A Short Revisit To The Climate Change Hoax

I suggest you do a little background research. This page seems to be a good start.

https://www.quotemaster.org/reducing+population

 

There was a book in the '70s called "The Population Bomb" ( <-- I think?) written by a guy named Paul Erlich.

I read it back then; it was the first of its kind that I'm aware of, but the idea -- like all evil ideas -- goes back forever.

 

That type of control works in feudalism but not in capitalism, where the main source of power is money, where the value of that money can only go up through increased economic activity, that activity made possible only if more people borrow, spend, produce, earn, buy, and consume, and all of that possible only if there is more freedom.

Put simply, a capitalist becomes rich only because everyone buys, sells, etc. If he stops them from doing that, then the value of his money goes down because there are fewer things to buy, and that makes him poorer. That's why capitalists want free market capitalism.

The catch is that accelerated economic activity has repercussions on a planet with physical limitations. That's why oil production per capita dropped after 1979, conventional oil production started reaching a peak after 2005, diminishing returns are affecting mining, more fresh water sources are being polluted, species dieoffs have been rising, carbon emissions have shot up to over 400, over 50 positive feedback loops have been taking place, and diseases are spreading faster and have become more resistant to drugs. Among others, of course, like a thirtyfold increase in arms production and deployment worldwide.

Capitalists are fully aware of these (look at reports from multinational banks, oil and car companies, insurers, and others on both peak oil and climate change), which is why Agenda 21 showed up: the goal is not to conserve resources (for obvious reasons, as explained in the first paragraph) but to sustain development. (The UN, just like governments, are funded by the rich, and work for them.) That is, how to ensure steady economic growth by minimizing boom-and-bust cycles caused by financial speculation, natural disasters, etc. You can see this what the richest are saying concerning the current pandemic plus the war in Ukraine: vaccines, digital currencies, bilateral besides multilateral relations, rent instead of own, etc.

Will it work? Likely not because the carrying capacity of the planet has been breached. That means even if were to all live in ecovillages we would still achieve overshoot:

https://theconversation.com/if-ever...age-the-earth-would-still-be-in-trouble-43905

What that means is that the energy and resources we need per person is way above what the earth can provide for us without disrupting the environment, and certainly way above what we can acquire economically due to gravity and physical limitations.

Most people don't know this and don't care, and I'm not surprised or disappointed, as the human condition is essentially narrow in its perspective. People want a brighter future for themselves and their loved ones, and that means houses, appliances, cars, vacations abroad, and so on. It's essentially material freedom.

What they don't understand is that what will get in their way won't be other people but physics.

 

The result of capitalism is what you call monopolism. It starts with a free market, after which more wealth is accumulated among a few because they are smarter or luckier, and they take over.

That's why 10 pct of the U.S. population control 90 pct of its wealth, why the 200 richest people on earth have more wealth than half of the world population, why most of U.S. media is controlled by only six companies, why world food processing and distribution is dominated by three companies, why even personal consumption is dominated by only a fraction of the world population, and so on.

And who's to stop them from working with each other if the freedom to collude is part of free market capitalism, too? It also doesn't help if the governments that are supposed to regulate them rely on them for funds.

But here's the funny thing about capitalism: much of the power of the wealthiest comes in the form of numbers in hard drives, and the value of those numbers can only be maintained if there is more economic activity. In short, capitalists can only remain rich and become richer if everyone else is more productive, which is opposite of a feudal system, where wealth comes in the form of physical produce and power maintained through armed force. Given such, a "a severely reduced world population" would actually be disastrous to those in power because that will come with a severe reduction of economic activity, which in turn will vaporize all of that wealth.

That's why when countries engage in climate change agreements, the best they can do is to make cuts in emission increases only and promote carbon trading, both of which actually don't solve the global warming problem. It's like Al Gore with his mansions telling people that if they just change light bulbs everything will be fine.

Given that, why are most people not protesting against both lack of action towards climate change and programs like Agenda 21? Because like the rich, they are also caught between realizing that the best scientists in the world may be right not only about climate change but even about ecological damage and peak oil, and not wanting to lose the opportunity to do more business, especially if they want themselves and their families to be happy thanks to job promotion, raises, bonuses, and better deals in investments, together with the cars, houses, appliances, gadgets, leisurely activities, and many other nice things that money can buy.

Does this explain why the Kochs, who funded Berkeley Earth which was supposed to debunk what the NAS and other said, are also the biggest funders of solar power components worldwide, why ecological groups calling for sustainable development are funded by Wall Street banks, and why some of the biggest promoters of renewable energy needed to counter not only global warming but even peak oil are oil companies?

I think there is a major water crisis there due to nitrogen oxide and ammonia polluting ground- and surface water. Agriculture is heavily mechanized, which is why only around 2 pct of the labor force works in the industry, but it has a high yield.

From what I remember, Gates wants to reduce the population growth rate rather than reduce population. The latter would be a bad idea because that won't allow his companies to sell more products.

IMO, a world population of only 500 million would lead to a massive reversal of industrialization as what we have requires a large pool of laborers and consumers. Unless that idea comes with some Star Trek fantasy where machines operate almost everything, then that small population will likely face conditions similar to a time when the world once had 500 million people only: around 1 AD, when Jesus was born.

 

Given such, a "a severely reduced world population" would actually be disastrous to those in power because that will come with a severe reduction of economic activity, which in turn will vaporize all of that wealth.

I heartily disagree but I don't have the patience tonight to go into much of the political depth the discussion requires. Briefly, the cabal made their wealth through some combination of inheritance and monopoly capitalism, with a few exceptions. After gathering enough wealth to control governments they are ready to abandon capitalism for a new technological feudalism. Slaves are more fun than customers.

Ya need to read more conspiracy lit from some very smart people. Download and listen to this mp3. It's short.

 

"I want to end world hunger by feeding half the world's starving people to the other half." - Jarod Kintz

Download and listen to the attached mp3. It's short and sweet.

 

That's what I mean by a Star Trek fantasy.

 

I've tried to speak to you and be respectful of your views. So you want to end the discussion with incivility? So be it. I won't return the favor.

 

That's not meant as a insult. Here's what I mean:

In Star Trek, technology is so advanced that labor is barely required to produce goods and services. Remember the scenes in the TV shows and movies where the crew use a replicator to make food? There's even the show Voyager where they're able to use the same replicator to manufacture more weapons (the premise of the show is that they are far away from Earth it will take hundreds of years for them to return even if they travel at maximum speed).

In short, in order for 500 million people to have not only present living conditions but even more advanced than them they will need a large army of robots and computers to manufacture everything and provide services.

You can see similar in the movie Forbin: The Colossus Project, where a computer takes control of all human lives but keeps them alive by producing everything they need. Similar is seen in the movie Logan's Run.

In short, such a scenario involves a fantasy right out of Star Trek, if not these other shows. If you think I'm wrong, then explain to me which present technologies will allow that fantasy to be a reality.

That's because most people don't know that electric cars involve extensive use of fossil fuels and minerals for production. In fact, even renewable energy requires the same.

In addition to this, I can argue that electric cars are not feasible not because I don't mind pollution but because they can't replace diesel-powered vehicles. Consider steep inclines, the lack of electric grids, and even the energy density of an advanced battery used for these vehicles compared to diesel of similar weight. Nothing beats fossil fuels.

Finally, I want to add that because some might think I'm a progressive or leftist or even an environmentalist. Actually, I'm a capitalist and even a conservative. The catch is that I'm also a realist.

I want to go back to the point I made about industrialization and labor. We don't realize that the present global economy actually requires a large base of workers (and consumers) in order to be maintained. It cannot be maintained if there are not enough people.

Some of you are probably too young to remember this, but there was a British TV show entitled Survivors, and it's about a group of people who survive a pandemic that kills off almost all of the human population. It's very realistic because they have to contend with the reality of having so many things available (like canned food and clothes) but also no manufacturing base to maintain tools, make spare parts, and even maintain power plants.

See, that's what happens when you have an industrial base that requires a lot of workers and not enough people to maintain the same. And I am very certain that the richest people in the world are aware of this. Even with the current system they need more workers and consumers in order for their money to grow!

Why do you think they have been investing in regions like Asia, where there are large numbers of young people? Think about it.

 

You're making my point for me. With the advent of AI, smart robots (some of them human-like), and self driven vehicles and other self-run machines doing most of work that people were once needed for, the globalists see no need for 7 billion people using their resources. Hence, they want drastic population reduction.

 

Shouldn't it be the other way round: widescale use of machines taking over first before population reduction takes place?

 

WE were all going to be starving to death in the massive world-wide famine of 1989 according to Erlich. He made huge amounts of money peddling the panic.