Why Artificial Depopulation Will Never Happen

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 01:55 PM
reply to post by Astrocyte

Depopulation would be self defeating. It would hamstring the technological and scientific advances mankind has so far made. Ergo, depopulation as a government strategy is nonsensical. They would never do it.

Old, old theory that dates to the late '70s and connects with a forgotten, advanced civilization speaks to a minimum number of people, working together over a broad expanse of the planet, in order to expand technology. There has to be the inventors who require certain things acquired by way of natural resources.

You can't have a single island of people like some theories of Atlantis because they wouldn't have the natural resources... coal/oil, iron, copper, etc. If Atlantis existed, it was either a full blown continent or had external access to such resources.

Depopulation to something like... say, that 500,000,000 number (Georgia, US) could limit that access but not entirely. If there is indeed some entity with plans to depopulate, they have to have taken this all into consideration.

Current technology would almost immediately fail. No one to keep the electric plants running or the computer industry rolling or producing the materials for the same, would lead to an end. The same concept is applied to a colony on Mars where a handful of people couldn't simply step out and grow crops and mine the hillsides.

It's called dependent affiliation and every moment in this 21st century, is a working example if just that.

Kill off a majority of the population, you lose a majority of what that population produces.

No... it would have to be slow and methodical or perhaps, associated with a great war so that all the nations involved were producing output at maximum in order for the survivors to grasp a piece of it before it all collapsed.

posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 02:04 PM
Addendum to my last post above...

Consider this; the biggest pain in the ass to the globalist is the USofA. We won't give up our liberties, our guns or our national constitution. So, how do you bring down a nation like that?

Militarily? No, not a chance.

First, you open the door and send the nation's industrial plant to other shores so that when the hammer falls, production isn't affected. Then you implant laws and such to control the remaining millions as their economy collapses.... we can't have them getting their country back and recalling their industry.

From there... they can be allowed to rot on the vine. That means us... which is EXACTLY what is happening right now. A nation rotting on the vine.

Okay, done.

posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 03:07 PM
reply to post by Astrocyte

Yes they would.

They (the .1%ers) look at the rest of us as inferior and sub-human.

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:30 AM
reply to post by redoubt

So I see that you agree, but disagree.

output at maximum in order for the survivors to grasp a piece of it before it all collapsed.

What is this "out at a maximum" that the survivors will get a "piece" of. Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough. My fault.

The science that seems to be interesting everybody nowadays - myself included (hence my username) - is neuroscience. The holy grail of neuroscience is to figure out how exactly the brain works. Now, this task in itself so big, so mammothly enormous, it will take hundreds of years at our current pace to ever map out and understand all it's features, from the atoms which make up the proteins which make up the neurons - then understanding those neurons - all 100 billion of them - in all their indescribable complexity (each neuron has 1000 to 10000 synapses); and to boot, we would also need to understand the relationship between glia cells (atrocytes, oligodendrycites, microglia, etc) and neurons. There are around 800 billion to 1 trillion glia cells.

Right now, our technology is far too inferior to handle the complexities of the human brain. Electron light microscopy, MRI (in its myriad forms) PET, etc, are helpful. But they are still too primitive to really help us figure out basic things about how the brain works, particularly in a real-time sense. Ideally, brain scientists would like a MRI which provides the visual clarity of an electron microscope. Currently, MRI resolution is 1000 times less than light microscopes, which in turn are 1000 times less than electron microscopes.

In short, science still has a LONG way to go.

The futurist Ray Kurzweil, known for his wacky unrealistic theories, wrote a book called "live long enough to live forever". He's hoping that neuroscience will advance to the point - 20 or 30 years from now (majority of neuroscientists think hes a wackjob) - where we can scan the "connectome" of the brain - the interconnections of the brains 100 billion neurons (100,000,000,000 X 10,000 possible connections, and this is assuming glia don't play a bigger role in cognition than currently thought) and via this "connectome", we can transfer our consciousness (the connectome is assumed to be the conscious personality) to a computer where our lives can be simulated as a program.

This sounds a little far fetched, especially to those of us philosophically inclined. But, still, there's companies like Alcor (cryonics) which freeze sever heads and bodies in -196 centegrade temperatures in hopes that future science will have the means to "resurrect" them. One neuroscientist - Ken Hayworth - wants to plasticize his brain in a special resin before he dies. He too believes that the existing conscious personality is nothing but the sum of connections between neurons.

In short, all this hubbub about defying death is pretty exciting. Even though it might be a chimera, still, brain science in particular - and genomics as well - has UNBELIEVABLE promise. But cures wont be coming anytime soon without more and more minds taking part in this cumbersome process of trial and error. No war will "advance" this. Computers, etc - they are fantastically advanced, but people seem to be under the impression that computer technologically is indicative of the overall pace in scientific progress. Quite the contrary. Computers are flying forward like foxes while medicine is lagging behind at turtle pace. Unless you would like to bequeath the world to computers (as certain computer geeks believe) - fine, nothing I can say to that. But if human beings want to prosper, want to improve their prospects for living longer lives, we need more researchers, more funding - in short, a large prosperous international economy. And capitalism is big engine of it all.

No doubt, climate change and environmental issues are a problem. But they will never be treated so unilaterally as the "prime issue" when a) it's hardly even noticeable b) minor changes can be made to attenuate the problem c) the current pace of the scientific enterprise is dependent on many minds working and sharing their ideas.

There's many variables to consider. But when you analyze them all with a scientific mind - and no doubt science is growing in preeminence in the west - you come to the conclusion that climate and environmental issues can be handled without lowering the worlds population. Newer technologies will no doubt emerge - as the electric car is - that will make us less dependent on fossil fuels (carbon issue can be halved by this action alone). We can make geater use of solar, wind and geothermal energy than we currently are. Geothermal alone has enormous prospects that have not be adequately explored, if you ask me. All this can help save the environment.

Another major issue is efficient use of resources. Renewable forestry projects will help keep our hands off ancient forests, like the Amazon, Russian forests, central African forests and southeast Asian forests. And still there's much that can be done without killing people.

This would be the logical response. Protecting the environment while making the most of the advantages elicited by a large human population.
edit on 10-7-2013 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 01:32 AM
reply to post by Astrocyte

You seem to be missing a possibility. It is quite a dark one.

Using biological neural networks as a computer component. With the advances in genetic engineering it may soon be possible to grow modified brains to use as computer parts.

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 02:06 AM

Originally posted by Astrocyte
It's an axiom amongst social scientists that a group of minds is better than one mind. The speed of our technological and scientific revolution is a simple matter of arithmetic. The more minds you have working on technical issues, the faster those issues will be worked out.

If science ever hopes to unravel the mysteries of the human brain, matter, gravity, and a medley of other natural secrets, it'll take more and more minds.

Depopulation would be self defeating. It would hamstring the technological and scientific advances mankind has so far made. Ergo, depopulation as a government strategy is nonsensical. They would never do it.

hahahah...I'm simply amazed at how shallow sometimes people can be...no offence OP.

No, depopulation wouldn't be self defeating. Don't worry...all the top minds and scientists, movers and shakers...would be saved or taken care off. You..obviously...wouldn't be on that list.

Depopulation is happening quietly. By way of looking the other way when it matters. You do realize...we could end wars, hunger...worldwide...if we wanted to...if enough people wanted to...if the "key people" wanted to. But they don't...because having problems...serves a purpose. Having enemies to fight against...serves a purpose. People being sick and dying of hunger...serves some sick twisted purpose to somebody out there...

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 08:05 AM
reply to post by Astrocyte

What is this "out at a maximum" that the survivors will get a "piece" of. Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough. My fault.

No, you were sufficiently explicit... no need to apologize. My reply was to agree with a good portion of that explicity but not... well, the whole shebang.

I think you authored a well written OP and made some good points. My reply was simply a comment, offering one person's opinion - my own. Nothing more, nothing less.


edit on 10-7-2013 by redoubt because: more coffee

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:25 PM
reply to post by Wertdagf

With the advances in genetic engineering it may soon be possible to grow modified brains to use as computer parts.

We are a LONG time away from having the knowledge to genetically engineer the most complicated organ in the body. We'll both be long dead before that dream becomes a reality.

The problem is the same. It takes knowledge to control and engineer body parts. Right now were having trouble 3d printing relatively "simple" organs like livers and kidneys. We can get the basic form of the organ done. But it's empty: there isn't any capillaries or or other tracts. It's hard business figuring out how to genetically engineer organs. Though they've figured out this particular problem by making a cast mold of the inner networks of the organ using sugar, and then building the capillaries, tracts, and then the rest of the tissue. But even then, we encounter the myriad difficulties that come with testing it out in animal subjects. Will their immune system accept the organ? Will it function properly? Before we ever test this out on humans we will want dozens of test animal subjects that lived full lives without complications. This is just for the liver and kidney - the so called "easier" organs to bioengineer. When this works (eventually it will) we can move on to more complicated organs, like the stomach, lung and heart etc.

I don't imagine that we will be working to bioengineer a brain and work it out as a computer component before we have a fuller knowledge of just how exactly the brain works. Our knowledge of the other organs are almost complete. The brain is nowhere near being complete. The cells which make it up are far more complicated then the simple cells which make up bodily organs.

To just make this point more clear. Right now, 9/10 pharmaceutical drugs developed don't pass the rigorous process that would make it safe for the public. Isn't that horribly inefficient? All the wasted research, all the wasted funding, all the wasted time. If it's not safe for use, it doesn't make it to the market. The body is a COMPLICATED beast. Trying to develop medications for new illnesses, like cancer, or depression, can be demoralizing for scientists. Everytime you think you're on the right track, mother nature throws a curve ball at you. Every time we develop a new medication, "tolerance" occurs, or the virus or cancer itself mutates to bypass the medication.

I feel that Iphones and Ipads have given people the wrong idea of how far we've come technologically. Our ability to make better and more intelligent computers is great (although they are still completely inferior to human beings; so far, computers can't even handle the discriminatory powers of vision that the human brain carries out without a hitch) and will only get better. But our medicine really hasn't progressed that far since the 1950s. We still use the same type of medications for psychological illnesses, and this is simply because we haven't made any revolutionary leaps in our understanding of brain chemistry and illness.
edit on 10-7-2013 by Astrocyte because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 12:39 PM
The point is this: politicians care about scientific progress. Many individual politicians follow the advances so far made, and are advised by specialists who know the state of the game. In short, they're intelligent people. The conspiracy theories people talk about here simply contradicts the facts; what matters MOST is scientific progress. And this progress is SPED UP when there are more minds working together.

How did our civilization even come to where we are right now? The Answer: the printing press. Before the printing press, only a few minds had specialized knowledge. After the printing press, more and more people began to read. Slowly but surely, society became more intelligent, more technological, sophisticated and adept at forming and organizing themselves. This is how we got to where we are. More minds are better than one mind. It's a SIMPLE FACT. Only a lunatic would deny it. And only someone intellectually immature would continue to maintain that depopulation to 500,000,000 is an actual agenda.

Just because the Georgia guidestones were erected doesn't mean there's a homogenous monolithic entity planning to wipe out the worlds population. And if there was - guess what? They would be undermining the scientific process, hamstringing evolutionary development.

People take these sorts of things far too seriously. Even look, right now these stones have been defaced. It's hard to even read what exactly they say. 50 years from now, when the world hasn't been depopulated, these stones will probably be replaced by newer ones. Which means? If it IS a policy to eventually bring the world to a more "stable" population of 500,000,000, it'll happen centuries from now. The year 2400 seems like a good bet. It's not feasible anytime soon, not as long as we have so much more to accomplish - and the more people, the better and faster we'll be able to do it.

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 04:49 PM
reply to post by Astrocyte

There is a delicate balance at play. The elite may need people to further enhance knowledge and technology but they also are aware that with each successive advancement there opens the possibility of freeing people intellectually and creating competition for their control. You seem to forget as well that human advancement has been predicated on our ability to store and access knowledge as you pointed out about the printing press. With this in mind they do not need an army of geniuses just a few who can access and understand the previously stored knowledge and disseminate that to the their successors.

We already control animal populations artificially and most of these people view us as animals it does not take a large leap of faith to envision where this will go. Now whether or not the logistics of large scale depopulation are feasible is another matter all together. but the desire is definitely there.

We can even look to the "dark ages" as an example where technology and knowledge was lost from the roman empire but the elite still managed just fine with an army of morons.

new topics
top topics
<< 1   >>

log in