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

reply to post by TDawgRex


If the West just kills of most of Africa or Asia, we can all enjoy another 50-100 years of bounty.

People might feign disgust at that statement, but face it, most of us would choose the death of a small brown child in India if it meant our kids could have access tot he same wealth and opportunity as our parents or grandparents had.

Originally posted by stanguilles7
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

If the West just kills of most of Africa or Asia, we can all enjoy another 50-100 years of bounty.

What a fantastic idea, Stan. Although I'm sure the Pentagon's planners are working on it even as we speak.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


The over population theory is false. Most of the arable land is being decimated by uses for manufacturing or warfare,
forests eradicated for the natural resources etc.. I could write a book on this. The fact that a population tends to naturally stabilize as the technology advances does not seem to matter to anyone who wants to reduce humanity
to a level of slaves, as psychopaths want to insert themselves as your masters and gods to do their bidding.
Total greed led us down this path when so much more could have been done to expand the human race to the stars years ago.
One has only to look at nature, that has it's own checks and balances stabilizing their numbers by splitting and re- creating elsewhere. Ants and termites are a perfect example.
So now it is a race to kill as many of as possible, putting the ones lesser than them into total apathy, feeding lies repetitively until it is accepted. I think the Prime Creator's idea was to make, mature and expand the race not for the few but for all.
Once you see all of this you will understand the biggest lie done to this planet in the name of I have more than you , I am smarter and better than you and you are just my minions.
Peace!

if all the globalist depopulation supporters would start the cause by shooting themselves in the head, the rest of can get on with our lives and supplement our big macs with their share of big macs.

I'll go ahead and emphasize TTTP's post.

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Nope.

Nope.

over population is a real problem. people who are saying it's a myth they need to goto india and see the starving people. it's a social problem though, legislation can't fix that.

reply to post by crankyoldman


Over population has not caused me personally any trouble. I’m looking at a bigger picture. Resources are not infinite with the tech currently on the market. As said in another post on this thread, much of the food grown does not reach the consumer.

My point of view, or more accurately, my opinion, based upon five decades of observation, many travels throughout the world and being an amateur historian, show me that war is almost always about resources. I should have pointed that out in the original OP.

Using religion, ideology or race to instigate war is just a propaganda campaign used to stir the masses.

As I said in the closing of my post. I don’t wish for war, but historically speaking, I see the world heading for another big one in the near future. I truly hope saner heads prevail.

But I also think that is wishful thinking.

reply to post by TDawgRex



(I've given this thread some thought)

War is an inefficient means to cull the human population. War primarily is fought by men. A single man can breed with a variety of women and father untold children.

To effectively drop the human population, women would have to be the primary target. Sterilisation, an induced virus, common disease would have to be encouraged.

I'm afraid that regardless of whether anyone believes in over population or not, we're in it for the long haul.

beez

reply to post by beezzer


Why just target women? A weapon that affects genetics would be the best way of reduction. Just look at all the data concerning DU rounds and the deformed birthrates around the world. A man with irradiated sperm is no longer viable is he?

My sister lives on some of the most beautiful land in Wisconsin, but her family can no longer drink their well water because it has been contaminated by fertilizer, and probably pesticides as well. You'd never know it by looking at it though.

Not that I am calling for that. War is just the route I see the world hurtling towards. This time I would like to be proved wrong.

I think that we are doing a fine job to ourselves on our own...it'll just take longer.

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.

Really interesting information you gave here. Could you provide any proof along with this statement? Perhaps make a topic or something, i'm quite interested in hearing more of it. Thanks

|.SLO7H.|

reply to post by TDawgRex

Just look at the math.

If you have 100 men and 100 women, you'd get X offspring.

Kill 99 men?

That one man could still (theoretically) mate with 100 women and still provide X offspring.

Kill 99 women?

You'd have X-99(n)

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

Do you have any facts to back up your claim?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Just look at the math.

If you have 100 men and 100 women, you'd get X offspring.

Kill 99 men?

That one man could still (theoretically) mate with 100 women and still provide X offspring.

Kill 99 women?

You'd have X-99(n)

Ok, one man can produce X amount of pregnant women. But if the 100 men and 100 women were a village and only one man was viable, you would still have a downsizing in village population over a period. Hence a lower need for resources to feed and fuel the village.

I'm not arguing for depopulation. I'm saying that resources are not being utilized to the best advantage. And since we (humankind) are not doing so, we are heading for war.

I don't like that idea as I've had my fill of it.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Sacrifices! We need lotsa sacrifices!

reply to post by mileysubet


I live in a place that is the size of New Jersey with a population of half the USA. This cannot exist without doing a load of environmental damage and it does. It cannot go on much longer and there is no techno fix. Don't worry. The situation is naturally self limiting, albeit stomach turning.

I think, although it is a good idea to bring the idea up for discussion, it is drastically inhumane. We could accomplish the same goals through pooling our resources into space colonization technology -

in fact, I see these two options as the polar opposites. One is about expanding out into the universe, gathering resources, and creating solutions, while the other idea is about sustaining what we have and destroying.

There are a lot of things that could be done with space colonization technology, including terraforming whole planets to be used for the exclusive purpose of preserving plant and animal life. We could have dozens of planets dedicated to plants and animals, leaving them even better off than any current environmental philosophy of today would even be able to fathom.

Originally posted by TDawgRex

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

Just look at the math.

If you have 100 men and 100 women, you'd get X offspring.

Kill 99 men?

That one man could still (theoretically) mate with 100 women and still provide X offspring.

Kill 99 women?

You'd have X-99(n)

Ok, one man can produce X amount of pregnant women. But if the 100 men and 100 women were a village and only one man was viable, you would still have a downsizing in village population over a period. Hence a lower need for resources to feed and fuel the village.

I'm not arguing for depopulation. I'm saying that resources are not being utilized to the best advantage. And since we (humankind) are not doing so, we are heading for war.

I don't like that idea as I've had my fill of it.

I agree. My figures just illustrate a rationale, not an endorsement.

reply to post by darkbake


While you have good ideas (and others have as well), terra forming will take a looong time. I think we are nearing a tipping point in regards to resources.

Nations want resources for themselves and to profit from them. When other nations lay claim to those same resources, conflict eventually occurs.

Oops...you already said that, didn't you.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

(I've given this thread some thought)

War is an inefficient means to cull the human population. War primarily is fought by men. A single man can breed with a variety of women and father untold children.

To effectively drop the human population, women would have to be the primary target. Sterilisation, an induced virus, common disease would have to be encouraged.

I'm afraid that regardless of whether anyone believes in over population or not, we're in it for the long haul.

beez

A means for this is already in play and women have been brainwashed and all too willing to take that most loved thing Birth control pills.

Perfect means to and end of depopulation

The real problem is that the Cities are overpopulated, and it is easier agree with the viewpoint of overpopulation if you live in a Major City as your experience is probably of overcrowding and all of the associated problems and costs that ensue from crowded cities.

Next time you are in your Car on the Motorway/Highway or on a Train journey (or a flight) and you get outside of the City just use your eyes and see how much space there actually is out there. There's loads.