People Are Pollution

Discussion in 'Politics & Government' started by Ken Anderson, Mar 23, 2017.

  1. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    7,450
    Likes Received:
    9,810
    It has been stated by some, particularly among the elite, that people are pollution, and a problem that needs to be controlled. The arguments for this are:
    1. Pollution is increasing. People create pollution. Therefore, if we want less pollution, we must have fewer people.
    2. People destroy living things for the benefit of people. However, people cannot exist without living things. Therefore, we must have fewer people.
    3. The earth has a limited amount of land. As the human population grows, the demand on land for farming and housing grows, and this is unsustainable.
    4. Solution: The governments of the world must develop and enforce a strict population control policy, either making it illegal for families to have more than one or two children, or by imposing substantial taxes on additional children, as world-wide birth control campaigns aren't enough.
    5. Theory: Governments, corporations and the medical community are already implementing policies to control the human population through war, weather control, pandemics and disease.
    What do you think? Is there a need for population control? If so, how far should governments go?
     
    #1
  2. Yvonne Smith

    Yvonne Smith Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    4,821
    Likes Received:
    6,949
    I think that we only inhabit a small portion of this planet, and there is plenty of room left; but the parts that we do tend to inhabit are definitely overpopulated in some places.
    There are places in South America, and probably in Africa, and maybe even China, where no human has ever set foot. These could be made habitable in most cases, although some places are too hot or too cold to be easily changed to places where people could live.
    In any case, even if we did that, and made more of the world inhabitable, population would continue to increase, and some areas would always be overpopulated.
    Looking at it from the viewpoint of the elite and powerful controllers of this world, population control makes a lot of sense. since they have to oversee the working masses, they only need as many workers as are necessary for what they want to accomplish, and it is easier to keep smaller numbers under control.
    There is also the problem of people feeding themselves when a land is overpopulated. When too many people live in an area, and they can no longer grow enough food to feed people, then we have to subsidize them with food from somewhere else that can grow food. This keeps those people from starving to death; but it also allows them to keep adding to the population, and each year, they need more food subsidy. It will continue and get worse each year, but if we stop giving them food, then we let them all starve.
    I do think that some of the deadly viruses that have been wiping out overpopulated areas were probably engineered to keep the population under control. I don't think that this is right at all; but I am not sure what the answer to this problem would be.
    Moving the people to other countries where they do have food is only going to spread the problem as those places become overpopulated also.
     
    #2
    Holly Saunders and Ken Anderson like this.
  3. Babs Hunt

    Babs Hunt Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2016
    Messages:
    5,413
    Likes Received:
    6,879
    I believe what you have stated above is part of the United Nations Agenda 21 and now Agenda 30 so no matter what our own opinions are about whether there is a need for population control...those "puppetmasters" have already been at work for years doing what they can to "control" the population...the Agenda has been there for a very long time now. The problem is they are controlling the population so there will be more of everything for the them and the rest of the elite! So yes, they do see us as "polluting" their World and I think they will continue to do everything they can to rid the World they think belongs to them of all of us who they consider "pollution."

    I think if everyone just left the World in God's hands there would be no population problem...or any other problem for that matter. It is exactly because so many have tried to play God that the World is in the state it is in...that and the fact that satan rules over it right now too. But again satan is trying to play God aso...and destroy everything He has created and called good.
     
    #3
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2017
    Ken Anderson likes this.
  4. Chrissy Cross

    Chrissy Cross Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2015
    Messages:
    14,993
    Likes Received:
    13,737
    There has been population control already in most of the communist countries. It went either way too. Some wanted more little communists so it would give incentives like larger apts to families who had 2 or more children.

    Then in countries like China, who were overpopulated the goal was less children.
     
    #4
    Yvonne Smith likes this.
  5. Yvonne Smith

    Yvonne Smith Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    4,821
    Likes Received:
    6,949
    I remember being told way back when I was in school that in China, they actually used to take baby girls and throw them in the river when they were born, in order to keep the population controlled, and have more males who could work in the fields and farming. This was a terrible thing for them to do; but it apparently worked, and later the government put regulations in place about the total number of children that would be allowed, regardless of whether they were boys or girls .
    From what I have read, the Muslims are trying to have large families also, and I can see where that would fit in with their idea of dominating any country that they move into.
    America, on the other hand has had smaller families overall for many years now, and a large part of the population here are the seniors; so we will soon come to a time when white people may actually be a minority, as we get more people moving here from Hispanic countries. But, at least, we are not so overpopulated that. We can't produce enough food for the people who live here.
     
    #5
  6. Chrissy Cross

    Chrissy Cross Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2015
    Messages:
    14,993
    Likes Received:
    13,737
    Yep, I remember reading that also.

    It depends on the country what the goal is...more people like in communist Hungary or like in the Muslim countries or less people like china.

    On average hispanics tend to be catholic and have more children, at least that's what I've noticed.
     
    #6
    Ken Anderson and Yvonne Smith like this.
  7. Chrissy Cross

    Chrissy Cross Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2015
    Messages:
    14,993
    Likes Received:
    13,737
    Also, not in our lifetime but in the future if people have lots of children and people are living longer I think eventually the planet will run out of resources.

    Many reasons that could happen too...wars, Mother Nature and other disasters that I can't think of at the moment but even if we do have lots of vast open land, it's probably because nothing grows there, the climate sucks...there are reasons people don't live there...so eventually it's all going to be a catastrophe but not to worry yet...it's a ways off....hopefully. :)
     
    #7
    Ken Anderson and Yvonne Smith like this.
  8. Yvonne Smith

    Yvonne Smith Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    4,821
    Likes Received:
    6,949
    That is precisely where I was going with this scenario as well, @Chrissy Cross . Right now, we are overcrowded in some countries because there are too many people there, and the places where there aren't people are the high mountains, cold frozen places, or the hot deserts.
    However, both Central America and South America have a lot of unclaimed land that COULD be made habitable, albeit with a lot of effort. The Amazon jungle is full of dangerous creatures, not to mention head hunters, and other problems, like the jungle itself. However, centuries ago, people like the Inca's, Mayans, and Aztecs lived in some of these areas, and had even cleared the jungles back. Now it is all overgrown again; but it could be reclaimed, and restored to usefulness and produce a lot of food for people who lived there.
    The problem is that we need someplace right now for these starving people that we have been subsidizing with food and even housing, and none of these uninhabited places will do without a lot of time and effort.
    I think that this is one of those problems that simply has no good solution that re-homes these people , and yet is a problem that will only continue to get worse if something is not changed.
     
    #8
    Chrissy Cross and Ken Anderson like this.
  9. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    7,450
    Likes Received:
    9,810
    Interestingly, Agenda 21 calls for centralizing population centers in large cities. In some parts of the world, people have been forcibly moved, without recompense. In the United States, a variety of measures have been put in place. These have included making it more difficult for people in rural areas to earn a living by closing mines, wood products industries, etc. and by consolidating schools into large districts, then closing the more rural ones, as well as by closing rural hospitals or greatly limiting the available medical services. Family farms have given way to large factory farms, and this was no accident either. These steps not only encourage people to move to the cities in order to be nearer to medical facilities and schools, but these places have also become large employers. Heavy concentrations of people in cities makes them wholly dependent upon an organized system of government and commerce, as very little grows in the streets of Chicago, New York, and Los Angeles.

    In the United States, and probably other countries as well, the larger portion of unused but usable land is now in the hands of governments, large corporations, non-profits, universities, and very wealthy individuals.

    federal-public-land-map.jpg

    This map shows only the land that is owned by the federal government. Under Agenda 21, all local, state, and federal governments are encouraged to acquire as much land as possible, and they do it through direct purchase, eminent domain, non-payment of taxes, asset seizures, etc.

    When you add in the land controlled by state and local governments, as well as non-profit organizations, the amount of available land shrinks dramatically. The Nature Conservancy alone controls 119,000,000 acres of land, and thousands of miles of rivers.

    Wealthy individuals and corporations buy land as well, and for the sole purpose of keeping anyone else from having access to it. Apple Computers has been buying up thousands of acres of woodland in Maine, and they are not going to be manufacturing any iPhones there. The King Ranch alone, in Texas, is 825,000 acres and, while they do raise some cattle, what they do with most of it is a mystery. In fact, there have been numerous stories of people never heard from again after trespassing on the King Ranch, several of which have resulted in police investigations, but no bodies are ever found.

    But I don't want to digress. There is a whole lot of potentially usable land that is not available for use and, in most cases, no one is even paying taxes on it, given that most state governments offer tax incentives for landowners to protect their lands from development or use. Maine landowners can designate their land as "tree growth," which all but exempts them from tax obligations.

    Think of it. I am not a wealthy landowner at all, but I have a hundred acres of land in prime potato country. Currently, only about seven acres of our land is in potato growth, as we lease it to a commercial potato grower, but about seventy acres of my land could potentially be turned into potato fields, or could be used to grow other crops. Maybe more if I got rid of the beaver dam, which has turned several acres into swamp. One acre of land can produce from 25,000 to 35,000 pounds of potatoes a year.

    Most of what is now my land was once in tree growth, I am told, and that is the case throughout Aroostook County. Although a lot of potatoes are still grown in Aroostook County, a lot of former potato fields have been allowed to grow into woodlands.
     
    #9
    Yvonne Smith likes this.
  10. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    7,450
    Likes Received:
    9,810
    It's not going to happen, but should there be limits on the amount of land one person is allowed to own? Should universities and non-profit organizations, which often receive tax funding directly, as well as not paying taxes on their own assets, be allowed to own large amounts of property unconnected with their campuses?

    Given that the government is a large holder of usable property in the United States, rather than the taxpayers paying their way month after month after month, shouldn't the government give qualified people a plot of land large enough that they could at least grow and raise their own food, and have a house to live in? That certainly wouldn't be unheard of. Following the Civil War, freed slaves were supposed to have been given forty acres of land and a mule, although that rarely actually occurred. In the same time period, homesteading acts were enacted, allowing people twenty-one or older to homestead land of varying amounts, based on the place, but generally from 80 to 160 acres or more.
     
    #10
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2017
    Yvonne Smith likes this.
  11. Ken Anderson

    Ken Anderson Veteran Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    7,450
    Likes Received:
    9,810
    Would your country (wherever that may be) suffer or benefit from additional population?

    On a separate but related subject, here in the United States, we are always being hit up for money -- both taxes and charity -- to help the homeless, and newspapers often run columns about homeless people. It seems to me that they generally do this only in Republican administrations, but still most people agree that there are homeless people. That being the case, does it make sense to bring in more people who -- because refugees are unable to work legally for a matter of years in the United States -- will have to be supported by funds that could otherwise go to people who were born and raised here, but unable to make it?
     
    #11
  12. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,825
    Likes Received:
    3,422
    During Rachel Carson's time it was postulated that the Earth could support at least 100 times the number of human beings living at that time. Now, that is being re-thought, based not on food (as then), but rather WATER!

    As of 2004, 1/2 Billion people were on the verge of starvation, and 1/2 Billion had inadequate supplies of fresh water.
    Frank
     
    #12
  13. Yvonne Smith

    Yvonne Smith Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    4,821
    Likes Received:
    6,949
    Water has definitely become and issue, and I remember reading about that , and how rich people are purchasing land that has water and even moving to countries where water is plentiful. I think that it might be Argentina where the Bushes have their large acreage; but it might be one of the. Other South American countries that they have the property at.
    Actually, from what I have read, most of the fresh water is at the Arctic and Antarctic and has been frozen in the polar areas. I would think that this would be some of the purest water in the world, since it has not been subjected to the same pollution that all of our water down here has had over the years.
    Because of the populations everywhere being mainly in cities, they are unable to grow any of their own food, and I think that a lot of the younger people here in the United States can't even really properly COOK food from scratch anymore, let alone try to grow it, or raise it. The kids have no connection between the cow and the milk, or the chicken and the eggs they eat. A lot of kids won't even drink milk unless it comes from a milk jug, and have never even seen fresh milk with cream on top.
    All of these people have to have food supplied to them, and at rising costs. When they can't afford to buy the food they need to live, then the government comes in and helps supply food.
    We already have enough people here that the government has to take care of, and even a nation as strong as America can't feed everyone.
     
    #13
    Ken Anderson and Frank Sanoica like this.
  14. Frank Sanoica

    Frank Sanoica Very Well-Known Member
    Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,825
    Likes Received:
    3,422
    @Yvonne Smith
    Good point about the water quality of Arctic and Antarctic ice!
    Frank
     
    #14

Share This Page