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.

 

UN to propose planetary regulations of water, food

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   

UN to propose planetary regulations of water, food


www.foxnews.com

An environmental report issued by an agency of the United Nations last month has some critics sounding the alarm, saying it is a clarion call for "global governance" over how the Earth is managed.

The report, “21 Issues for the 21st Century,” from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) Foresight Process, is the culmination of a two-year deliberative process involving 22 core scientists. It is expected to receive considerable attention in the run-up to the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, which will be held in Rio, Brazil, in June.


Read more: ht
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:06 PM
link   
I can’t help but think that despite the claim made in the article that states “The scientists who wrote the report say it focuses on identifying emerging issues in the global environment, and that it is not about mandating solutions.” that this is exactly the case.

I don’t want to live in any world that could be conceived by an organization that would put countries with clear records of human rights violations on the very council that oversees such events.

Yes’ let’s all live in a world that tries to equalize the food production of the bread-belt of the U.S with the sun bleached sands in Somalia so that we can all live in some Marxist utopia that distributes food and water – equally.

Who will they confiscate the food from, who will pay to ship it there, what Armies will have to enforce this ideal society…

The bottom line is life is a genetic lottery some are born in a place in which food is abundant and life is easier while some are not. Life is unfair…

Now the first world nations and the thrid wold nations can all be second world nations - excellent!

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
We need to string these globalist bastards from the nearest tree...

... they want to destroy most of the population of the earth, they have it carved in stone.
edit on 1-3-2012 by pianopraze because: ...



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
This has nothing to do with Marxism so please refrain from claiming that.

The idea is so third world countries have a safety net of sorts so more people can have the chance to live, what's the problem with that? Life may be "unfair" but that doesn't millions have to die due to reckless use of resources.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:30 PM
link   
It was never about a one world government.

Its about a ONE WORLD COMPANY- a corporation that controls the planet, while 'we the people' still think we have actual sovereignty. Its that very idea of sovereignty that keeps us humans from solving these issues together, all the while the UN and NATO continue as the vehicle to bring about this absolute control of resources. which in the end, is the only real governance they need.

Sounds a lot like the Romans wouldn't you say?



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
This has nothing to do with Marxism so please refrain from claiming that.

The idea is so third world countries have a safety net of sorts so more people can have the chance to live, what's the problem with that? Life may be "unfair" but that doesn't millions have to die due to reckless use of resources.


The problem is the UN is a nest of eugenicists. They don't care for poor third world countries.


“Eugenic goals are most likely to be attained under another name than eugenics.” - Frederick Osborn


“Eugenics views itself as the fourth leg of the chair of civilization, the other three being a) a thrifty expenditure of natural resources, b) mitigation of environmental pollution, and c) maintenance of a human population not exceeding the planet’s carrying capacity. Eugenics, which can be thought of as human ecology, is thus part and parcel of the environmental movement.”
- John Glad “Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-First Century.”


You see the UN has been at eugenics from the beginning. UNESCO, the UN education authority has been pushing global government and eugenics through the worlds education system:

"The general philosophy of UNESCO should be a scientific world humanism, global in extent and evolutionary in background...its education program it can stress the ultimate need for world political unity and familiarize all peoples with the implications of the transfer of full sovereignty from separate nations to a world organization...Political unification in some sort of world government will be required...Tasks for the media division of UNESCO (will be) to promote the growth of a common outlook shared by all nations and cultures...to help the emergence of a single world culture....Even though it is quite true that any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable."
- The first director -general of UNESCO Sir Julian Huxley, 1948, "UNESCO: Its Purpose and Its Philosophy."


They want to control the population:

“…The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size.” – Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.130-131

Outrageous? Surely this is a lone example?

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.” - Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund – quoted in “Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?,” Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December ’95


“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.” – Ted Turner – CNN founder and UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June ’96


“The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.” – Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller foundation


“In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.” – Jacques Cousteau

edit on 1-3-2012 by pianopraze because: ...



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
As a supporter of a one world government, I have to say that I agree with this.

I also hope that soon reproduction will be regulated, as it is vital to not only population control, but to the survival of our species. Not everyone that CAN have a child SHOULD have a child.

I'm a globalist as a result of my love for humanity;


edit on 1-3-2012 by ButterCookie because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


Then why doesnt the UN take care of the real culprate that leads to food shortages and water shortages in the "3rd world".

COCA-COLA

Communities across India living around Coca-Cola's bottling plants are experiencing severe water shortages, directly as a result of Coca-Cola's massive extraction of water from the common groundwater resource. The wells have run dry and the hand water pumps do not work any more. Studies, including one by the Central Ground Water Board in India, have confirmed the significant depletion of the water table.

MONSANTO

Monsanto’s seeds in India did not produce what the company had promised and farmers hoped. The expensive seeds piled up debts and destroyed farming fields. In many instances, the crops simply failed to materialize. The farmers were not aware that the GM seeds required more water than the traditional seeds. And lack of rain in many parts of India exacerbated the crop failure. With no harvest, the farmers could not pay back the lenders. Burdened with debts and humiliation, the farmers simply took their own lives, some by swallowing poisonous pesticides in front of their families. To date, an estimated 200,000 farmers have committed suicide all over India.



and an interesting read...
World Bank, WTO, and corporate control over water, by Vandana Shiva

These are recipes for conversion of water into a tradeable commodity rather than a life support base. Privatization will aggravate the water crisis, because given the inequalities between rich and poor, industry and agriculture, urban and rural, water markets will take the water from the poor to the rich, from impoverished rural areas to affluent urban enclaves. It will also lead to overexploitation of water, because when access to water is determined by the market and not by limits of renewability, the water cycle will be systematically violated and the water crisis will deepen. Local community management is a precondition for both consumption and equitable use.


I can find more examples if you like, Im pretty sure if I dip into the mining business of south america I will find more dirt on corporations stealing water from the poor....


edit on 1-3-2012 by el1jah because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
As a supporter of a one world government, I have to say that I agree with this.

I also hope that soon reproduction will be regulated, as it is vital to not only population control, but to the survival of our species. Not everyone that CAN have a child SHOULD have a child.

I'm a globalist as a result of my love for humanity; don't get it twisted.



I'm not sure if you're a troll. It's getting harder to tell these days.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:41 PM
link   
No worries, it isn't like anybody ever listens to them. They are singularly ineffective. It seemed they might have something during Bosnia, but no, turns out same old thing. I think we started it to give the world the illusion we gave a %#@* about what they think. When talk can fix the worlds problems call me.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by el1jah
 


Because these fools believe they can do both. Plus, this came from the scientists rather than the economists so I'm not sure if they thought politically or economically about the contradiction.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One

Originally posted by ButterCookie
As a supporter of a one world government, I have to say that I agree with this.

I also hope that soon reproduction will be regulated, as it is vital to not only population control, but to the survival of our species. Not everyone that CAN have a child SHOULD have a child.

I'm a globalist as a result of my love for humanity; don't get it twisted.



I'm not sure if you're a troll. It's getting harder to tell these days.


???? A troll?

I simply stated my opinion on the article.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


Fools indeed- at least I'd like to hope they are fools, it always looks like a controlled demolition.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


I agree with Kevin Trudeau about these people running the show. They are Eugenicist and this whole food rationing thing is gonna come around to getting more people on hospital beds and making sure that you are deficient in your vitamins so they can supply you with the synthetics versions of what your body really needs. They rather have you getting your Vitamin C from a patent pill that comes with side-effects than from an Orange and they rather have you getting your Vitamin D from a liver killing capsule than from the sunlight- that's probably why they spraying diseases day in and day out.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
This has nothing to do with Marxism so please refrain from claiming that.


Meh, ok...perhaps strictly speaking its Socialism or whatever - the point I make is that it’s the redistribution of resources from those who have them to those who do not by force of law (and inevitably arms). Certainly, the goal will be for us all to suffer equally...and eventually free from class labels ala Marx.


Originally posted by Tea4OneThe idea is so third world countries have a safety net of sorts so more people can have the chance to live, what's the problem with that? Life may be "unfair" but that doesn't millions have to die due to reckless use of resources.


Why in the name of (insert whatever here) would we want more people to live in places where the population already exceeds the ability of the local resources to support it?

That only makes things worse…I think we have created the problem by sending these places aid in the first place.
Like feeding stray cats we have created an artificial success that encouraged them to reproduce past the food availability of the local area and if we were to stop this aid suddenly now they would starve and suffer because of our intervention in the first place.

Had we left them to their own devices in the beginning they would have found the equilibrium and a sustainable population.

It is our “compassion for our fellow man” that has created the untenable financial/resource shortages and pending collapse.

The key to sustainable living is letting the world reach it’s natural equilibrium between the local population and the environment absent the intervention and machinations of governments or groups to “engineer” or “regulate” balance and worse those that seek to redistribute resources to reach a false “equality”.

We have made the issues worse IMO when it comes to resource competition by providing “aid” to struggling nations and people in the name of “good” or “humanity”. It does little good to send food aid to Africa and Haiti or other places in fact it is even worse in the case of individuals because for the majority rather than the temporary helping hand it becomes a lifestyle. How many generations of Africans and Haitians have lived off of foreign aid?

I have seen first-hand countries in which the people have become dependent on aid and assistance from foreign governments. All the aid has done is enabling the people to have procreated way past the point of providing for themselves in their region.

I honestly could care less if children are starving in Africa as it is not my responsibility to feed them just like it is not for some third party be it an individual or government to limit my access to resources or take my wealth to do so. If I want to give to a charity, I will give to one that solves problems not creates more of them. I am all for helping the helpless; however, helping the lazy and clueless is something else altogether.

The key to the issue of resource scarcity (that and some quest for “equality” are the root of all our issues) is the opposite of intervention IMO it is the absence of it so people will have to suffer the consequences of their poor choices. Perhaps if people had to suffer watching their offspring die horribly they would no longer produce more than they can sustain.

We all know where babies come from and to create more than one can provide for with his/her own access to resources is the most selfish and inhumane act I can fathom. If one does not have enough resources to satisfy their own needs then they need to be, either smart enough, driven enough or violent enough (likely all three) to procure them or one will die – it’s fairly simple.

That applies to the individual, a family group, a village, a city, nation or the world itself. We (all of those groups) are not created equal and to force it through some arbitrary desire for the common good is actually a horrible force for evolution of the species.

Not all people (or groups of people) are as intelligent, physically gifted or driven to excel. If we were there would be no words for excellence – there can be only one valedictorian, one winner etc.

Likewise not all people are graced with a favorable geography at birth – some places are harsh and should have low populations. Yet, we provide aid and in so doing make life more bearable and then comes procreation to add to the cycle.

Compassion is good, charity is nice but to do it to the point we are not only sustaining and indefinitely supporting the weak, stupid and the lazy we are doing so without imposing any sort of restrictions. Why should people on welfare/public support be able to reproduce and not only that be rewarded for it with more money at the expense of the others?

Supporting the weak and lazy at the expense of the driven and strong is antithetical to nature and why we are in the current predicament. (0)
edit on 1/3/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
???? A troll?

I simply stated my opinion on the article.


While I may disagree with you on the global governance issue, I respect your right to express it - personally I see no troll...

Thanks for the reply.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 



...let’s all live in a world that tries to equalize the food production of the bread-belt of the U.S with the sun bleached sands in Somalia


HEADS UP: The US breadbasket is a desert too, and now, there's no more water for irrigation because the Great Plains Aquifer's almost sucked dry.

CROWD SHOUTS: Death to the family farm!

BACKGROUND:
Plaintive nasal voice crooning, "Whatcha gonna do when the well runs dry?"
Activist carries sign, "Hands off the Great lakes! ...They're dead anyway."
Another sign reads, "Three cheers for industrial agriculture!"

...On the podium, David Suzuki just shakes his head.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
the UN can propose whatever it likes. Good luck with that UN.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


Perhaps if "globalist" would stop raping third world nations resources while buying political whores that will side with them while their citizens perish of hunger the world will be a better place.

UN is a joke, is a hoax and is paid by the same profiteer groups that have killed and raped many nations already in this world.

With the right amount of money you can even have Jesus singing this days, so that goes with so call scientist and research that are to benefit a few.



posted on Mar, 1 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


Can someone point out to me where in the UN Charter it states the UN is a governing body?

Im more and more in favor of booting the UN out of the US and leaving it altogether.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join