Let us say 70 million people die tomorrow. That is but 1% of global population. So let's say 700 million died over a year. That too is but 10% of the
population. Depending on which "10%" dies, it would not affect the overall global system functioning.
Like after world wars, in fact it would boost the system in time. So there is a point when we realize 7 billion people is an enormous number, and it
would be no easy task to remove even 10% of that population in a controlled manner.
This tends to make me think if this is a goal then it requires planning and massive technological capability and is slated for decade like cycles imo.
I do think it is a priority, at some point, because human over population given the limitations of global management and the general invasive
lifestyle of the species, is indeed affecting the life system negatively and unproductively. Meaning it is people, not animals, who are slowly killing
the life zone.
But at the same time it seems nature has self protective devices that are not even tapped yet. And imo the elite institutional network "organism" has
indeed been wondering and researching on the matter, because if they do not beat nature to the punch, they may very will be in a truly uncontrollable
situation. But I could be wrong.
What I am not wrong about is the part of the curve from 7 to 10 billion people. If that is not forced into normalization, the entire possibility of
building a manmade global device to check this expansion will also be lost, imo. Meaning if left to a full century we will never see 15 billion
people, earth would normalize "the virus". But if they lose this next decade to begin full global positioning of this system (and its global
administration) for the next two decades, imo, they will not be able to control the outcome reliably.
Thus when David Rockefeller said this much for sure:
This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long...
We know population is but one of the possible "powerful forces" that could abort the mission. But not yet; as some state, the cows in themselves are
not a problem now, they are herdable, so the depop necessity is probably many years down the road in this "opportunity". People are aiding the
process, and until they are no longer aiding it, but contrary, then expect actions to control human population, and by that time from a uni-polar
global power system. Meaning global destablization and multi-polarity is not allowing such a true agenda from being enforced yet anyways, and even if
it was, imo, it is a huge job requiring a number of years. But they need people to build the system to that point, so people have "job security",
until of course the job is done, then it is anyones guess, but it seems likely something will equalize the system, one way or another.
At the same time I am sure to elite systems "the less the better", whether in people themselves or their deeper understanding of what is really going
on. I don't think they have a "global retirement" plan in how people may interpret that phrase on first hearing, but I do tend to think they do have a
"retirement plan" overall. Or just let it devolve into global population chaos uncontrollable, and I think the choice they will make is for control of
the situation, prior to better global management.
But those are just my speculations. Human management itself is a hazardous job.
edit on 1-11-2014 by 4444Winds because: (no reason