We Need to Depopulate the Earth

[airaspect]

We might already have suppressed technology that would allow us to sustain a bigger population (and I'm not saying we reached our population peak with the technology available), we might have not. As of now we should plan with what we've got.

I agree with S-L, Earths population is increasing rapidly and if its not an issue yet, it will be sooner or later. The word 'depopulation' seems to have misled some of the posters. As far as I understand S-L did not propose anything sinister

Something like limiting allowed children up to two per marriage, with possibility to exceed that limit with adopted children sounds like a good idea. The problem I see is how would we enforce that, and how enforcing it would affect the 'unwanted' children.

[risveglio]

Posted by airaspect (here)
Something like limiting allowed children up to two per marriage, with possibility to exceed that limit with adopted children sounds like a good idea. The problem I see is how would we enforce that, and how enforcing it would affect the 'unwanted' children.

So what do we do with a couple has a third child, abort it and but the parents in jail? This is silly.

We, the collective, need to stop thinking we can tell the individual how to live his or her life. We have no right telling people what they can pray to, what they can eat, drink, smoke, or snort OR how many children they want to have.

[thunder24]

the earths population is not to big, and we can feed and house evreryone....There is so much land that has not been settled....and there are many ways to feed cities growing food within the city....there is not a shortage of water or food....

That is a myth used to depopulate, the food is there, but it does not make it toall....depopulation, more like re-education..

peace

[dan i el]

Posted by risveglio (here)

Posted by airaspect (here)
Something like limiting allowed children up to two per marriage, with possibility to exceed that limit with adopted children sounds like a good idea. The problem I see is how would we enforce that, and how enforcing it would affect the 'unwanted' children.

So what do we do with a couple has a third child, abort it and but the parents in jail? This is silly.

We, the collective, need to stop thinking we can tell the individual how to live his or her life. We have no right telling people what they can pray to, what they can eat, drink, smoke, or snort OR how many children they want to have.

The options are already being put into place socio-culturally:

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/201...00411.abstract <<< note the paper is already pulled from the internet but here's what it said:


February 28, 2012

A paper recently published in the Journal of Medical Ethics says that parents should have the right to kill their newborn infants because infants are not people.

A paper in the The Journal of Medical Ethics, an international peer-reviewed journal for health professionals and researchers in medical ethics, argues that murdering newborn infants should be legalized.

The rational? “Infants are not people”.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?


Abstract

Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus’ health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.

By Alberto Giubilini1, 2
and Francesca Minerva3,4Author Affiliations

Department of Philosophy, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
Centre for Human Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, Oxford University, Oxford, UK

[jackovesk]

Posted by S-L (here)
It's unfortunate that sustainability is associated with "TPTB". Depopulation has been associated with the ruling cabal. It sets off red flags, doesn't it? Should red flags go up when a civilization decides to intelligently manage its numbers? Is it not an obvious thing to do? We live on a finite planet. The numbers are irrelevant. If you can accept that we live on a finite planet, then it is inevitable that we cannot grow our numbers infinitely. If you can accept that, then you can accept the premise of population control.

Why is this so shocking? The idea of sustainability is shocking to you? It is shocking to me that you are shocked by the notion. Can an unlimited number of deers be supported by a forest? Or rabbits? Or anything? Are humans so different? We have technology, yes. But it only engenders a need for more resources. I want to see humanity thrive. I want to see it sustainable. The numbers are questionable - I will not argue them. But the idea of human population control must be seriously considered. If you do not agree to this, then you are suicidal. As a species, if we do not agree to some form of population limit or control, then we are suicidal. It is so irresponsible. The resources are finite. How can we have infinite population growth?

You lost me at that Fu#ked Up word...

"SUSTAINABILITY"...!

A word designed especially for the blindless (FOOLS) of this world...!

[EnergyGardener]

I only wish the other TBTW members would also step forward with such honesty of the / their status quo objectives.

S-L, I am concerned about the creation of negative karma with the obvious response and those of us that realize we would be the first chosen to go:

S-L: But you must really consider what you wrote on this thread here and what you set yourself up for....

Are you really TBTW or just an idiot? To most it may not make a difference.

To you it should:

If you are TBTW you are likely, more or less, screwed.

If you are an idiot, you have a brief time to figure it out.

[Wind]

All that is happening is happening for reason. Mother nature will take care of her own.

[Kerrigan]

Hello fellow Montrealer,

You've had my thanks in many of your posts, but I'm sorry, what you are saying here just doesn't resonate with me.

I am rather surprised that you are worried of overpopulation, when here in Quebec the birth rate is very, very low...

So if the means of depopulation wouldn't start here, in our own land, where would you start? How, when, who... ? Who would be in control of the depopulation, who would apply theses laws and enforce it? I'm trying to see a good way of doing this, and I don't.

Please elaborate.

[DeDukshyn]

Here's my 2 cents,

Until we have become a complete being and our sleeping collective consciousness wakes up, trying to solve any of our "problems" via physical sense and egoic thought will be fruitless. The former must be achieved - then, anything is possible as every individual will intimately understand the needs of the whole.

I'm seeing this from a different level completely though ... not a 3D one.

[Magnus]

Posted by The Truth Is In There (here)
S-L, most people will never agree with an opinion like yours because in their opinion people dying is "negative". fortunately, decisions about "depopulation" are being made on higher planes, by ourselves of course, but in a state of mind (or "beingness") where the big picture isn't obscured like here on earth and where no judgement is attached to things like that. by now most should know that death is but a transition and those who die made the decision before incarnating here. nevertheless they choose to limit their awareness, believe that the illusion is real and play the fear game, fear of losing loved ones, fear of losing their material goods, you name it. that said, i'll add that i'm 100% convinced that a large scale depopulation is going to happen soon, through means beyond human control, and i'm glad it's going to happen because it is that which is going to facilitate the change that is necessary as we enter the next age. otherwise nothing would change, conditions here on earth would only get "worse", from a 3-d perspective, or more challenging, from a higher perspective. most people had enough challenges for the moment so they're going to drop out. nothing negative about that, nor positive.

People are not physically immortal wich means all people are going to 'die' at some point. Why does so many on this thread, interprete S-L's posts as advocating to murder the population? Nowhere in this thread has S-L called for anyone to be killed, to die, be murdered, annihilated, etc, still most members on this thread seem so convinced that he is a bad guy wanting to kill people!? Seemingly the word "depopulate" can be read as "murder", to me that stands out to be very serious and a terrible misconception. In my view, S-L's message suggest that we should begin to responsibly plan for our survival as a specie. In my understanding that does not incoporate either the nwo, cabal, nazi, tptw, club of rome, be fruitfull and multiply, choose to be born, hate, etc. As 'Lost Soul' wrote here in response to S-L: 'Are you killing yourself for humanity's sake?', that's a dirty attack in my view, not helpful, but if it really came to this contradictive and impossible point where survival of the specie depended on a single suicide to be executed - would we, i, you, be of service to self or service to others??

[Little Ishta]

Depopulate??? I think Mother Earth is doing a good job on her own with the natural disasters. She really does not need our help. And besides with everything else happening in this world with people killing people why depopulate??

[shadowstalker]

There is no need for depopulation. What needs to be done is this.
Get the big comps to stop producing poisons while producing there products.
Get the big comps to stop producing fossil fuel cars/planes and the like
Get the big comps to stop buying rich lands for there own comps and GM foods.
Get the big comps to start replacing with zero point energy for everything.

That's just for starters

Redistribute The masses into less Poisonous areas.
Give the land back to the people and let them grow there own food I.E fruits veggies live stock.
Get rid of the money system all together and there wont be a poverty issue, poverty never exist till money system was created.

If people can build a place like Las Vegas (for folks to loose there money) in the desert then they can build better housing for folks to live in. About half the U.S. alone is nothing but desert.

Getting rid of people (living under the systems rule) does not stop the problem of what the power mongers are doing to the populous and planet, change the system (if possible) that the power mongers use..

That's it for now

[Seikou-Kishi]

Posted by S-L (here)
It's unfortunate that sustainability is associated with "TPTB". Depopulation has been associated with the ruling cabal. It sets off red flags, doesn't it? Should red flags go up when a civilization decides to intelligently manage its numbers? Is it not an obvious thing to do? We live on a finite planet. The numbers are irrelevant. If you can accept that we live on a finite planet, then it is inevitable that we cannot grow our numbers infinitely. If you can accept that, then you can accept the premise of population control.

Why is this so shocking? The idea of sustainability is shocking to you? It is shocking to me that you are shocked by the notion. Can an unlimited number of deers be supported by a forest? Or rabbits? Or anything? Are humans so different? We have technology, yes. But it only engenders a need for more resources. I want to see humanity thrive. I want to see it sustainable. The numbers are questionable - I will not argue them. But the idea of human population control must be seriously considered. If you do not agree to this, then you are suicidal. As a species, if we do not agree to some form of population limit or control, then we are suicidal. It is so irresponsible. The resources are finite. How can we have infinite population growth?

You overlooked the "are you willing to put your head on the chopping block of your own idea" bit. The people who argue for depopulation always mean for other people. White Feather raised a good point about technologies that would make us less dependent, while another mentioned all the uninhabitated space, but you want to just kill people off? That's not suicidial, that's genocidal. Please don't try to take the moral high ground with that attitude.

[aranuk]

Posted by S-L (here)
We need to depopulate this world through compassionate means. Our industrial and technological development have brought blessings to the world. We've also brought the seeds of our own annihilation. We are an environmental burden to this planet. We need to shift our relationship with this world. The keyword is sustainability. Is your lifestyle sustainable? Is our human civilization sustainable?

The need is there. The need is now! And yesterday. If we do not depopulate willingly through compassionate means, it will be forced upon us by nature's reckoning. We need to think about the future. Our future. Your future. This generation and the next.


The world will inevitably hit 9 billion. Environmental degradation through years of abuse will leave this world unable to feed humanity. Adjustments will have to be made. It would be advantageous for humanity to be proactive in this matter. History predicts humanity will busy itself looking at its navel instead. Wise ones once said: "If humanity cannot learn in times of prosperity, it will learn in times of despair." We will learn out of necessity.

How will we reduce our population once it becomes apparent we must do so? Do we really need 7 billion people on this planet? Or 9? Why? The more the merrier? Gaia is Great, but she is limited. We must reduce population numbers to a more manageable 1 or 2 billion. Is this a crime against humanity, or a gift to the same? Why does human civilization need the most people possible? Resource constraints beg for a different answer. A more sensible answer. A highly educated and motivated set of 1 or 2 billion people would be far more effective than a destitute 9 billion poverty stricken humans. Sustainability is not an option - one of many. It is the only option. Either we are sustainable, or we are dead. The choice is obvious.

How will this be achieved?

For a start you could get the snip so you will not be responsible for increasing the population.

Stan

[daci]

Our job on earth is not to look for ways to depopulate earth, but to raise our consciousness in order to humanly live with others, to look for the ways how to fairly distribute resources, to release new technologies (free energy…) etc…

The population balance will automatically be achieved on higher level, with higher consciousness… The mother earth knows how to do it best...

[haibane]

Just one question S-L: who's 'we'?

[sirdipswitch]

I used to worry my por old head off over this suff too, but then I got his here "Idea", and went and talked with 'Source" about it. IT ain't worried. So I quit worryin.

love and peace
sirdipswitch

[sirdipswitch]

If you give eberybody 4 square feet to stand on, 7 billion people won't fill up the state of Road Island... hmm.

love and peace
sirdipswitch

[Camilo]

Well,it has been said, by thier fruits you will know them.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

BTW, when you say we, who do you mean?

[Cilka]

This is one of the reasons why some avalon members decide to leave. This discussion is total nonsense. I imagine people such as Obama and Rothchilds discussing such a topic, and not souls who suppose to be more advanced in their growth on this planet.