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.

 

Population control? Check please!

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:07 AM
link   
As of recently and in the future, the United States is going to to grow by over 100,000,000 people by 2050.

www.census.gov...

Imagine a united states with that many more people, people already can not find jobs, poverty rates are off the charts, many children are starving every day because they cant get food. Stats show that 1/6 of Americans are getting government support., and with that many people, the numbers are sure to grow.

As of right now, Robots are being made to take peoples jobs, and if 100,000,000 people come into this country, nobody will find jobs.

We need some form of population control to make sure our numbers don't grow like mice in a cornfield.

"What about jobs? No point of more growth of capitalism if poor people can't afford anything anyways and repopulate and spark a poor poverty plagued family tree." - Unknown

This is a harsh quote, but it is true. If you don't think population control is a good idea, you should definitely rethink your opinion.

www.usnews.com...

Is that 120,000 jobs? Oh wow! At that rate, by 2050 that would create 54,000,000 jobs. Which would leave create around 35,000,000 people unemployed.

Those are some numbers to think about.

I do not know how we could limit the population, i am not saying we kill anyone off. But with the trayvon black community outrage. It would be nice to see I.Q. tests as a means of getting a license to breed. A combines partner score of 220 would be acceptable, I guess.

Thank you for reading my thoughts. I would like to see what you have to say.




posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Personally, I think we should ban the trust fund babies and their lot from breeding. I hate to be that way, but poor people do sometimes have a tendency to add something of value to mankind. 95+% of the rich people add absolutely nothing of actual tangible value and cannot actually conceive of doing real work.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I dont believe population control is needed to an extent where we minimise the amoutn of children we have, or at what stage in life we have them. I think the only thing that needs to happen is changing the status quo, spreading the wealth and lookign into new types of energy and food production that would employ many people.

We can sustain our life on this planet, we just need to the people at the top to change the status quo or we're pretty much fkd



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


Ban the people who have jobs and can afford to feed their kids from breeding? What opposite universe do you live in? Yeah you'd rather have Octomom and her 14 kids she can't feed on food stamps then eh... pure genius.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:27 AM
link   
reply to post by jjkenobi
 


Actually, I'd just rather ban the people who make their living by screwing over the people who actually work.

On both ends of the spectrum.

Great straw-man there, champ.
edit on 2-5-2012 by AnIntellectualRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


Ban the people who have jobs and can afford to feed their kids from breeding? What opposite universe do you live in? Yeah you'd rather have Octomom and her 14 kids she can't feed on food stamps then eh... pure genius.


Octomom and her 14 kids should be euthanized. Statistically, 2 of her 14 kids will be in jail sometime in their life. Better kill them now before they kill one of your family members.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
I have been thinking about this for some time.
Its not just about jobs its about survival-here are the main issues we face now-let alone in 50-100 years time (if you don't care imagine your grand kids living with your legacy)

1) Food Scarcity
2) Energy/Fuel
3) Infrastructure
4) Health (both funding and disease transit)

There are others but these are the main ones that are now "political" problems (by that I mean there is much debate but little corrective action)

They are all being tackled separately as Political problems-it seems no-one serious is saying "hang on-this all has one route cause-its humans-there are too many of us" to say that would be a political human rights disaster.

The stark facts are as an intelligent species we can correct this-but liklhood of us doing it by our own free will in harmony with others is ofcourse slim-it should happen but it probably won't.

There will always be someone standing up for us humans whilst the lights slowly dim "you can't tell me I can't have 6 kids and a V8"

Well that maybe the case but view it like this and you may feel differently imagine resource it not an asset to an individual-imagine its totally shared-like Planet Earth, that means those burning it up are effectively Robbing you, your kids or your grand kids down the line, theirs too but a truly selfish person will not consider this.

the law is going to have to be drachonian-it'll be unpopular so it'll be virtually impossible to stem our growth.



But don't worry nature will correct it, when the oil runs out, when your hospital is full, when your tap drips its last drop, when the water wars start, when someone with ebola sneezes in NYC and your all less than a foot apart, the population will drop like stone along with the price of gold.

I prefer a sensible organised approach based on cold hard facts, mathematical predictions and limits on who can breed and how many (if you can';t afford children-don't have them, if you can only have 1-that would be a start) but either way-population control will occur-wheather we vote for it or not.

We brought it on ourselves silly humans putting the sanctity of their lives above the resources of the planet they live on.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jjkenobi
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


Ban the people who have jobs and can afford to feed their kids from breeding? What opposite universe do you live in? Yeah you'd rather have Octomom and her 14 kids she can't feed on food stamps then eh... pure genius.


You misunderstood what he meant.

Theres an old saying that when you have nothing, you appreciate the little things in life that actually mean something, like family, going out and seeing the wilderness, love and everythign else that is now underrated. With wealth it brings the meterial aspects of life to light more than the little things, they learn to forget what really matters, which is each other.

The poster just mean if we rid the world of greedy people, born with a silver spoon in thei mouths - we could go in a better direction that brakes the status quo who prefer wealth over health



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ATScory
 


Do you know what, I used to be outraged by the idea you suggest. Now I am increasingly appalled by the amount of dim witted individuals who are raising dim witted and often violent, unruly kids.

With the culture of 'boy barbies' and it's 'cool to be thick' which has such a hold on so many of the youth of today. I am British. I listen to my young girls talking about 'Beiber', dating shows that are frankly, unbelievable and 'TOWIE' (the only way is Essex) and it infuriates me.

Everything these kids are interested in is stupid! I don't allow the crap on TV here but they still watch it with friends. An 8yr old boy was around with a few X-box games the other day, 'Call of Duty' and stuff. I was shocked, I forbade them from putting on any with violence against people and other crimes, I allowed the zombie slaughter because, well that's all that was left!! The point is that a lot of parents see nothing wrong with it! I put 'Signs' on and the lad was really scared but thinks nothing of stabbing people in the neck and blowwing people up in these games!!

I think if the population was well educated, nourished and moral then it wouldn't be that much of a problem, people would be sensible about reproducing and the distribution of resources. The problem we have is that a large portion of the coming generation is showing some real signs of psychopathy, selfishness, complete disregard and ignorance of how things work and what matters.

I do try top educate my daughters and they have a great deal of empathy and awareness but a lot of the time what I am competing with a culture which is pervasive and relentless. I hate to see them roll their eyes at times when I point out the other side of what they are seeing and if I say anything in front of their friends, they are horrified. Truly parenting these days is absolute bloody warfare and you are taking on the world!

I try talking to other people/parents and they say "oh they're just kids, it's not a big deal" I disagree! During these formative years kids have been bombarded with stuff that corrupts and not all parents are balancing out the negatives. This leaves kids with a distorted view of 'reality' which will shape their future and the world they shape.

I really do feel totally alone sometimes. It is not like when I was there age only 20 years ago. Yes there were drugs, sex, filth crime violence, but then it was seen as shocking and wrong or at least novelty. It is different now because it is normality, kids want to be normal, to fit in.

Am I just too sensitive?
Is it just where live that is like this?

Yes an IQ test would help but so would a test of empathy and morals, classes to teach and assess them even.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by ATScory

Originally posted by jjkenobi
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


Ban the people who have jobs and can afford to feed their kids from breeding? What opposite universe do you live in? Yeah you'd rather have Octomom and her 14 kids she can't feed on food stamps then eh... pure genius.


Octomom and her 14 kids should be euthanized. Statistically, 2 of her 14 kids will be in jail sometime in their life. Better kill them now before they kill one of your family members.




By that logic, we should just kill 2 out of every 14 people. How many of YOUR family will be put down cause they may commit a crime?



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by ATScory
 


hmm, ok. Lets look at the United Nations numbers.... according to the United Nations the population will, "once again", start to naturally decline.

More here if you want to check the facts ....

EXPERT GROUP MEETING ON POLICY RESPONSES TO POPULATION AGEING AND POPULATION DECLINE (UK and US Included)

What's this?...

Large Population Decline A Serious Problem In Russia

The reason why most people believe there is a population problem is because they have been herded into cities and all of them have cars. People don't like being stuck in traffic jams.

A population problem is a myth plain and simple. And trying to artificially reduce numbers based on flawed and untruthful evidence will end up killing everything good and may leave just a few psychopaths. these psychos will end up turning on eachother and that will be the end of mankind.

Just my opinion of course, but its not without checking the facts first.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ATScory
 


Having spent the last 10 years in China I think I can bring a different perspective to this discussion.

While you worries are understandable, there is a point where additional population creates smaller self-contained socio-economic units.

Take the big-box retailer problem that afflicts many parts of the US. It is essentially an economies of scale issue where large chain retailers can use their greater purchasing power and logistics capability to offer lower prices thereby driving independent retail owners out of business.

What you see in many coastal cities China is that due to the greater density of population the customer base is greatly concentrated. This means that more small businesses can be supported, along side the larger retailers. Imagine if you own a business, and you need a certain within a given range to make a purchase at your store in order to stay in business. If the number of people within that range increases 5x, then there is a greater likelihood that your business will succeed.

Greater population density also changes the dynamics of niche products and services. A product that appeals to 1 out of every 100,000 people has 3100 potential customers in the US and 13,000 in China.

The viability and profitability of mass-transit, and other public services increase (if they are well planned and operated), leading to some systems not terribly common in the US like ultra-fast light rail, becoming good investments that increase overall productivity.

It would take good planning and foresight (which if possible from the US government is another discussion entirely) but I do believe there are many great advantages to a higher density of people living within urban areas.



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I will start with the usual disclaimer... The following is just my opinion; which I suppose is why every time I express it in this matter it is simply ignored. Either way... Maybe someone will listen. Once more...

Human beings cannot responsibly limit population so that only the "right" people breed. First of all, what are the criteria? The OP thought perhaps an IQ test, but I can tell you that an IQ test tests what it tests and it is not necessarily indicative of over all intelligence. Memory, spacial skills, and some highly subjective problem solving skills is what an IQ test tests. I test with an IQ around 150, and it doesn't mean squat.

So what then? Morality? I can tell you that a fundamentalist Christian is going to have very different ideas about morality than mine. Productivity? Income? what? Or do we simply do as was done before when they began thinking about eugenics and do away with the "undesirables" in the early 20th century. Sterilize them. So if you are poor, dropped out of school, unemployed, if you have a history of mental illness, or worst of the worst if you are female and have a child out of wed-lock or any combination of these things you are in trouble. I can tell you these were in part the ideas the Hitler took and ran with.

So, maybe that wouldn't fly now. So again, who would decide? What interest group with their hand in our Governments pants would get to decide whether you get to breed or not. The environmentalists? The various corporate interests? Who are you going bend your head and hand that power over you to?

Human beings are still animals; biologically, breeding is still the point. It is the primary motivator beneath nearly everything that our societies are based on; breeding rights and survival of progeny. People get kind of offended by that, but it doesn't make it any less true. Not to mention, humans are a social and hierarchical animal. Those higher up in the pecking order will use what ever advantage they have to ensure the success of their own offspring, and if you hand them the power to determine breeding rights, they will use that power with alacrity, and to almost everyone else's disadvantage. Tyranny is the only outcome.

This sounds like a good idea. I get it. It sounds logical. It is logical. But human beings are not logical. The application would never be logical or even rational. Common sense and measured, careful thought would not be a factor in this. Sure, there would be plenty of talking and little rituals gone through to convince ourselves that that is what is going on, but it's would all just be ponies and balloons. Hand waving used to placate the public, and for the decision makers, to placate themselves, but in the end it would all be crap. What you would have is the big monkeys in charge deciding which of the little monkeys get to breed.


edit on 2-5-2012 by redhorse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 2 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DAVID64
 


Well my family isn't in poverty, so 0.



posted on May, 3 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by redhorse
I will start with the usual disclaimer... The following is just my opinion; which I suppose is why every time I express it in this matter it is simply ignored. Either way... Maybe someone will listen. Once more...

Human beings cannot responsibly limit population so that only the "right" people breed. First of all, what are the criteria? The OP thought perhaps an IQ test, but I can tell you that an IQ test tests what it tests and it is not necessarily indicative of over all intelligence. Memory, spacial skills, and some highly subjective problem solving skills is what an IQ test tests. I test with an IQ around 150, and it doesn't mean squat.

So what then? Morality? I can tell you that a fundamentalist Christian is going to have very different ideas about morality than mine. Productivity? Income? what? Or do we simply do as was done before when they began thinking about eugenics and do away with the "undesirables" in the early 20th century. Sterilize them. So if you are poor, dropped out of school, unemployed, if you have a history of mental illness, or worst of the worst if you are female and have a child out of wed-lock or any combination of these things you are in trouble. I can tell you these were in part the ideas the Hitler took and ran with.

So, maybe that wouldn't fly now. So again, who would decide? What interest group with their hand in our Governments pants would get to decide whether you get to breed or not. The environmentalists? The various corporate interests? Who are you going bend your head and hand that power over you to?

Human beings are still animals; biologically, breeding is still the point. It is the primary motivator beneath nearly everything that our societies are based on; breeding rights and survival of progeny. People get kind of offended by that, but it doesn't make it any less true. Not to mention, humans are a social and hierarchical animal. Those higher up in the pecking order will use what ever advantage they have to ensure the success of their own offspring, and if you hand them the power to determine breeding rights, they will use that power with alacrity, and to almost everyone else's disadvantage. Tyranny is the only outcome.

This sounds like a good idea. I get it. It sounds logical. It is logical. But human beings are not logical. The application would never be logical or even rational. Common sense and measured, careful thought would not be a factor in this. Sure, there would be plenty of talking and little rituals gone through to convince ourselves that that is what is going on, but it's would all just be ponies and balloons. Hand waving used to placate the public, and for the decision makers, to placate themselves, but in the end it would all be crap. What you would have is the big monkeys in charge deciding which of the little monkeys get to breed.


edit on 2-5-2012 by redhorse because: (no reason given)


How about people who demonstrate that they're actually capable of determining whether they can obtain, or already have, the resources to raise a child. Had we already been doing this, we would not be here. But no, just fump, fump, fump and rely on empathy to bridge that chasm.




top topics



 
3

log in

join