Lifestyle > Train of Thought

POLL - Population control?

<< < (5/7) > >>

the ghost:
Logan's run.  Thats the future ;)

virtuoso:

--- Quote from: Dr. Ján Ïtor on March 06, 2009, 10:55:41 AM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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.

Rugged Monk:

--- Quote from: virtuoso on March 06, 2009, 04:44:22 AM ---
--- Quote from: Rugged Monk starring as Illuminatus Overfiend. on March 05, 2009, 08:28:52 PM ---
--- Quote from: virtuoso on March 05, 2009, 05:50:39 AM ---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.

--- End quote ---

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



--- End quote ---

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.

--- End quote ---


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.

virtuoso:

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.

Rugged Monk:
Its all good man.  ;)


--- Quote from: virtuoso on March 06, 2009, 07:20:24 PM ---
My response was that whatever the average person pales into comparison with the real pollution and yet it's that which is being steered.

--- End quote ---

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.






--- Quote from: virtuoso on March 06, 2009, 07:20:24 PM ---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.


--- End quote ---


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.




--- Quote from: virtuoso on March 06, 2009, 07:20:24 PM ---
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.


--- End quote ---

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.



--- Quote from: virtuoso on March 06, 2009, 07:20:24 PM ---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.

--- End quote ---


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.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page