• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Population reduction (Channel 4 News/UK)

Forums New posts

Free episodes:

ddd999

ddd999

King of Mars
Just wandering what you Girls and Boys think about this kind of science *cough*eugenics*cough* ?

I believe this was aired tonight on Channel 4 (UK):


With the current economic situation worldwide and this kind of "1984" bullsh*t I would be surprised if there isn't a major world war in the next 3-5 years.

On the other side ....nah... maybe I'm just in a bad mood today :cool:
 
I agree with him. Certain countries have expanded their populace beyond their means.

As a Canadian, I live in a country bigger than the USA with 1/10th the population, and I wouldn't want our populace to get any bigger. I really don't think it's responsible on the part of China and India to have a population exceeding 1 billion each.
 
methshin said:
I agree with him. Certain countries have expanded their populace beyond their means.

As a Canadian, I live in a country bigger than the USA with 1/10th the population, and I wouldn't want our populace to get any bigger. I really don't think it's responsible on the part of China and India to have a population exceeding 1 billion each.
Click to expand...

Ok, I can see your point... but in this case let’s take UK as an example, how would you reduce 60 mil to 20 mil?
Also, I don't buy this "no resources" BS, the only reason that there's "no resources" is because very small percentage of people is having a grip on and control of said resources. Someone has to have 250 mill $ a year salary after all.
And who's to decide who stays and who goes?

P.S. China has a one child policy, if I'm not mistaken. China is also a "model state" according to UN.
A model state? Is that the future of us all? No freedom and work for peanuts (or rice in this case) until you die? I say fu*k that sh*t.
"1984 was supposed to be a warning not a blueprint"

Also this wanker is I assume well funded by "taxpayers" money and all he can come up with is "population reduction".

This post is not pointed personally at you methshin, so please don't take it the wrong way... Guess I am still in a bad mood. Now I'm gonna go and watch "Logan's Run".
 
My impression is that conspiracy theory voices like Alex Jones are objecting to a population reduction agenda carried out via sinister methods for nefarious reasons. I agree that employing violence and/or death in attempting to reduce the current population is unacceptable, but I think AJ and his ilk are creating a broad-reaching anti-population reduction panic while ignoring the logical and (in the long run) positive flip side to this coin. For those of you in disagreement, please consider the following questions:

1) Does it not make sense that, at a certain number of humans inhabiting the planet, the earth will not be able to provide adequate resources and/or space for that number of humans to survive?

If no, please explain why not.

If yes, then

2) What exactly is so unreasonable about attempting to curb the earth's current population growth (if it is already deemed too great) and over time, through non-violent measures (ie, birth control), bring the population down to a number that is appropriate for optimal resource consumption and habitation on this particular planet?
 
ddd999 said:
Ok, I can see your point... but in this case let’s take UK as an example, how would you reduce 60 mil to 20 mil?
Also, I don't buy this "no resources" BS, the only reason that there's "no resources" is because very small percentage of people is having a grip on and control of said resources. Someone has to have 250 mill $ a year salary after all.
And who's to decide who stays and who goes?

P.S. China has a one child policy, if I'm not mistaken. China is also a "model state" according to UN.
A model state? Is that the future of us all? No freedom and work for peanuts (or rice in this case) until you die? I say fu*k that sh*t.
"1984 was supposed to be a warning not a blueprint"

Also this wanker is I assume well funded by "taxpayers" money and all he can come up with is "population reduction".

This post is not pointed personally at you methshin, so please don't take it the wrong way... Guess I am still in a bad mood. Now I'm gonna go and watch "Logan's Run".
Click to expand...

I didn't take it as a dig at all man, no worries there.

Even though there is really no fast form of depopulization, a slow and gradual method, such as a one child policy, might be a good idea. Short of huge natural disasters and zombies, I see no real way to accomplish a rapid, or even semi rapid population decreases.

China got it's huge population by offering huge benefits to its citizens for having multiple children, thus, the boom began. This was back when China thought that numbers mattered. Now they are feeling the effects, as for how it happened in India, I have no idea.

I'm not saying we need to start telling people not to have kids, but with people like Octomom and John and Kate plus 8 running around popping kids out like rabbits, there needs to be some sort of implementation. Not to mention all the people having kids so they can live off of alimony. The world is a fucked up place as is, I don't think having role models like these people is going to make it even better.

And I see how living on a farm or off of the land would require more hands, and that is understandable, but when you live in suburban California, there is no excuse.

And how the UN classifies China as a "model state" is beyond me.
 
I would suggest to the guy in the video and to those who support that view...

You first. Go right ahead. Nothing is stopping you.
 
jimbo83478 said:
cottonzway, what exactly do you propose that man does first?
Click to expand...

I agree with cottonzway and pixelsmith's way of thinking... Hey, one less mouth to feed. Let him implement his own nazi eugenics philosophy on himself, his own children and grandchildren.

Also,why bring AJ in to this thread? There's enough threads on the forum about him, this is not one of them.

Back on the subject:

"The food scarcity part of the argument in the population debate is an interesting one -- people are hungry not because the population is growing so fast that food is becoming scarce, but because people cannot afford it. Food may be scarce, but it is international trade, economic policies and the control of land that have lead to immense poverty and hunger and therefore less access to food, not food scarcity due to over population."

I would recommend you this link as a starting point, it ofers different point of view.
 
There is no sane/rational manner in which to make sense of what that guy had to say. No sane/rational person would suggest to be able to cut the population down by two-thrids in any way that would not make them seem like a mentally ill, sociopathic lunatic.

We are not talking about "slowing down" the population here, if people want to have a debate about then so be it. You can't go from 61 million to 20 million in any manner that is not out of the worst science fiction novel. That is howling at the moon crazy and a dangerous ideology to be sharing with others.
 
ddd999 said:
I agree with cottonzway and pixelsmith's way of thinking... Hey, one less mouth to feed. Let him implement his own nazi eugenics philosophy on himself, his own children and grandchildren.
Click to expand...

Not once in this video does this man propose removing anyone from the earth. He seems to be presenting the interest in creating a strategy to stabilize population growth and then decrease the numbers over time. How he proposes to do that is anyone's guess. Whether this is a guise for a nefarious agenda or not - I don't know. Why are you three (ddd999, cottonzway, and pixelsmith) so sure that it is?


ddd999 said:
Also,why bring AJ in to this thread? There's enough threads on the forum about him, this is not one of them.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to involve him in this subject. I just needed an example of someone who I think swings the pendulum too far in the opposite direction and he was the first one that came to mind. Let's leave him out then.


ddd999 said:
"The food scarcity part of the argument in the population debate is an interesting one -- people are hungry not because the population is growing so fast that food is becoming scarce, but because people cannot afford it. Food may be scarce, but it is international trade, economic policies and the control of land that have lead to immense poverty and hunger and therefore less access to food, not food scarcity due to over population."

I would recommend you this link as a starting point, it ofers different point of view.
Click to expand...

This is certainly a relevant quote and the link provides very interesting sides to the debate. Thank you for sharing that.

If your impression is that I am in favor of population control, let me clarify that I am not, but I am also not in favor of carrying on cavorting as we are and simply ignoring the issue. I don't know enough about this to have a strong opinion on one side or the other, but I think the topic deserves serious consideration and, due to the fact that other issues (ie energy consumption and distribution of wealth) are intricately tied into this, I am not about to blindly suggest someone ought to kill himself because he is addressing the issue with one particular solution angle.
 
Jimbo,

Please explain to me how the man says he would like the population of England to go from 61 million to 20 million WITHOUT removing people from this earth?
 
Lunatics like Eric Pianka give speeches saying 90% of people need to die and gets standing ovations with people crying and awards for it.

Here he is lying about, saying he was "misquoted" when he has said many times over and over again 90% of people need to die.


Total lunatic.
 
Cottonzway,

Did he give a timetable? No. If he said let's get down to this by next Monday, then I could not think of another way to reach those numbers other than extermination. However, he did not give a timetable. Given all that he said, I have no logical reason to conclude he wants to exterminate 40 million people.
 
cottonzway said:
Lunatics like Eric Pianka give speeches saying 90% of people need to die and gets standing ovations with people crying and awards for it.

Here he is lying about, saying he was "misquoted" when he has said many times over and over again 90% of people need to die.


Total lunatic.
Click to expand...


Cottonzway, explain to me how you know the professor is lying?
 
jimbo83478 said:
Did he give a timetable? No. If he said let's get down to this by next Monday, then I could not think of another way to reach those numbers other than extermination. However, he did not give a timetable. Given all that he said, I have no logical reason to conclude he wants to exterminate 40 million people.
Click to expand...

Yeah but if you phrase it that way it makes it sound all conspiratorial and spooky rather than the responsible, forward-thinking, looooooong-term plan it actually represents. Some people like to be scared, like on a roller coaster.

I love the "You die first" response from people seemingly concerened with maintaining human life though. Very drole. My response? "First come, first served". Future generations can suck it.

Incidently, China's looking at repealing their one child policy. Turns out encouraging your populace to only breed males is detrimental. Who knew?
 
Back
Top