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

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by McGinty
 


That I don't disagree with, the whole 6 or 7 people families is a bit much these days, and who can afford that crap anyway.

I guess I should not talk, I have 4, but 3 were adopted so there.

Yes the condensed populations are a problem, but that came as the result of major trading lanes like port cities etc..

If we moved to a more local mentality when it comes to food and energy, these would naturally disolve and people would move to less urban areas because it would be affordable to do so and there would actually be more benefits to living in the country than in the city.

~Tenth




posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   
To the original poster I'm all for it as long as you go first. Maybe then others will get smarter.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I've read that if not for legal and illegal immigrants, the population of the US would have shrunk not grown. I'm betting that's true for most of the Industrialized World.

To me that says, that education and advanced cultures are the answer.

To get there we must prosper as how can we help of lead from a position of weakness?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Depopulation policy is active and underway, it is the culmination of an actual plan long in the making by the world's psychopathic elite. We have been seeing the signs for years..

A quote from Henry Kissinger:

Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world...

Overpopulation is not a problem, and it will not ever be a problem..We need to get back to basics all these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that we can overcome. The real enemy is humanity itself.peace,sugarcookie1



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Okay, this is going to be harsh and very no PC, but here goes. Everyone who comments that those those who are in favor of 'responsible population' should 'kill' themselves are also in favor of death through mass starvation and medical neglect. Is it that every life is sacred no matter that they die by the hundreds, if not more, each day due to lack of food and proper health care? Is it that everyone should procreate because they can, consequences be damned? How many more Gulf oil spills are okay in order to keep the populace satiated? Radioactive tuna, who cares?

For me, the topic of this post is that we need to be more responsible as a species before we just start throwing more bodies into the world. We need to care for what and who we have now. But you know what, we aren't very good at that. Adding more babies really won't fix the issues we face now. You do know what the definition of insanity is don't you?

So if you can give me a valid reason why we should expand above our 7 billion+ while making the world a better place without increasing the suffering and deaths of others, then let's talk.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 


Brilliant. That is a very insightful response. Well thought out. But where is this whole 'genocide' thing coming in? I don't think anyone here believes that genocide is an answer to anything.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by TDawgRex
 


The only thing depopulation would help is pollution. Earth can easily produce enough food for 30-50 billion people, And there is no real energy shortage either. The only reason either is in short supply is because of the control of those resources. That is one thing which would not change should the world's population be decimated. The forces of control would not relenquish their artificial scarcity.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   
For some reason theres a block ahead of us, set by the great ones...

if theres too much of us in this little world, that means we would be advanced eunough to found a life on another planet... there cant be noway that we are 6,9 billion of 100% retards, like they are working on it.

They are depopulating,Why & how?

For some reason they dont want us leave the room... or we are being hold here by third party.

Depopulating us that there wouldnt be uniting any masterminds... Depopulation is operated by humans, and i guess the creature who's interested in this is human too...

Mabye there will be big event like in the Bible, the chosen guy was Noah... if this happens again like the story sayis, than might the next Noah be somebody who created the DUMBS?

Do we know that we are advanced eunough to live on another planet? Mabye
We have heard and read alot of stories about whistleblowers how even one dude claimed to meet Obama on Mars... okay if thats too much than we have handful of people telling that we have technology which kills fossil fuels...
Thats the major theater itself, we are attacking people over fossil fuels, but we have something over lightyear better.

Elite is ahead of us 100% in technologically!; mentally? Physically..! Fat slobs with age of over and near 100, most of them.

i mean wake up, we have balls of lights flying around and government aint bothered.. that aint threat, the real threat is little children, old people who seem terrorist like in airports.


it cant be ignored, we have to wake every single zombie up from this sick #...

We have proof that world is run by the opposite of humans, by that i mean them, who seek the truth for their own good.
Human is somebody who learns, shares and loves.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ObservingTheWorld
So if you can give me a valid reason why we should expand above our 7 billion+ while making the world a better place without increasing the suffering and deaths of others, then let's talk.


There's a good reason, and his name is Thomas Malthus.

Anyone pontificating about overpopulation or starving children while enjoying access to ATS and other luxuries tells me they don't even take their own ideas seriously. If they did, they wouldn't be here to debate.

So, unless we can get some controlled experiments involving people practicing their own recommendations over a specific period of time, things like predictions coming from people who aren't even self-consistent are meaningless, much less when actual science is brought into the picture.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Thanks. I don't support any man-made agenda of depopulation for sure, I think that is definitely wrong. I was talking about natural depopulation that might occur through natural processes. Anyway, good to hear your point of view. Don't think I didn't listen to what you said.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by McGinty
 


That I don't disagree with, the whole 6 or 7 people families is a bit much these days, and who can afford that crap anyway.

I guess I should not talk, I have 4, but 3 were adopted so there.

Yes the condensed populations are a problem, but that came as the result of major trading lanes like port cities etc..

If we moved to a more local mentality when it comes to food and energy, these would naturally disolve and people would move to less urban areas because it would be affordable to do so and there would actually be more benefits to living in the country than in the city.

~Tenth


Yes, the large families are pretty irresponsible of our species. In a natural ecosystem this would mean food shortage and a rebalancing of the numbers via large dying-off followed by slow gain in animal numbers. Our artificially sustained eco-system has fatally separated cause from effect...

But that's a very broad-sweeping statement. To be more specific, it is certainly in one of our potentual futures to make cities/clusters of humans unnecessary. But even if this utopia is allowed to happen by TPTB, it is still a way off and how long must we suffer increasing inner city degradation while waiting for utopia?

In the meantime i suggest we control population growth, keeping equality and fairness a priority in the enforcement of such a rule. The fairest option may be as drastic as a vasectomy for men after 2 children.

It hurts, really, to suggest such draconian, rather dystopian control measures, but being responsible means doing the best with what you have for the good of the many. So while i agree with you in theory, only action will help overcrowded cities and we can't put this on hold hoping we make the leap to a localised lifestyle before we've started eating Soylent Green.

And just to trample any last hope of this, even if we did change infrastructure to dismantle cities and spread everyone out so there was no more clustering, how long would it be until humans had filled all that new space between one another with more children, more families, more villages, towns etc?

After several generations we'd be back in the same predicament, but with nowhere else to go. Overpopulating isn't necessarily caused by cities, it's something fundamental to pro-creation, a so-far unresolved bug, or blind spot in our make-up - the 'selfish gene - the original sin, perhaps. To pop them out just 'cos we can!
Some people's pro-creation appetites are far greater than others. Some see power in numbers. Others are too dumb not to, and a few, i guess, just like the company.

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. Hypothetically speaking, why on earth would an Alien race allow us to spread to other planets until we shown we can do this one thing that tells us apart from the animals, and the viruses....


edit on 14-6-2012 by McGinty because: clarification...



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:39 PM
link   
IMO GMO crops to feed the world are a myth also.
Why have a patented crop when we can have natural crop and dont pay some greedy corp?

There are starving people in the USA and yet the USA has an abundance on food.
The problem is not food but distribution and greedy people.
Limbo



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   
You are on a wild goose chase to find an answer through civil means. The greatest disaster ever to decrease human population was not man made. The Black Plague kill 50% of humanity, 80% of the countries boarding the Mediterranean. All the great wars together did not come close to this figure of death.

It will be a natural disaster like a mutated swine or aves flu. The problem is that man made mutations are now possible and the Bilderberg clans will probably unleash this menace as soon as they have stock piled enough resources. Who is getting rich lately? The super rich are getting richer and spending it on doomsday shelters (quietly).

Do not depend on evolving research or human morals, both are well behind the curve to help us out of this mess.

Do not count out the Japanese melt downs. Three meltdowns on the coast line will probably foul up the entire Pacific in a short time period and drifting radiation in the air will eventully foul up all of North America. Then there is the financial collapse, which is eventual and probably will happen ahead of all the rest. We're screwed eitther way.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
For your information, it is shocking to learn that the worlds popultion is increased "everyday by 210,000" . This is mind blowing to think we can solve this problem without a huge and serious calamity, because there are too many people to sustain based on todays technology or mind-set. As we increase by such huge numbers, we get deeper into a supply verses demand debt.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:24 PM
link   
how does it work ? lottery ? random sterilization ?

can we nominate someone for elimination ?



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
My first thoughts on this is that there is presently room, but it is changing quickly now.

I would think the best logical way to move forward is to grow our populations closer to the earth.

Those of us that reside is luxury compared to others should regress a little for the whole, but this is infeasible when the new peoples grow in a damaging way for the environment and the whole, as is the present case.

A fair and EQUALE system in place would eliminate these problems. . .but then that has been the issue all along , folks being folks and greed being nature.(what squirell doesnt pad its nest?)

I see a successfull future in which we live in small communities again, but connected to the whole regularlly, self sufficient and tight. Supporting each others right to live and thrive, without the nieve thinking that certain branches do not need pruning.

I know this sounds at least socialist if not down right communist, but I have a vision that we need to move past these ideals to the point where we all have at least one common goal...to grow and continue to thrive and start again. Greed , Ignorance, Selfishness and putting one's self first must come to an end.

The question remains how will it go down? In peacefull understanding or conflict?

It is past time to throw the burning demon back under the rend in the forest, and make peace.

Our decendants and future of humanity deserve this, no matter our ages or dispositions.

Thats my honest opinion, I hope you's don't mind


Peace and cheers.
edit on 14-6-2012 by Treespeaker because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

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


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



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


..not basing draconian, rather dystopian control measures on bad science.


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.


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.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by DarkATi
 


So you are saying that those who have should give to those who have not?

So for instance, who is going to donate his crop of wheat, and who will donate the transportation to carry it to some country whose population has grown beyond the means for their land to feed them?

And still no one has offered a good reason to keep increasing human numbers,



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by HIWATT
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 



Bingo.

The overpopulation lie has been debunked a hundred million times.

You could fit every single person on the planet into an area the size of Texas.

scale

OP, this should make you angry. There are millions of people STARVING to death every day and the same people trying very hard to convince YOU that YOU'RE the problem, are the exact same people who are really responsible for it.




SOOOOOOO what are YOU doing about it. Not singling you out per se, but I just wonder what each person is doing about it. Because the bottom line is, people ARE starving to death. There are many claiming political reasons for not helping. There are a lot of hypocrites, we CAN do something.



posted on Jun, 14 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by AzureSky
 


Actually, potable fresh water is going to be a huge problem in the future, it's actually one of the main concerns regarding overpopulation. The truth is, there just isn't enough Fresh Water to go around right now.

However, we do have the tech to convert salt water into clean, drinkable water, but it's expensive and most nations do not want to build the infrastructure to do such things.

But it can be done.

~Tenth


I live near Lake Superior, so I foresee myself selling expensive bottles of water in the future. Joking aside converting salt water into potable water also takes enormous amounts of energy, from what I have been told anyway.


Wondering if it is as easy as boiling it using vulcanic fault lines and then collecting the vapour? Alternatively using pressure to heat the water (like they do heating houses using mountain central heating) but instead of sending hot water out into radiators it is heated and pressured until boiling and evaporation occurs separating the salt from the water as the first stage in creating drinkable H20. I wonder if we could use the 'sea salt' as seasoning making double profit in the process??

Just thoughts

I looked it up and yepp it is that simple
www.wikihow.com...
edit on 14/6/2012 by IAmD1 because: (no reason given)





new topics
 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join