Know thyself... Know thy Enemy. Deconstructing the layers of justification for depopulation.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Hey Fly. Interesting topic, thanks for starting the thread. My thoughts:

Are we in the depopulation agenda? Perhaps. I'm not so sure that big pharma wasn't just content to guinea pig us all for profit, and that the public health bureaucracies that we have allowed to grow up over the last century were only too happy and ready to make their 'power grab through public health administration' play at the same time. I'm not entirely convinced that we're in the depopulation agenda right now. On the other hand, I'm not entirely convinced that we aren't, either.

That doesn't really matter in regards to the point of the thread that I gather from the title: ' Deconstructing the layers of justification for depopulation.' On this we agree. There is a notion, commonly accepted for the most part amongst academia, that the Earth is overpopulated. Sure, every now and then some 'conservative' or contrarian will offer an opposing view, complete with lots of fine statistics about how massive the Earth is and how neatly our several billion inhabitants would spread out over it, not crowding one another in the least.

This contrary evidence will be promptly dismissed by most academics as 'ignorant nonsense', or some such. The notion that we are overpopulated is commonly accepted. Numerous books have been written about it. 'The Population Bomb' is the one that most easily comes to mind, but there are plenty more I'm sure. It has become a part of popular culture, so it tends to be accepted as fact by many.

From their perspective, we have to reduce population to save humanity and to preserve the planet's ability to support life. To them it is an existential threat, so by advocating population stabilization or reduction, they're simply 'doing the right thing', from their point of view.

This is the abstract birthplace of the intellectual elitism that accompanies population control movements and politics. Everybody else who isn't doing their part will likely come to be seen as the bad guys by those under the thrall of this misguided pseudo-science, or at the very least, they will be seen as misguided savages. According to the would be population controller, they're doing it wrong, and hurting everyone in the process.

There's something to be said for ignorance being at the heart of unhealthy behaviors, and the idea that education can counteract or prevent such bad behavior. The problem with applying that idea to this problem, in my opinion, is that the 'overpopulation problem' is a myth.

Overpopulation arguments never consider everything that contributes to the problem that I've ever seen. There have always been glaring holes in the arguments in my experience. One thing that has always stood out to me was that many of the 'population problems' that we are seen as having stem from a misallocation of resources. They actually have little to do with population, and a lot to do with the inefficient use of resources.

Innovation is rarely taken into account in these arguments. What about everybody living underground? Building our houses down into the ground instead of on top of it. What about living at sea, and farming the sea? What about colonizing the planets? What about using endothermic(heat absorbing) processes for power generation and locomotion instead of exothermic(heat producing) processes? I could go on and on.

The planet can support many times the present population just fine. If you change the infrastructure, the pollution problems can actually go away pretty quickly.

The problem is that overpopulation believers believe in their point of view passionately. They actually believe it is an existential crisis. They think that they're doing the right thing when they advocate for population stabilization or reduction.

You have to break through that brainwashing and programming if you want to shift the paradigm away from this subconscious guilt at being alive today that gives so many a hopeless outlook on our planetary state of affairs. Many average or somewhat learned people accept this as truth, even though it is not.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Agreed that it doesn't matter that the overpopulation myth has been debunked.
What matters is that They™ believe it's true, and at a crisis-point.

Similarly, as member wrote recently here : it doesn't matter if we believe in symbolism and ritual :
They™ do.

Doesn't matter if AGW™ has been debunked : They™ believe in it.

If we seek to understand Them™ : we need to walk a mile in their shoes.

Personally don't believe that They™ are actively trying to depopulate Humanity.
It's merely a potential side-benefit, to their plans.

To us : they appear as Psychopathic-Scammers™.
To Them : They™ are the chosen Elitists™, whose responsibility it is to Steward™ and Manage™, all of Nature™.
Humans are just stubborn beasts, whom one needs to keep on a leash.
The more we misbehave : the tighter shall the leash become.

We cannot understand Them™ by seeing Them™ as Communists™, Marxists™, Liberals™, or Socialists™.
We can gain a glimmer of understanding by viewing Them™, and their actions, as Technocrats™.

If one has no understanding of what a Technocrat™ eats in wintertime, here's a start :
ATS : The Upcoming Global Technocratic Dictatorship.

They™ are arrogant, and blind Managers™.
Their beliefs, and projects, are believed by Them™ to be based in nothing but the best Science™, and They™ make their plans based on whatever their Science™ says.

They believe that They™ have the best Scientists™ and Experts™ working for Them™ :
So They™ give the Experts™ their total trust, and follow the Recommendations™.

Sure, some folks might not make it : minor collateral damage.
It's irrelevant to their Plans™.

But, but, but : they're into Eugenics™ !!
Yes : We always equivocate Eugenics™ with depopulation, from our view.

For them : Eugenics™ is a System-of-Management™.
Not based on those that will fall by the wayside : but based on Managing™ the Unwashed-Masses™.
It parallels their beliefs in Transhumanism™.
Pub-Med - Human enhancement: The new eugenics

Repairing faulty Humans™, to get ones that are more Useful™ to Society™.
Just that They decide what is Faulty™, and what is Useful™.
They decide all of the criteria, for all of their Plans™.

They™ are unelected, but Self-Appointed™ Masters™ of Nature™.

It appears to us as tyranny, but they feel as little remorse about our little individual lives, as a farmer harvesting a chicken for supper.
The considerations of the individual chicken : are irrelevant to the farmers interest in managing his livestock, and feeding his family.

But chickens have dreams too ...

Bwawk-bwawk !! LoL !!




ETA : when using " They™ " in this post, was mostly referring to the WEF™, and the Nouveau-Riche™, and the Old-Wealth™ of this world.
My idea is that this group only cares to grow their wealth, and to control the variable better.

But there is also evil about, and am not sure about that at all.
There is an evil-energy angle at-play, that's hard to deny.

Also : Money™ isn't the same to Them™ : as it is for us.

For Them™ : it's simply a tool, that They™ manufacture, and utilize.
It greases the cogs, that make the Beast-Machine™ go-round.

For us : it's the carrot at the end-of the stick, that keeps us pulling the cart along.
All They™ care about : is that the cart moves-along, as Efficiently™ as possible.

a reply to: Nothin

I'd tend to agree, there's another tier or two to the ideology. Higher up it is probably mostly, or at least partially, an indifference to the philosophical beliefs that I highlighted in my last post, in favor of the profit motive. Also some motivated by some sort of death cult ideology, or dark magical philosophy.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Yeah : multiple tiers, and they're not all interested in profit, and money.

Just my guessing, all of it though.

The Banksters™ ARE Money™.
They emit, regulate, and control the quality and quantity of carrots available for us to chase.

The WEF™, UN™, BIS™, IMF™, WHO™ etc. are the Front™ for the Banksters™, Nouveau-Riche™, and Old-World-Wealth™.
They are the Grand-Managers™, of the Corporations™, Governments™, Organizations™, Foundations™, Institutions™, NGO's™, and Citizens™.

Then the Corporations™, Governments™, Organizations™, Foundations™, Institutions™, NGO's™, who are all motivated, and thus Controlled™ by Money™.

Then me and you ... LoL !!

The cold Technocratic™ Management-System™ doesn't work by force, but by Policies™.
The lower entities are coerced into Agreements™, and Treaties™, and such.
Then those are enforced not by laws, not by police : but by Punishment™ for not Conforming™ to the Policies™.

The Punishment™ is lowered ESG™ scores.
Then if any of them do Business™ with the ones with lower ESG™ scores : their scores are also lowered.

It's a self-correcting System™, where the rats watch the other rats.
The same is coming for us useless mouth-breathers.

We won't be punished by police or military : but our own communities will pressure us into conforming, so as not to weaken our communities ESG™ scores, and associated " Privileges™ ".

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

Overpopulation arguments never consider everything that contributes to the problem that I've ever seen. There have always been glaring holes in the arguments in my experience. One thing that has always stood out to me was that many of the 'population problems' that we are seen as having stem from a misallocation of resources. They actually have little to do with population, and a lot to do with the inefficient use of resources.

Innovation is rarely taken into account in these arguments. What about everybody living underground? Building our houses down into the ground instead of on top of it. What about living at sea, and farming the sea? What about colonizing the planets? What about using endothermic(heat absorbing) processes for power generation and locomotion instead of exothermic(heat producing) processes? I could go on and on.

The planet can support many times the present population just fine. If you change the infrastructure, the pollution problems can actually go away pretty quickly.

The problem is that overpopulation believers believe in their point of view passionately. They actually believe it is an existential crisis. They think that they're doing the right thing when they advocate for population stabilization or reduction.

You have to break through that brainwashing and programming if you want to shift the paradigm away from this subconscious guilt at being alive today that gives so many a hopeless outlook on our planetary state of affairs. Many average or somewhat learned people accept this as truth, even though it is not.

How many doublings would it take before that becomes false, though?

Efficiency isn't unlimited. If you car's engine is 25% efficient (which is the average efficiency of a combustion automobile engine), that means that at perfect efficiency you could go 4 times as far on a gallon/litre of fuel than you do now.

4 times. Not 40. Not 400. Not 4000. So if the population doubles twice, we would need fully 100% efficient engines in order for people to enjoy the same quality of travel.

If the population doubles three times, then even 100% efficiency wouldn't be enough.

Stopping population growth is the only way to make it all work. We don't have to shrink it, because there is some reserve resources still left, but we have to stop growing it.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

Interesting Videos here .









...........

originally posted by: Axios

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Axios

Obviously I used the 99% tto 1% figuratively, I know they would need to retain a slave class to drive their economy. It's likely that once the consolidation of power & resources is sufficient, they will transition to using a form of currency separate from that which the slave class uses - programmable money, which you must possess in order to purchase luxury items. The slave class will be issued with UBI, which is little better than food vouchers, being permitted only for low level spending. Further wealth accumulation may be accomplished by trading in slaves, for land, resources, etc.

Still does not make sense. If you create a slave class you still don’t need wealth, cause you know, you don’t pay slaves… wealth would still irrelevant in this scenario.

Mass depopulation for the accumulation of wealth doesn’t make sense.

What you should say is that they want to depopulate the planet because the elites have discovered the key to immortality and want the planet for themselves without the risk of the pleb masses ruining the scenery or attempting an uprising to take their immortality technology.

Or, maybe vaccines aren’t killing a huge amount of people.,.

Mrna tech would be key to an immortality tech. You basically need to go through the DNA of all of your cells and edit the "telomere" in the DNA strand. This telomere gets shorter every time you cells replicate, eventually causing them to stop replicating, which is what causes old age.

MRNA encapsulation is the first tech that has ever been able to get a dna alteration to bypass the immune system, and insert itself indiscriminately into all of your body's cells.

Forcing billions of people to take an MRNA vaxx allows them to test various versions using the Earth's population as guinea pigs. Much faster development, which makes sense if the people who want immorality are getting up in years.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

How many doublings would it take before that becomes false, though?

Efficiency isn't unlimited. If you car's engine is 25% efficient (which is the average efficiency of a combustion automobile engine), that means that at perfect efficiency you could go 4 times as far on a gallon/litre of fuel than you do now.

4 times. Not 40. Not 400. Not 4000. So if the population doubles twice, we would need fully 100% efficient engines in order for people to enjoy the same quality of travel.

If the population doubles three times, then even 100% efficiency wouldn't be enough.

Stopping population growth is the only way to make it all work. We don't have to shrink it, because there is some reserve resources still left, but we have to stop growing it.

Your argument presumes that the population would quadruple without anything else changing, which is not how that scenario would play out in reality. Zero innovation, zero adaptation.

Besides, overpopulation and overcrowding are relative, subjective concepts. Humanity would adapt. I understand the argument you're trying to make though.

That argument is flawed however, for the above listed reasons, but also because we are not there. We are here, and now. Dire predictions of a bleak future do not a doomed future create. There's a lot of road for humanity to travel before we reach that future of a quadrupled population.

It also bears repeating, that populations stabilization/reduction is not the only way to approach the social problem of a growing global population. There are a number of ways that innovation can, and most likely will, solve that problem without resorting to population stabilization or reduction.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

I worked security at one of those "vaccination centers".
I won't say where and with whom, I still work with the company I did then.
And I saw many things that reinforced my reluctance to "get the jab".
One that springs to mind is that people suffering from reactions from it where kept in a holding area behind a curtain.
Short of a cursory examination nothing else.
And kept there until the vaccination center closed, then just released back to their cars/rides.
That's it.

Then the fact no cameras were allowed.
Except the media that came there often to talk it up....