It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Jana12
There are numerous reasons -- some of which we probably aren't even aware of.
A few of the more obvious might be ...
- lack of education
- lack of proper medical care
- lack of birth control
- ignorance
- greed
- rape
- incest
- people resistant to change
- cultures resistant to change
Originally posted by Omphale
Originally posted by Jana12
There are numerous reasons -- some of which we probably aren't even aware of.
A few of the more obvious might be ...
- lack of education
- lack of proper medical care
- lack of birth control
- ignorance
- greed
- rape
- incest
- people resistant to change
- cultures resistant to change
And war. Civil and otherwise...
OBVIOUSLY...
Originally posted by Jana12
Originally posted by Omphale
Originally posted by Jana12
There are numerous reasons -- some of which we probably aren't even aware of.
A few of the more obvious might be ...
- lack of education
- lack of proper medical care
- lack of birth control
- ignorance
- greed
- rape
- incest
- people resistant to change
- cultures resistant to change
And war. Civil and otherwise...
OBVIOUSLY...
Thanks ... Correct ... I agree ..
and also ...
Psychopaths and Sociopaths
I believe most suffering and crime can be traced back to one or the other ... at least IMO.
That's sure and fine in an emergency when trying to feed a famine stricken population but the human being is an omnivore. We also need meat.
Originally posted by ofhumandescent
reply to post by Freenrgy2
Population control isn't the issue.................According to Ervin Laszlo in his book The Chaos Point, you could fit every single man, woman and child in the State of Texas.
The biggest pollution problem and this was a real shocker for me is the number of animals we have to raise using grain to feed them.
You see the amount of grain and I know this cause I use to work on a small farm with cows, sheep and chickens............the amount of grain you have to feed say a cow (cows really eat ALOT) that amount of grain for one cow could feed hundreds of people.
I will quote from Ervin Laszlo's book "Chaos Point 2012 and Beyond Our Choices Between Global Disaster and a Sustainable Planet" pages 20-21
World meat consumption has increased more than fivefold in the last 50 years. more and more people demand meat.
A diet heavy on meat is not only unhealthy, it is also immoral: It indulges a personal fancy at the expense of depleting resources essential to feed the entire human population. Red meat comes from cattle, and cattle must be fed. The grain fed to cattle is subtracted from that available for human consumption. If cows returned equivalent nutrition in the form of meat, their feed would not be wasted. But the calorific energy provided by beef is only one-seventh of the energy of the feed. This means that in the process of converting grain into beef, cows "waste" six-sevenths of the nutritional value of their feed. The proportion is somewhat more favorable in poultry, but the average chicken still uses for itself two-thirds of the nutritional value of the feed it consumes.
The nutritive needsof the entire human population could be satisfied by eating more vegetables and grain and less meeat, using first and foremost the produce of one's own country, region, and environment. Grain and plant based food self reliance provides a healthier diet, and it allows the world's economically exploitable agricultural lands to be worked to satisfy the needs of the entire human family.
Originally posted by RightWingAvenger
reply to post by Dionisius
"Some of you folks make me sick. How dare you declare less fortunate nations "welfare states." The very resources that go to make your IPOD's,cell phones/plasma tv's etc...are the same resources not being shared with the people."
****"less fortunate nations". What makes them "less fortunate?
Why exactly does every country on Earth have to live at our standards? Who are we to impose these standards? When we "found" them they were thriving. It is only our insistence that they live up to our standards that they became "less fortunate". If we had left them as we found them they would still be thriving. It is their way to breed like flies. They thrive when their harvests are good and starve when they are not. And that is what they have been doing for thousands of years. It is only your perception that the need help.
"It's absolutely racist to assume that those in poor nations are welfare grabbers. They simply do not have any other choice. I'm willing to wager if we could take all the poorest nations and swap lifestyle for a single year that the majority of Americans would weep and say "okay...okay I'll start to share now"
****"welfare grabbers"? Of course they are. They wouldln't be grabbing if it were not offered to them. They would find their own way of dealing with it. So you are all for redistribution of the wealth? From each according to his ability to each according to his need? No reason to work hard, just sit here and wait for that aid from thos "rich countries".
Originally posted by Welshy77
reply to post by zorgon
NO! YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT! Why does there have to be a structure??? Why should someones potential be based purely on geography? The only charities i contribute to are local animal sanctuaries..
Don't get me wrong i'm not digging at you.. but you've gotta see the bigger picture?
Originally posted by steveknows
Originally posted by Dionisius
reply to post by Welshy77
Yes I am for real, are you? The only resource we really need is food. Food can be foraged and hunted, we do not need mass scale production farms which rape the land to feed us. We dont need satellites that can read number plates, we need food and water. We could go down the zeitgeist road and have technology do everything for us but it would lead to unfulfilling lives.
Have you ever gone out and caught food for yourself or foraged plants? It is a hugely satisfying experience and one which should be cherished. Not dismissed as a primitive and animalistic thing to do, now I know thatg is not what you afre saying, but it is the view of humanity.
The world could not support the population it has with hunter gathering. In fact the very reason there are so many people in the world is because we learned to farm and domesticate cattle. We would never had reached this level of population just on being hunter gatherers.
Also we would never have reached the level of technology and we couldn't maintain the lifestyle we have with out the amount of people that are in the world today give or take a few million.
It's not just food availablilty and wealth which drives technology and lifestyle but also demand. You might not realise this but in order for you to to have a job, house, car and go shopping etc it has actually taken the work of thousands of people in order for you to do that and each one of those thousands need thousands. So for millions all over the planet to do it it takes millions in order for it to be done. So 7 billion is about the amount of people needed in the world to maintain our level of technology and lifestyle give or take a few million. Ask any social scientist.
If we went and broke into small groups now billions would starve as there's not enough wild foods avialable. Which leads to something else. If the world turn to crap tomorrow through a meteor strike or such. I responsible action of the authorities would be to make sure that all gates of all cattle station in the world are left open so that the cattle have a chance to survive which gives us a chance.edit on 6-1-2012 by steveknows because: Typo
Originally posted by zorgon
Originally posted by Dionisius
What I mean is that to live a sustainable life off of the land without harming Nature or hunting too many animals, we would have to split off into much smaller groups, learn essential survival skills and find a piece of land that can support the whole group.
Even if it was possible (and there are some places on Earth where this could be done) how long will it be before the group next door sees your successful group after they have found their group is not doing so well, and they decide it will be easier to take what is yours?
Do you really think everyone is equal enough to leave the others alone in peace?
It is a sad commentary on the Human race, but left to their own devices MOST humans would resort to brutal savagery very quickly. You only need to look as far as New Orleans after Katrina to see the truth of it, where people were stealing plasma TV's in a flooded town, stealing food from old people also stranded, shooting rescuers and where the cops turned criminal. 120 officers were charged.
edit on 6-1-2012 by zorgon because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by galadofwarthethird
Forget what you see in the mad max movies, things probably would not even be that advanced. In all reality we would probably be living in caves throwing poop at each other. And warring with the dudes in the other cave over a sharp rock.
Originally posted by OWSisdead
Why? Because people are breeding irresponsibly.
Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I don't know but,40 percent of all pregnancies end up in abortion in New York,
www.nytimes.com...