Gates Foundation Depopulation Summit Demands Global Approval

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


I find it very very funny that when people actually do some good in the world, others look for reasons to try and pull them down.

Vaccines evil........blah blah blah

Depopulation........blah blah blah

And yet ignoring things like mass free supply of mosquito nets to stop the spread of malaria and dengue fever.

It is comedy genius in a way, even if unintentional.

First, I'd like to thank EU for being so patient and staying up all nite with me I was coming back from Austin and was limited to my S2 while driving...

ElectricUniverse has chosen to use a variety of deceitful tactics throughout her messages, however this is not the debate forum, and I will do my best to keep the message towards the topic and off the poster at hand from here on out.
-------------------------------------------------


The title of this thread is: Gates Foundation Depopulation Summit Demands Global Approval

I started out focusing on the individual statements and incorrect use of language regarding differences between "depopulation" and "population control". I was impercise enough that wiggle room was granted for her to twist, claim I was twisting, etc...

Okay, I'm taking a different approach now. What I aim to provide is a means to consciesly see the need for seemingly extreme measures in the near future for third-world countries with a multitude of problems. I believe it to be very unfortunate that these measures may be taken at all. I also believe that those who are planning for such things have a great burden on their shoulders. Nobody outside of pure psychopaths may want this to happen, "just because"..I see no good reason to think the elite are of these type.

This is certainly a complex issue. If we are to look at but a couple of angles, we will get an incomplete picture, and false assumptions are bound to be made. I will include the angle (perceptively) that EU has provided and do my best to integrate it into my overall perspective.

I would like to first point out that when you say I can make "claims" by the elite, and yet these can't refute the "facts and evidence" provided, this is illogical. YOU have chosen to quote "claims" from the elite as "facts and evidence", so...yea...

Eugenics has been around for quite some time! The great philosopher Plato was noted to speak of it. Practices that could be thought of as eugenical were found in Rome, Athens, Sparta....it's not as fresh as people think. Still, it's modern creation was the result of Sir Francis Galton, who built off work by his cousin, Charles Darwin:

After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, Galton built upon Darwin's ideas whereby the mechanisms of natural selection were potentially thwarted by human civilization. He reasoned that, since many human societies sought to protect the underprivileged and weak, those societies were at odds with the natural selection responsible for extinction of the weakest; and only by changing these social policies could society be saved from a "reversion towards mediocrity", a phrase he first coined in statistics and which later changed to the now common "regression towards the mean".[52]

Galton first sketched out his theory in the 1865 article "Hereditary Talent and Character", then elaborated further in his 1869 book Hereditary Genius.[53] He began by studying the way in which human intellectual, moral, and personality traits tended to run in families. Galton's basic argument was "genius" and "talent" were hereditary traits in humans (although neither he nor Darwin yet had a working model of this type of heredity). He concluded since one could use artificial selection to exaggerate traits in other animals, one could expect similar results when applying such models to humans. As he wrote in the introduction to Hereditary Genius:

I propose to show in this book that a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance, under exactly the same limitations as are the form and physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses gifted with peculiar powers of running, or of doing anything else, so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted race of men by judicious marriages during several consecutive generations.[54]

This has been known for a very, very long time that we can breed better animals, and have them conform to our will. Where do people think dogs came from All dogs were once wild wolves. We took the most docile and with the most favorable traits, and bred them together for generations. We bred out the beasts within them, and out poped out the domestication of the wolf: the dog Ever heard of show animals? They are bred from high pedigree, and have certifications to prove it!

So if this is so of other animals, how in the heck are we to believe it is not so of people? We are homo sapiens, and in the animal kingdom after all! So eugenics isn't inherently evil. There is science behind it, and we see clear correlations between genetics and IQ, then IQ and traits like conscientiousness, in general. We see that within populations, a few points difference between average IQ of an area makes a large difference between things like crime, having bastards, and socioeconomic status in general.

[continued]

I found this to be an interesting and apt read to refute common counter arguments before they arise:

Once the IQ-crime correlation is measured, the next task is to explain it. Why are IQ and crime negatively correlated? Explanations of the IQ-crime correlation typically take one of three approaches, that: (1) IQ and crime are spuriously, not causally, correlated; (2) low IQ increases criminal behavior; or (3) criminal behavior decreases IQ.

A popular argument against IQ as a cause of crime criticizes IQ tests as only measuring middle-class knowledge and values rather than innate intelligence. As a result, the observation that some minority groups and the poor score low on IQ tests simply reflects their diverse cultural backgrounds. These same groups also commit proportionately more crime because they suffer structural disadvantages such as poverty and discrimination. Consequently, the same people who score low on IQ tests also tend to commit more crime, and so IQ and crime are empirically correlated, thus this correlation is not causal but reflects only culturally biased testing of intelligence.

A variation of this argument holds that the structural disadvantages that increase crime rates also reduce educational opportunities thus lessening individuals' ability and motivation to score well on IQ tests. The IQ-crime correlation occurs only because they are both rooted in structural disadvantage, which, in statistical terms, represents a "spurious" correlation.

Although these discrimination hypotheses have wide appeal, they have received fairly little support in empirical studies, for IQ and crime are significantly correlated within race and class groups as well as when statistically controlling for race, class, test-taking ability, and test-taking motivation (e.g., Hirschi and Hindelang; Lynam et al.).

Intelligence and Crime

Here is some good information related to Fertility and IQ:

Income

A theory to explain the fertility-intelligence relationship is that while income and IQ are positively correlated,[1] fertility is inversely correlated with income, that is, the higher incomes, the lower the fertility rates and vice versa.[33][34] This well-studied inverse correlation is known as the demographic-economic paradox, which shows an inverse correlation between wealth and fertility within and between nations. The higher the level of education and GDP per capita of a human population, subpopulation or social stratum, the fewer children are born. In a 1974 UN population conference in Bucharest, Karan Singh, a former minister of population in India, illustrated this trend by stating "Development is the best contraceptive".[35]
Education

People often delay childbearing in order to spend more time getting education, and thus have fewer children. Conversely, early childbearing can interfere with education, so those with early or frequent childbearing are likely to be less educated. While education and childbearing place competing demands on a persons resources, education is positively correlated with IQ.
Birth control and intelligence

Among a sample of women using birth control methods of comparable theoretical effectiveness, success rates were related to IQ, with the percentages of high, medium and low IQ women having unwanted births during a three-year interval being 3%, 8% and 11%, respectively.[36] Since the effectiveness of many methods of birth control is directly correlated with proper usage, an alternate interpretation of the data would indicate lower IQ women were less likely to use birth control consistently and correctly. Another study found that after an unwanted pregnancy has occurred, higher IQ couples are more likely to obtain abortions;[37] and unmarried teenage girls who become pregnant are found to be more likely to carry their babies to term if they are doing poorly in school.[38]

Conversely, while desired family size in the United States is apparently the same for women of all IQ levels,[39][dubious – discuss] highly educated women are found to be more likely to say that they desire more children than they have, indicating a "deficit fertility" in the highly intelligent.[40] In her review of reproductive trends in the United States, Van Court argues that "each factor – from initially employing some form of contraception, to successful implementation of the method, to termination of an accidental pregnancy when it occurs – involves selection against intelligence."[41]

Fertility and Intelligence

[continued]

So far we have established a basic understanding of the history and use of Eugenics, and clear links between IQ and traits which most people would see as being beneficial. I'd now like to shift focus to Africa, and mention it's projected population increase, current policies which are in place to curb this growth, and the implications of failed policies for Africa and ultimately the world as we know it.

In 1990, Africa had an estimated 634 million people. By 2011, only 21 years later, it had grown more than 50% to 1.033 billion people! It's estimated to continue growing to 1.365 billion people by 2025! That's a 33% increase in only 14 years!

World Population

By comparison, western nations enjoying higher standards of living and better education have a much less rate of growth. Most developed nations are not even meeting the required 2.3 kids to replace the previous generation.

You are of the belief that "overpopulation" isn't an issue, correct? We will have to disagree here, as the evidence is insurmountable, covering a wide range of areas from overfishing, to deforestation, climate disruption, energy crises, and on and on...

If members of this site can agree that the population must at very least be stabilized within the next few generations (or sooner!), then we must look to the countries which are currently in high population, and with a high rate of increase.

Population and Development: Directory of Non-Governmental Organizations in OECD Countries (OECD 1994) provides information on more than 700 NGOs active in the fields of population and development. The profiled organizations are based in member nations of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. The OECD membership includes Australia, the United States, Japan, Canada, and most European nations.

As we can see, many organizations are working to stabilize the population in various lands around the world. There are a variety of policies which are in place. You have chosen to focus on vaccinations as a potential (future?) place for population control measures via carrier-genes which sterilize a small percentage of those inoculated....okay, but why are you choosing not to include the other measures I've already listed in previous posts? Is this because it doesn't fit your agenda of 'evil elite depopulationists' ?? That would be called bias!

There are organizations whose aim is to improve the education, health-care, standards of living, basic necessities, and central planning in general of lands which most need it. Why are you not mentioning this?

Take a look at this map for a second:

upload.wikimedia.org...

Remember the relationships established between IQ and fertility, crime, etc...are you starting to see a clearer picture now??

Now, I'm not advocating doing anything which is unethical, HOWEVER, ethics is NOT independent of the terrain/culture in which one is speaking of. For instance, China has already implemented overt population control policies, such as the 1 child policy. Why does this fly there? Some would argue because it's a communist/hybrid system of government. I would posit that both are a symptom of the fact that there are too many people, with too little resources within a given region. The less resources per capita, the less ability for freedoms/rights. It is essentially a must, this policy. So we may begin to realize what is ethical in one place of the world, may not be so in another, depending on a variety of factors.

So, applying this to places that need aggressive population control policies, there may come a point in the future where thresholds are reached, and ethics/policies must be reassessed. It seems this is what is currently being planned for by way of vaccinations which may cause sterility in a percentage of people taking it.

Do I think this is ideal? Nope, I would love for there to be other options, however all alternatives seem to already be on the table. I ask do YOU have VIABLE alternatives, and working plans available to post online for everyone to see?

This concludes my addressing of population control, but to include as a footnote, I'd like to state I believe a reduction in our numbers is likely ideal considering the rate of rapid decay in various ecosystems around the world. It would be ideal to implement the least invasive measures as can be done for the time being. It MAY become necessary to ramp up towards currently unthinkable policies as the decades roll on. I HATE to imagine this possibility, but concede it MAY be necessary.

I tend to believe this is somewhat in-line with the majority of individuals involved in all of these programs, including these so called "masters" you speak of. If you can provide an adequate counter argument, I will listen in full and do my best to absorb this without bias.

the fact that a couple who incidentally have 3 children and own and use more resources than many third world countries are calling for population control, should tell any intelligent person something isn't right about them.

perhaps they should choose which of their children to eliminate, so as not to add more people to the world than they are as a couple.

Okay, I'm running short of energies here...been up for two and a half days now, and just drove back from Austin...so bear with my conclusion, okay?

Stresses to planetary systems are already being seen, whether people choose to believe the science (and often their eyes!) or not. I'm of the belief that unless we integratively tackle the many problems before us wisely, and pro-actively, civilization may fail over the decades to come. However harsh, or "evil" some of the coming policies regarding population control may be, they MAY be the lesser of many other potential evils if we keep to less viable solutions for sustainability.

Again, I am open for counter arguments, and will look over them after work and another power nap. I truly must be going though.

reply to post by unityemissions


I just wonder if those in denial - - fear they might actually have to give up something.

Or the blame others - - and take no personal responsibility.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


The enitre source article is pretty much sensationalism and ad hominems. It speaks to your own intelligence if you are going to take it on faith.

The video nor the quote is particularly revealing. As for the 10% to 15%, it seems that he is talking about preventive measures used to ensure the population dosen't reach 9 million NOT diminishing the current population or the population of 9 million. In other words he isn't advocating killing, but rather prevention (i.e. education relating to safe sex) What is wrong with reproductive health services and teaching people about safe sex? Answer that.

Once again use your brain and don't remove evidence from their context. It'll ensure your arguments are less idiotic and stronger. In fact is will probably change your entire argument. Moreover I suggest you go and watch the entire video.

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by unityemissions

 

I just wonder if those in denial - - fear they might actually have to give up something.

Or the blame others - - and take no personal responsibility.

Annee, you are a bit older, correct? I'm about to hit 30.

I honestly think many who feel this is just evil blablabla, are simply not integrating enough factors.

I have been in the CT world for nearly a decade, and the first five or so I was quite confused after taking in a ton of information at once.

It's overwhelming, and there are many unknowns to start off...people tend to fear what they don't understand, so project these insecurities onto the world, or...a select group of evil "masters".

I'm my own master It seems those who believe in an unseen "master" are already enslaved. I'm sure a decent counter argument can be made of this, but that line of reasoning seems to work well for myself.

I'm a bit harsh with people like this, because I know first hand the kind of needless paranoia it can cause, and choose not to see it done to many on this site who are a bit more naive, or ignorant of these matters.

I honestly believe EU means well, and apologize to her for temporarily losing my cool earlier.

EU: I'm sorry.

If this monkey Bill Gates is preaching about depop why did this critter breed 3 turnips?

Ah, so its going to be one of these threads, eh?

You want population control?

Start with yourself. Go ahead, do it. Off yourself, right now, right here. Because that's what you're asking of people. You want them to "control" the population, aka to make decisions of life and death as if you are God.

The amount of souls that wish to incarnate here will be EQUAL to the ones that NEED to be here. Can you blame souls for wanting to be here for the "fireworks" occurring soon? Ah, maybe you don't know what is coming ahead, maybe that's it. Well, for your soul's sake, STICK AROUND and let others do the same. The Earth is not overpopulated, that is an illusion. She can hold more. What she can't hold much more of is the mega-greedy that would rather buy their 24th Roll's Royce to commemorate their 5th trophy wife's new boob anniversary, ...instead of putting that money towards the betterment of the world population.

Which is a choice every soul makes while incarnated here. This is school, they are failing school, and will reap the Karma for their actions, and hopefully learn in their next incarnation.

Earth is not overcrowded, if you think so feel free to drop out (kill yourself.)

Originally posted by star in a jar
If this monkey Bill Gates is preaching about depop why did this critter breed 3 turnips?

they wont be mentioning population control at the bilderberg meeting's, that's for peasants only my friend.

Originally posted by unityemissions

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by unityemissions

 

I just wonder if those in denial - - fear they might actually have to give up something.

Or the blame others - - and take no personal responsibility.

Annee, you are a bit older, correct? I'm about to hit 30.

Yes - I am 65.

And for those who attack Ted Turner for having 5 kids - - - it was a totally different era. Our time - was a time of prosperity and abundance. There was nothing about conservation - food shortage - over population - etc. At least not public mainstream.

Our air is actually cleaner today then it was 20 years ago - - - thanks to environmentalists who fought for it.

But our waterways are poisonous. My mom used to swim in the Maumee river. Now its a cesspool.

I honestly think many who feel this is just evil blablabla, are simply not integrating enough factors.

Sure we have room for more people. But we don't have the resources. And we pollute everything. NASCAR - huge sport. Does anyone think about how many tires are used in just one weekend - - and where they go after? Plus everything else.

It is every one's responsibility - - - but few seem to see it that way.

I fully support zero population and even meeting requirements to have a child.

There is not ONE unselfish reason to bring another life into this world.

reply to post by Annee


What!!!?

Who makes the requirements?

Did YOUR parents meet requirements?

No! You are 65 but you are completely lost until you realize, that NOBODY can tell you the requirements for life. God (by whatever name you want to call that, I use "Creator") given rights of life are not something to be taken lightly.

Whenever you talk population control, you encounter SOMEBODY that has the power to decide. And that simply is wrong. IF you cannot see this, I strongly recommend you follow my post I stated above you.

Originally posted by fourthmeal
God (by whatever name you want to call that, I use "Creator") given rights of life are not something to be taken lightly.

I'm Atheist - - - so you can leave the God talk outside the door.

I'm also a realist. There comes a time when irresponsible procreation needs to be taken seriously.

Many non-human animals are a lot smarter about over population and their resources then humans are.

Don't really care if you agree or not.

Originally posted by Annee

I just wonder if those in denial - - fear they might actually have to give up something.

Or the blame others - - and take no personal responsibility.

How abouy YOU take personal responsibility.... If you "believe" the world is over populated, and you think it is ok and dandy to FORCE other people to become sterile without their consent, how about YOU give up? Just leave society completely and go into a cave so you can pass away faster and "help save mankind"...

Go ahead and take PERSONAL RESPOSIBILITY for your actions and your views...

It is strangely ironical that right now there is a very young man on spanish TV, CasoCerrado, claming the same things you are claiming.

He says "global warming" and "overpopulation" are a problem, and he sees nothing wrong for scientists to release viruses to murder billions of people, and to cause wars to decrease the population in the world. In fact this young man is part of a sect that all it's members have the same views...

And the group where he is in will actually EAT HIS BODY...

Another witness from that same sect, a woman, says that she will participate in eating the body of this young man, and that in 2 month she will commit suicide as well and others will eat her body...

What he wants to do is kill himself, and he thinks that by doing so other young people will do the same thing "to save the planet"...

I am not making this up, it is a case being shown on spanish tv as I write this...

This is a clear indication of the mental instability that people who hold these views have...

In the same manner, all these people who are siding with the world elites, and think that this is the only way to save the planet are also suffering from some mental instability probably caused by either social, economic, or even a mental disease...

At least this group of YOUNG people are going to do this to themselves, instead of trying to force this on others without their consent like Gates, Rockefeller and other world elites are doing...

I find it ironic that some of you are the same people who talk about forcing others to be compassionate, when you have no compassion AT ALL...

The group is called "Chuch of Euthanasia" They believe that the world is overpopulated, the members kill themselves and other members eat their bodies, and these people think "they are helping save the planet"...

That Obama video makes 100% sense. My grandfather had leukemia and they kept giving him blood transfusions towards the end that were a complete waste. It prolonged his life for a couple weeks even though he was barely conscious and suffering. There was no quality of life...

The blood could have went to people it was going to save.

What is so wrong about giving people condoms and other forms of birth control?

The world has too many people and I wish it had less. There am I evil? Or do I have to be in the bilderberg group for me to be?

And all the anti-vacine people, I'd love to see you refuse the rabies vaccine after you got bit by a rabid animal. You wouldn't...because if you didn't take it you would die a horrible death.

reply to post by RealSpoke


You didn't understand it. The President said that despite doctors thinking that an operation or treatment will help the old lady, that it is not economically viable and it is better for the old lady to continue taking medications.

This goes hand in hand with the scandal that was found even by leftwing sources that the Obama administration made deal with Big Pharma... By making people take more medications, instead of using operations or treatments that could help, this helps Big Pharma companies because people will be forced to buy more, and more medications.

If that makes sense to you, and you think it was made to help people you really need to rethink what the evidence says...

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

How abouy YOU take personal responsibility.... If you "believe" the world is over populated, and you think it is ok and dandy to FORCE other people to become sterile, how about YOU give up? Just leave society completely and go into a cave so you can pass away faster and "help save mankind"...

Don't ya just Love the dramatics?

Then they have to bring in some extremist (of which every viewpoint has one ).

Hey! Let's bring in Octomom - - who has too many children she doesn't know what to do.