Remember me
▼ Content

Ethical Depopulation Could Save the Planet



Page 1 of 3123>
Ethical Depopulation Could Save the Planet11-12-2017 14:17
Robertgreene3
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Why are we spending billions on energy retrofit programs, climate change research, environmental consultants, and conservation, when we are spending next to nothing to slow down population growth? We're putting a lot of resources into energy efficiency, but all that goes to vain when we ignore rapid population growth. We can't allow ourselves to go beyond 10 Billion, or there will be severe consequences for our quality of life, and environment. We need a plan for humanity to survive at least another 1000 years, and ethical depopulation might be the solution.

Are we simply going to ignore the issue, and let countries like India and China get over 2 billion? How will future generations maintain a high quality of life, when the resources start to run out? What will the quality of life be like for them, when they can't get access to affordable food, housing and transportation? The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic. We are running out of farmland, and we don't need to watch the Amazon get destroyed, in order to make room for new farms.

By gradually reducing the World's populating, we could start to regrow forests outside cities, providing a beautiful landscape and recreation opportunities for future generations.

How do we proceed with aggressive action on overpopulation that will be ethical, and not interfere with humans rights?

I give you a picture of Mexico City, showing 16 Square kilometers, without a park or woodlot. How do we get nature back in a rapidly growing city?
Attached image:

11-12-2017 17:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
The idea that there is any problem with our present population or future populations is pure evil.

There is plenty of food. We use loads 40% or so of the food we grow as biofuel.

If there are more people then the economics of farming will allow massive amounts of food to be grown in presently uneconomic places and ways. The price of food will not increase significantly.

For humanity to progress as quickly as possible we need lots of economically engaged, educated people about the world.
11-12-2017 17:54
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic.


...and yet so many millions CHOOSE to live in the city. I lived in the city for 25 years. I CHOSE to get out. I built a new 1750 sq ft home in 2005 on 5 acres and my total expense was $135,000. FAR cheaper than the same house in town. I'm 20 minutes from a city of 150k people. It is NOT affordability issue. It is a CHOICE. Some people love the city. I don't.

I suspect you feel trapped in a large city and feel like a few thousand people should die to give you some elbow room. No?
11-12-2017 18:25
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours." - Anne Coulter, making references to Dominionism and Genesis 1:28, on Hannity & Colmes (20 June 2001).
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter
11-12-2017 19:28
litesong
★★★★★
(2151)
monckton wrote:
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours." - Anne Coulter, making references to Dominionism and Genesis 1:28, on Hannity & Colmes....
Ah.... the gospel of Anne Coulter. Its not that all humanity gets to rape the Earth. Its only the most virulent & egotistically rich who get to pillage the Earth & who will NOT examine the non-sustainable methods of wealth production that is destroying LIFE production.
11-12-2017 19:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
litesong wrote:
monckton wrote:
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours." - Anne Coulter, making references to Dominionism and Genesis 1:28, on Hannity & Colmes....
Ah.... the gospel of Anne Coulter. Its not that all humanity gets to rape the Earth. Its only the most virulent & egotistically rich who get to pillage the Earth & who will NOT examine the non-sustainable methods of wealth production that is destroying LIFE production.


I guess that's why the population is increasing, eh?


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2017 07:55
Robertgreene3
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic.


...and yet so many millions CHOOSE to live in the city. I lived in the city for 25 years. I CHOSE to get out. I built a new 1750 sq ft home in 2005 on 5 acres and my total expense was $135,000. FAR cheaper than the same house in town. I'm 20 minutes from a city of 150k people. It is NOT affordability issue. It is a CHOICE. Some people love the city. I don't.

I suspect you feel trapped in a large city and feel like a few thousand people should die to give you some elbow room. No?


I never said we should murder people. I'm talking about ethical depopulation. Finding ethical ways to lower the birthrate, and letting the old people die out.

Adults choose to be in cities, but their children don't. Children have a right to nature. While mom and dad are stuck at work, the children come home after school, and are stuck in mega-suburbs. The developers got greedy. They built hundreds of houses without a park in sight. It's easy for the parents, to get in a car and drive to a nice park. The kids are left on their bicycles, trying to find a nice spot to hang out.

This is the environment, we force our children to grow up in. Children deserve access to nature. Instead of letting them play in nature, we give them video games to keep them busy. We need to reforest the cities, in as many places as possible. There should be an empty lot with trees, on the end of every street. We need to start retrofitting suburbs for future generations. Suburban parks should have botanical gardens, not just empty soccer fields with a swing set.
Edited on 12-12-2017 08:14
12-12-2017 09:50
litesong
★★★★★
(2151)
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote: Ah.... the gospel of Anne Coulter. Its not that all humanity gets to rape the Earth. Its only the most virulent & egotistically rich who get to pillage the Earth & who will NOT examine the non-sustainable methods of wealth production that is destroying LIFE production.
I guess that's why the population is increasing, eh?
So, when I mention LIFE production, "badnight" assumed I meant only the humans.... & NOT the humans which ARE decreasing in parts of the world.... like kids who die because they live too close to clogged & diesel blowing stop & not-go freeways (what a misnomer).
12-12-2017 13:05
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
GasGuzzler wrote:...and yet so many millions CHOOSE to live in the city ... It is NOT affordability issue. It is a CHOICE. Some people love the city ...


Yeah tent city.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7HozzSGakA
12-12-2017 17:48
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
You are right I stand corrected. The homeless don't have a ton of options.

Do you have anything to say about the other 98.6% of LA county?


Oh, and it is pretty damn funny that a liberal would post up a story of how shitty the conditions are in a city that has been run by liberals for years.

Edited on 12-12-2017 18:24
12-12-2017 20:03
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
It's highly flammable?

Tent Cities Full Of Homeless People Are Booming In Cities All Over America As Poverty Spikes
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-12/tent-cities-full-homeless-people-are-booming-cities-all-over-america-poverty-spikes

I don't know why you're calling me a liberal.
I might think Trumps an idiot but I'm glad he won because Hilary would have been worse.
There's only two types of politicians in the US, good liars, and bare-faced liars.
Like Trump and the Republicans.

You know where you are with a bare-faced liar.
But a weasel like Clinton or Obama, same shit but everyones smiling.
12-12-2017 20:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Robertgreene3 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic.


...and yet so many millions CHOOSE to live in the city. I lived in the city for 25 years. I CHOSE to get out. I built a new 1750 sq ft home in 2005 on 5 acres and my total expense was $135,000. FAR cheaper than the same house in town. I'm 20 minutes from a city of 150k people. It is NOT affordability issue. It is a CHOICE. Some people love the city. I don't.

I suspect you feel trapped in a large city and feel like a few thousand people should die to give you some elbow room. No?


I never said we should murder people. I'm talking about ethical depopulation. Finding ethical ways to lower the birthrate, and letting the old people die out.

There is no ethical way. You are either forcing people to not have children or forcing people to die. All to satisfy your belief that there is overpopulation.

The world is not overpopulated.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Adults choose to be in cities, but their children don't. Children have a right to nature.

There is no 'right to nature'.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
While mom and dad are stuck at work, the children come home after school, and are stuck in mega-suburbs.

That's by the parent's choice to leave raise latchkey kids.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
The developers got greedy. They built hundreds of houses without a park in sight. It's easy for the parents, to get in a car and drive to a nice park. The kids are left on their bicycles, trying to find a nice spot to hang out.

We have lots of parks in our neighborhood. Maybe you need to find a better neighborhood.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
This is the environment, we force our children to grow up in.

No, this is the environment the parents choose for themselves and their children.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Children deserve access to nature.

If you feel this way, move to where your kids have such access. This is the parent's responsibility, not the government.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Instead of letting them play in nature, we give them video games to keep them busy.

Again a parental choice. Personally, I have no problem with video games.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
We need to reforest the cities, in as many places as possible.
There should be an empty lot with trees, on the end of every street.

Who's going to pay for it?
Robertgreene3 wrote:
We need to start retrofitting suburbs for future generations.

Nothing to retrofit. Future generations will grow up in any kind of neighborhood.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Suburban parks should have botanical gardens, not just empty soccer fields with a swing set.

Talk to your parks dept. See if you can get enough of your neighbors to support your venture.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2017 20:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
litesong wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote: Ah.... the gospel of Anne Coulter. Its not that all humanity gets to rape the Earth. Its only the most virulent & egotistically rich who get to pillage the Earth & who will NOT examine the non-sustainable methods of wealth production that is destroying LIFE production.
I guess that's why the population is increasing, eh?
So, when I mention LIFE production, "badnight" assumed I meant only the humans.... & NOT the humans which ARE decreasing in parts of the world.... like kids who die because they live too close to clogged & diesel blowing stop & not-go freeways (what a misnomer).


Nobody dies because they live close to a freeway, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
12-12-2017 20:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
monckton wrote:
It's highly flammable?

Tent Cities Full Of Homeless People Are Booming In Cities All Over America As Poverty Spikes
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-12/tent-cities-full-homeless-people-are-booming-cities-all-over-america-poverty-spikes

I don't know why you're calling me a liberal.
I might think Trumps an idiot but I'm glad he won because Hilary would have been worse.
There's only two types of politicians in the US, good liars, and bare-faced liars.
Like Trump and the Republicans.

You know where you are with a bare-faced liar.
But a weasel like Clinton or Obama, same shit but everyones smiling.


Possibly because you are advocating for more government and ignoring a republican form of government. Since the United States is organized as a federated republic, what you are advocating is discarding the republic for your utopia.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-12-2017 20:27
12-12-2017 21:42
litesong
★★★★★
(2151)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whinier badnight" bluffs, bellows & buffaloes: Nobody dies because they live close to a freeway, dumbass.
Of course, you bluff, bellow & buffalo:
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-freeway-pollution/
& data beyond the mentioned website for 30 years have proven that children & people have disease & death in proportion to proximity to stop & NOT-GO traffic on freeways(what a misnomer). "AGW denier liar whiner badnight" must live in one of the "black lung lofts" & just hasn't died yet.
Edited on 12-12-2017 21:52
12-12-2017 22:15
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
Into the Night wrote:Possibly because you are advocating for more government and ignoring a republican form of government. Since the United States is organized as a federated republic, what you are advocating is discarding the republic for your utopia.


Sometimes people need to get organised and the coordination and will needs to come from the top. We are currently, in what many are calling, a climate emergency. Think of it as launching a ship. The ship has started to move. The only adequate response to the situation will require a level of international cooperation and yeah, to be honest, in some ways sacrifice (stop chasing the dream), that we have not seen since world war 2.

But don't worry, I can't see it happening.

And hell, I might be wrong along with thousands of scientists and the majority of public opinion, and its all a Chinese plot, the PR firms, paid to lie, were right all along.
13-12-2017 00:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
monckton wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Possibly because you are advocating for more government and ignoring a republican form of government. Since the United States is organized as a federated republic, what you are advocating is discarding the republic for your utopia.


Sometimes people need to get organised and the coordination and will needs to come from the top.

This is an example of advocating for more government and overthrowing the structure of a republic. The whole point of a republican form of government (indeed it's very definition) is a structure of government by law, not of men. A republic is that form of government by constitution. That constitution is the actual government, with the officers in the government mere agents created by that document. That constitution is like a contract, formed by the owners of that contract (for the United States Constitution, those owners are the States), for the State constitutions, those owners are the people.

The agents of a contract cannot rewrite the contract...only the owners can.

Our constitutions form the only type of government that allows for freedom and liberty. It is not the government's business to micromanage any part of the economy, but to allow it to run free. It quite properly recognizes that you can't kill the free market. It's immortal. It will always exist, even if it takes the form of a black market.

In a republic, it is not the government's role to manage the people. It is there to defend the right of the people to conduct their own affairs.

monckton wrote:
We are currently, in what many are calling, a climate emergency.

There is no emergency. You can't even define 'climate change' without a circular definition.

Records of various agencies like the National Hurricane Center show no correlation to the number or intensity of storms against the concentration of CO2 in the air as measured by Mauna Loa. We have parallel records of both extending back to 1956. The same is true comparing temperature records in the stations logs of NOAA weather stations or their precipitation logs. The central NOAA site ignores these records and is reporting the IPCC charts as 'the global temperature record'. There is no global temperature record. NOAA operates weather stations in the lower 48 States of the United States only. NONE of those stations are good for temperatures any more than 10 miles away. Temperature varies too much per mile.
monckton wrote:
Think of it as launching a ship. The ship has started to move.

The United States is not organized as a dictatorship like a vessel at sea is. At sea, the captain of the ship is quite properly also called the master of the ship. Every operation of the ship is his responsibility. The same is true of the pilot of an aircraft.
monckton wrote:
The only adequate response to the situation will require a level of international cooperation and yeah, to be honest, in some ways sacrifice (stop chasing the dream), that we have not seen since world war 2.

The cause of WW2 was WW1 and the disaster of the Treaty of Versailles. Shortages came about as a result of the economic collapse that started the conditions for war, not because of the war itself.
monckton wrote:
But don't worry, I can't see it happening.

It happened once. The conditions are VERY similar to the conditions then today. It CAN happen.

We are printing money faster and faster. The dollar is being weakened at an extraordinary rate. Other nations are doing the same. There is no commodity base for the currency to stop it.

Why do you think people are turning to gold and bitcoin more and more? Money is a thing of value that provides a unit of account. It doesn't matter if it's paper, gold, bitcoin, clamshells, whatever. If you can trade it for a commodity, and you can count with it, it can be money.

monckton wrote:
And hell, I might be wrong along with thousands of scientists and the majority of public opinion, and its all a Chinese plot, the PR firms, paid to lie, were right all along.

Thousands of scientists can't agree on the color red. At least Wake is right about that one.

There is no such thing as consensus in science. No theory of science depends on consensus. No government agency, university, credential, society, academy, lobbying group, or any other scientist or group of scientists define what science is. Science isn't even people at all. Science is defined by philosophy. The current philosophy defines science and gives the reasoning for that definition.

Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

The Church of Global Warming does not use or create any theory of science. It denies science. It specifically denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law with it's 'greenhouse' gas arguments.

Those arguments typically take one of two forms, which I call the Magick Blanket argument and the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. Both of these arguments deny science.

The majority of scientists today are paid by the same entity...the U.S. government. That government has an agenda. It will not pay for what does not conform to its agenda. Regardless of a scientist's actual opinion, he has to support the Church of Global Warming to get paid. Ya gotta eat.

Most of these 'academies' and 'societies' you name are either government agencies, or they are lobbying groups in Washington DC. They know what side their bread is buttered on.


The Parrot Killer
13-12-2017 00:13
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
Take it or leave it.
Nothing will change your view.
I'm happy for people to ignore my opinion, it's just a summary of information that they can obtain themselves, consider, and make their own minds up.

Some church.

I was just watching this, seems like an honest guy doing just that - making his own mind up.

SBG News 12.10.17 Climate scientists see alarming new threat to California
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myzI78ylaoA
13-12-2017 07:55
Robertgreene3
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Not all environmentalists are Liberals. I am also a conservative, because I believe in fiscal responsibility. Obama took out trillion dollar deficits, stealing money from future generations, to pay for things we can't afford. Environmentalists and conservatives believe in sustainability. Trump believes in Made in America manufacturing. Environmentalists believe in local manufacturing. I'm actually against abortion. We need to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies after 2 children.

I'm asking everyone, how would you go about preventing mothers from having 5, 6, or 7 children? If you don't believe in government intervention, what other ethical ideas do you have? We have added a billion people in the last 15 years.
Edited on 13-12-2017 07:58
13-12-2017 14:48
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
Jesus Christ I may as well wear black robes and carry a scythe.
And I'm not talking Amish preacher.

I think it's too late for any policy to take effect quicker than nature will itself.
Population blooms are well understood and we have bloomed.
Sure maybe we can carry on for a while, 10 billion, 15 billion, living in a world where there's 10 of you round the dinner table taking turns sharing the family spoon handed down through generations.
A real wooden one, pre-internet!

Yes worse than Mad Max, a post apocalyptic dystopian dreamworld, still able to offer a one man one spoon minimum standard of living.

Think of something clever to say, useful to future generations.
Chisel it into a stone, and bury it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7lMlz3DX_Q
Edited on 13-12-2017 15:07
13-12-2017 17:03
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
monckton wrote:
Jesus Christ I may as well wear black robes and carry a scythe.
And I'm not talking Amish preacher.

I think it's too late for any policy to take effect quicker than nature will itself.
Population blooms are well understood and we have bloomed.
Sure maybe we can carry on for a while, 10 billion, 15 billion, living in a world where there's 10 of you round the dinner table taking turns sharing the family spoon handed down through generations.
A real wooden one, pre-internet!

Yes worse than Mad Max, a post apocalyptic dystopian dreamworld, still able to offer a one man one spoon minimum standard of living.

Think of something clever to say, useful to future generations.
Chisel it into a stone, and bury it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7lMlz3DX_Q


You are stupid and evil.

There is no reason why we need to reduce population.

The best way we can ensure that humanity is rich and sucessful is to ensure that the world has lots of economically involved, educated people in it not being told a load of lies by deranged idiots with a doom cult fixation.
13-12-2017 18:37
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
Tim the plumber wrote:
You are stupid and evil.

There is no reason why we need to reduce population.

The best way we can ensure that humanity is rich and sucessful is to ensure that the world has lots of economically involved, educated people in it not being told a load of lies by deranged idiots with a doom cult fixation.


Well round them up and get them to post here.
Coz there's f**king nobody on this forum haven't you noticed?
Just a skeleton crew of denial squatters batting bullshit back and forth.
There's barely enough for online poker.

And furthermore...

PURE EVIL if you don't mind.
I'm putting work into this!
14-12-2017 12:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1002)
monckton wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
You are stupid and evil.

There is no reason why we need to reduce population.

The best way we can ensure that humanity is rich and sucessful is to ensure that the world has lots of economically involved, educated people in it not being told a load of lies by deranged idiots with a doom cult fixation.


Well round them up and get them to post here.
Coz there's f**king nobody on this forum haven't you noticed?
Just a skeleton crew of denial squatters batting bullshit back and forth.
There's barely enough for online poker.

And furthermore...

PURE EVIL if you don't mind.
I'm putting work into this!


Genghis Khan put work into it.

Did not stop his killings being evil.

That you are incapable of looking at the maths of the situation, that you are incapable of saying what it is you think will actaully cause problems and backing it with actual science means you are just posting your wish list.

Your wish list is to kill off most people on earth. Evil.
14-12-2017 13:47
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Genghis Khan put work into it.

Did not stop his killings being evil.

That you are incapable of looking at the maths of the situation, that you are incapable of saying what it is you think will actaully cause problems and backing it with actual science means you are just posting your wish list.

Your wish list is to kill off most people on earth. Evil.


Yeah well, people say I'm a dreamer.
You're not the only one.

Genghis Khan was a very successful man with strong leadership skills and a flexible 'can do' attitude, able to think on his feet but preferably, on his horse.
But ancient history.

The busiest little buggers around today are the yanks.
14-12-2017 14:21
Robertgreene3
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
Ethical depopulation has nothing to do with murder. This debate should be about finding ethical solutions that can help lower the birthrate, while the old people naturally die off. Condoms is a form of ethical depopulation. Education is a form of ethical depopulation. Wide-scale vasectomies could be a form of ethical depopulation. Depopulation can be gradual, so that in 1000 years humans use far less land. Large-scale reforestation can take place over time, as demand for food decreases. No more mega-cities with 20 million. Sustainable living on a smaller scale. Why not be creative and add to this list?

Here is Richard Nixon talking about overpopulation of cities in 1967.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KG_K3hWEwU
Edited on 14-12-2017 14:30
14-12-2017 14:49
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Ethical depopulation has nothing to do with murder. This debate should be about finding ethical solutions that can help lower the birthrate, while the old people naturally die off...


I'm with you, but good luck getting any sensible engagement here.
All you'll hear is thinly veiled dominionism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology

It looks like the same 4 usernames being used to permanently patrol the forum and bully away anyone that turns up with an honest question or point of view.
If you have anything interesting to post on the topic for people to read - just do that and walk away, let them scream all they want, or hide away in one of their 'mega-threads'.
14-12-2017 15:01
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
monckton wrote:
I'm with you, but good luck getting any sensible engagement here.


Ha! This from the guy who won't "stoop the the level of debate".

Posting you tube videos is not "engagement".
14-12-2017 15:10
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(832)
Robertgreene3 wrote:
Ethical depopulation has nothing to do with murder. This debate should be about finding ethical solutions that can help lower the birthrate, while the old people naturally die off. Condoms is a form of ethical depopulation. Education is a form of ethical depopulation. Wide-scale vasectomies could be a form of ethical depopulation. Depopulation can be gradual, so that in 1000 years humans use far less land. Large-scale reforestation can take place over time, as demand for food decreases. No more mega-cities with 20 million. Sustainable living on a smaller scale. Why not be creative and add to this list?

Here is Richard Nixon talking about overpopulation of cities in 1967.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KG_K3hWEwU


Can we stop now with the food shortage scare tactic? The biggest shortage related to food is storage...where do we put all of it? I've seen this myself the last decade. There are huge piles of grain everywhere.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-grains-storage-analysis/grains-piled-on-runways-parking-lots-fields-amid-global-glut-idUSKBN17D0EO
14-12-2017 15:10
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
Overpopulation – The Human Explosion Explained
In a very short amount of time the human population exploded and is still growing very fast. Will this lead to the end of our civilization?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsBT5EQt348

Stability just short of 12 billion according to Bill and Melinda, and from this projection by the looks of it ...


Edited on 14-12-2017 15:17
14-12-2017 15:43
Robertgreene3
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
You have to consider no only present day ecological footprints from 7.5 billion people, but the ecological footprint over the next 30 generations. The amount of mines that are going to open and close in the Amazon, the buildup of plastic waste in the oceans, the amount of deforestation that's going to take place. The cost of food, housing, and other resources, so future generations can maintain their wealth, without environmental collapse. www.ethicaldepopulation.com Sign up and post a reply. Once we get a few members, the movement will begin to take momentum.

I want a future with less people, so each person can have access to more resources, with less impact on the planet.
Edited on 14-12-2017 15:49
14-12-2017 16:20
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
Bill Burr - Population Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wq_edHqpdA

Bill Burr Cruise Ship Population Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-T0o6Wglkw
14-12-2017 16:26
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
Yeah good luck with that 12 billion ...

Humans have already used up 2015's supply of Earth's resources – analysis

"... Earth 'overshoot day' – the day each year when our demands on the planet outstrip its ability to regenerate – comes six days earlier than 2014, with world's population currently consuming the equivalent of 1.6 planets a year ...

...Humans have exhausted a year's supply of natural resources in less than eight months, according to an analysis of the demands the world's population are placing on the planet.

The Earth's "overshoot day" for 2015, the point at which humanity goes into ecological debt, will occur on Thursday six days earlier than last year, based on an estimate by the Global Footprint Network (GFN) ..."


https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/aug/12/humans-have-already-used-up-2015s-supply-of-earths-resources-analysis


"...A country's overshoot day is the date that Earth Overshoot Day would fall if all of humanity consumed like the people in this country..."



https://www.footprintnetwork.org
14-12-2017 16:29
Robertgreene3
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)
The modern Canadian suburb. Is this luxery or million dollar jail cells?

14-12-2017 18:18
Wake
★★★★★
(2942)
Robertgreene3 wrote:
The modern Canadian suburb. Is this luxery or million dollar jail cells?



Here are some quotes you can hold dear to your heart:

1. "But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."
-- Interview with John Parsons, 1947

2. "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
-- Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families." (1920) http://www.bartleby.com/1013/

3. "We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..."
-- Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2
https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/...

4. "I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered."
-- Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, published in 1938, p. 366

5. "I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically... Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit."
-- Interview with journalist Mike Wallace, 1957

6. "The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children..."
-- Sanger, Margaret. Woman and the New Race (1920). Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families. http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5...

7. "Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded [sic] upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1919) Birth Control and Racial Betterment. The Birth Control Review.

8. "As an advocate of birth control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda. The Birth Control Review, p. 5. http://birthcontrolreview.net/...

9. "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, Birth Control Review, p. 5
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

10. "No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1918) When Should A Woman Avoid Having Children? Birth Control Review, Nov. 1918, 6-7, Margaret Sanger Microfilm, S70:807.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

11. "A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 3, 27 Mar 1934.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

12. "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 4, March 27, 1934.

13. "Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman's part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 5, March 27, 1934.

14. "No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth..."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 6, March 27, 1934.

15. "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
-- Sanger, Margaret. "My Way to Peace," Jan. 17, 1932. Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress 130:198. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

16. "... these two words [birth control] sum up our whole philosophy... It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks -- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."
-- Margaret Sanger, "High Lights in the History of Birth Control," Oct 1923.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

17. "Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease..."
-- Sanger, Margaret (1922). The Pivot of Civilization.

18. "My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement."
-- Margaret Sanger, "The Pope's Position on Birth Control," Jan. 27, 1932.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

19. "All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class... Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race."
-- Margaret Sanger, "Morality and Birth Control," Feb-Mar 1918.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sa...

20. "Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots."
-- Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, 1922
https://www.scribd.com/documen...

21. "Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives... If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman." -- "Woman and the New Race," 1920

You can show your great and marvelous morals and ethics because you like all liberals believe that it is the responsibility of others to die and leave you more room.
14-12-2017 18:51
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
Turn over a rock, and there it goes skittering off, a yank ...

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics

"Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States ...

... Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton...


http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1796

War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Expanded Edition

War Against the Weak is the gripping chronicle documenting how American corporate philanthropies launched a national campaign of ethnic cleansing in the United States, helped found and fund the Nazi eugenics of Hitler and Mengele -- and then created the modern movement of "human genetics." Some 60,000 Americans were sterilized under laws in 27 states. This expanded edition includes two new essays on state genocide.
https://www.amazon.com/War-Against-Weak-Eugenics-Americas/dp/0914153293

14-12-2017 20:24
Robertgreene3
☆☆☆☆☆
(19)


Here are some quotes you can hold dear to your heart:

1. "But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."
-- Interview with John Parsons, 1947

2. "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
-- Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families." (1920) http://www.bartleby.com/1013/

3. "We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..."
-- Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2
https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/...

4. "I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered."
-- Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, published in 1938, p. 366

5. "I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically... Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit."
-- Interview with journalist Mike Wallace, 1957

6. "The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children..."
-- Sanger, Margaret. Woman and the New Race (1920). Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families. http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5...

7. "Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded [sic] upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1919) Birth Control and Racial Betterment. The Birth Control Review.

8. "As an advocate of birth control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda. The Birth Control Review, p. 5. http://birthcontrolreview.net/...

9. "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, Birth Control Review, p. 5
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

10. "No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1918) When Should A Woman Avoid Having Children? Birth Control Review, Nov. 1918, 6-7, Margaret Sanger Microfilm, S70:807.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

11. "A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 3, 27 Mar 1934.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

12. "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 4, March 27, 1934.

13. "Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman's part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 5, March 27, 1934.

14. "No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth..."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 6, March 27, 1934.

15. "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
-- Sanger, Margaret. "My Way to Peace," Jan. 17, 1932. Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress 130:198. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

16. "... these two words [birth control] sum up our whole philosophy... It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks -- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."
-- Margaret Sanger, "High Lights in the History of Birth Control," Oct 1923.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

17. "Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease..."
-- Sanger, Margaret (1922). The Pivot of Civilization.

18. "My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement."
-- Margaret Sanger, "The Pope's Position on Birth Control," Jan. 27, 1932.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

19. "All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class... Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race."
-- Margaret Sanger, "Morality and Birth Control," Feb-Mar 1918.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sa...

20. "Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots."
-- Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, 1922
https://www.scribd.com/documen...

21. "Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives... If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman." -- "Woman and the New Race," 1920

You can show your great and marvelous morals and ethics because you like all liberals believe that it is the responsibility of others to die and leave you more room.



I understand there are some sick psychopaths using overpopulation as an excuse to commit mass murder and genocide. I appreciate your concern here, because it's the very same concern I have. These elites undermine ethical efforts to deal with overpopulation. There are other elites who want rapid growth to exploit cheap labor, and undermine local manufacturing. It's a very complicated issue. I think we need to find ethical ways of gradually reducing the worlds population as a whole, without singling out any race or ethnicity, but giving priority to highly overpopulated countries first.

We shouldn't be afraid of discussing overpopulation, just because these concerns arise. We need to separate the ethical from the unethical solutions. I am also not a liberal. I'm a conservative with an environmental background. I'm against deficit financing, because its stealing money from future generations, so insiders can become rich.

I'm very impressed with your efforts to address some serious concerns about overpopulation. Please post more information.
Edited on 14-12-2017 20:29
14-12-2017 20:26
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(233)
You'll find this guy interesting ...

Arithmetic, Population and Energy - a talk by Al Bartlett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O133ppiVnWY
14-12-2017 21:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4671)
Robertgreene3 wrote:


Here are some quotes you can hold dear to your heart:

1. "But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."
-- Interview with John Parsons, 1947

...*snip*...

You can show your great and marvelous morals and ethics because you like all liberals believe that it is the responsibility of others to die and leave you more room.


I understand there are some sick psychopaths using overpopulation as an excuse to commit mass murder and genocide. I appreciate your concern here, because it's the very same concern I have. These elites undermine ethical efforts to deal with overpopulation.

Whether you kill people or force birth controls, there is no ethical way to do it.

Population is not a problem. The Chinese imposed birth controls to try to 'reduce the problem'. The result wasn't a reduction of the problem, but the creation of one. China now has a work force that is approaching retirement age and there is no sufficient labor pool to keep the Chinese 'miracle' going. The Chinese government also broke the 'iron rice bowl', or their pension system. There is nothing there for those retires except for what they save for themselves. The result is a nation where money velocity is extremely low, and the expatriation of wealth by any means (legal or otherwise) is rampant.

China is in trouble...big trouble...all caused by their birth control laws.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
There are other elites who want rapid growth to exploit cheap labor,

Growth raises the cost of labor. The cost of labor is set by price discovery, same as any other item in the free market. Minimum wage laws do what all price control laws do...they create shortages. Price controls never work. They have never worked for wage, for any commodity, or for the price of money itself.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
and undermine local manufacturing.

Manufacturing often requires materials not available locally. For example, rare earths used in electronics. We do have the materials, but government laws prevent the mining of them here.
Other government laws have essentially outlaws certain industries in the United States. It is so expensive to conform to those laws that those industries left the United States completely.

There are currently no manufacturers of resistors, capacitors, inductors, crystals, most transistors, and most chips anywhere left in the United States. It was government regulation that did that, between 'environmental' regulations and price controls on labor. These are the basic components of any electronic circuit. The result is that the United States is some 30-40 years behind the state of the art, and it's growing worse.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
It's a very complicated issue.

It's actually a simple one. It is not the government's business to regulate population size. Population is NOT just a liability. It is also an asset.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
I think we need to find ethical ways of gradually reducing the worlds population as a whole, without singling out any race or ethnicity, but giving priority to highly overpopulated countries first.

And how are you going to do this? There is no world government. The U.N. certainly isn't one.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
We shouldn't be afraid of discussing overpopulation, just because these concerns arise.

We shouldn't be afraid of killing people or forcing birth controls??
Robertgreene3 wrote:
We need to separate the ethical from the unethical solutions.

What ethical solution??
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I am also not a liberal.

You are suggesting a world government to control the population by force (that's what it would take to implement anything). That's a liberal.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I'm a conservative

I disagree. You are advocating massive new government controls, even on a world level.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
with an environmental background.

I have my doubts.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I'm against deficit financing, because its stealing money from future generations, so insiders can become rich.

No, it's because it binds the government's options and causes the money itself to devalue. If they don't watch it, the money could turn rapidly worthless. What happened in 'banana' republics CAN happen here.

If it does, the 'insiders' will suddenly be totally invested in worthless paper. So will a lot of innocents. The last time this kind of thing happened on an international scale, the result was WW2. The United States was in the rare position to pick up the economic pieces from the other nations. They are not in that position today. The United States is broke. No one wants to admit it yet. We are also not the only nation in this position.

No one knows what form the currency of international trade will take, but it will come. Too many major economies around the world are embroiled in the same idiocy we've been doing. The dollar already isn't the international trading standard it used to be.

What goes on in international trade affects every citizen of the nation that is trading. Shutting down international trade is not a great option. Manufacturing in the nations concerned would all but die.


The Parrot Killer
14-12-2017 22:19
litesong
★★★★★
(2151)
Into the Night wrote: The Chinese government also broke the 'iron rice bowl', or their pension system. There is nothing there for those retires except for what they save for themselves.
chinese communists(always small letters) murdered, tortured & starved to death 100 million of their own BROTHERS, SISTERS, CHILDREN & BABIES, the most savage exterminations by short term democidal government constructs ever on the face of the Earth. Western "civilizations" look back at their own similar "death by gov't" stompings with horror (maybe). But "communist chinese society" (always small letters) reveres their "recent history of horror" as a purifying era, instead of the putrified continued zombie savagery of their ancient history. Suspect their pension system was nothing but an original plan to extort more worker wealth without stating that individuals won't get anything back towards the end of their lives.
How similar has been the thinking of re-pubic-lick-uns, as their plans were implemented to trash company pension plans & now they are ready to scrap medi-care & social security.
14-12-2017 23:01
Wake
★★★★★
(2942)
Into the Night wrote:
Robertgreene3 wrote:


Here are some quotes you can hold dear to your heart:

1. "But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."
-- Interview with John Parsons, 1947

...*snip*...

You can show your great and marvelous morals and ethics because you like all liberals believe that it is the responsibility of others to die and leave you more room.


I understand there are some sick psychopaths using overpopulation as an excuse to commit mass murder and genocide. I appreciate your concern here, because it's the very same concern I have. These elites undermine ethical efforts to deal with overpopulation.

Whether you kill people or force birth controls, there is no ethical way to do it.

Population is not a problem. The Chinese imposed birth controls to try to 'reduce the problem'. The result wasn't a reduction of the problem, but the creation of one. China now has a work force that is approaching retirement age and there is no sufficient labor pool to keep the Chinese 'miracle' going. The Chinese government also broke the 'iron rice bowl', or their pension system. There is nothing there for those retires except for what they save for themselves. The result is a nation where money velocity is extremely low, and the expatriation of wealth by any means (legal or otherwise) is rampant.

China is in trouble...big trouble...all caused by their birth control laws.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
There are other elites who want rapid growth to exploit cheap labor,

Growth raises the cost of labor. The cost of labor is set by price discovery, same as any other item in the free market. Minimum wage laws do what all price control laws do...they create shortages. Price controls never work. They have never worked for wage, for any commodity, or for the price of money itself.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
and undermine local manufacturing.

Manufacturing often requires materials not available locally. For example, rare earths used in electronics. We do have the materials, but government laws prevent the mining of them here.
Other government laws have essentially outlaws certain industries in the United States. It is so expensive to conform to those laws that those industries left the United States completely.

There are currently no manufacturers of resistors, capacitors, inductors, crystals, most transistors, and most chips anywhere left in the United States. It was government regulation that did that, between 'environmental' regulations and price controls on labor. These are the basic components of any electronic circuit. The result is that the United States is some 30-40 years behind the state of the art, and it's growing worse.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
It's a very complicated issue.

It's actually a simple one. It is not the government's business to regulate population size. Population is NOT just a liability. It is also an asset.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
I think we need to find ethical ways of gradually reducing the worlds population as a whole, without singling out any race or ethnicity, but giving priority to highly overpopulated countries first.

And how are you going to do this? There is no world government. The U.N. certainly isn't one.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
We shouldn't be afraid of discussing overpopulation, just because these concerns arise.

We shouldn't be afraid of killing people or forcing birth controls??
Robertgreene3 wrote:
We need to separate the ethical from the unethical solutions.

What ethical solution??
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I am also not a liberal.

You are suggesting a world government to control the population by force (that's what it would take to implement anything). That's a liberal.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I'm a conservative

I disagree. You are advocating massive new government controls, even on a world level.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
with an environmental background.

I have my doubts.
Robertgreene3 wrote:
I'm against deficit financing, because its stealing money from future generations, so insiders can become rich.

No, it's because it binds the government's options and causes the money itself to devalue. If they don't watch it, the money could turn rapidly worthless. What happened in 'banana' republics CAN happen here.

If it does, the 'insiders' will suddenly be totally invested in worthless paper. So will a lot of innocents. The last time this kind of thing happened on an international scale, the result was WW2. The United States was in the rare position to pick up the economic pieces from the other nations. They are not in that position today. The United States is broke. No one wants to admit it yet. We are also not the only nation in this position.

No one knows what form the currency of international trade will take, but it will come. Too many major economies around the world are embroiled in the same idiocy we've been doing. The dollar already isn't the international trading standard it used to be.

What goes on in international trade affects every citizen of the nation that is trading. Shutting down international trade is not a great option. Manufacturing in the nations concerned would all but die.


I will admit that you have a very strong understanding of political matters.

As you can see, students these days talk a world view that is completely bass ackwards from reality.

They do not know that liberalism ends up being socialism and that socialism ALWAYS devolves into a dictatorship or an oligarchy. That, again and again, socialism discovers that people do not act for a whole as they act for themselves and the government has to get stronger and stronger to force them to follow the identity of socialism.

You can see pictures of the Millennials depicting Trump as Hitler without the knowledge that Hitler was a socialist. That perhaps 50 million people were murdered by Hitler and Joseph Stalin and that their way of life was a total and complete failure.

The Millennials are totally unaware that it was a Republican President that signed the Emancipation Proclamation. That the 12th, 13th and 14th Amendment guaranteeing civil rights were passed with 100% Republican votes and 100% opposition of the Democrats. That when JFK authored the civil rights bill of 1964 he was murdered for it by a good Democrat. That DESPITE that 60% of Democrats voted against that bill and 80% Republicans voted for it despite the fact that the Democrats were given total credit for it.

Lyndon Johnson was laughing as it passed and said, "We got the nigger vote for the next 200 years."

Robert Green thinks that he isn't a liberal despite talking about population control. How could this occur? How is it that you can hear hate language about "corporations" or billionaires when this is all part of capitalism - the most successful form of government ever invented. No one will work as hard for someone else as they will for themselves.

Robert just doesn't understand that population is self limiting and not from starvation as other species are limited but because the more comfortable people's lives are, the less they want to put up with large families that make them work harder and take up more of their time. That capitalism is by far the best means of controlling populations.

Do you believe the idea of population control can be this is what nationalists and globalists do:

https://books.google.com/books?id=evnEtE97-SoC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=In+1904,+the+Carnegie+Institution+established+a+laboratory+complex+at+Cold+Spring+Harbor+on+Long+Island+that+stockpiled+millions+of+index+cards+on+ordinary+Americans,+as+researchers+carefully+plotted+the+removal+of+families,+bloodlines+and+whole+peoples.&source=bl&ots=3dHtHlp55x&sig=0cC2vx_9vNW6KAokxsUh83Q2kUA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjd5ueyvorYAhXCNiYKHcrMB8oQ6AEINzAD#v=onepage&q=In%201904%2C%20the%20Carnegie%20Institution%20established%20a%20laboratory%20complex%20at%20Cold%20Spring%20Harbor%20on%20Long%20Island%20that%20stockpiled%20millions%20of%20index%20cards%20on%20ordinary%20Americans%2C%20as%20researchers%20carefully%20plotted%20the%20removal%20of%20families%2C%20bloodlines%20and%20whole%20peoples.&f=false
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate Ethical Depopulation Could Save the Planet:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Reaction: World Bank Steals Show at One Planet Summit by Phasing Out Upstream Oil and Gas Finance213-12-2017 03:44
Artificial Photosynthesis to Save the World?411-12-2017 23:13
How tax policies can save the planet!1921-12-2016 10:38
Planet earth is a spinning top10906-06-2016 08:15
When it comes to M2C2, is planet Earth really worth saving?522-10-2015 01:25
Articles
Barack Obama: Energy Independence and the Safety of Our Planet
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact