Two words. Soilent Green.
Printable View
Two words. Soilent Green.
Manufactured scarcity.
(whats happening now, they're doing a great job)
WOAH cowboy!
I'm gonna kinda incorporate Omnius Deus' question in here too (in bold).
Why the hell would the rich people want population control?
The only way they make money is off other people. Economics now is based on the amount of people there is. That's why Australia right now is saying 'yes. come, come immigrants, work for us".
The problem is we do not have enough food to feed them all. So we'll end up with heaps and heaps of money and dead people in the middle of it.
Fair enough I agree maybe there isn't too many people right now. We can sustain Earth if we put effort into keeping our products natural and healthy, so we stay fuller for longer and don't just eat piles of shit, producing waste such as plastic bags and foil paper like chip packets etc.
Also that paper towel/napkin thing you said, juroara, is a perfect example.
I never use them.
But after a while of continuing like we are now. Population wise. We are fucked, basically. You can say we can just go in cities instead of big houses and land. But what happens when we need to expand the cities? I know we're doing that here right now. Cities will be all over the world, no living space for other animals left. Maybe some land for our food.
But anyway. I pretty much knew this would happen. Some left winger, is it left winger? Maybe it's right.... Would come and say it's a conspiracy.
Maybe I'm bias, I've been this way all my life. My ideas are formed from my own common sense. I always knew there would be problems with this 'sustainability'. I asked people 'won't water ever run out?'. They laughed at me lol. Now look at us. I don't know about a lot of places but Australia is in a drought and I'm pretty sure some parts of America are too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abra
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
I don't want the offer to lure in every poor person. I just want it to lure in those who are too irresponsible to raise children well, and it would help with population control too. I am not out to intice all poor people into giving up their reproductive ability. We need poor people because we need bus boys and janitors, etc., and I was poor for a large part of my childhood and for a long time in my adulthood. If it turned out that every poor person out there started trying to give up their reproductive potential for a mere $200, I would want it to be called off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnius Deus
So just the drunkards then?
No. There are lots of other debilitating drugs, and there are lots of sober people who are way too irresponsible and trashy to raise children the way children need to be raised.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
An extreme concept that won't come into effect until it's too late...
But who decides that? Where is the arbitrary line drawn? Will it be the same as this 18 law we have for everything? or 21 in America? Will it be 12 like consensual sex is in Arab countries? For example would you say a person who is highly lazy be killed/sterilised? or just extremely lazy? What is extreme and highly?
Nobody can decide these things exactly. It's all subjective and relative.
For that reason I go with the mass bombing of religious people. lol nah um. I'd probably combine e and f. Then when the population goes down too much we can relieve it a bit. Maybe allow sperm banks etc again.
Are you talking to me? I am not at all for killing or forcefully sterilizing the dysfunctional. What I am proposing is something completely consentual.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
whats wrong with terriforming the moon and/or mars? The discovery channel made it seem very feasible with some more technilogical research. Then, it would be long long long in to the future before we had a population problem.
Assuming the majority of the population could afford travel and a permanent move to the moon or another planet, and that the colonies there could support numbers large enough that would make a dent in the rate of overpopulation.Quote:
Originally Posted by tkdyo
terraforming means not having to have colonies, the whole planet becomes liveable. However unless some advanced technology comes about to emit gasses faster...the ruler would be dead by the time people could live on the new planet. BUT if you were ruler and could do whatever you wanted regardless of money what is stopping you from putting money in to that research and transporting people there?
Mmm. Soylent Greeeeen.Quote:
Originally Posted by spockman
Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
oh so true so true! the rich need people to buy their goods
heres the problem, not everyone is buying. and nations and people who don't contribute make this power elite very very angry
how is it that we can go into a rain forest, we don't even own, and cut it down for our selfish purposes, when the people who have lived in these rainforests for THOUSANDS OF YEARS, don't want us in their forest? why haven't we respected their rain forest? because the rich don't care about the rights of those who do not contribute to the global economy. those who do not contribute are deemed worthless and essentially have no rights
if no government steps in to protect the native cultures and their sovereign lands, the global economy will devour all of their natural recourses. and we've already seen this happen. when it happens the locals who once lived off their land merrily and happily, starve.
one small word, WTO. Or World Trade Organization. I'm not saying the organization itself is evil, but yes I will say the men in charge of the organization are. I don't remember the name of the group but, there was a group of men who would infiltrate the secret meetings of the WTO to find out what it is they are scheming. Their infiltration of these meeting show why WTO conferences aren't open for public hearing. Their discussions are unlawful and show zero respect for human life, zero respect for sovereign nations, and zero respect for the earth. They operate themselves, for themselves, which is very, very, very, very dangerous because that means they operate for MONEY and not for people.
http://www.globalexchange.org/campai...OpposeWTO.html
"6. The WTO is Killing People
The WTO's fierce defense of 'Trade Related Intellectual Property' rights (TRIPs)—patents, copyrights and trademarks—comes at the expense of health and human lives. The WTO has protected for pharmaceutical companies' 'right to profit' against governments seeking to protect their people's health by providing lifesaving medicines in countries in areas like sub-saharan Africa, where thousands die every day from HIV/AIDS. Developing countries won an important victory in 2001 when they affirmed the right to produce generic drugs (or import them if they lacked production capacity), so that they could provide essential lifesaving medicines to their populations less expensively. Unfortunately, in September 2003, many new conditions were agreed to that will make it more difficult for countries to produce those drugs. Once again, the WTO demonstrates that it favors corporate profit over saving human lives."
"8. The WTO is Increasing Hunger
Farmers produce enough food in the world to feed everyone -- yet because of corporate control of food distribution, as many as 800 million people worldwide suffer from chronic malnutrition. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, food is a human right. In developing countries, as many as four out of every five people make their living from the land. But the leading principle in the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture is that market forces should control agricultural policies-rather than a national commitment to guarantee food security and maintain decent family farmer incomes. WTO policies have allowed dumping of heavily subsidized industrially produced food into poor countries, undermining local production and increasing hunger."
the infiltration shows that these people only care about one thing. Power. And money is power. Would population control equal more money? Maybe to them it does, if it means now they can do whatever they want with all the worlds resources without having to deal with those inferior poor folk who weren't contributing anyways.
Don't think its possible?
Then why haven't the richest people in the WTO made any real effort to feed the starving, when they know there is enough food to go around, when they have the money and power to feed them? THEY DON'T CARE.
maybe in the future when we pull our heads out of our arses and look at the truth, we will call the starvation crises today what it really is - genocide. Because we will really understand in the future, how it was allowed to happen by those in power.
increase crimes which result in capital punishment? nah
This is an included bonus with Manufactured Scarcity. Poverty creates crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by AnDUHrew
Impoverished people seem to have higher birth rates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaqaria
Dare I say uneducated people too?
Well.... one begets the other imo.
Contaminated water supply
Better condoms
~Soilent green --. Great movie
The best way to control population is to offer high encouragments for smaller birth rates. The policies must be balanced until an average rate of two children per person is reached. If one generation is smaller than the last, you see problems that are plaguing China right now. The population should be sustainable. If someone wants a larger family, they should be highly encouraged to adopt. That kills two birds with one stone anyway.
Well, yes. It is proven dumber people have more kids. Idiocracy is also a good movie. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Howie
juroara - The only problem I see with your 'conspiracy' (parentheses because I'm not sure if you're incorrect) is that, say they killed off all the poor people. They now have that land for farming and factories etc. (which you already said we have enough of here, but for the sake of argument....) But who is going to go over there and do all the work for the 1c per day wage they get?
It just doesn't make sense to me.
They also have a much higher infant mortality rate and an over all lower life expectancy. I'd have to see the numbers to make a more informed judgment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Howie
See the numbers then. Google is your friend. Their birth rate exceeds their death rate.
Licenses to breed, anyone?
:shock: Breed what?
Oooooooooh lol. I get it.
Yeah, but who get's the licenses?