Prince William warns that there are too many people in the world

a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

people should not be moving into City areas anymore, they should be moving to rural areas

hell no, they should stay the hell where they are. where i live is still considered rural, we moved here in 74. when we got here our nearest neighbor was a mile down the rd. could go out on the main hwy and play on it for hours and never see a car.
now the nearest neighbor is a 1/4 mile, and the only reason there's none any closer, is because we won't sell any land to the developers like our old sell out neighbors did. also when you pull up to the stop sign on the main rd, if you don't have to wait for traffic to go by your lucky.

now we're the only patch of green around.

a reply to: alldaylong

Britain won The Battle Of Britain in 1940. After that Britain was never in fear of German Invasion. The U.S. wasn't even in the war in 1940. Europe owes more to The Soviet Union that The U.S. for the defeat of Nazi Germany. You over inflate your importance .

yeah you keep telling your fellow "tiny islanders" that....An actual man of stature had a different opinion
www.csmonitor.com...

To Churchill, this meant one thing above all: victory. Britain was no longer alone. Finally, the US would enter the war. “Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful,” he wrote in his own history of World War II.

saved and thankful....in his own words.....

William is just taking after his father who is always banging on about his own agenda. None of us Brits take much notice of the Royals, although Harry seems a regular and genuine bloke and is well respected.

Don't get me started about Prince Andrew, though. Utter parasite.

Rather hypocritical of William though as he has his third sprog on the way so hardly leading by example, is he?

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie
a reply to: TruthxIsxInxThexMist

people should not be moving into City areas anymore, they should be moving to rural areas

hell no, they should stay the hell where they are. where i live is still considered rural, we moved here in 74. when we got here our nearest neighbor was a mile down the rd. could go out on the main hwy and play on it for hours and never see a car.
now the nearest neighbor is a 1/4 mile, and the only reason there's none any closer, is because we won't sell any land to the developers like our old sell out neighbors did. also when you pull up to the stop sign on the main rd, if you don't have to wait for traffic to go by your lucky.

now we're the only patch of green around.

Seriously too many in the city... trust me. And the councils want to build more... can you believe that? Mainly for the immigrants and their families.

a reply to: neoholographic

We also have too many Kings, Queens and princes

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: neoholographic

He does kind of have a point. When I went to the Philippines,there's a huge overpopulation issue due to its high birth rate. Streets are very crowded and it is hard to drive there if your not familiar with the streets.

i have to assume you never left the cities. there is plenty of open land in the provinces outside of the cities. and the crowded cities are not so much due to birth rate, more the fact everyone goes to the cities in hopes of better jobs, and a better life. since of course most good jobs and industry are located in the cities, especially Manila. i know people who came to Manila from the southernmost islands to find work. as for the driving issue. what do you expect with the extreme high population density of over 14,000 people per square kilometer. compared to cities like Toronto with a density of about 4,000 people per square kilometer. and very few roads really usable to travel on. no where near the amount of roads found in the much less populated cities like Toronto. add both together and it's no wonder Manila has the worst traffic in the world. and a huge portion of that traffic problem is all the buses. average wait time between buses is a few seconds. spread those jobs outside of the city and it would not be nearly so crowded anywhere

there is more than enough room for many more people on the earth. but it is due to poor planning. like building cities on the best farmland. and congregating most of the decent jobs in those cities. so that everyone tends to move to the cities for work, that is the real issue.

anyone find it ironic that it is the rich and powerful people that hoard most of the world's money supply, land and everything else, that are the most vocal about the world being overpopulated? but hey, if there were less people, they could have even more.

here is an old, but great idea. those who seriously think the world is overpopulated, help the problem, by removing themselves as an example to the rest of us.

a reply to: neoholographic

Prince William is right , it might be nice if he stopped breeding to show a lead.
His Grandfather is also right , our growing population puts a strain on wildlife as habitat is lost , we gonna need a bigger planet if we are all to survive or control the population growth.... stark choice.

Prince William warns that there are too many people in the world

No little irony there. The dude has three of his own.

a reply to: neoholographic

If Wills had re phrased that to there are to many morons in the the world, now that I could agree with. Or at least to many self centred wilfully ignorant people.

a reply to: generik

I have been outside the cities. While yes there's a lot of space, if the birth rate is left unchecked, there will be a situation similar to Soylent Green.

originally posted by: EternalShadow

technology has created dependency rather than freedom.

This is one of the truest and most insightful thoughts ever posted here IMO.
For all the convenience and freedom technology has brought us most of us have squandered the benefits.

Overpopulation is less of an issue than the technologies we use and the pollutants we inject in to the environment. Many of these compounds cause death and mutation among species and linger for centuries before degrading. It is so bad that there is no spot left on the planet still in it's natural state.

The good news is that nature is very good at adapting and recreating to fill voids in the environment. We need to stop the release of the most toxic compounds and find better industrial methods. Nuclear power and radiation is a whole other can of worms.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: EternalShadow
Your main point is limiting reproduction worldwide, or just in the "problem areas"?

Yep. The population in the developed world has stabilised. This is a combination of the empowerment of women who can choose, education, things like improved child mortality, and the rapid change to societal norms.

The "problem areas" are countries and cultures where women cannot choose and where public and personal healthcare is backwards. The Middle East and East, West and Central Africa are areas where there is uncontrolled population growth.

I think Prince William is right. It stands to reason that the population of the world is too high when the natural environment is being destroyed and wasted.

I would definitely argue that they are NOT problem areas' except to those that want to cull the human population, our nations have as you call it stabilized but in fact that is totally wrong they have not stabilized at all and are in birth rate decline, our people have been POISONED with compounds designed to reduce our birth rate, this was easy to do as we have central water sources and our food is all processed but in the third world they could not implement this elitist plan to control the peon's because people live hand to mouth, drink from dirty stream's and even in spite of the choleric bacteria and worse, the unmerciful high infant mortality and the short life expectancy there population's still grew, why well obvious really they were not poisoned like we were.

I am a victim of this, YOU are a victim of this and indeed nearly every one on this site is a victim of this population control poisoning that we have been exposed to.

Those compound's are NOT accidental, they mimic male hormones in female's and female hormones in Males, affect RNA/DNA replication and repair and definitely affect the DNA during mitosis, they therefore affect the infant in the womb as well as the adult, they affect behavior, sexuality and general psychological state, they make men less aggressive and more passive and woman more butch and they likely increase cancer risk or even cause it.

I was talking about his very issue with someone else on another website, not actually a conspiracy site so I shall copy and paste my response to them there.

And I quote from my own comment on that other site

You would be surprised, let's just say there are people whom want to cull the population of the west, think on this over the past 50 years male fertility in the west has fallen to only about a quarter of it's previous level's, water and food is polluted with compound's that act like female hormone's in men and male hormones in woman and affect the fetus while it is in the womb affecting it's behavior and messing up it's biochemistry.

Some of these compound's even affect the RNA/DNA replication process and damage gene's during normal DNA repair and also during cellular mitosis (when the cell's split into two new cell's a process which in the fetus stage is very rapid and of course how we grow) which as you can imagine for a tiny fetus is quite a drastic affect in some cases.

Some of these compound's are indeed accidental such as those from cosmetic's and also those such as PCB's from plastic's but other's are highly suspect especially when you remember that in the 1950's there were scare story's about humanity's future and how were they going to feed all of those people which may have resulted in plan's being drawn up to limit our population through chemical neutering/castration.

Of course they could only attack the western population at that time as we had the infrastructure to make such a plan feasible such as reservoir's feeding our city's with water, a central water source that could easily be used to administer these toxin's to the population against there will, without there consent and without there knowledge.

Meanwhile in Africa and other undeveloped regions' of the world this was not possible, people lived by there whit's striving for every morsel they ate, working hard for each and every bite and there was no such infrastructure, people ate what they grew or caught, they drank from stream's often full of choleric bacteria and had a high mortality rate BUT they were not chemically neutered and so there population exploded while the developed worlds population started to fall.

This was an unplanned side affect of there method of neutering the world as they could only attack the developed country's and so they rolled out vaccination program's, released engineered diseases one notorious example of which backfired and never had the intended effect of wiping out the third world population which they had envisioned, I shall not say the name of that disease but it appeared in the 1960's and the 1970's and has grown steadily as a very infamous STI.

With this failure certain proxy's such as the Gate's foundation actually tried to slip chemical castration to the masses of the under developed country's hidden within free vaccination's they were giving out.
21stcenturywire.com...
rense.com...
www.thenewamerican.com...
www.standardmedia.co.ke...

So what they were caught doing in Africa with there vaccination's AND have definitely done to other under developed regions of the world was actually an after thought AFTER they had already done this en mass to the population of the west and perhaps also to China.

a reply to: shooterbrody

I will agree with you on that definitely, had the US not provided support to the UK we would have lost the war in as little as five day's if the German's had managed to complete there strangle hold on our supply route's and of course Historically accurate to point out that had we not also provided Russia with logistic support - the North Atlantic Convoy's they also would have definitely fallen and would not have been able to hold out, our support helped them to hold out long enough to get there shattered production back into operation and to get there own logistic's functional again after the NAZI's had initially shattered it at the opening of operation Barbarossa, so without us the Russian's would have fallen, without the US Britain would have fallen and Europe would today be a Nazi free range zone with Poland turned into a big Forrest for Nazi hunting expedition's (they really did intend to do that to Poland as well as to reintroduce a eugenically re-bred extinct wild oxen to hunt).

a reply to: neoholographic

If the Prince feels that strongly about there being too many people,
I suggest he get a vasectomy.

a reply to: EternalShadow

Luckily (or not), I have no power over global policy... the logistics are a mess and any ideas are fine w me, it's just that we're in serious poop right now and if we don't change something, fast, we are as good as extinct.

And I was going to add "imo" after extinct, but it's not my opinion... it's the educated hypotheses of a vast majority of climate scientists and ecologists.

But only psychos want draconian measures.

So says the prince who is about to be a father to a THIRD child. It's high time the hierarchy changed. The wrong people are at the top. In fact, there should no longer be a top.

originally posted by: EternalShadow

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: EternalShadow

I agree a great deal with what you said pretty much bang on you could have added that the number of people are actually tipping the scales to make the way things are less profitable for them so they need to balance things in their favor so they can satisfy their greed... like that is possible for them...
Oh yeah and I would reword dependency to enslavement...

The TRUE reason to say the world is overpopulated is that technology is making the common worker on an industrial scale, obsolete. These corporations have no inclination to pay a fair wage, either stateside or globally, and as robotics and machines replace the average punchcard worker, what is the need of those replaced?

It's going to cost a lot to keep people in step with social leaps and bounds..the overpopulation equates to "NON ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL" who merely exist and expect benefits to stay alive in order to continue to due so without the ability to do anything much more than exist. Idle minds may start revolutions....or conceptualize a threat to well established "institutions".

That is where "hemorrhaging" money comes into play for governments and corporations.

Why keep you alive?

Sucks, but believe it.

I don't think it has to mean no value--and extermination. An alternative is lower the pollution/cost of living by concentrating people into smaller living spaces. So many people use computers now, what do they care about living space anyway? Feed and cloth and care with as little as needed. New technologies will also keep costs down. Fusion might--for example--significantly cut costs. Demand people attend school for most of their life. In fact, most of their schooling will occur on their computer(s). A small highly skilled work force. Humans will be changed by AI and augmenting technologies. Population will fall as natural reproduction no longer exists. Children will probably no longer have set parents. I think there'll be dramatic changes in our psychology to enable these things too. And much of that will occur in childhood development.

The more we keep our value up, the slower government will intrude. The more we fail, the faster it'll be. Historically, it seems government has only grown in its share of the total GDP. Why should its footprint shrink? I think it'll only get bigger. The question is how rapidly it grows.

EDIT: I think people in the future won't care as much about big homes and fancy cars. Not when they have computers and augmented reality. You can be a king and live in a castle and none of it's real. Your clothes don't even have to be real. You can see what you want to see. This of course doesn't mean those things won't or can't be real, but it reduces their priority. Programmable matter is another thing too. A cup that changes into a bowl? A camera that changes into binoculars? A shirt that changes to be a scarf? A wall that becomes a window? I think all that's likely.

originally posted by: starwarsisreal
a reply to: neoholographic

He does kind of have a point. When I went to the Philippines,there's a huge overpopulation issue due to its high birth rate. Streets are very crowded and it is hard to drive there if your not familiar with the streets.

I propose birth control should be given there to gradually solve the overpopulation issue.

I hate to say this but the Third World may need a two child policy if they want to curb overpopulation. Only when the overpopulation crisis is over when they can finally end the policy.

The reason they have large numbers of children is because there is no social services and they need children to take care of them in their old age. Europe is more densely population than Africa. Some parts of London have 11,000 people per square kilometer. In the Scottish Highlands, there are 8 people per square kilometer.

Poppycock......there is an absurd level of global mismanagement of human population.....we could move people to optimal places enmasse and reduce damage to our planet exponentially......but then we destroy shipping and energy consumption which cripples the global elites money supply which they use to enslave everyone.

We could do 30-40 billion people on earth if properly managed.

But the Prince knows full well that soon there will be massive depopulation.