The Elite Believe That You Are Ruining Their Planet And They Want You To Stop Reproducing

reply to post by Nspekta


The major problem number one with their theory though Where the hell do they think they would keep getting their income provided for them if they depopulate? Less people=less demand for their garbage (which it is all garbage)= less money in their pockets.Derp.

reply to post by captaintyinknots


No there is nothing smart about depopulation.

The fact is when you live in an area like I do which is pretty fertile farmland and see multitudes of acres of it being "developed for profit"; covered over by mini malls, subdivisions and etc and all that old land which can grow a great deal of food now being wasted, and locked up beneath concrete, asphalt and ornamental laws, instead of being used for it's best use growing food for the people, all the while saying there isn't enough food for our population is not intelligent.

Frankly it would be like a farm family, paving over their farm land to make a parking lot, and then when they can no longer feed their family, instead or ripping up the parking lot and planting more food their answer is to begin killing family members to make what little they have go around. No it's not intelligent.

The sad truth is there isn't a population problem there is a problem with the way we live and waste land...And because, people in the modern western world, don't want to give up their huge houses and lawns and their current way of life they are more then happy to accept depopulation; as long as it's the poor "breeders" on the other side of the world that go.

That is another sad fact of depopulation, most people who support it usually somehow think they are with the elite or part of the agenda or the protected class. Sorry, news flash you and I are not. We all are cattle to the elite, they consider us livestock and animals and when they say most of you must go they don't mean just one group or region or people; they mean you and me as well. And the sad fact is if you have children and grandchildren, as much as you may love them, the elite mean them too and in fact would gladly get rid of your and my entire family line no problem, just to keep more stuff from themselves.

You can think depopulation is intelligent, fine. We will just have to agree to disagree. I find it completely unintelligent and basically it is the default answers of fools and lazy people, who don't want to be bothered to think about or work for solutions that can support the population we have now and larger without killing or sterilizing anyone, because after all those solutions are harder and take work and intelligence.

I would say I do agree with you that the earth is our mother and I would say like children there comes a time when people are suppose to grow up and get out of their mothers house. That is the thing that kind of flabberghasts me about the depopulation crowd most seems so shortsighted. Personally I think everything has worked out the way it has for a reason. If you really look at the course of humanity, population growth didn't even really begin until mankind created agriculture and civilization; which lead to the exponential growth of humans, at the same time it also lead to science and technology and now that human population has become a burden to the planet we have developed the science and systems to begin leaving the planet and moving into space.
Frankly from a philosophical view it almost seems like it was intended this way, maybe by mother earth. After all to truly colonize space it will take the effort of billions of people and now we have them. The truth is if you moved 75 percent of the population into space and used the earth just to grow food and as a natural reserve park, we could feed probably trillions of people let alone billions.

And as I said before space is only one answer, living underground is another. The fact is all you need for a house or an office is space and for producing food you need topsoil, water and sunlight, so what is the best and most efficient use of land, a subdivision of houses or growing food, especially when with current technology you can make underground houses as nice and comfortable as above ground ones. The fact is there are probably many solutions to the problem of supporting the current population, for people that actually like to think, rather then just say screw it lets live the way we always have for thousands of years and just get rid of some people.

Anyway thanks for the reply.

Overpopulation of the planet is a real concept, but not even close to being a reality.

If the elite are concerned about it, it isn't about ruining their planet, its about growing too big for them to control the way they want. Although, we do need to start living cleaner, more efficient and responsible lives.

Additionally, I hope that if/when society starts to fall apart or TSHTF, someone with a few sticks of explosives heads out and obliterates the Georgia Guidestones.

There are definitly some groups of people who Should stop reproducing.
Alll those on welfare for one.
All those in countries where the land cannot support their numbers and someone has to send them food year after year because they are starving. They should all be forefully sterilized or left to starve until they can figure it out for themselves.
All in those countries that are already so overcrowded that they are wading in their own feces - like some places in Asia where they fishing the same water that their houses are located over as well as their toilets.

Why exactly should there be more people on this planet?
If you think we are not overcrowded now, you must be quite young...like under 40.
I've been around a long time and have seen first hand how our best ag land has been paved over.
When you look at Earth from one of those satellite vids you can see that there is hardly a place where man is not.
Human population keeps expanding and yet there are those who are out to save the wildlife who think that they can just turn some of them loose and that they will be OK. Problem is that the land where they can run free gets smaller and smaller. Excess humans is definitley a Huge problem.

Quit looking at it as if you are the one to be eliminated. Like I said above there are those whose numbers are out of control. Currently the the people of the US would be SOOOO Much better off if there were 100 million fewer. I lived in those times and I can tell you it was MUCH better.

reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools


There is a lot that is smart about responsible depopulation.

Simple question: What is the benefit of an exponentially rising population?

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools

 

Simple question: What is the benefit of an exponentially rising population?

When a house is crowded, individuals move to other houses or neighborhoods. As neighborhoods and cities become crowded, cities are expanded, or people move to other cities, countries, or continents.

The universe is vast. Earth is crowded. Time to expand again.

But if you prefer depopulation, please volunteer your self and family first.

Originally posted by Sahabi

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by prisoneronashipoffools

 

Simple question: What is the benefit of an exponentially rising population?

When a house is crowded, individuals move to other houses or neighborhoods. As neighborhoods and cities become crowded, cities are expanded, or people move to other cities, countries, or continents.

The universe is vast. Earth is crowded. Time to expand again.

But if you prefer depopulation, please volunteer your self and family first.

That in no way answered the question. You also seem to have missed the line "responsible depopulation". Please to come on back, and try again.

Who built Fukushima? Therefore, who's ruining MY planet? Hey "elite"....(hand between legs, like Michael Jackson). Eeee Hee!!!!

Originally posted by nahahh
Who built Fukushima? Therefore, who's ruining MY planet? Hey "elite"....(hand between legs, like Michael Jackson). Eeee Hee!!!!

And if population concentration had not been so high in Japan, would they have needed the nuclear power?

Again, its all cyclical. You cant wash your hands of your responsibility.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by nahahh
Who built Fukushima? Therefore, who's ruining MY planet? Hey "elite"....(hand between legs, like Michael Jackson). Eeee Hee!!!!

And if population concentration had not been so high in Japan, would they have needed the nuclear power?

Again, its all cyclical. You cant wash your hands of your responsibility.

Who said we need nuclear power? The only power source we need is the sun. If you wanna spit game...let's talk FREE ENERGY. Nah, but we dont want to go there right? Having too many kids is the problem, right? That's why my dad is from a family of 12, right.

Nah, the problem is.....man is living waaaaaaaaay beyond his means. Earth provides EVERYTHING we need to survive. We just think air conditioned buildings is part of that survival. To you!

reply to post by captaintyinknots


By "responsible depopulation," do you mean eugenics? How should we determine birthing right? One child policy? Based on wealth? Based on intillect? Based on influence or power?

Shall we become enslaved drones to a royal breeding class, similar to that of ant colonies and bee hives?

Seriously, what do you propose?

Peace to you.

Originally posted by Sahabi
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

By "responsible depopulation," do you mean eugenics? How should we determine birthing right? One child policy? Based on wealth? Based on intillect? Based on influence or power?

Shall we become enslaved drones to a royal breeding class, similar to that of ant colonies and bee hives?

Seriously, what do you propose?

Peace to you.

What I propose is a level of personal responsibility. Yes, it is a pipe dream, and I understand that. But the fact is, responsible depopulation would be beneficial to the entire planet.

No, i do not advocate policies that regulate the amount of children people can have. What I advocate is an ideological shift from "i can have as many children as i like, that is my right" to "I can have as many children as I want, but I have to weigh the logistics and realize that just because I can, doesnt mean I should".

Originally posted by ssupp
I'm sorry, but why is a more sustainable planet a bad thing?
I don't care what intentions the ''elite'' might have, a decrease in the human population is a necessity.
Let's face it, there are too many of us.

No there are not too many of us.

This is the same raw bull# peddled over and over again.

Theres plenty of room and theres a whole universe waiting.

Originally posted by nahahh

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by nahahh
Who built Fukushima? Therefore, who's ruining MY planet? Hey "elite"....(hand between legs, like Michael Jackson). Eeee Hee!!!!

And if population concentration had not been so high in Japan, would they have needed the nuclear power?

Again, its all cyclical. You cant wash your hands of your responsibility.

Who said we need nuclear power? The only power source we need is the sun. If you wanna spit game...let's talk FREE ENERGY. Nah, but we dont want to go there right? Having too many kids is the problem, right? That's why my dad is from a family of 12, right.

Nah, the problem is.....man is living waaaaaaaaay beyond his means. Earth provides EVERYTHING we need to survive. We just think air conditioned buildings is part of that survival.

To you!

1)So it is your claim that large populations do not need power, water, sewage, roadways, transportation, food production etc?

2)Lets talk free energy. Id be glad to. If its there, we should be using it.

3)Your dad being from a family of 12 proves nothing other than A)he is catholic; and B)his parents were irresponsible.

4)Forget luxuries. Tell me how a population of, say, 5 million could stay viable without some sort of food, power, water, sewage etc.

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
George Soros is the individual who paid for the Georgia Guide Stones.

The only "elite" who want people to stop making babies are the communists, national socialists, and other tyrannical scum.

It is the same, tired, old marxist crap.

LOL hilarious, you've never read Marx have you?

Such confusion, Marxism is not communism, it is a political path to communism, which is ultimately 'free association. Communism is not tyrannical, it is an economic system. National socialism is fascism, nothing to do with Marxism, and is tyrannical, so you got that part right. National socialism is pretty much what we have now, the state is in control but ultimately the state is controlled by corporations, which are ultimately capitalist.

In the anarchist, Marxist and socialist sense, free association (also called free association of producers or, as Marx often called it, community of freely associated individuals) is a kind of relation between individuals where there is no state, social class or authority, in a society that has abolished the private property of means of production. Once private property is abolished, individuals are no longer deprived of access to means of production so they can freely associate themselves (without social constraint) to produce and reproduce their own conditions of existence and fulfill their needs and desires.

en.wikipedia.org...

Some nations have set up tyrannical dictatorships under the guise of 'communism', but it's actions not self proclaimed titles that indicate a nations economic, or political, system. A nations actions is not the definition of the name it uses to describe itself. There is no such thing as a 'communist government', just like there is no such thing as a capitalist government. They are economic systems. If the state owns the means of production it is nationalisation, not communism or socialism.

Nationalization (British English spelling nationalisation) is the process of taking an industry or assets into government ownership by a national government or state.[1] Nationalization usually refers to private assets, but may also mean assets owned by lower levels of government, such as municipalities, being transferred to the public sector to be operated and owned by the state. The opposite of nationalization is usually privatization or de-nationalization, but may also be municipalization.

en.wikipedia.org...

Public ownership is not common ownership, as in socialism.

The acknowledged aim of socialism is to take the means of production out of the hands of the capitalist class and place them into the hands of the workers. This aim is sometimes spoken of as public ownership, sometimes as common ownership of the production apparatus. There is, however, a marked and fundamental difference...

Public Ownership and Common Ownership

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by ssupp
I'm sorry, but why is a more sustainable planet a bad thing?
I don't care what intentions the ''elite'' might have, a decrease in the human population is a necessity.
Let's face it, there are too many of us.

No there are not too many of us.

This is the same raw bull# peddled over and over again.

Theres plenty of room and theres a whole universe waiting.

I do love this statement. "We cant live in balance with the planet we are on, so lets just go to outerspace". Maybe we can destroy that, too.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by ssupp
I'm sorry, but why is a more sustainable planet a bad thing?
I don't care what intentions the ''elite'' might have, a decrease in the human population is a necessity.
Let's face it, there are too many of us.

No there are not too many of us.

This is the same raw bull# peddled over and over again.

Theres plenty of room and theres a whole universe waiting.

I do love this statement. "We cant live in balance with the planet we are on, so lets just go to outerspace". Maybe we can destroy that, too.

"oh noes, save the universe, we must crush human development lest we contaminate the universe !!"

dont be silly.

Only idiots destroy their own lifeboat. But only small minded fools would damn themselves to never leave it. The earth isn't anywhere near full yet. We simply need to get better at using it. Forward through engineering not back into stagnation.

This malthusian, club of rome, anti human nonsense is dangerous. Any time the good of human beings is placed below abstract ideals horror follows.

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by ssupp
I'm sorry, but why is a more sustainable planet a bad thing?
I don't care what intentions the ''elite'' might have, a decrease in the human population is a necessity.
Let's face it, there are too many of us.

No there are not too many of us.

This is the same raw bull# peddled over and over again.

Theres plenty of room and theres a whole universe waiting.

I do love this statement. "We cant live in balance with the planet we are on, so lets just go to outerspace". Maybe we can destroy that, too.

"oh noes, save the universe, we must crush human development lest we contaminate the universe !!"

dont be silly.

Only idiots destroy their own lifeboat. But only small minded fools would damn themselves to never leave it. The earth isn't anywhere near full yet. We simply need to get better at using it. Forward through engineering not back into stagnation.

This malthusian, club of rome, anti human nonsense is dangerous. Any time the good of human beings is placed below abstract ideals horror follows.

edit on 19-5-2012 by justwokeup because: typo

So, you are another person who think that since we cant live in harmony here, we should go elsewhere? At what point do we make an attempt to live in balance with whereever we are?

The real dangerous mindset here is yours "it doesnt matter if we destroy it all, theres somewhere else to go".

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by captaintyinknots

Originally posted by justwokeup

Originally posted by ssupp
I'm sorry, but why is a more sustainable planet a bad thing?
I don't care what intentions the ''elite'' might have, a decrease in the human population is a necessity.
Let's face it, there are too many of us.

No there are not too many of us.

This is the same raw bull# peddled over and over again.

Theres plenty of room and theres a whole universe waiting.

I do love this statement. "We cant live in balance with the planet we are on, so lets just go to outerspace". Maybe we can destroy that, too.

"oh noes, save the universe, we must crush human development lest we contaminate the universe !!"

dont be silly.

Only idiots destroy their own lifeboat. But only small minded fools would damn themselves to never leave it. The earth isn't anywhere near full yet. We simply need to get better at using it. Forward through engineering not back into stagnation.

This malthusian, club of rome, anti human nonsense is dangerous. Any time the good of human beings is placed below abstract ideals horror follows.

edit on 19-5-2012 by justwokeup because: typo

So, you are another person who think that since we cant live in harmony here, we should go elsewhere? At what point do we make an attempt to live in balance with whereever we are?

The real dangerous mindset here is yours "it doesnt matter if we destroy it all, theres somewhere else to go".

"mercy please"

"nope, sorry, theres too many of you, into the oven with you, this is for the good of the planet. Thats the most important thing"

I can exaggerate too, but only a little. Thats where the anti human thinking goes when taken to its conclusion. Its been fashionable before.

We need to be building a better future for humanity and spreading outward as we need to. Its all about energy, once we crack fusion power there isn't really any limit on us.

Why shouldn't we spread outward? Why is more people, more minds, more inventiveness not a good thing?

Humans are not like grazing animals, we create as well as dumbly consume. With the power of fusion we will be able to create anything from the abundant raw materials in the universe. The idea we'll overrun the universe is ridiculous beyond imagining.

We're only doomed if we fail to keep innovating.

reply to post by justwokeup


Heres the problem with your argument: I never claimed we were "doomed". I claimed we are not in balance with our planet. We are destroying it. We consume at a rate that is far above the rate at which we create, and EVERY SINGLE THING WE CREATE comes from the mother earth. EVERY. SINGLE. THING.

So again, explain to me why it is a good idea, when we cant even live in harmony with our planet, to spread beyond it?

This is a bacterial mindset.