Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Excerpt from The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy:

“A total (world) population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.� �Ted Turner. Quote from an interview in 1996 with Audubon magazine.


Contrary to mainstream media reports, it is our firm belief that there is very little true scarcity in the world.

You will recall in the Yamashita's Gold section of this group, we mentioned those running the oil and precious metals industries purposefully foster a belief that there’s a critical shortage of resources in the world. And we advised how films like The Formula and Blood Diamond are based on the global elite’s devious approach to managing those resources.

You’ll also recall the posts in that section contain examples of how creating the illusion of scarcity is intrinsically linked with an excessive desire for profits � a desire that will stop at nothing. Not even the loss of human lives.

Well, it’s like that with everything in our world at present.

Such illusions are constantly being fed to us as if they are proven facts � the illusion that wars are unavoidable, that there’s not enough wealth to go around, that the Third World cannot organically sustain itself, that terrorists are everywhere...

As we covered in "The price of a free media" section of this group, mainstream media is a big part of this grand deception. This should come as no surprise considering the bulk of the world’s news outlets are owned by only a handful of media tycoons who all belong to secretive, elitist and unaccountable organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations.

It’s becoming obvious to most that mainstream media is nothing but a megaphone for the global elite to present biased news that’s designed to align the masses with their agenda.

Take the Overpopulation Theory � a pet hobbyhorse of virtually every powerful individual in the Establishment. The supposed need to depopulate the planet for the good of Mankind is a theory that has been peddled by every elitist from the Rockefellers, to Bill Gates and Ted Turner, to US Presidents like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, to Prince Charles HRH the Prince of Wales and other British Royals. The latter includes the Queen’s husband Prince Philip who once infamously remarked, “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.�

Let us also not forget Henry Kissinger’s aforementioned comment in the recently declassified National Security Memorandum 200 document in which he states, “Depopulation should be the highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World,� to secure mineral resources for the US.

The motivations behind depopulation suggestions may actually be a desire to create a modern form of eugenics, albeit masquerading as something more benign. That may sound a rather extreme accusation, but keep in mind it was only a generation or two ago that the global elite were bona fide supporters of draconian eugenics programs.

How many remain adherents of this insidious science, but choose to keep their beliefs to themselves now that eugenics has been universally vilified?

Many independent researchers, ourselves included, believe the proposed global population control measures really are a politically correct version of the once government-sponsored eugenics programs.

In our opinion, racial hatred is the likely impetus behind this new version of eugenics. As Edwin Black reminds us in his book War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, “Eugenics was� a “pseudoscience,� and “In its extreme, racist form, this meant wiping away all human beings deemed ‘unfit,� preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype�.

There are clues that would seem to confirm that domination of non-white races remains a part of the agenda. The biggest clues are the countries and peoples that are being singled out for supposedly propagating too fast.

Have you noticed how those powerful figures who promote the “urgent need� for depopulation are almost always, if not always, referring to Third World countries or developing nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America � and not countries like the UK, France, Germany, Russia or the US whose citizens are predominantly Caucasian?

Could it be that Mr. Kissinger is not the only elitist who fears the West will lose its stranglehold on the planet’s resources if certain developing nations grow too big and powerful?

Remember, so-called experts have been suggesting the Earth must depopulate since the early 20th Century, which notably coincides with the exact same period that eugenics programs were first endorsed by governments.

By the 1960’s, when the planet’s total population was 3 billion, the overpopulation theory reached popular consciousness � aided no doubt by those influential figures who regularly trumpeted it in the media. The concept was always presented as if it was an absolute fact: the world could not handle many more people and humanity would soon cease to exist unless depopulation strategies were implemented immediately.

However, the world’s population is now over 7 billion and life goes on. In some respects, life’s a lot more complicated than it was back in the Hippy Era, but nevertheless Mother Earth continues to sustain life and, despite what some may tell us, she shows no immediate sign of exploding, imploding or otherwise wilting.

None of this counter-argument should be misconstrued as ignoring the Earth’s immense problems. Yes people are dying of malnutrition, thirst and disease; yes nations are fighting over resources; yes there is an ever-widening gap between rich and poor; and yes much of our planet is disgustingly polluted.

However, these problems, or tragedies, need to be assessed in the context of that which is being withheld. For every Yes there’s a No.

No the world’s most advanced technologies have not been released; no there is not fair and proper distribution of wealth and resources; no we haven’t progressed beyond the strong dominating the weak through wars and the like; no the financial system has not been cleansed of corrupt bankers and economic hitmen.

When you balance the No’s against the Yes’s it becomes obvious that if we lived in a fairer world � especially one where there is greater equality and where no technology or information is ever suppressed � the planet could sustain an even bigger population. Perhaps much bigger.

The daily struggle of many for food, water and other basic necessities is more about greed and unfair political and economic systems than population levels.

For example, if half of Africa’s population was wiped out tomorrow, millions of people would still be left scavenging for bare essentials due to the fact that very little of the continent’s abundant resources (that are mined, drilled or otherwise extracted) remain in Africa for the benefit of Africans. So the problem is one of imperialism, or expansionism, rather than there being too many mouths to feed.

Yoko Ono summarized this issue well during her appearance on The Dick Cavett Show on September 11, 1971, when she said, “I think the problem is not overpopulation, as people believe to be, but it’s more of the balance of things ... Like food. Some parts of the world there’s wastage of food, in some parts nobody has food. And that kind of a balance, if that is solved, I don’t think we’d be worried so much about overpopulation.�

The big question is: why is anyone still suggesting depopulation? And why is the media still giving such suggestions airtime?

Unless outlawed eugenics programs are revived or certain elitists get their way with nefarious strategies such as mass sterilizations or forced abortions, depopulation is hardly likely in this day and age. Except of course where it’s an inevitable consequence of wars, genocide or natural disasters.

It would make more sense to seek solutions for the world’s current and projected populations than trying to take away or limit people’s basic right to procreate. China’s one-child policy aside, procreation is something Man has always done freely and without thought.

Releasing classified or suppressed scientific inventions would likely be a good start. Especially technologies that have the potential to combat the world’s most pressing issues, such as pollution and its effects on climate, whatever those effects may be.

It’s worth noting that throughout history, population growth has usually spurred technological advances. This was true during the Industrial Revolution, the post-WW2 years and the Space Age era; and we are witnessing it again with the explosion of computer and mobile phone technologies, which can barely keep pace with worldwide consumer demands for those products.

We’ve already acknowledged that pollution is an urgent problem. However, a few hundred million less people less � which is all strict population controls could hope to achieve in the near future � wouldn’t decrease pollution levels that much.

And who is to say higher populations won’t actually make it easier to develop pollutant-free and clean energy technologies in the same way they created the necessary demand, infrastructure and labour force to spark other inventions of bygone years? We are not saying higher populations would necessarily achieve this, but at present there has been zero public debate as to the potential benefits of the planet’s increasing numbers of people.

Many cities are undoubtedly overpopulated, but much of this is to do with poor economic management and a lack of environmental and geographic planning. For example, rural-dwellers are often so impoverished they have no choice but to move to cities for work. With a greater and fairer distribution of wealth, governments could provide incentives for citizens to remain in rural areas or relocate to emerging cities or even build new cities.



Check out part 2 of the overpopulation myth in this discussion thread here: /topic/show/...

In this video Prince Philip says humans are reaching "plague proportions"!
He talks about humans like others talk about bacteria...

Contrary to what we have all been told, there is a lot of data which supports the counter-theory that the planet is not over populated, but rather there is lack and poverty due to uneven distribution of resources and other inequalities. Once those issues are sorted out, will anyone still be buying into these overpopulation theories?

Yeah, I've never believed the world is overpopulated...It only seems that way due to the lack of sharing and cruelty going on...

I believe that advances in science have created much of the overpopulation "crises". Natural attrition once kept our numbers down. As heartless as that sounds, it was a fact that kept a balance. Think of animals. We now dress our dogs up in cutesy costumes and put sparkles in their hair and pay a fortune for a human-like funeral. Animals in the wild eat each other for food. Each has a natural predator. The wild is not as glamorised as it is in the media. Please don't think I am criticising pet owners but I do get disgusted in the commercialisation of pet offerings. Many people in the world are starving. Why do we spend so much on our pets? Commercialisation. The mighty dollar.

Pets are an important part of our society, especially for lonely people, the elderly and children. However I think there is a line to be drawn. Animals are happiest in their natural environment, not in ours. I can't imagine a dog or cat or guinea pig, looking in a mirror and applying lipstick! That just seems to me the way we are headed.

Now we have the means of controlling our population through contraception, but it is only affordable in advanced countries. The poor countries have no such help, except through Western donations. How belittling! Why can't we put our money into training and education for these countries so they feel they are in control of their own destiny. At present, they still have babies and young children dying from starvation, something the rest of the world finished with a couple of hundred years ago.

We are now saving babies who have only had 24mths gestation. Great, but are Africa's babies not worth saving from starvation? People from poor countries would not feel they had to have so many babies if they could be assured that their first two babies would survive. It cost the Western countries obscene amounts of money to provide the lifestyle, health and beauty that we desire. I think we need a simpler way of life, one in which we allow our bodies to die when they are worn out and not have science taken up with saving those who have had a good life already.

Long ago, people were accustomed to,losing loved ones. Their babies died before they had a life and the mother often died at the same time. The bread winner often died from workplace accidents leaving their family to the work houses. We have become spoilt, I think. We certainly don't want to re-visit the past, but I think we must learn to appreciate what we have and not expect to live forever.

We could all do with a good dose of reality. If we wish to keep our present level of living standards, then we do need to stop increasing our population at it's present rate. The West has done that to a degree. Most families only have 2, maybe 3 children. But poor countries can't do that without help to secure certainty in their survival.

Laureen wrote: "I believe that advances in science have created much of the overpopulation "crises". Natural attrition once kept our numbers down. As heartless as that sounds, it was a fact that kept a balance. ..."

Some good points in there, but I think the first thing to work out is whether the overpopulation theory is an undeniable fact or just another theory open to debate. For example, we only need to decrease the Earth's population if indeed we are overpopulated...

So when the entire world's population could fit into the state of Texas or a third of Australia and about 40% of the Earth's land is still uninhabited or virgin land, the key question remains for me: is the world actually overpopulated or are certain communities starving due to unfair distribution of resources and other inequalities?

James wrote: "Laureen wrote: "I believe that advances in science have created much of the overpopulation "crises". Natural attrition once kept our numbers down. As heartless as that sounds, it was a fact that ..."

Pertinent question. The answer seems obvious.
In a greedy world the 1% will always save the 99% of savings to themselves.

Laureen wrote: "I believe that advances in science have created much of the overpopulation "crises". Natural attrition once kept our numbers down. As heartless as that sounds, it was a fact that kept a balance. ..."

I agree with much of what you said (specially the pets part). And true, we don't have an overopulation problem. We actually have enough resources to feed 13 billion people. Thing is: we are not managing the resources correctly.
One thing nobody likes to hear is that the thing that is destroying nature (mainly Amazon rainforest) the most is livestock farming. The industry keeps us addicted to meat and keeps selling it and making us believe we need meat to survive and that we are top of the food chain (when we actually share the post in that chain with pigs and anchoves, doesn't seem too ferocious).

About Africa, it's more than about survival. There are many things on the table when the subject is children. I've been living in Africa for almost a decade and people here have MANY children because it's the tradition. If a woman can't have children she's either cursed or infertile, therefore, is seen as nothing by her peers. Women here are seen as baby-making machines. It's really sad but it's true. Africa is the continent where feminism is really needed. We're so far back in time, people in general are so mistreated but women, elderly and children in general, because they lack the physical strength to impose their will over others. It's a harsh reality out here.

But you're right. If we keep living the way we do: eating meat and fish and milk and eggs at an absurd rate, making and wasting plastic and fuels and switching electronic devices every two years we really will run out of space and will have to deal and confront our own actions in the future, for better or for worse.

I second what Ã�°ù¾±²õ says - it's not about the number of people, it's about their actions and consumption. Half of the planet's vertebrate animals have been killed in the last 40 years:

So much forest has been cleared for agriculture in Brazil that the 'flying rivers' that used to bring moisture down to the Sao Paolo region have dried up:

And on top of that, the whole planet is heating up. This is an illustration of temperature anomalies (departure from 1979-2000 average) from today - pretty brutal if you imagine what it'll be like in another 10 or 20 years:



These are things that have been caused by people. So, regardless of arguments over whether it is down to absolute population or not, I would say that the planet is in a lot of trouble because of us. In terms of nature, it's a far poorer and less abundant world than that of our great-grandparents. Generational amnesia allows us to forget that it was ever different to the way it is now - and the mainstream media plays a great part in reinforcing this amnesia, too.

The concerns about overpopulation are intertwined with the environmental movement, and there is a great deal of overlap into the diabolical world of Eugenics. It's astonishing how many prominent individuals, past and present, have said or written that literally millions of human beings need to die in order to save the planet.

I agree that most problems related to any alleged overpopulation are the result of the incomprehensible disparity in wealth and income, in America and around the world.

I devoted a chapter in my book "Hidden History" to the Eugenics movement. It was ultimately left out of the published version, but interested readers can find it on my blog, along with another chapter that isn't in the book, on alternative energy. Here's the link:

Donald wrote: "It's astonishing how many prominent individuals, past and present, have said or written that literally millions of human beings need to die in order to save the planet.
..."

I agree - it's frightening when you read such comments made by leading figures over the years about depopulating at all costs. And even scarier to ponder what they may be prepared to do to achieve that aim...

James, I am in agreement with you about the overpopulation of the world. At all times we need to have a greater population of youth than aged people because it is the young that will be the new innovators. 3-4 children per couple would amply do this I think and cover those who have no children.

In regard to fitting the world population into Australia? Well, everybody would want to live around the coastline and river districts, not in the central desert. The coastline and river districts are the most arable areas, so we would have no land left to grow our food or produce our meat.

No, the world is not overpopulated at present nor will it be, I think, in the foreseeable future but we have to remain aware of the importance of sharing our resources. I totally agree with the quote you give by Yokohama Ono.

I see some of conflict problems coming from this inequality of power and resources. Why do we send money to under-developed countries. Each wealthy country should be using that money to pay educators to go to these
countries and help the people set up schools for all it's citizens. These people should be empowered to help themselves not have paternalistic handouts from rich countries who want to retain their superiority.

That is what the West is mostly afraid of and that is where the public has mostly been deceived. The current world powers don't wish to share their knowledge. What happens then is that the people from poor countries are dependent on the likes of dictator regimes because the wealth and labour of that country is confiscated by the hierarchy. Meanwhile, the wealthy countries retain their power by withholding the knowledge that would truly help. We don't want to send our engineers and health professionals to these lands to show the people modern methods of farming and preserving or collecting water. We don't want to see these people empowered any more that their dictator regimes do. Our tax payers give these countries billions of dollars in aide every year but what really happens to this money? I suspect it isn't being used to empower their people.

Women in these countries appear to me still to be treated like a part of the live stock. Something to own for the purpose of keeping him fed and to warm his bed and be his slave and to give him children. Why aren't these people being educated to think for themselves?

Laureen wrote: "James, I am in agreement with you about the overpopulation of the world. At all times we need to have a greater population of youth than aged people because it is the young that will be the new in..."

Okay, sorry, I think I misunderstood your previous post then.

Australia could actually be greened if necessary (like Giddaffi did to parts of Libya) so arid uninhabitable land doesn't need to remain so. From memory, I think the scientific word for this process is called permaculture.
However, nobody is saying living conditions would be good if all the world's population lived in Australia or Texas, it's simply to make the point that there is more than enough land, food and resources for current and projected world populations if humanity can start sharing and stop wars and start working together not against each other.

Yes James, Australia could be greened. However the difficulty would be money. We have an extremely large internal land mass and a very small population which means few tax payers.

Then again, we have some very rich entrepreneurs who could, maybe, take an interest for the good of this country and others.io

This also is where it is important for our scientists to be free-thinking but then that is another stream to this debate I think.

Must be, Edward, after all the majority opinion rules does it not? HaHa.

Laureen wrote: "Yes James, Australia could be greened. However the difficulty would be money. We have an extremely large internal land mass and a very small population which means few tax payers.

Then again, ..."

Methinks the money's already there Laureen. Problem is it's largely in the hands of the 1% and I suspect is reserved for the exclusive use of the 1%. I refer to the world, not just Australia.

I strongly believe there's sufficient wealth and resources to feed and clothe every individual on Earth and eliminate poverty once and for all. It only requires the collective will of all...

Has anyone thought of the impacts of greening a whole continent though?
I mean, nature-wise: we already depleted the planet from so many animal species (and even plant species), wouldn't it be bad to green it all? Some animal and plant species can only thrive in dry or wasteland (like serpents, a few wildcats or foxes, and a few rodents, small mammals, etc).
We can't think on humankind only without thinking of other species because the death of other species will also mean the death of humankind down the road.

Ã�°ù¾±²õ wrote: "Has anyone thought of the impacts of greening a whole continent though?
I mean, nature-wise: we already depleted the planet from so many animal species (and even plant species), wouldn't it be bad ..."

Not that many animals in Outback Australia, likewise with the large sections of Libya that Giddaffi greened. You wouldn't want to green the whole of Outback Australia necessarily, but you could green maybe a landmass the size of Germany and create a lot of new towns and cities, while still leave large areas of the Outback arid and dry and uninhabitable.
Anyway, that greening (which I think may be called permaculture) was just one of about a million possibilities...Likewise even with living on other planets in the near future...
We live in exciting times and are limited only by our imaginations.

I agree with you Iris. Our World is made up of diversity. What would be exciting about a world that only looked the same where ever you went. Our deserts are beautiful and have their place as does our oceans, our Icelandic areas, our forests, our beautiful blue skys and our mountains., our tundras, rivers and lakes, our islands and our reefs. It would not be planet Earth without any one of them.

Not only that, but the survival of the animals you wish to save absolutely depends on the diversity of our regions. Desert animals don't live in forests. North Pole animals don't live in Brazil (warm climates).

However, humanity is not altogether to blame for species becoming extinct. We once had what we call prehistoric animals and man-like beings. Nature does appear to preserve life whilst it is useful. I thing most animals are products of evolution the way that man is. They adapt to new environments and food through evolution - they just don't die whilst their importance in the welfare of life and the planet still requires them to live. You may think this is fanciful but it explains to some degree the diversity of thought and life experiences that our billions of inhabitants have. Oh, how I wish I could express myself better! None of that describes the complex thoughts in my head but I guess everybody feels that. I am not alone!

I think the Earth has a great propensity to revive itself and I am very confident that will happen. Wealth, fortune and health depend, to some degree, on a positive attitude. There is too much gloom and doom. We must be pro-active - I am not referring to activism as we know it which promotes negativity, hatred, violence and causes a defensive reaction from those it is aimed against. Reading, understanding and open-minded education & communication are the keys to a more harmonious coming
together in a common cause.

James wrote: "Ã�°ù¾±²õ wrote: "Has anyone thought of the impacts of greening a whole continent though?
I mean, nature-wise: we already depleted the planet from so many animal species (and even plant species), wouldn..."

You're right! We humans have many flaws but we also have so many tools at our disposal to make what we want from what we have, we just need to direct the intelligence and the means we have toward building great and wonderful things. And we are sure of that.

The major problem though, is how to call more people into this side of consciousness. Most people haven't woken up to what's going on. The media is so good at diverting attention from what really matters.

Ã�°ù¾±²õ wrote: "The major problem though, is how to call more people into this side of consciousness. Most people haven't woken up to what's going on. The media is so good at diverting attention from what really matters.
..."

"Do your little bit of good wherever you are; it's those little bits of good put together that overwhelm the world." -Desmond Tutu

James wrote: "Australia could actually be greened if necessary (like Giddaffi did to parts of Libya) so arid uninhabitable land doesn't need to remain so. From memory, I think the scientific word for this process is called permaculture...."

Where would the water come from to green Australia? Gaddafi was only able to green parts of Libya with his thanks to all the 'fossil water' that lies in the , the giant, ancient and non-replenishable reservoir beneath the Eastern Sahara.

Permaculture can be an excellent solution to regenerating land degraded by human activity, even on a large scale. These videos are some of the best I have come across:

and

And how did the Israelis 'miraculously' turn desert into the land of milk and honey it is today?

It can be done.

Thank you Edward (for message 26) but, I wish! I don't even understand most poetry. For me, poetry is too ambiguous. I like straight talkers. The only way I know.

I remember some time ago a story on Australian Story about a farmer regenerating the soil and waterways naturally so I looked it up. His name was Peter Andrews and the Web Site I found was thefifthestate.com.au Just search for Peter Andrews: An Australian Story. Talk about lack of interest from the Government and others. The story and pictures were very convincing but I heard no more about it. Just imagine if we had scientists working along with this farmer who were unfettered by profit mongers. Not that there is anything wrong with profit making except when it hinders true progress.

Lance wrote: "And how did the Israelis 'miraculously' turn desert into the land of milk and honey it is today?

It can be done."

They used HAARP weather modification, everybody knows that ;D

Laureen wrote: "I remember some time ago a story on Australian Story about a farmer regenerating the soil and waterways naturally so I looked it up. His name was Peter Andrews and the Web Site I found was thefift..."

Agreed Laureen - And imagine if all the money that currently goes toward funding the military went to funding advanced science instead.

Yes James but I don't think we should dismantle our military. Besides our military do do some good work in helping other countries. I know that theses"good"works are commissioned by our Governments but that shouldn't take away from the good they do. They don't have to fight war but could be like a peace-keeping force. Yes, I agree, I'm probably off in fairyland but we have to be positive, don't we?

Hi Edward, I have a beautiful green stick-like insect climbing up my couch at the moment. He is very large but I'd better put him outside or he might die. Just saying, in case it puts a smile back on your face.

I agree with your comment above. We can't be naive enough to believe that if we didn't have a military, that wars would end. There are certain bad things that we have to accept along with the good things. Besides, it isn't our sholdiers that are the problem, it is the orders and culture of those giving the orders that is usually the problem when there is one.

To a high degree, over population would not be problematic if it was not for the backward, segregative and oppressive ideologies/dogmas that accompany the over-populus. I mean that's my opinion

Fahmi wrote: "To a high degree, over population would not be problematic if it was not for the backward, segregative and oppressive ideologies/dogmas that accompany the over-populus. I mean that's my opinion"

Yes, Yes, Yes!

Man... have you seen this? From today's Natural News: "Vatican speaker and California Governor in push for massive depopulation... talk of 'Planetary Court' and removal of 6 billion people under new 'Earth Constitution' and 'World Government'"

I think it's worth me just pasting the first part of the article:

"The depopulationists are on the move again, pushing hard for the elimination of six billion people on planet Earth in order to bring the planet down to what's being touted as its "sustainable carrying capacity of one billion people."

But this time, the depopulation agenda may be codified by the Vatican. Professor John Schellnhuber has been chosen as a speaker for the Vatican's rolling out of a Papal document on climate change. He's the professor who previously said the planet is overpopulated by at least six billion people. Now, the Vatican is giving him a platform which many expect will result in an official Church declaration in support of radical depopulation in the name of "climate science."

"The teaching document, called an encyclical, is scheduled for release on June 18 at Vatican City," reports Breitbart.com. "Perhaps with the exception of the 1968 encyclical on contraception, no Vatican document has been greeted with such anticipation."

A new Planetary Court to hold power over all nations... one ring to rule them all
Schellnhuber daydreams about a "Planetary Court" guided by a new "Earth Constitution" which would hold power over every nation and government on the planet. As he explains himself in this document on HumansAndNature.org, he's a proponent of an all-powerful, climate-focused world government that would rule over the planet... a literal "science dictatorship" based on whatever "science" the climate change proponents can fudge together each year.

As Schellnhuber says:

Let me conclude this short contribution with a daydream about those key institutions that could bring about a sophisticated -- and therefore more appropriate -- version of the conventional "world government" notion. Global democracy might be organized around three core activities, namely (i) an Earth Constitution; (ii) a Global Council; and (iii) a Planetary Court. I cannot discuss these institutions in any detail here, but I would like to indicate at least that:

- the Earth Constitution would transcend the UN Charter and identify those first principles guiding humanity in its quest for freedom, dignity, security and sustainability;

- the Global Council would be an assembly of individuals elected directly by all people on Earth, where eligibility should be not constrained by geographical, religious, or cultural quotas; and

- the Planetary Court would be a transnational legal body open to appeals from everybody, especially with respect to violations of the Earth Constitution.

Schellnhunber, in other words, believes a new world government can create "freedom" for humanity by dictating to it with a new Planetary Court guided by an Earth Constitution which will no doubt begin by declaring the planet can only sustain one billion people. The other six billion or so simply have to go. So instead of a Bill of Rights, this new Earth Constitution will be founded on a Bill of Deaths and a global government that might order the extermination of billions of human beings in order to "save the climate."

"In an unprecedented encyclical on the subject of the environment, the pontiff is expected to argue that humanity’s exploitation of the planet’s resources has crossed the Earth’s natural boundaries," reports The Guardian. "...[T]he world faces ruin without a revolution in hearts and minds."

The Guardian goes on to report:

The pope is "aiming at a change of heart. What will save us is not technology or science. What will save us is the ethical transformation of our society," said Carmelite Father Eduardo Agosta Scarel, a climate scientist who teaches at the Pontifical Catholic University of Argentina in Buenos Aires."

Read more: #

Re; my above post.

Nobody interested in the issue of a coming one world government creating mass genocide then?

(What am I thinking? No one likes reading long wordy posts that sound ridiculous, you fool! Let's stick to quick quips instead.)

Harry wrote: "Re; my above post.

Nobody interested in the issue of a coming one world government creating mass genocide then?

(What am I thinking? No one likes reading long wordy posts that sound ridiculous, y..."

Nothing will stop humanity.
The people will win.
There are more than enough resources provided we can have fairer distribution.
I look forward to bigger populations - it'll be fun!

James wrote: "Harry wrote: "Re; my above post.

Nobody interested in the issue of a coming one world government creating mass genocide then?

(What am I thinking? No one likes reading long wordy posts that sound..."


Oh, I absolutely agree mate. My stance was simply about the general public's apathy towards potentially incredibly devastating things such as depopulation. (And we'd certainly think about it differently if this was about wiping out New York for instance.)

WE ARE NOT OVERPOPULATED.

We can lay pipelines under the sea, create canals, fly to Mars, build cool architecture to house big business......

We could build floating islands. We could build towns in the desert with Eden Project type greenhouses. We could... we could... we could do so many things.

Beware of overpopulation propaganda.

Bravo, Harry. Wise words.
We are limited only by our imaginations.

Hahaha, overpopulation, what a funny MYTH, because that's exactly what it is, a myth.
I'm curious, has anyone ever been to Texas in the USA... I'm sure you could drive two days without seeing anybody haha, but really there's pretty much no one there. ;)


Also, if where you live is crowded- then MOVE. It's that simple.

Actually there are very good reasons why the world is truly overpopulated, despite the rhetoric of those who comment here. I realise that this is a very serious issue and rather than say much now, I am preparing a topic for the news section of my website
Suffice to say that each person on Earth has about 1.7 ha of land to provide food, clothing and energy. Alas, the average American uses effectively 7 ha compared with a global average of about 2.5 ha per person. One hectare (ha) is 10,000 square metres, easy to remember as it is 100x100.

One of you mentioned acres. These are medieval units and not many people know what they are (even Americans don't know the definition in my experience). Either way, one quarter acre is way too low to support human life, let alone modern American life. One hectare is about 2.5 acres. So a quarter of an acre is about a tenth of a hectare. Even poorly developed countries need one hectare per person.

In fact if the whole world lived like Americans, with current technology, we would need about 4 Earths to supply all the resources. Some other countries are worse. You could use this to say that the Earth can only support one quarter its current inhabitants or one half if they all adopt a more environmental lifestyle. The alternative is to develop new technologies FAST, but with exponential growth in population time is running out.

The empty spaces of Texas are an irrelevance if its inhabitants are importing food, water and energy from outside. Of course Texas has long wanted to be its own country isolated from the rest of the world, but that's not possible. Fay, your last remark about overcrowding is ignorant and offensive to those who live in crowded conditions.

Australia is a desert, except for the coastal areas, and can't support much life, so putting each person on Earth there with just 0.1 ha of land will rapidly lead to mass starvation within months.

By the way, James, we're not limited ONLY by our imaginations. Religious dogma and culture often get in the way, as well more fundamentally as the laws of physics!

I should have my article written by the weekend, so check on the website then.

John wrote: "Actually there are very good reasons why the world is truly overpopulated, despite the rhetoric of those who comment here. I realise that this is a very serious issue and rather than say much now, ..."


Set up green local energy for each new place. Set up Eden Project type greenhouses. The vast majority of the Earth is water- it's fine to create luxury marinas, but not to extend into the sea further or create a series of floating islands. So much of our world is unused simply because we don't think outside the box; instead we have millions of refugees...

John, of course we have enough SPACE. Why colonize fucking Mars when we could put that money elsewhere? It DOES begin with vision, and yes, it does mean an upheaval of current global structures- but shouldn't we be morally responsible for the well being of every single human being and put such things above fat cat profits?

On the scientific front, there was an excellent prime time documentary on BBC2 last year by some renowned 'mathematician' (I'll try to find it if you like) who showed without a doubt that overpopulation is a myth- showing how many populations have decreased and why growths of others will decrease in the future, in great detail.

Here's the vid:



By Professor Hans Rosling.

Harry,

I said the world is overpopulated given CURRENT TECHNOLOGIES.

You quote technologies that are generally not practised nor properly understood. I thought the Eden project stopped because its ecosystem collapsed.

If you want to introduce untested, theoretical technologies to the world's poor etc., then you have a chance of avoiding long term problems.

If we can't even solve a problem like climate change, how can we solve the problems of introducing new technologies. You're living in a dream world.

Harry,

By the way, I really don't know why anyone wants to go to Mars. We don't yet have the technology for that either.

John, I find it amusing that you're fast becoming the voice of OVERGROUND KNOWLEDGE in a group called UNDERGROUND KNOWLEDGE...

Meaning, you're regurgitating info which is freely available in the public domain and widely reported by mainstream media and info we have all heard a million times...In other words, you're repeating the official line and always standing on the side of the status quo (in every single instance!). I haven't read one post of yours where you even entertain alternative concepts, let alone seriously debate them ;)

Now that's not to say you're never right and of course in many instances the officially agreed upon viewpoint is indeed the correct one. But I think in these discussions you're possibly not thinking outside the square enough and not comprehending this group is specifically designed to allow humble people to freely present counter arguments to officially accepted ideas. Other members should not be slammed or patronized for expressing alternative viewpoints (and viewpoints that the mainstream media never allows to be discussed, I might add). For example, what Harry is implying about other technologies (either suppressed or underutilized) is an important point and IF we allow free and open debate then offshoot alternative ideas can arise from that (e.g. what if there are technologies to go to Mars?) .

Personally, I totally disagree with what you're saying about there being not enough space in the world. Once again, I think you're making the mistake of thinking everything can be understood SOLELY by science alone. That's a very 20th Century mindset, in my opinion, not to mention a little naive. Whilst I greatly respect science, not everything can be understood in the laboratory or by using certain formulas. Like most issues in this group, and indeed like most of the crucial problems facing the world right now, the overpopulation myth (or truth, depending on your theory/belief) needs to be considered from more than just science alone. I believe it's also about understanding geopolitics, global corruption, the domination of weaker countries/races (e.g. the history of eugencis) and numerous other subjects including underground/conspiracy/alternative ideas like the suppression of certain technologies and dark agendas of the global elite.

So if you're only tackling this topic and other topics from science alone (and only "official science" or "mainstream currently-accepted science" at that), then it's bloody tricky or even pointless in my view to debate with you on any of these issues within the context of a group called Underground Knowledge...Different story if we were having such debates in the mainstream media, of course, but this group is the antithesis of that scenario.

Now, again, reminding you that none of this post of mine is to remotely say that mainstream currently accepted viewpoints - which you repeat over and over - are not often the correct ones or that most of the "underground" alternative viewpoints expressed in this group are wiser than mainstream beliefs. However, I strongly believe there needs to be a forum like this where people can freely discuss alternative concepts to discover whether SOME of the currently accepted ideas on a whole host of topics may be incorrect. After all, if you study history not to mention the history of science, all ideas currently accepted were once deemed to be "eccentric" or even dare I say "underground".

To reiterate, and to make myself abundantly clear, I am also not saying I am correct about the "overpopulation myth" or that it shouldn't be vigorously debated or that counter arguments (against my theory and more importantly against other greater minds who also believe overpopulation is a total myth) should not be posted. But what I am saying is I wouldn't know where to begin to debate with you when you're not even prepared to consider ANY viewpoint that's not already been officially agreed upon and already reported in mainstream media...It'd be like trying to have such an alternative, free-thinking debate on BBC television or any other mainstream media outlet that discourages radical ideas (as you are also trying to discourage)...

Also, I think it's very important this group has skeptics like yourself to balance those who float alternative ideas - so that we can work out what underground ideas could be valid and which ones are likely to be BS. However, the skeptics should never get to the point where they slam certain members (perhaps of the variety who lack confidence) from freely expressing alternative ideas (some of which could be right) and discourage open debate just because they have "credentials" or are "experts" in any particular field.

If you're still unsure about the nature of this group and why we believe “underground knowledge� is extremely important for the world right now, then I suggest you have a read of this intro essay we wrote for the group: /topic/show/...

Interesting points. I suppose I have been generally arguing the "establishment view", as you insultingly call it. I haven't done so consciously, but then I find that it is more often supported by sound argument. Much of what you write about or discuss isn't, in my view.

In fact the scientific community at large allows for dissent. That is how opinion changes. For example you could write a research paper saying that climate change is nonsense. Some people do. Scientific knowledge changes by reasoned argument and that's what I often find lacking here. I am trying to rebalance.

My general thinking is that some people prefer the "underground knowledge" ideas because they are subconsciously rebels or denialists of some kind. The world is out to get you!

Also, most people don't even understand the "establishment view" or how it's reached so are not really in a position to argue against it. Nearly all the arguments you put up are thought up and discussed "behind closed doors" before you ever get to hear about them. They are rejected because the evidence is against them, and they fail to become "scientific truth", or the "establishment view". Not surprisingly those people putting put up arguments against the "established view" seek an audience elsewhere. Good luck with that.

I have thought that my responsibility as a former professional scientist was to debate the ideas rationally. I get it that you don't want to be persuaded by argument. If you don't want that balance I'll resign from the group.

Be careful that you are not creating a religious cult, where only the believers are allowed to be members.

John wrote: "Interesting points. I suppose I have been generally arguing the "establishment view", as you insultingly call it. I haven't done so consciously, but then I find that it is more often supported by s..."

Re-read my post as obviously didn't get what I wrote. Nowhere did I say or imply for you to leave or that you disagreeing with others is unwelcome. Almost every discussion thread in this entire group involves everybody disagreeing with everyone else and this group was inspired by the Ancient Greek-style of debating. In fact, I see very little agreement going on!

I clearly stated (repeatedly) in my previous post that your constant scepticism and the arguments you form are admirable - I like sceptics and we need both sceptics and more open-minded (even naïve) people for balance... the truth is usually somewhere in the between the two extremes.

You've freely presented your theories (which are all mainstream ideas in the public domain) and nobody has stopped you - in fact, I for one have encouraged it (e.g. you'll recall in the climate change thread I indicated that I learnt a lot from you). I think you have a talent for breaking down science for the layman to easily understand, which is a rare talent I haven't come across in too many other scientists.

However, when you try to speak as the "voice of science" it's disingenuous in my opinion, and I've responded to that at times by posting counter arguments in videos and articles by more renowned scientists than yourself on a whole host of issues. You're also not the only professional in this group nor the only scientist or doctor, and many of the other professional members hold contrary views to some of your beliefs as I'm sure you've noted. Again, that doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong about your theories but it does prove that science in 2015 is much more varied and non-unified than you are indicating it is...

But most importantly, I posted my previous post as you don't seem to understand this is a forum designed for people to openly discuss alternative ideas and counter theories and not be patronized as they would be in mainstream media. It's perfectly fine for you to always parrot the establishment or mainstream academia on every single occasion, that's to be expected by now, but I'd personally just grown tired of all your patronizing comments toward other members. Not myself, as personally I find your comments toward me highly amusing, but I'm concerned other members might find it intimidating.

So it'd be really good if you stay in the group, but that's over to you obviously.
But if you do decide to stay, would you possibly consider just presenting the established already-agreed-upon theories without the comments like "you are living in a dream world" or "you know nothing" etc, etc? Because, you never know, the other members you're saying those comments to may actually have as much or more knowledge than you do...

John wrote: "Interesting points. I suppose I have been generally arguing the "establishment view", as you insultingly call it. I haven't done so consciously, but then I find that it is more often supported by s..."


Don't leave John. We're gonna make you our High Priest.

:)

The tiny and very remote pacific island civilization of , area 5 km^2, population 1200, is an instructive case study when looking at population. They live with extreme resource limitations, in a manner that is little changed from their distant ancestors, and they have turned the whole island into, essentially, a permaculture food forest which, along with fishing, provides everything they need. At one time in their history it was even agreed by common consent to slaughter all of the pigs on the island as they consumed too much food. The population has remained at 1200 for a long time (other than a period between 1920-1950 when the introduction of Christianity led to disruption of their traditional birth control techniques) - a higher population cannot be sustained on the island.

If there is something to be learned from the Tikopians, it is that their society, unlike most modern ones, discourages hoarding of wealth and resources - it is not compatible with the long-term viability of their civilization.

Luke wrote: "The tiny and very remote pacific island civilization of Tikopia, area 5 km^2, population 1200, is an instructive case study when looking at population. They live with extreme resource limitations, ..."

I actually think studying native/tribal peoples of the world creates supporting evidence for both sides of this debate.

Yes, most tribal communities only take the resources they need (as you rightly point out) and therefore these examples definitely support the overpopulation theory in that modern man is the antithesis of that lifestyle and is therefore straining the planet (thru greed or whatever you want to call it).

However, the flip side is that tribal peoples have a fair distribution of resources. You may be aware that the number one argument put forward by those researchers who say the world is NOT overpopulated is that there is currently nowhere near a fair distribution of wealth/resources and this is the real problem that makes the world appear as if it is overpopulated. Likewise, tribal communities also have equality and if all nations and races were deemed to be equal in the eyes of world leaders, then we wouldn't allow millions to die in places like Africa just as wealthy Western nations do not allow their (predominantly white) citizens to die by the millions due to poverty. So there currently seems to be a scale of importance with human lives, which obviously doesn't happen in tribal communities.

Also, when you take a tiny island like Tikopia and study it in isolation then of course overpopulation is true. No researchers I am aware of who say overpopulation is a myth are saying there are not certain parts of the world that cannot handle any more people: The most populated areas on Earth like Palestine, Hong Kong, Manila, Mexico City, Tokyo (to name but a few) are all at or nearing their absolute limit and only a fool would deny overpopulation in such limited land areas (just as in Tikopia). However, these places need to be balanced against the massive underpopulated regions of the Earth. Such landmasses include Canada, Brazil (apart from their 2-3 big cities), Australia, Mongolia, Scandinavia, Russia, much of central Asia, many parts of the Middle East and large chunks of Africa and South America. Even some rural regions of the two most populated countries on earth � China and India � would fit into this category, not to mention certain states in America such as Alaska, Idaho, Nebraska, Maine, Utah, Arkansas, Wyoming, Texas and Montana � each of which have larger landmasses than many countries.

So the question at hand is not "are certain places of the world overpopulated?" but rather "is the world overpopulated?"

These two images provide a good visual of how many underpopulated or sparsely populated large sections of the Earth there are:

/photo/group...

/photo/group...


We are also now running a group poll on this topic asking: Do you believe the world as a whole is overpopulated and at or close to the absolute limit of what it can handle? /poll/show/1...

Lance Morcan wrote: "In this video Prince Philip says humans are reaching "plague proportions"!
He talks about humans like others talk about bacteria...
"

shocking is it not? Of course human beings are delightful animals who bring nothing but joy to the world. Get real, it is humans who have invented weapons of mass destruction, it is humans who destroy one another for fun. Other animals do not do these things.

James Morcan wrote: "John wrote: "Interesting points. I suppose I have been generally arguing the "establishment view", as you insultingly call it. I haven't done so consciously, but then I find that it is more often s..."

Apparently everyone who disagrees with you is brainwashed by the media and some sinister elite (Bildebergers,? Royals? Jews?) who control said media and make us all parrot opinions we have learned from the global elite, for example that the word is over populated,this lie as you claim it is of overpopulation is apparently forstered for some extremely sinister reason of the global elites own devising, while you, oh enlightened and intelligent one, (following in the footsteps of Lincoln Laroche, that Guru of consipiracy theorists,) to whom the rest of us poor brainwashed mortals should look up with gasps of awe at your erudition, instruct us poor media-misled fools that this is not the case, that we are deluded or stupid (or both). In short, you seem to be dismissing anyone who thinks that the world is overpopulated as being deluded by an elite run media. I call that patronsising, but you have the gall to reproach someone with being "patronising".