West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: Rugged Monk on March 05, 2009, 12:45:27 AM
-
Some quotes to get you thinking:
"we have to limit every human female on Earth capable of bearing children to one."
- Alan Wiesman author of The World Without us.
"any number of children that is fewer than 2.1 is simply a continuation of your genetic legacy."
-Pablo Paster
"to suggest that population growth is largely responsible for the ecological crisis is to blame the poor for the excesses of the rich."
-George Monbiot
...democracy cannot survive overpopulation. Human dignity cannot survive it. Convenience and decency cannot survive it. As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not only declines, it disappears. It doesn't matter if someone dies. The more people there are, the less one individual matters.
-- Isaac Asimov
Instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, maybe we should control the population to ensure the survival of our environment.
-- Sir David Attenborough
We must alert and organise the world's people to pressure world leaders to take specific steps to solve the two root causes of our environmental crises - exploding population growth and wasteful consumption of irreplaceable resources. Overconsumption and overpopulation underlie every environmental problem we face today.
-- Jacques-Yves Cousteau
-
it's sad we even have to ask this question... who knows what to do
so many fucking idiots without money having kids, it's disgusting
"I have no money and 3 kids but I can't wait to nut so far up in my wife tonight without a rubber"
yea people are that smart
-
this is a real weird issue because while i believe people can and should have any many kids as they like, it's not a good look that any broke idiot can do so and leech off the state and everyone else to support their flawed decisions.
something needs to be in place to stop extremely poor people having kid after kid after kid. maybe deportation to a less developed area of the world? is that a bit too much? :laugh:
-
Absolute and total bullshit and anyone who buys into this crap, is sewing their own downfall, what goes around comes around, you will notice that this is NOT being aimed solely aimed at the third world it's also being aimed at the west to. In fact a group called the optimum population control whose sponsors include Prince Phillip are pushing and pushing for some kind of 2 child "voluntary scheme: here in England. Now this twisted scheme becomes even more sickening when you consider that white people in this country are having LESS than 2 kids, it's only when you include all races in this country that we even reach 2 kids per family. The increases in England's population are solely attributable to immigration and yet it was these globalists that created the E.U with the intention of swamping the western nations with immigrants from the poorest nations. I have read mindless apologist bullshit from people that support the E.U retorting this idea by pointing out that "well don't you want freedom of movement" which is of course the point of this. The most prosperous economies being the magnet for all of those within this regionalised dictatorship and that's what it is, after all this scumbag unelected body wants it's Constitution.
This deceitful, controlled, skewered focus on carbon dioxide serves many purpose not just to tax and control but also to act as the leverage, the justification to say well yes it's true that the third world produces more children but it's you in the west who produce more CO2!. This is truly some nihilistic devilish bullshit. I could rant about this all day but the fact is that there are massive abundances of food, of national resources but because the world has fallen into "globalised" business model the major corporations control the supply and thus restrict supply. This isn't difficult, it's a basic business policy, the people pushing this panic idea that "oh food is running out" are the same ones who own the oil companies, who have major interests in the military industrial complex, who are swimming in riches because of the imf's monstrous policy of initiating fire sales throughout Africa and South America. It's very clear to see through ALL of the evil being perpetrated against humanity, that none of this has anything to do with wanting to improve humanity, this is about destroying the west. I mean the west has nothing now, the manufacturing has been taken away, the back of the west has been broken and has been reduced to basically a welfare dependency.
We are now at the end of the baby boomer generation and the economy needs far more new borns, not less. Furthermore if these monsters were to stop raping Africa and South America, then they to could grow and when they grow, there would be a natural trend towards a reduction in new borns. However that's not the intention of these heartless fucks they want to ensure complete control of all races. This isn't a focus on one particular race but it's clear that they are using white people predominantly as the battering ram to attack the white race. This is simply because there is actually some level of wealth within parts of the white race and with it independence. This shit is so sickening and for anyone that really takes a step back and absorbs all of the power plays being made, re channels their brain to actually think what is going on, then it's clear what the goals and underlying motivations are. I think this question becomes even more of a relevant one as it wasn't long ago that I was discussing kids with my then girlfriend, how dare anyone decide who can and can not be born.
What is even more sickening is at one point in time before I started looking at the population growth trends, before I looked at the economic need, before I fully analysed all that had been transpiring in the last 4 decades or so, before I became aware of the manipulation, of the control, I was almost half in support of sterilizing poor people in the third world. It makes me feel sick that I was conned by simplistic, greater good evil mantra bullshit pushed by a subservient complicit, masonic, media. Therefore even if you do still firmly believe that it's for the good of humanity that populations in the poorest nations be controlled, be aware of the fact that the trigger is being pointed right at the brain of the west also.
I chose the top one, not because I believe you aren't a good person but just purely because you buy into this crap that the UN are the alternative, you have intelligence, I think it's about time you looked at the cold hard facts.These are; who the UN are, who created it, who runs it. It's being sold to you as the bottled municipal water, to your tap water, the branded jeans to the unbranded jeans made in the same factory, the labour to the conservative. Oh don't swallow the toothpaste fluorine its topical only but don't forget but swallow this nutritious water filled with fluroide because it's good for you. Like I said just research and as you are always using quotes,, sometimes really moving quotes which encourage people to think outside of the box, well do the same. It never was, never has been, never will be the globalists vs the UN, they are one of the same.
-
this is a real weird issue because while i believe people can and should have any many kids as they like, it's not a good look that any broke idiot can do so and leech off the state and everyone else to support their flawed decisions.
something needs to be in place to stop extremely poor people having kid after kid after kid. maybe deportation to a less developed area of the world? is that a bit too much? :laugh:
the word is Castration. :D
-
I voted covert....we could use a few less people on earth. At the rate we are reproducing we will overrun this hunk of rock in no time at all. The population spike in the past 100 years is frightful.
-
I voted covert....we could use a few less people on earth. At the rate we are reproducing we will overrun this hunk of rock in no time at all. The population spike in the past 100 years is frightful.
exactly.
-
I voted covert....we could use a few less people on earth. At the rate we are reproducing we will overrun this hunk of rock in no time at all. The population spike in the past 100 years is frightful.
exactly.
How can the response be exactly when the wests newborn population is barely enough to maintain numbers and in whites in particular it means the population every generation is falling massively?
-
bring back concentration camps for uneducated and fat people ::)
-
I voted covert....we could use a few less people on earth. At the rate we are reproducing we will overrun this hunk of rock in no time at all. The population spike in the past 100 years is frightful.
exactly.
How can the response be exactly when the wests newborn population is barely enough to maintain numbers and in whites in particular it means the population every generation is falling massively?
Selective sterilization through water supplies or goods/services accessed by certain demographics. It sounds evil, but if the water supply, or perhaps the air flow at temporary holding centers for immigrants along the US/Mexico border holding a sterilization chemical, it might perhaps significantly reduce the overbreeding amongst Mexican immigrants in the states, which has led to financial woes and problematic cultural shifts. I know it goes against the ideals of equality and freedom, but if done without public knowledge, it could serve as the necessary restraint our world needs. Right now.
-
I voted covert....we could use a few less people on earth. At the rate we are reproducing we will overrun this hunk of rock in no time at all. The population spike in the past 100 years is frightful.
exactly.
How can the response be exactly when the wests newborn population is barely enough to maintain numbers and in whites in particular it means the population every generation is falling massively?
Well how can I put this delicately. Some races need to slow the fuck down, and a few need to step it up a bit. Germany, Japan and other nations that are not having as many kids will be hurting for a bit when the boomer generation starts to die, but after that things should stabilize. I guess I can't really argue that one race deserves to procreate more than another, but to me as long as every race still exists it's all good. Really, do you think that it's a huge issue that Whites are breeding less? I mean is that a bad thing?
-
My point is there is no justification for controlling white populations because the white race is chronically short of babies. Therefore this notion that the population of this island is too big is created through the very policies which they instigate and then allow to continue unchecked. It is they are create the problems and it is they who then pose as the ones trying to save us from ourselves. They are evil scum of the earth and as I have just pointed out the mega poor do have more kids but when the mega poor have the chance to actually develop then birth rates naturally fall anyway. They are creating this perceived problem through lies and through their own policies, they are absolute control freaks and nuts basically insane. Also it's mathematically impossible for a race "to step it up" if there is not more than 2 kids per couple being born and so population control, so I didn't follow your logic.
-
retarded people need to get sterilized
-
Point to note, if you guys are contemplating this, then you know already that this is going on through chemicals in the water, through the vaccination programs, Fuck The UN, Fuck all of these evil bastards. The only solace I have is that it's too late for them, they are going to burn in hell for this sickening evil.
-
lets just start knockin off the fat people
-
I chose the top one, not because I believe you aren't a good person but just purely because you buy into this crap that the UN are the alternative, you have intelligence, I think it's about time you looked at the cold hard facts.These are; who the UN are, who created it, who runs it.
Im studying Public International Law and Human Rights Law, so I'm learning alot about the UN (maybe oneday I'll even work for it). I understand the position you always come from represents a perspective of the truth. But I never rest upon my convictions or beliefs, rather I challenge them and add upon them through more knowledge. That means even learning to emphasize with 'them'. If you can keep your sanity and integrity you may emerge through it with a deeper understanding. Constant challenging of your own beliefs and convictions is honesty with yourself. I'm not saying you should do the same, I think the political position you represent on this forum is especially essential, but really not the whole picture or the full understanding, still it is however a vital perspective.
I think population itself isn't the ENITRE issue, because people in the thrid world don't really use many household appliances and shit, in reality their pollution and waste footprint on the world is virtually non-existant next to your average suburban teenager in the West. The real issue at heart is sustainability and conservation of the world's natural treasures. The problem does not stem from there being too many people in the world, the problem is the consumption and that most people in the world are striving to a level of consumption like that of the West, thats why; the more people=the more waste and consumption. However, it dosn't necessarily have to be that way, if the world's governments had strong planning around conservation and sustainability. Maybe it is again up to the West, as always, to lead by example.
As for covert depopulation, I don't think it is a viable solution because it does not really nip the problem in the bud, it just delays the problem, inevitablly we will have to face the issue of pollution and unsustainability anyway, of which the industrialised world, not the underveloped countries, contribute the most towards. I know that in the Philippines (a Catholic country) it was the custom to have 8-10 kids per family and so on, now the younger generations are getting wiser and changing their attidues, only having kids they can provide a good life for (Hilary Clinton actually once said at Rockefeller Institute lecture; 'education is the key to population reduction').
"The point of population stabilization is to reduce or minimize misery."
--Roger Bengston, founding board member, World Population Balance
-
Oh and ugly people too
-
I chose the top one, not because I believe you aren't a good person but just purely because you buy into this crap that the UN are the alternative, you have intelligence, I think it's about time you looked at the cold hard facts.These are; who the UN are, who created it, who runs it.
Im studying Public International Law and Human Rights Law, so I'm learning alot about the UN (maybe oneday I'll even work for it). I understand the position you always come from represents a perspective of the truth. But I never rest upon my convictions or beliefs, rather I challenge them and add upon them through more knowledge. That means even learning to emphasize with 'them'. If you can keep your sanity and integrity you may emerge through it with a deeper understanding. Constant challenging of your own beliefs and convictions is honesty with yourself. I'm not saying you should do the same, I think the political position you represent on this forum is especially essential, but really not the whole picture or the full understanding, still it is however a vital perspective.
I think population itself isn't the ENITRE issue, because people in the thrid world don't really use many household appliances and shit, in reality their pollution and waste footprint on the world is virtually non-existant next to your average suburban teenager in the West. The real issue at heart is sustainability and conservation of the world's natural treasures. The problem does not stem from there being too many people in the world, the problem is the consumption and that most people in the world are striving to a level of consumption like that of the West, thats why; the more people=the more waste and consumption. However, it dosn't necessarily have to be that way, if the world's governments had strong planning around conservation and sustainability. Maybe it is again up to the West, as always, to lead by example.
As for covert depopulation, I don't think it is a viable solution because it does not really nip the problem in the bud, it just delays the problem, inevitablly we will have to face the issue of pollution and unsustainability anyway, of which the industrialised world, not the underveloped countries, contribute the most towards. I know that in the Philippines (a Catholic country) it was the custom to have 8-10 kids per family and so on, now the younger generations are getting wiser and changing their attidues, only having kids they can provide a good life for (Hilary Clinton actually once said at Rockefeller Institute lecture; 'education is the key to population reduction').
"The point of population stabilization is to reduce or minimize misery."
--Roger Bengston, founding board member, World Population Balance
The third world doesn't "pollute" as much because they have not had the disposable income to do, whereas western nations have been built on consumerism. However you are doing it again, falling for the rhetoric of "pollutant" and sustainability, have you even stopped to think what that means, in order to combat the so called problem and ensure this "sustainability" it follows that there needs to be a complete micro management of every individuals life under schemes such as a globalised carbon tax. We are simply in the realm of semantics here, sustainability has as much goodness as the word reform does, it's all to create a perception of goodness while really it is dictatorship. Therefore the ONLY way you are going to see a massive reduction in pollution is through some sick manipulation of human life which is already going on via the vaccines, the water supplies, the aspartame in the soft drinks, and or a massive reduction in the living standards of the west. However wait a minute, the living standards for the overall majority in the west were not exactly flourishing anyway, in fact when you go to Europe, you look around you, venture outside of the main areas, it's PISS POOR. I myself am anything but affluent and indeed only a few miles up the road, well there is england's equivalent to a ghetto.
I understand the view they were trying to indoctrinate us with now during our information management lessons, they were trying to convey the message to us, that you don't live in poverty, you live in relative poverty compares to affluence. They even gave this sickening example of a middle class person vs some poor guy in Africa. The intention was obvious it's a drive to make white people feel guilty for what they have and when it's laid out in front of them how fortunate they are, they will be more open to surrendering that wealth. However there it is again, the face of deception, it is not me who is screwing the poorest, not your average white person no, it's these hideous evil intentioned global bodies. They are the ones doing it and they are the ones who under the guise of the UN are being portrayed as wonderful. That of course brings back the tired old argument which is repeatedly spun that oh such and such a person gave up their prosperous career to help the UN and of course, good people belong but the goal of the UN is to sell people on global government.
The wealth always goes somewhere and as far as pollution is concerned, well look around you my man, the dumping of nuclear waste in the rwandan seas, the creation of gm crops which is killing the honey bees, the millions of tonnes of depleted uranium which have killed and deformed god knows how many people, have affected god knows how many animals, the dumping of nerve gas into the seas, the testing of chemical weapons on a populous. So this idea of typical "waste" is such a sick, scandalous deception, such a brainwashed scam. Having said there are a lot of pathetic self apologetic self loathing, always gotta guilty about something whiteys out there.
The media tells us over here that someone earning 40K gross is middle class, those greedy people, even millionaire doesn't mean shit anymore because of the devaluation of the currency's which has rapidly sped up since the 60's, so fuck comparative and relative poverty, it's all a distraction away from the ones with real riches and power.
-
Absolutely 100% oppose population control by forcing people to do it. If you want to control the population, don't procreate. I would never bring someone into this world that I could not support and love. It's no accident I haven't had one yet because I know that mentally I'm not really focused on that. I'll probably have some some day, but I don't know when that will be.
And yes, they are planning for depopulation but they won't be successful just as they won't be with all the other shit they are planning.
-
we need to reduce the earth population by any means necessary. Of course it'd be better to achieve it without forcing people.
Agent Smith from 'The Matrix' got it right: 'I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.'
This planet can't handle so many people, especially when they live like we do in western countries. A decreased population would increase the overall quality of life.
-
Logan's run. Thats the future ;)
-
we need to reduce the earth population by any means necessary. Of course it'd be better to achieve it without forcing people.
Agent Smith from 'The Matrix' got it right: 'I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.'
This planet can't handle so many people, especially when they live like we do in western countries. A decreased population would increase the overall quality of life.
You sound like a Nazi, mixed in with Stalinist ideology just for good measure, if you believe that humans are such a cancer, well do the right thing and join lots of morons in pledging to take their own life.
-
I chose the top one, not because I believe you aren't a good person but just purely because you buy into this crap that the UN are the alternative, you have intelligence, I think it's about time you looked at the cold hard facts.These are; who the UN are, who created it, who runs it.
Im studying Public International Law and Human Rights Law, so I'm learning alot about the UN (maybe oneday I'll even work for it). I understand the position you always come from represents a perspective of the truth. But I never rest upon my convictions or beliefs, rather I challenge them and add upon them through more knowledge. That means even learning to emphasize with 'them'. If you can keep your sanity and integrity you may emerge through it with a deeper understanding. Constant challenging of your own beliefs and convictions is honesty with yourself. I'm not saying you should do the same, I think the political position you represent on this forum is especially essential, but really not the whole picture or the full understanding, still it is however a vital perspective.
I think population itself isn't the ENITRE issue, because people in the thrid world don't really use many household appliances and shit, in reality their pollution and waste footprint on the world is virtually non-existant next to your average suburban teenager in the West. The real issue at heart is sustainability and conservation of the world's natural treasures. The problem does not stem from there being too many people in the world, the problem is the consumption and that most people in the world are striving to a level of consumption like that of the West, thats why; the more people=the more waste and consumption. However, it dosn't necessarily have to be that way, if the world's governments had strong planning around conservation and sustainability. Maybe it is again up to the West, as always, to lead by example.
As for covert depopulation, I don't think it is a viable solution because it does not really nip the problem in the bud, it just delays the problem, inevitablly we will have to face the issue of pollution and unsustainability anyway, of which the industrialised world, not the underveloped countries, contribute the most towards. I know that in the Philippines (a Catholic country) it was the custom to have 8-10 kids per family and so on, now the younger generations are getting wiser and changing their attidues, only having kids they can provide a good life for (Hilary Clinton actually once said at Rockefeller Institute lecture; 'education is the key to population reduction').
"The point of population stabilization is to reduce or minimize misery."
--Roger Bengston, founding board member, World Population Balance
The third world doesn't "pollute" as much because they have not had the disposable income to do, whereas western nations have been built on consumerism. However you are doing it again, falling for the rhetoric of "pollutant" and sustainability, have you even stopped to think what that means, in order to combat the so called problem and ensure this "sustainability" it follows that there needs to be a complete micro management of every individuals life under schemes such as a globalised carbon tax. We are simply in the realm of semantics here, sustainability has as much goodness as the word reform does, it's all to create a perception of goodness while really it is dictatorship. Therefore the ONLY way you are going to see a massive reduction in pollution is through some sick manipulation of human life which is already going on via the vaccines, the water supplies, the aspartame in the soft drinks, and or a massive reduction in the living standards of the west. However wait a minute, the living standards for the overall majority in the west were not exactly flourishing anyway, in fact when you go to Europe, you look around you, venture outside of the main areas, it's PISS POOR. I myself am anything but affluent and indeed only a few miles up the road, well there is england's equivalent to a ghetto.
I understand the view they were trying to indoctrinate us with now during our information management lessons, they were trying to convey the message to us, that you don't live in poverty, you live in relative poverty compares to affluence. They even gave this sickening example of a middle class person vs some poor guy in Africa. The intention was obvious it's a drive to make white people feel guilty for what they have and when it's laid out in front of them how fortunate they are, they will be more open to surrendering that wealth. However there it is again, the face of deception, it is not me who is screwing the poorest, not your average white person no, it's these hideous evil intentioned global bodies. They are the ones doing it and they are the ones who under the guise of the UN are being portrayed as wonderful. That of course brings back the tired old argument which is repeatedly spun that oh such and such a person gave up their prosperous career to help the UN and of course, good people belong but the goal of the UN is to sell people on global government.
The wealth always goes somewhere and as far as pollution is concerned, well look around you my man, the dumping of nuclear waste in the rwandan seas, the creation of gm crops which is killing the honey bees, the millions of tonnes of depleted uranium which have killed and deformed god knows how many people, have affected god knows how many animals, the dumping of nerve gas into the seas, the testing of chemical weapons on a populous. So this idea of typical "waste" is such a sick, scandalous deception, such a brainwashed scam. Having said there are a lot of pathetic self apologetic self loathing, always gotta guilty about something whiteys out there.
The media tells us over here that someone earning 40K gross is middle class, those greedy people, even millionaire doesn't mean shit anymore because of the devaluation of the currency's which has rapidly sped up since the 60's, so fuck comparative and relative poverty, it's all a distraction away from the ones with real riches and power.
First of all ease up with all that 'you are falling for it again' quit painting people into a picture and playing the martyr, as if pollution dosn't matter and we are all fools for feeding into it and believing it is, you are blindly naive for thinking we are so naive. I've told you I agree with your perspective and find it worthwhile and vital, as I keep saying, but one perspective isn't the whole understanding. You always make it into a oversimplified 'us and the elitists' but you discount the fact that this system, regardless of who the head of the snake is, functions by itself, to a large extent it is a self operating automation and everybody contributes in their own way, no matter how trivial or mundane, to the systems continuation (apart from probably the native aboriginals and the Amish). We all use and consume and love it. Theres no point in blaming the head of the snake for everything, you have to accept the average person's stake in all of this. Its easy to blame 'them' for everything and ignore the individual capacity to change.
As for your charge that 'the goal of the UN is to sell people on global government', I disagree, I find that point of view simple-minded (which reminds me of Alex Jones, who I reackon is a good hearted person, but he believes he has the whole picture which is hubris IMO). I think whoever bothers to actually study the charters and treaties relating to the UN and memeber nations you will know that the goal of the UN is not a one world government dictatorship, but actually co-operation between nations with respect to soveriegnty. Whether you like it or not, no nation is an island although their soveriegnty affords them that status, decisions have to inevitablly be made between consenting countries.
Now having said all that, I know that 'they' often reset the system and steer it back to a continuation of itself (of self destruction and creation) whenever it seems to be heading in a direction out of 'their' control. And there is the possibility of world totalitarianism to emerge in the future under the banner of the UN. But that is not the entire possibility or understanding and you are brainwashing yourself if you think it is. You and the political position you represent would have us remain motionless and do nothing for fear that we are sowing the seeds for enslavement of future generations. Recognise that there are hopes and fears with anything.
As for population reduction, I'll say it again: theres no point in reducing the world's population if the same problems of our system remain, it is only delaying the need for a solution, not to mention right-action demands we act without deception and with mercy: I say we need education of the masses and a change to more sustainable systems and technology.
-
My response was that whatever the average person pales into comparison with the real pollution and yet it's that which is being steered. I fail to see where this idea of consenting nations comes from, sovereignty is precious, it affords protection, it makes people within the system accountable, it means that whatever is changed in that sovereign landscapes changes society, sure sometimes it's for the worse but at least there is some semblance of control, within any given borders, there is the power to change things. I am not trying to be patronising and apologies if it seems like I am being too abrasive I do respect your viewpoint and in a utopia, sure a global government might work but this world is insane enough as it is. Having said that it seems you are still going back to this fall out position of consenting nations, but what does that really mean? we are told it's good for us, the UN is sold through all manner of so called debates which turn into a promotion for the UN. Furthermore, the E.U is coming forward with a whole series of yet new regulations, they are turning sovereignty into a farce and if they succeed in ramming through their constitution, then a full blown dictatorship will have been born, that's not consenting nations, that's the elite fulfilling their plans to create a regional arm of global governance. This isn't consenting, Ireland said no, they are unelected unaccountable scum basically. Now of course every individual works within the system but they keep pushing and pushing, it's never enough for them, they have all the power, all the control, all the wealth you could ever dream of times 10 and yet they want more. As far as I am concerned, I am just a normal individual earning a below the national average salary and just want a bit of freedom.
The system is too entrenched into every facet of society to be tumbled but they won't will they, they are determined to keep this sick agenda going. Only yesterday did I hear about Baxter, "accidentally contaminating the flu vaccine with bird flu" if it hadn't been for the sub contractor in the Czech republic this would have caused a pandemic and given the pro population control, humans are a cancer crowd a field day, until that is they were the victims of the airborne mutation. All I am saying is I and everyone else have nothing to apologise for, there is an definite link between poverty and newborns, so it's simple, rather than lowering the standard of living, the people in the third world are allowed to develop, industrialised nations/consumer nations always have less babies.
However we also need to look at the bigger picture, the current policy path is done with the intention of brain chips for all of the citizens of the world. that's not my opinion, that was an excerpt from the MOD report looking at how things will have unfolded, or at least how they predict they will in 2035. Therefore the bigger goal, the purpose behind massively reducing the numbers, is to make it much easier to control the human race. I tend to concur with Jrome in that I don't think they will be successful but it does seem from the almost daily and weekly news stories that they intend to go ahead in an atempt to fully implement it.
-
Its all good man. ;)
My response was that whatever the average person pales into comparison with the real pollution and yet it's that which is being steered.
I agree with that statement. There is no point in individuals embracing conservation and sustainability if the big polluters don't change themself, because individual waste pales in comparison to the real big polluters. Still the way you said it, thats breeding the notion of 'I don't do anything, its all the elites and their corporations', thats a sort of apathy my man, when really it will require a group effort to change. Theres a big debate here in Australia going on (following our signing of the Kyoto protocol) because the government wants to introduce a carbon emissions cap on companies, people will conserve more energy (thru encouragement or thru their own existing motivation) and then if the energy company dosn't reach its cap it can sell the remaining unused carbon emission rights under its cap to another company, therefore the average person hasn't reduced anything, only benefited the energy companies and inividual's conservation has not then actually saved anything! Its ridiculous, but on the other hand Australia will have a cap on it's carbon emissions.
I fail to see where this idea of consenting nations comes from, sovereignty is precious, it affords protection, it makes people within the system accountable, it means that whatever is changed in that sovereign landscapes changes society, sure sometimes it's for the worse but at least there is some semblance of control, within any given borders, there is the power to change things. I am not trying to be patronising and apologies if it seems like I am being too abrasive I do respect your viewpoint and in a utopia, sure a global government might work but this world is insane enough as it is. Having said that it seems you are still going back to this fall out position of consenting nations, but what does that really mean? we are told it's good for us, the UN is sold through all manner of so called debates which turn into a promotion for the UN. Furthermore, the E.U is coming forward with a whole series of yet new regulations, they are turning sovereignty into a farce and if they succeed in ramming through their constitution, then a full blown dictatorship will have been born, that's not consenting nations, that's the elite fulfilling their plans to create a regional arm of global governance. This isn't consenting, Ireland said no, they are unelected unaccountable scum basically. Now of course every individual works within the system but they keep pushing and pushing, it's never enough for them, they have all the power, all the control, all the wealth you could ever dream of times 10 and yet they want more. As far as I am concerned, I am just a normal individual earning a below the national average salary and just want a bit of freedom.
I don't know much about the E.U, im doing E.U law next semester (and before that im gonna try and scramble my way over to Europe on an illuminati pilgrimage in july, go see stonehendge, notre dame, vatican city, louvre, engage in pagan ritual debauchery and such. happy days). However, no state is forced to join the UN and no state is forced to stay at the UN. Sovereignty is still the most important factor in international relations and really is the cornerstone of international law. Article 7 of the UN Charter says basically the UN itself cannot interfere with th domestic jurisdiction of a state. International treaties like the Kyoto Protocol only apply to any country because that country has adopted it into its own law through its own law making instruments, like through its own parliament, not because the head of state signed it or ratified it (it dosn't apply to the country until the legislature has actually adopted it through its domestic law making process, the head of state can sign a document but it won't mean shit until the parliament has adopted it into domestic law). Legally it is very sound. I'm very happy with it. Still, like anything there are hopes and fears and history has shown how law is erroded and marginalised.
All I am saying is I and everyone else have nothing to apologise for, there is an definite link between poverty and newborns, so it's simple, rather than lowering the standard of living, the people in the third world are allowed to develop, industrialised nations/consumer nations always have less babies.
I agree they should be allowed to develop. But really Africa's problems are more than 'they should be allowed to develop'. The thing is, I do favour a strong UN presence in Africa, because they really need interim governments in place of these corrupt regimes, im in favour of UN interim governments in Africa kind of like how Britain had Hong Kong for awhile. Sovereignty is vital, but really alot of nations are their own worst enemy, with the corrupt elites of countries keeping the rest down. BTW, Bush actually did alot for Africa.
However we also need to look at the bigger picture, the current policy path is done with the intention of brain chips for all of the citizens of the world. that's not my opinion, that was an excerpt from the MOD report looking at how things will have unfolded, or at least how they predict they will in 2035. Therefore the bigger goal, the purpose behind massively reducing the numbers, is to make it much easier to control the human race. I tend to concur with Jrome in that I don't think they will be successful but it does seem from the almost daily and weekly news stories that they intend to go ahead in an atempt to fully implement it.
Well. I don't think that type of world with microchipped human brains is really in the true spirit of Apollo/Lucifer/Loki/Osris and the masonic/illuminati Supreme Being or anything else that has truly inspired humankind.
I was watching an interview with the first woman in MI5 and I noticed how very careful and deliberate she was not to attribute 9/11 to Osama or al Qaeda or even Islamic extremist terrorists when asked about 9/11. I think their job really is to discern the truth as much as they can in events and probabilities. That type of future is of course, not our fated destiny, but it is a real possibility if events now and in the future are engineered to steer us that way. Thats the difference: its manufactured and engineered events that really set the pace and course, because its not the inherent nature of the UN itself to become a one world totalitarian government.
-
isnt population growth important to a good economy?
-
yeah i reackon generally it is. like India and China are a powerhouse because they have such a huge population to draw from, but of course without skills, industry or infastructure then a huge population is useless, in India most of the people are dirt poor and poor people keep having kids that they can't really take care of or provide for, so poverty continues, but at the same time its hard to blame people for having kids because hey thats what people do children bring joy to the world and such. the poll kinda oversimplified the issue. Overfiend is a bit of a lunatic often he takes over poor Rugged Monk's brain goes out and does fucked up shit...
-
we need to reduce the earth population by any means necessary. Of course it'd be better to achieve it without forcing people.
Agent Smith from 'The Matrix' got it right: 'I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet.'
This planet can't handle so many people, especially when they live like we do in western countries. A decreased population would increase the overall quality of life.
You sound like a Nazi, mixed in with Stalinist ideology just for good measure, if you believe that humans are such a cancer, well do the right thing and join lots of morons in pledging to take their own life.
Truth hurts huh? Like every other living thing we try to expand. But since we're different than all other beings, we have to do it by destruction ( otherspecies and the planet). Every animal exploits the planet in some way, but the power of human destruction is unmatched. The nature is a complicated system of checks and balances, but who is there to keep us in check? We've become too dominant. We think that we have the control with our intelligence and reason, but we have not. We all know the negative effects of our actions, but we're still not able to stop them. Some things are inevitable, so I don't worry about population growth too much, and I don't follow anybody or 'morons' as you say because things will happen anyway. I rather sit back and live my life because nobody knows how many years or centuries we have left. We can't go back to the past, the human is destined to aim for 'progress', we're already almost godlike, we have the weapons destroy our planet faster than any 'God' could, and we can start to manipulate life by genetics.
I'm not a devout believer, but it always reminds me of the story about the Tower of Babel.
-
I like the Tower of Bable, I like multiculturalism and the merging of consciousness, knowledge and ideas, also the increasing inter-connectiveness of nation's economies and interests is inevitable. I think that a good reason for the multiculturalism of Western nations is to ensure we have a sort of Noah's Arch, because underdeveloped countries are not as equipped to deal with natural disasters which we will get more and more of sweepingly violent now and in the not too distant future, whether because of HAARP, man-made, neither, either, or a combination of all; whatever your belief affords.
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us".
-Genesis 3:22
-
I like the Tower of Bable, I like multiculturalism and the merging of consciousness, knowledge and ideas, also the increasing inter-connectiveness of nation's economies and interests is inevitable. I think that a good reason for the multiculturalism of Western nations is to ensure we have a sort of Noah's Arch, because underdeveloped countries are not as equipped to deal with natural disasters which we will get more and more of sweepingly violent now and in the not too distant future, whether because of HAARP, man-made, neither, either, or a combination of all; whatever your belief affords.
Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of Us".
-Genesis 3:22
Alas we can not be the crutch for the rest of the world. many european nations are effectively bankrupt, unless you treat the cause, then the parasite will not be tamed, the parasite sucking off the entire world are the banks. If we eradicate the parasites and I don't mean physically go after them but I mean smash their system of control, then we kill the parasite. Indeed you said it yourself when using India as an example, the cast system remains very much alive and well and the dirt poor have lots of kids.
I look at the UN as this... an organisation with many well intentioned people but it's ultimate goals are very dangerous, I just read through their global biodiversity assessment 1981 (i believe) Section 10 and it calls for the creation of biospheres, a reduction in agriculture and or a drive to stop small farms and instead centralise agriculture into big agricultural corporations. That was within just a few paragraphs...
Wipe out the small farmers
Establish huge zones where no construction can take place and for those who have homes there, well that's just too bad
Environmentalists will think that's a good thing but this is just control freakery under the banner of saving the earth.
Or indeed the paradox, those caring individuals with a good heart wanting to help the plight of the people but then the UN carrying out a program of mass vaccinations, vaccinations which are extremely dangerous to everyones health, particularly in the number being given.
Now I am all for cutting down on general pollution but not at the expense of squeezing people, not at the expense of bringing harm to bear on people. I am glad someone else I believe it was Chief pointed it out, we need more new borns because there are so many elderly people now, that there will not be enough to keep the economy moving forwards. This therefore brings into context the nihilism of these people who consider themselves higher human beings, people like Nanci Pelosi who recently said that people need to have less babies because that will help the economy. However meanwhile the flood of illegal immigration from Mexico continue unimpeded. Of course people try and spin this viewpoint and say oh you are attacking the illegal immigrants when in reality it's just pointing out that a) they bring a massive burden on the economy and b) if you support these people then you should also support their right to have kids.
As for population control, well I became very ill back in June, by October I was in so much distress and pain, that I was crying like a baby but thankfully the surgeons were great and I came through it. Ever since then, it's made me appreciate the beauty of life, I can not believe that someone could actually forcibly sterilise another human being, I can not believe that Kissinger can talk about using food as a weapon against people. I have love for everyone, regardless of race or gender, I see a continuing trend emerge, slowly and incrementally human beings are being dehumanised.
-
better economics for the 3rd world countries. they are the once fucking like little rabbits, stop em.
-
better economics for the 3rd world countries. they are the once fucking like little rabbits, stop em.
castration.
-
Population control is the practice of limiting population increase, usually by reducing the birth rate. The practice has sometimes been voluntary, as a response to poverty, environmental concerns, or out of religious ideology, but in some times and places it has been socially mandated. This is generally conducted to improve quality of life for a society or as a solution to overpopulation. While population control can involve measures that improve people's lives, giving them greater control of their reproduction, some programs have exposed them to exploitation.[1]
The population control movement was active throughout the 1960s and 1970s driving many reproductive health and family planning programs. In the 1980s tension grew between population control advocates and feminist women's health activists who advance women's reproductive rights as part of a human rights-based approach.[2] Growing opposition to the narrow population control focus led to a significant change in population policies in the early 1990s.[3]
Population control may commonly use one or more of the following practices although there are other methods as well:
* contraception
o abstinence
* abortion
* emigration to other areas
* decreasing immigration
* increasing death rate
o infanticide
The method(s) chosen can be strongly influenced by the religious and cultural beliefs of the community's members. Failures of the other methods can lead to the use of abortion or infanticide, in which case it is regarded as a necessary drastic last resort. A specific practice may be allowed or mandated by law in one country while prohibited or severely restricted in another, an indicator of the controversy this topic generates.
Mulan II (http://disney.videos.go.com/General/Acquisition/SignUp/TitleDetail?id=11624&pg=BrowseAZ&alphaCat=5)
discount guitars (http://www.instrumentshop.net/index.php?cPath=5)