Population control Isn't it about time?

reply to post by Reaper2137


You first.

I don't know why this rant topic is still going on.
The OP clearly don't want debating problem, he is making false statements.

reply to post by Reaper2137

Population control Isn't it about time?

We are a unique species in that we can be both groupies and devout individualists. This is why we can form things like political parties and then argue against their very concept.

To control the growth of humanity, you are either going to educate it or enslave it. It has to begin one way or the other. But before it's over with, you will end up doing both.

So, the question is whether to teach people how to keep population under control by applying responsible birth control methods, or skipping that and jumping to the procreative police state, and then (as an afterthought) pretending it is all for their own good.

You not only can have it both ways, you will get it both ways... which is why we understand the gravity of opening this door to begin with. it won't stop with good intentions... it never has and it never will.

But I do suspect that nature will attend the issue of population control. Through disease, starvation, reproductive drive deviations, instinctive self destructiveness... it will balance us in ways that we won't be able to avoid and probably would never recognize as being such. In fact, there is evidence that this has already begun.

reply to post by iforget


Omg... living in the stoneage are we? Of course it is time to do population control. But not everywhere only where it is needed.

As long as we can´t share the existing rescources availible and can´t stop fightingm why do we need more people anyway?

Also natural disasters etc getting worse year by year many people will be on the "run" for a long long time more and more each year. That is a fact I think. - So some of the population problem will solve itself eventually.

- Grz with the child mate.

Thanks,

reply to post by Reaper2137


It takes a special brand of fool to think that no such thing as overpopulation exists. Flash news: if I eat my cake, you can't have it too! It's not rocket surgery, my 79-years-old grandma gets it... it's common sense. If you ever gave any kind of party at your house, you should have no problem grasping this simple concept. It seems that people on ATS watch Zeitgeist and think they've been revealed some kind of great hidden truth about the world. Oooh, Illuminati bla bla... evil corporations, power to the people, free energy etc etc. The real world just doesn't work the way they like, or even the way they think it does. Population control is not an option, it's a necessity... the sooner you learn to accept it, the better!

reply to post by Reaper2137


Time and Time again i see threads like this and you always get the ones telling you that there is 'no over-population' issue but i always say 'yes there is.... it depends on Geography.... where you live in the World.... certain areas are more populated then others.... so yes there are issues with populations!!!'

It's fine if you live in the Suburbs but if you live in the Cities you will see the population is too much and still growing.

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


I live totally in the suburb. I cant say witch city because I am afraid that I will be hunted down by islamic extremic people. (Tinfoil hat on).

But even though there might only be like 250 people where I live I still know there is to many people. Everyone with a brain can guess that.

Thanks,

reply to post by Reaper2137


Population control Isn't it about time?

Personally, I think its BEEN about time for some time.

However, there have always been methods of contraceptive available. Or if you're a man and you dont want to knock up some gold diggin broad you simply make a Dr appointment and have them do a little snip,snip, stitch.

If you're talking about society as a whole, it harkens back to my college days when I brought up the problem of overpopulation in my sociology classes. To quote my sociology professor:

"I wouldnt worry about over population, history has shown that mother nature has a way of protecting herself. When the time comes where there are truly too many people, something will happen. No one knows whether it will be a disease outbreak, natural weather disasters, or the advent of WWIII. Either way, every so often something happens that wipes out a huge amount of people, and thus balance is kept."

makes sense to me.

reply to post by Reaper2137


Oh boy...let's look at two of your replies.

I have done extensive research on this subject and yes it is a problem. Its Part of one of my majors in college.

Sorry you are right it is closer to 7 billion my mistake.

You would think "extensive research" into population issues would probably start out with an accurate estimation of the current population.

Forgive me if I don't trust your "expertise" in this field.

Like I have said before...just because someone has claimed to have "researched" something or "studied" something...doesn't mean they understand it nor are the an expert in it by default. Many many people spend their whole lives studying, researching, and working in one field...and by the time they retire, they may still not understand anything.

I might suggest another Major for you...or at least strive to get basic facts correct.

The governments from all nations of the world should meet and come to the wonderful insight that wars are for stupid idiots. Why is it anyway that educated people decide to start wars....?

The money which would be spent on war effort should be used for this population problem.

Find ways to make moons and planets inhabitable
Find better energy sources

In brief....use all money for the peaceful and prosperous future of mankind.

reply to post by Reaper2137


Since when was the Earth's population at 9 billion? It's not even at 7 billion yet, although it is steadily rising.

The world can actually produce enough resources to support a larger population, it's all just a matter of management. Another problem to add to this is the sheer rate at which the population is increasing. It will take much time for political and corporate officials to trudge their way through the beaurocratic process of policy alteration.

People of lower socioeconomic situations tend to have more children, while women with more education tend to have less. This creates another problem in which more government funds are being used up in welfare services to support the rapidly increasing population of the "underclass". This diverts funding away from better policy management, agricultural research and environmental management.

A huge population is the dream of capitalist[read: corporate] governments. More people means more people spending more money. The more money a corporation has, the more taxes it pays, and the more money put into the government's coffers. It's a happy cycle of consumerist culture and endless money. And while a lot of people may claim to dislike the way things are, good luck getting them to snap out of their brainwashed minds to rid themselves of excess luxury, turn off their 2 metre wide 3D televisions and haul themselves out of their Italian leather chairs long enough to actually start banding together and bring about some kind of change.

It is definitely time for population control. It's just a matter of convincing the corporate fat cats.



P.S. On a side note, what exactly is good about Italian leather? Why is it considered "better" than any other leather, I mean, it all comes from dead cows anyway. Why would an Italian dead cow be better than, say, an Australian dead cow? Or a Russian one?

Originally posted by DeepThoughtCriminal
reply to post by Reaper2137

 

Since when was the Earth's population at 9 billion? It's not even at 7 billion yet, although it is steadily rising.

The world can actually produce enough resources to support a larger population, it's all just a matter of management. Another problem to add to this is the sheer rate at which the population is increasing. It will take much time for political and corporate officials to trudge their way through the beaurocratic process of policy alteration.

People of lower socioeconomic situations tend to have more children, while women with more education tend to have less. This creates another problem in which more government funds are being used up in welfare services to support the rapidly increasing population of the "underclass". This diverts funding away from better policy management, agricultural research and environmental management.

A huge population is the dream of capitalist[read: corporate] governments. More people means more people spending more money. The more money a corporation has, the more taxes it pays, and the more money put into the government's coffers. It's a happy cycle of consumerist culture and endless money. And while a lot of people may claim to dislike the way things are, good luck getting them to snap out of their brainwashed minds to rid themselves of excess luxury, turn off their 2 metre wide 3D televisions and haul themselves out of their Italian leather chairs long enough to actually start banding together and bring about some kind of change.

It is definitely time for population control. It's just a matter of convincing the corporate fat cats.



P.S. On a side note, what exactly is good about Italian leather? Why is it considered "better" than any other leather, I mean, it all comes from dead cows anyway. Why would an Italian dead cow be better than, say, an Australian dead cow? Or a Russian one?

If you read further on you would see that I corrected the Information, in a later post. Resources management is not going to help in the long run, it already to late for that.

news.wustl.edu...
www.energybulletin.net...

Land we have more than enough of, its feeding a people that doubles every 50 to 100 years. Every time science catches up, we have a whole new problem.

On a side-note that I saw mentioned by Paleorchid earlier: I totally agree that we should have far more fruit-bearing trees in every part of the country. And I mean lots of them. Especially in public areas.

Sure, the first few years might be a little tough with a certain few eating most of the fruit every season, but that would just be a phase. Get the trees planted and we'll work out the particulars as we go.

Food that grows on trees? That's like magic or something! I don't think anybody could say that it would be a step in the wrong direction.

Loadmaster

Originally posted by BrianC
reply to post by Reaper2137

 

Not that I don't support the troops, but do you think your education might be a little bit biased

I don't support the troops. Why should I? They are carrying out illegal wars.

Reaper your stats are so off and wrong.
you say in 30 years the population will double? false.
if we lived as hunters and gatherers we the earth could support 40 billion people? thats laughable and impossible.
we survive as we do now clumped up in cities if you spread us out and added 33 billion people there would be people to the mountaintops...

I may have missed the answer, but I'm compelled to ask anyway:

OP, do you want children? If you do not, are you sterilized? If the answers are no and no, then why the hell are you on here tut tuting the population responsibility fails of others if you yourself haven't taken that responsibility and been sterilized? Condoms break, contraceptive shots/pills/devices fail. Considering your stance, you are bound to be the one eating a healthy plateful of crow someday with natural multiples descended from your one 'oops' tryst.

And before you even ask, yes, I have children, and my husband and I decided two is enough for us. We are both sterilized. I ask again, are you sterilized to help control the population?

Since the people of the world are not free to move about between regions called countries and require the permission of the country that they are not citizens of to enter it, not sure how the world can have a population "problem". Some countries are definitely growing in population, but there are several others whose populations are dwindling. So if population growth is indeed a problem, it is a problem only for some countries. But a problem in one country can also manifest as a different problem in another. If a country that is rapidly growing in population is also a militaristic country they could invade other countries to gain their resources for the benefit of their own country. They could even attack and exterminate populations in another defenceless part to claim the land as well as resources for their own use. If they lack the abillity or the willingness to pick either of the approaches to solving the demands of their growing population, it will likely lead to starvation, disease or internal strife that will cause many to die.

So a population "problem", if it exists is a local problem and especially of those countries that do not have strong militaries either to defend their territories and resources or to acquire control of those belonging to others.

But all those "concerned" with the "world population problem" are invariably from countries with either stable or dwindling populations and militaries and military alliances so strong that no one take seriously a possibility that these nations feel threatened by those with growing populations in other parts of the world attacking them for their resources. So why then is this "concern" so high where there is no such problem? Are they so "concerned" for humanity that they cannot visualise starvation, disease and internal strife in the other parts of the world? It is worth noting that most of these countries have engaged in open murder and plunder of most of the rest of the world until recently and some of them came into existence by exterminating the local populations. They have never given up an opportunity to cause starvation and death by disease by imposing trade sanctions on one pretext or another. They have also openly created and encouraged internal strife in several countries of the world under one pretext or another.

It is doubly hilarious that the one who started this thread also explicitly stated on another thread that "wars are a way of keeping the herd in check" and denies that he is suggesting killing as a way of solving the "population problem".

Yes, population is certainly a problem, the population of murdering bandit nations pretending to be concerned about the world. I sure hope the rest can find a way of culling such populations.

If you hate humanity as much as alot of you have displayed in this thread and you think population control is needed then please, by all means, be the solution to your own problem and go off yourself. Im so sick of low self esteem scum that hate themselves attempting to dictate the way other people need to live their lives. I dont need people with 5+ children telling me I can only have 1 child. You need your #ing head examined if you truly believe that killing people is the solution to all the world's problems... but then again, insane people have been thinking this way throughout human history. Maybe those people should have been sterilized so you wouldnt even exist to shove this nonsense down my throat any further.

You people make me sick to my stomach. Traitors to your own species.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Reaper2137

 

the govenments of the world control energy forcing us to use oil
then blame us for causing pollusion
if clean energy and sustainable farming was allowed,
what problems would really exist
the matrix has programmed you well
xploder

extremely well said

Originally posted by Reaper2137
Just because you are to closed minded to see whats happening doesn't mean its not. Here in the United States over population is not a problem yet. Its a problem in non-industrial countries with lack of basic resources and it also doesn't help that the United States has like 5% of the world population and consumes 30% of the world resources.

The more a person has the more they use. The more money they have, the more they waste. Case in point. Neighbor just loves green grass. But has the money to waste the water that it takes to keep it nice and green. I keep telling them what are you going to do when we run low or out of water, eat the grass! They spend over $160.00 a month for water. We pay $7.00 per 1,000 gals. I pay around $30.00. (But, when it does happen I'll have to eat the grass too.) No one that I know wants to cut back and use a little less because that would change there lifestyle. I wonder how long taking a shower in Texas was, before they found out their wasn't enought left to wash their hair.