Thread: The Most Important Question of the Century

Without watching your video, I would say, tar and feather every politician, judge and lawyer. The world would be humming along very nicely in a short amount of time.

Originally Posted by Miner123

Without watching your video, I would say, tar and feather every politician, judge and lawyer. The world would be humming along very nicely in a short amount of time.

Sounds like a good plan,I second that!!!

Well i'm happy i do not have to live next 100 years, but sorry for the kids because of the mess we leave them.

this old world has been around for a long, long time and it will be around for a lot longer and we will survive just fine.
we have had naysayers say we would not be able to fish the oceans by the year 1990(ted danson and the save the ocean crowd) and we are still doing good. we have had naysayers say that the exxon valdez was the end of life and fishing for that area and things are turning around(some from man's help and some from nature) we have survived every one of these outlandish claims and we will do so in the future.
do we need to change some of our habits? probably so. but first and foremost we will survive as always...

Originally Posted by 59caddy

we have had naysayers say we would not be able to fish the oceans by the year 1990(ted danson and the save the ocean crowd) and we are still doing good.

Doing good? The oceans are being over fished.

Only 10 percent of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—are left in the sea, according to research published in today's issue of the scientific journal Nature.

That was from 2003

Sadly, I think that Mr.Hawking's brain disintegrated long ago.

Maybe he's on crack.

Is he hoping that 'aliens' from outer space will help 'save' us.

Does he have any real idea what it would take to try and feasibly go and try to set some of us up somewhere else in the galaxy or universe?

Or is it that he, like many, has bought into this false idea that there are too many people on the planet? Is that the answer? We need fewer people. Of course there are those who propose exactly that, like getting rid of about 85% of us. Well, just let them lead the way, them first.

Does any sane person think that the Extremist Leaders in the Middle East can be trusted or will back off on the pursuit of nuclear weapons? Or that any others such as the Russians or Chi-Comms could really be trusted in any kind of disarmament deal?

Come on X, did you really mean to put this on the 'Joke Thread'?
Now I am really starting to wonder about you man.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Does he have any real idea what it would take to try and feasibly go and try to set some of us up somewhere else in the galaxy or universe?

I'm sure he does.

Are you saying we shouldn't try for goals that are too hard? That sure is a good lesson for our kids.

Originally Posted by ControlFreak1

Or is it that he, like many, has bought into this false idea that there are too many people on the planet? Is that the answer? We need fewer people. Of course there are those who propose exactly that, like getting rid of about 85% of us. Well, just let them lead the way, them first.[/I][/B]

Why is it a false idea? You think the planet can sustain an infinite amount of people?

Who proposes getting rid of 85%? Or was that just a made up claim?

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

Who proposes getting rid of 85%? Or was that just a made up claim?

Sadly, it's not made up at all. A little googling on "overpopulation" and you'll find proponents such as Ted Turner who has gone on record saying that 300 million people WORLDWIDE would be the optimum number. It seems to be a common theme among the super rich. Some of them are even giving millions and billions of dollars and working with and forming new foundations to that end.

Then there's that wack nuts professor from Texas that gave a speech which received a standing O from a whole audience of other profs and scientists in which he giddily praised the potential for Ebola to wipe out much of the world's population. That was fairly recent.

"Overpopulation" a problem? Curbing population has the opposite effect its proponents tout; at the least, it reduces a nation's ability to remain viable over time and at worst it can hobble a nation beyond recovery.

Chris L

Originally Posted by NYCshaver

I'm sure he does.

Are you saying we shouldn't try for goals that are too hard? That sure is a good lesson for our kids.

How about working on reality first. With real goals.

Why is it a false idea? You think the planet can sustain an infinite amount of people?
We will get stronger taking turns giving each other piggy-back rides.

Who proposes getting rid of 85%? Or was that just a made up claim?

They have even written it in stone for all to see, it is the first of the 'Ten Commandments' of the 'New World Order' a popular place to see them is on the Georgia Guidestones in Elberton, Georgia it is known also as 'The American Stonehenge' and the first Commandment is to -
Maintain a surface population under 500,000,000

There are currently over 6 billion of us on the planet. Ok, so it's more like 92%, or more. How do you suppose that they are going to accomplish this 'First Commandment' of their New World Order Cult?

Not to mention that in comparison to the planet the people take up very very little space and a small amount of the resources. There are problems like people living in areas which are not very practical or smart to live in to raise crops or livestock, these people need to MOVE to a different area. Also, crooked governments 'use' their poor people's condition for political and financial purposes, like dooping rich countries out of billions of dollars to make them feel better - as if the money is really going for helping the 'needy'.