I support the so-called depopulation agenda

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
Overpopulation is probably the greatest problem on earth. Earth can sustain a human population of 6,8 billion people.
...........

Oh really?...and how did you get to that number?...

Did you ask mother nature, and she told you herself?...

Do you have an open link/window to the spirit of the Earth, and she told you: "I can only hold onto no more than 6.8 billion people... go forth and tell them all I told you so"....

For crying out loud... some people....


[edit on 7-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

The world as a whole is overpopulated. And yes, there are places where there are few people because those places are unliveable for one reason or another.

We already have cities like Mexico City where people are packed in like sardines outside of the tourist areas. Then there are places like Indonesia where they are breeding themselves into oblivion.

Egypt has gotten so overpopulated that they are trying to figure out a way to have a second branch of the Nile River.

Much of the overpopulation is due to religions like Islam and Catholicism that teaches its followers that birth control is a sin.

Most third world countries have over- bred themselves into a constant state of semi-starvation, poverty and wars.

A possible solution is to pay women directly to have a tubal ligation on the birth of their second or third child. Same for men who get a vasectomy.

That makes it voluntary and beneficial and not a forced policy.

Fund it through some sort of international fund that all nations contribute one percent of their GNP. Could do it through the World Bank system that doles out the special loan money.

We either do this ourselves or nature will do it for us. There are too many of us and the population will double by 2050 to 13 billion with most of that excess population in the countries that can least afford it and cannot feed themselves now.

Better to have smaller families and fewer people so that more people live well than to have billions continue to live their lives in a constant state of semi-starvation and malnutrition.

Well said, OP. I feel less alone now that I know someone who advocates my point of view.
However, you've been only halfway through your opinion. Given that people are pigs who don't care, and more than 2 thirds of the world popultation do'nt evend know what global warming means, the only solution for eveyone to listen is to say something that everyone can understand, no matter education level, etc..

I mean WAR.

We both know the Earth won't be able to sustain the consequences of a global conflict, but unless you release a high-profile nanotech virus in the atmosphere people won't stop multiplying. That's a horrible fact, and you can give 1000 bucks a year to charity, you'll never feed the hungry, as they proliferate much faster than your income...
sad but true.

Well I don't think countries such as the U.S. or within Europe should really consider (or afford) depopulation. Germany has had a negative population growth, and many other European countries follow suit because it's just too damn expensive to live these days, anywhere. In many European countries the taxes are very high and the prices for things are inflated. There should be an economic incentive for North Americans (Americans & Canadians) and Europeans to reproduce more children.

Problem is that in third world populations (esp. in Africa), poverty is high, contraceptives use is low, education is low, disease, war, hunger is the norm. Despite the high levels of communicable diseases that kill Africans every year, they are the fastest growing population because they're out of control.

In fact the least educated and well suited of people are usually the reproducers these days. Most people mindful of their life situations (and education) are less likely to randomly reproduce. I'm sure most American families these days will consist of 2 children at most, since it's too damn expensive (healthcare, education, lifestyle) to afford more than that.

Originally posted by FIFIGI
I love people.
I would like to see more people.
I would like people living all around the world and Solar system as well as our Galaxy.
One day I would like to see many more people living in Andromeda galaxy.

-------

Earth has capacity to sustain high standard of living for 25-30 billion of people.
Technology in future will allow more than 30 billion people to live on Earth.

I love you, OP and would love to see you have many children.

All Life (bacteria, animals, plants...) is beautiful and should spread all around the Universe.

More people means there will be more happiness

What planet are you living on?

Have you actually read what you wrote?

Can you not see that people don't get along today let alone in 50 years time when there could be double population then there is now?

We are already stepping on eachothers toes and i for one would not like to be stepping on anymore....

What a bunch of Malthusian tripe, all of it.

People live on the subsistence level due to a lack of property rights. We have a system for producing wealth, it is called private property. If people would just stop supporting churches and states each would have plenty.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by Drunkenshrew
Overpopulation is probably the greatest problem on earth. Earth can sustain a human population of 6,8 billion people.
...........

Oh really?...and how did you get to that number?...

Did you ask mother nature, and she told you herself?...

Do you have an open link/window to the spirit of the Earth, and she told you: "I can only hold onto no more than 6.8 billion people... go forth and tell them all I told you so"....

For crying out loud... some people....


[edit on 7-1-2010 by ElectricUniverse]

Yes, overpopulation is a big problem. Not overpopulation of the Earth as a whole, but overpopulation of certain regions, and too fast population growth rate.

How many people Earth can support is irrelevant.

The question to ask is how many people, how fast growth, can Nigeria, Uganda or Congo support. The answer is clear. Less than today.

Here are population pyramids of two neighbouring countries, China and India. Compare for yourself:

www.nationmaster.com...

www.nationmaster.com...

The pyramid of China looks better, the population is stabilized for 40 years now, and they have double GDP per capita compared to India, despite having totalitarian regime. Population control FTW!

In Indian population pyramid we see signs of recent good development, but not having any population control contributed to having half the GDP of China, leading to famous Indian slums:
stateofthenation.ca...

reply to post by l77way


LOL i know what you mean! Everytime i hear the ridiculous term ' water shortage' here in the UK the past few years i can't help but laugh, its a well known Earth fact that this planet is more water than land for crying out loud lol..

I have been snipped, had to pay to have it done, too. Voluntarily. Now someone will tell me it doesn't count because I should have done it before I had four children. My question is, what country will let people that have not been 'voluntarily' sterilized starve to death? I don't think the plan would work.

Originally posted by butcherguy
I have been snipped, had to pay to have it done, too. Voluntarily. Now someone will tell me it doesn't count because I should have done it before I had four children. My question is, what country will let people that have not been 'voluntarily' sterilized starve to death? I don't think the plan would work.

Quite a few of countries are letting their citizens starve to death as we speak. Paradoxicaly, those are the countries with the biggest population growth. Offering them money and food and in exchange demanding from them to stop reproduce could work, and it certainly would not be worse than current situation. It could be done not only by sterilization, but contraceptives, too.

It would apply only to yellow, green or possibly blue countries in this picture:

reply to post by Goatflesh Gnosis


I look at the women in these third world countries who closely resemble skeletons with hanging flesh on them and wonder: How come and Why do these women allow themselves any hint of pregnancy?

Can something that is malnourished become pregnant in the first place or have we been lied to? These women can barely stand and have minimal strength to eat the bowl of USA/other provided grains yet there they are with an infant or 1 year old sitting upon their laps. Which also makes me wonder why so many healthy American/other women can not become pregnant and must go to a fertility doctor.

What sort of deadish creature zombie is making out with these women? and would this possibly make for an interesting investigation?

Whether you believe the mythology or religious texts humanity has always been a scourge on this planet. Humanity is nothing but a bacterial/fungal colony that has been close to extinction on a number of occasions but has survived (a bit like the common cold). One day this scourge of planet Earth will be removed for good - hopefully sooner rather than later!

reply to post by Goatflesh Gnosis


This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard! Fact is, we have plenty of food to go around if everyone was willing to sacrifice a little bit. Fact is, there is plenty of room for everyone on this planet (we can fit everyone comfortably into the state of Texas). Greed and corruption are the root causes of hunger and poverty, not over-population.

I agree with the others who said.... if this is your stance, you go first! As for me, I would never willingly or unwillingly offer to sterilize myself or my kids. Do the research and don't just throw out claims like "whether or not you want to admit it, the Earth is over-populated". Seriously.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by UnityFT]

The Conspiracy to KILL 9/10 of the worlds population is mentioned in prophecy written in the Bible. And the Satanic Elitist use the brainwashed minds and bodies of many would be "Wise" Men and Woman of this world. Adding inhumane ideas in peoples heads such as some people are animals, and that is the poors fault they are poor and without food. That maybe they need to die to "Save the World" Yet most major pollution and environmental destruction came from our governements and political parties who allowed major industry put pollution out in every part of the globe due to the worlds last 150-200 year technology boom. Governments who even madate and allow pharm companys to pour highly toxic chemical agents into our food and water. Killing Billions from Every Country in the world.

Hungry and Need for population controls derives from Man. From its greedy elite who control the worlds resources. We have plenty of land (Obviously are you blind, the world is 9billion full and we can still stretch our toes. Are you kidding me over populated? Im sorry If I am insulting your intellegence but get real! Are people utterly blind. YES the answer is yes. The unpublished fact of starvation and inadequate resources is mans fault for poor management. We destroy healthy mineral and vitamin producing vegetables, fruits, meats, and genetically alter them so they are no longer even half as good for you as they used to be. On top of that we are too busy treading the world down with war and politics and deforestization and building of our buildings factories, towns, cities, of excess and waste. And we focus our careers in all these high tech non agricultural ways, we dont know how to properly grow and produce more goods for others. And the Areas of the world in which they do produce their own food, are of course being overcropped and inproperly reconditioned due to uneducation, and as well major corperations such as Diamond and coals mines whole pour waste over land and water otherwise fertile. There is a reason, and Man is at the root to almost all major tragedys and impoverished situations to man, nature, or beast alike since the beggining of mans first steps.

Proof to the Demonic Philosophy of Depopulization is the Georgia Guidestones as they are called. Created by Pagan Satan Star Baphomet Great Goddess Blasphemous Name Added here Worshipping Men

Codex Alimentarius is to blame for much death in the near future due to malnutrition


[edit on 7-1-2010 by KilluminatisRex]

Originally posted by Goatflesh Gnosis
OK, first off I am not advocating any violence or killing of any persons. Lets just make that clear. I advocate depopulation through voluntary means such as contraception and voluntary childlessness. There are a few other means I think might be acceptable that you can perhaps infer.

Many on ATS and elsewhere see the "endgame" of "mother of all conspiracies" as depopulation by the NWO.

Personally, from a cold hard objective view, it makes a lot of sense to me. The world IS overpopulated, whether you want to admit it or not. Somewhere between 1 and 2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day and go to bed hungry every day. Most of the rest of the 6-point-whatever billion out there are not much better off.

ALL of us at ATS are "elite" in the grand scheme of things simply because we have access to a computer. This means there is an overwhelming chance that we live in or come from relatively developed countries, or at least not the most miserable ones. (OK, there may be a few exceptions with access to solar-powered villiage computers in 3rd-world nations or those posting from war zones.)

And above us, a tiny sliver of humanity that has more than any of us (I think) can imagine.

Then keep in mind population is still rising...we will hit 9-12 billion within the lifetimes of most people here. That's a 50%-100% increase. Misery piled on more misery.

The planet is dying. Lots of you believe environmental stuff is conspiracy or hoax. I think most people who take this stance do so out of a kind of guilt....they don't want to admit it because they think it means they have to change something. My view is bleaker. I DO admit it but I DON'T think anything can be done about it, because people are basically pigs who think in the short term. So why not just admit it and have a party?

Given all this, it makes SENSE to want a world with fewer people, more elbow room. A smaller number living in greater comfort. A general reduction in human misery. A great boon to ourselves, and to the planet (if you care about the latter...you don't need to to agree with my basic point).

And to anyone who would answer "why don't you start with yourself," etc., I would reply that if I thought it would actually be part of an effective program that would really reduce population on a global level, I would have no problem sacrificing myself for my beliefs.

Once again, I do not advocate ANY killing or violence. But I DO think there are too many people, most of them are unhappy and live in squalor, and the world would be a better and happier place without so many humans.

I expect most of you will disagree but I do believe this.
[edit on 5-1-2010 by Goatflesh Gnosis]

I totally agree with you. Forty years ago I was allowed to have a partial hysterectomy when I was in my 20s. I knew I didn't want children, and I knew that if I married, my spouse could always go back on any agreement made between us for me to have access to birth control, and I also knew that birth control is not 100% reliable for all women. If by chance I became pregnant while married, I'd have to have my spouse's agreement to abort, which he could also have refused, and thus... against our agreement, I'd be forced to have a child or children I was absolutely certain I did not want. NOW, however, it's no longer available as an elective at a young age. You have to have health problems unless you're late 30s.

If the pro-lifers would stay out of other peoples' business, there WOULD be less unwanted children born, because abortions would be available to the women who feel like I do, and birth control would also be readily available. As it is, the Gov. and the pro-lifers do more to promote unwanted births and abandoned babies, because it isn't Politically Correct to allow women to have free choice, even though they say we do. I think offering sterility is viable and humane.

[edit on 7-1-2010 by CynCritter]

My post regarding the stated UN goal written in 1946 seems to have been completely ignored but I won't stop trying. Here is the updated version of the same goal.

Both Strong and Gore come from the Club of Rome clique, who in their 1991 Report, “The First Global Revolution” openly admitted how they were planning to exploit the contrived hoax of global warming in order to further their agenda.

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.,”

They spelled it out plainly in their own documents. It could not be more clear.
Can't you eugenic supporters see you are being played?

Can't you see how this manufactured crisis evolved?

Political unification in some sort of world government will be required... Even though... any radical eugenic policy will be for many years politically and psychologically impossible, it will be important for UNESCO to see that the eugenic problem is examined with the greatest care, and that the public mind is informed of the issues at stake so that much that now is unthinkable may at least become thinkable.

Julian Huxley First director of UNESCO -1946


[edit on 7-1-2010 by Deny Arrogance]

Need more evidence?

So the COR report came out in 1991. And what should appear, out of the blue, right around that same time in MSM?

Check out this google news graph for "global warming" being mentioned by year.

news.google.com...

If anyone is actually considering this, read up on the Eugenics movements in the early 1900s.

Eugenics was first proposed by Sir Francis Galton, the cousin of the one and only Charles Darwin (genius definitely is genetic, Galton accomplished a lot, perhaps more than Darwin, not more significant, but more). He believed that because evolution occurs through natural selection, then selective breeding (his term) could be used to better an entire society. He proposed that people with good genes be rewarded for reproducing with each other. The intelligent, the athletic, and the healthy would be rewarded, by the government, for mating with each other. This would increase the percentage of good genes in the population, bettering the society as a whole.

Galton wasn't a proponent of sterilization. In fact, i believe, as many others do, that Galton would have been appalled had he known what atrocities were committed in the name of eugenics.

In 1907, the first sterilization laws were passed, in Indiana. In less than ten years, sixteen more states passed laws similar to Indiana's. All in all, 27 states passed sterilization laws. By the 1960s, around 65,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized.

During the beginning of the sterilizations in America, american eugenicists were keeping german "racial hygienists" up to date on their progress. Numerous books on eugenics and social hygiene were translated into german.........CAN YOU SEE WHERE THIS IS GOING YET?!?!?!?!?

Before the Holocaust, the Nazis deemed 400,000 people unworthy of having children and sterilized them. Then they murdered millions.

During the Nuremberg Trials, many Nazi officers cited the Americans as their "inspiration" for their atrocities.

What seems like a good idea can easily turn evil.

Sir Francis Galton defined eugenics as "the improvement of living organisms through selective breeding." The Nazi's interpreted it as the right to forcibly sterilize hundreds of thousands of people, and the murder of millions more.

But hey, maybe you're ideas won't be manipulated the way Galton's were. I mean, our leaders are so much more sincere and good than they were back then.

If you want sources, read The Nazi Connection, by Stefan Kuhl, and A Life of Sir Francis Galton, by Nicholas Wright Gillham.

reply to post by Goatflesh Gnosis


hi ATS i have been a lurker/inactive member on this site for a long time but thought i must comment on this post, i for one completely agree with the OP.

for the record i am a 27 year old english male, who for the reasons outlined in the OP and other resons took the decision to have a vasectomy at the age of 21 (people thought i was mad), also other reasons such as the world becoming a far worse place than it was for my parents and grandparents.

also that my wife and i just manage to lead a decent quality of life but by no means a lavish one. this is with us both working full time on just above minumum wage. jointly about 22,000 GBP sterling

if we were to have children we would have to rely on the state to help support them which i find moraly wrong. i use the saying "if you cant feed them don't breed them".

the system is so stretched by those that see it fit for the state to pay for their kids as well as their entire house holds from the food in their stomachs to the clothes on their back and the roof over their heads and the toys their kids play with.

the sysem is being taken advantage of and it needs to change. the benifit system is a good thing and it should only be used by those that fall on hard times as it was intended for, it's a saftey net NOT a hammock for those to lazy to support themselves to lay in till the day they die.

people choose to have children, no one is forced to procreate it is a choice that people make.

if the system took the stance, that if you cant support you offsping they wouldn't support them in any way. then the population would naturally decrease, as it would make people think before they chose not to use contraception or abortion or breed with multiple partners.

also the introduction of one child per female for those able to fully support them. i also beleive in forced steralization for those in poverty striken countries.
my thoughts maybe a little extreme but these are my views and i apreciate that most of you probably disagree with most of my post but i felt compeled to post and intend to take a more active role on this site many thanks to those that read this.

reply to post by Goatflesh Gnosis


Your continued statement that you don't propose violence sounds a little disingenuine. Most of the people who already limit their procreation are free to do so, not mandated, well except in China and North Korea. Do you think it is ok that in China and NK the women abort most of their female children because they are only allowed one child and most want a male child?

This is one time I don't actually want a response to my post. I'm already feeling a little queasy.




[edit on 8-1-2010 by Bombeni]