Humans Are NOT A Cancer!!

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by swan001

 

For one China has been trying to reduce its population for decades now and thats is not eugenics. It becomes eugenics when you favour traits over others. It goes like this, only fertiilise human eggs that have an high IQ discard those eggs or babies that dont fit the bill. Thats Eugenics in a nutshell

You should read up my last post. I've included plenty of links which shows Eugenics movement uses "overpopulation" myth to justify cleansing. Letme give you another one:

wpfdc.org...

That brings to a reiteration of an earlier question, if there’s more than enough room for everyone on earth as seen above, is there any depopulation agenda and if there is what is the real raison d’etre?

Depopulation agendas have existed from time immemorial as far back as in 1550 BC in Egypt (Time Magazine US). However it gained momentum and became a topic of global discourse when Margaret Sanger surreptitiously propagated the eugenics agenda. The agenda is hinged on the elimination of ‘inferior races.’ Thomas Malthus asserted that a population time bomb threatened humanity and listed a group of people which included the ‘racially inferior.’

Eugenics proponents will say that China is a good example to follow. The problem is, USA don't have China's population. Yet we are ready to jump headlong in Eugenics programs of sterilization.

reply to post by swan001


7 Billion people on this planet and you say we are not over populated its a myth ....Wheres the goddamn intelliegence on this site.......wish there was an ignore button wouldnt have to listen to this crap....
If we lived in self sustaining cities with minimal impact on the surrounding enviornment then you might have a point to make but we dont. We live in an economy where capitalism rules and growth for the sake of growth is as i said earlier in a post is how a cancer cell grows....

Originally posted by Australiana
reply to post by starheart

 

yes.. they are

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by swan001

 

7 Billion people on this planet and you say we are not over populated its a myth

....Wheres the goddamn intelliegence on this site.......wish there was an ignore button wouldnt have to listen to this crap....
If we lived in self sustaining cities with minimal impact on the surrounding enviornment then you might have a point to make but we dont. We live in an economy where capitalism rules and growth for the sake of growth is as i said earlier in a post is how a cancer cell grows....

The ugliness of what western 'population control' advocacy really is underpinning is apparent in your post. Although I don't think you meant it to be there.

It all boils down to 'stop them breeding over there so we can keep living like this over here'.

As Swann has correctly pointed out this all has its roots in Malthusian concepts.

Malthus concept is fundamentally #ing flawed. It works for sheep in a penn. Sooner or later enough sheep in a fixed area and you'll run out of grass. It completely misses the point that humans are not sheep. Sheep cannot invent to increase the yield of their food supply, we can. We've been doing it since we invented crop rotation, we are now modifying at the genetic level.

In addition, the more advanced the society the more population growth levels of naturally, stabilises then falls. Look at the Japanese demographics, look at the demographic projections for the UK and western Europe. Essentially populations slowly dying of old age.

As the third world modernises thier populations will eventually stabilise too.

With regard to water. The planet is covered in water. Sure, easily accessible freshwater is limited by geography but we are not dumb animals, we can turn seawater into potable water.

Global overpopulation is a dangerous myth built on a flawed foundation.

As to China's 'one child policy' what a disaster thats turned out to be. Rampant female infanticide over decades has led to a massive demographic imbalance and a population teeming with frustrated males without any hope of finding a mate. Its good if you're in the human traffic or illicit abortion business, its not been so good for anybody else.

reply to post by justwokeup


I dont pander to western thinking. I am quite capable of critical thinking all by myself. Maybe you should try it and just maybe you be able to see a bigger picture. As I said in a previous post if we had sustaining economies rather than the rape and pillage atitude of capitalism then you might have a point. As since we dont then having a large population of humans where raping and pillaging of the planet is the norm then you will need to reduce the numbers. Take for exmple the depleted fish stocks, the mass killing of whales and dolphins, the destruction of wooded habitats to make way for farming and housing. The list is endless and all in the name of capitalism.

As for water you say? talk about saying the obvious that the planet has water all over the place. We can only drink a small amount of it and as for drinking water from the sea maybe you should check on the power requirements for desalination for that to work.

Western countries have an aging population yes we do but is that population growing or shrinking when compared to the number of babies born. heres the latest figures for the UK
There were 723,913 live births in England and Wales in 2011, increasing slightly (by 0.1 per cent) from 723,165 in 2010.
There were 484,367 deaths registered in England and Wales in 2011, compared with 493,242 in 2010 (a fall of 1.8 per cent)
The total fertility rate (TFR) in England and Wales in 2011 was 1.93 children per woman.
Age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) in 2011 were the lowest ever recorded for England and Wales, at 6,236 deaths per million population for males and 4,458 deaths per million population for females.

As you can see even thoough the number of children is just under 2 per family(on average). With over 700K births and just under 500K deaths. So it seems to me that the UK is still growing in population despite the huge number of people living to an old age.

Btw Genetically modified food stuff????? No wonder you sound crazy you been eating it havent you?

As for China females infants deaths.. Its they own bloody fault for being male chauvinistic pigs and shows lack of intelligence. The current chinese thinking amongst its citizens is that only males can do the family work. Personally i rather live in a world where men make up 30% of the population now that would be something to look forward to.

As to China's 'one child policy' what a disaster thats turned out to be

Disaster? If they hadn't been doing that for decades they'd have millions of people starving to death right now and they would be invading other countries for resources to support them.

Giant populations are a dangerous and irresponsible liability- and yes we have a giant population too, though not quite as bad.

Originally posted by CB328

As to China's 'one child policy' what a disaster thats turned out to be

Disaster? If they hadn't been doing that for decades they'd have millions of people starving to death right now and they would be invading other countries for resources to support them.

Giant populations are a dangerous and irresponsible liability- and yes we have a giant population too, though not quite as bad.

Its a disastrous piece of social engineering (limiting families) in response to a previous disastrous piece of social engineering (Maos encouragement of large families).

You would think by now we would have learned that state decree of when and how individuals can reproduce is a bad idea.

On this thread its obvious we havent.

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by swan001

 

7 Billion people on this planet and you say we are not over populated its a myth

....Wheres the goddamn intelliegence on this site.......wish there was an ignore button wouldnt have to listen to this crap....
If we lived in self sustaining cities with minimal impact on the surrounding enviornment then you might have a point to make but we dont. We live in an economy where capitalism rules and growth for the sake of growth is as i said earlier in a post is how a cancer cell grows....

No, I'm not impressed by our number of population. We did made it this far, and that's because we never give up, unlike some peope around here which wants population to die off so the remaining folks get more wealth. See, it took 13 years to go from 6 billion people on Earth to 7 billion people on Earth. It'll take at least another 13 years (older source say 16 years) to reach 8 billion. To reach 9 billion, you'll have to wait even longer, another 15 years (older source say 24 years). That's because population Is faced by a growing infertility rate, which came under the form of a otherwise benign virus which specifically targeted population's fertility (weird, uh? Check Wikipedia). Check the UN's plots for next population figures, and you see it starts slowing after 2050 - at which point we will be BTW fully capable to travel to other planets (predicted for 2020).




Source: Wikipedia


And you forget that as soon as extraterrestrial settlement is possible, then the "overpopulation" myth is by definition practically non-existent.

the Solar System as a whole could sustain current population growth rates for a thousand years. (...) suggests that the resources of the solar system could support 10 quadrillion (1016) people.

Source: Wikipedia

Originally posted by minor007
As since we dont then having a large population of humans where raping and pillaging of the planet is the norm then you will need to reduce the numbers.

I'll have to give you the maths to you too, obviously you didn't read my last posts.


-Worldwide production of potatoes (Wikipedia as source) is 315,000,000,000 kg per year.

-We are about 7,000,000,000 humans on Earth (Source: Wiki).

-Divide our production of only these potatoes by the amount of people on Earth and you get 45 kg per person per year, INCLUDING ALL STARVING AFRICANS. Statistics shows that 33 kg per year per humans (that is, in developped countries) is the norm. (source: Wiki)





-We grow 784,000,000,000 kg of corn per years. Source: Wiki.

-We grow 651,000,000,000 kg of rice per year. Source: Wiki.

-We grow 607,000,000,000 kg of wheat per year. Source: Wiki.

-We are about 7,000,000,000 individual humans on Earth. Source: Wiki.

-Together the world produces 2,042,000,000,000 kg of gramineae (and that's only 3 of the gramineae family, we didn't included other plants like fruits and other vegetables yet).

-divide our production of only these 3 gramineaes by the amount of people on Earth. You get 291.7 kg per every single person on Earth per year. That's 0.799 kg of gramineae per day per person, INCLUDING EVERY SINGLE CURRENTLY STARVING INDIVIDUALS IN THE 3RD WORLD. How many of you seriously eat a kilogram of wheat/corn/rice per day? In addition to your potatoes?





-New York City is 17,400 square kilometers, and is home to 23,000,000 indivdual humans. Source: Wiki.

-There are 7,000,000,000 indivduals on Earth. Source: Wiki.

-All of mankind could fit into 304 copies of New York (about 1 or 2 New York City per countries), which together would cover only 5,295,652 square kilometers total. The total area of all continental surface of the Earth is 148,647,000 square kilometers (Source? You guessed it: Wikipedia). Do the ratio, and you get the following, which is...

-The whole of the population on Earth covers only 0.035 % of Earth's continental surface (or 0.010 % of Earth's total surface).






Sorry. I actually did the maths.

Originally posted by minor007
the destruction of wooded habitats to make way for farming and housing. (...)that population growing or shrinking when compared to the number of babies born.

And there are 250 trillion termites on Earth (4 billion tons), all of them which are xylophage (eat wood). Those few companies who specialize in wood production are corporations, which again strengthens the OP's point that corporations are the cancer.

I would gladly have a home made of steel or some other resistant material. but these are never available, because corporations won't make such drastic change. They want the problem to continue. Where they create a problem, they can wait to provide the solution, and then provide the solution just at the right time, and debt rises in their favour AND pushing political strategies both in only one shot.

reply to post by swan001


Growing populations still need homes. Homes need wood homes need infrastructure. This has nothing to do with corporations.
Corporations are made up of people. You get rid of the corporations what happens to all those people who had a job? Wait i know make them do the same job locally but then you still have the original problem. So therefore the cancer still is human as the corporations are only there because the public needs their services....

reply to post by minor007


The cancer is the mismanagement team who are working to fail the students in this school and cause as much trauma as possible to ensnare spirit as slaves and food for their masters. They are prodigal sons and daughters and truly need to go back home.

There is more than enough for everyone here and all of nature, in a clean and wonderful upgraded world that after achieving freedom wed to equality with highly grown up communities where people become the councils and governments or first level, and most powerful level, ie watchdog and creative level of government, would then be readied to progress cosmically into higher levels.

There is no reason every single person, without cost, without land tax, without exchange of work, ie slavery, cannot be living well, in beauty, with really good nutrition.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
No Matter What Your Politics, Why Is Anyone Living In Poverty?


Fishing in the Phoenix Earthship

I don't even truly believe in land ownership, but don't believe in corporate ownership either, and do believe in private lifelong possession able to be passed on to beneficiaries and all assets, ie lakes and special features, belonging to all without private homes, but lake shores, beaches and various access points. I believe more in land trusts with the trustees being the future great great great great....grandchildren.

Everyone here is but the guardians of the estate and need to pass it on clean and well organized and beautified.

Clean energy, offgrid, and cold fusion/overunity as well. But I would start with solar, wind, Tesla antennas just grabbing the energy from above, wave/tide and Friction Heaters with many stirling engines in a little shed or basement.

Human waste should be sanitized, put through worms and turn out as topsoil and also all waste can be turned into fuel for cars and heaters.

Commercial hemp solutions for homes.

Homes that do not require cutting down forrests. Simple beautiful ones, with cherry blossoms over the trout pond, beauty and peace for all.

Its a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY that this isn't done now, it means the mismanagers are going to face enormous consequences if they don't clean up their greedy little number.

Also, anyone who calls humanity a cancer is a dark hat. Thought creates. They are trying to cast a spell on everyone to give them even more pain and suffering than the majority already endure.

reply to post by Unity_99


I am well aware that the earth can provide enough for the current population but as i said if WE LIVED IN SUSTAINING CITIES that have minimal impact on the enviornment.

Since our system is capitalism then this is what happens through the current economic philosophy. You will always have mismanagement of resources in a capitalistic system. Its all about jobs and making money. To give an example an x amount of potaoes is sold to companies who make crisps. If we sent the potatoes to feed people instead then what happens to the jobs at the crisp factory? What happens to the lost revenue crisp manufacturers make for the local government etc.
So untill we change the current economy to something that is not capitalism, humans will always be the cancer.

reply to post by minor007


Cities should be there only for those who choose them, this should be the country and farming. Natural. I love the venus projects models but dislike his architecture and sky rises. No one should live in the air. Or in small cubicles.

We're going to increase in population and go into the solar system. This is a very old cycle we're in. But its really time to overcome the slave system here and the toxins. Murder Incorporated is the blight on humanity's progress and their Incorporations. The Incorporate bunch!!! Darth Vaders group.

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by swan001

 

Growing populations still need homes. Homes need wood homes need infrastructure.

Seriously. You think Wood is the ONLY material EVER capable of building houses? Doesn't brick rings a bell?

And even then let's ay wood was the only material possible, and let's say we stop building right now. There's currently enough houses for every single man, woman and child in the world:

Last survey done by readers digestable in april 2011 shown there was almost 57,234,345,211.234 and still countin the .234 235 was for the fact that was how many houses that were to be completed the next month.

source: wiki.answers.com...

57 billion. We are 7 billion. World's population is nowhere near reaching a housing shortage. In fact it has enough houses to go for at least several hundred of years.

The reason why there are homeless people is because people can't afford the rent because of the economical collapse. If money would stop being a barrier, everyone could live happily.

Originally posted by minor007
So untill we change the current economy to something that is not capitalism, humans will always be the cancer.

If you consider every humans a cancer, then...

Do you consider your friends and your loved ones as a cancer?

I see a big unethical concept just there.

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by minor007
So untill we change the current economy to something that is not capitalism, humans will always be the cancer.

If you consider every humans a cancer, then...

Do you consider your friends and your loved ones as a cancer?

I see a big unethical concept just there.

whats so unethical about it? its a true statement. I too consider myself as part of the cancer even though I LIKE to think I am not. Whats more unethical is your inability to understand why we are a cancer. Did you read my initial post on this subject?

Originally posted by minor007
reply to post by justwokeup

 

I dont pander to western thinking. I am quite capable of critical thinking all by myself. Maybe you should try it and just maybe you be able to see a bigger picture. As I said in a previous post if we had sustaining economies rather than the rape and pillage atitude of capitalism then you might have a point. As since we dont then having a large population of humans where raping and pillaging of the planet is the norm then you will need to reduce the numbers. Take for exmple the depleted fish stocks, the mass killing of whales and dolphins, the destruction of wooded habitats to make way for farming and housing. The list is endless and all in the name of capitalism.

-- Our current economic model is unsustainable into the long term. It'll blow up at some point. Poor behaviour of western originating multi-nationals and fat SUV driving americans is not an argument for population reduction, its an argument we need to change our ways.

As for water you say? talk about saying the obvious that the planet has water all over the place. We can only drink a small amount of it and as for drinking water from the sea maybe you should check on the power requirements for desalination for that to work.

--Energy is the ultimate challenge facing humanity. When we crack it and are no longer energy dependent on fixed quantities of long dead animals for power it resolves a lot of other issues. When it becomes important enough we'll assign enough effort to solve it. I have faith in the human ability to engineer and invent our way out of trouble. With abundant energy you can make freshwater from seawater wherever you need it. There will be practical fusion power in my lifetime (making a prediction, you can correct me in 30 years if i'm wrong).

Western countries have an ageing population yes we do but is that population growing or shrinking when compared to the number of babies born. heres the latest figures for the UK
There were 723,913 live births in England and Wales in 2011, increasing slightly (by 0.1 per cent) from 723,165 in 2010.
There were 484,367 deaths registered in England and Wales in 2011, compared with 493,242 in 2010 (a fall of 1.8 per cent)
The total fertility rate (TFR) in England and Wales in 2011 was 1.93 children per woman.
Age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) in 2011 were the lowest ever recorded for England and Wales, at 6,236 deaths per million population for males and 4,458 deaths per million population for females.

As you can see even thoough the number of children is just under 2 per family(on average). With over 700K births and just under 500K deaths. So it seems to me that the UK is still growing in population despite the huge number of people living to an old age.

-- Migration has a lot to do with it. If you look deeper into the stats you'll see thats it the immigrant birthrate that keeps the UK above the replacement rate. This is logical. Immigrants come from nations where the big family has historically been necessary, either because mortality rates are high and/or the kids are required to be put to work. This ethos wears of as they become absorbed into the UK. As the third world itself becomes modern this will balance out in the long term. The human population will stabilise.

Btw Genetically modified food stuff????? No wonder you sound crazy you been eating it havent you?

-- Ad hominem attack noted. GMO products are simply the logical next step. We've been creating man modified foodstuffs for a long time by cross breeding animals and plants. This is simply the next level of control. With appropriate labelling, testing and regulation I don't have any problem with it. The problems are 2 fold, on one hand you have luddites who oppose everything and on the other corporations trying to push the products without appropriate labelling. Neither of these positions is defensible. People need to be informed and allowed to choose. The poor and hungry will choose to eat. The 'greens' will pay more for 'organic' unless they are hypocrites. The hullabaloo will eventually settle out and the majority will reap the benefits without noticing like we do in all the other fields of engineering.


As for China females infants deaths.. Its they own bloody fault for being male chauvinistic pigs and shows lack of intelligence. The current chinese thinking amongst its citizens is that only males can do the family work. Personally i rather live in a world where men make up 30% of the population now that would be something to look forward to

-- Equating culture with intelligence is unwise. What it shows is that 'social engineering' is always a fail. You cant impose diktats that run against the cultural norms of a society and expect it to work.

.

edit on 13-5-2013 by minor007 because: (no reason given)

Inline

Originally posted by minor007
whats so unethical about it?

The fact that you consider your friends and your loved ones as cancer. It's hypocritical. When you talk to them you pretend you love them but in the back of your mind you firmly believe they are nothing more than a cancer.

What if Eugenics decides that to solve "overpopulation", your friends and loved ones have to go? You wouldn't care, right? They are just cancer...

I'm sorry but I oppose that way of thinking. I consider NO ONE a cancer, because, as I've shown in my posts, this "cancer" myth was invented by a pro-Eugenics in the early of the last century, and isn't even backed by maths anymore.

reply to post by Reaper2137

But I don't think we should just kill the people in 3rd world populations, a world lotto would be better, a cast iron, fully transparent lotto, that put the rich, poor and every one in the middle in the same pool, with the same chance of winning.

That is sick beyond reason. You would let chance decide who survives and who dies? You would let human life be decided by mere chance?! Pray tell me, what if "chance" decides that your wife and kids have to die, and that Hitler survives? You really think that's an ethical way of dealing with a problem?

Water isn't my main concern with over-population, its food. look at Africa a good drought kills a few hundred thousand. Its only going to get worse.

Food?! There's plenty food for everybody would they just think of building greenhouses and gardens!!! There would be food in the desert if the FDA would have let Africans grow peas!!! There would be ample place for food if towers would be built instead of big horizontal houses. It doesn't give you the right to kill everyone in a lotto.