Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why Artificial Depopulation Will Never Happen

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
It's an axiom amongst social scientists that a group of minds is better than one mind. The speed of our technological and scientific revolution is a simple matter of arithmetic. The more minds you have working on technical issues, the faster those issues will be worked out.

If science ever hopes to unravel the mysteries of the human brain, matter, gravity, and a medley of other natural secrets, it'll take more and more minds.

Depopulation would be self defeating. It would hamstring the technological and scientific advances mankind has so far made. Ergo, depopulation as a government strategy is nonsensical. They would never do it.




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astrocyte
It's an axiom amongst social scientists that a group of minds is better than one mind. The speed of our technological and scientific revolution is a simple matter of arithmetic. The more minds you have working on technical issues, the faster those issues will be worked out.

If science ever hopes to unravel the mysteries of the human brain, matter, gravity, and a medley of other natural secrets, it'll take more and more minds.

Depopulation would be self defeating. It would hamstring the technological and scientific advances mankind has so far made. Ergo, depopulation as a government strategy is nonsensical. They would never do it.


Of course they would, if it was subtle enough. More people are born each day than die each day anyway. It wouldn't be hard to subtley decrease the birth rate as to make the current population growth easier to control

Just google teen birth rates for the past 20 years. It's been on a steady decline. Do you think that teenagers are just having less sex, or more protected sex? Hell no, if anything there are more teenagers having more sex than ever these days. Yet the statistics don't lie. Every graph you look at in the image section of google when you type in teen birth rate, is a decilne.

There was this one conspiracy theory that I read about on here years ago, about how Monsanto and other corporations are in cahoots with the government and they include a chemical in their pesticide on corn, so that all corn products (aka everything, corn syrup, gum base, etc...) would have this chemical in it. The chemical itself attached to the sperm cells of men, so to make them subtley heavier, thereby slightly reducing the chance it will make it to the egg.

Now of course this is only a subtle way, because is only reduces the chance ever so slightly, but it gives the government enough off the edge that they can keep up with the population growth better.

I'm not saying I necessarily believe in the corn conspiracy, but I don't not believe in it either, haha.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astrocyte
It's an axiom amongst social scientists that a group of minds is better than one mind. The speed of our technological and scientific revolution is a simple matter of arithmetic. The more minds you have working on technical issues, the faster those issues will be worked out.

If science ever hopes to unravel the mysteries of the human brain, matter, gravity, and a medley of other natural secrets, it'll take more and more minds.

Depopulation would be self defeating. It would hamstring the technological and scientific advances mankind has so far made. Ergo, depopulation as a government strategy is nonsensical. They would never do it.


I tend to agree with ya but shhhhh... That's not the mainstream view around here some days. It can be brutal to question a basic pillar of conspiracy faith.

It is funny tho.... The same people who breathlessly describe a "TPTB" with near supernatural powers of organization, control and overall manipulation are the same idiotic buffoons that can't apparently see that their OWN money means little in a world where people don't exist in numbers to perceive the value. They have no respect when the people to give it aren't there to offer it any longer.

One goal is mutually exclusive of the other ....but again.. shh... logic is a brutal thing at times.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
you know, they are killing off scientists faster than any other group of people...
just sayin...



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Lowering the population of the world is necessary, but I do not approve of their methods. You are right OP, who chooses who will survive.

There are more than one group that are doing this and I do not think that these groups are fully aware that they are being targeted. It will be interesting.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
how many people have died in wars in the last 50 years 100+ million then add all the ones who starved to death in africa and china and elsewhere another 100+ million if most of them had children you can add another billion to the population .

wars are a good thing poison the middle east with radiation alter the weather and it keeps the cattle busy fixing the mess and it makes you MONEY at the same time .

make the cattle sick and collect on the medicine plus it keeps people in a job



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:49 PM
link   
double post sorry
edit on 8/7/13 by geobro because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


That's actually not true. Once artificial intelligence is a viable option a computer will essentially be able to solve every problem put to it quickly and continue working 24/7. It will be able to build a smarter computer that will then be able to solve problems even quicker and eventually the machine "cluster" as we'll call it will work 24/7 for no wage...it won't complain....and it will have the "thinking potential" of 10,000,000,000 human minds.

Game. Set. Match.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 


The assertion that the government of any western nation has the power to devise
a strategy to reduce the population of the world is where the argument fails.

It would require a global government, lead by ideology and not democratic legitimacy
that could survive over many generations and therefore be totally unaccountable for its actions.






posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astrocyte
It's an axiom amongst social scientists that a group of minds is better than one mind. The speed of our technological and scientific revolution is a simple matter of arithmetic. The more minds you have working on technical issues, the faster those issues will be worked out.

If science ever hopes to unravel the mysteries of the human brain, matter, gravity, and a medley of other natural secrets, it'll take more and more minds.

Depopulation would be self defeating. It would hamstring the technological and scientific advances mankind has so far made. Ergo, depopulation as a government strategy is nonsensical. They would never do it.


From a scientific standpoint, you are right. Especially with the advent of the world wide web linking millions of people together. You have a question, you can probably find an answer on the internet. And the more people you have growing up to become scientists, inventors, chemists, engineers and so forth, the higher chance of technological progress you have in the future.

However, from a realistic standpoint, you are wrong. This is because our planet has a fixed amount of available resources. Be it food, fuel, land, minerals, etc. The more people you have, the more resources are consumed annually.

As population continues to increase exponentially, the faster we are going to run out of resources. More land will need to be cleared and turned into farm land. More land will need to be cleared and turned into housing. More land will have to be exploited for natural resources such as timber, gas and precious metals.

Without population control in the future, we are probably doomed. Unless we can finally exploit natural resources from space and move away from using oil, coal and natural gas.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by allenidaho
 


The more educated people are the less children they have.

And as life expectance is extended exponentially this leave only one conclusion... the population will eventually reach zero given enough time... and the only thing that will be left is technology.

There is no need to kill anyone. In fact.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:24 PM
link   
The government would never do something nonsensical?

Hahahahahahahahahah!

But I digress. It's not the government, it is eliteists who want to depopulate. They may have a point considering the limited resources of the planet. If the population keeps increasing we will hit the point where there will be not enough water and food to support everyone, if we haven't already reached it.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Esotarious
 





Once artificial intelligence is a viable option a computer will essentially be able to solve every problem put to it quickly and continue working 24/7.


Maybe in the year 2300 CE.

Right now our best computers are no match for the mind boggling complexity of the human brain. Put it this way: Our brains have 100 Billion neurons. Each neuron has between 1000 and 10,000 synaptic connections. Do the math. 100,000,000,000 X 10,000. That is a mind bogglingly enormous number.

No computer on earth has such complexity.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by allenidaho
 





From a scientific standpoint, you are right. Especially with the advent of the world wide web linking millions of people together. You have a question, you can probably find an answer on the internet. And the more people you have growing up to become scientists, inventors, chemists, engineers and so forth, the higher chance of technological progress you have in the future


It's up for debate whether we've gone beyond our planets ability to sustain a human population of 7,000,000,000.

I never meant to say we could go on reproducing, as if this weren't a planet with a limited space. Eventually, I agree, there might be some need to curtail population so that we don't get too large. My point was that human beings are an indispensable intellectual resource. We grow when we work together, and the more of us, the better.

Just imagine how much faster things will speed up when the middle east, asia and africa join the scientific enterprise.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
If we are to believe the current discourse on this subject only the wealthy "Illuminati" bloodlines will survive. How long before population genetics kick in and these lines die out due to birth defect and such?


I really do not believe this topic is true, at least not in the manner in which it is presented. Will the DuPont family clean the toilets of the Rothschilds?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by cry93
 


We are only looking at technology that is available to the public . We do not really have any idea what suppressed technology is out there waiting to be used in the aftermath. They may have advanced cloning or robotics , gene manipulation etc. They probably believe they will live forever at some point.

Besides the goal is not total annihilation just a manageable populace in contained regions. 500 million we hear sometimes. They don't want 500 million geniuses to challenge them they want to create 2 or 3 classes genetically distinct like Morlocks and Eloi or Charles Galton Darwin's "The Next Million Years". At best they envision 3 classes. An elite aristocracy, an auxiliary group ( think the party members in 1984) to manage, and the workers or your gammas from Brave New World. The global genocide is 2 fold . You have death for resource management and you have death for psychological manipulation and indoctrination. You cant have left over free thinkers in the dome cities reminiscing about freedom and diversity etc.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 
I do believe you are wrong in your assumption, for DNA plays a big part of this, say you could off 10% of the worlds populace! That populace has one DNA marker, create a bug that kills them with this DNA marker no one else dies , and them with this DNA marker is a group of people that can not learn , are subject to being sick all the time, and are prone to drug use and crime.

Or say a group of people that have immoral desires, HIV and aids? Who is to say this was not made in some bio lab, for this very reason.

H1N5 and others, that for some reason, have no cure but only infect a select group.

Then there is nature it self that can and does with out selection, kill in mass, the flu of 1918 is a good one of this and there is no known cure and it could come back, When man creates was of doing man in,in mass, Nature will be on top, for it will not be the Nuke, but a bug that will do us all in. but for the here and now here is the way to do it www.labornotes.org... make the cure so expensive no one can get it but the super rich, but they do not get sick from the link

TPP would include aggressive intellectual property rules to protect Big Pharma’s patents and restrict access to generic medicines. The consequences for those unable to afford HIV drugs, for example, especially in poor countries, would include hundreds of thousands of deaths. - See more at: www.labornotes.org...
welcome to the NWO, oh that's right it does not exist.

edit on 9-7-2013 by bekod because: added link, line edit



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 





They would never do it.


And yet we never hear that from them !
edit on 9-7-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Moreover the less worker supply is there the less those seeking workers can leverage those whom apply against each other. Just look at how the aftermath of the black death led to the Magna Carta and the rise of a middle class.

Government would look into population reduction, if the population grows so massive it becomes a serious problem to feed and house it. China has done it. America is far from having that problem.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Astrocyte
 





Depopulation would be self defeating. It would hamstring the technological and scientific advances mankind has so far made. Ergo, depopulation as a government strategy is nonsensical. They would never do it.



so what is war for?

artificial depopulation has been going on since humans began forming communities.





new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join