jump to last post 1-43 of 43 discussions (149 posts)

Culling human population

  1. qwark profile image61
    qwarkposted 7 years ago

    What will the method be that is used to necessarily "reduce/cull" the human population to a level  Mother "Gaia" can, comfortably and successfully, nurture it ?

    1. IntimatEvolution profile image79
      IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Natural disasters I think have a way of culling out populations.  The earth tends to take care of itself in that regard.  Remember, natural disasters can come in a variety of packages- disease, famine, flood, fire....

      1. Gregg Biancci profile image69
        Gregg Biancciposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I agree, I think it's hugely arrogant for humans to think we have enough power to affect this planet, for very long at least.  This planet has sustained thousands upon thousands of enormous changes and yet everything still functions...

        1. IntimatEvolution profile image79
          IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It always has a way of taking care of itself.

        2. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Gregg:
          You missed the point entirely.
          We are not discussing the effects human overpopulation will have on the earth.
          We are discussing the effects overpopulation will have on the future of mankind.
          WE all know that Mother Earth has survived greater damage than man can create. It will, most likely, be able to succor life for another billion and 1/2 years. Beyond that? improbable.
          Qwark

          1. ArtzGirl profile image81
            ArtzGirlposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            My Connect the Dot Thread linking Chemtrails with HAARP, Natural Disasters and Health Issues-- is certainly a way that they are depopulating the planet.

            It's a long story, I don't want to be repetitive with what I've already written in my article... but if you are interested in a lot of the modern day depopulation strategies, check out the videos that I included in the "Connecting the Dots" blog.

            The History Channel Video is the most all inclusive video-- that explains how Chemtrails are linked with HAARP Technology-- and how this effects "Natural Disasters" such as tsunamis, floods, hurricanes, earth quakes, etc...

            This is an excellent source of information.
            The 2 videos that I included by the FBI ex govt. employees-- will further fill you in on the whole story.  It is rather dark, so be prepared for it.  But both of the FBI Sources would be privy to a LOT more information than the general public or news on these matters.

            1. profile image53
              ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              I suppose loony conspiracy theories should come as no surpirse on a thread such as this.

        3. Marquis profile image80
          Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Why don't the environmentalists feel this way? They keep on with this lie about global warming. We all know that the true agenda is to rid the world of "most" humans. Second, the least desirable humans such as Blacks, Jews and Asians.

    2. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Gaia is never attainable because there is no perfection, sustainable development is a dream, as people become selfish they will stop giving birth and as society becomes more advanced, children are considered a burden..

      the earth has an uneven distribution of populaiton, it is concentrated on poor countries, because in poor countries children are considered an asset,

      when women are educated they work outside homes and dont want additional children too..

      natural societal causes will curb populaiton growth,

      in Japan, France and other developed countries they are paying people to give birth

      1. Unkotare profile image53
        Unkotareposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        People are not exactly being paid to give birth in Japan.

    3. Marisa Wright profile image93
      Marisa Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Surely the theory of Gaia is that she will take her own steps to control any excessive populations?

      1. qwark profile image61
        qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Marisa:
        The "Gaia Hypothesis" is being seriously studied, but it's still unproven.
        You are quite correct, if "Gaia" was a reality and we could depend upon it to function as a living organism, It's immune system would control it's problems with we humans.
        Who knows? Given time the hypothesis may become a reality when and if 'she" commands her "white" cells to handle the problem..eh?
        Qwark

        1. Marisa Wright profile image93
          Marisa Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          There are some who say new diseases like AIDS are an attempt by Gaia to reduce the population - I have no view either way.

    4. profile image0
      Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      the healthcare bill

      1. profile image55
        We Conservativesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Brilliant and succinct.

      2. profile image61
        asheiwngposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Madame X - you are exactly right.

    5. aware profile image70
      awareposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      dont take this the wrong way. but you have alot of questions. how bout answers ?   have any ideas?

    6. SparklingJewel profile image65
      SparklingJewelposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      your thinking is all backward here, dear...Mother earth is dependent upon people to maintain her health, and in turn we retain our health from our proper relationship with Her.

      people will kill themselves off by not having that health that comes from that proper relationship with mother earth.

      there is plenty for everyone...they just need to learn how to use it wisely and share it lovingly with others.

    7. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The method of culling will be disease...'uncurable' disease.

    8. mintinfo profile image77
      mintinfoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      The commodification of food and water supply through corporations such as Monsanto. Inciting Regional conflicts in the 3rd world also work but biological measures are too dangerous to 1st world populations as was evident with the H1N1 virus.

    9. Friendlyword profile image59
      Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      FOR GOD'S SAKE!!!
      Why are there so many undercover mass murderers on Hubpages? So many ways and reasons to kill people...What Creeps!

    10. AdsenseStrategies profile image68
      AdsenseStrategiesposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      One problem is that in countries where (a) child mortality is abhorrently high and (b) there is no welfare net (often because that country is simply too impoverished to provide one), then people's only security for old age is having enough children that will survive into adulthood.

      Of course, this means population increase (it only takes 3 surviving children per couple to produce population increase of 50%). So part of the solution is to raise the standard of living of the impoverished 3 billion on earth, somehow.

      That and assassinating the Pope and replacing him with someone with the balls to say that contraception is ok, coupled with the scrapping of "abstinence only" anti-AIDS programs, and investing that money in condom distribution and education. Latin America and Africa are both full of indigenous Roman Catholics and other believing Christians, and so a change in policy by Church leaders would go a long way to helping...

      1. ngureco profile image86
        ngurecoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I have a feeling this is a better answer that is workable.

    11. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And, what would lead you to believe that such a method would come about? We, as a civilization, have bigger problems than over-population of the planet. It might be nice if we as a civilization would set a universal standard for morality. Oh, yeah right- there is a standard for morality, yet no one understands it. smile

      Please, let's keep our eye on the ball of bigger issues. smile

    12. lady_love158 profile image60
      lady_love158posted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Yeah and whose in charge of that effort? Progressives no doubt! Problem is if you get rid of all the people that are actually productive progressives will die off unable to care for themselves. Now if we rid the world of progressives the Earth will be able to support an unlimited amount of productive, innovative, and happy people... unfortunately conservatives are too compassionate to rid the world of the progressive virus... even mosquitos have a purpose...

  2. MikeNV profile image71
    MikeNVposted 7 years ago

    The same methods that are used now.  Finance.  Population reduction is a major goal of the New World Order.

    1. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Mike:
      Correct.
      Those who have formed the 1 world gov't cabal are planning clandestine methods that will reduce human population very quickly. I think  the most effective way would be to introduce elements into world food supplies that can and will effect virility and the human immune system negatively.   
      In another generation or so, human population will have escalated to a point that it cannot be supported by the earth's potential.
      Culling or diminution is necessary and will happen within the next 50 - 75 yrs.
      Mankind will have to be reduced to about 1/3 it's current level if it is to survive.
      Qwark

      1. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image60
        VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Earth's potential is unlimited. And it is only a cycle of events that produce food and other essentials to humans. Nothing comes from heaven. Better to discuss how to increase human accommodation in uninhabited areas like Siberia, Brazil, West China, Polar Canada, West Australia. Siberian resources itself can help humanity for a millennium.

        1. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Hi Venugopal:
          There is a limit to everything.
          The earth's potential is not unlimited.
          To "...discuss how to increase human accommodation in uninhabited areas like Siberia, Brazil, West China, Polar Canada, West Australia. Siberian resources itself can help humanity for a millennium." will do no good at all.
          Humanity is so fragmented by greed and religious fanaticism that it would be an impossiblity to realize that idealistic possibility.
          Human population is approaching 7 billion and is on the brink of catastrophe.
          If religious fanaticism doesnt reduce all extant life on this planet, we'd better be thinking of ways to reduce and control population growth...and do it quickly.
          Qwark

          1. bill yon profile image57
            bill yonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            what would you do quark?seems to me you are talking calmly about mass murder.controlling human population,reducing human population is a cold blooded way of saying "how do we kill millions?"the population is not the problem,its consumption.we are destroying the earth  with our need for natural resources.we will have to create new technology that do not need natural resources,we have no choice,we can't keep using fossil fuels because its destroying our enviroment,causing climate change.in order for the human race to survive we will have to change our entire way of life.now.stop talking about controlling the population,and reducing the population,because you don't have that right,no one does.

        2. cheaptrick profile image75
          cheaptrickposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          You forgot New Jersy:)

          1. blue dog profile image71
            blue dogposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            maybe antarctica or the arctic circle.  oh, wait.  i''m confused. 

            how about the moon?

            1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
              Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I believe that is the true solution, we must advance technology to be able to create habitats in space, spaceships and the colonization of other planets... that is the only logical alternative to the population control methods qwark is talking about.

              1. Extinct Soul profile image60
                Extinct Soulposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                yeah I think advance technology is a good way to cull population... elevating the source of radiation can shorten life span. Activating cancer cells big time to kill homo sapiens in the tender years of their existence, thus giving more space for the incoming meatballs who can join hubpages.. lol

        3. goldenpath profile image73
          goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Couldn't have said it better!  Heck we'll even take on some people right here in southwest Iowa so long as they are documented legal citizens, of course.  If not I would kindly refer them first to any of the locations you mentioned above.

          It's a very good point though.  We have room, we have resources and we don't need to be frightened into thinking we don't.  Simple as that.  Any attempt to frighten a population into this garbage is sign enough that there is a hidden agenda at work.

        4. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
          Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Development of the oceans... floating, man made cities that harvest food sources from the ocean, and 'indoor' farming techniques... 2/3rds of the planet are water, why are we not living on and in them?

      2. OregonWino profile image74
        OregonWinoposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        It is called sugar....google studies on reproductive side effects of processed sugar....freaky!

        1. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It's worse on aspartame...
          Qwark

      3. Friendlyword profile image59
        Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I thought natural disasters, disease, and wars were doing a pretty good job so far.  China has the one child law.  Africans are being tricked into killing off themselves. And finances already keep the population of other countries down. I dont see where any drastic measures are necessary.

      4. Ralph Deeds profile image71
        Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You are right about the food supply but the harmful elements in the food supply aren't clandestine. They're being introduced by the fast food and agri-business industries--corn sucrose, hormones fed to cattle and chickens, too much salt in most packaged foods, high-density cholesterol, and so forth. There's no mystery at all about this. It's well documented in all kinds of publications.

  3. IzzyM profile image87
    IzzyMposted 7 years ago

    Happy 2010:)
    You guys have a strange topic of conversation at the start of a New year. Something I missed?

  4. sannyasinman profile image60
    sannyasinmanposted 7 years ago

    There are many quotes on the Internet from various luminaries of the New World Order who want the human population reduced to 10% of what it is now (500 million would be a manageable number).
    In addition to starvation in Africa and various wars, biological warfare against the general public is a good way. The "new improved" vaccination for the AH1N1 virus might make a big dent in population, But there will probably be more destructive viruses introduced in the not to distant future which will probably kill many millions.

    1. goldenpath profile image73
      goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      It's true, the possibilities are there.  I just sincerely hope I am not the only one who finds this infringement upon the family by any government, existing our preconceived, severely upsetting and a clear and present "RED FLAG" that they have gone to far.  It's all wrong. 

      Our creation here was not introduced for us to "eventually" control our population but rather to grow and have joy in our posterity.  If even this idea of control is not a sign of the onset of a crumbling society than what truly is.  The family is where it's at.  Please, we do not and should not buy in to the false scare tactics and ideals that we are constantly being fed these days.

  5. profile image65
    logic,commonsenseposted 7 years ago

    Nature will bring us back in to balance when it is time!

  6. qwark profile image61
    qwarkposted 7 years ago

    Hi goldenpath:
    Right and wrong do not exist. They are but words we "conscious" animals created to describe the differences 'twixt joy and suffering.
    To think that there is/was a purpose for our "creation" is strictly founded upon religion.
    In fact, the goal of "all" life is the suvival of the species. Those that adapt survive, those that can't, disappear eternally.
    Man being the result of the processes of "natural selection" and time, is concerned with the same irrepresible drive...survival!
    An inability to adapt to the anomaly "consciousness," may be the perpetrator of our eventual demise. Only time has those answers.
    I wish to survive and I wish THAT for my progeny.
    If survival means life under the rule of a 1 world gov't, so be it! At least families will enjoy the gift of life for as long as their genetic programming will allow.
    Qwark



    It's true, the possibilities are there.  I just sincerely hope I am not the only one who finds this infringement upon the family by any government, existing our preconceived, severely upsetting and a clear and present "RED FLAG" that they have gone to far.  It's all wrong. 

    Our creation here was not introduced for us to "eventually" control our population but rather to grow and have joy in our posterity.  If even this idea of control is not a sign of the onset of a crumbling society than what truly is.  The family is where it's at.  Please, we do not and should not buy in to the false scare tactics and ideals that we are constantly being fed these days.

    1. goldenpath profile image73
      goldenpathposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I respectfully differ.  In my opinion the goal of humanity is not just to survive but to progress, have joy and expand.  I know very few people that would be content in just breathing and living a monotone existence throughout their lives.  Instead the driving force for our happiness and even sorrow is in the hope and the striving for realization of our progression.  That's one of the things that separates us from the beasts of the field.  That's part of the imprint upon our chromosomes by an All Seeing Maker.  That's part of our eternal destiny - eternal expansion and joy.  This is more fully found and achieved within the family.

      We should be diligent in standing against any organized body bent on enforcing child rearing limits.  A government can and does impose taxes and hardships upon a family but when they go so far as to tell me how many children to have - that's too far.  It is completely based on frantic false information of overpopulation.  It is rash thinking every bit as much as the extremes we are going to in global warming.

      I believe you and I have the some of the same wants and desires for humanity but we just view it in very separate ways.

      1. qwark profile image61
        qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Goldenpath:
        "In my opinion the goal of humanity is not just to survive but to progress, have joy and expand." Of course this is true. I find no fault in that logic. There is no logic involved in the mention of "an All Seeing Maker." That is based solely upon opinion, conjecture and hope.
        Successful survival cannot be realized based upon that which just offers potential or possibility. On the contrary. As I have already mentioned, the human animal operates with both instinct and will. The "...beasts of the field," function on instinct and learned behavior. They cannot choose. That characteristic is what seperates us from them and creates our uniqueness amongst all all extant life. But, we are still nothing more than the result of the processes of natural selection and are but members of the Genus: "animal."
        If we do not utilize that "uniqueness" in a manner acceptable to mother "Gaia," our demise is a certainty.
        There is no doubt that "man" has the ability to "think" its way thru this crisis, but "it" has painted "itself" into a corner with seemingly no escape route.
        To pungaciously resist the logic that could save the macro population of mankind could only be deemed to be primitive in thought and action.
        Contemprorary man has options: be conservative and protect the status quo, or be pro-active and consider that he has 2 responsiblities: 1.to himself and family, 2. to the survival of the Genus/species, Homo/sapeinssapiens.
        Global warming may or may not be a reality, but the potential overpopulation presents is of such immense importance that if it is not considered seriously, it may be the perpetrator of another of many great periods of extinction.
        Yes, you and I have the  same wants and desires. Our differences in opinion are founded in logic and religious belief. The 2 are not compatible when considering "reality."
        Qwark

        1. mdburks profile image58
          mdburksposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Are you Hitler's Son, you just can not kill off 500 million people to protect your species. Where is the humanity in your thinking?

          1. profile image52
            classyphotohubsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Actually, we would need to kill off 6.5 billion to achieve a level of 500 million!! That equates to less than the population of the USA and Europe combined! A lot less!

  7. profile image0
    sarah dawkinsposted 7 years ago

    I don't know in what form the next cull will be, but it needs to hurry up.  We have about twice the population that this earth can sustain.  We definitely need a cull and soon.  Harsh, yes, I think so, but well overdue.

    1. Mitch Rapp profile image60
      Mitch Rappposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      All those who believe that a "Cull" should occur should not talk about it but be about it! In other words start culling.

      1. EmpressFelicity profile image81
        EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        No, they should be the first to volunteer themselves to be culled, should anyone start a cull. (I bet money that none of them would.)

        I've said it before and I'll say it again: We. Don't. Have. An. Overpopulation. Problem.

        If there is a secret New World Order that wants to cull us, then all I can say is that they haven't thought things through, because demographics will eventually do the job for them.

        1. Mitch Rapp profile image60
          Mitch Rappposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Starting with themselves was my point

          1. EmpressFelicity profile image81
            EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, right.

    2. profile image52
      classyphotohubsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And you should be the first, why not save us all some resources and do it to yourself? I am ashamed that a fellow Brit is talking in this manner, what is it then..... you are a facist of some sort? BNP? Wheres the clause which protects you and your own family? White British people are exempt then? Then we can rule the world again?

      This whole conversation is completely sick, there is enough food and resources to keep everybody on this planet healthy and alive. Any good economist can confirm this.

      1. qwark profile image61
        qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Hi Classy:
        At the current rate of population increase, human population will reach about 9.5 billion by the year 2050.
        Food isn't the problem. There is no doubt that the earth can produce enuf food to nurture that number of people.
        The problem lies in human immaturity and irreversible fragmentation and an inability to function in concert to develop in ways that will guarantee the evolutionary success of an unique species of life.
        There has not been a time in recorded history that all life on the planet is totally dominated by another and can with the tap of an index finger regress all life back to the stone age.
        control has become a necessity.
        Control can only be realized by a 1 world gov't after human population is reduced to a workable level.
        if you disagree, pls offer a logical reason.
        Qwark

      2. profile image0
        sarah dawkinsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Why would you think that I am a facist or a member of the BNP, or believe in white supremacy?    I simply believe that our world is very overpopulated.  It cannot sustain all the people that are on it.  I am only saying that a reduction of the populus would be good for the earth.  I did not say, nor intimate that everyone apart from white English people should be culled. 

        There are not enough resources to provide for everyone, or we wouldn't have GM foods and be looking into GM meat and  the soil would be fertile, rather than depleted of minerals - as it is now........  The earth is finite, not infinite.  We need to cull half of the population to allow mother earth to regenerate.

        This is only my opinion, and I am entitled to it as you are entitled to yours.   Why you feel the need to get aggressive about it, I have no idea.  This is an arena for expression, not aggression.

        1. EmpressFelicity profile image81
          EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          It seems to me that anyone who seriously suggests culling half the world's population should expect a certain amount of vigorous resistance to their ideas. 

          BTW, are you serious, or are you just having a laugh?  Or are you just suggesting that the population just be allowed to die back naturally, as it inevitably will given the trend towards improvements in medical care, nutrition and contraception?  (See my earlier post.)

          1. profile image0
            sarah dawkinsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I am just putting a suggestion out there.  Mother Earth needs help.  Obviously a cull isn't going to happen, it would just be wrong, but theoretically............

            1. Mitch Rapp profile image60
              Mitch Rappposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Has Mother Earth asked you for help personally?

              1. profile image0
                sarah dawkinsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                Hahaha, she might have, I have been hearing voices lately................ How do I organise it, if I find she has asked me to start the cull??  any suggestions?  Shall I start with the politicians or estate agents?

                1. profile image52
                  classyphotohubsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Tell me what university you attend, what course you are on, and I will see about having somebody start it.

                  1. profile image0
                    sarah dawkinsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    You still want to make it personal don't you?????   Don't you like people expressing thier opinions?  We live in a free, democratic world.  We are entitled to our opinions and to express them.  What is wrong with discussion, cos that's all it is.  There will be no actions taken from here,  unless you want to make a start, then we lose the discussion.

  8. IntimatEvolution profile image79
    IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago

    But isn't culling out the population, something that this planet truly has control of, and men are merely actors on the big stage?

  9. DogSiDaed profile image60
    DogSiDaedposted 7 years ago

    At some point the wall will be hit, and population will drop. We'll survive as a species, we're good at that. However you have to bear in mind that the places where the collapse will happen will likely be LEDCs, and MEDCs will be largely unaffected, since we drain their resources anyway.

  10. sannyasinman profile image60
    sannyasinmanposted 7 years ago

    Culling the population - You are joking aren't you?
    Where would you suggest the culling starts in your own family?  With your parents? With your children? With yourself?
    Caring human beings do not suggest "culling" other human beings. We are all part of the same family - mankind. 
    Please think again.

  11. ngureco profile image86
    ngurecoposted 7 years ago

    We humans should be responsible enough to manage ourselves. If each couple would REPLACE itself by giving birth to only two children, the issue of overpopulation problems should not arise. The moment a couple give birth to more than two children that couple is being unfair to the others.

    If our top managers (politicians) are fearing, or not willing, to help us manage ourselves then Mother Nature will take over. No politician can swallow such a hot potato.

    Mother Nature is currently having it that those who are economically superior are only giving birth to very few children and in return chances of survival for this group are very high. Those who are economically inferior are giving birth to several children and in return chances of survival for this group are very low.

    Secretly introducing man-made viruses such as HIV-AIDS to man-kind is ungodly and very expensive to all. After all, it can backfire thus destroying the whole of mankind.

  12. profile image52
    classyphotohubsposted 7 years ago

    The answer is not to cull ANYBODY, but to place birth restrictions - 1 child per couple. Worked perfectly in China.

    1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
      prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      but abortion is on the rise in China because almost all societies are son preference, they abort it if it is a baby girl..

      let the women decide on how many children do they have (they will eventually limit the number of children they will have if they have difficulties), give tax credit up to 4 children only

      1. profile image52
        classyphotohubsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        China could not support the levels of population growth, abortion is better than there not being enough food to go around. It is certainly better than any sort of culling! If society has a tendancy to abort girls, then it is society that needs to change.

        1. Mitch Rapp profile image60
          Mitch Rappposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Society has changed, it has led to your way of thinking, sad really.

          1. profile image52
            classyphotohubsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            So you would be in father of a cull then would you? I came on here to state that culling your own species is sick, and I get stick for it, perhaps you should reread this entire thread and reconsider your priorities. I assume that you are supportive of some sort of sick cull, yet critical of policies which can prevent the need for this type of action?

        2. prettydarkhorse profile image63
          prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          do you know that the United Nations Population Fund respect the womens right (this is a basic right) to have as many children as they want as long as they can give quality time and quality of life to children they will have, but how can you give quality time if you have lots of children? The solution is contraception and to be responsible parent

          You cant just say society needs to change, you cant mold a society to change


          Abortion should never be an option, people should contracept if they dont like to have children..

          1. profile image52
            classyphotohubsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            There are people on thris thread who are actively seeking some sort of insane culling. I never said that I was pro-abortion, I am not, I was pointing out an alternative which prevents the need for us to murder our own species and that is a one-child policy in overpopulated societies. I never mentioned abortion, that was you. Seriously, people have picked up on the wrong people on this thread.

            1. Mitch Rapp profile image60
              Mitch Rappposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I see that I was wrong, I apologize.

            2. prettydarkhorse profile image63
              prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              I understand you more now, we are both against culling etc, and I just brought the issue of abortion because that is what happening now in China, abortion is highest because they are a son preference society, and the tendency to abort the baby if it is a girl, just because of one child policy

      2. profile image0
        sarah dawkinsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        My friend tried to adopt a chinese girl for all those women wanting a son only.  It has taken her 4 years and she still hasn't got her baby. 

        Why give tax credits for up to 4 children.  How about only give for the first child only?  This would prevent all those girls having babies, by different fathers,  for state support.

  13. IntimatEvolution profile image79
    IntimatEvolutionposted 7 years ago

    Welcome to the hubpage forums....hmm

    1. profile image52
      classyphotohubsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I dont need a welcome to the hubpages forums, I know everybody on this thread already and have already made 4000+ posts on another account. But thanks anyway.

  14. salt profile image60
    saltposted 7 years ago

    Culling people is not a very kind thing to do. Teaching proper contraception for areas where there is great starvation etc  may help... as well as improving their living conditions.

    I have heard and felt this argument, yet they keep pushing us for population growth. I sometimes think it is the Catholic Churches desire to create feast and famine, to prove their form of god exists. - Maybe here I should point to the concept of blind faith and the use of religion to control, not true spiritual faith - for that really is a beautiful thing.

    The edenburgh tattoo was on last night and there was a bizarre projected picture of the pope. I thought last night how this wasnt good. Memories of Hilter and the desire to create the most popular pope ever, when that is not true. He maybe the publicized pope and people from developing countries are at a different level of belief than us... aspiring, hoping due to famine, poverty and pre industrialization - add in a bit of global warming and a few natural disasters and you have the idea socio-economic-eco environment for a great upswing in Church attendance.

    Healthy religion is good. Maybe look behind the new world order and see, maybe there is a church or two in there ... good and evil, I have just started to learn about mind mirrors used by the CIA - alot of CIA are actually connected to the jesuits, read about the black pope, find out about the links between corporations and religion,... then read it again, filter it, hold on to a little bit of it all and just keep the thought to the side and watch.

    Watch as we are taught to watch fireworks and government events and festivals. Watch as we are controlled to read what is fed via the govt media machines, costing us, the tax payer, billions, to promote the agenda of those who have spin doctored it all to tell us they are "committed" to this or that policy, which actually means, that via the psychiatric system, they are committing us, as we are all crazy and they are all still in control.

    What as the different players play for different belief teams and wish for moderation and think moderation - we have to bring ourselves back in. That is the key, we can create a world that works.

  15. salt profile image60
    saltposted 7 years ago

    Also, the birth restrictions in China are valid. The fines are cruel and ridiculous. Tibetan women have been sterilized by the Chinese.

    In Australia, women are being given a $5000 baby bonus for any child they have.

    Birth restrictions are a good idea, yet to enforce them with cruelty is not justified.. and I wonder if any country in the world would accept women as political refugees if they are forced to abort a child??

    Contraception and education are the key points here.

    And if you want my opinion on something else, those nuns in Calcutta work those people with leprocy to hard, when they are weaving the nuns habits. Maybe its not leprocy, but poor working conditions? If it is leprocy, why hasnt the catholic church sent medication from their wealthy nations to help??

    I know I get into the Catholic Church abit, but there is something arye at present with our religious consciousness. I am learning about our tribal links before the Roman Empire invaded and that we were infact an invaded people who all need to heal.

    And, sadly, in some places in Africa, starvation hasnt created a decline in breeding. (Not because they are african, but because of the starvation, poverty and death rate linked to these areas.)

    1. Marisa Wright profile image93
      Marisa Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think this is irresponsible - instead of encouraging women to have more children, why not simply accept more refugees?  The only possible reason is racism.

  16. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 7 years ago

    I cannot believe this is even a topic.  It's sick, really sick.

    1. qwark profile image61
      qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hi Sandra:
      Why is talking about potential problems...sick?
      Qwark

      1. profile image0
        sandra rinckposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Because you are not talking about a potential problem.  You're (some are) talking about manually culling a percentage of the population.

        I think it is warped and sick. Just my opinion.

    2. profile image0
      cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      not to mention disgusting.

      1. Sa Toya profile image77
        Sa Toyaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        and WRONG!

        1. Misha profile image74
          Mishaposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Why? To stop your fears, you have to face them first smile

  17. profile image0
    Denno66posted 7 years ago

    It's called reality. The world out there is not all pretty.

  18. aware profile image70
    awareposted 7 years ago

    we must leave earth

  19. aware profile image70
    awareposted 7 years ago

    of those 500 million how many did hitler hands on kill?

    1. profile image52
      classyphotohubsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Hitler did not kill 500 million, you misread.

      1. mdburks profile image58
        mdburksposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        You miss read I did not say Hitler killed 500 Million people. Was using Quark's figure.

        1. qwark profile image61
          qwarkposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          hahaha...I said human population should be reduced to about 500 million to be manageable.
          I got this figure from researching the "culling" subject. It's not my number.

  20. aware profile image70
    awareposted 7 years ago

    guns dont kill people . people kill people

  21. Bard of Ely profile image86
    Bard of Elyposted 7 years ago

    I believe the cull is already in progress and one way they are using is poisoning our food and water so more and more people have weakened immune systems and get cancer and other life-threatening diseases that used to be rare but are now common. Google "Depopulation programme" and you will find loads about those behind this and what it is all about. I have a hub on the subject.

    1. profile image52
      classyphotohubsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      With life expectancy being greater than ever in developed countries, I believe that this statement is completely factually incorrect. It is in fact the discovery of these conditions which is helping us to achieve the goals of living longer. Please explain how the population is living longer every single decade if some sort of cull is happening?

      1. Bard of Ely profile image86
        Bard of Elyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I don't have statistics or figures to quote at you without looking them up but it is obvious to me that a vast increase in the number of people who die from cancer is going on. When I was a child cancer was very very rare. When I was in my teens it was are too and I didn't know of anyone who had died from it. That is not the case now. I think you will find that most people know someone with the disease or have lost people they know who have died from it.

        If I look at the foods and drink we have today most of it contains unhealthy or downright toxic additives such as aspartame, msg etc. It did not used to be this way and it seems far too coincidental that this has been stepped up, as has the adding of the poison fluoride to domestic water supplies. Fluoride was used by the Nazis so it it hardly surprising to find it being used again today.

  22. Bard of Ely profile image86
    Bard of Elyposted 7 years ago

    For those who do not believe this is real here is an actual quote. Marine explorer Jacques Cousteau, famous for his TV series about marine life, once said: "World population must be stabilized and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable."

  23. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
    Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago

    All of the naive people of the world that think this a new thought....please....

  24. earnestshub profile image88
    earnestshubposted 7 years ago

    If we just reduced the unused horsepower in cars and kept converting the 600 million mostly petrol vehicles in the world fleet to gas, we could stretch oil a lot further. If people did not waste first class water on gardens and flushing toilets we could reduce our water useage, if we turned computers and other electric appliances that use a power supply off at the wall, etc etc. We would never waste this much if we had to produce the power ourselves by peddling or other physical means.
    Waste in packaging, waste in over supply of food etc will lead to world shortages when there is plenty.
    In rich countries we need to spend hundreds of millions on advertising to convince people it is a moral duty to avoid waste and live modestly.The new heros need to be the thinkers who can change others behaviour for the better towards their fellow man and their children's futures.

    1. Mikel G Roberts profile image87
      Mikel G Robertsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Your 'solutions' are merely pushing the problems off till later...

      Stretching out limited resources will still consume them... sooner or later they will be gone(consumed)...

      The ones who have a limited resource, (a resource that everyone needs, but there isn't enough for all to have) will not be willing to give that limited and needed resource to others so that, these others, can use them... Humanities personal survival instincts are to strong for that. Moral duty or not, when it comes down to feed my kid or their kid who do you think will get fed?

      Again we have two choices as I see it... Find new resources, or reduce the need for resources...

    2. Tom Cornett profile image55
      Tom Cornettposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      But that would make sense!  yikes

  25. EmpressFelicity profile image81
    EmpressFelicityposted 7 years ago

    ::sigh:: There's no "need" for any culling of the population, because there isn't an overpopulation problem (even assuming I was in favour of mass murder/genocide, which I'm not).

    http://www.tamemymind.com/blog/images2007/smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif http://www.tamemymind.com/blog/images2007/smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif http://www.tamemymind.com/blog/images2007/smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif http://www.tamemymind.com/blog/images2007/smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif http://www.tamemymind.com/blog/images2007/smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif http://www.tamemymind.com/blog/images2007/smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif http://www.tamemymind.com/blog/images2007/smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif http://www.tamemymind.com/blog/images2007/smiley-bangheadonwall-yellow.gif

  26. bill yon profile image57
    bill yonposted 7 years ago

    I knew this topic would be here this week right after it appeared on Jesse ventura's conspiracy theory show.The culling has all ready started,and that method is diseasea such as the swine flu and aids,a long with war we are in many wars right now more than just the "official Wars" we see on the news at night.Humans,what sad pieces of crap we are.worst than animals.

  27. creepy profile image54
    creepyposted 7 years ago

    Odd subject matter

  28. sannyasinman profile image60
    sannyasinmanposted 7 years ago

    Whilst we argue amongst ourselves, the Power Elite are quietly and relentlessly pursuing their agenda of world domination. They cannot control 7 billion people, and so culling of the population is underway, and takes various forms (wars, viruses, starvation).

    Now however, they are gaining in confidence and moving into top gear. Very soon they will release a virus which will go further than bird Flu, AIDS or swine flu, and will really succeed in killing many millions. And of course to protect the population from this virus there will be mass vaccination, which will further weaken our immune systems, or kill people outright, whichever they decide is most appropriate.

    Of course I can't prove any of this, but the dots are there, you just need to open your mind and join them together to see what is really going on.

  29. Tom Cornett profile image55
    Tom Cornettposted 7 years ago
    1. Mitch Rapp profile image60
      Mitch Rappposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      "Soylent green is people"

  30. sannyasinman profile image60
    sannyasinmanposted 7 years ago
  31. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    Pfft. Nothing more needs to be done. We've already established a culture that treats children, the elderly, sick, and disabled like a whole lot of unwanted property.

    1. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think that and the uneccessary wars are doing a pretty good job. A few ecological disasters will further the process.

  32. qwark profile image61
    qwarkposted 7 years ago

    Several months ago I wrote a "hub" titled: "The Oncoming Crisis: Overpopulation." I mentioned the need for a "diminution" of human population and mentioned why.
    The "whys" are many but in the main it is the irreversible, potentially deadly fragmentation that a belief in a supernatural divinity has created.
    The only intelligent and humane way to manage human behavior and ensure the future and well being of the human species, is to reduce the population and to create a no-nonsense 1 world gov't dedicated to the survival of same.
    Most likely, that is hindsight. It seems that mankind, still functioning in its infancy, is hell bent upon a path to what is described in biblical scripture: the self fulfilling prophecy of "Armageddon."
    We use the word "civilization" loosely and inanely. There is nothing
    "civil" about the possiblity of "culling" all life on this planet with a tap of an index finger which is attached to an insane, religious fanatic who screams "Allah U Akbar!"...as the nuclear conflagration begins!

  33. sannyasinman profile image60
    sannyasinmanposted 7 years ago

    Culling the population (mass murder) via Bioterrorism

    http://www.naturalnews.com/026503_pande … orism.html

  34. Eaglekiwi profile image72
    Eaglekiwiposted 7 years ago

    Isnt that called Abortion ?

    1. Cagsil profile image61
      Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Abortion is simply someone else's terminology, used to sway public opinion, so as to create outrage, and grant others the ability to dictate how one should live their life.

      Abortion, the procedure should exist, for the obvious, reasons.

      Abortion, the topic in public opinion, should be DEAD as a door nail, because it's a personal and private decision, for which, only one person can make. And, it's no one's right to tell someone else how they are to live. You can only point them in the right direction, and let them choose.

      Abortion is a woman's right of choice, because it is a procedure offered by the medical establishment. It is her sole decision to make and must remain with her at all times.

      Please, don't get into the argument that she is killing a life. That is semantics with a politic string attached.

      Just a thought. smile

      1. prettydarkhorse profile image63
        prettydarkhorseposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Hi CAGS, she needs to consult the to be father also, but the final decision is the womans

        1. Cagsil profile image61
          Cagsilposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Every situation is different and since the circumstance are for her to figure out, like how did the child come to be conceived?

          The "father" only has a right, when responsibility matters. smile

          A rapist has no right to know the child. And, SHE would be better in the long run, emotionally/physically and mentally be able to heal somewhat. The child if forced to be born, would leave a consistent reminder, even worse, than if she had to deal with the fact of killing the child before it's born.

          The emotional turmoil a women goes through, just to have a child, then to give it up at birth, and then to live knowing that a part of you is still roaming around on Earth and you cannot be near, because of the reminder of how it was conceived.

          Could drive many to commit suicide? If abortion is sole kept in the woman's hands. I hope I cleared that up. smile

          Edit: How are you today PDH? smile

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image71
      Ralph Deedsposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No. It's called poisoning the food supply for profit.

  35. Tony DeLorger profile image81
    Tony DeLorgerposted 6 years ago

    Nature itself is of course trying to balance what we have created, with natural disasters and the like. What is important now is going back to the source and putting pressure on countries that have not instegated controls over population growth. Third world countries that have not the money to affect change should be subsidised by affluent countries, who spend their money on arms, warfare and space exploration. The inequities on earth are plenty, and there has to be some compromise and redistribution of wealth before it's too late. There is still hope, but we have to act now. In only a decade or so, there will be no opportunity for a fix.

  36. uncorrectedvision profile image59
    uncorrectedvisionposted 6 years ago

    Culling the human population has been undertaken before with great enthusiasm.

    http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=49826

  37. Doc Snow profile image96
    Doc Snowposted 6 years ago

    Starvation and war.

    We're driving a climate shift that is already increasing drought frequency and severity. That's particularly true in certain regions that are important food producers, such as Mexico and the American southwest, parts of China, and the Middle East.

    With a rising population and dropping utilization efficiency of agricultural resources as the 'meat-centered' diet becomes more and more prevalent globally--meat takes about 10x the resources to produce, compared with plant-based foods--food insecurity and outright famine will be an increasingly common reality over the next several decades.

    And people raid before they starve--so military conflict seems a likely consequence as well.

    I'm betting the second half of the 21st century will see lower populations than the first half.  In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if world population peaks by 2030.

    (See Gwynne Dyer's "Climate Wars" for more; I've reviewed it in a Hub.)

  38. Iontach profile image85
    Iontachposted 6 years ago

    Causing 'Natural' disasters would be a great way to cull the population. Exploding a few bombs under the ocean to make some tidal waves and some earthquakes maybe...
    Did anybody see the videos on youtube about the coffins in the US??? Whole fields in arizona are full of these disposable plastic coffins, plus right beside a major arizona graveyard they dug MASSIVE pits in the ground, put empty concrete 'boxes' in the ground and just covered it up! The coffins popped up everywhere and there are rumours that the coffins are for a mass cull in the coming years......quite creep, maybe its all hyped up though.

  39. profile image54
    spicolisaysposted 6 years ago

    your whole premise implies that we could go on living the same over-consumptive lifestyles that we live now.  change that first!

  40. Evan G Rogers profile image78
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    I don't think that the Earth could ever reject us.

    Sure, we might kill ourselves by nuclear explosions, or whatnot, but humans are pretty good at surviving.

  41. Mikeydoes profile image73
    Mikeydoesposted 6 years ago

    For the first time I was ever really thinking about this, this thread comes up, thats funny.

    Maybe we should stop producing kids now! Or set limits, it only makes sense..

    1. profile image53
      ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      I would say it is exactly the opposite of making sense to propose such a thing. Overpopulation is not a problem. In fact, developed countries are starting to grapple with the effects of declining populations. The best way to help developing countries with high population densities is to help them grow and prosper economically, which will 'solve' this and a myriad of other problems.

  42. Ralph Deeds profile image71
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    i'm not sure where you got the idea that the population is being or should be "culled." As economic development occurs the birth rate declines. The birth rate in many advanced countries is below the replacement rate. It's highest in the least developed countries. Population is straining the earth's resources, and birth control should be encouraged, in my opinion.

    1. Mikeydoes profile image73
      Mikeydoesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      The more people on this earth, the more damage it will do. Our human race should be smart enough to realize that we do not need any more people. What we should be focusing on is all learning one language and making our entire world a melting pot.

      We should try to leave everything untouched that we have not already ruined. Who knows what cures we could be throwing away with the extinction of plants and animals.

      1. profile image53
        ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        Why would you want to accelerate the elimination of linguistic diversity in the world?

        1. Mikeydoes profile image73
          Mikeydoesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

          Why do you think so many countries hate us? If we all spoke the same language there would be a lot less conflict in the world, I can guarentee that.

          1. profile image53
            ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            No, you cannot guarantee that. There is no logic behind that reasoning. People murder each other and fight horrible, bloody civil wars with those who speak the same language all the time (to point out just one glaring problem with the notion). There is just no logical connection between the two issues.

            If you think "countries hate us" due to speaking different languages you'll have to prove that. Nevermind, you cannot.

            Losing even more of the world's linguistic diversity would be much, much worse than destroying every museum in the world, IMO.

            1. Mikeydoes profile image73
              Mikeydoesposted 6 years ago in reply to this

              First off, don't you ever insult me and say I lack logic, there is more logic than you can imagine. Even worse you have no idea what I am talking about.  Logic is something you might want to dabble in a little bit, because it is exactly what I base my life off of..You have little to no idea what I am talking about and that is EXTREMELY clear.

              When did I say that countries hate us because we speak different languages. Countries HATE us because they do not understand our language and their governments lie to them. That is obvious, so now that that is clear. Why is language important? If you would use logic you would know that most people are good people, however they are taught things by their superiors and are born with hate. If you don't think this is true, please just stop here and leave this thread.

              Here is why.

              Do you not understand that any time before this century is was impossible to reach every single person with messages? It was all hear say, gov'ts lie and countries grow further apart. THIS CAN NOT HAPPEN ANYMORE. People are not stupid, look at Egypt, all it took was one networking site to start a HUGE trend. You think Egypt was something, wait a couple months/years, there is going to be PLENTY more. And what is everyone going to want? Equality and freedom. Gov'ts are all about their COUNTRIES, not about every living person. I personally think that everything on this planet belongs to us, and not certain governments.

              Do you think it would be possible for the holocaust to happen now? Or in the next 10 years when the internet really expands? If people were to make it on the internet and show what is really happening, there would be no chance, as it could reach the masses instantly.

              Now that people can talk to eachother from any country on this thing we call the internet.. And wouldn't you know it we  are talking on right now(amazing isn't it?!), THINGS ARE EXTREMELY DIFFERENT. Anything you learned from history can be thrown out the door, just for that fact. However you are apparently too scared to post on your real account, or whatever your case is?

              How is everyone understanding 1 language a bad thing? It would make it so everyone understands everything said, rather than the usually lies and chinese telephone going on. This is something that has plagued mankind since the first war all the way until now.....

              I can GUARANTEE that I am right. 

              Screw a museum I am more interested in preserving what you are apparently taking for granted. Nature, the worlds biggest "museum". The longer we head down this path the more WE and every living species on this planet will be in danger or possibly become extinct. What good is a museum if our world blows up, or more species of plants and animals become extinct. Who knows if these species can help us in the future with medicine or something else.

              You can speculate and say our country and world is headed down the right path, but everything about this system is corrupt and wrong. It is clear WE(human kind) are to blame. And every day we don't do something is just another day we are neglecting our planet and future generations.

              If not being able to communicate with one another is the way of the future, I do not want to be apart of it. Because we will not last. Wake up.

              1. profile image53
                ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

                There is so much that makes so little sense in that post. I'll try to address some of the problems therein, but try not to take it personally because it is not meant that way.

                You say you base your life on logic, but I honestly and without intending offense see no evidence of that in your post. If you don't mind my asking, what is your first language?

                You cannot say things like " If you would use logic you would know that most people are good people, however they are taught things by their superiors and are born with hate. If you don't think this is true, please just stop here and leave this thread," and claim to be an advocate of logic. 



                That aside, you do realize that people all over the world learn English, right? The ability of governments to lie to their people is not based on outside information being communicated in some unknowable foreign language. Governments that are inclined to do so censor, manipulate, and block information most often internally in their own national languages. The free flow of information is not hindered by the language it is in but by the channels it may be conducted through. China maintains the Great Firewall because it fears the information that could weaken the CCP's hold on power. If English were a barrier to disseminating that information they wouldn't need to bother blocking most of the sites they do. Mubarak didn't just shut down websites in Arabic, he shut off the entire internet. The majority of sites in English and French were likely as big or bigger of a threat to his regime than any others. Language was not his problem. 

                People communicated prior to the telephone, television, and internet. Really, they did. It was much slower, but it did take place.

                You may have some not-very-well-thought out fantasies about governments, but the concept and political reality of government is not going away, and I don't think you've really considered carefully what that even means.

                Most people didn't think the Holocaust would have been possible before the last one happened. Or the one before that, etc. Don't kid yourself. Bosnia happened long after the Holocaust. Rwanda happened long after the Holocaust.

                Again, saying something like " Anything you learned from history can be thrown out the door," casts great doubt on any claims that you live your life by logic (or even basic reasoning), and most certainly betrays an ignorance about history.

                This is my "real" and only account. Honest.

                Using a term like "Chinese telephone" is very inappropriate. I wonder if that ever even occured to you.

                The existence of different languages does NOT mean that people are unable to communicate with each other. I take it you speak only one?

                Finally, anyone who repeatedly says things like "I guarantee I'm right," or "everything is wrong," (or right) or "wake up," cannot be taken seriously.

          2. AnnCee profile image70
            AnnCeeposted 6 years ago in reply to this

            Well the EU certainly tried.

            http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8g22ch-M3qk/TH6OP8CokUI/AAAAAAAAAOs/K61SMFzt0WA/s1600/tower-painting-parliament.jpg

          3. Marquis profile image80
            Marquisposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I agree and it should be English.

            1. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Because everybody knows we know how to run things. LOL

      2. profile image53
        ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

        It shouldn't be necessary to say so, but we obviously do need more people.

    2. profile image53
      ShortStoryposted 6 years ago in reply to this

      Economic growth and prosperity is the best form of birth control.

  43. Marquis profile image80
    Marquisposted 4 years ago

    I have read the horrible anti human population comments of the Far Leftist environmentalists. They sound like nothing more than extremists who are just the same as Adolf Hitler. Hitler loved animals and the environment as well. He was also into abortion. He would make a perfect Leftist indeed!

    They both hate people but love animals.

    "May We Live Long and Die Out!" is the motto of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, or VHEMT. The group opposes violence, arguing instead for a gradual fading away of mankind.

    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308 … z2LNViSVoT

    "...we must either reduce the earth's population to 1 billion or reduce the standard of living to an agrarian "peasant" status."

    —Platform for United Nations Urban-Ecological Summit, Sec. 9.2-3-2, Istanbul, Turkey, June 1996, signed by Bill Clinton in New York June 4, 1993.

    "... an ‘agricultural world’ in which most human beings are peasants, should be able to support 5 to 7 billion people, probably more if the large agricultural population were supported by an industry-promoting agricultural activity. In contrast, a reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be one billion…” -- U.N. Global Biodiversity Assessment Report, states at page 773:””Whittaker and Likens (1975)

    "The present vast overpopulation, now far beyond the world carrying capacity, cannot be answered by future reductions in the birth rate due to contraception, sterilization and abortion, but must be met in the present by the reduction of numbers presently existing. This must be done by whatever means necessary."
    - INITIATIVE FOR ECO-92 EARTH CHARTER

    "The United Nation's goal is to reduce population selectively by encouraging abortion, forced sterilization, and control of human reproduction, and regards two-thirds of the human population as excess baggage, with 350,000 people to be eliminated per day."
    - Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier, Nov. 1991

    "Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license ... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."
    - David Brower - first Executive Director of the Sierra Club; founder of Friends of the Earth; and founder of the Earth Island Insitute - quoted by Dixie Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet, p.166)

    I could go on.

 
working