? Will they choose to be a wolf pretending to be the shepherd? Or will they choose to be the good shepherd? And can they live with their choices? And can they live up to them?

Talk is cheap. Until we're rounded up in camps and systematically executed, blown up by nuclear bombs, or there is some massive plague outbreak that starts killing hundreds of millions of people around the planet, this new world order population control theory doesn't hold much water in my book.

Here's an idea. Why don't the elite pool up all their money, build a giant spaceship, select a new star and habitable planet, put their 500 million peeps on it, blast off, and LEAVE the 6.5 billion of us the hell ALONE!

I dont see there being nazi style global death camps or anything like that.
But perhaps future generations will be subject to sterilization.
Those who have good genes (or money of course) will be allowed to have children.
Maybe our current generation will be the last ones who are able to breed freely.
If 100 million infants were selected for future breeding and everyone else were sterilized
It would only take 80 years or so to drop to the base level required.
Planet saved.