The End Of Humanity.

[justjess]

Thank you @Karlysymon

 

[Kung Fu]

The fake Hadith wasn't meant to show Muhammad actually drank. It was meant to show that there was difference of opinions on some things even among muslims.

I don't think his posts were illogical. I also don't think that the professor was lying. We seem to Be reading the same things but seeing them completely differently and I'm not sure why that is.

Showing me a fake hadith to show that the prophet drank is disingenuous when the Quran's final revelation says to stay away from alcohol. If people don't understand what the word "avoid" or "stay away" from means than that's not the Quran's problem but with the reading comprehension of individuals. This is why I tell people not get involved when they're emotional because then they start pulling out fake shit from places like wikiislam in order to prove their point because they always want to be right.

And then you and Faker He man "liked" the post even though it was proven to be a fake lol. I have no problem with that but then when KM agrees with me all of a sudden he's a blockhead and so am I by association apparently.

 

[justjess]

He wasn't trying to prove to u Muhammad drank.. your missing the point

 

[Kung Fu]

He wasn't trying to prove to u Muhammad drank.. your missing the point

I knew exactly what he was trying to do. He tried to play semantics and it backfired. That shit might work on "Muslims" like Mecca but not with me

 

[justjess]

I knew exactly what he was trying to do. He tried to play semantics and it backfired. That shit might work on "Muslims" like Mecca but not with me

You really just assume the worst in everybody huh?

That wasn't what he was trying to do. He explained ten times what he was actually trying to do. You just don't want to accept it for whatever reason.

 

[Karlysymon]

Thank you @Karlysymon

You are welcome and all the best! Please let us know when s/he arrives!

 

[KoncreteMind]

Waste disposal man, can't be outsourced.

Wasn't really talking about u just the overall tone the thread is taking.

I would advise people to live their lives however the hell they want and don't worry about the elite atleast not in that capacity. I don't think people are opting to not have kids or to have less kids because of the elite or overpopulation in any way shape or form - atleast not on a statidtically significant level.

People's family size decisions are usually based on their finances and the lifestyle the want. Kids are expensive and a whole lot of work. For instance id love to travel the world and go to law school, but I had my first son at 19 and am now pregnant again at 33 so realistically those plans/dreams will now have to be put off until I'm 51! Entirely not what I had in mind.

We also aren't an agrarian culture anymore and childhood mortality has declined significantly so the original NEED to have boatloads of kids doesn't exist anymore.

I just think it would be a whole lot more practical to figure out how to fund pensions with decreased workers then it will be to figure out how to cram all the worlds people into small spaces or to undo the damage done to the earth by large populations coupled with excessive consumption.

First off, congrats on the forthcoming baby. Is it another son on the way or a girl this time? If you dont mind me asking of course (or if you're even that far along).

I agree with your whole post to be honest (though I do think waste disposal could be outsourced). I just feel like the "overpopulation" angle starts with the elite and trickles down so I dont feel like its an actual problem because of the source its coming from

 

[Fl-Fr-Fa]

Going back to Karly's original post, I almost wanted to like it - but the issue I do have is with patriarchy that was mentioned in the article (note, I am not matriarchal either). I'm going from the viewpoint: male-active; female-supportive, and all of us have some combination of both. Further, women taking leadership roles in the patriarchal system is not the answer, because it's still the same system and at best, these women leaders are just figureheads; so patriarchy with a feminine face only causes more confusion in the chaos. To me, it's the exact same problem when women obtained the rights to vote, etc. They/we are continuing to support this flawed system of corporation-rule, warring among nations, etc. The question we can ask - do we like the world we live in today and is there common ground on the answers.

Yes, families and their importance have been lost in a big way. As mentioned, many people are not having kids due to finances - that is tragic. People who could be good parents but can't be enough of a "producer" for the system . . . Also, the fact of the system itself - I'll lump myself in there because in my 20's, I had decided to not have kids in this world, knowing it would be tough down the road when the system would try to impose its dictates on me over what I would feel is best for a child. But I also know, that that's what the elite's goal is: have less people to rule over. I don't fully regret my decision, but I love kids and like to be a great aunt! It's just sad, when people feel and/or just can't have kids in today's society, when otherwise they would have.

On the subject of greed and materialism - yes to that, but if we had less of a population, that still does not answer the inner hunger for trying to fill a void; so society in general would then just probably say give us more more more.

Thanks JustJess - I totally agree with the tax burden being shifted onto the corporations, which can be used as instruments to help those in need.

 

[justjess]

First off, congrats on the forthcoming baby. Is it another son on the way or a girl this time? If you dont mind me asking of course (or if you're even that far along).

I agree with your whole post to be honest (though I do think waste disposal could be outsourced). I just feel like the "overpopulation" angle starts with the elite and trickles down so I dont feel like its an actual problem because of the source its coming from

Thank you! Don't know yet, should know very soon though..

It's an interesting topic.. without people to labor for them and buy up their products the elite make less money so you would think it wouldn't make sense for them to want less people. The more of us there are, the more scarce resources become, the more desperate we get and the more likely we are to placidly accept peanuts and slave conditions for basic subsistence - they've been banking on that and exploiting that for decades atleast (most evident to me since crash of 2008 but admittedly I'm still pretty young) - but less people would also work in their favor in some type of revolution scenario.. So I'm pretty on the fence about the whole thing tbh, this is one where I typically just say "who knows" and proceed living my own life.

 

[Kung Fu]

You really just assume the worst in everybody huh?

That wasn't what he was trying to do. He explained ten times what he was actually trying to do. You just don't want to accept it for whatever reason.

Keep telling yourself that.

The Quran's final revelation on alcohol is clear cut but he tried to show me a bunch of quotes from the Quran, when he didn't even know how and what order the revelations were received, and a hadith that was fake in order to show me how ambiguous it was and whatnot but what he underestimated was that I'm not a watered down Muslim who's only Muslim by name. Like I said what's considered good and bad is clear cut in the Quran.

I think I've already congratulated you but in case I didn't congrats once again on the baby.

 

[Karlysymon]

Thank you! Don't know yet, should know very soon though..

It's an interesting topic.. without people to labor for them and buy up their products the elite make less money so you would think it wouldn't make sense for them to want less people. The more of us there are, the more scarce resources become, the more desperate we get and the more likely we are to placidly accept peanuts and slave conditions for basic subsistence - they've been banking on that and exploiting that for decades atleast (most evident to me since crash of 2008 but admittedly I'm still pretty young) - but less people would also work in their favor in some type of revolution scenario.. So I'm pretty on the fence about the whole thing tbh, this is one where I typically just say "who knows" and proceed living my own life.

I know, i thought so and was puzzled abit (fewer people less consumers) but they've invested so much in depopulation its hard to ignore. Just look at how invested the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is or their ilk. I think the end goal is; lord-of-the-manor and serf relationship. They end up owning everything and leave us utterly dependent on them. Patents on seeds, anyone?

 

[Karlysymon]

"When you look at pictures from the Arab spring, you see these gigantic crowds of young men, and it confirms the impression that the Muslim Middle East has a gigantic youth bulge —hundreds of millions of young people with little to do. But that view is becoming obsolete. As Nicholas
Eberstadt and Apoorva Shah of the American Enterprise Institute point out, over the past three decades, the Arab world has undergone a little
noticed demographic
implosion. Arab adults are having many fewer kids. Usually, high religious
observance and low income go along with high birthrates. But, according to the United States Census Bureau, Iran now has a similar birth rate to New England — which is the
least fertile region in the US."

https://www..nytimes.com/2012/03/13/opinion/brooks-the-fertility-implosion.html?referer=

A few years ago, in the NewYork Post's gossip column, it was claimed that Kissinger stated Israel will be gone in a decade. How and why, there wasn't much elaboration but as the Haaretz reported on Israel's fertility problems,
http://haaretz.com/study-quality-of-israeli-sperm-down-40-in-past-decade-1.275772

old Hank's prediction may just come to pass, may be not in the timeframe he put forth.

 

[mecca]

That shit might work on "Muslims" like Mecca but not with me

What's your problem?

 

[Fl-Fr-Fa]

Thank you! Don't know yet, should know very soon though..

It's an interesting topic.. without people to labor for them and buy up their products the elite make less money so you would think it wouldn't make sense for them to want less people. The more of us there are, the more scarce resources become, the more desperate we get and the more likely we are to placidly accept peanuts and slave conditions for basic subsistence - they've been banking on that and exploiting that for decades atleast (most evident to me since crash of 2008 but admittedly I'm still pretty young) - but less people would also work in their favor in some type of revolution scenario.. So I'm pretty on the fence about the whole thing tbh, this is one where I typically just say "who knows" and proceed living my own life.

I'm not so sure though about running out of resources, but we have been told that.
And yet, we could be using other technologies for energy, as has been mentioned elsewhere. We know in the Green movement, it is so political and alot of misinformation exists. Big companies just want to get a handle on it (either in reality or when a supposed shortage is created) first before they introduce options on a mass scale and then charge an arm and a leg for it.

 

[TMT]

What's your problem?

I'd say "He's a dick" but that might not be my place.

 

[Karlysymon]

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

(VHEMT) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because, in the group's view, it would prevent environmental degradation. The group states that a decrease in the human population would prevent a significant amount of human-caused suffering. ~ Wikipedia

 

[Mr.Grieves]

He's a block head because he agrees with me?

naw, because we've had utterly exhausting conversations about whether or not gravity is a thing. He's convinced it's not. Also, 'KoncreteMind' and 'Block head' are almost synonymous.

You mean the alleged professor who either lied or made a huge blunder?

I mean the confirmed and verified professor proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to exist who posted an article on the registered and accredited U of T website, who neither lied nor blundered. You saying a thing over and over again doesn't make it true. The article has been proven authentic dude, why keep pretending? And please, re-read the very short article and tell me exactly what his 'huge blunder' is, with a quote or two? If its a huge and obvious blunder, you can surely point it out. I'm pretty sure you're just misreading it, or reading something into it that's not there.

It's an interesting topic.. without people to labor for them and buy up their products the elite make less money so you would think it wouldn't make sense for them to want less people. The more of us there are, the more scarce resources become, the more desperate we get and the more likely we are to placidly accept peanuts and slave conditions for basic subsistence - they've been banking on that and exploiting that for decades atleast (most evident to me since crash of 2008 but admittedly I'm still pretty young) - but less people would also work in their favor in some type of revolution scenario.. So I'm pretty on the fence about the whole thing tbh, this is one where I typically just say "who knows" and proceed living my own life.

I know, i thought so and was puzzled abit (fewer people less consumers) but they've invested so much in depopulation its hard to ignore. Just look at how invested the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is or their ilk. I think the end goal is; lord-of-the-manor and serf relationship. They end up owning everything and leave us utterly dependent on them. Patents on seeds, anyone?

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

(VHEMT) is an environmental movement that calls for all people to abstain from reproduction to cause the gradual voluntary extinction of humankind. VHEMT supports human extinction primarily because, in the group's view, it would prevent environmental degradation. The group states that a decrease in the human population would prevent a significant amount of human-caused suffering. ~ Wikipedia

This is part of why I don't think everyone 'at the top' is in the same camp. There are the profit-driven surely, who just want more and more money all the time, and for them a constantly growing population is nothing but good news; more growth = more wealth. There must, however, be those as well whose stacks of cash are so ludicrously tall that more money isn't their goal anymore; who've decided owning their slice of the world isn't enough if the world is being trashed by all these little people pooping on their lawn. I think it's this class of person who supports depopulation efforts with a mindset not unlike 'The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement', and my fear is they may be actively engaging in depopulation efforts, such as- as Karlysymon pointed out- knowingly inundating water-sources with synthetic human hormones that botch up our sperm-counts.

While I acknowledge human overpopulation, and don't ignore the obvious impact it's having on our environment, I by no means support depopulation efforts any more assertive than awareness campaigns and free condoms/diaphragms. Any effort to 'take action' against an oversized human population would inevitably prove evil beyond all reason. Overpopulation may be a mistake, it may even prove a near-fatal mistake in time, but it's our mistake to make, and no-one, no matter how wealthy, has the right to try and correct it.

 

[Karlysymon]

There must, however, be those as well whose stacks of cash are so ludicrously tall that more money isn't their goal anymore; who've decided owning their slice of the world isn't enough if the world is being trashed by all these little people pooping on their lawn.

What i don't understand is, that while the inner circle may want the world all to themselves, they've ruined it beyond repair. Unless they plan on a massive clean-up or repair after the population has been culled to 500million. This isn't the 11 century, when the earth was still a picture of health. Trees are dying, and that is bad news. Wifi/EMF grid is killing them, plus chemtrails, that further acidify the soil. Oxygen levels are slowly going down. Fukushima radiation is being dumped into the Pacific, the list is endless. It just looks like a stupid game. Obviously earth has the ability to renew itself. I think its too far gone.

The goodnews is, we all are prisoners on this planet. No one can get off to dock on Pluto. No wonder they are burrowing themselves underground.

 

[SpectralIX]

The Tragedy of the
European Family

Emmanuel Macron, the
newly elected French
president, has no children;
German chancellor Angela
Merkel has no children. British prime minister,
Theresa May has no children; Italian prime
minister Paolo Gentiloni
has no children; Holland’s prime minister, Mark Rutte, Sweden’s Stefan Löfven, Luxembourg’s Xavier Bettel, and Scotland’s, first minister, Nicola Sturgeon —all have no children. The list goes on…Latvia’s childless president is Raimonds Vējonis, Lithuania’s childless
president is Dalia Grybauskaitė and Romania’s childless president is Klaus Werner Iohannis. And, Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Commission too, has no children and is family-less. So to put it rather bluntly: a grossly disproportionate number of the people making serious decisions about Europe’s future have no direct personal sibling, child or grandchildren’s interests at stake in that future. They are not part of a family and have come to see all their attention focused on one dominant and all-powerful social unit to which they pay obeisance and give their complete and devoted attention: The State. The demographics look
problematic. Among native Europeans, the birthrate is currently between 0.2 and 1.1. Europe is not replicating itself and will, if trends are extrapolated—
cease to exist. The numbers are disturbing combining an ageing population, very low birthrates and an inability to
pay for their rich benefits: what will come of Europe? …

http://breitbart.com/london/2017/07/22/malloch-tragedy-european-family/

I read the original post a different way and actually see it as a positive sign. The way I read it, the basic idea presented here is that much of the European Family (the "elite" bloodline) has stopped procreating. If we understand that the persons in power are all part of the same family, same bloodline, which has been in power for centuries, is it not a "good" thing that they are not procreating? We know they aren't simply persons in positions of power who would be making different decisions if they were to have children/grandchildren affected by those decisions. The decisions they make (including that of procreating) are all based upon furthering their agenda. Can we not take this as a positive sign, that perhaps their day is coming to a close and it is time to usher in a new era? Or, for those who choose it, that the "end times" are coming? For the elite bloodlines to stop procreating, it is definitely a shift to take note of and I don't feel the focus has anything to do with depopulation/overpopulation. IMO there is a much more interesting conversation we can have here....

 

[Karlysymon]

Plot : In 2027, after 18 years of global human infertility, civilization is on the brink of collapse as humanity faces extinction...