JimBowie1958
Old Fogey
- Sep 25, 2011
- 63,590
- 16,797
- 2,220
There is a kabal of literati that want to contract the global human population. IT is widespread and hidden in most of its membership, such as the 400 or so people that attended the unveiling of the Georgia Guidestones, which call for reducing the global population to 500 million, and thus a 93% reduction in the global population - in other words global genocide.
This is from a professor at an American college who argues we must depopulate or we face natural calamity. This translates into 'I and mine might die, so we need to cull you and yours'
Global Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable | Worldwatch Institute
Until demonstrated otherwise, I would therefore argue that insufficiently restrained population growth should be considered the single most important feature in a complex (and synergistic) physical, ecological, biocultural, and sociopolitical landscape. Regulating human population size, and confronting the numerous problems that will be engendered by its eventual and inevitable contraction, should thus be accorded a central position within the modern dilemma, and as such should be dealt with much more forthrightly, and promptly, than has heretofore been the case.
And these are not just lone nut balls. 'Negative Population Growth' has 25,000 members. But they only want to reduce the global population to a couple of billion. Some groups like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement wants to entirely eliminate humanity from the planet.
This view that humanity is a curse on the Earth is very old and is now among the ranks of powerful people and is called antinatalism. They truly want to drasticly reduce the global population on Earth.
Now obviously if a billion androids went around killing everyone on site, then we would have a clear case of genocide. But what if the population reduction of only 'undesirable' populations (the elites wont cull their own) was done by not letting them have children?
What if some disease that primarily killed babies in the womb or made them vegetables and thus unable to reproduce was spread around the globe? Would that be genocide as well?
This is from a professor at an American college who argues we must depopulate or we face natural calamity. This translates into 'I and mine might die, so we need to cull you and yours'
Global Population Reduction: Confronting the Inevitable | Worldwatch Institute
Until demonstrated otherwise, I would therefore argue that insufficiently restrained population growth should be considered the single most important feature in a complex (and synergistic) physical, ecological, biocultural, and sociopolitical landscape. Regulating human population size, and confronting the numerous problems that will be engendered by its eventual and inevitable contraction, should thus be accorded a central position within the modern dilemma, and as such should be dealt with much more forthrightly, and promptly, than has heretofore been the case.
And these are not just lone nut balls. 'Negative Population Growth' has 25,000 members. But they only want to reduce the global population to a couple of billion. Some groups like the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement wants to entirely eliminate humanity from the planet.
This view that humanity is a curse on the Earth is very old and is now among the ranks of powerful people and is called antinatalism. They truly want to drasticly reduce the global population on Earth.
Now obviously if a billion androids went around killing everyone on site, then we would have a clear case of genocide. But what if the population reduction of only 'undesirable' populations (the elites wont cull their own) was done by not letting them have children?
What if some disease that primarily killed babies in the womb or made them vegetables and thus unable to reproduce was spread around the globe? Would that be genocide as well?
