Global population reduction: confronting the inevitable.

Pages: 1

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Global population reduction: confronting the inevitable.

2008-07-31 20:41:26

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6529|Global Command

The human species must develop and quickly implement a well-conceived, clearly articulated, flexible, equitable, and internationally coordinated program focused on bringing about a very significant reduction in human numbers over the next two or more centuries.

What a crock of shit.

This is an example of why liberals tend to scare me; The neocons may obsess about the NWO but liberal scholars obsess about population reduction.

There could be alternatives to gas burning engines. There could be nuclear desalinization plants up and down the coasts and green houses pumping out millions of metric tons of food every year but no.

What we have is a perverted fixation on " limited " resources that will be used to deny the lives of millions, and at it's worst, be used as an excuse for extermination of large swaths of humanity.

What we have is a perverted fixation on global climate change that will lead to unprecedented profiteering by the likes of Al Gore and his ilk, which will be used to fund multi-million dollar anti child bearing advertising campaigns. These sorts envy China's one child policy and look to it as our necessary salvation.

And should the climate change become severe enough?

https://images.jupiterimages.com/common/detail/52/74/22677452.jpg

http://growthmadness.org/2007/07/13/glo … nevitable/

2008-07-31 20:45:29

jsnipy: ...; +3,276|6522|...

nature balances itself out

2008-07-31 20:52:44

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6529|Global Command

That's what he claims his point is. That nature will be harsher about it.

Like, if we don't kill 2/3rds of the people off, nature will get us all.

2008-07-31 20:57:44

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6447|Chicago, IL

the solution wouldn't be a kill off, rather, it would be a limit on the number of children one family can have, to cause a slightly negative growth trend, rather than our current exponential growth, which is obviously unsustainable.

2008-07-31 21:02:36

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6601|132 and Bush

ATG you should get a http://delicious.com/ account. I'd be curious to see all the sites you have bookmarked..lol.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-07-31 21:03:21

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6447|Chicago, IL

Kmarion wrote:
ATG you should get a http://delicious.com/ account. I'd be curious to see all the sites you have bookmarked..lol.

safesearch must be off to visit those sites

2008-07-31 21:09:46

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|6766|Cambridge (UK)

This liberal believes that we can easily develop the political and technological infrastructure to cope with the growing world population.

However, developing the will is another thing.

2008-07-31 21:18:46

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6529|Global Command

Kmarion wrote:
ATG you should get a http://delicious.com/ account. I'd be curious to see all the sites you have bookmarked..lol.

I heard the author of the article on talk radio the other day.

You'd be shocked at the mundane nature of my book marks.

My grand dad and dad were always talking about the barcode ( biometrics ) thing being the number of the beast, how they wouldn't let you buy food without it. I watched them murder people in Waco. I live next to the border.

I look around me and see;
A) myself, a person that has news junkyidice. A malady wherein one hears things, looks into them and becomes nervous because there is actual factual basis for many paranoid fears from a ration point of view because usual paranoid delusions are like jokes in that they usually have a element of truth.
B) A world seemingly on a tipping point, headed towards a reorganization of some sort.

I'm just talking out loud, using ya'll as a sounding board. _{and as social experiments and playthings}

Last edited by ATG (2008-07-31 21:19:10)

2008-07-31 21:25:22

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6447|Chicago, IL

ATG wrote:
B) A world seemingly on a tipping point, headed towards a reorganization of some sort.

The world is certainly on a tipping point, or rather, many tipping points at once.

The oil wells are almost dry
the population growth is unsustainable
the economies of the east will surpass the economies of the west within the next decade

the world we leave behind will be radically different from the world we were raised in

whether it's a utopia, wasteland, or something in between may be up to us...

2008-07-31 21:28:14

Kmar: Truth is my Bitch; +5,695|6601|132 and Bush

S.Lythberg wrote:
ATG wrote:
B) A world seemingly on a tipping point, headed towards a reorganization of some sort.
The world is certainly on a tipping point, or rather, many tipping points at once.

The oil wells are almost dry
the population growth is unsustainable
the economies of the east will surpass the economies of the west within the next decade

the world we leave behind will be radically different from the world we were raised in

whether it's a utopia, wasteland, or something in between may be up to us...

Nah.. we need an archduke of some sorts to assassinate first.

Xbone Stormsurgezz

2008-07-31 21:32:22

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6153|what

You can't say nature will balance itself out, because the Human race has proven again and again to be a stronger force. We impose now more on nature than it does on us.

We aren't limited by natural resources the way another species is, because act more like a virus.

If we continue with our population growth you'll see mass starvation throughout the poorest regions of the world and with that will come disease and pestilence which could easily jump to the better off nations.

That's what the major concern is. When there's too many of us to support.

2008-07-31 22:00:03

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6447|Chicago, IL

Kmarion wrote:
S.Lythberg wrote:
ATG wrote:
B) A world seemingly on a tipping point, headed towards a reorganization of some sort.
The world is certainly on a tipping point, or rather, many tipping points at once.

The oil wells are almost dry
the population growth is unsustainable
the economies of the east will surpass the economies of the west within the next decade

the world we leave behind will be radically different from the world we were raised in

whether it's a utopia, wasteland, or something in between may be up to us...
Nah.. we need an archduke of some sorts to assassinate first.

nah, that's too uniting, we need something more polarizing, like a highly disputed election

2008-07-31 22:05:11

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6581|the dank(super) side of Oregon

ATG wrote:
There could be nuclear desalinization plants up and down the coasts and green houses pumping out millions of metric tons of food every year but no.

Do we need to encourage impoverished people to have even more impoverished kids? Let's industrialize the world to support billions of unnessary people. There's money to be made.
Eventually, India is going to run out of water because they are living beyond their means. They are shitting out more people than they can reasonably support. Is it the world's job to make sure they can have as many kids as they want?

Medical advancements have radically decreased infant mortality in the last century. We figured this out 80 years ago during the depression. Europe too. What the fuck is India's problem? what the fuck is China's problem? People will always have kids. Does the population growth have to always be positive. Is this like a business that is dying if it isn't growing?

I say let 'em die. They shouldn't have been born anyways.

2008-07-31 22:08:18

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6447|Chicago, IL

Reciprocity wrote:
ATG wrote:
There could be nuclear desalinization plants up and down the coasts and green houses pumping out millions of metric tons of food every year but no.
Do we need to encourage impoverished people to have even more impoverished kids? Let's industrialize the world to support billions of unnessary people. There's money to be made.
Eventually, India is going to run out of water because they are living beyond their means. They are shitting out more people than they can reasonably support. Is it the world's job to make sure they can have as many kids as they want?

Medical advancements have radically decreased infant mortality in the last century. We figured this out 80 years ago during the depression. Europe too. What the fuck is India's problem? what the fuck is China's problem? People will always have kids. Does the population growth have to always be positive. Is this like a business that is dying if it isn't growing?

I say let 'em die. They shouldn't have been born anyways.

Your tax dollars are all that's keeping them alive now...

2008-07-31 22:13:59

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6581|the dank(super) side of Oregon

S.Lythberg wrote:
Your tax dollars are all that's keeping them alive now...

And where the fuck did I mention my tax dollars?

2008-07-31 22:20:13

S.Lythberg: Mastermind; +429|6447|Chicago, IL

Reciprocity wrote:
S.Lythberg wrote:
Your tax dollars are all that's keeping them alive now...
And where the fuck did I mention my tax dollars?

you didn't

The only reason they lived at all was tax dollars in the 80's that saved their parents.
those kids in the 80's have since grown into machete wielding madmen, and their starving children are now on the world's tax rolls.

the cycle in these countries will never end, so we have to stop it at our end, by cutting the money, plain and simple.

but of course, that stance doesn't get many votes now, does it?

2008-07-31 22:40:38

Reciprocity: Member; +721|6581|the dank(super) side of Oregon

In the long run we're probably better off spending money improving the lives of the people who are already there. Economically developed nations have lower birth rates. Instead of just feeding them, they need good jobs and security. And with that, they're supposed to figure out that they don't need a dozen kids. but they don't. Which is the annoying part.

2008-08-01 00:17:18

TrollmeaT: Aspiring Objectivist; +492|6673|Colorado

The answer is the colonization, frankly I can't believe we still don't have at least one somewhere. Our focus as a world is warped, the answers are out there but we won't even jump in the pool.

2008-08-01 00:20:09

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6675|Canberra, AUS

the cycle in these countries will never end, so we have to stop it at our end, by cutting the money, plain and simple.

but of course, that stance doesn't get many votes now, does it?

Wrong. That will make things worse.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2008-08-01 09:06:07

HollisHurlbut: Member; +51|5998

S.Lythberg wrote:
the solution wouldn't be a kill off, rather, it would be a limit on the number of children one family can have

And what happens if a family has more than their alloted number of children?

rather than our current exponential growth, which is obviously unsustainable.

It would be, if that was the current state of affairs, but it's not.

2008-08-01 09:07:16

HollisHurlbut: Member; +51|5998

Spark wrote:
Wrong. That will make things worse.

Howzat?

2008-08-01 12:46:25

Lotta_Drool: Spit; +350|6183|Ireland

ATG wrote:
The human species must develop and quickly implement a well-conceived, clearly articulated, flexible, equitable, and internationally coordinated program focused on bringing about a very significant reduction in human numbers over the next two or more centuries.
What a crock of shit.

This is an example of why liberals tend to scare me; The neocons may obsess about the NWO but liberal scholars obsess about population reduction.

There could be alternatives to gas burning engines. There could be nuclear desalinization plants up and down the coasts and green houses pumping out millions of metric tons of food every year but no.

What we have is a perverted fixation on " limited " resources that will be used to deny the lives of millions, and at it's worst, be used as an excuse for extermination of large swaths of humanity.

What we have is a perverted fixation on global climate change that will lead to unprecedented profiteering by the likes of Al Gore and his ilk, which will be used to fund multi-million dollar anti child bearing advertising campaigns. These sorts envy China's one child policy and look to it as our necessary salvation.

And should the climate change become severe enough?
http://images.jupiterimages.com/common/ … 677452.jpg
http://growthmadness.org/2007/07/13/glo … nevitable/

I am for this. The quality of life goes down as too many people continue overpopulating this rock and using up/poluting resources that should be abundant.

Last edited by Lotta_Drool (2008-08-01 12:50:52)

2008-08-01 14:41:07

liquix: Member; +51|6454|Peoples Republic of Portland

An ice age would kill most of us, whether the christslayers or neocons liked it or not.

2008-08-01 17:14:59

Lotta_Drool: Spit; +350|6183|Ireland

liquix wrote:
An ice age would kill most of us, whether the christslayers or neocons liked it or not.

https://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CKT-pKO6j4OfnQEQ2AUYTzIIRU-BljH2BQo

Pages: 1

Index »
Community »
Debate and Serious Talk »
Global population reduction: confronting the inevitable.

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums Global population reduction: confronting the inevitable.

Kmarion wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

ATG wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

ATG wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

ATG wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Spark wrote:

ATG wrote:

liquix wrote:

Board footer