If given SCIENTIFIC PROOF that the growing population is collapsing mankind, would you control it?

Don't forgot that the powerful elite actually believe that the biggest threat to mankind... is mankind.. They feel that our uncontrollable numbers can cause the collapse of mankind, and currently been involved in different methods to cut the population. Agenda 21 is in the works.... Don't think so? Watch these two clips..

1. www.youtube.com...
2. www.youtube.com...

BUT... the question remains... If you were given SOLID evidence that the growing population WILL collapse mankind, how would you handle it?! These people obviously have their own opinions...
In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Jacques Cousteau

"The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man." - Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller foundation

"...The first task is population control at home. How do we go about it? Many of my colleagues feel that some sort of compulsory birth regulation would be necessary to achieve such control. One plan often mentioned involves the addition of temporary sterilants to water supplies or staple food. Doses of the antidote would be carefully rationed by the government to produce the desired population size." - Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb, p.130-131

"If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." - Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund - quoted in "Are You Ready For Our New Age Future?," Insiders Report, American Policy Center, December '95
\ '96

"Forget sex and watch television to control the number of children you have. Our view is that you should only have the number of children you could support"
- Prime Minister Patrick Manning

"One-fourth of humanity must be eliminated from the social body. We are in charge of God's selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death."
- Psychologist Barbara Marx Hubbard - member and futurist/strategist of Task Force Delta; a United States Army think tank

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
- Ted Turner - CNN founder and UN supporter - quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June '96

"World population needs to be decreased by 50%" Henry Kissinger

" The world today has 6.8 billion people so if we do a really great job on new vaccines... we could lower that by 10-15 percent." Bill Gates

“There is a single theme behind all our work–we must reduce population levels." Thomas Ferguson, State Department Office of Population Affairs

“The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary.” Initiative for the United Nations ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER



[edit on 8-6-2010 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO]

[edit on 8-6-2010 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO]

[edit on 8-6-2010 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO]

[edit on 8-6-2010 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO]

[edit on 8-6-2010 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO]

[edit on 8-6-2010 by monkeySEEmonkeyDO]

Explanation: TPTB are just being Slack and LAZY as they don't want to have to do the hard yards of controlling and paying for all those people!

Personal Disclosure: Overpopulation is a SCAM because TPTB KNOW we have technology that would give us easy access to the high ground of space and the rest of the universe!

I agree that "over-population" is most-likely a scam, BUT if given proof that it's heading towards a definite collapse of mankind, how would you handle it?

Originally posted by OmegaLogos

Explanation: TPTB are just being Slack and LAZY as they don't want to have to do the hard yards of controlling and paying for all those people!

Personal Disclosure: Overpopulation is a SCAM because TPTB KNOW we have technology that would give us easy access to the high ground of space and the rest of the universe!

So true Omega. Love your posts.

I agree that TPTB are just too lazy to deal with the problem basically.

For example, in 1900 the population of the Earth was 1billion. 100 years later, it is almost 7 billion.

What allowed for the population to explode and sustain all of these new people? Technology.

By developing new technologies we can overcome the strains of overpopulation.

For example, the freon refrigerator system allowed food to be kept for weeks rather than days. This lessened the strains on agribusiness and transportation significantly, and allowed them to handle larger volumes of goods because they remained fresh longer.

Another example would be transportation systems. 150years ago the train was invented, and 100years ago the car and airplane were invented.

Due to the development of better transportation, we were able to travel greater distances with higher speeds. This allowed us to get medical care, food, etc quickly thus increasing our life spans and increasing the population capacity of our civilization.

Medical technology has similar effects on a civilization. It increases life expectancy and it increases the population capacity.

What happens when population capacity is reached and no new technologies are entered to quell the negative effects?

We call that squalor.

You think that civilization will collapse due to human overpopulation, but this is actually impossible technically.

Squalor does not cause a civilization to collapse. But it does bring many crappy elements of life into fruition. Disease begins to spread, starvation increases, poverty increases, crime levels increase, etc. This is all due to the effects of squalor.

But simple biology takes care of this problem. When there is not enough food, people die. When disease spreads, people die. ETC.

Organic life has it's only safety mechanism to prevent massive overpopulation. Because we die, and in very easy ways too I might add.

Hell even warfare has acted as a stunt for population growth historically.

I actually feel that the larger the population is, the harder it is to control them, and that's probably why they're for depopulation.

BUT.... If given proof that the growing population is going to cause the collapse of mankind, then I would go public with that information, and let the people make their own decisions on the matter.

I would like to also add this.

That after nano-technology becomes ubiquitous, and space stations are popular resorts, and we have colonized our solar system; that Earth will finally reach a population limit imposed by the very size of the planet.

However with vast underwater cities, or floating cities, we can easily extend this population limit even higher without harming the natural environment of Earth.

The only reason we harm the environment through pollution right now, is because we are WASTEFUL. That pollution is our Waste by-products.

By eliminating Waste, we eliminate Pollution.

By eliminating Pollution, we can live in our cities without harming the surrounding biosphere.

So, my estimates go from Earth's true eventual population capacity to be roughly between 60 billion humans (at no harm to the environment); to possibly up to 120 billion humans.

Anything past 120billion and I think there will be inevitably effects of squalor despite the highly advanced forms of technology that will be available anytime within 5000 years.

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
I actually feel that the larger the population is, the harder it is to control them, and that's probably why they're for depopulation.

BUT.... If given proof that the growing population is going to cause the collapse of mankind, then I would go public with that information, and let the people make their own decisions on the matter.

This is not true though.

Controlling large groups of people is based on strategy and proper execution of that strategy.

A commander with 100 men, and no strategy nor execution, cannot hardly control half of that 100 men.

However a brilliant commander with excellent strategy and flawless execution, can command millions of men effectively.

I do not remember where I read this but,

It is estimated at present growth the population will double in the next 40 years, and that in the next 40 years. This means in 2050 there will be almost 13 billion people on the planet. by 2090 there will be 26 billion people on the planet.

Now that does seem scary. We could wipe ourselves out in only 200 years time.

BUT there are TONS of land we have not used for housing all over the planet. There are vast deserts that could be terraformed.

Most peoples live in concentrated population densities.

There are Tons of resources we are Not using for energy production that would not deplete the planet, like solar, wind and water power.

Yes, this could be bad if mismanaged.. But.. the alarmist and Powers That Be do not want to decrease the population because we are out of options.. they want to decrease the population because smaller groups of people are easier to control.

That's it, plain and simple. The Control Factor.

[edit on 8-6-2010 by JohnPhoenix]

IF given absolute proof that overpopulation was destroying mankind I would tell everyone the truth (if I was in a leadership role). Then I would offer benefits to any couple that agreed to have one or no children. Convicts would be forbidden from having kids, as would those on welfare or unemployment for an extended period of time. Also those with horrible genes would be discouraged from breeding. Harsh but reasonable.

That is why the 'elites' want to depopulate us a bit.

Because they are not brilliant leaders.

They are merely self-interested in their own gains.

A true leader would have no problem with population sizes.

In fact, a true leader with a brilliant strategy would say "The more the merrier!"

reply to post by muzzleflash


wow... 120 billion?! we're at 6.8 billion right now, and these elite scum-bags are crying wolf on the matter.. I can't imagine any number over 50 billion being any good for this planet. Do you think a high number like 50 Billion could seriously affect the natural resources on this planet, or do you think our high level of technology could fix that issue?

reply to post by time91


Just imagine.... The elite probably think the same way about us...

I think it would be wrong to control overpopulation by killing anyone already alive. Even eliminating the worst criminals sets a dangerous precedent; for instance, you get rid of murderers, pedophiles and rapists, then if there are still too many, thieves... jaywalkers... litterers... where would we draw the line?

A preventative population control, kind of like China's one child policy, but stricter, would be how I'd do it, if population control were necessary. (and I were world dictator :p) There should also be some sort of licence required to be allowed to reproduce; there are far too many parents out there who are unwilling or unable to raise children properly.

Well, realistically, Science is never going to admit that overpopulation is killing our species, because Science is responsible for overpopulation.

Need evidence?

Before the 20th Century, before the global introduction of the Great Vaccines and Antibiotics and Super Science, the total human population of Earth never exceeded a few hundred million.

In fact, in the late 19th Century, the total human population — after 7 million years of evolution — was only about 900 million.

It was with the advent of the 20th Century that we began to see the Great Advances in Science and Medicine. Vaccines for every virus imaginable, antibiotics to cure bacterial diseases. Verily, immunization, blood transfusion, advanced surgery, and modified Nutrition schedules CHANGED everything. Infant mortality rates plummeted, the human population began to live longer, and we were breeding like lemmings.

By the end of the 20th Century, in a scant 100 years, Science had achieved what Evolution had never achieved — we had sextupled our total population, from under 1 billion to over 6 billion.

Problem is, WE DIDN'T GROW STRONGER through natural selection; instead, we just GREW, enabling the weakest of our species to survive and BREED right along with the strongest. We became an enormous population of weak animals, such that we are utterly dependent on Science & Medicine to "save us" from every little virus and pandemic that comes along.

See? Because of our vast numbers, thanks to Science, we're weaker as a species.

Now, given this premise, I can propose — and have proposed many times — the quickest and easiest way to resolve the overpopulation crisis. Place a moratorium on the application of Medical Sciences for 5 years, worldwide.

Just STOP treating the sick. STOP prescribing pharmaceuticals. STOP providing medical assistance to the entire world.

For 5 short years.

Certainly, during those 5 years, it would be advisable to stay indoors and keep your shotgun handy, because the whole planet will go insane. Wars will be waged for stores of medicine, the human population will wither — as it should under natural circumstances. Great swaths of humanity will be laid low by war and famine and disease.

For 5 short years.

At the end of which we may emerge from our bunkers and grottos and find a world renewed, a cleaner environment with abundant resources for the few hundred million or so humans who survive — the strongest of our kind, whoever they are and wherever they may be, will indeed inherit the Earth.

Now, understand, I say this as someone who has just returned — basically whole and sound — from the trauma of a stroke. If not for the miracles of blood thinners and anti-cholesterol medications, I could very well be much less whole and much less sound at the end of that 5 years. I could be one of the weaklings who succumbs.

Be that as it may, I still pose that Science got us into this mess, and we're only going to recover as a species by TURNING SCIENCE OFF for a little while. I think 5 years should do.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
If we transferred the entire military budget to expansion projects like massive skyscrapers for housing, underground/undersea farms, colonization of mars and moon, research of sex robots, the population limit will be raised and the population count would probably go down as people might find robotic partners... preferable.

It's all about control. The PTB cannot control too many people. That's the only reason. They want the population numbers to go down to the millions and not billions because a couple hundred million people is easier to control, and they could go further, like wipe out the whole planet except for a few tens thousands of them ONLY. They would then use advanced technology to clone the next generation of humans so they 'would do it right this time' by ensuring they never have to struggle to control their power.

They might make themselves the 'elite lines' and then they would engineer the 'rest of us' to be inferior to them.

Like some of alien abduction stories- victims sometimes report seeing two types- tall grays, few in number, and the 'rest of them' were more numerous in number, and possibly inferior as they are much shorter and in some cases, reportedly more clumsy than their counterparts.

I hope their diabolical plans fail, and that humanity prevails.

reply to post by DragonsDemesne


I agree with you that if you kill off the violent criminals, then it will eventually bleed into the non-violent criminals well.

Isn't it really interesting how Bill Gates stated that better healthcare and vaccines will bring the population down?! Isn't better healthcare and vaccines SUPPOSED to prolong life, not to cut it short?!

reply to post by Doc Velocity


Very interesting answer... Kinda sounds like our new "universal healthcare" system. LOL

Originally posted by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
reply to post by Doc Velocity

 

Very interesting answer... Kinda sounds like our new "universal healthcare" system. LOL

Well, you can tell just by scrutinizing the cockeyed "Healthcare Reform" bill that quality of life is NOT the objective. They want to raise the standard of healthcare for those who cannot afford it, while lowering the standard for those accustomed to the best healthcare available.

And, yes, I'm identifying those who excel and succeed in Life as the strong and those who are dependent on the government as the weak.

In essence, they want the strongest to diminish as the weakest are elevated. Making us all even weaker.

The true beneficiaries of this harebrained scheme, of course, will be determined by their willingness to bow and scrape for the meager bone ObamaCo is throwing to them. It's designed not to promote a better quality of Life, but to ensure our submission and surrender to a Global Nanny State.

Not an exercise in population control, but surely an exercise in global enslavement.

— Doc Velocity

Developed nations on a whole experience a population decline so to combat the " over population " I say help the 3rd world become developed .

reply to post by Doc Velocity


my my my you are disgusting , you support eugenics like the nazis and The rockefeller family.

so Dr.Josef Megele what do you want to do next ? mass murder billions ?

no wonders , poor third world prays for the destruction of USA , and sooner or later that wish will be granted whether economic collapse or Russia will destroy you , it remains to be seen.

anyways you will get the darwin award sooner or later , when Yahweh casts you into the lake of fire alongside Lucifer,illuminati and the zioniists