Agenda 21: United Nations' erases private property for green-ism

Agenda 21 is depopulation (Free birth control! Free abortions!) and private property erasure in the name of green-ism. Anybody seen the commercials with the old people chanting, “I’ve had a good life…” As in, time to pull the plug. Buh-bye, granny, move over for Agenda 21. Does “sustainable development” have to mean population control and bureaucrats dictating land use? Comments, please.
un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml

Always hated the UN, always will hate the UN. It should go the way of the dinosaurs. :whistle:

First off I think the US should get rid of the United Nations (seems me we pay the most money to support it and barely get anything from it)

Even from a non-religious perspective controlling human population is crazy. We do not need some government agency telling us how many kids we should have. Then there is the argument that if we keep producing more kids, they will want more stuff, which our ecological footprint will be larger. Dont buy the stuff or buy less.

Further they add there is not going to be enough resources to feed us all. Alright if there is not enough resources, thus the price of water and food will go up, which then a reasonably smart person will put this into consideration on having kid(s). In other words, parents (male and female mind you) should be the only ones to decide if (key word) they can afford kids.

Another thing on not enough food resources, I find it really odd that they say there is too much carbon dioxide in the air (thus global warming) yet plants need it, however they say that there is too much carbon dioxide in the air for all the plants on the planet to consume. Seems like the best logical/cheapest/realistic solution is to plant more plants (of all kinds)

If as a Christian/Catholic I am wrong in my thinking, someone please tell me let me know. :slight_smile:

I wouldn’t pay much attention to it. In order for it to have to be law a treaty would have to be signed between the UN and united states. And it better be constitutional. All international treaties are subject to constitutional law.

Oh, I’m sure all the liberals will go for that. They will keep just enough of us Zeks around to do the heavy lifting. :thumbsup:

First it was “you didn’t build that.”

And now it’s “you don’t own that!”

There’s such a misanthropy in the people who follow this “humans are a blight on the face of the planet” line of thinking. You notice none of them ever volunteer to sacrifice their own lives for population control. :rolleyes: They just want to be the ones in power who get to tell the groups they don’t like (such as Catholics or poor people) how many kids to NOT have.

Planting more trees sounds like a wonderful idea, btw. I like trees. They also provide shade - cooling the planet, right? :smiley:

That the UN continues to provoke such drivel explains its continued irrelevance … although such an agenda, wielded over the heads of the suffering and the destitute, can go much further than it should.

Human life must be valued, period. Should we come into an inability to sustain the population without substantial environmental damage it would be far more preferable to mitigate the footprint of individuals rather than mitigating the number of individuals having a footprint.

That said, the ideals are popular among certain groups and will gain credence. These are most likely voiced in the US in the form of carbon taxes and other regulations meant to reduce, or at least make more costly, forms of environmental degradation.

I don’t see explicit population control measures taking place in the West. While policies of free contraception and expansive access to abortion have grown, the moment we move from a rhetoric of choice to compulsory sterilization after two kids or mandatory nuvarings for high school girls would mark massive civil disobedience, if not outright armed revolt.

Yep that’s what I always tell the “population-control” freaks. I love saying to them…

“Hey can you donate all your stuff and money to me when you kill yourself?..oh hey, do you want me to get my friend to lend you his gun?”

Befuddles them every time :smiley:

Catholics need to remember that babies don’t come from some random synthesis between a sperm and an egg. God must implant a soul in order for a new life to form and this is impossible without God actively willing it to happen. God also created the earth through a direct act of creation. With this in mind, how is it possible for God to create “too many” people for the earth to sustain? Is God making a mistake everytime He creates a new child? Did God forget how big He made the planet?

Put simply the over-population fallacy is not compatible with a sound Catholic faith and this “theory” invariably furthers the agenda’s of the contraception and abortion providers. If you are a Catholic who is supporting “green” charities or politicians then you need to be absolutely scrupulous about ensuring that your money/support is not directly or indirectly benefiting these illicit groups.

Why should it be constitutional?

The entire population control argument is idiotic. They’re targeting the young instead of the old and non-productive young. If their argument about us needing to have a no greater than population number is correct and their argument that we have met or passed it is correct, than we should be “getting rid of” those people whose resource intake outweighs their contributions. They’re “get rid of” the young approach makes about as much sense as a factory manager keeping an old machine that produces very little but requires a great amount of upkeep and scrapping a brand new machine that has a high installation cost, but will outperform the old machine once installed and up and running.

I don’t agree with any of the above, but if someone is going to embrace an argument that ignores the value of human life, they need to be honest to themselves and others about it. Maybe we should take a page from the movie Logan’s Run and start implanting timers into everyone’s hand.

As I mentioned on another thread when the Agenda 21 conspiracy theory was brought up, here is the real conspiracy theory:

It was a complex plot right from the beginning that would have taken beings with supercomputer intelligence to come up with, starting well before the time when the Dominators contracted with bin Laden to attack us, leading to grossly enhanced security measures and detracting our attention from anthropogenic global warming (AGW), also causing (or giving pretexts for) extremely expensive wars, throwing our economy into a tailspin, further detracting from AGW concerns.

Have you noticed how they are taking rights away from those who are least likely to believe in climate change denialist conspiracy theories & most likely to vote for politicians concerned about AGW. Check out the Constitution-free zone – see aclu.org/national-security_technology-and-liberty/are-you-living-constitution-free-zone and this image:

THE CONSTITUTION-FREE ZONE (compare it to red &blue voting maps)

Well, little by little obscure, arcane laws are being put in place that on the face seem reasonable security and economic measures, but one day people living within 100 miles of the coasts and borders, including Chicago, will wake up to find themselves disenfranchised (i.e., mainly the people not buying into the climate denialist or Agenda 21 conspiracy theories). Ostensibly this is for security measures and to ensure bitumen tar sands economic prosperity to all. Who are these “Dominators,” you ask, who are spining lies that AGW is a hoax and Agenda 21 will harm not help people? Just see how utterly effective they are in “Climate of Doubt” at pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doubt/

Well, eventually the denialist industry henchmen and fossil fuel CEOs will find out the Dominators have also betrayed them when global climate reaches some 3C warming around 2050 or so, when they can no longer brain-wash the gullible public into denying AGW bec the Cat 5 hurricanes are whirling around the Arctic while Cat 7 hurricanes are bashing our coasts and crops have totally failed due to the super heat-spells, droughts, wildfires, and Noah-type floods. These denialist industry henchmen and fossil fuel CEOs will find out too late their free trip to a terraformed Mars promised by the Dominators was not actually in the works or even in the plans.

So as we head into a runaway scenario, the Dominator supercomputer robot/androids from Area 51, who look exactly like humans, will “decommission” the denialist powers-that-be and take over the oil companies and government with look-alikes (some have already been taken over), and start implementing their plans to turn all that decomposing biota (us) into oil for their fuel. Eventually when earth turns into another Venus with 480C temps and these robots are all melted into nothing, then the Zorks from Planet Bork (who created and sent the Dominators to Earth) will have the last laugh at having destroyed a potential enemy (us), since Earthlings were becoming a bit too sophisticated in their technology and space endeavors, but apparently not in their gullibility for climate denialist and Agenda 21 conspiracy theories.

The end.

lynnvinc, can you give us more information–books, etc–on this topic, please? Thanks in advance.

nordskoven, do you have more info, other than that you’ve cited, that we can examine? Thanks in advance.

I tried my hardest to make this “tongue-in-cheek.” It came about when I was teaching urban legend conspiracy theories in my Folklore class, and I mentioned some climate change denialist conspiracy theories (some of which I’ve picked up on CAF), and told the class, “I should come up with my own conspiracry theory and see if it ‘sticks.’”

So it’s pretty much my own…patched together with stuff, like the ACLU “Constitution-free zone” (there is also some inordinate powers the gov has taken over since 9/11 & abridgement of rights in the Patriot Act & the Posse Comitatus Act (which I think was recently repealed)).

And it just so happens that Bush Sr’s 1991 Desert Storm attack came the very same night PBS was going to re-air “Is It Hot Enough for You?” – about climate change, the docu that had gotten me off my rump the previous year and into mitigating climate change, with its suggestion that the droughts in Africa (picture a starving African Madonna with Child) may have been impacted by global warming. I had written to all my reps, including my Congressional rep Dennis Hastert (a climate change denialist), who was then Speaker of the House, to be sure and watch it.

Of course the program was bumped off the air for good, replaced by the war, and there began a long silence re climate change for the next 14 years – I call it “the silent treatment.” And I used to say, if I were a conspiracy theorist I’d say they purposely chose that night for the attack so as to bump that documentary off the air and quash any mention of or concern about climate change. But since I’m not a conspiracy theorist I say it’s just a fluke…or :eek: :slight_smile:

It occurred to me you may have been referring to the “runaway warming” scenario.

At first I was only aware of “climate hysteresis” or great warmings of the past that had nearly wiped out all of life on earth, such as the end-Permian extinction when some 90% of life on earth had died (you can google it). Now that has always been a possibility with global warming. It works this way, we (or something) triggers some initial warming (during the end-Permian it was extreme volcanism of the Siberian Traps, putting lots of carbon in the atmosphere). Once the warming is underway, permafrost and ocean ice hydrates (which traps methane) begin to melt, releasing more carbon and causing more warming, causing more melting, causing more warming, etc. Also with snow and ice cover diminishing, there is more absorption of heat into the earth systems, causing more melting, causing more heat absorption. This is already well established, and there is evidence that methane is being released now in the arctic and arctic ice/snow cover is reducing. No one disputes that, and it could lead to very serious harms to human life & the rest of God’s creation.

What was new to me was the possibility of “runaway warming” as on Venus. Previous scientists had been saying that wouldn’t happen until the sun got very very hot on its way to self-destruction in several billions of years (you can google all that), and in about a billion years it would cause the earth to go into runaway warming, ending all life on earth (sort of a sad idea, but I guess a huge meteor could slam into us or God could zap us well before then – the end times apocalypse).

In 2008 I received Dr. James Hansen’s (top NASA climate scientist) presentation at the American Geophysical Union. He’s come to the conclusion that we could trigger warming that could lead to runaway warming and end all life on earth, if we pursue a business-as-usual path and fail to mitigate climate change. See esp pg 24 of columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/AGUBjerknes_20081217.pdf . He also wrote about it toward the end of his book, STORMS OF MY GRANDCHILDREN.

Now many here at CAF have totally dismissed global warming and have roughly slandered Dr. Hansen. But my tact is that since mitigating global warming saves so much money without lower living standards, and the risks are so huge, I’m for mitigating. We’ve reduced our greenhouse gas emissions and concomitant pollutions by over 60% cost-effectively and are laughing all the way to the bank, but if people want to take their money and burn it out on their front lawns (spewing out toxic pollution), it’s a free country.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.