Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Population control, sterilise the masses??!!

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 05:58 AM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 


And no, this post is not about Eugenics... although I can see how you mis-intepreted....

It is about protecting children from being born into unsuitable environments...

I am a liberal at heart... but I have some conservative traits!

PA




posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 





Why does mankind spend so much time and energy caring for all of it's weakest members only to later come up with ways to limit the amount of them on the planet?


Because it is a humane thing to do?



Killing the patient cures the disease, that does not mean it is right. Helping the weak and at the same time trying to lower the numbers of the weak is thus the only ethical alternative.
edit on 7/11/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


See, this is exactly my point.

Dont kill the patient.

Coddle or kill are not the only two choices.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:04 AM
link   
It will solve itself but the hard way (is what I always said).

Too little too late anyways.

I can come up with stuff but it's just very hard to make it fair.
I could say let people in Africa who will get themself sterilised, a reward in money (all of course on a voluntary basis). But yea to let money decide...

But, it's basicly not debatable in governments (in my opinion). Hence they need more people for their new debts!
But I think it's kinda too late anyways, how long will there be enough Oil or other recourses.
Already, I think you see lots of things happening in the world that shows, it no longer works really and will become much worse in the near future, pretty sure I think.

So basicly it will solve but just not in a nice way, and after this there is hope again.
edit on 9-11-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Yes, it would be great if people educated themselves on the cost of rearing a child and knew when they were ready. But a sterilization program is a slippery slope that can get out of hand and put too much control into the hands of the government.

Look at Hitler. He forced sterilization on all the people he thought were imperfect: The mentally imbalanced, homosexuals, deaf people, any form of the disabled, etc...



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
reply to post by khimbar
 


You've kind of cherry picked my argument there to fit your own personal attack...

If you read the whole post you will notice I talk about the things a child needs to be raised effectively in our society... these things are not culturally dependant... and even if they are we live in a society that has moral guidelines.... these have been developed and updated as we have developed as a civilisation...

Financial security, a sense of purpose, intelligence, social awareness, psychological stability.... all of these are required to raise a healthy, contributing and socially responsible individual..

My personal morals have no bearing on this discussion...

PA



I haven't cherry picked at all.

You don't want poor people or stupid people or people who have different morals to you to breed unless they have permission from those in power? Is that fairer?



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
reply to post by khimbar
 


And no, this post is not about Eugenics... although I can see how you mis-intepreted....

It is about protecting children from being born into unsuitable environments...

I am a liberal at heart... but I have some conservative traits!

PA


Eugenics defined.

'the science of improving a breed or species through the careful selection of parents'.

How isn't what you're suggesting eugenics again please? Or is it ok cos it's for the 'sake of the children'?
edit on 9-11-2012 by khimbar because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 





'the science of improving a breed or species through the careful selection of parents'. How isn't what you're suggesting eugenics again please? Or is it ok cos it's for the 'sake of the children'?


It is not eugenics, because he was not suggesting "improving the breed". Eugenics is about improving human genome, thats what "genic" means in the word. For example, the Chinese control reproduction, but they are not eugenicists, because they do it for different reasons than genetics.
edit on 9/11/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by khimbar
 





'the science of improving a breed or species through the careful selection of parents'. How isn't what you're suggesting eugenics again please? Or is it ok cos it's for the 'sake of the children'?


It is not eugenics, because he was not suggesting "improving the breed". Eugenics is about improving human genome, thats what "genic" means in the word. For example, the Chinese control reproduction, but they are not eugenicists, because they do it for different reasons than genetics.
edit on 9/11/12 by Maslo because: (no reason given)


'Genesis' means origin doesn't it? From the Greek. 'Eu' (well) 'genesis' (born). Nothing to do with the genome?

He's suggesting this.


Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly


To grow our slightly broken society beneficially we need people of good moral standing,


To me, that sounds like eugenics.



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 





Genesis' means origin doesn't it? From the Greek. 'Eu' (well) 'genesis' (born). Nothing to do with the genome? He's suggesting this.


The definition of eugenics:


Eugenics is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.


en.wikipedia.org...

Eugenics is about genetics.
edit on 9/11/12 by Maslo because: link



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by chasingbrahman

Originally posted by rival
Sorry, but you can't have a Bill Hicks avatar and espouse forced birth control over others..

,,,,it is against the law


Pardon my OT comment, but I thought that was a very young Alex Jones. Are they the same person?


Not by a long shot.

Bill was a very funny, intelligent, compassionate human being.......Alex Jones is....well....



posted on Nov, 9 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by khimbar
 





Genesis' means origin doesn't it? From the Greek. 'Eu' (well) 'genesis' (born). Nothing to do with the genome? He's suggesting this.


The definition of eugenics:


Eugenics is the applied science of the bio-social movement which advocates the use of practices aimed at improving the genetic composition of a population, usually a human population.


en.wikipedia.org...

Eugenics is about genetics.
edit on 9/11/12 by Maslo because: link


From your link. The next line in fact.


It is a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of other people and traits


Which is what the OP is suggesting.



posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by khimbar
 





It is a social philosophy for the improvement of human hereditary traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of certain people and traits, and the reduction of reproduction of other people and traits





Which is what the OP is suggesting.


No, he is not talking about hereditary traits.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
Well there are a number of population control measures in place that do just this and go on unnoticed.

One example is the application of the Bruce Effect in human populations.

In the early 60's it was discovered that female exposure to airborne hormones that originate from others in their species and yet are unfamiliar (i.e. emitted by strangers) results in a number of psychological and physiological manifestations.

If the concentrations of these hormones is high enough, a significant reduction in fertility will result. Other manifestations include depression, and even full blown psychosis.

Concentrations are high enough in dense urban centres to cause these effects especially in enclosed spaces (such as cinemas and theatres) or structures greater than 5 stories in height that utilise recirculating air systems.

The theory goes that dense urban centres are concentrated points of overpopulation. Therefore they represent the logical place in which to engage in population control measures if one wants to maximise the effectiveness of the initiative.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 08:44 AM
link   
It would definitely cause a decrease in population but to quote one of my favorite movies:

"Life will always find a way."

And a second item to note is I'm sure no matter how it was implemented only the bottom 99% would be sterilized. Those wealthy and in power would buy their way out.
edit on 11-1-2013 by jjkenobi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
An interesting theory I heard a while back based on the observations in nature where high levels of stress and threat of imminent death triggers reproductive cycles in plants and animals. i.e. There exists a direct correlation between fertility and environmental stress.

The theory is that if this natural correlation holds, then the removal of environmental stresses like poverty and hunger will result in a subsequent drop in the fertility rate.

Good luck testing that out though :-(



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by PerfectAnomoly
What form would this test take? Who would be responsible for judging people? So many questions…

Easy, offer cash for going through the procedure. Anyone willing to sell themselves out like that probably wouldn't make very good parents and it would be their choice.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by PerfectAnomoly
 


Such is life!

You also asked in your title about sterilization not whether it should be a right to have children.

How can you tell if someone is qualified to have children? You can't.

I know people who have kids and their kids have everything yet they are some of the most troubled kids because the lack of parenting going on. They want for nothing yet they are in the most trouble Just 18 and in and out of rehab. I also know people who have kids and they are on govt assistance and their kids don't get everything they want yet they are the best behaved and getting ready for college.

I also know people that when they had kids it changed their life. You can't tell when someone is ready for kids, you never can.

Why not educate people like we use to on kids and how to raise them with classes instead of telling them they can't have kids because they aren't qualified.



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:53 AM
link   

purely because of who their parents are and the decisions that they made prior to bringing them into this world


Because of what?????

Their parents did nothing in the least wrong, except their governments were set up by the US/UK and PTB/World Bankers, to be the renegades from old, crooks and gangsters, and then lent money from our Mafia, for the gangster set up leaders there to squander and enjoy, but put on the people' back. Our corporations have taken their traditional lands from them, and their resources, and trying to force them on the fringes of our dog eat dog usary corporate monopoly system of evil, which of course, there's no room for them except as slaves.

When you're poor, and there are no services and all access to your own land is gone, and you have been royally robbed and brutally violated as these people have, the only way the adults have a chance to survive is if some of their children live to grow up. So partly, their larger number of babies relates to that.

We learnt that in sociology 101. Also that between, Enlgand, Brazil, Holland and India, Holland had more people per square mile and England next, India third, and Brazil a far distant fourth.

Also there are other reasons for population. Lack of services.

Our first world countries have zero or negative number population growth. Canada's hit the negative numbers at times.

So a good system and equalizing government with medical services seems to be the answer.

The last part is, our NAZI, fourth reicht leaders and shadow government seemed to like Sharia, its a wonderful system of abuse, and their really sick psycho's. So, they are encouraging behind the scenes the hard core 7th century, primitive groups have more babies. They want to DO AWAY WITH EQUALITY.

In short, there is NOT a population problem, there is a population agenda going on to try an unseat the middle class, one that has a very good solution. EQUALTIY, SOCIAL PROGRAMS, AN END TO WORLD BANKING AND A FORGIVENESS OF ALL DEBT.
edit on 11-1-2013 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
As the above poster alludes to, there are of course cultures on our planet that are experiencing decreases in population growth, Japan I believe is one. Reversing that scary statistic noted in one of the above posts regards number of births vs deaths in a day can be done and is happening around the world without needing to resort to
1984 style policing. Scary thing is Japan (at least I think it is Japan) are making policies to prevent their population dropping, that scares and really annoys me.

Link to related info (dated 2011 though) :
www.time.com...

edit on 11-1-2013 by doorhandle because: typing on a phone on a train is hard work!



posted on Jan, 11 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


"There are 252 births per 107 deaths per minute in the world. This fact should frighten people, and they should learn from it. We don't need to sterilize anything."

I'm not certain I can agree with those numbers. 1 million Iraqis were killed during recent wars. Did 2.5 million children replenish them? How about the genocide that continues unabated in Africa, the Mid-East and other parts of world in large numbers? The amount of deaths from war is staggering and I can't for the life of me figure how they come up with those numbers.

Intuitively, I feel population may be shrinking more than estimated. Lets not forget the tsunami that washed away 250,000 people. Natural disasters and disease certainly make a credible dent on the numbers.

To the OP, I'm partially in agreement with you and those that counter the argument. I too had lived a hardworking life and served my country. The rug got pulled out from under me and my means of existence completely rely on my Veterans Benefits and SSDI at this time. I'm very grateful for that, but I loathe being told I'm waste of human flesh for taking from the system that I paid into. Are we to terminate non contributing humans upon a health disaster? Should we kill all the people that retire after they spent 50 years in the work force?

Going down the slippery slope of addressing population control will lead us further into questioning who has a right to existence. Life will become a lottery.

Just my two cents. Which is actually worth 12 cents due to the rising cost of copper..
edit on 11-1-2013 by SinMaker because: Edited to add to the discussion.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join