Why is it hard to believe that governments are enforcing population control?

1. 77

   ii3rittlesposted 12 years ago

   Why is it hard to believe that governments are enforcing population control?
   
   **Including the US**

   replyreport
2. 93

   Robephilesposted 12 years ago

   Depends on what you are talking about.  Governments provide incentives and disincentives for certain behavior all the time.  Sex education, access to birth control and abortion are all forms of population control. 
   
   But when people are talking about population control many times they mean the direct targetting of a specific racial or ideological group, which is a claim that there just isn't much evidence for in the US.

   replyreport
3. 75

   jaredbangerterposted 12 years ago

   Because people have been conditioned by mass media to believe the government is there to protect them.  Even though we all know that's a lie.

   replyreport
4. 77

   ii3rittlesposted 12 years ago

   I am referring to dangerous medicines, poisons in food, hormones in food, poisons in water, ect. - All that is aloud to kill off people with purpose. That's why so many diseases are all around us. Specially food related diseases i.e. diabetes.

   replyreport
5. 74

   danielleantoszposted 12 years ago

   I dont think the examples you gave are specifically targeted at population control, I think trying to balance freedom, money and politics results in some very tragic conditions. Diabetes in over weight people is a result of their personal choices  (if you are considering it a food related illness, not as a health issue resulting from mere lack of insulin) I believe that hormones in food started as a way to eliminate hunger, not a attempt to kill people.

   replyreport
6. 81

   Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years ago

   It's not hard to believe the truth.  Monsanto GMO vegetables are designed to prevent human reproduction.

   replyreport
7. 60

   thecarteposted 12 years ago

   It isn't hard for me. Government ruins everything it puts its grubby, evil hands on. This has been the case throughout the history of man.

   replyreport
8. 60

   Jonesy0311posted 12 years ago

   Because people don't want to believe it. Look at all the Jews who didn't believe the stories about the gas chambers right up until they ended up inside them. I would like to chalk it up to denial, but I don't think people care that much. It's pure apathy. Apathy is the most dangerous aspect of the human condition.

   replyreport
9. 60

   Pollyannalanaposted 12 years ago

   Well in America we know they aren't. I could almost belly laugh that one and the ones they keep letting pour in breed like rabbits. Yet who cares, but we might need to have more money for that so we better get those taxes raised though.

   replyreport
10. 73

    platinumOwl4posted 12 years ago

    This is difficult for many because they don't have a good grasp on historical evidence of this. It is also easier to not believe because believing creates an atmosphere to start a thinking dialogue this may interfere with their current sports activities.

    replyreport
11. 79

    nikki_mposted 12 years ago

    I think it's hard to believe because, like Jaredbangerter said earlier, the media has a way of making the evidence fade into the background. The information is all out there, accessible to anyone who takes the time to look, but very few people actually happen upon this evidence on their own, and most of the people that are told about stuff like this chalk it up to conspiracy theories and nutjobs.
    
    It's unfortunate, really. Researching subjects is one of the most illuminating things one can do, yet so many people just prefer to be spoon fed whatever their respective news channel tells them.

    replyreport
12. 59

    Bud Gallantposted 12 years ago

    One reason it might be hard to believe is that governments in many cases have a direct economic incentive to assist people in maintaining long, productive lives.  This is because they make their money primarily off of taxes.  The more people paying taxes, the more money for the government.
    
    If, however, they could institute a system that covertly culled the less productive elements of the society while preserving the more productive, they would be lowering costs and increasing revenue.  Such a system would need to target a certain socio-economic group.
    
    Where it becomes more complex, though, is that the more wealthy individuals are, the less they depend upon the government.  The most ardent supporters of the system are those whose lives depend upon it.  This is why some have likened welfare to the government buying votes.  If you have a political party that's main contribution to the society is to shell out social programs for the lower classes, you then have a society which benefits from a majority of people being poor and dependent.
    
    That's sort of the contradiction at play with those who believe in government control theories...  One is that the government wants to eliminate the poor, the other is that the government wants to increase poverty as a mechanism of control.  Perhaps some might say that a party on the right is using the first control strategy and the party on the left is using the second...   But that ultimately both parties have in mind the same basic principle that you need to leverage one class against another in order to maintain stability and power.

    replyreport