It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Agarta
I see it is based on over population and resource limitations which is still up for debate in a lot of cases.
Originally posted by Ghost375
Originally posted by Agarta
I see it is based on over population and resource limitations which is still up for debate in a lot of cases.
It's not up for debate. People might deny it. It's a serious problem that will catch up to us soon.
Aldous Huxley in 1959 analyzed the numbers, and determined it would be in 50-100 years where we would start to feel the pressures of overpopulation. Every single one of his predictions came true so far. He even accurately predicted the population at the turn of the millennium. Saying the population was going to more than double from 2.5 billion to 6 billion in that short of time was a pretty bold prediction.
Overpopulation is actually the greatest threat to our freedom. I'm not going to explain why here, but I guarantee that it is.
I would prefer to do something a little immoral about overpopulation now, than something extremely immoral in 40 years.
Don't deny what I say til you read this
edit on 18-1-2013 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by alfa1
Having taken the time to read the report this "news" is based on, I'm not even sure why it is newsworthy.
The report says the world should...
a) have less children
b) lower consumption in the rich countries
...to which the Prince says this is an "urgent and timely reminder".
So, why the "draconian" sensationalism?
To me it looks like common sense.
Originally posted by streetfightingman
What the heck is with all of this "we" and "global" and "initiative" and "central" and "international" and "standard" and "average american" terminology?edit on 18-1-2013 by streetfightingman because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by greatfriendbadfoe
Less population = less rats in the maze = less crazy behaviour - - - and the problem is?
Have people thought that by feeding the millions in African camps, they are keeping the females just above 10% body fat?
Males, sitting around with nothing to do, so they copulate. No birth control hence more in said camp.
If the females were permitted to have their body fat drop to below 10%, they would not ovulate. Bottom line. Withing 1 generation, there would actually be less in these camps.
But it's much more humane to trickle feed them so that they can breed up to increase the number of people in misery.
OR
Assist with artificial birth control and get the same results. Less people living ............... strike that,..................... existing in misery without the need to starve a generation of females.
Yeah, Charles definately has the wrong idea here. To all of those who will jump up and down about his concept, do you agree with millions starving in these refugee camps? Do you agree with dropping the body fat of females below 10%?
If so, then your humanitarian arguments, imo, don't hold water.
If not, then isn't artificial birth control a humane way to go?