I care a lot about people I even run an online support group for people with mental illness. But my caring for people alive at the moment has been over run by the long-term effects on the enviroment that we instigate. Therefore the more people that die the more chance we will ALL have long-term. We need more deaths, we need a major bird flu etc. The best enviroment solution must be less humans? Am I right? What are your views?
You're opening a can of worms here. I agree that less humans would benefit the planet's ecosystem, but stating I want people to die isn't exactly the way I'd have put it.
It is very much an Illuminati idea--an idea many feel is already being implemented! Checkout 'global cleansing' picture this.....a very very very VERY very veryvery rich elite set of families. ok?.....they are aLS INCREDIB;Y POWERFUL. they look at the 'people' the 'massess'/'useless eaters' as being wild, uncouth. so as the gentry do wit foxes etc, they want to CULLus, sos 'their' world is not over run with us. now, you want me to agree with those fukin monsters? rather ...that killing other people. we shouo have --like Indigenous peoples, regulated our births. but you see te myths we live by--the 'gp forthandmultiply' propaganda has had its effect. you also have he effect of worldwide poverty, excacerbated by Western poliicies which forces extremely poor people to have more children. so, considering this mess. NO one has the right to suddenly say, 'right who can we kill to sort it out'!....aS I SAY, THOSE EVIL EVIL MUTHAS AT THE TOP IS DOING THAT RIGHT NOW
The only way things would really change in the world is to have a HUGE population disaster. It would have to take out like 75% of the entire global population. Bird flu or some weak disease like that wouldn't be enough. Some horrible disaster that effects everybody on earth, something that nearly destroys humanity. This would help to unite people around the event and precipitate some cooperation. If I had a garauntee that this would occur I'd be happy to take one for the "team"
bconn29: eliminating 75% of the earth's population would set us back, technologically, hundreds of years. In other words, technoloical advancement has a correlation with population growth (civilization growth and development). Thats why colonies on the moon and Mars arent fiction... They are fact, eventually. later T
I really don't think that we would lose in technology just because the population dropped by 75 percent. Too much of the increase in population has been where it would have the reverse effect by increasing poverty and straining resources. We need to reduce the human population, but we need to do it by increasing the quality of life and apportioning bribes for people to become childless. This will also have the effect of eliminating those who have a genetic tendency to sell their children to the knacker. Since the Illuminutti have chosen the very low road, there isn't much point to the population reduction program. All it's doing is turning the Earth into an open sewer AND failing to reduce the human population. It probably will work eventually when enough people become convinced that it is necessary to "purge." It all goes to show that the Illuminutti are not very smart.
"The best enviroment solution must be less humans?" do you drive a car? do you really think it is right for people to die, to cut down on pollution so that you can drive a 4WD, litter and leave heaters on throughout the entire winter?? the best solution is dramatically increasing the price of petrol and mains electricity
Duendy wrote "excacerbated by Western poliicies which forces extremely poor people to have more children" I disagree. In evolutionary terms, the western world has fewer children these days and takes better care of those fewer children that they have. Eastern cultures simply have to have more children because it is accepted that more of them will die. How has the west forced the east to have more children? If anything, the west donates a shitload of condoms to these countries ever year, but many don't believe in using them, it is believed in certain parts of africa that the way to cure HIV is to "have sex with a virgin". Now i'll be the first to stand up and say 9-11 was dodgy. DODGY. But these conspiracy theories that the West invented AIDS etc. really shit me. As if the West had the scientific capability to invent HIV in the 1950s??? WTF? I'll tell you where AIDS comes from, it comes from people who have unprotected sex. Besides, it is most obvious that countries with the poorest hygeine (e.g. bird flu victims in asia reportedly drinking duck blood etc) are the most likely to contract, and spread, these diseases. Now i'm 23 and I don't even have my learners license - i rely on public transport.
I found it highly offensive when the first african woman to win a nobel peace prize - "Wangari Maathai" said just days after receiving her award, that "In fact it (the HIV virus) is created by a scientist for biological warfare," (allegedly to cull the black africans). http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1216687.htm That is extremely offensive to the scientific community, who have done nothing but give her country and other african countries millions of condoms, and tried to educate them - to no avail. I think her nobel prize should be revoked, until she can provide some evidence of her claims. Hey DUENDY! no offense, but I just found something you might want to check: your link, http://www.rense.com/general67/avianflufright.htm was written "By Leonard G. Horowitz" it seems he's a spiritual/miracle healer! http://www.healingcelebrations.com/ "In Healing Celebrations™, you will learn . . . 5 practical steps to reverse cancer, autoimmune diseases, and vaccine injuries, and . . . 5 spiritual steps to manifest miraculous healings . . ." He doesn't even vaccinate his children! wtf? He also sells scam healing devices at https://www.healthyworlddistributing.com/
The worst thing about believing that the HIV virus is a conspiracy is that it gets even more people to believe in HIV. What is finally going to happen is that nuclear weapons will be used to sterilize populations thought to be diseased.
I agree with you. But in the same post, you said, "I care a lot about people...". So which is it? How can you "care" for people, yet feel that more people should die? That's sorta' contradictory, ain't it? Personally, I think it's much, much too late. At this point in time, the death of even 75% of the world's human population would do little to curb human desires of greed and violence. If there's ten people, male and female, remaining, humans would just do it all again .....even knowing what they know now. It's too late. Baron Max
Max is right, maybe you just don't like people. If no one had babies, there would be no more people on Earth in less than 100 years with no untimely death involved. There used to be 12 million bison on the plains, and they are huge, so perhaps it's just our behavior that's a problem, not our numbers.
No, it's both! Even if all humans were all "nice guys", at some point, with their horrendous breeding rate, the Earth's resources won't be enough to sustain them (even simple food!). The bison numbers were naturally limited by the amount of available grazing and the wolf population. They couldn't have and wouldn't have continued to multiply forever! Nothing can do that on this Earth. I always like to think of the Native American cultures as somewhat idyllic and "perfect". But that's romanticizing the past. It's true that the Indians were well adapted to their environment but studies and statistics have shown that, even though it was slow, the Native American tribes were growing in numbers by leaps and bounds! Had they been allowed to continue as they were, they, too, would have over-bred their available food supplies. Humans are just totally fucked up. And those that don't or can't believe it are just hiding from the "horrible" truth. Man is going to continue to fuck up the Earth until it's nothing but a barren ball of rock revolving around the sun. Face the facts. Baron Max
Actually, people don't breed themselves into extinction. Having large numbers of children was only necessary with historicaly high rates of infant mortality. With rising education and rights for women come greater control over their pregnancies, especially with birth control. If current trends continue, world population will level off soon. I wasn't making a point about Indians. I was making a point about Bison. Large numbers of animals aren't necessarily inherently unsustainable on Earth.
No, that's not how it's going to be. The educated will, as you say, stop breeding. But the breeding rate of the uneducated will continue ...and soon the world will be over-populated with hordes of uneducated in greater and greater numbers. Look at the trends in just the past few decades ...the educated breeding rate is, in fact, falling, while the uneducated breeding rate is actually on the increase (mostly due to the educated helping with health care and handouts!). Not soon enough! When it "levels off", the Earth will be a giant barren rock! Baron Max
