It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Overpopulation / Depopulation Controversy

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 07:19 AM
I sense that some people accept the idea that has been pushed by the powers that be since the 70's that the Earth is in danger from overpopulation, so they put evidence of covert soft-kill depopulation techniques to the back of their mind and acquiesce to them. I think this amounts to "drinking the Kool-Aid."

The publicity about overpopulation in the 70's started with the publication of the Illuminati Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth, which was about a study that was commissioned by the Club. In my opinion, this study should not be considered trustworthy. I believe we should not rely on any information that comes from Illuminati-controlled studies, universities, or pundits.

Regarding soft-kill depopulation techniques, I have found a blog post by former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Catherine Austin Fitts that I think focuses like a laser on the face of evil that we're looking at. She wrote it about a year ago and it references the swine flu vaccination. The title is "Swine Flu: What I Believe."

In this article, Catherine describes how she arrived at a conclusion in her mind that the powers that be have a plan of world depopulation and that the swine flu vaccination was a way to carry out that plan.

She begins by remembering 1991:

These days, I keep remembering my sense of urgency leaving the Bush Administration in 1991. We had to do something to turn around the economy and gather real assets behind retirement plans and the social safety net. . . .

As my efforts to find ways of reengineering government investment in communities failed to win political support, Washington and Wall Street moved forward with a debt bubble and globalization that was horrifying in its implications for humanity.

She goes on to relate how she analyzed what she saw happening with the government/Wall Street and calculations she did as a result of what she was witnessing:

Overwhelmed by what was happening, I estimated the end result. My simple calculations guessed that we were going to achieve economic sustainability on Earth by depopulating down to a population of approximately 500 million people from our then current global population of 6 billion. I was a portfolio strategist used to looking at numbers from a very high level. Those around me could not fathom how all the different threads I was integrating could lead to such a conclusion. To me, we had to have radical change in how we governed resources or depopulate. It was a mathematical result.

She then states that an associate of hers had come to the same conclusion she had.

I submit that what we should be doing is

  1. Finding ways to glean reliable information about the world's resources to population ratio.
  2. Release suppressed technology so that we can deal with whatever true issues regarding population/resources we may have.

However, I think before we can even do that we'll have to free ourselves from the global debt slavery we're stuck in by taking over control of the monetary system.

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:29 AM
I see a few different issues here in regards to the overpopulation discussion...

First off, the problem isn't overpopulation...theres alot of people here,but the earth itself is pretty big. The biggest issue is population focus. Large cities destroy the surrounding areas real nice..but there is no current alternative to this..once we have some effective transportation...say hovercrafts or something like that, then people will be able to live out in the forest and still have that city job, etc.

A new energy source, self contained for a individual property to run would solve almost all of our resource issues...from growing vast gardens and farms underground, to water filtration, etc...population control is not necessary, what is necessary is technological development to counter the effects of population expansion

One major problem is not how many are being born, but who is breeding. Poor nations are overbreeding, intellectually challenged breed alot. Rich powerful nations and intellects are in a population decline. I wont say the movie idocracy is likely...actually, I do say people need to breed more, and the "knuckledraggers" in the world need to stop with the 10 kids per home. I am a BIG fan of genetic therapys for fetus's...this I see is our only hope as a species to continue to thrive...

Smart people breed less...its just a statistical fact...if you truely want to curb the population of the world, dont think about gassing the public or anything like that...make the people more will sort itself out when people have a healthy understanding of consequences and a bigger picture...also people willingly use birth control..make a more effective method...and finally, allow for genetic experiments for enhanced IQs of children..

So...a quick summery...move from the city, cheap and clean energy, and breed smart will solve the issues at hand..will it happen? maybe (optimist)

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 09:45 AM

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Poor nations are overbreeding . . .

I think the proper focus should be on who is responsible for making poor nations poor.

posted on Sep, 8 2010 @ 10:07 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Poor nations are overbreeding . . .

I think the proper focus should be on who is responsible for making poor nations poor.

Typically you need to look at their own government...poor nations often have some of the most corrupt bastards on earth in charge...the strongest controlling the weakest.

There arguments to be made about the rich nations (western nations) taking advantage of this, however, that is simply deflective blame...a good example would be oil from saudi arabia.

The locals are angry at America for their living conditions...why? because America is constantly looking for a deal and so we push the price per barrel down as much as possible for affordable gas. The spin is that due to how little they are making per barrel, there is not enough money to distribute around and so voila...everyone remains poor...America's fault.

The reality is that the Sauds are pocketing the money for themselves and their close friends...the people be damned, just keep churning out the oil to keep the tyrants rich. Country resources like that should be for the people in the country, not for a few corrupt leaders to live in golden mansions while the rest starve and breed like bunnies.

China...the same. India...the same. Africa...the same. Corrupt leaders controlling the poor in their own country...always blaming the west for a nice deflection of anger. Its not unlike a man coming home and beating his wife, then blaming the neighbor for having ugly paint on their house that makes him angry....should the wife be angry at the neighbors for having bad paint, or the man for beating her to begin with...currently its popular for everyone to blame the neighbor (the west).

Accountability in your leadership needs to happen

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 01:24 PM
Paul Joseph Watson of has written a new article entitled "UN Blueprint: Dismantle Middle Class, Build World Government." It is about a leaked document - a planning paper - which came from:

United Nations Secretary General Ban ki-Moon and 60 of his top lieutenants met this past Labor Day at a secluded Austrian Alpine retreat in a bid to get the global warming agenda back on track after the dismal failure of Copenhagen.

In the article Watson makes this very important statement:

The paper makes it clear that the UN is about to adopt a new public relations ploy in pushing the phony and discredited global warming mantra, by re-branding it as the threat of overpopulation.

Watson states that the “global redistribution of wealth” the document advocates

largely centers around looting the wealth of the middle classes in richer countries through carbon taxes and then using that money to bankroll the construction of world government. As the leaked “Danish text” revealed, the money generated from consumption taxes will go directly to the World Bank, not to developing countries.

posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 02:07 PM
This subject reminds me of the oil myth; that it will run out.The black oil in X-files movies shows kinda what these types of conspiracies are, lies and propaganda to gain advantage of certain energy markets.Human beings are a energy market, "The" main one.
Remember "Logan's Run" that Sci-Fi movie brought up the lifespan must be shortened because of overpopulation stripping resources.That was in the 70's too, hmmm

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 09:14 AM
The only overpopulation we have are too many arrogant useless scumbags in top government positions.

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:23 AM
I personally still believe we are overcrowded. My neck of the woods seems to be getting worse and worse. Just a few years ago it wasn't all that bad. People are moving out of the city it seems. I also noticed that wild life have moved in suburban areas because their homes were taken over by construction. It is strange seeing vultures at colleges looking for prey. You know when that happens it is overcrowded.

posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 11:41 AM
There is absolutely 0 (zero, none, null) plans which exist which in-effect will cause a planned depopulation of the earth's people. To back that up I present 0 (zero, none, null) evidence in support which, coincidentally, is the SAME evidence used by people to say there is a plan.

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Mary Rose
The publicity about overpopulation in the 70's started with the publication of the Illuminati Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth, which was about a study that was commissioned by the Club. In my opinion, this study should not be considered trustworthy. I believe we should not rely on any information that comes from Illuminati-controlled studies, universities, or pundits.

Another Club of Rome publication, The First Global Revolution, states on page 75:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

"Came up with . . . " Hmmmm.

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:04 PM
Lol is far from being over populated.

The population of greenland is 55 k, my city population is 80 k and has only 54 sq miles of space, while green land has over 2 million square miles of space.. People will believe anything

edit on 23-9-2010 by DuceizBack because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 02:29 PM
It is not Earth as a whole that is overpopulated or not. Earth is such a variable place that we need to judge its various regions, countries, and social groups independently.

There are dense cities where standard of living is very high, and there are rural almost empty areas, even rich in resources, but inhabited with poor people.

Clearly it is not about population density or resources. What is important if we ever want to achieve sustainability and high standard of living for everyone is to educate the people and learn to use and distribute our resources wisely.

Clever people are the MOST IMPORTANT resource. And the most scarce. With "good quality" people, even a barren wasteland can be turned into a garden of eden.
With lazy and stupid people, even the most resourceful and rich region will be useless.

posted on Sep, 24 2010 @ 10:44 AM
Depending on how you view the logic of this reply some may agree or disagree with it. In ancient and pre middle ages some conquerers are able to unite hundreds of thousands of people to join armies and such. I think with the over population issue; I am remember when there was only 5 billion people on earth and now its more like seven. The earths population grew by almost 50% in 16 years. Eventually, theres going to be so many people that poverty will become such a large issue, that war will naturally erupt when someone with weapons unites all the underclass people. I think this is inevitable, and the United States would have to resort to a Socialist doctrine (though maybe the good USA will perfect it some way) and I Civil War will erupt, followed by a global war I actually don't predict this to happen for about another 150 years. Anyways I think the devlopment of cold fusion could allow the poorer people to to pay a fraction of a percent for energy, and thus be more likely to prosper,..

posted on Oct, 3 2010 @ 10:00 AM
I have seen articles about the assertion that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with their funding of vaccinations is really a eugenics program to reduce the population through sterilization of women and spontaneous abortions after being vaccinated. This, of course, would fit in to the theory that the globalists are using soft-kill techniques for depopulation.

But I have also seen articles that say that people in wealthy nations who can afford health care and have many opportunities open to them have less children whereas people in poor nations have many children hoping that some will survive to take care of them in their old age.

I'm posting this video of Bill Gates being interviewed because he states that his program of health care is for the purpose of decreasing of the population through better health care.

Is there actually a soft-kill program going on with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or is the motivation a benign decrease the population for the good of us all?

The conversation in question is about 3 minutes in to the video:

top topics


log in