What to do about overpopulation

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
20 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

What to do about overpopulation

Cornfed
Once you get past the silly propaganda on the lamestream media, the declared purpose of most of the criminal and bizarre policies of evil Western regimes over the last 40 years has been to combat overpopulation. The trouble is that once you see a flourishing human population as the enemy, you get to an ethical standpoint where good is evil and evil is good. Hence it becomes an imperative to fuck up everything about society.

On the other hand, if the human population were not subjected to the depredations of the elite over the last 40 years - 2 billion abortions, pervasive birth control, females inducted into sterile corporate whoredom etc. - then we would be lacking a bit of elbow room about now. One might argue that with theoretically available technology the world would still not really be overpopulated, but if everyone had the amount of children they wanted, then at some point in the future it inevitably would be.

So is there a way to limit the human population without ruining everything? Traditionally the way to do this was with water contaminated either with pathogens or heavy metals. However, that would probably not fly now and wasn't so great anyway. I can't really think of a good way. Perhaps there will be some natural disaster like a comet event that will preferentially kill off stupid people, leaving smart people to rebuild civilization on a clear field. That would seem about the best hope.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Drealm
I think the solution is to allow people to breed but let their children die. This would allow irresponsible people to breed beyond what they can support without discouraging reproduction for everyone. The children who belonged to irresponsible breeders wouldn't be supported like in modern society though. So you wouldn't fight the instinct to procreate but you would pull the safety nets. One safety net you can eliminate is free health care so that poor mothers don't get adequate prenatal care and die through complications. This scenario would allow for a net decline because both the mother and fetus die. Intelligent men would only have children when they knew they could afford them.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Cornfed
A society where births are limited by people being too poor to breed or the kids dying from poverty doesn't seem very utopian to me. It would require wealth to be somewhat equally distributed to not result in extinction. In current society it would be largely only the tiny parasitical elite and their whores that could afford to breed. It would also be dysgenic in that some children of poor and stupid people would survive, while many poor and intelligent men would choose not to breed. Such a society would probably share some of the dysfunctions of the current one, such as females waiting a long time to marry and using contraception, resulting in them becoming sluts and fucking dirtbags. In any case, a reasonable number of children coming through is critical for the social fabric. Ideally it would actually be economically beneficial to have children. Perhaps periodic culls of stupid and dysfunctional people and cultures would be the way to go. Perhaps there is no good solution to the problem.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Humanity
Administrator
In reply to this post by Cornfed
I know that at least Western "elites" want to do this. But at the same time, I guess they aren't very good at it. I don't see how 7 billion people could be called a success by their standards. Any ideas on what their ideal population size is? On the internet, the Georgia guide-stones are a popular meme among Anti-NWO types. And I believe the guide stones reference the human population needing to be about 500 million. Quite a goal the "elites" have, if the goal is that much reduction.

I think nature will sort it out eventually. We're heading for calamity here on earth - more-so than ever before. Post peak oil, lack of clean water, declining agriculture, the seas being fished clean. I'm certain that at some point many of those crises will converge and from there it's going to make 1984 look like a dream.

China has overtly tried to limit population growth since 1979 with the one-child policy. So either the elites do want population decline and are just bad at it, or they are really shooting for something else. Don't know what though.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

fschmidt
Administrator
In reply to this post by Cornfed
This is one of those questions that isn't worth worrying about because there is nothing we can do about it and because humanity really isn't our problem.  Our problem is how to make our lives better.  And the current members of this forum aren't exactly a group that is threatened by overpopulation.

Of course speculation is always fun, and my speculation as to the course of this issue is that as civilization declines, there will mass starvation and plagues that will drastically reduce the world's population.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Drealm
In reply to this post by Cornfed
Under the current scenario you have (a) intelligent middle class and wealthy that breed at capacity levels (2) or below capacity level (1). (b) Intelligent poor people that don't breed (0). (c) Stupid poor people breed beyond capacity levels (+2). Stupid poor people are subsidized by middle class and wealthy people through welfare and other programs. If subsidies were cut I think the birth rate would remain the same for (a) and (b) but the post natal deaths for (c) would rapidly increase.

To improve the situation for (b) would require subsidizing. I'm reading a book right now and this is exactly what was done. Karaits overall didn't hold together very well but in some periods they had an internal welfare system that paid for food, school, health care, ect. If you watch A Life Apart you will also see an internal welfare system done by Rabbis.

(b) can survive but they need to join a community that will subsidize them.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Cornfed
In reply to this post by fschmidt
fschmidt wrote
This is one of those questions that isn't worth worrying about because there is nothing we can do about it and because humanity really isn't our problem.
The interesting thing about this question is that it is how the PTB would justify outrages like feminism once you get beyond the surface layer of propaganda for the masses. To the complaint that feminism was destroying society, they would reply that of course this was true, but that feminism reduces the birth rate, and without it overpopulation would have destroyed society to an even greater extent. On the face of it they have a point, but maybe there would have been a less destructive way of achieving the same ends.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

fschmidt
Administrator
I am skeptical about conspiracy theories.  I have a hard time believing that Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein spend their time worrying about overpopulation.  I think they spend most of their time trying to figure out how to rob a few more hundred million for themselves.

There may be some elite intellectuals who think about these things, and there are a lot of reasons for the elite to support feminism.  But the elite certainly has no interest in justifying themselves to people like us.
Following the Old Testament, not evil modern culture
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Cornfed
Dealing with overpopulation is the officially declared policy of the elite articulated as such by the Rockefeller report on population control 1971, UN Bucharest conference on population control 1974, UN Agenda 21 etc. There is no conspiracy theory needed. Certain aspects of the implementation of the policy, e.g. chemical castration with fluoride and BHPs, may be conspiracy theories, although fairly well establish ones. However, the basic policy of reducing global population and the social means of doing it are openly stated. Of course you don't hear politicians on the campaign trail declaring their constituents to be a pestilence they intend to cull back, any more than you hear the Coca Cola marketing people declaring their product will make you fat and rot your teeth. That doesn't mean they are in a conspiracy to hide those facts. They just keep them out of their press releases.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Cornfed
In reply to this post by Humanity
Humanity wrote
I know that at least Western "elites" want to do this. But at the same time, I guess they aren't very good at it. I don't see how 7 billion people could be called a success by their standards.
To be fair, they only started in 1945 and had to phase in and be subtle about their policies, as they would likely encounter resistance if it became apparent what they were up to too quickly. Also, they had to experiment to refine their approach. Therefore they first tested their methods in the defeated Axis countries (explaining why those countries have the lowest birth rates to this day) then in the West, then in the rest of the world. Another issue they had to contend with was that the target country had to be sufficiently developed for their policies to be implemented. You can't fluoridate drinking water until a country has municipal water supplies. You can't implement feminism until a country has a strong central government to act as the surrogate husband to stray females.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Ember
In reply to this post by Drealm


 
Drealm wrote
I think the solution is to allow people to breed but let their children die. This would allow irresponsible people to breed beyond what they can support without discouraging reproduction for everyone. The children who belonged to irresponsible breeders wouldn't be supported like in modern society though. So you wouldn't fight the instinct to procreate but you would pull the safety nets. One safety net you can eliminate is free health care so that poor mothers don't get adequate prenatal care and die through complications. This scenario would allow for a net decline because both the mother and fetus die. Intelligent men would only have children when they knew they could afford them.
Why does this seem more palatable to you than just say...killing them outright?  Do you really think society won't be affected by starving people in the streets and all this would bring with it?  One thing our species is good at, these days, is killing each other - why the need for suffering first?  We all know the human animal is ruthless in its drive to survive.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Drealm
Ember wrote
Drealm wrote
I think the solution is to allow people to breed but let their children die. This would allow irresponsible people to breed beyond what they can support without discouraging reproduction for everyone. The children who belonged to irresponsible breeders wouldn't be supported like in modern society though. So you wouldn't fight the instinct to procreate but you would pull the safety nets. One safety net you can eliminate is free health care so that poor mothers don't get adequate prenatal care and die through complications. This scenario would allow for a net decline because both the mother and fetus die. Intelligent men would only have children when they knew they could afford them.
Why does this seem more palatable to you than just say...killing them outright?  Do you really think society won't be affected by starving people in the streets and all this would bring with it?  One thing our species is good at, these days, is killing each other - why the need for suffering first?  We all know the human animal is ruthless in its drive to survive.
Only one generation would starve. So I don't see this as cyclical problem. I wouldn't want to preemptively kill people because some of them will die without becoming restless. If they choose to starve in peace, then I see no reason to inflict further pain on them. There's also the possibility that some would want to convert to a good community and survive off their welfare. I do agree that most people would becomes restless, in which case self defense restrictions should be laxed.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Ember
Drealm wrote
Only one generation would starve. So I don't see this as cyclical problem. I wouldn't want to preemptively kill people because some of them will die without becoming restless. If they choose to starve in peace, then I see no reason to inflict further pain on them. There's also the possibility that some would want to convert to a good community and survive off their welfare. I do agree that most people would becomes restless, in which case self defense restrictions should be laxed.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what area of the world you're targeting.  In places where people already starve to death then I don't suppose there would be an increased ruckus.  In the first or second world countries, I rather expect there wouldn't be anything peaceful about it.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Drealm
Ember wrote
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what area of the world you're targeting.  In places where people already starve to death then I don't suppose there would be an increased ruckus.  In the first or second world countries, I rather expect there wouldn't be anything peaceful about it.
I don't see most middle aged people and elderly people becoming violent. Youth gangs would probably form though. In any case those who want to survive the purge just need to build a wall around their house or community. This seems to be how rich people do it in the third world. I would rather build a wall than kill people.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Cornfed
Another question related to this is that if you were a benevolent dictator and could cure diseases like cancer, would you? It is pretty clear that the establishment has known how to cure most cancers for decades. The problem would be that if people could just go to the doctor and be cured of diseases like cancer and heart disease, then the average person would live well past 100 years, being non-fertile and non-productive for much of that time. This would impose an intolerable burden on the rest of society and likely ensure our extinction as available resources went to maintaining old people rather than raising children. So on the face of it, the apparent evil of the elite may be necessary.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Humanity
Administrator
So why did TPTB allow cures or treatments to other severe diseases? And with the Fukushima disaster in Japan and an ever-increasing amount of radiation being swept around the world, it wouldn't surprise if there is a sudden cancer cure that comes online. And that can always be allocated to the young and otherwise healthy people that TPTB want to keep on living so they can exploit.

And what about a cure for the common cold? It would be extremely profitable to release some cure for it, since they happen all the time and aren't lethal. Cancer is legitimately difficult to treat, so I don't chalk this one up to a conspiracy automatically. However, many will also tell you that lifestyle is the single biggest "cure." And therefore it would make sense that there is no "cure" for cancer on account of the way modern medicine treats health, healing, and wellness.

One of China's ideas for keeping population down (or I guess from exploding even more) was to make most people smokers. That kills off a lot of old people. And it is relatively cheap. Keeping a cure for cancer under wraps is pretty elaborate for population control when there are much simpler and cheaper ways to do it IMO.

But again, there's some potential good news to all this. If TPTB's goal is population control, they're doing an awful job. So it indicates they're inept. If the goal is 500 million, they're way off base. Humans are likely to just keep reproducing until an energy crash, after which the natural carrying capacity of the planet will again take effect. I'm not saying there aren't conspiracies afoot about population control - there clearly are. But the way it looks to me is that TPTB are largely ineffective, aside from the white population of anglo countries.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Cornfed
Humanity wrote
 Cancer is legitimately difficult to treat, so I don't chalk this one up to a conspiracy automatically.
There are various cures for cancer. Vitamin C on a drip, vitamin B13, colloidal silver, sodium hypochlorite, raw food diets or some combination of the above. Here is a classic summary of NWO healthcare plans, much of which have been implemented.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Humanity
Administrator
From the text you linked:

"SUPPRESSING CANCER CURES AS A MEANS OF POPULATION CONTROL
 
Cancer. He said. "We can cure almost every cancer right now. Information is on file in the Rockefeller Institute, if it's ever decided that it should be released. But consider - if people stop dying of cancer, how rapidly we would become overpopulated. You may as well die of cancer as of something else." Efforts at cancer treatment would be geared more toward comfort than toward cure. There was some statement that ultimately the cancer cures which were being hidden in the Rockefeller Institute would come to light because independent researchers might bring them out, despite these efforts to suppress them. But at least for the time being, letting people die of cancer was a good thing to do because it would slow down the problem of overpopulation."

So there's a small indication that TPTB aren't all powerful. I guess it doesn't matter too much, though, since the population at large is too stupid and oblivious to do anything. Most of those things have already come true. That document reads like it could be precisely from Huxley's Brave New World.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Cornfed
Another way of putting the question is - if you were the benevolent dictator of the world, how would you prevent what is theorized to be the natural cycle of extinction? The idea is that every species is doomed to go extinct. It might not take or suffer from some external major force and get wiped out, but even if it is successful it will become a victim of its own success. The species will start out with a high attrition rate. However, as it adapts to its environment and builds up immunity to its pathogens, it starts to increase in numbers and become longer lived. Then one of two things might happen to bring about its extinction. It might increase its numbers so that it consumes all resources available to it at an unsustainable rate, resulting in the last individual starving to death. Alternatively it might spend more and more available resources on non-breeding older individuals rather than raising young, resulting in the average age of the population becoming older and older until the last individual dies of old age. On the face of it, humans would seem to be entering this phase. If you were talking to David Rockefeller and he explained that feminism etc. was a necessary evil to prevent this, how would you respond?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: What to do about overpopulation

Humanity
Administrator
There's no way that feminism is needed to prevent population problems though. If I was a benevolent dictator with absolute power, I could find a better way. But really, too many people is not the true problem; resource consumption is. Problem of course is that they go together and there will eventually be an energy crash which will cull the herd a great deal. So if I was a benevolent dictator with absolute power, I would stop my society from exploiting limited resources like fossil fuels in an unsustainable way, thus preventing the a future societal suicide. It would prevent the population from exploding past its natural capacity. It would also limit society technologically, but I think that's better than a full-on violent, chaotic, apocalyptic end to the world. Because once that happens, what's the good of having developed all that technology in the first place?