Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Depopulation is probably the answer. Let’s face facts however as unpleasant as they be. What are t

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AzureSky

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Nope.

Overpopulation is a myth. There is PLENTY of a arable land to grow the food we need to sustain our current population growth. There is PLENTY of renewable energy sources that can be used in order for each nation to achieve energy independance.

This myth is perpetuated by eugenecists and globalists who want you to believe that we need to fight amongs each other for a piece of the pie, when there's plenty of pie to go around, if it's split up properly.

The problem with these two areas is that they are currently controlled by big corporate entities who have no interest in making food or energy cheap, renewable and available to all.

There's no money in that. So they perpetuate these lies to keep the status quo the way it is.

~Tenth


This. Exactly what i say when i see the depopulation topic come up.
It's a myth, It doesn't make any sense. Eventually it will. We have the land, the technology, to have a population of over 10 billion.

Also: The average birth/death rate will even out around 10 billion, and keep the population stable. Nature is self regulating and we are part of nature. Its just that we're doing it wrong right now.


It's when I read answers like these that I realise how completed uneducated some people are.

The world population in 1900 was approx 1.6 billion.

The world population in 1950 was approx 2.5 billion.

The world population now is almost 7 billion.

It has more than doubled in 60 years (with most of the growth coming from Africa and Asia, and I don't see them slowing down or adopting birth control methods any time soon).

Just how long do you think it will take, considering that population growth is exponential, to get to 10 billion?

Populations don't "level out and stabilise" unless the death rate = the birth rate, which would require what?

That people are dying at a much faster rate, or that people just decide one day to stop having kids.

10 billion will be here before you know it.
edit on 14-6-2012 by Power_Semi because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-6-2012 by Power_Semi because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


I agree with your statement.

If every individual, helped. Fed those they saw in thier path, clothed the same ect. then it would become a social norm.

If it was. . . taboo to ..Not ..help people in distress than we would be a stronger whole.

I see realization of a future when everyone . . or at least a large majority do a part on an individual basis, it grows.

It's like tending your garden. . .you affect that wich is in your path to the natural good...that way everyone benefits..from keeping yourself, home , yard , area,clear then all that come into your life. .from homeless to hungery and every inbetween.

Cheers to you!



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by TDawgRex
Depopulation is probably the answer.

Yep. Especially of the 'dope sector'.

We need an IQ -prejudiced 'Einsatzgruppen'.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:39 PM
link   



It's when I read answers like these that I realise how completed uneducated some people are.

The world population in 1900 was approx 1.6 billion.

The world population in 1950 was approx 2.5 billion.

The world population now is almost 7 billion.

It has more than doubled in 60 years (with most of the growth coming from Africa and Asia, and I don't see them slowing down or adopting birth control methods any time soon).

Just how long do you think it will take, considering that population growth is exponential, to get to 10 billion?

Populations don't "level out and stabilise" unless the death rate = the birth rate, which would require what?

That people are dying at a much faster rate, or that people just decide one day to stop having kids.

10 billion will be here before you know it.
edit on 14-6-2012 by Power_Semi because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-6-2012 by Power_Semi because: (no reason given)


I agree with much of what you said with some slight alteration. China has instituted the 1 child per family policy, so their mainland population should level off soon. Unfortunately, china is setting up "Special Economic Zones" or "Free Trade Zones" in the U.S. and other countries, which are basically Communist Chinese colonies which will likely not be under the 1 child per family limit. One of these Free Trade Zones south of Idaho is supposed to be 50 square miles in size, so it will be able to hold a lot of Chinese there.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Although a likely unpopular answer to the overpopulation crisis, I would advocate strengthening country borders and limiting immigration to control population and prevent these overpopulated countries from simply sending their population overflow elsewhere. This would force countries like China and India to put all efforts into population control rather than expansion of territory.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   
The west has been sufficiently depopulated, I don't have a problem depopulating Africa, the middle east or China.

Scratch that, lets just have another world war, economically screw ourselves and turn the planet into one big radioactive ball while the wealthy elite who sold out their own people sit in their underground bunkers and get even more inbred.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Have you ever taken a plane trip from one end of the US to the other? If so have you looked out the window? In terms of available space, there is no issue whatsoever.

Now, certain populations have chosen to settle on land that isn't designed for the demands of the populace. Again, just staying within the US, look at Phoenix, AZ or Las Vegas. Two heavily populated areas that are quickly running out of water. If it were possible to relocate these people in an orderly fashion, that issue would be resolved. Another area that probably should never have been settled is New Orleans. Living under the sea level and you are simply asking for trouble. Having been to all three cities I've mentioned, they are great, enjoyable places and if they were my hometown I would defend them. I'm talking about ORIGINALLY it was a mistake to populate these areas in the manner they are populated.

I would argue that Nuclear power is a great source of energy and it's actually very efficient and relatively safe. If you look at all of the Nuclear power plants and then review the accidents, it's a very minute number.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Lets just ignore the obvious. Blame it on world war yada yada yada. I don't see anyone really doing anything to help. Just saying. Have you called "insert human/philanthropist organization here " yet? What a shame people don't want to look at themselves for the answer.
edit on 14-6-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Ok AGAIN, if you believe this start by killing yourself. Please go ahead and do so, and stop DEMANDING for everyone else to do something meanwhile you don't volunteer yourself...

EVERYONE of you who believe "The Earth must be depopulated" go ahead and start it off by killing yourselves...


BTW, the same goes for every leader, politician, and scientist who also claims the same thing...
edit on 14-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


The answer is very simple, and several members and myself have been giving at least some of the answers that would help feed more people...

All these claims that the atmospheric CO2 level is too high IS A LIE...

IN most of Earth's history the atmospheric CO2 content has been from 3 times to 8 times higher than now, and for most of that time live FLOURISHED...

It has been found in several experiements that HIGHER LEVELS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 than exist now are BENEFITIAL for all plant life, for all animals, and for humans...

IF the atmospheric CO2 content on Earth was 1,200 -1,500 ppm (right now it is at 380-390ppm) ALL plant life, trees, brush, etc would grow bigger, stronger and provide from 25% -60% MORE YIELDS/HARVESTS... Which would help feed the population on Earth...


Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.

www.planetnatural.com...

The Earth is CO2 DEPRIVED. It is a known fact that despite deforestation in the southern hemisphere, and other third world countries, the northern hemisphere, and the green biomass of the oceans has been INCREASING.....

Earth has become GREENER, and will become GREENER with MORE atmospheric CO2....

But since the Globalists have stated many times part of their goal is "depopulation" what better way to depopulate the world than to restrict food harvests by lowering the levels of atmospheric CO2?

There are even plans to "sequester atmospheric CO2", and I have been in contact with my Senate representative trying to convince him that this is a really bad idea because they want to implement such a plan.

Atmospheric CO2 is not the problem, and it is not pollution/smog.

If you search for what "smog" is you will find that NOWHERE is CO2 included, the real pollutants are other gases.

The following is directly from wikipedia, the leftists number 1 source for news, and information, which also happens to be biased....but anyway...


Smog is a kind of air pollution; the word "smog" is a portmanteau of smoke and fog. Classic smog results from large amounts of coal burning in an area caused by a mixture of smoke and sulfur dioxide. Modern smog does not usually come from coal but from vehicular and industrial emissions that are acted on in the atmosphere by sunlight to form secondary pollutants that also combine with the primary emissions to form photochemical smog.

Photochemical smog
In the 1950s a new type of smog, known as photochemical smog, was first described.
This forms when sunlight hits various pollutants in the air and forms a mix of inimical chemicals that can be very dangerous. A photochemical smog is the chemical reaction of sunlight, nitrogen oxides (NOx) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere, which leaves airborne particles (called particulate matter) and ground-level ozone.

Nitrogen oxides are released by nitrogen and oxygen in the air reacting together under high temperature such as in the exhaust of fossil fuel-burning engines in cars, trucks, coal power plants, and industrial manufacturing factories. VOCs are released from man-made sources such as gasoline (petrol), paints, solvents, pesticides, and biogenic sources, such as pine and citrus tree emissions.

This noxious mixture of air pollutants can include the following:

nitrogen oxides, such as nitrogen dioxide
tropospheric ozone
volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
peroxyacyl nitrates (PAN)
aldehydes (RCHO)


All of these chemicals are usually highly reactive and oxidizing. Photochemical smog is therefore considered to be a problem of modern industrialization. It is present in all modern cities, but it is more common in cities with sunny, warm, dry climates and a large number of motor vehicles.[1] Because it travels with the wind, it can affect sparsely populated areas as well.


..........

en.wikipedia.org...


Where is CO2 in that list?.... it is NOWHERE simply because CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT, despite the EPA claiming the contrary.

Now, who will benefit from taxing to death a gas which ALL LIVING CREATURES EXHALE?.....

As it has been proven time and again, the elites do not want to feed all the world's population, they want to depopulate the world because it is easier to control us, and if they can squeeze more money from us by implementing taxes on CO2, they become richer as well.

edit on 14-6-2012 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:15 PM
link   
It's sad how so many of you think the OP is calling for mass destruction. Are your imaginations that grim? Populations can be controlled and lowered without anyone dying (or offing themselves-- and shame on you all for suggesting it).
edit on 14-6-2012 by EllaMarina because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
reply to post by Gridrebel
 


The answer is very simple, and several members and myself have been giving at least some of the answers that would help feed more people...

All these claims that the atmospheric CO2 level is too high IS A LIE...


Serious???? This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. Take a look in the mirror my friend.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


You first!



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MaMaa
 


There. You see?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaMaa
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


You first!


Save the Children www.savethechildren.org... is a start. I am not advocatiting a specific organization, just giving one as an example.
edit on 14-6-2012 by Gridrebel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


Nope.

Overpopulation is a myth. There is PLENTY of a arable land to grow the food we need to sustain our current population growth. There is PLENTY of renewable energy sources that can be used in order for each nation to achieve energy independance.

This myth is perpetuated by eugenecists and globalists who want you to believe that we need to fight amongs each other for a piece of the pie, when there's plenty of pie to go around, if it's split up properly.

The problem with these two areas is that they are currently controlled by big corporate entities who have no interest in making food or energy cheap, renewable and available to all.

There's no money in that. So they perpetuate these lies to keep the status quo the way it is.

~Tenth



So true. It's all about the money.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 09:07 PM
link   
It's amazing how incredibly taboo the issue of overpopulation/depopulation has become. I suppose I understand though...

However, from what I've learned, overpopulation and subsequent OVERCONSUMPTION is a huge problem for us. We are not living sustainably and it is quite arguable that 7 billion people CANNOT be sustained on this planet without widespread misery at any point in the near (or mid-length) future.

Those who say "ohh yeah, overpopulation is a myth. Pshhh, we can TOTALLY support billions more on this planet NO PROB. It's just the new world order making things up" seem to be in COMPLETE DENIAL about what science is telling us. What these people don't realize is that- just because a reality is terrible, doesn't therefore make it a conspiracy. Of course then they'll bring up a litany of "facts" to back up their desire to believe that we aren't overpopulated, but they are not really facts but wishful thinking while the ship is sinking.

Overpopulation, however, CAN be solved gradually and by a VERY simple and elementary biological principle:
Given an expanding food supply, the population will naturally expand for ANY species. Our species has grown so fast because of MASSIVE food surpluses brought by totalitarian agriculture. We can ethically decrease population to sustainable levels by DECREASING food production but REDISTRIBUTING food equitably so that we don't have vast swaths of people starving while others live in lavish luxury/gluttony.

Here's some good information via slideshow:

World Food and Human Population Growth



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
Those who say "ohh yeah, overpopulation is a myth. Pshhh, we can TOTALLY support billions more on this planet NO PROB. It's just the new world order making things up" seem to be in COMPLETE DENIAL about what science is telling us.


I don't worship science as God, personally. Scientists can be wrong; but more importantly, they can be (and very often are) paid to return specific findings. Assuming that science is infallible (or not, at times, simply corrupt, as mentioned) is naive.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Absolutely true. Greed is the problem, and given humans are greedy, the most greedy should be weeded out in any depopulation program. Top down, not bottom up.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CantSay
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


Absolutely true. Greed is the problem, and given humans are greedy, the most greedy should be weeded out in any depopulation program. Top down, not bottom up.


Greed is THE problem. It has been so for the history of mankind.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I started the OP in hopes of discussing the serious issue that humanity is facing concerning resources. And when one nation or another faces a resource crisis (regardless whether it’s financial or otherwise), they often go to war. That’s a historical fact. It's also a fact that many are not willing the hear and as such, we repeat the mistakes of the past.

So to answer all those knee jerk reactions that has appeared since spawning this thread, that are asking me to go first. Not gonna happen kiddies.






top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join