Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids

Originally posted by Pauligirl
www.worldometers.info...
Current world population in real time

Population in the world is currently growing at a rate of around 1.15 % per year. The average annual population change is currently estimated at over 77 million.

Annual growth rate reached its peak in the late 1960s, when it was at 2% and above. The rate of increase has therefore almost halved since its peak of 2.19 percent, which was reached in 1963, to the current 1.15%.

The annual growth rate is currently declining and is projected to continue to decline in the coming years, but the pace of the future change is uncertain (1). Currently, it is estimated that it will become less than 1% by 2020 and less than 0.5% by 2050.

This means that world population will continue to grow into the 21st century, but at a slower rate compared to the recent past. World population has doubled (100% increase) in 40 years from 1959 (3 billion) to 1999 (6 billion). It is now estimated that it will take a further 42 years to increase by another 50%, to become 9 billion by 2042.

United Nations projections (Pdf document) indicate that world population will nearly stabilize at just above 10 billion persons after 2200.

See ... so what's the point of population reduction? If you urbanize and educate, people will willingly have fewer kids. No feed to force them.

Soft power, ultimately, is much more powerful than hard power.

Have fewer kids? Tell that to third world and developing countries.
Most developed countries actually have each year a population deficit. Those who don't, have to "thank" immigrants coming from those third world and developing countries.

Originally posted by Shirakawa
Have fewer kids? Tell that to third world and developing countries.
Most developed countries actually have each year a population deficit. Those who don't, have to "thank" immigrants coming from those third world and developing countries.

That problem will go away once India, Africa, etc are urbanized. modernized and educated.

No reason to "thin out the herd".

reply to post by Sliadon



Why not take population control one step further and implement a policy of killing the unborn by the millions and euthanizing the elderly under the touchy-feely guise of healthcare?????....oh wait...

Why should I have fewer kids when someone with a religious standing can come along and have 18 and be thanked financially by the state. Do one.

reply to post by Donnie Darko


Hey Donnie,

Nice to see ya here again

That is one of the worries that I have. ATS user amazing posted some stuff last night about Peak Population, sort of similar to what you talked about with the population stabilizing. If there is positive research to indicate that we will reach an equilibrium point, then why spread these Green Revolution 'stop reproducing so much' ideas?

It's like you said,

"No reason to thin out the herd"

-Sliadon

Originally posted by Sliadon
reply to post by Donnie Darko

 

Hey Donnie,

Nice to see ya here again

That is one of the worries that I have. ATS user amazing posted some stuff last night about Peak Population, sort of similar to what you talked about with the population stabilizing. If there is positive research to indicate that we will reach an equilibrium point, then why spread these Green Revolution 'stop reproducing so much' ideas?

It's like you said,

"No reason to thin out the herd"

-Sliadon

I think it it's because if there's fewer people, there's more real estate, gold, jewels and tropical islands for the elites, and less people to contest their tyranny. It's that simple.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Donnie Darko]

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

Originally posted by Sliadon
reply to post by Donnie Darko

 

Hey Donnie,

Nice to see ya here again

That is one of the worries that I have. ATS user amazing posted some stuff last night about Peak Population, sort of similar to what you talked about with the population stabilizing. If there is positive research to indicate that we will reach an equilibrium point, then why spread these Green Revolution 'stop reproducing so much' ideas?

It's like you said,

"No reason to thin out the herd"

-Sliadon

I think it it's because if there's fewer people, there's more real estate, gold, jewels and tropical islands for the elites, and less people to contest their tyranny. It's that simple.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Donnie Darko]

So taking the already would be reduced population that will naturally occur coupled with the fact that people will be reproducing less because they are buying into the Green Revolution?

-Sliadon

Originally posted by Sliadon

Originally posted by Donnie Darko

Originally posted by Sliadon
reply to post by Donnie Darko

 

Hey Donnie,

Nice to see ya here again

That is one of the worries that I have. ATS user amazing posted some stuff last night about Peak Population, sort of similar to what you talked about with the population stabilizing. If there is positive research to indicate that we will reach an equilibrium point, then why spread these Green Revolution 'stop reproducing so much' ideas?

It's like you said,

"No reason to thin out the herd"

-Sliadon

I think it it's because if there's fewer people, there's more real estate, gold, jewels and tropical islands for the elites, and less people to contest their tyranny. It's that simple.

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Donnie Darko]

So taking the already would be reduced population that will naturally occur coupled with the fact that people will be reproducing less because they are buying into the Green Revolution?

-Sliadon

Yup! And even coupled with the release of viruses, bacteria, and instigations of war, along with mass executions of so-called "terrorists".

That's their plan ....

reply to post by Donnie Darko


I had thought about compiling all my data and introduce a thread that includes this and my previous one with Swine Flu and the vaccines this fall

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But I figured friends would've knocked on my door and taken away my tin foil hat and slap me once or twice and say chiiiiiiiiiiil out

I mean, if they were going to try to wage war on the common man, why not go all out?

-Sliadon

I understand the meaning behind this plan on the longer term, but on a certain point demographic ageing could be devastating to a country's culture and economy if people adopt a certain [one child] policy..
China is a good example, in the future the economy there will hold/slow down because of the demographic ageing..

reply to post by Foppezao


There definitely is something wrong with the model. Especially using the model that populations will self correct once they reach too high in number.

Donnies proposal of a multi-pronged attack by NWO seems plausible. I don't have my tin foil hat on (yet anyways ) and am not going to start screaming the end is near til I'm blue in the face but not ready to write this off as scientists trying to "help"

-Sliadon

The way I see it, is in history it's always been about the elite class and governments oppressing the people: why is it any different now, just because it's the 21st century AD?

[edit on 5-8-2009 by Donnie Darko]

reply to post by Donnie Darko


All great empires rise, and all great empires fall. That was the past and will continue to be the future. By whatever reason, the "have's" of those societies feel entitled to what they have and don't want the "have-not's" to have what they have (Truly sorry for the abundance of have there...).

Look at ancient Rome. They had the the Patricians at the top followed by the Plebians. The Plebians always seemed to want more from the Patricians and each time they would grudingly give in (Hey now... this sounds familiar Sliadon!).

Lets hit the fast forward button to Feudal Europe. 1215 we have the Magna Carta giving the common man some basic rights from his ruler. There is a constant battle here as well over who will get to keep power.

In both cases, you have leaders of absolute who want complete power and control.

It is only natural that such actions will carry forward into todays world. Except now we have something our ancients didn't.

The MSM is a wonderful little tool for subduing.

The long family lines that feel "empowered" and "noble" have more opportunity to control us. This entire thread is very, very feasible.

-Sliadon

reply to post by Sliadon


As others have said 'it's not such a bad idea' you know there are people out there who don't use contraceptives and others who won't use contraceptives because their religion says 'not to' there are also people who just have too many kids!! Some people (and i'm sorry to say this) but it is mainly people from Africa & Middle Eastern Countries who want to have 5,6 and in some cases 9 children... if they were taught a bit more about birth control and why it is there then maybe they would stop. This place is getting ridiculously crowded.... especially in the Cities and like i said on another thread if this place was a desert we'd be living amongst much more diseases.... the rate of STD's for example has shot up in recent years....

So... yeh i'm all for putting limits on the amount of kids couples can have.... 3 at the most would be one NEW WORLD ORDER rule i'd vote for....

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


The thing is, we have been compiling research in this thread which shows the global population will reach an equilibrium point on its own. We see it with wildlife all the time.

It just doesn't make sense to place so much emphasis on the green fad.

-Sliadon

reply to post by Sliadon


To tell you the truth i think they are trying to deter us from the fact that it was mainly the older generations who have caused these environmental issues with all their inventions!!!!

But having less children would go a long way to solving problems which will come further down the line if they aren't already...

More children = more housing
More Housing = more appliances
More appliances = more CO2 emissions

You see where this is going? A non-stop merry go round........ creating more CO2 is obviously going to damage the Atmosphere more....

[edit on 5-8-2009 by TruthxIsxInxThexMist]

reply to post by Sliadon




Already have two. Dont really want anymore, but I guess it doesnt matter anyway since I have already doomed the earth for forever...

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


The thing is, when you add in all the natural causes of C02 and the measures we are presenting, the methods fall far short of making a massive difference.

For example, I posted this in a thread about the cash for clunkers situation:

Calculations by The Associated Press, using Department of Transportation figures, show that replacing those fuel hogs will reduce carbon dioxide emissions by just under 700,000 tons a year. While that may sound impressive, it's nothing compared to what the U.S. spewed last year: nearly 6.4 billion tons (and that was down from previous years).

news.yahoo.com...

While suggesting people stop reproducing as much to 'save' the environment sounds like a great idea, in the greater scheme of things, it doesn't impact as much as the research suggests, just as the cash for clunkers is not as good as the auto makers want you to think.

-Sliadon

Originally posted by St Vaast
Frankly, I think it's a great idea

for people to have less or even no children

I absolutly agree.
There are certain cultures who mate indiscriminatly, most have no money or education.
It really annoys me. I had no children, by choice, your welcome, world.
People breed like unconscious animals.
It disgust me.

I like children and some people should have them.