PDA

View Full Version : Bill Gates and Eugenics: The World Needs Fewer People




FrankRep
08-19-2012, 07:03 PM
LifeSiteNews reported (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10030810) that in 1995, UNICEF’s anti-tetanus vaccinations were found to contain B-hCG, a pregnancy hormone that can permanently sterilize women. An estimated 3 million women between the ages of 12 and 45 received that vaccine. Another UNICEF polio vaccination campaign in Nigeria was suspected of sterilizing women in 2004.


2010: Gates Foundation Explains Bill Gates Re: Vaccines Reducing Population
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10030810

=======


http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/08/GatesBill-284x275.jpg


Bill Gates: World needs fewer people (http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/bill-gates-world-needs-fewer-people/)
Joins abortionists for 'family planning' conference on eugenics


World Net Daily
Aug 19, 2012



Software billionaire Bill Gates, who previously has advocated the reduction of the human population through the use of vaccines, and his wife Melinda marked the 100th year since the First International Eugenics Congress in London with a “family planning” summit with abortionists and the United Nations.

The July 11 event, co-hosted by the United Kingdom Department for International Development, included organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes International and the U.N. Populations Fund, as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.


Full Story:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/bill-gates-world-needs-fewer-people/

jkr
08-19-2012, 07:11 PM
yeah, hes harmle$$

stay AWAY from ME freak!

Zippyjuan
08-19-2012, 07:18 PM
Promoting vaccines and birth control is trying to reduce the world population? (by the way, making birth control more available reduces the demand for the most extreme version of birth control- abortions). So how many people died this year from vaccines?

GeorgiaAvenger
08-19-2012, 07:20 PM
Promoting vaccines and birth control is trying to reduce the world population? (by the way, making birth control more available reduces the demand for the most extreme version of birth control- abortions). So how many people died this year from vaccines?

While there is a lot of evidence against Gates, vaccines actually save lives.

wgadget
08-19-2012, 07:22 PM
Depends on what's actually in the vaccine.

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=A155D113455FAC882A3290536575C723

Indy Vidual
08-19-2012, 07:22 PM
birth control != eugenics
Many vaccines could be called poison, and should be avoided*
*Consult w/ your Doctor for good advice, when he returns from his spectacular vacation provided by the drug companies. :p

FrankRep
08-19-2012, 07:23 PM
Promoting vaccines and birth control is trying to reduce the world population? (by the way, making birth control more available reduces the demand for the most extreme version of birth control- abortions).

Hey Zippy,

LifeSiteNews reported (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10030810) that in 1995, UNICEF’s anti-tetanus vaccinations were found to contain B-hCG, a pregnancy hormone that can permanently sterilize women. An estimated 3 million women between the ages of 12 and 45 received that vaccine. Another UNICEF polio vaccination campaign in Nigeria was suspected of sterilizing women in 2004.


2010: Gates Foundation Explains Bill Gates Re: Vaccines Reducing Population
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10030810

wgadget
08-19-2012, 07:24 PM
Bill Gates seriously gives me the creeps.

wgadget
08-19-2012, 07:25 PM
An oldie but goodie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064

PaulConventionWV
08-19-2012, 07:30 PM
While there is a lot of evidence against Gates, vaccines actually save lives.

Vaccines have NEVER saved lives. Historical evidence points to the exact opposite effect.

GeorgiaAvenger
08-19-2012, 07:32 PM
Vaccines have NEVER saved lives. Historical evidence points to the exact opposite effect.I went through the vaccine debate thread and never saw such evidence.

You have to be stupid to not get vaccines for most of these diseases.

FrankRep
08-19-2012, 07:33 PM
I went through the vaccine debate thread and never saw such evidence.

You have to be stupid to not get vaccines for most of these diseases.

The vaccines I'm talking about were spiked with sterilization chemicals.

Please keep that in mind when debating.



LifeSiteNews reported (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10030810) that in 1995, UNICEF’s anti-tetanus vaccinations were found to contain B-hCG, a pregnancy hormone that can permanently sterilize women. An estimated 3 million women between the ages of 12 and 45 received that vaccine. Another UNICEF polio vaccination campaign in Nigeria was suspected of sterilizing women in 2004.

GeorgiaAvenger
08-19-2012, 07:42 PM
The vaccines I'm talking about were spiked with sterilization chemicals.

Please keep that in mind when debating.

Ok.

donnay
08-19-2012, 07:50 PM
Promoting vaccines and birth control is trying to reduce the world population? (by the way, making birth control more available reduces the demand for the most extreme version of birth control- abortions). So how many people died this year from vaccines?

Media: Deaths & vaccination (http://www.whale.to/m/media2.html)

More than 2,000 vaccinated babies died: The cost of doing business (http://www.naturalnews.com/031820_vaccinations_babies.html)

Sola_Fide
08-19-2012, 07:57 PM
Same old fallacy, different day...it seems.

jonhowe
08-19-2012, 07:57 PM
I went through the vaccine debate thread and never saw such evidence.

You have to be stupid to not get vaccines for most of these diseases.

Thank you. My goodness this forum has been overrun by some pretty far out stuff...

FrankRep
08-19-2012, 07:59 PM
Thank you. My goodness this forum has been overrun by some pretty far out stuff...

Far out stuff like this?


LifeSiteNews reported (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10030810) that in 1995, UNICEF’s anti-tetanus vaccinations were found to contain B-hCG, a pregnancy hormone that can permanently sterilize women. An estimated 3 million women between the ages of 12 and 45 received that vaccine. Another UNICEF polio vaccination campaign in Nigeria was suspected of sterilizing women in 2004.

GeorgiaAvenger
08-19-2012, 07:59 PM
Thank you. My goodness this forum has been overrun by some pretty far out stuff...Often people start equating libertarianism with contrarianism.

Zippyjuan
08-19-2012, 08:13 PM
The vaccines I'm talking about were spiked with sterilization chemicals.

Please keep that in mind when debating.

Interesting. Pregnant women have hormones in them which will sterlize them.
http://www.obfocus.com/questions/qanda7.htm


Beta HCG "the pregnancy hormone" is produced by the cells of the implanting egg and can be produced in the absence of an embryo. Beta hCG can be detected in maternal plasma or urine by 8 to 9 days after ovulation. The chart to the right illustrates the normal rise and fall of hCG levels throughout pregnancy. hCG reaches a peak level at about 8 to 10 weeks and then declines for the remainder of the pregnancy [1].

http://www.obfocus.com/images/hcg.gif

Seems it can also induce ovulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chorionic_gonadotropin


Fertility


Human chorionic gonadotropin is extensively used parenterally as an ovulation inducer in lieu of luteinizing hormone. In the presence of one or more mature ovarian follicles, ovulation can be triggered by the administration of hCG. As ovulation will happen between 38 and 40 hours after a single HCG injection,[19] procedures can be scheduled to take advantage of this time sequence,[20] such as intrauterine insemination or sexual intercourse. Also, patients that undergo IVF, in general, receive hCG to trigger the ovulation process, but have a oocyte retrieval performed at about 34 to 36 hours after injection by, a few hours before the eggs actually would be released from the ovary


Aside from the vaccination fear articles, the references I find to it and infertility is as a TREATMENT for it (helping infertile couples have a baby), not a CAUSE of infertility. I also find references to it being used as a potential weight- loss drug when injected. http://www.livestrong.com/article/260418-how-to-take-an-hcg-injection/

awake
08-19-2012, 08:19 PM
He couldn't just stick to what he does best...nooooo! He ventures in to what he is the least good at: world messiah-ism. Bill, thanks for Windows, hows about not trying throw other human beings out of them over "population control".

FrankRep
08-19-2012, 08:22 PM
Bill Gates own words:

He presented a speech on global warming, stating that CO2 emissions must be reduced to zero by 2050. Gates said every person on the planet puts out an average of about five tons of CO2 per year.

“Somehow we have to make changes that will bring that down to zero,” he said. “It’s been constantly going up. It’s only various economic changes that have even flattened it at all. So we have to go from rapidly rising to falling, and falling all the way to zero.”
...

Discussing the “P,” or population portion of the equation, he stated, “Let’s take a look. First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent” [Emphasis added].


Bill Gates: Use vaccines to lower population (http://www.wnd.com/2010/03/127346/)
Billionaire advocates curbing CO2 by reducing earth's inhabitants

World Net Daily
March 8, 2010



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JaF-fq2Zn7I

DGambler
08-19-2012, 08:27 PM
If Bill is serious about this, then he should lead by example and off himself.

Zippyjuan
08-19-2012, 08:29 PM
You are mis- interpreting his quote (since part of it was left off). What he was saying that with family planning (access to birth control) the future growth in the global population could be reduced by ten to fifteen percent. He was not saying that the global population itself would be reduced by ten to fifteen precent from the roughly seven billion people today but lowered from the nine billion figure. The quote starts about 4:34 seconds into the tape. "But there you see an increase of 1.3" (in "P" or billion people added to the world).

Weston White
08-19-2012, 09:48 PM
Well, perhaps those hypocrites Bill and Melinda Gates should have thought about that before they birthed their THREE (3) children:

1. Jennifer Katharine Gates
2. Rory John Gates
3. Phoebe Adele Gates

But this is not really about altering the lifestyles of elitists, but more so about developing new and creative ways of finally ridding themselves of us “useless eaters”. Clearly, the Gates suffer from Kissinger Syndrome, now let’s seem them hastily manufacture a vaccination for that one -heh. :rolleyes:

Sematary
08-19-2012, 09:59 PM
LifeSiteNews reported (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10030810) that in 1995, UNICEF’s anti-tetanus vaccinations were found to contain B-hCG, a pregnancy hormone that can permanently sterilize women. An estimated 3 million women between the ages of 12 and 45 received that vaccine. Another UNICEF polio vaccination campaign in Nigeria was suspected of sterilizing women in 2004.


2010: Gates Foundation Explains Bill Gates Re: Vaccines Reducing Population


http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10030810

=======


http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/08/GatesBill-284x275.jpg


Bill Gates: World needs fewer people (http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/bill-gates-world-needs-fewer-people/)
Joins abortionists for 'family planning' conference on eugenics


World Net Daily
Aug 19, 2012



Software billionaire Bill Gates, who previously has advocated the reduction of the human population through the use of vaccines, and his wife Melinda marked the 100th year since the First International Eugenics Congress in London with a “family planning” summit with abortionists and the United Nations.

The July 11 event, co-hosted by the United Kingdom Department for International Development, included organizations such as Planned Parenthood, Marie Stopes International and the U.N. Populations Fund, as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.


Full Story:
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/bill-gates-world-needs-fewer-people/

Uh, if you believe ANYTHING that WND has to "report", I have a bridge for sale in New York City you might be interested in. If you bring this back with a LEGITIMATE source, then a discussion can proceed.
PS - in case you misunderstand where I stand on WND - I wouldn't ALLOW their website to sully my computer.

tangent4ronpaul
08-19-2012, 10:06 PM
Yeah - the world needs fewer ppl - lets start by putting a bullet in this assholes brain!

-t

FrankRep
08-19-2012, 10:11 PM
Ubuntu Linux, anyone?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51MXNVu%2BvsL._SL500_AA300_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0047B0U1C/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=B0047B0U1C&linkCode=as2&tag=libert0f-20)

pcosmar
08-19-2012, 10:30 PM
Ubuntu Linux, anyone?



PCLinuxOS,, but thanks.
I don't care for Micro$oft Business practices, or their product.

That Eugenics and social control is just one more thing to dislike.

thoughtomator
08-19-2012, 10:33 PM
For any non-sociopath, the solution to the burgeoning human population is extraterrestrial colonization, not killing people or sterilizing them.

ClydeCoulter
08-19-2012, 10:38 PM
There really is something to be said about population. We can't grow forever. Eventually we'll occupy "every square acre".
But I don't believe in deceit. So it has to be a choice, and some people have to think about it.
As for the "He has 3 children", that's what it takes to keep your own population at a flat line (considering 1 of the children won't have children, because of death or whatever). Two people having two children (that survive and populate) replace only themselves.

Nickels
08-19-2012, 11:25 PM
Do you disagree with him? Does the world need more people?

thoughtomator
08-19-2012, 11:26 PM
Do you disagree with him? Does the world need more people?

There's not a single human being who ever lived who has the right to answer that question for another human being.

Zippyjuan
08-19-2012, 11:33 PM
For any non-sociopath, the solution to the burgeoning human population is extraterrestrial colonization, not killing people or sterilizing them.

Neither of which Bill Gates has suggested.

Nickels
08-19-2012, 11:38 PM
Neither of which Bill Gates has suggested.

are you accusing WND for putting words in his mouth?

Look I have proof he said it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064

FrankRep
08-19-2012, 11:41 PM
Neither of which Bill Gates has suggested.
Bill Gates' goal is to drop carbon dioxide production to 0.

More people = More carbon dioxide.

Nickels
08-19-2012, 11:42 PM
Hey Zippy,

LifeSiteNews reported (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10030810) that in 1995, UNICEF’s anti-tetanus vaccinations were found to contain B-hCG, a pregnancy hormone that can permanently sterilize women. An estimated 3 million women between the ages of 12 and 45 received that vaccine. Another UNICEF polio vaccination campaign in Nigeria was suspected of sterilizing women in 2004.


2010: Gates Foundation Explains Bill Gates Re: Vaccines Reducing Population
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2010/mar/10030810

keywords : can, suspected.

Nickels
08-19-2012, 11:43 PM
Bill Gates' goal is to drop carbon dioxide production to 0.

More people = More carbon dioxide.

Quote where he said that.

thoughtomator
08-19-2012, 11:47 PM
Neither of which Bill Gates has suggested.

There aren't any other options.

FrankRep
08-19-2012, 11:51 PM
Quote where he said that.

You haven't watched the video yet I see.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I&feature=player_embedded

Nickels
08-19-2012, 11:52 PM
There aren't any other options.

Options to what?

Zippyjuan
08-19-2012, 11:53 PM
Bill Gates' goal is to drop carbon dioxide production to 0.

More people = More carbon dioxide.

I guess you haven't listened to what he said in the video. Or rather, just paid attention to parts of it and ignored others.


It is true that his goal for carbon dioxide is zero and that more people also means more carbon dioxide. Yes, he did say that. But he nowhere suggests lowering the population or trying to get population "P" to zero. He agreed that this would rise so if he wants to get CO2 to zero he has to get something else in his equation to be zero.

And as I pointed out earlier, he indicates that he would like to see people have more access to vaccines, healthcare, and birth control. In his equation, he uses P as the world's population and indicates that if we do nothing it will go to 9 billion. Then he adds that if we can allow people acces to birth control, the growth of population will be lower than 9 billion but still higher than 7 billion. "P", he said, will still rise by 1.3 billion (instead of 2.2 billion since he was starting from 6.8 billion). This is not population reduction. With family planning, fewer babies are born (by choice) but no people are killed off. He does not advocate for sterilizations either.

Nickels
08-19-2012, 11:55 PM
You haven't watched the video yet I see.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaF-fq2Zn7I&feature=player_embedded

He's talking about climate & energy, so if anything, he's talking about reducing industrial carbon emissions. Am I right? Did he say "humans should stop breathing"?

RickyJ
08-20-2012, 12:02 AM
He and all of Microsoft should build a space ship and leave then. Good riddens to them. So tired of their buggy software. I never use windows anymore, Linux only for me now.

Nickels
08-20-2012, 12:03 AM
I guess you haven't listened to what he said in the video. Or rather, just paid attention to parts of it and ignored others.


Yeah, most likely.



As I pointed out earlier, he indicates that he would like to see people have more access to vaccines, healthcare, and birth control.


And that's not what we compassionate, conservative, and Christian Americans want. We want less people to have access to vaccines, healthcare and birth control. You've heard the statistic about how doctors kill more people than guns and vaccines kill more people than psycho shooters. It's about time we acknowledge that the measure of quality of life, civilization, and a successful economy, is birth rate.



This is not population reduction.


It results in it. Which is all that matters to a pro-lifers, according to them, anybody who doesn't have 6 kids is guilty of population reduction.

thoughtomator
08-20-2012, 12:04 AM
Options to what?

Short-term memory problems.

There are few things I dislike more than someone who deliberately wastes my time. Don't get yourself on the list of people I perceive to be doing that.

RickyJ
08-20-2012, 12:09 AM
There's not a single human being who ever lived who has the right to answer that question for another human being.

Right, only God has that right. God gives life, everyone here now, is suppose to be here.

KingNothing
08-20-2012, 06:09 AM
Vaccines have NEVER saved lives. Historical evidence points to the exact opposite effect.



Yes, historical evidence. Right. Being anti-vaccine is such an arrogant, wealthy-Westerner mentality. People who're forced to endure the deadly impact of diseases that we in our country have eliminated thanks to vaccines completely disagree with your ignorant assessment.

KingNothing
08-20-2012, 06:11 AM
Thank you. My goodness this forum has been overrun by some pretty far out stuff...

Yes it has. The amount of scary people here is disturbing.

KingNothing
08-20-2012, 06:14 AM
You are mis- interpreting his quote (since part of it was left off). What he was saying that with family planning (access to birth control) the future growth in the global population could be reduced by ten to fifteen percent. He was not saying that the global population itself would be reduced by ten to fifteen precent from the roughly seven billion people today but lowered from the nine billion figure. The quote starts about 4:34 seconds into the tape. "But there you see an increase of 1.3" (in "P" or billion people added to the world).

If I remember correctly, Bill also pre-supposes that energy consumption and CO2 output are Very Bad Things and that we must, at some point, cut the total energy consumed and CO2 produced down to zero. He suggests that one way to do this is to eliminate all human beings, and then says that idea is silly.

FrankRep
08-20-2012, 06:35 AM
I guess you haven't listened to what he said in the video. Or rather, just paid attention to parts of it and ignored others.

It is true that his goal for carbon dioxide is zero and that more people also means more carbon dioxide. Yes, he did say that. But he nowhere suggests lowering the population or trying to get population "P" to zero.

I watched the video a few times. I didn't say Bill Gates wants 0 population.

Yes, Bill Gates does think the current population is creating too much carbon dioxide and will continue the heat up the earth and we must reduce the population.

FrankRep
08-20-2012, 06:35 AM
I guess you haven't listened to what he said in the video. Or rather, just paid attention to parts of it and ignored others.

It is true that his goal for carbon dioxide is zero and that more people also means more carbon dioxide. Yes, he did say that. But he nowhere suggests lowering the population or trying to get population "P" to zero.

I watched the video a few times. I didn't say Bill Gates wants 0 population.

Yes, Bill Gates does think the current population is creating too much carbon dioxide and will continue the heat up the earth and we must reduce the population.

moostraks
08-20-2012, 06:56 AM
The amount of scary people here is disturbing.no doubt...oh, you mean anti-vac people...smh

matt0611
08-20-2012, 07:28 AM
Well, I don't think we need "less people", we definitely could do with less people in poor places where they just have kids and they starve because they're so poor. I much rather make these places more wealthy but that's really hard to do.

If people want to offer voluntary sterilization to those people I have no moral problem with it as long as its not my money and its voluntary.

Tough situation.

juleswin
08-20-2012, 07:41 AM
keywords : can, suspected.

They have indeed been caught adding sterilizing agent in vaccines. You can see here


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEPm_Kjga7I&feature=plcp

Btw, I am not anti vaccines, I am just anti bad vaccines and vaccines just for about every disease one can think off. I really believe some of the childhood diseases are there to weed out the very weak from the population.

juleswin
08-20-2012, 07:52 AM
Another creepy talk from Bill Gates (not the TED talk). Start around 5:00 to listen to the question before the starts talking. His starts talking @ 5:35


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbja1mQyR_4&feature=plcp

donnay
08-20-2012, 08:19 AM
Yes it has. The amount of scary people here is disturbing.

The scary people are the ones with the God-complexes.

Gates also delivered a very odd comment at around the 4:30 mark of the linked video where he maintains “if we do a really great job on vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that [his initial 2050 global population projection of 9-billion] by perhaps about 10 to 15 percent.”

Bill Gates recently pledged $10-billion (http://www.upi.com/Daily-Briefing/2010/01/29/Gateses-vaccine-boost/UPI-72111264771681/) towards a global vaccine program targeting the “world’s needy children.”

Gates’s comment is inconvenient at best because Third World vaccination programs have a well supported linkage with sterilization. In a widely cited and rigorously documented Philippines case, that country’s Supreme Court halted a WHO tetanus vaccination program after it had been shown that the inoculations, given only to young women of child-bearing age, were tainted with a hormone that renders “a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy.” A Natural News article states (http://www.naturalnews.com/026907_food_vaccination_health.html):

In the 1990`s the UN`s World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45. The stated purpose was to protect against Tetanus or Lockjaw, a painful sometimes lethal infectious reaction to external wounds or cuts. However, the vaccine was not given to men or boys, who are more prone to wounds from cuts and rusty nails than the ladies.

Noticing this anomaly, Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization became suspicious and had the vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the WHO Tetanus vaccine used to inoculate women of child bearing age contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone that is secreted in the initial stages of pregnancy, but when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. None of the women vaccinated were told.

In 1995, the Catholic Women`s League of the Philippines won a court order halting a UNICEF anti-tetanus program because the vaccine had been laced with B-hCG. The Supreme Court of the Philippines found the surreptitious sterilization program had already vaccinated three million women, aged 12 to 45. B-hCG-laced vaccine was also found in at least four other developing countries.

Apparently, this method of sterilization has been patented (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5733553.html). An excerpt from that patent for a “birth control vaccine” follows:

Population is growing at a rapid pace in many economically developing countries and there is a continuing need of an alternate method for regulation of fertility. We proposed several years back a birth control vaccine which induces the formation of antibodies against the human pregnancy hormone, the human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). These inventions are described in patents issued in India, U.S.A. and several other countries. (Ref. EP 204566, JP 62286928, CA 1239346, U.S. Pat. No. 4,780,312, CN 8603854). We describe now another invention which generates antibody response of a long duration against hCG after a single or a limited number of injections.

Similar claims were made in 2004 (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2004/mar/04031101) during a UNICEF sponsored Nigerian polio vaccine program.

http://www.whale.to/b/bill_gates1.html

jmdrake
08-20-2012, 08:35 AM
You are mis- interpreting his quote (since part of it was left off). What he was saying that with family planning (access to birth control) the future growth in the global population could be reduced by ten to fifteen percent. He was not saying that the global population itself would be reduced by ten to fifteen precent from the roughly seven billion people today but lowered from the nine billion figure. The quote starts about 4:34 seconds into the tape. "But there you see an increase of 1.3" (in "P" or billion people added to the world).

No. He's not misinterpreting the quote. You're using a straw man argument. Frank's point isn't that the quote was about reducing the population itself rather than reducing the growth of the population. Frank's point is why are vaccines being spoken about as a part of a family planning regime? Now you could make an intelligent argument about a different way to interpret the quote but ^that ain't it. The intelligent argument you could make is obvious if you think about the question "How could vaccines, which are supposed to save lives, slow population growth?"

jmdrake
08-20-2012, 08:44 AM
He's talking about climate & energy, so if anything, he's talking about reducing industrial carbon emissions. Am I right? Did he say "humans should stop breathing"?

And why is their industrial carbon emissions? To produce stuff. Why do we need to produce stuff? Because people consume stuff. The less people consuming the less stuff needs to be produced and the smaller the overall world carbon emissions. And that doesn't even include carbon emissions from travel.

Philhelm
08-20-2012, 08:46 AM
I think we need population reduction in D.C.

ZenBowman
08-20-2012, 10:35 AM
Often people start equating libertarianism with contrarianism.

Its pretty sad when so-called libertarians are overwhelmingly opposed to private philanthropy...

donnay
08-20-2012, 11:35 AM
Its pretty sad when so-called libertarians are overwhelmingly opposed to private philanthropy...

You mean like Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller? :rolleyes:

donnay
08-20-2012, 11:35 AM
*double post*

coastie
08-20-2012, 11:52 AM
Will he and his family leave the planet voluntarily then? Oh, he meant the world needs less stinky brown people, I got it now.

Nickels
08-20-2012, 12:06 PM
Short-term memory problems.

There are few things I dislike more than someone who deliberately wastes my time. Don't get yourself on the list of people I perceive to be doing that.

this all started with you saying "For any non-sociopath, the solution to the burgeoning human population is extraterrestrial colonization, not killing people or sterilizing them."

So there are only 3 options? Move people away, kill people, or force them to prevent birth? How about teaching people to voluntarily have less children? Or is it your view that having children is always right, never wrong, and a duty? Is everybody who doesn't have 6 children guilty of population reduction? If not, is it such a crime to teach people the consequences of both sides?

Nickels
08-20-2012, 12:10 PM
You mean like Andrew Carnegie and John D Rockefeller? :rolleyes:

What about them? What crimes have they committed in the name of philanthropy?

Nickels
08-20-2012, 12:14 PM
I watched the video a few times. I didn't say Bill Gates wants 0 population.


He didn't, and we didn't say you did.



Yes, Bill Gates does think the current population is creating too much carbon dioxide and will continue the heat up the earth and we must reduce the population.

Carbon dioxide & warming the planet aside, do you disagree with him or believe we need to increase population? Will there ever be a point where you will say there is too much people?

ZENemy
08-20-2012, 12:14 PM
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/


I found this site interesting, who knows.

Nickels
08-20-2012, 12:20 PM
Well, I don't think we need "less people", we definitely could do with less people in poor places where they just have kids and they starve because they're so poor. I much rather make these places more wealthy but that's really hard to do.


What happens when you make these places more wealthy? Have you not seen what happens when we give people free section 8 housing? What happens when you make Americans more wealthy? Guess what? They demand more!

If you make starving countries wealthier, you better hope they are self sufficient or have something to sell you. Otherwise they'll demand western technology, "jobs", free healthcare and all the other stupid entitlements liberals are expecting every person gets. By that time, good luck telling them "you don't need that to survive" or "people lived find prior to information technology".



If people want to offer voluntary sterilization to those people I have no moral problem with it as long as its not my money and its voluntary.

Tough situation.

Glad somebody is willing to say it.

pcosmar
08-20-2012, 12:22 PM
So why aren't folks defending Hitler.?
Exactly the same philosophic basis and same agenda,, repackaged and reworded,, but the same damn shit.

Hitler was inspired by the eugenicists in the US,,and stated as much.. He just took it to the logical next step.

After WWII this shit went away, for a while,, only to be re-branded and reintroduced.

Same shit,,different day. Same socialist Elitist crap.

Travlyr
08-20-2012, 12:23 PM
Yes it has. The amount of scary people here is disturbing.

The amount of scary elite is even more disturbing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_rsVcAnnnw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_rsVcAnnnw&feature=related

Nickels
08-20-2012, 12:29 PM
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/

The first video repeats the old crock "every family can live in a house and yard and still fit in Texas". This is no different than the strawman that "immigrants can come, we always have space".

Overpopulation is never about physical space or survivable space, that's way sufficient, we all know that. The "problem" is, do people just want to settle for the equal space as proposed? Do people all enjoy empty spaces? Or do we demand more?

If survival were the only goal of life, and remained that way, the discussion is over. But it's not. People on this board know it. We do not simply demand to live and not starve, not freeze to death. That would be easy. We demand "jobs", we demand electricity, we demand instant gratification, choices of food, birth control (casual sex), medical attention....all of what has become the new "norm" or "necessity".

You'd probably tell me "but I don't need all that", which is fine, but you can't tell the rest of the people they don't "need" it. Or they "don't deserve it without paying for it". People are not just eating machines, they always want something. If you take that into account, overpopulation is not simply lack of food or lack of space, it's lack of ability to make everybody happy.

NewRightLibertarian
08-20-2012, 12:29 PM
Its pretty sad when so-called libertarians are overwhelmingly opposed to private philanthropy...

Nah, what is sad in actuality is the people who will rush to defend the power elite at all costs regardless of what evil bullshit they're trying to push onto mankind

Nickels
08-20-2012, 12:34 PM
The amount of scary elite is even more disturbing.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_rsVcAnnnw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_rsVcAnnnw&feature=related

He's not advocating nuclear bombs either. Put aside what you believe about climate change's cause. If Ted is remotely right about the climate changing in the next 30-40 years, what DO you propose for food production? Are we not already producing food at full capacity? Should we engineer GMO to cope with droughts, floods, or develop safe preservation techniques. Or is hemp going to solve all of the above? If so, why aren't 3rd world countries doing it? Are we stopping them?

Unless of course, there is no population growth and there isn't climate change that'll destabilize crop production (let's hope it's that simple).

NewRightLibertarian
08-20-2012, 12:36 PM
Are we not already producing food at full capacity?

No


Should we engineer GMO to cope with droughts, floods, or develop safe preservation techniques.

No


Or is hemp going to solve all of the above? If so, why aren't 3rd world countries doing it? Are we stopping them?

Yes

There are the answers to all your questions. Now I hope you stop with the bullshit hysterics.

Nickels
08-20-2012, 12:39 PM
And why is their industrial carbon emissions? To produce stuff. Why do we need to produce stuff? Because people consume stuff. The less people consuming the less stuff needs to be produced and the smaller the overall world carbon emissions. And that doesn't even include carbon emissions from travel.

Or people can simply use less, want less or be more efficient. But that's never an option for your spoiled generation who is always jealous of the Joneses or the 1%.

donnay
08-20-2012, 12:41 PM
What about them? What crimes have they committed in the name of philanthropy?


You need to do your research then, if you don't know. Eugenicists disguised as philanthropist.

Nickels
08-20-2012, 12:44 PM
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/


I found this site interesting, who knows.

I think I'm going to stop watching this series, because of this one.
http://youtu.be/zBS6f-JVvTY

This one basically advocates more reproduction. The problem with these arguments is, that they want it both ways when it comes to national borders. We KNOW for a fact that developing countries have lower birth rates. But we also know that the world on a whole, is fine. So either we believe nations and populations are equal, so we stop caring about low birth rates, or we believe there's something inherently special about developing country populations, and should be concerned that 3rd world is growing faster than us.

Also, as the cliche goes "it's important to maintain this 2.1 birth rate". But this assumes 1) people want to maintain the population 2) having the birth rate will not cause more problems 3) wars will continue 4) retirement population will not change their lifestyles.

pcosmar
08-20-2012, 12:45 PM
You need to do your research then, if you don't know. Eugenicists disguised as philanthropist.

A starting point,, one of many.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C8cC21jB9EE

Travlyr
08-20-2012, 12:45 PM
He's not advocating nuclear bombs either. Put aside what you believe about climate change's cause. If Ted is remotely right about the climate changing in the next 30-40 years, what DO you propose for food production? Are we not already producing food at full capacity? Should we engineer GMO to cope with droughts, floods, or develop safe preservation techniques. Or is hemp going to solve all of the above? If so, why aren't 3rd world countries doing it? Are we stopping them?

Unless of course, there is no population growth and there isn't climate change that'll destabilize crop production (let's hope it's that simple).

I propose a Live and Let Live World.

For food production, I propose aquaponics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaponics), greenhouses, and grass fed beef.

jmdrake
08-20-2012, 12:48 PM
Or people can simply use less, want less or be more efficient. But that's never an option for your spoiled generation who is always jealous of the Joneses or the 1%.

My generation? You don't know me or what generation I'm a part of. :rolleyes: At this point I think you're just trolling. People like Bill Gates and Ted Turner both push reducing the population growth and reducing greenhouse emissions. You can agree with both, but it's dishonest to pretend that there isn't a connection between both agendas.

jmdrake
08-20-2012, 12:49 PM
He's not advocating nuclear bombs either. Put aside what you believe about climate change's cause. If Ted is remotely right about the climate changing in the next 30-40 years, what DO you propose for food production? Are we not already producing food at full capacity? Should we engineer GMO to cope with droughts, floods, or develop safe preservation techniques. Or is hemp going to solve all of the above? If so, why aren't 3rd world countries doing it? Are we stopping them?

Unless of course, there is no population growth and there isn't climate change that'll destabilize crop production (let's hope it's that simple).

What's with all of the collectivist "we" crap?

Nickels
08-20-2012, 12:52 PM
My generation? You don't know me or what generation I'm a part of. :rolleyes: At this point I think you're just trolling. People like Bill Gates and Ted Turner both push reducing the population growth and reducing greenhouse emissions. You can agree with both, but it's dishonest to pretend that there isn't a connection between both agendas.

I don't need to know the exact year you're born. I just need to know you're alive today and enjoy using the internet.

Nickels
08-20-2012, 12:55 PM
What's with all of the collectivist "we" crap?

Oh, I see, you're not a food producer. But you consume, and the producers affect you. So there, are "we", people who consume and are affected by producers, producing at full capacity, market or otherwise?

The other "we" was, Americans, or first world countries. Are "first world country people" stopping third world countries from growing the miracle plant "we" don't allow ourselves to?

jmdrake
08-20-2012, 12:58 PM
Oh, I see, you're not a food producer. But you consume, and the producers affect you. So there, are "we", people who consume and are affected by producers, producing at full capacity, market or otherwise?


Really? So you've looked at my property via surveillance drone and determined I'm not producing any food? Get your money back on your little trinket if you have.



The other "we" was, Americans, or first world countries. Are "first world country people" stopping third world countries from growing the miracle plant "we" don't allow ourselves to?

Again, what's with all of your socialist/collectivist thinking? Who is "we"? I'm an individual.

jmdrake
08-20-2012, 12:59 PM
I don't need to know the exact year you're born. I just need to know you're alive today and enjoy using the internet.

And so are you. What's your point troll?

Nickels
08-20-2012, 01:07 PM
Really? So you've looked at my property via surveillance drone and determined I'm not producing any food? Get your money back on your little trinket if you have.

Again, what's with all of your socialist/collectivist thinking? Who is "we"? I'm an individual.

Oh, so you are producing food? So what's the problem with the question, are YOU producing food at full capacity?

Do you live in a first world country where hemp is illegal? Are you stopping any 3rd world country from growing it? Is anybody? Do you know?

I know you're an individual (oh, but that's not info I got from my drones), so whatever Gates and Turner says must not be your business.

Nickels
08-20-2012, 01:09 PM
And so are you. What's your point troll?

my point was, and has always been, that people do not want less than they do today, they probably never will. If this is a collectivist assumption, I should probably not assume you eat. This is why people who can, whether for profit or for philanthropy, wish to increase efficiency in food or energy production.

jmdrake
08-20-2012, 01:17 PM
Oh, so you are producing food? So what's the problem with the question, are YOU producing food at full capacity?

I believe in free market principles which means that I believe that people making their own decisions as to what grow or not grow bring the overall society closer to "full capacity".



Do you live in a first world country where hemp is illegal? Are you stopping any 3rd world country from growing it? Is anybody? Do you know?


Hemp isn't illegal in all first world countries. It can be grown in Canada for instance. Your point?



I know you're an individual (oh, but that's not info I got from my drones), so whatever Gates and Turner says must not be your business.

Part of being an individualist is speaking out in defense of individualism when people like Gates and Turner are pushing collectivism.

jmdrake
08-20-2012, 01:20 PM
my point was, and has always been, that people do not want less than they do today, they probably never will. If this is a collectivist assumption, I should probably not assume you eat. This is why people who can, whether for profit or for philanthropy, wish to increase efficiency in food or energy production.

And the reason you added this garbage your spoiled generation who is always jealous of the Joneses or the 1%. to your "point" was?

moostraks
08-20-2012, 01:31 PM
Or people can simply use less, want less or be more efficient. But that's never an option for your spoiled generation who is always jealous of the Joneses or the 1%.

Arrogant much? Your spoiled generation presupposes that you are not part of it, what's with the hate? I suppose you must not get out enough to know anyone who pactices voluntary simplicity or is conservative mennonite, amish, or conservative quaker? These groups also advocate small footprints. Everyone is not what the media or your pet eugenics group has fed you to believe they are for the sake of promoting this self loathing agenda that eugenicists push.




Also, as the cliche goes "it's important to maintain this 2.1 birth rate". But this assumes 1) people want to maintain the population 2) having the birth rate will not cause more problems 3) wars will continue 4) retirement population will not change their lifestyles.

Yeah, they have you pegged right as lefty troll. I met your type plenty in Atlanta. Why you hate what brought you to be on this earth so much is beyond me. I guess it's just so trendy to be filled with this hate and rage.

Oh and as for your comment about producing as mcuh as can be produced food wise...check this out:
http://urbanhomestead.org/

" We harvest 3 tons of organic food annually from our 1/10 acre garden while incorporating many back-to-basics practices, solar energy and biodiesel in order to reduce our footprint on the earth’s resources."

moostraks
08-20-2012, 01:33 PM
And the reason you added this garbage your spoiled generation who is always jealous of the Joneses or the 1%. to your "point" was?

Am thinking they didn't consider how they seem to find themselves not part of the problem would not be so obvious to you. This seems to happen to obvious trolls who play on lesser forums.:)

Nickels
08-20-2012, 01:41 PM
And the reason you added this garbage your spoiled generation who is always jealous of the Joneses or the 1%. to your "point" was?

Ok, so I'm wrong about that? Then I guess I'll stop hearing from you complaining about poverty, taxes, bailouts, and inflation. Because what's wrong with any of that unless you are jealous of the Joneses or the 1%?

moostraks
08-20-2012, 01:48 PM
Ok, so I'm wrong about that? Then I guess I'll stop hearing from you complaining about poverty, taxes, bailouts, and inflation. Because what's wrong with any of that unless you are jealous of the Joneses or the 1%?

how do you get those two views to equate?

jmdrake
08-20-2012, 05:11 PM
Ok, so I'm wrong about that? Then I guess I'll stop hearing from you complaining about poverty, taxes, bailouts, and inflation. Because what's wrong with any of that unless you are jealous of the Joneses or the 1%?

Being angry about taxes being used to bail out the greed of someone is is not called jealousy. It's called righteous indignation.

jmdrake
08-20-2012, 05:12 PM
Oh and as for your comment about producing as mcuh as can be produced food wise...check this out:
http://urbanhomestead.org/

Supercool link! Thanks.

FrankRep
08-20-2012, 06:58 PM
Bill Gates funds technology to destroy your sperm (http://www.naturalnews.com/034834_Bill_Gates_sperm_infertility.html)


Natural News
February 01, 2012


Mass vaccination is apparently not the only depopulation strategy being employed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, as new research funded by the organization has developed a way to deliberately destroy sperm using ultrasound technology. BBC News reports that the Gates Foundation awarded a grant to researchers from the University of North Carolina (UNC) to develop this new method of contraception.

For their study, the UNC team tested ultrasound on lab rats and found that two 15-minute doses "significantly reduced" both sperm counts and sperm integrity. When administered two days apart through warm salt water, ultrasound caused the rats' sperm counts to drop below ten million sperm per milliliter, which is five million less than the "sub-fertile" range, and stay that way for up to six months.

The report claims the technology is for contraceptive purposes only and not for causing sterility. However, Dr. James Tsuruta, who led the research, told reporters that it is unclear whether or not the technology can cause long-term damage, and that more research is needed to determine whether or not repeated ultrasounds cause permanent damage.

The Gates Foundation awarded 78 different research projects with $100,000 grants each as part of its "Grand Challenges in Global Health Program." Ten of these projects specifically addressed new technologies for contraception, according to TIME, including one for a pill that inhibits the growth and maturation of sperm, and another for creating chemical compounds that prevent sperm from reaching the egg ( http://healthland.time.com/2010/05/14/male-birth-control-stopping-sperm-with-ultrasound/ ).

"We think this could provide men with up to six months of reliable, low-cost, non-hormonal contraception from a single round of treatment," wrote the researchers in their report. "Our long-term goal is to use ultrasound ... as an inexpensive, long-term, reversible male contraceptive suitable for use in developing to first world countries."

Back in 2010, Bill Gates explained to attendees at the TED Conference that year his ideas for culling the world population, one of which involved increasing vaccination rates ( http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_vaccines_Bill_Gates.html ). Now, his organization is actively funding research into advanced contraceptive methods that could render individuals infertile. Coincidence?

moostraks
08-20-2012, 07:42 PM
Supercool link! Thanks.

you're welcome!!! Imagine that Nickels got banned...who da thunk that would happen? They lasted longer than I figured they would.