Overpopulation: the 800-pound National Security Risk in the Room?

Just wanted to get peoples' opinions on this. Original Poster had started Another thread on overpopulation, but I think this thread looks at it a little differently.

The questions I'm asking, here, is in regards to overpopulation as a national security risk. We all know, and have seen, how aggressively 'national security risks' are being stamped out. Indefinite detention; death by drone without due process; torture; rendition; world-wide manhunts...these are all apparently acceptable courses of action when dealing with someone or something deemed a threat to national security. Much of this is done in secret; often behind an iron curtain of lies and public deceit, and often using methods that many argue are tantamount to war crimes.

What about population, in general? Or, more specifically, overpopulation.

Now, I'm not talking about overpopulation in terms of sheer space/land in our country. I'm talking about the number of people that would constitute a threat to this country maintaining its level of stability (however questionable). What happens when we meet that critical mass? Has it ever been met in the past? If it has been, or will be, how is it handled?

What I'm driving at, here, is: at what point does an active depopulation campaign begin? What does it consist of? What could it consist of? In a world where the most heinous of crimes are committed (and excused) by governments like ours (USA), in the name of national security, is it possible that, at some point up the chain of command, active neutralization of the population explosion could include flat-out murder? Or anything that might be as morally questionable? How about involuntary sterilization?

At the end of the day, when the sh!t hits the fan, how far do you think those in charge of this great country would be willing to go, to avoid what could eventually lead up to irreversible damage to 'the machine' known as the United States? It's a bit of a paranoid question, sure (and one that forces you to fully ponder how low the government might possibly stoop to maintain the status quo), but a fair one, I think. :-?

According to conspiracy devotees. AIDS
Or some other selective viral outbreak.

There are a lot of depopulation conspiracies out there. I can't say I believe in them, but they all bring up really good talking points.

What I cant figure out, is why the US government is knowingly allowing harmful chemicals (and processes) to be a part of the daily food supply, and is doing nothing about it (Monsanto)? Is it really all for the money?

Given their hypocrisies, its easy to imagine that the FDA and even EPA really are trying to depopulate us by allowing harmful disease spreading chemicals to be a part of everything.

But at the same time, were just as hypocritical on the local level. How many schools make any real effort to teach kids where their food really comes from, and whats in it? Would kids still drink milk if they knew theres a lot in it thats not milk? Now currently linked to breast cancer? Too young to make those kinds of decisions? What about universities? Don't they have some sort of community responsibility?

Most people just think 'organic', see that its tragically expensive - and it stops there. They have no idea! When organic foods are not chosen, a farmer looses fertility - in other words HE CAN'T HAVE KIDS. Except it doesn't actually stop at the farmer. Those same chemicals don't just magically go away, they just follow the rain and end up in the local community. Those communities in turn report less males being born. That's kinda depopulation in action. Were not really doing much about it.

Don't get me going about rubbish allowed in food. One of my all time anger/rage stimulators

The legal crap that is allowed to be pumped into modern livestock is out of my comprehension.
I developed a terrible reaction to anything cooked in animal fats
Bacon or beef are the worst, and a reaction happened within one hour. This is how I stumbled on the connection.
I would get spots on my scalp with low doses. Continued eating of this crap, and spots occur on my back.
Continue with the meat diet, and bumps would occur on my arms.

If I do without meats for a few days, I can eat almost anything. Which seems to point out that there is a build up to reaction/saturation point.

My two eldest sons ( 16 and 18 ) tried the same diet as mine, and ALL their teenage spots vanished within three days.
You could tell the difference within 24 hours.
Eldest sons asthma cleared up in the same amount of time.

Do not get me wrong, I LOVE MEAT
A family barbie is something to be enjoyed/ cherished, but the price paid is now too high for me to bear. ( Not in money costs )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TiredPhil

According to conspiracy devotees. AIDS
Or some other selective viral outbreak.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by juroara

There are a lot of depopulation conspiracies out there. I can't say I believe in them, but they all bring up really good talking points.

---

Agreed on both, and that's kind of where I'm going with this. We'd all like to just brush the possibilities away as 'conspiracy theories', but the considering the application of such terrible programs...it makes too much sense to not be taken as a serious possibility. Logically speaking, with the way that national security risks are being stamped out with extreme prejudice and, often, less-than-ethical consequences, how far do we think our government would be willing to go, to stabilize the State? I mean, if we will stoop to torture and an acceptance of 'collateral damage', in order to neutralize a threat...how deep does that slippery slope get? Is it ethical to the State, to kill 1000 to save 1,000,000? We have to understand that these types of questions are asked and analyzed, in Defense circles. And if we can't honestly say that government entities wouldn't be capable of sacrificing 1000 to save 1,000,000 (under the cover of secrecy and lies, of course, because exposing such programs would, in itself, be a threat to national security), then aren't we all - when it comes right down to it - expendable?

Developed countries don't really experience problems with population growth..? The birth rate in the US is around 1.9 per woman. That means the domestic population is shrinking.

If they did have a problem with birth rates then maybe they'd use financial incentives to drive them down. But they don't, so... yeah.

That is true, our population would be shrinking but we have immigration that continues to expand our population. If we were to close off all immigration our population would stop growing over time. However the government is unlikely to do that because then we have the 'aging population' problem. Which is that less people are born, so over time you have more old people than young people. That is really only a concern when you need young people to physically work, and when you have high health care costs for the elderly. The first problem is no longer an issue since most of our jobs are moving away from physical labor, the second issue is we need to reduce health care costs and then we are good to go.

That was mainly my point. If the US needs to stop growing, it'll just secure its borders and clamp down on legal immigration. Currently they seem pretty apathetic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Developed countries don't really experience problems with population growth..? The birth rate in the US is around 1.9 per woman. That means the domestic population is shrinking.

If they did have a problem with birth rates then maybe they'd use financial incentives to drive them down. But they don't, so... yeah.

---

I dont think its really a question if there is a population problem. Its more of, do you think some crazy old men in the government/military-industrial-complex BELIEVE that there is a population problem? And needing two incomes to support one household is a financial incentive for many, to wait on having that baby.

If there's some crazy military guys, maybe they'll do some crazy military things.

Pretty tautological, no..?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

That was mainly my point. If the US needs to stop growing, it'll just secure its borders and clamp down on legal immigration. Currently they seem pretty apathetic.

---

I do not reply with sarcasm, or anger to any comments made on forums, as everyone deserves to have their opinion aired.
You might want to consider that your entire population is made up of immigrants.
Now you are sitting comfortably, do you just stop anyone else entering.
A native American Indian would consider you all Illegal Immigrants.
Where do you draw the line ?

I'm not an immigrant; I was born here. If you want to call us all immigrants because our descendants weren't born here, you may as well call out the Natives because they migrated from Asia thousands of years ago. Fuck it -- anyone who doesn't live in Africa is now considered an immigrant everywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TiredPhil

I do not reply with sarcasm, or anger to any comments made on forums, as everyone deserves to have their opinion aired.
You might want to consider that your entire population is made up of immigrants.
Now you are sitting comfortably, do you just stop anyone else entering.
A native American Indian would consider you all Illegal Immigrants.
Where do you draw the line ?

---

^ You're most likely descended from 'illegal immigrants' as well. In fact I think most countries have a lot of hostile takeovers and invasions in their history. I'm not saying that to excuse anything, just to point out a fact. But there's a big difference between staging an invasion and sneaking across the border - why should we let illegals in if they're not even going to earn their way honestly through superior force the way our ancestors had to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimeDragon97

I'm not an immigrant; I was born here. If you want to call us all immigrants because our descendants weren't born here, you may as well call out the Natives because they migrated from Asia thousands of years ago. Fuck it -- anyone who doesn't live in Africa is now considered an immigrant everywhere.

---

Semantics can be used to justify anything.
Taking responsibility is a challenge, even to advanced thinkers.
"I did not do it, so it is not my fault"
Is a 'cop out' mate

What exactly am I copping out of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TiredPhil

I do not reply with sarcasm, or anger to any comments made on forums, as everyone deserves to have their opinion aired.
You might want to consider that your entire population is made up of immigrants.
Now you are sitting comfortably, do you just stop anyone else entering.
A native American Indian would consider you all Illegal Immigrants.
Where do you draw the line ?

---

Uh. The UK flag means that I'm from the UK. You know, that country where you live..?

As for your actual post, I have no idea what you're talking about. Apparently you seem to be under the impression that I was demeaning immigrants or something. I never said anything remotely like that.

There are no natives left in the UK.
Cambridge is run by immigrants who row boats once a year against Oxford.
Not too many natives, or original settlers left anywhere on the planet.
This topic is getting too serious, and I wish to apologise to any person/s I may have offended.
Seen too many topics go bad due to misunderstandings.

TiredPhil, your posts make no sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TiredPhil

I wish to apologise to any person/s I may have offended.

---

I wasn't offended, I just wanted to point out that your post really didn't make any sense. :cheeky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Developed countries don't really experience problems with population growth..? The birth rate in the US is around 1.9 per woman. That means the domestic population is shrinking.

---

Not always that simple. If we're talking pure numbers of people in a the US or wherever else, then yeah, the problems with overpopulation are entirely dependent on simply how many people you have. But, what is also important is how much each person consumes in food, water, power, their biological footprint on the earth, etc. If you compare the "raw energy needed" to maintain the average american citizen's lifestyle it's a hell of a lot higher than the "energy needed" to supply the average Chinese person. You could support something like six people from 3rd world countries with the "expenditure" of 1 American. I don't know how much that number has changed as it's something I heard off of NPR years ago, but you get the idea.

for Oneironaut's question: If the US had to restrict/limit the population I'm sure it would be done covertly and quietly, probably some kind of gradual sterilization process with additives to our food and water. Eh, I think the lack of real regulation on deadly drugs like heroin or meth speaks for itself. Keeps the innercity population low.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grod

Not always that simple. If we're talking pure numbers of people in a the US or wherever else, then yeah, the problems with overpopulation are entirely dependent on simply how many people you have. But, what is also important is how much each person consumes in food, water, power, their biological footprint on the earth, etc. If you compare the "raw energy needed" to maintain the average american citizen's lifestyle it's a hell of a lot higher than the "energy needed" to supply the average Chinese person. You could support something like six people from 3rd world countries with the "expenditure" of 1 American. I don't know how much that number has changed as it's something I heard off of NPR years ago, but you get the idea.

for Oneironaut's question: If the US had to restrict/limit the population I'm sure it would be done covertly and quietly, probably some kind of gradual sterilization process with additives to our food and water. Eh, I think the lack of real regulation on deadly drugs like heroin or meth speaks for itself. Keeps the innercity population low.

---

America also produces far more economic output per joule, acre, hour, etc. Economics is not a zero-sum game. As the third world grows its economies, they'll make better use of their resources to balance that out. For example: compare the output of one acre in Manhattan to one acre in Zimbabwe.