This is it, ATS

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

So it comes to down to a fear of the eco system failing or economics?

I think we both can see the greater motivator.

So there's an agenda to depopulate, yet the population is STILL going up and has been for many MANY years?

Whoever "they" are, they must be pretty useless at what they're doing.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
So it comes to down a fear of the eco system failing or economics?

I just said being mindful of the environment and strong economic policies are not mutually exclusive.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They are two completely different items to be considered under
this venue are they not?

I can certainly see the trade off. One to save both.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
They are two completely different items to be considered under
this venue are they not?

No. Or maybe for people who can only process one issue at a time.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Your fatal flaw is your insistence that the economy of today will be the economy of tomorrow.

If you can automate the production of goods and reduce the population because you no longer need such a large work force, you no longer need to SELL anything.

What you need is produced automatically and what you can do is limitless because the world is literally yours.

Your reliance on "customers" as a motive to not depopulate is primitive short sighted "thinking". Exactly what one gets from a person more concerned with a preferred narrative than an actual logical point of view.

a reply to: TerryDon79

This might help with the they

originally posted by: FrayedEndsOfSanity
Your fatal flaw is your insistence that the economy of today will be the economy of tomorrow.

It won't, it will be larger and need more consumers to support it.

If you can automate the production of goods and reduce the population because you no longer need such a large work force, you no longer need to SELL anything.

Sounds like Potato Socio-Economics 101. Businesses are in business to make a profit, having a large purchasing base means a stronger chance to be profitable. Sovereign states need an increasing tax base to fund policy, not having that means they can no longer afford to do what's required for the state.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: TerryDon79

This might help with the they

As I said, "they" are pretty damn useless as the population is STILL going UP. You know? The opposite of down? The anti-depopulation?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No. Or maybe for people who can only process one issue at a time.

That's not even the truth they don't have to be mutually exclusive
to be considered separately. Perhaps your the one having trouble
seeing the difference. You're being dishonest again.

originally posted by: FrayedEndsOfSanity
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Your fatal flaw is your insistence that the economy of today will be the economy of tomorrow.

If you can automate the production of goods and reduce the population because you no longer need such a large work force, you no longer need to SELL anything.

What you need is produced automatically and what you can do is limitless because the world is literally yours.

Your reliance on "customers" as a motive to not depopulate is primitive short sighted "thinking". Exactly what one gets from a person more concerned with a preferred narrative than an actual logical point of view.

The elite are dependent on capitalism to generate their wealth, no consumers no wealth.

You also cannot automate innovation, or advancement. If the elites were to shrink the population society would stagnate very quickly.

Google an old movie named Zardos. It was freely as anything, but it showed what would happen if the elite culled the lower branches of society and tried to subsist afterwards in a world where there wasn't sufficient population to keep moving forward.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Ya I know what you said.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: TerryDon79

Ya I know what you said.

You sure? You still seem to think that there's a depopulation agenda, even though the population is still going up.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
So there's an agenda to depopulate, yet the population is STILL going up and has been for many MANY years?

Whoever "they" are, they must be pretty useless at what they're doing.

It's even worse than that. The population in poor countries is growing exponentially faster than wealthy ones.

The people who would be first to be culled in a depopulation program are the ones breeding the fastest.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

The elite are dependent on capitalism

You poor dear.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

It's almost like there isn't a depopulation agenda.

#shockedface(not)

originally posted by: Randyvine2
That's not even the truth they don't have to be mutually exclusive
to be considered separately.

The issue is you and others are pushing a narrative that advocating of one necessarily means there needs to be depopulation and have supplied zero quotes by anyone pushing this line.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: FrayedEndsOfSanity

Thanks for quoting a business person who agrees with me, he understands depopulation is not a sound agenda. Maybe the woo-pitchers will see that too.

Oh how cute, you try to manipulate supporting evidence that depopulation exists as some kind of support for your argument it doesn't exist.

It's almost like gaslighting and "nu uh" are your only two positions.

Clearly the richest man in the world sees depopulation as a serious issue, but the mighty Augustus has assured us it simply does not exist.

a reply to: FrayedEndsOfSanity

supporting evidence that depopulation

Even though the population (wait for it)...











is going (wait a bit more)....












UP?