I support the so-called depopulation agenda

I do believe we mismanage resources I don't argue with you there. Where I argue with you is the fact that our endeavors have not been harmonious with nature for a looong time. The very fact that we live in spite of nature instead of living a natural way of life makes our species more of a parasite instead of cohabitant. I admire your idealistic views. I wish it could be that way. It might still be attainable, but not with the number of people we currently have much less more.

and BTW it's not just the money.. You have to boil the water away from the salt.. what are you going to burn to do that?? Nuclear would be the only clean way to do that, but I wouldn't build a plant on shifting sand for one, secondly I believe they need fresh water to cool?? Am I right? I'm assuming salt water would be massively detrimental to the process. So you're left with things like oil, coal, and natural gas to desalinate your water. All of which are bad for their own reasons.

[edit on 5-1-2010 by PayMeh]

Originally posted by PayMeh
One more thing.. All you guys that say "there's enough unpopulated areas for people to live!!" Yeah buddy.. cut down those trees!! Cut them all down!! Scratch your head as the O2 goes down and the temperature goes up!!! Lets put a house every 1/2 acre and fill them up!! Wait.. where will our livestock be.. and where will our bio waste go?? and!! and!! Where will we bury our dead?? Eh.. Don't worry about it.. You're being a humanitarian!! You saved those people down the street that you have to provide for. For those that are screaming sacrilege at the OP if you feel so strongly then go out and bring a homeless person to your house and provide for them. Ah.. but that would mean a direct impact on the way you live you say.. That will be EXACTLY what it will come to. Right now you can take a moral soapbox. You don't see the money it's costing you because it's still a small amount. Soon your way of life will be encroached upon.. When throwing money at the problem stops working and it's is in your face, you'll abandon that soapbox my friends I assure you.

Well there is no need to cut down all the trees. There sure is alot of open prairies on the earth. We do not need a house every 1/2 acre either, maybe live in housing complexes as opposed to the 1000+ sq ft homes we seem to think we need.

We do not really need livestock and could become vegetarians (not that I like this idea as I love my steak). Or we could just stop corporate farming and get rid of all the disgusting McDonald's and other fast food joints.

There are so many ways to use bio waste for electricty and renewable energy. There is a town in Germany that uses the septic system to heat and power the entire town. Garbage can be burned in incinerators and create energy. As far as the plastics and other non biodegradables wht not ban them outright?

Bury our dead? Why not cremation? Oh yeah the silly religion thing comes into play. We could also burry our dead in tombs instead of each person having their own little plot of lawn.

As far as the rest of your rant. Ther is NO NEED for povert and homelessness in this world. The problem is that 2% of the people own 98% of the wealth on the planet. THAT is the problem we face and until this greed ceases nothing will ever change.

You need to stop thinking about this using the way things are done today.
If we changed our overall way of living and destroying the environment for greed things could be much much better for everyone on this planet.
Not saying it would be an easy battle, but we definitely have the resources and material to build houses, schools, hospitals in every corner of the world, but we don't because essentially there is no profit in that. Again greed takes over.

both sides of this argument need to see our only real solution.

to the murderous side of the argument-quit being so selfish there's enough for everyone

to the human side of the argument-we can increase production but the amount of living space is limited,ethics won't change that.

space travel.
shoot the poor into space.
look at my signature.
I'll lead them,I'm going that way anyways.

now if someone will just lend me a couple trillion for gas and munchies and we'll be on our way.

Originally posted by Maslo

Yes, the developed countries have the opposite problem. That is one more reason to support reasonable population "control", because it means that the ratio of wealthy people to poor people is diminishing.

I'm confused as to what you are saying here. Fewer rich people doesn't mean that the increasing population of the poor will magically become richer. could you expand on that?

Originally posted by Maslo
Solutions? Increase the number of wealthy kids, and/or decrease the number of poor kids.
(of course, by decreasing poor people`s incentive to procreate, not by violence or forcing someone!

)

What is so wrong with that?

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Maslo]

In reality, wealth is becoming more and more centralized. In all western nations, the gap between rich and poor is increasing. This is how our economy is set up, unfortunately. Increasing the number of wealthy kids is an ideological solution only. Again, you are just stating that we are able to magically increase the number of poor kids, when in fact the average person has increasingly less funds available to them. Wealth isn't magically created out of nowhere, at least for the average joe anyways.

What you seem to be suggesting is that we essentially give money to poor people so that we will become slightly poorer and them slightly richer. Why the heck would anyone work to make money if it's just going to be taken away from them? This will definately cause a retraction in productivity and general job satisfaction. Poor countries get billions in aid already, due to corruption they don't get it. Essentially for this to work we would have to invade and install economic and political infrastracture, which is essentially what is happening in afghanistan and iraq.

Originally posted by Kaytagg
Anyone who honestly believes the earth can support 12 billion people by the year 2100 is naive and retarded.

I mean, maybe the earth can if we all live like third worlders.. But who wants that for themselves or their family?

Oh... so the problem is if the earth can support 12 billion people by the year 2100?

Damn... oh... wait... I dont care. I'm probably dead by 2100 (since I'm already 30 its HIGHLY possible that I am in fact dead by then) so... I couldnt care less. If I'm alive by 2100... my problems will be

1: if I have poop in my diapers

or

2: if I can remember that my name is jon, and not Napoleon Bonaparte or Genghis Khan.

Either way I still wont care about if the earth can or not sustain 12 billion people...

I'll let someone else deal with it.

Originally posted by nepafogo
Well there is no need to cut down all the trees. There sure is alot of open prairies on the earth. We do not need a house every 1/2 acre either, maybe live in housing complexes as opposed to the 1000+ sq ft homes we seem to think we need.

We do not really need livestock and could become vegetarians (not that I like this idea as I love my steak). Or we could just stop corporate farming and get rid of all the disgusting McDonald's and other fast food joints.

If we started using up the open space for building then if anything we'd need more space for trees to grow to provide building materials. It would get to a point where there simply wouldnt be enough trees being produced to cope with the demand. Even now we cant keep up with the demand for wood in other areas.

How would stopping the use of livestock, thus leaving millions of people without jobs work out? Especially when you consider that its not a prospect that the public would be too positive about.

Its easy coming up with ideas that on surface would seem to solve things, but when you think about it a bit more the vast majority of them have little possibility of ever being implemented. Whether its due to the economic effects, the sheer scale of organization it would take, and ultimately the cost and effort versus the end result.
Im glad Im not one of the guys who has to work this stuff out!

reply to post by Goatflesh Gnosis



You're just another victim of the enchanter who whispers sweet nothings, and tickles you ears with esoteric gobbletygook that makes sense to you.

you have a lot of company.

it's totally satanic in nature.

Am I wrong to assume you probably believe that God is in the coffee table and the trees and the steel and concrete too...or did I mess that one up?

Anyways, it's just a lie, I hope you find your way out of there.

reply to post by heyo


I am saying that becaue the rich have a tendency to reproduce slowly and the poor have a tendency to reproduce rapidly, the ratio of poor to rich tends to increase. This is bad for the society in general.

The usual way to combat this inequality is by various forms of welfare and charity, which takes from the rich and gives to the poor. That is not what I am suggesting, but it is happening, all over the world.

I am suggesting that if the poor want to take this support from the rich, they will have to stop reproducing.

It is not much to ask, and it works well in China. And both the poor and the rich will benefit from it.

Originally posted by Goatflesh Gnosis
Once again, I do not advocate ANY killing or violence.

Why not? You might as well, if you want depopulation.

Are you going to object to rampant killing and violence for the purposes of depopulation? If there were widespread violence and murder taking place, what incentive would you have to stop it?

[edit on 5-1-2010 by Riposte]

reply to post by nepafogo


I agree 100% on what you say here except there is a real tangible limit to what this earth can support. We can extend it, we can sacrifice certain things, but you're right. It would take a major overhaul. I have utmost respect for Germany's efforts. Their system is really trying and prospering for their leap of faith. The energy system alone has made remarkable ground. You're right.. 2% of the people own 98% of the wealth. Those 2% will never allow the changes needed because they are making too much money from the way things are now. Greed of the few will condemn the masses.
I'm not ranting about what needs to happen.. If I had any say so in the matter there would be massive changes. I'm saying that on the road that we're on, one that disallows change, the system will fail and we will not be able to support our population. I'm preaching self sufficiency and the abandonment of institutions that provide incentives to those unable to support themselves. As long as the impoverished are financially gaining by having children and we continue to support groups of people living in uninhabitable lands then we are on a collision course with that tangible limit.

Everyone can say they'll give up things to support a growing population, but is that really fair?? Say "Jenny" decides to go out and get knocked up 8 times. You've got one child of your own and barely supporting your family. Would you take 2 of her children and support them if it meant your child going without? Of course not. So to summarize... Government... stop supporting those unable to support themselves.. NPO.. stop "feeding the children" where there is no water or farmable land - they'll just make more And for crying out loud stop thinking a natural death is so horrible that you want to prolong someones life until they're in diapers and can't move.

Originally posted by Bluebelle

Originally posted by nepafogo
Well there is no need to cut down all the trees. There sure is alot of open prairies on the earth. We do not need a house every 1/2 acre either, maybe live in housing complexes as opposed to the 1000+ sq ft homes we seem to think we need.

We do not really need livestock and could become vegetarians (not that I like this idea as I love my steak). Or we could just stop corporate farming and get rid of all the disgusting McDonald's and other fast food joints.

If we started using up the open space for building then if anything we'd need more space for trees to grow to provide building materials. It would get to a point where there simply wouldnt be enough trees being produced to cope with the demand. Even now we cant keep up with the demand for wood in other areas.

How would stopping the use of livestock, thus leaving millions of people without jobs work out? Especially when you consider that its not a prospect that the public would be too positive about.

Its easy coming up with ideas that on surface would seem to solve things, but when you think about it a bit more the vast majority of them have little possibility of ever being implemented. Whether its due to the economic effects, the sheer scale of organization it would take, and ultimately the cost and effort versus the end result.
Im glad Im not one of the guys who has to work this stuff out!

Good points, but do we need to use wood to build houses? there are plenty of other products that are used today instead of wood (concrete, steel, composite, plastic, etc.) We actually use very little wood for building in the cities. Looking at my own home I would estimate that less than 10% of the building material is wood and that 10% could use something other than wood.

As far as the livestock goes we could probably continue with it, but it would definitely need to be better managed than it is today. Like I said get rid of the corporate farming. Alot of our beef exports goes to other countries than in the past did not eat beef, but being as the super farms can supply it to them it has become part of their diet. Not saying any of what I am suggesting would be easy, but it is definitely possible and thus a viable solution. Definitely sounds better than the alternative of depopulation.

reply to post by SeekerofTruth101


Who takes care of you when you're old? The answer is that you save your money when you can still work, instead of spending recklessly. Plan for everything and you won't have to beg from the government.

And I agree with the point about the poor being a burden on the rich. If you breed, then pay for everything for them yourself, instead of expecting the rich to get taxed more to pay for you.

And there's no need to "get in line" for anything, because we're not advocating murder. We're advocating having no or less kids, in which case, we're already in line.

There is no such thing as overpopulation on Earth. Our problem is waste, inefficiency and greed. These are our problems, not our numbers.

Think of it this way:

The proportion of poor to rich people has always been similar in history or close. All that changed is the amount of people in one instance or another not the percentage. In absolute numbers there is a clear increase but in relative numbers I think we deal with the same thing looking back in history.

In ancient Rome there were many poor people like today and a small elite. Then it was in the millions, now it is in the billion. We have 1 - 2 billion people living in poverty today, I don't have the numbers for ancient Rome, but I think the proportions would be the same.

Truth is that with a bigger population the levels of waste, greed and inefficiency increased. Which is bad, but it is not the number of people that is the problem, but how they live.

If you reduce the population to say 500 million, I am more than sure that about 100 to 200 million would live in poverty and inhuman conditions. So you see, it is not the number which has to be changed but something else in our nature.

Reducing the population is the wrong approach, it is the easiest one apparently but a wrong one nonetheless.

I read somewhere that Earth can sustain many tens of billion of people if you do it properly, there is more than enough land to accomodate them all. Of course you cannot have this in a free market economy where the golden rule is survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fittest outcomes:

1. Inefficiency - One person, rich that is, can spend and waste billions for his own selfish needs.

2. Greed - The more you have for yourself the better you think you are, as such elite will seek to amass more and more wealth and waste it.

3. Waste - To make profits all products are made in such a way that they break fast (a few years) or need constant maintanence (every few months). This is done on purpose so that some can gain more, thus waste and inefficiency.

Originally posted by nik1halo
I know I'm probably gonna get flamed for this, but I think the Chinese have a good idea with only allowing couple's to have 1 child. A generation down the line and theoretically, your population should have halved. As already stated, it is a human right to have kids, but who said anything about multiple kids?

As for how to enforce this; after the birth of your child, the male should get a vasectomy, which is safer and easier to reverse should the child die.

And before I get the "you first bud" replies, I would definitely consider it as an option. I already have a child and don't particularly want any more.

You do realize that the chinese plan you are in favor of has also resulted in two key unintended consequences?

1 - infanticide of female children as the chinese try to have what they perceive is the more valuable male child.

2 - a huge mismatch in the number of available young adult males vs. the number of young adult females since so many females were killed as infants. I've read the difference is now something like 50 million.

When you look at the results, perhaps not such a great idea after all.

reply to post by Pericle


Have you read this thread? Yes, the Earth can sustain tens of billions of people, but it will no longer be the Earth we love. Gone will be the rainforests, gone will be the Sahara. Gone will be the plains of Africa. Gone will be all animals and plants that are not domesticated. We'll be living on a massive farm.

And then? Well, if we never control population, as the Earth is decidedly finite, we will still run out of space, even if we use all the land as efficiently as possible, and produce no waste. It's basic logic.

I support depopulation.
And by depopulation, I mean middle and upper class people, mostly from English-speaking countries, should have less children.
Face it. The problem isn't the 6 billion people on Earth. Earth can support 6 billion humans, easily. The problem is the richest one or two billion of them. Alone they'd be a problem. Even more of a problem is the richest few thousands. But I'm not advocating killing anyone. Just people not existing in the first place. And the people who shouldn't exist are the ones who are a burden. Us. Me. You. Our descendants.

reply to post by Goatflesh Gnosis


You Said --
"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. "

Ok -- thats not their fault, Its not because of over population.
Its the system thats broken and corrupt. People make a dollar a day because those people are taken advantage of by rich corporate elite who make them have to live that way. -- It has nothing to do with over population.

Please think about what your saying.

-Orion

One planet
One people
6 billion minds.

That is why nothing could ever be done to sustain the growing population. If we were to work together nation with nation, culture with culture we could sustain as many people as we want.

The problem I see with condensed living spaces is escalating crime rates. If we want to solve these problems we need cooperation from ever person on Earth.

OR

We could all just suffer together. Wait for new diseases and plagues to depopulate us by force. You don't need to be scientific to understand that this world is being tortured because each one us thinks and does harm on their own.

Does anyone else see what's happening here?

The OP suggests a passive means of population control and IMMEDIATELY members begin to protest by highlighting their 'God-given' right to procreate.

Point and case: The elite know that this is exactly how the majority of us will react.

That's why they have opted for soft-killing us covertly. It doesn't require consent or compromise and get's the job done.



[edit on 5-1-2010 by rexusdiablos]

That's why they have opted for soft-killing us covertly. It doesn't require consent or compromise and get's the job done.

What do you think is in those vaccinations?? Why is there talks of "maybe" banning pharmaceuticals in tap water? They can have anything in them. The law states that as long as the health agency doing these things claim no "intent" of harm, then they can legally inoculate us without our knowledge.