Should the Planet be depopulated

reply to post by pepsi78


Yes, the logisitcs of enforcing regulations on reproduction world wide, would be VERY difficult to enforce. I agree, that it really is as simple as limiting the number of children people can have. However, while simple, it is also impossible.

Religion, ignorance and selfishness will win out. So you have the rational people that quit breeding, while the religious, selfish and ignorant take over the world.

Originally posted by Throbber
Maybe. maybe not.

The question is whether we can grow plants underground - there's still an awful amount of earth down there that we haven't even begun to resource prospect (i'm talking about going deeper than your average oil or gas field here).

Of course we can. With artificial lighting and hydroponic watering/nutrient systems that don't even rely on soil in the natural sense..

And the plant yields more, bigger, better too. So you'd have excellent food and medicine..

Originally posted by DeadFlagBlues
reply to post by TheoOne

 

Bring a serious aspect of the discussion to the table.

Here's a serious aspect: For those who would advocate killing, as I've seen posted "India and China" due to their large populations, release that most of the people in these nations live off of FAR less resources than Westerners do. Typically, the rural people in these nations live off of the land they work themselves, by their own hands. Oftentimes, they don't have electricity, so they also consume far less energy than Westerners do as well. If you truly advocate killing off large portions of the human population, than you are essentially arguing for your own destruction. The Indian cotton farmer who lives in a primitive home without plumbing or electricity, or the Chinese family who farms their own rice, also without modern conveinences, doesn't have nearly the same impact on this Earth as you do. So if you want the most bang for your buck, kill off the Western World.

That being said, inhabitants of the "third world" are also less educated, less skilled and produce less wealth in their lives. Producing wealth IS important in our modern era, as the enriching of a national economy goes rather far in improving the lives of many, rather than a few. Thus, people should either: A)Kill off the industrialized world and return to a more primtive state of existance, or B) Realize that harsh choices must be made to ensure mankind's survival.

Harsh options would include things such as more extreme genetic modification of livestock and agriculture in order to optimize food production, deforresting woodland in order to create more production fields, massive investment in new energy production research, chemical/pharmaceutical development, etc. The Earth can be used more efficiently to support mankind, it just takes a strong constitution to carry it out. If its a choice between the Florida panther and humans, its not really a choice at all.

For those who hold everlasting faith that the Earth will one day "shake us off", and believe mankind to be a "virus", mankind hasn't come this far because we can't adapt and conquer the challenges presented to us. Other concepts that can be found in "The Matrix" include this one:

"There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept".

Mankind, like any other living entity, will fight tooth and nail to survive. If that means living on a planet that is devoid of life besides that which is necessary for our survival, I believe we'd be willing to accept that.

Generally speaking the world tries to keep us in balance with famine, disease, and war. It's amazing that even with those mechanisms still working ( in rather good fashion) and the efforts of our psychotic gov'ts - we still have a problem.
What kills me more is the Right to Lifers stance that once their born- their need for concern is over. In fact in many ways they are bound & determine tha tany existence must met the trials of JOB. From the Crack baby in ICU to the Hospice patient reeling in pain every minute of the day- they could give a crap. "Hey you're alive- what else do you want??"
They are against any form of birth control, militant about abortion, against stem cell research & therapies, against medical marijuana/ 'cocktails', against Death with Dignity, Bipolar on the Death sentence- depends on who & what was involved.Actually I'd like to see their reaction to mandatory Vasectomy added to the table (new tune boys?) These 'people' have no interest in human life- they are only interested in a Saviors life. They don't even have enough faith to believe that their 'god' could guarantee the Savior would be born if He deems it so. Oh Ye of little Faith! I'm an atheist (basically), and all I can think is , if they're right and I'm wrong...."the balls on these people?"
if I was a god I might be a little put out by their arrogance on a number of subject reagrding MY creations and designs. hedge my bet here- Dude it's perfect!!!sorry we've screwed it up so bad.Give us another chance we'll make it up to you.

reply to post by BloodthirstyCapitalist


I don't mean to be rude but have you ever seen a dog chase his tail and never catch it or realize his actions? I don't see any definitive point other than disputing the black and white area of "Harsh decisions" and plowing fields.

We have a misunderstanding, and I will gladly answer your question as long you you give me one or two that aren't confusing or contradictory.

Originally posted by Solarskye
On a serious note and considering how many trees and plants we've destroyed to accomodate human lifestyles we better come up with better solutions. The basic needs for humans is food, water and shelter. Everything else can go. I don't see people giving up their lifestyles to make room for more people. Look at the history of the past for depopulation. The black plague, influenza, aids is pretty big. Hitler and his killings of jews was big. But in this day and age it will probably be a pandemic like some manmade airborn virus that's accidently gets let loose into the air. But to intentionally depopulate humans is evil and wrong, but what can we do?

It's not evil or wrong to have a selfless attitude when it comes to population control. Once again, nobody (that is serious or knowledgeable) is recommending mass murder or extermination. There are far more humane, noninvasive ways of achieving a limited population.

Thank you for the replies thus far, and may I say to the emotionally challenged this thread is not about mass murder or letting a virus loose in India or China.

In the Western World populations are fairly stable or have zero growth in the developing World there are population explosions, therefore with that in mind can the Earth sustain the projected 1 billon increase every 20 years. Wars, Famine and Natural Disasters have little if any impact on Global populations so one cannot rely on them to control numbers.

Just stop and think when you go to the supermarket and see the abundance of food each week but try to imagine going one week and there is no food. Most of use give little thought or consideration to the food supply chain or what would happen if it became broken by too much demand over insuffiecient supply.

This Planet does have finite resources if we like it or not, just like an island can only sustain a given population the same applies to the Planet Earth so with that in mind and emotions under control what are our options.

Our planet has many natural devices for stopping overpopulation. Disease and war are some of them. If we see our planet is dying then those who love the planet will sacrifice themselves just like the Aztecs did.

This is actually a pretty tough topic for sure. It's no secret that the planet is already overpopulated. And the more we overpopulate, the more we cause deforestation, pollution, and an overall depletion of the planet's natural resources. No way around it. That is just how it is.

I would certainly not be an advocate of killing off any amount of the existing population. That would be wrong. Neither would I support any government mandated law that states who can or can't have children or how many children the citizenry can have.

Also, I find it odd that there are some people who think that improved technology will help us achieve a better equilibrium with our environment. Especially considering that technology has been helping humankind do the exact opposite since the dawn of the industrial revolution.

The only way to achieve a better equilibrium with the environment is for humankind to have a change of heart. This can only take place when we all find better things to do with our time than make babies and try to get rich. It will require a serious shift in our consciousness....a real change in our hearts and minds. It is the only way.

[edit on 10/29/2007 by Lightmare]

Originally posted by jpm1602
Fear not. Mother Earth will see to it. The failure of the bee populations to CCD is the first step in the process. Einstein said 50 yrs ago (and for the life of me I don't understand why) that if the bees died so would we 5 yrs later.

according to snopes, that quote originated in a 1994 pamphlet put together by european bee keepers who were protesting low cost imported honey and high cost sugar (bee food). nothing has yet been found to link einstein to the quote.

on topic: i don't agree with any form of population reduction by murder. population reduction by birth control is another matter. however, it would have to be handled extraordinarily expertly to avoid a complete die off.

that said, i don't really agree with telling people how many kids they can have. we should focus on better housing, agriculture, infrastructure, etc., and eventually space colonization.

s

Well I doubt it is possible to inforce the depopulation of the planet,

Don't worry we only have a few years left, eat, drink, make babies and be merry., not necessarily in that order.

Originally posted by Techsnow
I believe with new technology will come better ways to support a growing population on the planet. Imagine indoor factory farms spread out across the moon or an ocean full of wind tunnels producing infinite energy... the possibilities are endless.

And when the population hits 20 billion or so, there's always Soylent Green.

Anyone who supports exterminating fellow human beings with unnatural means is probably on the verge of loosing their own soul.

I think we can solve the problem with a sterilizing pandemic, so nobody would actually have to be killed. But if that doesn't happen, at a certain point, the alternative to culling is widespread starvation and slow, agonizing death. Would you prefer that?

Originally posted by BloodthirstyCapitalist
Here's a serious aspect: For those who would advocate killing, as I've seen posted "India and China" due to their large populations, release that most of the people in these nations live off of FAR less resources than Westerners do.

Well, that's true at the moment. But that's because these countries are currently dirt poor. Bring a higher standard of living to those countries, however, which is generally considered a good thing, and you combine a huge population with rapidly increasing resource usage. That certainly doesn't bode well for the future.

It's not the evils of our wars that will eventually do us in, it's our kindness and charity and trying to make everyone happy. That will be the end of us.

If the world were to be depopulated, what would be the requirements people would have to meet in order to be allowed to survive?

Or, in the case of those advocating passive depopulation (in other words, the regulation of reproduction,) how would we go about chosing who is allowed to have children and who isn't?

A major problem with passive depopulation is that it's only socially feasible in developed nations. People in developing and underdeveloped countries simply cannot survive without having large numbers of children. Bare with me while I try to explain!

In developed countries, we have the ability to rely on our developed society to help us live within our means. When a person in a developed nation has a child, the raising of that child is delegated to schools, day cares, and so-on. When the child becomes an adult, they delegate the support of their lives to people whom they purchase things from, they often earn a living by being paid for their service to other people, and they rely on the government to keep them safe from the evils of the world. As that adult reaches old age, there is an extensive medical industry to care for them and the government uses taxes on the population to help support them once they can no longer support themselves.

Because developed countries offer an advanced society to support the people within it, children are not a necessity. Our children do not rely soley on their own families to raise them. Our adults do not rely soley on their own families to provide for them. Our elderly do not rely soley on their own families to care for them. They don't need to.

But the so-called Third World paints a different picture. The governments often struggle just to support themselves, let alone do anything for the population. Schools may exist, but often only teach the most basic knowledge. So who raises the children? Why, the child's families! The larger the family, the more people raising the child.

When that child becomes an adult, how do they make a living? They work to suit their own needs and provide for their own families. How do they get this work done? Maybe they do make some extra income from their work, but they can't just buy everything they need. Often their families must fill that demand. Once again, a large family is required to support itself. So multiple children are a requirement. It's not a consideration of population or even passing on one's genes - it's an issue of supporting oneself.

And if that adult lives into old age, there is no Social Security. There are no government pensions or retirement funds built up by decades of working for other people. The only people to care for them now are the children they had earlier, who are now adults. Once again, the more offspring they have, the better off they are.

If you attempted to regulate the reproduction of people in these societies, you will be murdering their people slowly and indirectly. China imposed laws regulationg the number of allowable children, and though they eventually began a steady rise, we could never even begin to calculate how many people died and suffered for that to happen.

The developed nations will fare quite well through this, however. I know of very few people here in the U.S., career welfare collectors aside, whose ability to survive would actually come into question if their number of children were limited. I imagine the situation is the same in other "First World" nations.

Meanwhile, natural resource consumption will hardly be affected. Like someone else said, the developed nations are the ones using up most of those resources. No problems would be solved at all for us, but massive new problems would come into play elsewhere.

Passive population control will only lead to one thing: Increasing the gap in living standards between the rich nations and the poor ones. Everything that is sickly unequal about our world today will be even worse. Clearly this is not the answer to anything.

Active population control opens up an even bigger can of worms. What happens if those being exterminated refuse to go quietly? A world wide civil war? Humanity would be set back centuries, not just in population but in development as well. Our species may survive, but in a stunted form of existance that we can currently prevent, if we try.

And who would go? Who would live? Do we chose by education? Intelligence? Appearance? Physical fitness? Genetic health? And of course, how do would you actively depopulate the world without triggering its total destruction?

The biggest problem is that the survivors would be those least deserving of the title. Those who commit the genocide and do the killing, ensuring that the human race survives but only as a race of violent, heartless barbarians; they would be the ones to carry on in humanity's name. No thank you.

It would be great if we had a population of half a billion or less. The thing is, we don't. We have a population of over six billion. The population is not the problem; the resources are. Eliminating the population will only delay the problem until the population rises again, or the resources run out anyways.

Instead, we must focus on sustainability for the current and future population of the Earth. We must find ways to recycle everything. Garbage, sewage, emissions, waste - all of it must be turned into something useful, somehow. We must find replacements for fossile fuels; not small-scale supplements, but replacements. We have to stop worrying about the boogeyman called "frankenfood" and use our science to make food sources more plentiful.

And once we've done that, we can't stop there. Eventually we'll still run out of room and resources. So we must find ways to live elsewhere. The only solution is expansion. Can we live in space? Under the ocean? Underground?

And once those options are exhausted, would be be advanced enough by then to live in colonies on the moon, or Mars? Some predict that a blimp-like colony could surive in the upper atmosphere of Venus... a hundred years from now, perhaps we could pull it off.

The bottom line is, the human race can go three ways. It can be destroyed completely by exhausting its own ability to survive. It can be shrunk, but at the expense of everything that's good in this world. Or, it can grow, and support that growth by expansion.

The real challenge isn't depopulating the world, it's uniting it to work towards its own survival.

[edit on 29-10-2007 by mattifikation]

Again emotions are replacing logic, its simple we will have do do something either sooner or later, harsh choices will have to be made if we like it or not.

If we had the means to leave this planet in seriously large numbers that may help but that not going to happen for a long time.

Even if all the money spent on military budgets was used to stabalise populations etc. this still would not be enough. Again the planet can only support a given population. Many parts of the Earth are incapable of supporting massive populations and even if you could make them habitable you would not be able to feed such a population in such environments.

You know someone mentioned eugenics, try and make fair policies on the can O worms.

Can you say Smallpox?

No, I'm not going by emotion. I could give a rat's asterisk about individual deaths. We all die eventually. The difference is in what causes those deaths. If we die naturally, that's fine. If we die trying to make our world better, that's heroic. When people die at the hands of other people, it ruins the legitamacy of our entire race and threatens the survival of our species.

Logic dictates that we cannot control our population without sacrificing everything which makes us human. What good would our survival do if it meant we all had to be genocidal murderers living in squallor and despair? None at all.

I believe that some people here are casting aside that logical thought because they fear that other people will use up resources they want for themselves.

You want to make a difference? Instead of advocating eugenics like Hitler, how about doing your own part to prolong our resources so that we might last long enough to have time to expand? Laziness, I suspect, is the reason. You'd rather tell 6 billion people to either die or stop reproducing than change your lightbulbs and plant a garden.



[edit on 29-10-2007 by mattifikation]

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Again emotions are replacing logic, its simple we will have do do something either sooner or later, harsh choices will have to be made if we like it or not.

If we had the means to leave this planet in seriously large numbers that may help but that not going to happen for a long time.

Even if all the money spent on military budgets was used to stabalise populations etc. this still would not be enough. Again the planet can only support a given population. Many parts of the Earth are incapable of supporting massive populations and even if you could make them habitable you would not be able to feed such a population in such environments.

"...harsh choices will have to be made if we like it or not." that's a canard.

at this point, any harsh choices will be the kind that will be harsh for corporations, not so much for individuals. ie - we have produced enough "stuff". now we must put our vast energies toward sustaining our "stuff" and making a livable world for all. that is very bad news for the corporatocracy. we should break through on the other side with a new paradigm of leisure.

s

reply to post by magicmushroom


its not a matter of should the planet be depopulated but what the nwo/babylon the great of the book of revelation18 is prophesied to bring about whether we agree with it or not.by the time they get thru starting a war they lose control of till it blows up in their faces when the present god of this world---their real master satan takes over -----the worlds population will be reduced somewhere between 50-10% left over.revelation6:8-1/4 die and 9:18-1/3 of whats left dies revelation 14:20 another 200 million + die.according to zechariah 13:8 2/3 of the jews in the land of israel die and of the english speaking "lost 10 tribes" of israel 9/10 die.amos 5:3.whats left of earths population will never be allowed to wage another war again against those living in peace-----the chinese and the russians will give it a couple more tries after this "mother of all wars" but will be decimated by the G-D "aliens" ruling this world at that time.