| Author | Message | ||
    Ramirez Member Post Number: 9 Registered: 06-2008 |
Population reduction is a noble concept but how are the details worked out in the "green room" where we wait between incarnations ? If suddenly were to be some huge disaster or the magical figure of a stable sustainable 500 million was reached then I imagine the cycling rate between incarnations would go from the optimal 152 years to about 2000 years if everyone waited their turn. If so very few today are aware of even the basics and muddle on preoccupied with materialism any effort to advance the race's enlightenment would take an awful long time particularly if the ding dongs running religions & the new world order prevail with their "control freaks rule" visions. Say something knocks down most of the 7+ billion. Who stands first in line to reincarnate ? | ||
Marcela Member Post Number: 15 Registered: 06-2008 |
Earthling: Yes, we don’t need to be scientists to notice changes in nature and observation is the first step to discovery. This is what many people are losing because they are too busy with their lives and problems or having too much fun, and people are leaving knowledge to scientists. I was wondering the other day if nature really has a mind of her own and retaliates against us, and I wanted to quote the conversation because this confirms that overpopulation may be triggering all kinds of epidemics to lower the number of humans. For example, cancer is in the rise these days, and asthma. Many children are having cancer and I know at least 5 people that have/had cancer. Global warming, which is a consequence of overpopulation, is triggering hurricanes and more rain all over the world. Yet, earthquakes, on the other hand, are responsible for the existence of the Andes and Alps, for example, they grow a few inches over time due to movements of lava underneath that we can’t tell. In some millions of years, California could be an island due to earthquake activity, and so on. This happens in a natural way, but Billy once said that even we can trigger earthquakes due to dropping of powerful bombs. Yes we are destroying what took Creation billions of years to create. mb | ||
Norm Member Post Number: 1189 Registered: 02-2000 |
AUDIO - Immigration & Overpopulation - Frosty Wooldridge (8-11-08) http://tinyurl.com/56we49 My Website | ||
Mike_hooten Member Post Number: 29 Registered: 11-2006 |
TOWARD DECENT LAWS OF PROCREATION Hi Folks, Been studying our future 2 child world. One of the big (semi-legitimate) reasons people want more than 2 children is to have that boy or that girl. Today gender can be determined at 6 weeks therefore we are still too late to avoid "murdering" the embryo a family might want to terminate under the chance that the next pregnancy will be the gender it wants. (Mr. Meier says 4 weeks is limit.) Also Gender pre selection is now at the stage essentially of sperm sorting or artificial insemination. Semjase says that artificial insemination degenerates the species' so we disallow that. My guess is that sperm sorting is similar so we outlaw that. Unless we can put a sperm sorter in the canal? So if technical levels don't change (and they will change) what would the state that has outlawed abortions after 30 days do to help a family with 2 girls have a third child that is a boy (or vice versa)? Before we look at that lets ask; "What if the state doesn't allow any third pregnancies, what is the chance that the grandchild will be of a different gender?" In answer: If the two girls each marry and each have two children then they each will have either BB BG GB or GG. The probability that they will have only girls is 25%. The probability that they BOTH will have only girls is 25% x 25% or 6%. Sooo if granddad will hang in there with his only 2 daughters he will have a a 94% chance of having a grandson!, by my calculations. The opposite is also true where a daughter is wanted. I think that here is one teeny teeny advantage of our short life spans. We get pregnant so fast here that he will get his grandchild soon! But what if some dad really wanted a son anyway, or the mother a daughter? Can the state allow for him and his wife to have a 3rd pregnancy, considering the state is now trying to strictly maintain or reduce population by humane and fair means (that is by prohibiting 3rd pregnancies to families?) Waayyall, perhaps we will allow the family with 2 girls who want a boy or a family with 2 boys that want a girl to purchase the PRIVILEGE of procreating a third child (the 3rd child is a PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT SO WE CAN REGULATE THAT.) If we were to make a "privilege fee" of 1000$ then probably most people would go for it but if we made a privilege fee of $5000 many wouldn't and would wait for the grandson. But this privilege fee "should" cover at least some or most of the extra costs to society of that third child, more hospital fees more schools more roads etc., so a privilege fee of $5000 - $10000 to me seems more fair. What is the probability that he and his wife will have a boy on this third pregnancy? 50% . Not great odds. Perhaps the state can charge $10000 for the privilege fee and if he doesn't get a boy he gets 5000 back? Or vice versa if he only has boys and wants a girl. Even if he does have the girl, having a girl will increase is chances of having a grandson, if all three daughters have 2 children; from 94% to 100%- ( 25% x 25% x 25%) or 98.4%. So in summation based on the information Mr. Meier has given us I would recommend the following laws: 1) no artificial insemination 2) outlaw abortions after 30 days of conception 3) no more than 2 children 4) if both children are of the same gender then the privilege of a 3rd pregnancy can be purchased from the state for $10,000 what do you all think? I am all ears> your friend, mike hoot. | ||
Adysor Member Post Number: 80 Registered: 03-2008 |
What I think is that people should not complain and accept either the baby is a boy or a girl... People should let it be natural... Adrian. | ||
Marcela Member Post Number: 21 Registered: 06-2008 |
Hi Mike, It is an interesting way to solve the problem of couples wanting to have a child of either gender. This is my point of view about regulating births; and take it from a new mom, who wanted a girl very bad. Why I wanted a girl, because I wanted to do girl stuff with her in the future. The truth is that I was thinking in a complete material way and not thinking that you never know how your kids are going to turn out. The thing is that I got my girl! When I went to the sonogram technician and she told me that it was a girl, I was thrilled until my doctor told me that there is a 25% chances they might have made a mistake. He said that in 20 years of being an ob-gyn, he saw many sonograms make mistakes, and he had the stories. Then I thought that all I wanted was a healthy baby. If I have a second baby, probably not, I will never desire any gender anymore because it is another way to satisfy your materialistic desires that you want to live through a child, and that is plain wrong. Sorry I am being harsh, but I read that in India many girls get aborted just because they are girls, and there is a female depopulation in some towns, so the many boys won’t have brides to marry. Just an example: A friend of mine told me that his sister had two boys. She wanted a girl and they got pregnant again. Later she discovered that she was expecting twins! Twin boys! We should regulate births in a different way, and you are very right: having children should be a privilege not a right. Mike, I have a very important question for you: Under which circumstances is abortion ok according to Billy? For any reason or specifics reasons?, for example, early detection of abnormalities, like I went through those tests when I was expecting. I would appreciate any info  Marcela | ||
Redbeard Member Post Number: 22 Registered: 04-2006 |
If you contemplate what is happening in China as they supposedly only allow one child. If they are disposing of the girls to allow for the family name to continue on then you have a possible scenario of a large portion of the population of spoiled only children boys with not enough brides to go around when they grow up. | ||
Mike_hooten Member Post Number: 30 Registered: 11-2006 |
Hi Marcela, Wondering what embryo Mr. Meier would abort is a good question that i have wondered too. My small readings of the contact notes have told me nothing. Mr Meier has an handicapped child. Not severely handicapped. IF Mr Meier had known that his child was going to be handicapped from birth and IF he had known that before 30 days after conception,AND had a chance to terminate it before 30 days would he have aborted? My guess is NO he would NOT have. I wonder what the Pleiadean Federation Recommends to its various Worlds in this issue? Some people claim that some birth defects are very painful to the person. In that case? A case where caring for the person is beyond the means of the family and can only be done by the state? A case where we do not want this defect to get into the gene pool? That case can be solved by asking the handicapped person to not have any biological offspring...??? What do you think? Mike | ||
Markc Member Post Number: 677 Registered: 06-2000 |
Hi Mike ; I think your'e talking about someone's family . Maybe upon thinking it over carefully , you would take the dignified high road . It's worth considering , and no offence to you , by the way , it's just my way of thinking , feeling and acting . Regards , Mark Mark Campbell | ||
Markv New member Post Number: 4 Registered: 08-2008 |
Hmm, it's my understanding, based upon the contact reports, that the "spirit" enters the body on the 21st day, after conception; so I'm curious as to where that 30 day figure came from... It's now possible, in some cases, to determine if one is pregnant at around 2 weeks after conception. So, if that's done, then it, possibly, opens up a 3 day window (a conservative estimate, since the actual date of conception would likely be off a little bit) for an abortion. Anyways, perhaps one could look at their family history in order to determine the probability of any birth defects. This won't always be accurate, of course, but it'd give a better idea of the probability of such things. Although, that could be compounded by the fact that many chemicals, to which we are exposed, can cause chromosomal damage. Something else that, possibly, should be watched for, other than the possibility of birth defects, is the gene that has supposedly been linked to addiction. I plan to ask Mr. Meier if he has any information about this when (hopefully) that section is opened up again. Concerning pregnancy & birth control in general: There should definitely be a greater "push" to remind people of emergency contraception ("the morning after pill") which can actually be taken up to 5 days afterward, but its effectiveness is lowered exponentially w/ each passing day. Unfortunately, it has been erroneously/slanderously labeled as an "abortion pill" (by some). In reality, it works in the same way that other birth control pills work (by preventing the egg from being released, so that it never makes contact w/ the sperm). I'm constantly amazed by how many people have, either, never heard of EC, or have fallen victim to believing the slanderous allegation that it is an "abortion pill". It should be stressed, though, that emergency contraception, is less effective than being on "normal" birth control pills, so it should not be relied upon as a steady means of contraception (among other reasons). That's all just regarding birth control, though, and doesn't really have anything to do w/ the danger of STD's. I've been struggling a bit over whether we all should, instead of perpetuating our own egotistical desire of passing on our genes (whether they be healthy or not), look more towards the option of adopting healthy children. Of course, many problems could arise from this, as well, but I'm thinking that it's something which should be considered... Honestly, I think that, when I'm actually ready to raise a child, my ego will get the better of me on this one  . Any thoughts on this? | ||
Rarena Member Post Number: 335 Registered: 10-2005 |
Dear Mike, It's 21 days from conception to first heartbeat when it is not murder to abort the pregnancy. It is my understanding most people would find not aborting a pregnancy very fulfilling in the long run. People who have disabled children, it is my understanding, actually love that person very deeply and it is a good experience for them. A pefect life will never be found on Earth. Even though an easy life may prove more easy, a more difficult life or more difficult spouse or child will only allow you to evolve more (A.I. The purpose of life). As to Billy, a prophet...it is my understanding from what I know about him... he would allow Creation to follow the path and like Ptaah's medical scientists who offered to repair his arm, he would not allow it... in order to gain wisdom by enduring it. Retarded or handicapped children could be new spirits that Creation has introduced to humans knowledgeable or wise enough to care properly for them. Many people who care for these children are great,wise and loving people, what does that tell you? | ||
Marcela Member Post Number: 22 Registered: 06-2008 |
Mike: The other day I was thinking about abortion and what is the advice that the Plejaren/Billy have for us. Because in the USA, they run a few tests to find out some conditions that the baby might have, and doctors give you the option of terminating the pregnancy. I had no idea they could do this and frankly I wouldn’t know what to do then. Now that I know that every Creation’s creation is perfect because every human has a spirit, abortion is committing murder. I read about the 21 days and when I read about Billy mentioning abortion, I wanted to know when it is correct to do that. In my country they don’t have any test like that at all. Like my cousin, she is handicapped and we love her very much, it would be sad not to have her with us. It is a lot of work to care for my cousin, and my aunt has no time for anything else, but in a way like Rarena says, it is a blessing because your spirit grows immensely when you care for a handicapped person. It is a tough life, I am not going to lie to you, but on the other hand my aunt never lost a night of sleep waiting for a teenager to come back from a party and worried about drugs and alcohol, etc. So, be sure that my next question for Billy will be about abortion. Plejarens have super advanced science, but they never use it against laws of Creation, like in vitro fertilization, so it would be interesting to know what they have to say about this. Markv: Great to see you on the forum, it is always very nice to see new members; I am new too. According to the Plejarens, we should stop having babies for a few years. It is not happening; a new baby boom was registered in the USA, ( I am part of it, ) and it would be hard to convince people of that; nevertheless, we could start by cutting the number of births, for example to one or two per married couple; couples should pass a criteria and have the economic means. Because I think that having children in poor countries is a form of child/women abuse. The problem is that effective birth control is expensive! I have good insurance, and the co-pay is a lot. Here in the USA many citizens and of course illegal immigrants have no access to health insurance. This is the problem; many women around the world would do anything to have access to effective birth control. Again, this is governments not caring for the people. Mark, if you ask Billy, what would be your question so we don’t repeat.  Marcela | ||
Mike_hooten Member Post Number: 31 Registered: 11-2006 |
Hi All, I guess i stand corrected...21 days. My girlfriend Karen had told me she thought the spirit-inhabits time was when the heart started beating....guess she was right too. thanks to all for the wise feedback. mlh | ||
Markv Member Post Number: 5 Registered: 08-2008 |
Oh, hi Marcela! Yeah, I don't plan on raising any children until I'm ready (financially and psychologically) which I'd guess will be close to the age of 30, which has, coincidentally, been suggested by Mr. Meier and the Plejaren. (I'm almost 24 BTW) Still, I find it to be a bit egotistical in insisting upon having our own children (passing down our genes) since the uninformed (and irresponsible) are going to continue having, and then selfishly insisting upon raising, their own children even though it's quite obvious that they are not ready to do so (financially and psychologically). Whether those people have the ability to acknowledge this or not is a different matter. Luckily, there's a large number of such people who, unselfishly, DO acknowledge that they aren't ready, and so they put their child up for adoption, often (and preferably) while they are still pregnant with it. At the same time though, I fear that I, and my theoretical future wife , will likely be overcome by ego and decide to have our own child (children), so I completely understand where others are coming from. Judging from my family history, I seem to have healthy genes, aside from, possibly, this theoretical "addiction gene"... Concerning the theory on this alleged genetic predisposition for addiction: This genetic predisposition doesn't always get passed down (I've heard that there's a 50% chance, for each child). The theory also incorporates a type of equation of what results in going towards substance abuse: genetic predisposition + significant childhood traumas (that 2nd factor seems to be relative, and so it's difficult for another person to identify at times). Luckily, it seems that many such traumas can be addressed in psychological therapy, such as cognitive behavioral (CBR) therapy and, my personal favorite, EMDR (although this seems to work best in conjunction w/ CBR). Concerning psychiatric (prescription drug) therapies: I've noticed that people are, more often than not, put on prescription drugs without ANY proper neuro-psychiatric testing in order to determine whether they actually have any of the alleged chemical imbalances. IMO, the psychiatrists who do such things are criminally negligent, by not even advising that neuro-psych tests be done in order to prove that their diagnosis is accurate before putting their patients on such powerful medications. Anyways, I do realize that all of the above is just my opinion, but in its defense, this IS based upon what I have found to be accurate information (much of which comes from 1st-hand experiences, some of these being my own). Incidentally, I've been studying theories about addiction, and how it's dealt with, for the past few years, and as a result, I'm confident that I would able to recognize it relatively early (based upon behavior), and also the ability to help to steer the child away from fully expressing it, or at least from expressing it by using destructive chemicals (drugs & alcohol), and instead, in healthy physical activities. (All the while encouraging them to keep their ego in check, of course.) A really good example of this would be the case of Jack Osbourne's victorious battle with substance abuse. Alright sorry, enough of my rambling. My question (minus the formalities) would be: Do you, or the Plejaren, have any information about this genetic predisposition that is being linked to addiction by our scientists? It is my understanding (based upon the current scientists' theories) that the most "effective" warriors tend to have it, and, as a result, have the tendency to seek intoxicating chemicals such as drugs and alcohol, and even the body's naturally produced chemicals, such as adrenaline (this theory being exemplified in the Viking warriors' infamous "Berserker rage"). So more specifically: Do you believe that this theory about a genetic predisposition is accurate, and if so, is this one of the modifications with the purpose of making earth humans a more aggressive (war-like) people, or is this just a completely natural mutation? | ||
Markv Member Post Number: 6 Registered: 08-2008 |
Oh, and sorry mods if I seem to be getting a bit off topic here. It just seems to me that these traumas, and/or behaviors associated with addiction in general, play a key role in overpopulation. My reasoning behind this is that people who often seek out instant gratification from chemicals, both naturally produced by one's body (i.e. endorphines), and those which are ingested (i.e. drugs and alcohol), tend to have their judgment clouded as a result. This can (and often does, I'd argue) precipitate unexpected and unwanted pregnancies. On a side note: It also seems that this culture mixes heavily with that of materialism, but that subject is definitely off topic here, so I won't go any further. | ||
Edward Member Post Number: 1176 Registered: 05-2002 |
Hi Mike and All..... Well, I would agree with Semjase. The term - artificial insemination - does speak for itself(: being Artificial); is NOT Natural procreation...in procedure and processing. Kidda, COLD...without Love, Tenderness...etc. Just put in the womb of a mother/woman to please herself or need( i.e. not being able to have offspring through natural procedure...for instance. Have known a woman whom processed that procedure. Than it may be a proper solution, for the mentioned. And if we were to live in a future with very dictatorial rulers, they might want to artificially inseminate(with only strong gene pool, application), to generate their Slaves to be, whom they need to do their ill practices(: just like the Creatoroverlords, did.). And even Overpopulate the planet, even more, once again! Thus, this....we too have to take into account. And I would agree with Adrian. We should just take the new born child as-it-is , in gender; I love surprises! Just as many others do. I think the woman I mentioned above...even had one boy and one girl, as far as I can recall. They came into the world as 'twins', I think; which was unexpected. Edward. | ||
Marcela Member Post Number: 24 Registered: 06-2008 |
Dear MarkV: I was ready to answer to your post, and I noticed that the "Questions for Billy Meier" is open now; so I wanted to tell you that I have asked some very different questions, so if you want to ask him about overpopulation topics or other questios, do it now, they close it very soon. Marcela | ||
Marksmanr Member Post Number: 32 Registered: 02-2008 |
This is something I have been thinking: With the great overpopulation, what would happen when we leave Earth/the Sol star system permanently to another planet/planets in another star system (due to our dying sun)? The migration process would have to take at least a few centuries, because we would have to wait for every single spirit form to reincarnate then move to the new planet, unless we had the technology to move spirits directly. Reece Stiller | ||
Norm Member Post Number: 1200 Registered: 02-2000 |
Reece, The Spirits will move on their own to the nearest planet with human life. There's no need to move them. My Website | ||
Adysor Member Post Number: 104 Registered: 03-2008 |
if there weren't any human beings living on Earth than the spirits would travel to the nearest planet which holds human life form...(looks like you are afraid to let go of the spirits) they are just spirits and will continue their evolution in another world. The only way to keep the spirits is to have a big ship near the Earth(like a small town) where people would live for a century in order to have the spirits reincarnate on the ship. Once a baby is born, they can transport him and his parents to the other planet(that's the technology )Adrian. | ||
Marksmanr Member Post Number: 33 Registered: 02-2008 |
Yeah, I knew that the spirits would just go to the nearest planet with human life, but I thought about not wanting to abandon them due to me thinking that it would be preferable to bring all the spirits, even though (and as I have re-realised) it doesn't matter anyway. This would probably be something people will discuss in the future when this time comes... Reece Stiller | ||
Hector Member Post Number: 413 Registered: 04-2006 |
I think there should be technological and scientifical ways to move the spirits from an endangered planet to another habitable planet. And highly evolved civilizations help/assist when unprecedented cosmic catastrophies occur. The plejarens would lend us a hand, and we terrestrials will rescue other civilizations from cosmic disasters in the future. Of course, this spirit transportation should be the last option to be considered, only in case of real emergency... | ||
Gaiawingz Member Post Number: 13 Registered: 01-2008 |
I'm surprised no one seems to have mentioned the most simple and straight-forward method for controlling the population in a humane fashion; chiefly, controlling who does and does not have children via reversible sterilization methods. While the technology to do this may not be public yet, I am certain it exists or will exist in a very few short years. It would be most humane to implement a form of sterilization in all people, probably around the on-set of puberty or just before, which could be reversed in the event that they prove themselves capable of adequately raising children. I can already hear the PC and democratically-minded people screaming about the breach of 'fundamental human rights' which this would entail -- but to them, I should simply address the question: what of the hundreds of millions of children (likely billions, really) who are born into sub-prime and downright inhumane circumstances which entail their suffering, their neglect, and their abuse, oftentimes through intentional means? When do the very real rights of the child factor more importantly than the imagined 'right' of every person who can combine a sperm and an egg in a uterus to have children? It is unacceptable to continue to condone the suffering of millions of people simply because a small percentage either escape the torture and abuse of being raised and/or growing up in a situation which is horrible, to transcend their circumstances and turn out as true human beings. Frankly, it's not a human right to have children, and most people should not be allowed to reproduce -- simply put, they are not ready and they will fail, in multiple respects, to raise their children properly. If people were simply sterilized from an early age, there would no longer be a need for abortions, and many, many people would be released from the inherent sense that they must reproduce simply because it is expected from them by society or their family, etc. Naturally, there would be fewer qualifying criteria for people who wish to adopt children who are already in this world and who are unwanted or have been orphaned -- but to bring more children into the world, one should have some very good reasons and be of a qualified character for the duty. - Of course, I am aware that Billy does not publicly advocate this. In fact, what he advocates is probably even more humane and well thought-through, but what Billy advocates is often, demonstratively, ignored by the masses of the Earth's population. In light of their unwillingness to submit to his advice, I think that really the most humane way to deal with these billions upon billions of uneducated, blind, willingly-self deceiving imbeciles is simply to take away their 'right' to reproduce until they prove themselves worthy of it. Many, many people would never (given the kind of criteria I would establish in such a system) be allowed the privilege of reproducing. There are already so many hundreds of millions of unwanted and orphaned children that the majority of people who wish to reproduce would be directed toward adoption if they want children so badly. Truly, it's just a matter of objectivity that parents who cannot afford to feed, clothe, house, or educate their potential children should not be allowed to have them. People who suffer from insane delusions and who are demonstratively abusive and lacking in self control should not be allowed to have children. Those who have contracted AIDS should not be allowed to reproduce, as not only are they likely to infect their offspring, but they cannot commit with certainty to being there for their children since AIDS makes one especially vulnerable to untimely death. There are many things which should prohibit one from having children -- and even among those who fulfill such criteria, each woman should have no more than three children, but generally probably just two. Food for thought. Peace, - Gaia (I think this was accidentally submitted before I finished. Please post this one and discard the earlier if it went through, as it was incomplete. Thank you.) |
