+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 10 1 10 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 187

Thread: How to reduce the human population ???

  1. Link to Post #1
    Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    17th December 2010
    Age
    56
    Posts
    486
    Thanks
    851
    Thanked 3,143 times in 403 posts

    Cool How to reduce the human population ???

    This is a question for those who really understand the human population problem - who see the widest possible perspectives. So please don't respond if you want to trump the "population problem is a myth argument" or say it's wrong to talk about the issue or create solutions. I understand that many people feel that way. People get so upset about this issue of population reduction, because they only interpret it through the lens of killing the masses but there are other ways. It's because so many people get so upset, that this stuff is decided in secret. It is almost impossible to have an open discussion about the subject in public but I have faith that it might be a little different here. Might ?

    So, to all those thinkers and feelers who can imagine. How can we reduce the human population and how might these solutions unfold ? What methods are available and what methods might be considered most ethically sound ?

    To those who are upset about the subject, please consider that this is an issue that countless alien races have had to deal with at some point in their evolution. If they found a way to live in a more harmonious way with their planet, with fewer numbers, so can we. If if we don't, we will create countless more problems for ourselves.

    I shall primarily play the role of an observer in any discussion that takes place.
    (As will those with a vested interest in the subject !!!)

    May you all be happy and well and be a light unto yourselves !

    Bright.

  2. The Following 22 Users Say Thank You to Bright Garlick For This Post:

    1 flew over (8th December 2013), Art (25th November 2013), AutumnW (28th November 2013), blufire (25th November 2013), boja (25th November 2013), Carmody (25th November 2013), Dawn (17th December 2013), Frederick Jackson (21st December 2013), Hawkwind (25th November 2013), Kalamos (25th November 2013), Limor Wolf (28th November 2013), Metaphor (28th November 2013), mosquito (25th November 2013), observer (25th November 2013), Redstar Kachina (17th December 2013), Referee (25th November 2013), RMorgan (25th November 2013), Robin (25th November 2013), Sunny-side-up (25th November 2013), sygh (25th November 2013), Tesseract (25th November 2013), WhiteFeather (30th November 2013)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Avalon Member mosquito's Avatar
    Join Date
    12th April 2011
    Location
    swonK kcuF
    Age
    65
    Posts
    1,508
    Thanks
    11,258
    Thanked 7,739 times in 1,371 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    You are a brave man Bright !

    My own initial thoughts: This can only be achieved through consciousness, choosing not to have too many children, choosing not to plunder the Earth, choosing not to kill vast quantities of animals just to survive, choosing to live in harmony, choosing to build sustainable communities.

    NOT by coercion. Or genocide.

  4. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to mosquito For This Post:

    Art (25th November 2013), AutumnW (28th November 2013), Bright Garlick (25th November 2013), Frederick Jackson (22nd December 2013), Limor Wolf (28th November 2013), Pam (14th December 2013), RMorgan (25th November 2013), Robin (25th November 2013), sheme (1st December 2013), Sunny-side-up (25th November 2013), sygh (25th November 2013), transiten (25th November 2013), WhiteFeather (30th November 2013)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Deactivated
    Join Date
    1st May 2011
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks
    1,909
    Thanked 4,498 times in 1,175 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    Or, would it perhaps be better to ask, how will the Earth reduce our population?

    Wise friend who passed a long while ago, Joseph "Bearwalker" Wilson used to say the world will go on with or without us. It is not the earth that is dependant upon us, it is we who are dependant on it.

  6. The Following 23 Users Say Thank You to Milneman For This Post:

    1 flew over (8th December 2013), Art (25th November 2013), AutumnW (28th November 2013), Becky (25th November 2013), Bright Garlick (25th November 2013), Carmody (25th November 2013), Chanlo23 (25th November 2013), Elainie (30th November 2013), Heart-2-Heart (25th November 2013), heyokah (25th November 2013), Kalamos (25th November 2013), Limor Wolf (28th November 2013), mosquito (25th November 2013), OnyxKnight (28th November 2013), Robin (25th November 2013), seleka (28th November 2013), Sunny-side-up (25th November 2013), sygh (25th November 2013), transiten (25th November 2013), turiya (25th November 2013), WhiteFeather (30th November 2013), Wind (25th November 2013), ZenBaller (13th December 2013)

  7. Link to Post #4
    Avalon Member Tesseract's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th October 2012
    Posts
    834
    Thanks
    1,740
    Thanked 3,393 times in 744 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    It has been known for some time that the more highly educated women are, the less children they tend to have. Investment in education (a good thing anyway) may also help solve the population problem. I added a link to a pdf to get people started who want to read about this. This is surely one of the most ethically sound options available.

    http://www.prb.org/pdf/IsEducat-Contracept_Eng.pdf

  8. The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to Tesseract For This Post:

    1 flew over (8th December 2013), airaspect (25th November 2013), Art (25th November 2013), AutumnW (28th November 2013), Bright Garlick (25th November 2013), CivilDawn (25th November 2013), Frederick Jackson (21st December 2013), Hervé (25th November 2013), JRS (25th November 2013), Kalamos (25th November 2013), mosquito (25th November 2013), RMorgan (25th November 2013), Robin (25th November 2013), Sunny-side-up (25th November 2013), transiten (25th November 2013), WhiteFeather (30th November 2013), Wind (25th November 2013)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Sweden Avalon Member transiten's Avatar
    Join Date
    6th June 2011
    Posts
    1,760
    Thanks
    7,373
    Thanked 10,075 times in 1,638 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    Quote Posted by Tesseract (here)
    It has been known for some time that the more highly educated women are, the less children they tend to have. Investment in education (a good thing anyway) may also help solve the population problem. I added a link to a pdf to get people started who want to read about this. This is surely one of the most ethically sound options available.

    http://www.prb.org/pdf/IsEducat-Contracept_Eng.pdf
    For sure the suppression of the feminine is the core problem and the restoration of the balance between feminine and masculine within each and everyone is the only solution. "Reclaiming the Feminine Christ" an interesting perspective by mystic scholar Mirabai Starr.
    Last edited by transiten; 25th November 2013 at 03:56.

  10. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to transiten For This Post:

    AutumnW (28th November 2013), Bright Garlick (25th November 2013), GloriousPoetry (14th December 2013), gripreaper (15th December 2013), Referee (25th November 2013), Robin (25th November 2013), Sunny-side-up (25th November 2013), WhiteFeather (30th November 2013), Wind (25th November 2013)

  11. Link to Post #6
    United States Avalon Member Robin's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th September 2013
    Location
    The Shire, Middle-earth
    Age
    33
    Posts
    1,291
    Thanks
    3,342
    Thanked 8,584 times in 1,239 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    I'm actually really glad that you posed this debate, Mr. Garlick. I saw your other thread about the Georgia Guidestones, but I hesitated to comment. But this thread gives me more incentive.

    I find that it is the natural habit of people to take a situation or a document, analyze it, and dwell on the negative aspects. I see it all of the time: film reviews; song reviews; book reviews; whistleblower testimonial; conspiracy theories.

    Instead of us focusing on the negative aspects of things, why can't we just focus on all the good that is going on in the world? Most of the Avalon members bash folk like Fulford, Wilcock, and others (understandably!), but why can we not disregard useless information and glean what positive aspects we can from them? If something has a kernel of truth, or has a slight possibility of doing some good for humanity, then isn't it worth some consideration?

    In Kerry Cassidy's interview of Bill, Bill says something that I agree with. Starting at about 10:15, when talking about Project Serpo, Bill states:

    Quote And the question you asked me was: am I an advocate of the story? And my answer to that, as best I recall, was that no I am not an advocate of the story. I never have been. I am an advocate of people willing to suspend their disbelief to consider whether or not the story may have merit. And, a lot of people have been crying foul saying that this story is disinformation. And, of course it's disinformation! I've said that months and months and months ago. Um, and what disinformation means is that it means that some of it is true and some of it is false. Just suppose there is some truth in this story. Isn't it worthwhile taking a look to see what might be true?
    Alas! We do not know who made the Georgia Guidestones. Obviously, the etched goal that receives the most attention and criticism is the one on population reduction. Again, people automatically assume the worst that whoever wrote it is bent on setting off nukes to decimate the population. Even if this is the intention of its builder, I think that planet Earth is overpopulated and will be a serious problem in the future if not maintained.

    The Guidestones are very realistic, sustainable goals that humanity would really benefit from. So now the question posed is: what is a sustainable solution to population control? Once the Illumi-parasites (Illuminasites? ) are removed and all is well in the world, how can we come together as one humanity and solve this issue?

    First, we need to agree that this is an issue. I've seen it posted on here that we can fit everybody on the planet in Texas rather comfortably, which may be true to an extent. But I see many problems with that. Some people on the forum choose to believe Chris Thomas's assertion that population statistics have been manipulated and that the true Earth population is around 4 billion. This could also be true, but that is still too large of a number for planet Earth, in my opinion.

    My solution: dismantle cities and recognize the realistic nature of them being unsustainable, corrupt, filthy concentration camps that harbor the worst qualities of humans that choose to dwell in them. I know this is offending, but it is the truth. Those who live out in the country are naturally more caring individuals to their neighbors both human and animal. I know many members on Avalon are upset at me saying this, but it is clear that you are all exceptions given your participation in truth seeking.

    After recognizing that we seriously need to change our societal structure, we must find a way to acclimate those urbanites back to nature. I firmly believe that small, close-knit communities are the communities of the future (Michael St. Clair, whom was interviewed a couple times on Camelot, agrees). We need to have small communities that grow their own food while participating in healthy activities. Every community needs to have huge buffer zones as to allow wildlife to flourish. Money will be eliminated and communities will resort to barter and trade.

    What I am saying sounds like a pipe-dream, but it is feasible and something we need to strive for. Factory farms are not sustainable and take up too much land and resources. What I propose (for a start!) is to move all the city-dwellers on all of the agricultural land, start forming small communities by growing their own food organically. As part of our new way of living, humanity will devote the rest of its time into restoration and conservation. We will replant the forests of the future while integrating ourselves into small, sustainable communities.

    Think of how much space in the Midwestern United States is used only for agriculture production! There is more than enough space to move everybody in the Midwest who live in urban areas onto the land and grow their own food in small pockets of land. Think about it...

    We also need to recognize that raising cows and other animals for meat consumption is not sustainable (even if just for milk). They take up too much land and cause too many health risks. Humanity needs to start thinking about going vegan...

    With the help of free energy, the process of this re-integration onto the land will be made so much easier. The process of reducing the population will be a lengthy one, but it does not have to be through the use of nukes, as most people often think about when they hear the word "population-reduction."

    My comment thus far has touched on my vision of "utopia" and seems to lack a viable solution. I honestly see no other real solution than to place a world-wide child-restriction law. I hate to say it, but I am open to more ideas! I only see the child-restriction law being in effect for a small time period...just enough to give people time to acknowledge that they need to take more responsibility for their actions for the betterment of humanity as a whole.

    Perhaps going back to growing our own organic food in small communities would naturally cause a steady decline in the population? I think it is possible. We need to find a way to merge 18th century values and 21st century technology.

    "Rather than love, than fame, than money, give me truth."
    ~Henry David Thoreau

  12. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Robin For This Post:

    AutumnW (28th November 2013), Becky (25th November 2013), Bright Garlick (25th November 2013), Kalamos (25th November 2013), risveglio (25th November 2013), RMorgan (25th November 2013), seleka (28th November 2013), transiten (25th November 2013), WhiteFeather (30th November 2013)

  13. Link to Post #7
    Avalon Member Carmody's Avatar
    Join Date
    19th August 2010
    Location
    Winning The Galactic Lottery
    Posts
    11,389
    Thanks
    17,597
    Thanked 82,316 times in 10,234 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    population, or child bearing, in mammals, generally increases under stressful conditions. Conditions of comfort and stability led to smaller families. As long as we are stressed, in those stressed areas, we will have population problems.

    Education, as well.

    To not have a ruling elite who wish to depopulate and to not have a ruling elite who wish to make use be worker animals, or ignorant breeders.

    Every time I think that the median intellectual level is an iq of 100, it practically makes me weep. (it has to be 100, by definition, it cannot change, it is a median value)

    To me, in order to understand the problem and the solutions, to have that as a complex situation..presented to an IQ of 100, well, I'm not sure that much of the message can get through.
    Interdimensional Civil Servant

  14. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Carmody For This Post:

    Bright Garlick (25th November 2013), Hervé (25th November 2013), Kalamos (25th November 2013), mosquito (25th November 2013), Referee (25th November 2013), risveglio (25th November 2013), RMorgan (25th November 2013), seleka (28th November 2013), sygh (26th November 2013), T Smith (17th December 2013)

  15. Link to Post #8
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Posts
    5,512
    Thanks
    4,666
    Thanked 24,838 times in 5,080 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    Quote Posted by Milneman (here)
    Or, would it perhaps be better to ask, how will the Earth reduce our population?

    Wise friend who passed a long while ago, Joseph "Bearwalker" Wilson used to say the world will go on with or without us. It is not the earth that is dependant upon us, it is we who are dependant on it.
    Couldn't agree more with Milneman. And Mother Earth is already dealing with the so-called "problem".


    About That Overpopulation Problem

    Research suggests we may actually face a declining world population in the coming years.
    By Jeff Wise

    The world’s seemingly relentless march toward overpopulation achieved a notable milestone in 2012: Somewhere on the planet, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates, the 7 billionth living person came into existence.

    Lucky No. 7,000,000,000 probably celebrated his or her birthday sometime in March and added to a population that’s already stressing the planet’s limited supplies of food, energy, and clean water. Should this trend continue, as the Los Angeles Times noted in a five-part series marking the occasion, by midcentury, “living conditions are likely to be bleak for much of humanity.”

    A somewhat more arcane milestone, meanwhile, generated no media coverage at all: It took humankind 13 years to add its 7 billionth. That’s longer than the 12 years it took to add the 6 billionth—the first time in human history that interval had grown. (The 2 billionth, 3 billionth, 4 billionth, and 5 billionth took 123, 33, 14, and 13 years, respectively.) In other words, the rate of global population growth has slowed. And it’s expected to keep slowing. Indeed, according to experts’ best estimates, the total population of Earth will stop growing within the lifespan of people alive today.
    Advertisement

    And then it will fall.

    This is a counterintuitive notion in the United States, where we’ve heard often and loudly that world population growth is a perilous and perhaps unavoidable threat to our future as a species. But population decline is a very familiar concept in the rest of the developed world, where fertility has long since fallen far below the 2.1 live births per woman required to maintain population equilibrium. In Germany, the birthrate has sunk to just 1.36, worse even than its low-fertility neighbors Spain (1.48) and Italy (1.4). The way things are going, Western Europe as a whole will most likely shrink from 460 million to just 350 million by the end of the century. That’s not so bad compared with Russia and China, each of whose populations could fall by half. As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gesellschaft, or “shrinking society.”

    American media have largely ignored the issue of population decline for the simple reason that it hasn’t happened here yet. Unlike Europe, the United States has long been the beneficiary of robust immigration. This has helped us not only by directly bolstering the number of people calling the United States home but also by propping up the birthrate, since immigrant women tend to produce far more children than the native-born do.

    But both those advantages look to diminish in years to come. A report issued last month by the Pew Research Center found that immigrant births fell from 102 per 1,000 women in 2007 to 87.8 per 1,000 in 2012. That helped bring the overall U.S. birthrate to a mere 64 per 1,000 women—not enough to sustain our current population.

    Moreover, the poor, highly fertile countries that once churned out immigrants by the boatload are now experiencing birthrate declines of their own. From 1960 to 2009, Mexico’s fertility rate tumbled from 7.3 live births per woman to 2.4, India’s dropped from six to 2.5, and Brazil’s fell from 6.15 to 1.9. Even in sub-Saharan Africa, where the average birthrate remains a relatively blistering 4.66, fertility is projected to fall below replacement level by the 2070s. This change in developing countries will affect not only the U.S. population, of course, but eventually the world’s.

    Why is this happening? Scientists who study population dynamics point to a phenomenon called “demographic transition.”

    “For hundreds of thousands of years,” explains Warren Sanderson, a professor of economics at Stony Brook University, “in order for humanity to survive things like epidemics and wars and famine, birthrates had to be very high.” Eventually, thanks to technology, death rates started to fall in Europe and in North America, and the population size soared. In time, though, birthrates fell as well, and the population leveled out. The same pattern has repeated in countries around the world. Demographic transition, Sanderson says, “is a shift between two very different long-run states: from high death rates and high birthrates to low death rates and low birthrates.” Not only is the pattern well-documented, it’s well under way: Already, more than half the world’s population is reproducing at below the replacement rate.

    If the Germany of today is the rest of the world tomorrow, then the future is going to look a lot different than we thought. Instead of skyrocketing toward uncountable Malthusian multitudes, researchers at Austria’s International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis foresee the global population maxing out at 9 billion some time around 2070. On the bright side, the long-dreaded resource shortage may turn out not to be a problem at all. On the not-so-bright side, the demographic shift toward more retirees and fewer workers could throw the rest of the world into the kind of interminable economic stagnation that Japan is experiencing right now.

    And in the long term—on the order of centuries—we could be looking at the literal extinction of humanity.

    That might sound like an outrageous claim, but it comes down to simple math. According to a 2008 IIASA report, if the world stabilizes at a total fertility rate of 1.5—where Europe is today—then by 2200 the global population will fall to half of what it is today. By 2300, it’ll barely scratch 1 billion. (The authors of the report tell me that in the years since the initial publication, some details have changed—Europe’s population is falling faster than was previously anticipated, while Africa’s birthrate is declining more slowly—but the overall outlook is the same.) Extend the trend line, and within a few dozen generations you’re talking about a global population small enough to fit in a nursing home.

    It’s far from certain that any of this will come to pass. IIASA’s numbers are based on probabilistic projections, meaning that demographers try to identify the key factors affecting population growth and then try to assess the likelihood that each will occur. The several layers of guesswork magnify potential errors. “We simply don’t know for sure what will be the population size at a certain time in the future,” demographer Wolfgang Lutz told IIASA conference-goers earlier this year. “There are huge uncertainties involved.” Still, it’s worth discussing, because focusing too single-mindedly on the problem of overpopulation could have disastrous consequences—see China’s one-child policy.

    One of the most contentious issues is the question of whether birthrates in developed countries will remain low. The United Nation’s most recent forecast, released in 2010, assumes that low-fertility countries will eventually revert to a birthrate of around 2.0. In that scenario, the world population tops out at about 10 billion and stays there. But there’s no reason to believe that that birthrates will behave in that way—no one has every observed an inherent human tendency to have a nice, arithmetically stable 2.1 children per couple. On the contrary, people either tend to have an enormous number of kids (as they did throughout most of human history and still do in the most impoverished, war-torn parts of Africa) or far too few. We know how to dampen excessive population growth—just educate girls. The other problem has proved much more intractable: No one’s figured out how to boost fertility in countries where it has imploded. Singapore has been encouraging parenthood for nearly 30 years, with cash incentives of up to $18,000 per child. Its birthrate? A gasping-for-air 1.2. When Sweden started offering parents generous support, the birthrate soared but then fell back again, and after years of fluctuating, it now stands at 1.9—very high for Europe but still below replacement level.

    The reason for the implacability of demographic transition can be expressed in one word: education. One of the first things that countries do when they start to develop is educate their young people, including girls. That dramatically improves the size and quality of the workforce. But it also introduces an opportunity cost for having babies. “Women with more schooling tend to have fewer children,” says William Butz, a senior research scholar at IIASA.

    In developed countries, childrearing has become a lifestyle option tailored to each couple’s preferences. Maximizing fertility is rarely a priority. My wife and I are a case in point. I’m 46, she’s 39, and we have two toddlers. We waited about as long to have kids as we feasibly could because we were invested in building our careers and, frankly, enjoying all the experiences that those careers let us have. If wanted to pop out another ankle-biter right now, our ageing bodies might just allow us to do so. But we have no intention of trying. As much as we adore our little guys, they’re a lot of work and frighteningly expensive. Most of our friends have just one or two kids, too, and like us they regard the prospect of having three or four kids the way most people look at ultramarathoning or transoceanic sailing—admirable pursuits, but only for the very committed.

    That attitude could do for Homo sapiens what that giant asteroid did for the dinosaurs. If humanity is going to sustain itself, then the number of couples deciding to have three or four kids will consistently have to exceed the number opting to raise one or zero. The 2.0 that my wife and I have settled for is a decent effort, but we’re not quite pulling our weight. Are we being selfish? Or merely rational? Our decision is one that I’m sure future generations will judge us on. Assuming there are any.
    posted by turiya
    Last edited by turiya; 25th November 2013 at 04:44.

  16. Link to Post #9
    Deactivated
    Join Date
    1st May 2011
    Posts
    1,363
    Thanks
    1,909
    Thanked 4,498 times in 1,175 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    SamwiseTheBrave said some really neat things, and then I jumped up and down and said:

    FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT! BROADACRE CITY!

  17. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Milneman For This Post:

    Bright Garlick (25th November 2013), Kalamos (25th November 2013), transiten (25th November 2013)

  18. Link to Post #10
    Wales Deactivated
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    1,497
    Thanks
    7,840
    Thanked 6,775 times in 1,313 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    KILLING US SOFTLY.pdf We don't have to worry about that any more, its being taken care off and accelerating every day since 1945.

    roman

  19. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to ROMANWKT For This Post:

    avid (27th November 2013), Bob (28th November 2013), Dawn (17th December 2013), JRS (25th November 2013), risveglio (25th November 2013), sygh (26th November 2013), ulli (22nd December 2013)

  20. Link to Post #11
    Brazil Avalon Member Hawkwind's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Location
    Curitiba
    Age
    67
    Posts
    415
    Thanks
    889
    Thanked 2,305 times in 365 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    Quote Posted by Bright Garlick (here)
    This is a question for those who really understand the human population problem - who see the widest possible perspectives.
    Well, for starts, if I limit the definition of what is by labeling it a problem, I’m not adopting the widest possible perspective. If- as David Icke has said- the true nature of each of us is infinite consciousness, in which exits everything that is, ever was and ever will be- then (from the widest possible perspective) there are no problems. There are only different perspectives from which consciousness experiences itself.

    From the perspective of my current incarnation within the physical/temporal reality of planet Earth, however, yes- there are definitely too many kids playing in the sandbox (and quite a few of them seem to be neither potty trained nor wearing diapers). Solutions? Continue to cultivate my own spiritual growth and help others do the same. That alone will almost certainly not be enough to bring human population numbers to sustainable levels prior to a catastrophic collapse of the global eco-system, but it’s as far as I’m currently willing to go.

    I’ve also stopped pushing quite so hard to “get the truth out”. I try as best I can to discern what the truth is and I pass along my current understanding of what’s happening on the planet to anyone who’s open to such info. It seems, however, that the majority of people on the planet flat out want to be led blindly to the slaughter house. Perhaps that will change, perhaps it won’t. In either case, it seems to me, my part is to live each moment as impeccably as I can from my current state of awareness.

  21. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Hawkwind For This Post:

    AutumnW (28th November 2013), Eram (25th November 2013), naste.de.lumina (25th November 2013), sheme (1st December 2013), transiten (25th November 2013)

  22. Link to Post #12
    Avalon Member norman's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2010
    Location
    too close to the hot air exhaust
    Age
    68
    Posts
    8,893
    Thanks
    9,940
    Thanked 55,005 times in 8,166 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    Has anyone else here noticed that global economic growth and global population growth seem to be linked in some way?
    ..................................................my first language is TYPO..............................................

  23. Link to Post #13
    France Avalon Member araucaria's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Posts
    5,400
    Thanks
    12,061
    Thanked 30,977 times in 5,003 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    If you want to increase growth on a tree, you prune it hard. If you want to reduce growth on just one side, you prune the other side hard. Similarly, if you want to decrease the human population, you avoid wars. Wars kill a lot of people, but like heavily pruned trees, regeneration happens faster than the background level of growth.

    If there has been a Depopulation program in place since 1945, then it has accompanied a rise from around 2 billion to 7 billion. Sounds pretty ineffective to me. Incompetent topiary.

    I don’t know what the equivalent to ‘pruning the other side’ might entail. However, it seems clear that simply doing nothing – apart from looking after and educating people better – is going to produce better results than either wars or depopulation programs.

    The underlying problem here though, is our attitude to growth. Growth is the healthy state of living organisms. I personally have stopped growing in height, and even in width , but I hope I am still growing in stature or wisdom. We need to channel this natural potential for growth: if not in numbers, then where do we take this?

    I fear that many of those in favour of depopulation are simply in favour of less humanity, where a reduction in quantity entails a corresponding reduction in quality. I feel on the contrary that our present large numbers may be taking us to a tipping point where a truly democratic decision (one man one vote) can be reached to take humanity in a positive direction – positive, because most humans are basically positive but individually very weak, and the negative ones are a tiny minority of powerful beings whose overthrow calls for quantity to make up for any lack in quality.


  24. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to araucaria For This Post:

    AutumnW (28th November 2013), Gardener (27th November 2013), Hervé (25th November 2013), mosquito (26th November 2013), naste.de.lumina (25th November 2013), thunder24 (25th November 2013), transiten (25th November 2013), Wind (25th November 2013), wolf_rt (1st December 2013)

  25. Link to Post #14
    Brazil Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    4th April 2013
    Age
    54
    Posts
    1,453
    Thanks
    11,308
    Thanked 7,529 times in 1,350 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    The problems of planet Earth are not caused by overpopulation.
    It's the same as wanting to remove all the oil on the planet to stop the pollution emitted by machinery pollutants.
    The problem is not oil, but how it is utilized.
    The problem is not overpopulation but as it is satisfied in their basic needs, production and distribution of wealth.
    For every human incarnate there are 9 disembodied spirits.
    How can these spirits will evolve if they can not incarnate?
    But the power can not (or will ) want see this basic.
    The fact that we are evolving spirits.
    Technology to ensure a balanced planet exists.
    Detachment from the material power is what we need.
    If not expand consciousness and look at the big picture, it ends up with these materialistic ideas that always end in genocide.
    It's so clear to see.
    I'm sorry, but in my opinion this issue is based on mind control.
    Last edited by naste.de.lumina; 25th November 2013 at 15:35.

  26. Link to Post #15
    Brazil Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    28th June 2011
    Location
    Belo Horizonte, Brazil
    Age
    40
    Posts
    3,857
    Thanks
    18,436
    Thanked 24,123 times in 3,535 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    Quote Posted by Tesseract (here)
    It has been known for some time that the more highly educated women are, the less children they tend to have. Investment in education (a good thing anyway) may also help solve the population problem. I added a link to a pdf to get people started who want to read about this. This is surely one of the most ethically sound options available.

    http://www.prb.org/pdf/IsEducat-Contracept_Eng.pdf
    Yes. You're absolutely right.

    Even for those who don't believe overpopulation is a problem now, there's no way to deny that eventually, if the population continues to grow in the same rhythm, it will become a problem.

    Actually, right now, in the current circumstances, there's no way we could supply every person on Earth with enough resources to give them a good life, according to our current average standards of what it means to have a good life aka "developed countries's middle-class".

    Anyway, back to the education topic. Yes, educated people have much less children. Here in Brazil, is extremely rare to see poor or miserable couples with one or two children; Poor and miserable families usually have five of more children, for several reasons, education being just one of them. Socially and economically speaking, children help to complement the income of poor families as well, both by labor and social benefits. Specifically here in Brazil, the government gives poor family's benefits for each children, so the more children they have, the more they receive from the government.

    Anyway, the only feasible way to reduce population growth, long term, without using violence and infringing freewill, is to educate people indeed.

    However, how easy it is to educate people globally? Education isn't an isolated process. It's part of a huge set of variables involved in the management of countries and societies.

    So, within this system, it isn't possible, because many poor countries are supposed to continue in poverty, so a few rich countries can continue to prosper.

    It all comes down to our current system...There's no point to argue about possible solutions, because none of them will be possible if we don't change our system radically.

    The way I see it, save from a global catastrophe, I can't actually envision the system changing by its own, or by the will of the people...So, I don't hold any realistic hope that this problem will be solved pacifically.

    Taking only probabilities in account, most probably the current ruling system will continue as it is or even become worse, so, eventually, somewhere in the future, we will see the implementation of involuntary population control mechanisms.

    Raf.

  27. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to RMorgan For This Post:

    Bright Garlick (27th November 2013), Eram (25th November 2013), Hervé (25th November 2013), mosquito (26th November 2013), Robin (25th November 2013), transiten (25th November 2013), Wind (27th November 2013)

  28. Link to Post #16
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    20th March 2010
    Location
    Within a few kilometers of Avalon
    Age
    76
    Posts
    1,702
    Thanks
    3,990
    Thanked 7,178 times in 1,466 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    I've used this one in the past but I can't think of a more appropriate dissertation for this thread:



    It's time the members stopped thinking of more ways to control things and start thinking of ways to end the control mechanisms.

    Please don't take this as a smart-a$$ed comment, but the wisdom in Mr. Carlin's humor can "trump" any argument for population control. I personally don't see the problem being an issue individuals need to debate and attempt to control. The problem will take care of itself....
    Last edited by observer; 25th November 2013 at 16:08. Reason: add text

  29. Link to Post #17
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    Quote Posted by Bright Garlick (here)
    [...] What methods are available and what methods might be considered most ethically sound ?

    [...]
    Is that GMO in that bucket?

    Anyway... reposting from another thread that discussed the same topic way, way back... must be at least over 6 months old...

    Quote Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
    Below, you will find Sue Arrigo's workable, and proven so, solution to the intended and created problem of "world overpopulation."

    Sue Arrigo is a strange character who developed an incredible strength in spite of her MKultra/Monarch programming which landed her to be D. Rockefeller's personal sex slave; the later loaning her at $ 1 million a night... most people who forked out such an amount did it not for the one night stand but for Sue's highest gift and skill as the CIA's unchallenged highest accuracy score remote viewer and expected manifold returns on their "investment" in her investigation of various timelines for various business ventures.... Most probably the reason she might still be alive (last heard of her was 2009).

    ***************************************

    Dirty Methods are Not Needed for Population Control

    emanzipationhumanum.de/ english/human/all.html


    Because the Cabal’s rationale for war. famine, and destruction has been population control, I had the CIA study my clean methods for population control. Those studies proved that the Cabal’s methods were ineffective by comparison; wars and even famines did not result in long term decreases in population. They were short term measures that worsened population growth rates right afterwards. It was like cutting up starfish to get rid of them, the process of cutting them stimulated their re-growth. Fear, anxiety, insecurity, and poverty, cause people to want more children and produce them. Wars and trauma, and food scarcities, are like pruning rose brushes--one gets more flowers and more seeds. The CIA’s own internal studies make that quite clear. In the 1900’s there were two world wars and many lesser wars. The result of all that war, famine, and suffering was that there were more people in 2000 on the planet than in 1900. That is a failed strategy, even if we believed the goal to be a valid one.

    The so-called clean development methods discussed in the above article about the Kissinger-Haig plan, were neither clean, nor intended to cause the Third World to become developed into First World nations. The leaders like Kissinger did not want Third World producers of raw materials to be First World like consumers of resources. They believed in a world of limitation and want, in which in order to have as much as they wanted, others would have to go without. They have a zero-sum idea of the world in which they believe that causing the people in the Third World to go without will result in their happiness. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their analysis was wrong, completely wrong. The easiest way to understand that is to look at a marriage, because that is something that we have an understanding of from our personal observations over time. Beating up the wife, withholding love and refusing to share with her equitably, causes the relationship to deteriorate. It still produces many children. On the other hand, treating her as an equal and assisting her out of love to achieve the goals that she freely sets, leads to a happier home in which their are naturally fewer children. In many cases, well-satisfied women busy doing what they love, produce no children at all. People with high education and career productivity have low birthrates. One doesn’t have to force women to work, doing so doesn’t lead to a decrease in population. It is love, care, and opportunities that give women the satisfaction needed to produce well without over-multiplying. The so-called development programs that the US tried to foist upon the Third World were like a husband holding his hand over a wife’s head about to beat her, but not doing so at the moment. The underlying goal of those development programs was to force Third World countries to give up their resources at slave labor prices. There was no respect, care, or love involved, and the result was like a tyrannical marriage with an overproliferation of children, bickering, and problems.

    During the course of several decades from about 1985 to 2004, the CIA did three major studies on my clean methods to control population, and about a dozen minor ones. They did so many studies because they could not figure out how I managed to get such good results. Also, they hoped to prove me wrong in the end, as they had an addiction to using dirty methods and wanted justification to continue using them. They had a commitment to violence, hoarding, and selfishness that they were not willing to allow reason, truth, and data to bring it into question. As a result they kept on banning my research results within the CIA and forcing me to reproduce them in further studies. Thus I ended up doing such studies long after analysts in the CIA’s Intelligence Dept. conceded that I was right and that my methods did work well. Of course, you should not take my word for it but obtain copies of those studies and the full complement of their reviews.

    Although the studies are complex and I don’t have the data in front of me, I want to mention them because it is relevant to whether it was right for Bush, Sr. to sell the bio-warfare agents to Hussein. I had finished the first major study prior to that sale and it angered me that the old view that depopulation by killing still appeared to be standard operating proceeds at the White House. It is not that Bush, Sr. was ignorant of that study of mine. When I spoke to him on the phone about wanting to come over to inform him and others of the dangers of the Bio-warfare agents, he said something like “Is this about your wanting to do depopulation your way?” When I said, in effect, “Yes.” He specifically forbid me from speaking about that study when I came to the White House the next day. He appeared, in my opinion, to want to keep the results of that study secret from his cabinet ministers and advisors. My methods would not have made kickbacks for anyone, nor ranked up any body count. The first major study done on my methods was a retrospective one. It was noticed by a CIA analyst that a village I had helped survive in Vietnam during that war, had a very low birth rate. It was an anomaly noticed on a study of Agent Orange birth defects. There were almost none to no birth defects in that village, and it was then asked, “Was that because there were not births at all in the next 10 years or so?” The answer was that there were births per the Vietnamese authorities that CIA analyst was working with, but not many. The Vietnamese authorities had tried to determine why and attributed it to the strange actions that I had taken in that village during the war. I had been sent in to do reconnaissance with a small team of men because the US Army hoped that my skills as a remote viewer would help us locate Stinger type missiles. The VC had been shooting down US choppers. We did find and destroy missiles to the extent that the chopper problem in that area was greatly alleviated for awhile.

    I had spent about half a day in that village as I tried to locate the missiles. I did not conduct a search and destroy mission of that village. Instead of destruction and intimidation, I did careful listening and tried to solve some of the village’s many problems. One of the problems that they complained to me about was that the US military was frequently coming through their village and terrifying them. As I listened to their many complaints on that score, it occurred to me that there might be a way to help them. Their strategy up to that point had been to wait for it to happen and then scatter and hide in the surrounding mountains for weeks at a time until the US moved on. That strategy was not very successful. Their crops did not get the care they needed. Their livestock were unable to be moved quickly and got killed by the US troops and left to rot. Their rice and food stores were scattered all over the village trampled underfoot and moldy by the time they returned. Life was Hell for them, as a result of the American soldiers, not unlike Iraq these days. It seemed to them that nothing could ever change that. But it did not appear to me to be a hopeless problem because I had faith that the Lord could solve any problem fairly quickly and well. Thus, it did not surprise me when an answer occurred to me about an hour later. That answer was for them to post a watch on all the trails that lead into the village (something they had already done.) But to do so with a different intention. They were doing so then to alert the village to “run”. I suggested that they alert the village to host a party for whoever came. That is, they should not favor nor run from any group, but entertain and feed whoever came through. At first, they objected saying that they were poor people and could not afford to. I pointed out that they were losing all their food and livestock each time, and it would be better to serve even half of it, and keep the other half. They discussed it and decided to give it a try. I made some suggestions as to how to entertain soldiers without giving their young girls to them. They brainstormed came up with many creative ideas. That village became known for its great hospitality and talent. Neither side demolished it after that because they wanted to be able to have some rest there. It was a “fire free” zone in the midst of a war zone. I think the God blessed them with peace because of their generous hearts and actions. If they had worried about having enough, it never would have worked. Since they gave so freely, both sides left behind much food that was uncooked to reciprocate. It was a miracle that God kept going for years during the war. I had been there in about 1969. The CIA analysts confirmed by satellite images that the village had not been destroyed after that, even though the war raged all around them. The war did not end until 1975.

    By the time the CIA studied it as anomaly in population growth, almost 15 years had passed. The population of the village had modestly decreased, while the villages nearby had very large numbers of children, were requiring cutting down of more jungle, and were very poor. It was not just that the village had had peace. That is not actually enough to reverse the overgrowth of population. It has to have spiritual contentment. Later studies elucidated that more clearly.

    That first major study went beyond that one village to look at other places in the world that I had been on assignment. I got sent to war zones periodically, and CIA analysts had noticed that difficult to account for results followed. I was not responsible for those effects; I was just desperate enough to call on God with faith. The CIA analysts thus went back over the record of which villages I had been on assignment to and looked at birth rates before and after and in comparison to neighboring villages. I had not gone to those places with any intention to control population; I had in the course of my other duties for the CIA, tried to help them in whatever way seemed appropriate at the time. So, it was kind of a double blind study in that neither I nor the villages had any idea that the CIA would later study the result of going to sincerely and selflessly help. I was not leaving behind bags of Aide money, financial grants, or contracts with the CIA to help them later. I was enquiring after their needs as a concerned visitor and dispensing some practical advise grounded on good spiritual principles. The CIA analyst in question found a decrease in population and crowding where I had given such advice, and not when I was in too much of a hurry to give it. It was not that I was contaminated with poison or spreading poisons. The children were fewer but healthy overall. Frankly, the CIA was unable to account for the results, even after they carefully substantiated them. It especially troubled them, given how short I was in any village, that the effect seemed to be long lasting, That was not surprising to me, I had intended to give advice that would benefit them long term by changing their culture for the better. Careful application of almost any kind spiritual principle will do that. I looked to see the spiritual basis of their most pressing difficulty and tried to correct it with the simple advice I gave.

    Perhaps more examples will make that clearer. This example came from a village in Europe where people were poor and oppressed by their government at the time. I was there to rescue some dissents and bring them back to the CIA. In the normal course of doing that I learned that their village had a problem with its water supply. The simple way to address it would have been to replace the pump. That was not the solution that I thought was most beneficial in the long run because it would be temporary and not correct a problem in social justice. One family, the one who had the pump house was using almost all the water to irrigate their fields, while other families got none for their fields. I suggested a different way for them to use the land so that a short trough from a local stream would irrigate all of their fields. It meant two things; the land would have to be swapped around and people would have to cooperate in building and maintaining the trough. Everyone would benefit each time anyone irrigated one field, all would get irrigated. That project created an enormous amount of good-will in the village because it was designed properly. The result was an increase yield per acre and a more forest was allowed to grow over unneeded farmland. The population shrank about 10%, not due to migration to cities, but due to contentment and fewer children.

    Here is another example. In this village the primary problem was bickering and power struggles. The mayor had alienated many people by insisting that he alone made the rules. He was a mini dictator and thought that served his interests. But almost no one liked him as a result. People kow-towed to him and flattered him but he was lonely and unloved. My presence in his village had nothing to do with him from the CIA’s point of view. I was there to make contact with a man from another area and I had to wait for him to show up. So, I had listened to people’s stories intending to solve their most pressing problem. What I recommended was that the villagers shower the mayor with many small kindnesses, not false words, but treating him like a true friend. I made it into a game called, “If I was the lonely mayor, I would want_____”, and I asked the villagers to fill in the blank. They had a lot of fun with the game. They had never thought of him as a lonely man needing help. They had thought of him as a terrifying petty tyrant who had to be obeyed or else. They were unable to vote him out of office, they were in a one-party system and he had been appointed. As a result of this simple intervention, people started inviting him home to family dinners. He started to thaw and become a real person. As that happened the policies he created were more humane and fair and the village prospered. Surprisingly, this village, by the sheer grace of God, went from being one of the worst in the region to one of the best to live it. I do not mean materially, I mean spiritually. What I mean by that is that people were willing to listen to each other’s problems and help each other out. This was in a communist country. People were sharing material possessions, but frankly that did not help them so very much. Sharing of their hearts and helping from their hearts was what made the difference in terms to their contentment. The population of the village also went down, about 5% judged by births, not migration. Nearby villages had an increase in births consistent with their national average.

    The long term effect of even short term love has been noticed before in sociology. In one of the Chicken Soup for the Soul books, there is a true story about disadvantaged minority students in Washington, DC schools. A sociology professors sent his graduate students in to assess elementary student’s chances of succeeding in life. The graduate students said things like “The kids haven’t got a chance, their parents are drug addicted, unemployed, illiterate, etc.”. Twenty or more years later another sociologist sent his grad students out to find out what actually happened to those kids. Much to their surprise, the kids turned out to be overachievers with many physicians, engineers, etc. among them. They were baffled. They studied the issue until they figured it out. The kids that succeeded so well had all gone through one particular teacher’s class. They tracked that teacher down in a nursing home where she was still alert. They asked her what she had done that made the difference. She said, “That’s easy. I loved those boys!”.

    Studies of foster children have shown the same thing. If there was one person that believed in them, believed that they could grow up to be a good person contributing to the society, that was enough. Just one person, out of all the people that abused them and put them down. Just one person that loved, cared, and respected them—that was all that it took.

    Now, that I have told you that, I can tell you another hard to believe story about those studies on population control. This was part of a population control study that was prospective in which the task was to decrease population growth. In this study, my methods were pitted against the usual CIA methods of war, famine, and destruction of the culture. I was told to “do my magic” on a village on the outskirts of the CIA’s war zone. I never traveled to that village. I merely called them up and asked for a toll-free number to be passed out along with a couple hours a week that I could be reached by phone. I said that I was a problem-solving consultant and would try to help them realize whatever dreams they had. For the next two months or so, I manned the phone during those hours. That was all the time I had for that project. I listened and helped people find the dream in their heart that could move them to take the risks to succeed. I wasn’t passing out money, or grants. All I was doing was listening, and giving simple heartfelt advice. By the end of the two months, the villagers decided to “host a university”. They did not even have a high school graduate among them, but they wanted to get an education. I asked them to figure out what a university should teach that would really help them. They designed the curriculum. It was not like any university that I had ever heard of, and that was a big plus for them. They hosted the university that they needed not the one that others wanted them to have. They invited “speakers” and kept control of the curriculum and its relevance to their lives. Neighboring villagers flocked to their village to take one and two day courses. They had many teachers that then went out to teach from village to village. There were courses on how to be a mid-wife, on how to raise livestock, on how to write down their life stories, on how to raise children, and on how to set up small businesses. That village became prosperous. It also had a decrease in population naturally. That moderation of population, like in First World educated cultures was long lasting.

    My intervention cost next to nothing—not even a single plane ticket. The war dragged on for years, cost the US taxpayers a lot, and did not decrease the population growth rate, only decreased the numbers in the population. It just trimmed the rose brush and made it grow. Actually, it left an ugly landscape, despair, and suffering. When one trims a rose bush you get lovely roses. After a war, you get a bumper crop of children, but not happy healthy ones usually. One get children missing limbs due to landmines, and birth defects from defoliants and depleted uranium. War is not good for growing children. It is not like pruning is to rose bushes, I was wrong.

    In one of the last population growth studies I did at the CIA, the question being studied was “Could others get results like mine?” That study used intelligence officers, trained murderers and assassins. We all have that “soldier” inside of us waiting to come out if we get put in bootcamp. I gave them a different kind of bootcamp. It was only a week long and it was mainly changing their hearts and minds; I don’t like physical exercise much. After that week was over, they manned a phone line to a village a couple hours a week like I had years before. The birth rates were studied for several years after that. Their listening and helping people problem solve also made a difference, depending on how they did it. If they were authoritarian, the villagers felt threatened even at a distance and the population growth rate went up. If they were loving and helped by supporting the goals of the villager, the birth rates went down. One man got better results than I had. Overall, about 25% of those trained killers managed to change enough to get an excellent result, the population decreased by contentment flourishing. About 40% got the result of the population staying the same. And about 20% got no change in population growth, and about 15% made the population growth rate worse. It was still not as bad as after a war or a famine.

    The Cabal causes the very problem that they say is so serious that it requires the drastic measure of killing—their harsh authoritarian stance is a major cause of population overgrowth. Note, I did not help people solve their problems by making them lazy. Passing out money in welfare programs is not love. That is not to say that passing out money it never appropriate. When one loves someone one can see, by the grace of God how to help them. A social program without love it not much different than being given a number at Auschwitz, it dehumanizes the person. It is no wonder that government social programs often fail to give real and lasting benefits. Yet when the people running them do have love in their hearts and are allowed to give it in that setting, much good can come of it. All too often programs are rule based prisons of the mind that destroy love and prevent creative thinking. It doesn’t have to be that way.

    One of the reasons that I think we didn’t get as good a result on that population control study of my students, is that the framework was static. It did not allow my students to figure out creatively how they could best help a village. I am sure that some of them would have been best going out to a village and listening to the people while playing sports or hiking with them. They could have listened while doing outdoor work with them that helped the village. Frankly, I think that in many cases the villagers never told them their most pressing problems, and that was one of the biggest difficulty in the study. Gaining the trust of others can be a big problem, if the CIA officer has spent decades lying, conning and killing. A week of empathy training may not be enough to change a hardened criminal into the saint that they were meant to be. Since the CIA would not let me solve the biggest problem that they have at the CIA, it is not surprising that the CIA officers had trouble solving the biggest problem of those villages.

    Sue Arrigo 18 June 2008 19:05



    *****************************************

    Speaks for itself... I think.
    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  30. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    araucaria (25th November 2013), Bright Garlick (27th November 2013), Gardener (27th November 2013), lastlegs (30th November 2013), mosquito (26th November 2013), Realeyes (28th November 2013), Redstar Kachina (17th December 2013), Robin (28th November 2013), sheme (1st December 2013)

  31. Link to Post #18
    United States Avalon Member Joe Akulis's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd July 2012
    Posts
    569
    Thanks
    978
    Thanked 2,456 times in 510 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    How about we clone the planet? Make one a light earth, and one a dark earth. All the jerks get put on the dark one and they can trash the place if they want. All the non-jerks who long for something better get put on the light one, and they can turn it into something amazing, in harmony with their fellow humans.

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Joe Akulis For This Post:

    Bright Garlick (27th November 2013), Jackson (23rd December 2013)

  33. Link to Post #19
    United States Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    28th January 2011
    Location
    Park Ridge Illinois
    Age
    60
    Posts
    839
    Thanks
    27,782
    Thanked 5,819 times in 790 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    I have five sons. We stopped trying for the daughter after the fifth son. I guess I didn't help the population problem,But I came from a middle class family of eight children and thought I was downsizing....

  34. Link to Post #20
    France On Sabbatical
    Join Date
    7th March 2011
    Location
    Brittany
    Posts
    16,763
    Thanks
    60,315
    Thanked 95,891 times in 15,481 posts

    Default Re: How to reduce the human population ???

    Quote Posted by Bright Garlick (here)
    [...]

    ... this is an issue that countless alien races have had to deal with at some point in their evolution. If they found a way to live in a more harmonious way with their planet, with fewer numbers, so can we.

    [...]

    Well, we are still far from the numbers they had back then... but their solution for this sector of the galaxy was still the same...

    Quote Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
    [...]

    People were ferried in here [Earth] by the billions and the billions and the billions and they were ferried in here with boxes and they were put in boxes and stacked around and the people who were on this planet already, just caught it in the teeth, nobody bothered to pick them up. They just shot their administrators from guns and shot their control points out and they took these people in boxes and so forth and they dump them and then they set off hydrogen bombs on the top of each primary volcano there is on this particular planet and when they blew up , it blew the thetans into the air and after the bomb, an electronic ribbon which also was a type of standing wave was erected over the area. The tremendous winds on the planet blew every thetan there was straight in to those particular vacuum zones which had been created. These were brought down, packed up and put in front of projection machines [?] with sound and colored pictures. First gave them the implant which you know as “Clearing Course.” Then, a whole track [was] implanted which you know as OT II.

    [...]

    These planets averaged 178 billion human beings per planet. One hundred and seventy eight billion. There were 250 billion on this planet, the name of this planet was Teegeeak and this is known as the “bomb-place” and this is the “evil place.” This is the place [?pretty much all of it?] got smashed.

    [...]

    What this is really designed to do is to make the individual cease and desist from creation and to knock off over-population. This is one of the big ideas they had that if they just did all this then they’ll get rid of all the overpopulation. The target of this is the Second Dynamic. So it is truly Second Dynamic suppressions. For instance, you find people who are totally obsessed with sex with children, well, that is taught in R6. Nice guys.

    [...]

    Now, the net result of all of this, was to make a 75 million year vacuum. That’s as far as this part of the universe is concerned. You wonder why: “Why don’t… if there are saucers around, why don’t they land on this planet?”

    This planet, traditionally, over the various zones and area has an evil reputation. Mutineers and deserters and that sort of thing were often dumped on this planet. They’ll often come here and refuge because they know nobody’s gonna come after them.

    This planet is the planet of the evil repute and this sector of the universe has a very evil repute.

    Now, all the data which you have that was set out seventy four fluff-fluff-fluff million years ago – almost seventy five – this catastrophe overcame this confederation and has just made it an unsavory part of this universe, to say the least.

    [...]

    Glossary:

    Second Dynamic:
    The drive to survive through progeny and family as well as ensuring their survival.


    R6:
    1. a clearing process through which the R6 bank is disabled and rendered ineffective

    2. short for “R6 bank” which is held together mostly by the implant Incident I, II and III.


    R6 BANK
    :
    1. a slang term designating the Reactive Mind.


    IMPLANT (verb)
    An implant is an enforced command or series of commands installed in the reactive mind below the awareness level of the individual to cause him to react or behave in a prearranged way without his “knowing it.” LRH

    1. to plant firmly or deeply; embed.

    2. to fix firmly in the mind; instill; inculcate.

    "La réalité est un rêve que l'on fait atterrir" San Antonio AKA F. Dard

    Troll-hood motto: Never, ever, however, whatsoever, to anyone, a point concede.

  35. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hervé For This Post:

    Bright Garlick (27th November 2013), kanishk (26th November 2013), sheme (1st December 2013)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 10 1 10 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts