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

page: 12
18
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Hecate666
 


May be you could do your part in depopulation now . Then you would not be worried about it at all . All of your offspring would not be here to put a strain on this earth . Are you going to enjoy a beautiful earth if you aren't here ? What good is a pristine earth if no one see's it . A depopulated earth that is of course populated by the elite will be easier for them to regulate as they see fit enslaving the common trash . At this point we could over run them and as the French did put them to the Guillotine . I'm sure they duly noted that occurrence .




posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by McGinty
Our artificially sustained eco-system has fatally separated cause from effect...



Originally posted by imherejusttoread
That's like saying a bird's nest is an artificial ecosystem not subject to cause and effect.


If birds choose to live in just one tree, reproducing beyond the capacity of area they can reach to provide food to eat, yet continue to eat via food delivered to their tree by a global farmings system, then the birds will continue to multiply until the tree collapses under their weight.

In nature when the birds exhausted their feeding area, they're numbers would diminish.


Originally posted by McGinty
It hurts, really, to suggest such draconian, rather dystopian control measures, but being responsible means



Originally posted by imherejusttoread
..not basing draconian, rather dystopian control measures on bad science.


Based on logic and common sense. You need to explain your point rather than using a poorly conceived comparison with birds and simply calling my argument 'bad science... Why, exactly is it bad logic, sense, or as you say 'science'?



Originally posted by McGinty
I Think inevitably as a species that claims to be superior - ready to progress - it must finally prove it by showing that it's in control of it's own numbers.



Originally posted by imherejusttoread
If an alien species were to observe us, they would probably write in their report:




These curious creatures tend to suffer from a collective hysteria where the individual organism is supposed to not exist, or if it exists, it exists for the manipulation of its fellow organisms who happen to outnumber the individual organism. What's more alarming about this observation is that these creatures appear to possess one of the largest brain-to-body mass ratios. How could this be possible? Could this be explained by a phantasm mechanism where existential fears are conceptualized and perpetuated through associative networks, producing visible effects resembling a physical virus? It is a quandary, and our studies coin this trait 'ignorance'.

It seems these noted regressive traits, such as control and fear, are better represented amongst those organisms possessing larger quantities of this 'ignorance'. The tolerance of these particular organisms is a testament to those possessing less of this 'ignorance'. Indeed, this tolerance is what provides the best analogy between our kind and theirs.


That's eloquently written - did you write this...?

However, despite it's eloquence it's a pretty unsubtle slap in the face to me, suggesting i'm 'hysterical'... I mean, really! Even if you had made your argument work, which it's not close to achieving, the rationale that overcrowding is something human's need to address, rather than infesting environments like a virus and exhausting the recourses, is hardly 'hysterical'. But it seems common sense is not something we're all born with.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Well you and Ted Turner can lead us all by example and reduce your carbon foot prints 1st.

We can farm vertically saving lots of land space.
We can use already known techniques like solar panels on all homes for energy.
We can educate the population in the right direction, not the Jersey Shore direction.
We can stop dividing and conquering overseas and use "our" money to help ourselves.

Just a few ideas. Oh, and we can physically remove the problem politicians and CEOs causing these worsening problems.


i agree on the first three but,
for as long as the monetary system stays in place and items remain having a price tag on them, their will never be enough.
"our" money is our resources, not paper currency and, we have to use what we have for human progression and not letting money, which doesn't even exist in thy physical reality (as so to say) keep humanity stagnant.
their is ways but, thy have to be taken very cautiously.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 





The problem here is that Nuclear power produces waste that cannot be neutralized anytime soon.


Nope. Nuclear "waste" is not a problem, we already have the technology to destroy it, and produce energy in the process:


The energy crisis is political, not technological or economic. We have the means to clean, affordable and sustainable energy - a mix of advanced nuclear and renewables would do the job. There is just no political will (yet).
edit on 18/6/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Desalination plants are used in Australia, though they are expensive. The country is under the impression they need these plants due to constant droughts which was recently suffering from floods. They are in the process of building more of these plants so they can obtain more potable water.

Have you ever stopped and thought about comparing the prices of oil and water? Everyone bitches about the price of oil. Comparing by the litre, water is more expensive, yet barely anyone cries about the price of water… Isn’t the message clear?

I think we will run out of potable water well before oil.

Seems funny people would happily dehydrate themselves in order to have their gas guzzling vehicle rolling around.



posted on Jun, 18 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


The Planet , if Organized in an Optimal way , could support a World Population of 10 BILLION People without it having a Drastic Effect on the Enviorment . The Idea of Depopulating the Present Numbers of Humans on this Earth is in a sense , an Outright Evil Idea perpetrated by Immoral Selfish Idealists disconnected from Reality ...........No Thanks .....
edit on 18-6-2012 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Zanti Misfit
 


Being that these noble idealist want to embrace genocide and eugenics I'm sure that of course they are exclude from the unfortunate numbers that will purposefully be starved , diseased , poisoned or out right killed . This bunch of a- holes that are so worried about humanity are actually worried only about themselves . The problem for them is that these NWO pee-ons don't have the money to be counted among those who will decide who lives or not . Their lofty ideas about making genocide palatable to the masses if successful will likely bite them .



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by petrus4

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.


Who worships science as god or believes it's infallible?? Scientists certainly don't.

Scientists can be wrong... okay... but unless you can actually PROVE they're wrong about something that many scientists have spent ample amounts of time/research/experimentation on, then it's very reasonably their word against yours. What you're doing is saying, "Well, sometimes scientists have been wrong about this or that, and I don't like the idea of depopulation, therefore I'm not going to believe in overpopulation." That's a ridiculous way to think, plain and simple.

What I will say is that the various serious fields of science have brought us some extremely useful/well-tested/well-proved knowledge that assists us EVERY SINGLE DAY in understanding/interacting with our world. You cannot just selectively choose which science to believe based on what you want to believe, it's not a grab-bag, science isn't a religion, it's not a coordinated organization, science is simply the name we give to STUDYING OUR UNIVERSE in a very focused/rational/objective/detailed manner.

As for scientists being paid to return specific findings... yes, this happens, but USUALLY you find this in INDUSTRY and not actual independent/academic research. And even so, you have no proof that the idea of overpopulation is a ruse constructed by money, there's no proof of this, nor would it make any sense if it were true.

Yes, overpopulation sucks, yes it's depressing, yes it's probably impossible to solve, but NO that doesn't mean we can just pretend it doesn't exist (same goes for global warming).



posted on Jun, 19 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

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. 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.


The science is telling us that.

This isn't science [from the link you posted]:




- Other species are subject to the basic ecological law that states that the population of every species increases to the level of its food supply.
- Humans are unique and above this basic law.
- Corollary: Humans behave as if the human population continues to grow simply because we are human.



This is the assumption of the entire slideshow.

1. I don't know of any science that teaches us this.

2. I don't know of any 'ecological law', either. I know the laws of thermodynamics, and they are naturally self-correcting without the requirement of human beings assuming false laws simply because we are human.

The slideshow also assumes a void of ignorance concerning how economics works [which would probably condense the entirety of topics down to half instead of piecemeal understanding through inferior sociological contexts].
edit on 15-6-2012 by imherejusttoread because: syntax.


I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about the concept; but here it is again:

When food is scarce, a species cannot and thus will not reproduce at high rates.

When food is plentiful/in surplus, a species can and will almost always reproduce at high rates (barring other factors that negatively influence mortality/reproduction).

We need only look at the human population explosion after the agricultural revolution to realize this was the beginning of our overpopulation problems. Prehistoric population growth was NOT congruent in any way to the population explosion around 10,000 years ago, not even in an exponential sense. The agricultural revolution produced huge surpluses of less-nutritious but high-calorie foods... this had negative (in the qualitative sense) health consequences and positive (in the quantitative sense) population consequences.

We are living out the consequences of this today and we will most certainly see ecological, economic, and population crashes as a result. In fact, we're already seeing the first few hints of this all over the world. Humans might be able to fit in a small part of the Earth if we are all crammed together, but this is not how humanity (or the world) works; we have land and resource demands/footprints that FARRR exceed our physical bodies on this planet. We are living unsustainably, it's simple; whether it's low-consumption and high-population in the third-world or high-consumption and moderate-population in the first world doesn't matter. Our way of life is predicated on relatively HIGH populations and relatively HIGH demands upon resources. This cannot and should not continue, or we will surely face even worse consequences that will destroy us anyway.
edit on 19-6-2012 by NoHierarchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


I'm sure you have heard of Codex Alimentarius which was created to gain control of mans2nd most important resource t, that being food . There is a power grab in food production that started with large independent farmers being taken over . The big agra- corporations were vertically orientated and cut the price of grain and such to bankrupt these farmers and take over their farms . They of course made up that money with the middle man . Monsanto is manipulating the seed and the government is putting restraints on all food production .The WTO and Food and Drug are heavily involved for example all of the food poisonings that supposedly have occurred has given them the Patriot Act for food production. Henry Kissinger a renowned EUGENICIST and Bilderberger who advocates population reduction was quoted to say use food as a weapon . Control population with food so there will be famine by design.Yet they will remain FAT CATS .These people are against useless eaters ! Yet they have never worked , never produced a product , or provided a service other than lip service . They are parasites on humanity who's noble service is to prune society thus playing God .



posted on Jun, 20 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
If we must depopulate then let us start culling psychopaths. Everyone can have MRIs done and their brains analyzed.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Ml5edtoDeath
 


80 to 95 % population reduction per the discussions by people who care nothing about you or me or our loved ones will make the decisions for us . See the Georgia Guide Stones !



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ml5edtoDeath
If we must depopulate then let us start culling psychopaths. Everyone can have MRIs done and their brains analyzed.


Have you had an MRI to test 'psychopathic potential'....?

If not are you 100% certain that you'd not present such a brain reading ??

If you did, despite never having psychopathic tendencies' would you be happy to be personally depopulated?

No offence, but suggesting we exterminate large numbers of people purely based on scan results, regardless of behavoral history, then i fear that you may indeed present a scan result that would mean your own demise.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

Originally posted by imherejusttoread

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. 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.


The science is telling us that.

This isn't science [from the link you posted]:




- Other species are subject to the basic ecological law that states that the population of every species increases to the level of its food supply.
- Humans are unique and above this basic law.
- Corollary: Humans behave as if the human population continues to grow simply because we are human.



This is the assumption of the entire slideshow.

1. I don't know of any science that teaches us this.

2. I don't know of any 'ecological law', either. I know the laws of thermodynamics, and they are naturally self-correcting without the requirement of human beings assuming false laws simply because we are human.

The slideshow also assumes a void of ignorance concerning how economics works [which would probably condense the entirety of topics down to half instead of piecemeal understanding through inferior sociological contexts].
edit on 15-6-2012 by imherejusttoread because: syntax.


I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about the concept; but here it is again:

When food is scarce, a species cannot and thus will not reproduce at high rates.

When food is plentiful/in surplus, a species can and will almost always reproduce at high rates (barring other factors that negatively influence mortality/reproduction).

We need only look at the human population explosion after the agricultural revolution to realize this was the beginning of our overpopulation problems. Prehistoric population growth was NOT congruent in any way to the population explosion around 10,000 years ago, not even in an exponential sense. The agricultural revolution produced huge surpluses of less-nutritious but high-calorie foods... this had negative (in the qualitative sense) health consequences and positive (in the quantitative sense) population consequences.

We are living out the consequences of this today and we will most certainly see ecological, economic, and population crashes as a result. In fact, we're already seeing the first few hints of this all over the world. Humans might be able to fit in a small part of the Earth if we are all crammed together, but this is not how humanity (or the world) works; we have land and resource demands/footprints that FARRR exceed our physical bodies on this planet. We are living unsustainably, it's simple; whether it's low-consumption and high-population in the third-world or high-consumption and moderate-population in the first world doesn't matter. Our way of life is predicated on relatively HIGH populations and relatively HIGH demands upon resources. This cannot and should not continue, or we will surely face even worse consequences that will destroy us anyway.


Very well argued and obviously i agree.

I think that tackling our production and distribution practices needs to be combined with a rational, fair rule upon procreation (2 children per man, then he has the snip) across the board for ALL men, rich or poor, ignorant or illuminated.

However, i fear your efforts have fallen upon deaf ears in the case of the contributor you're replying to. He/She seems of a singular mind to disagree with any common sense :pus:


edit on 21-6-2012 by McGinty because: to add quote format



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 04:48 AM
link   
Excessive population might not be good, but depopulation now would be catastrophic.

This is already KNOW from what happened after the Great Crash of 1345 when England, the Greece of the day, defaulted on all its debts triggering a massive run on the banking house across Europe and Asia and sent the world hurlting into the worse depression EVER RECORDED.

With no-one able to afford public works and a collapse in grain supply and all the mills closing, vast numbers of people either starved or could not have children as any form of education and medical care in places like monasteries stopped due to cash problems allowing plague to spread like wild fire whilst skill levels felll off a cliff..

Many cheered the collapse in population on the basis that there would be more for the survivors, yet the opposite was true. WIth the poverty came crime as so no-one moved around at all and no crops moved and was generally impossible anyway due to the collpase of all the bridges and the roads becoming overgrown. As a result, skilled labour skyrocketed to astronomic heights making any major projects impossible and even maintenance of the superstructure of communications and of civilised life fell apart and whatever there was left was wasted as everyone tooled up and fought tiny silly war after war.

It took the world 150 years to recover from the disaster of 1345AD during which the population of the world shrank by one third.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by bearwithredhat
 


There are some paid NWO shills on this site . Nobody could be that stupid . As far as we know old Rockefeller himself might be posting this crap himself just for the fun of it .



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
only 50 million people died in WWII

so it would take 140 WWII's to kill off the 7 billion inhabitants of the Earth.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Here is the answer to everything in our world, as long as it is run by councils of citizens and more of a norways styel proportional democracies, (not Australia's for that limits the numbers running and equality), you don't want 1 king at the top, you want citizens councils and humanity invovled, NO ELITES, DO AWAY WITH ELITISM AND PYRAMIDS.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Paradise or Oblivion - new documentary by The Venus Project,

That we're not living like this in this century is a crime beyond belief. For anything else is not only SLAVERY, BUT MURDER OF MILLIONS AND SUFFERING/TORTURE/STARVATION OF BILLIONS.

I took notes and posted them on the videos.

I paid alot of attention to what he said about the Crash of the Economy in the 30's and the people who suffered and died.

When they died, when the false fake money system (the game) crashed, the real world still existed. There was ample farms, ample food, ample goods for every single person. There was no reason, except this fakehood crashing, for anyone to be suffering but the BLACK SOOT AND LIES IN OUR HEARTS, OUR SINS AND CRIMES AGAINST EACH OTHER. That was what killed people.

DON'T STAND FOR IT HAPPENING AGAIN.

IN a world of equality, abundance, education, health care, with high human rights and equality, there is very little human growth. Research it. They used to put out Canada Stats every year on the news in the papers, and it included often negative population growths. Articles about how hard this would be when the babie boomers reached old age, etc etc etc. Population growth occurs in controlled abusive relgious dominated systems and in systems where there is no standard of livng and people are starving. Then they have to have as many kids as they can, as their survival in old age depends on some kids reaching maturity. They have no Social NET.

We're either progressing as a family, with these lower surivval things solved, in terms of society AND in terms of individual self sufficiency, BOTH and reaching the higher levels of cosmic socities the level 1 and 2 civilizations OR WE'RE PRIMITIVES.

We have the technology both in plain sight and hidden too, to rid this world of all primitive and crimes against humanity.

The irony is, once you throw out pyramids and GREED, everyone lives in ABUNDANCE EQUALLY.



posted on Jun, 21 2012 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by guyopitz
only 50 million people died in WWII

so it would take 140 WWII's to kill off the 7 billion inhabitants of the Earth.


One good pandemic with today's travel infrastructure could spread a long incubation highly contagious virus through out the world . They are working on it just like they are working to improve the Bird Flu , spending billions of dollars on it's development . So far they have failed with the Swine Flu , Avian Flu , Aids , Methyl Mercury in our vaccines and the Ebola virus works too fast to spread like they need . But don't give up they are working hard . The Eugenicist will throw money at it . Rockefeller , Kissinger , Prince Phillip , all at deaths door worry only about your passing . Crazy isn't it !



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 08:28 PM
link   
There is a population problem, all one need do is turn on the television and look at Africa. TPTB would like to imply that it is global, but it is not. There is a need for population control in many 3rd world countries. To allow countless populations to reproduce and bring children into this world that they in no way care for, to endure seeing their swollen abdomens and flies swarming around them because they are too weak to swat them off is nothing short of a tragedy. These people should not be allowed to bring even one child into the world, they dilute what little resources they have until no one has enough to sustain himself. It is far better better to have 3 people who are hungry than 6 people who are literally starving to death.
Increasing aid is not the answer, it does not do anything to alleviate the problem. If you supply 3 million starving ethiopians with enough food to sustain them, then the next time you will need to deliver supplied for an additional 2 million, and then 7 million after that. Aid should come with sterilization as a condition and the population should be managed until it reaches a level where sustainability can become a reality. Of course this would basically mean that the poor will eradicated over a few generations but let us not confuse eradicated with exterminated. There would be no killings of people just because they are poor, no sorrow and anguish at the loss of a loved one. It would simply mean fewer and fewer people to share already scarce resources, In a very short time the population would reach a point of equilibrium and the standard of living for everyone in these places of extreme poverty would rise at a rate unheard of in their nation before. We have tried throwing money at the problem for decades and it does not work. They will continue to reproduce at levels the international community can not keep up with.
Yes I do believe we have a responsibility to help the poor, but the poor have an even greater responsibility not to perpetuate the problem. Starvation could have been eradicated in africa years ago if only the people there could have love for their child before it is conceived enough love to look around and say...I will not bring a child into a situation like this.





new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join