In the Western world, yes. The calculus includes cost of living etc. In the poorer African countries, medicine and birth control is a luxury unaffordable to many. You see many African countries were people give birth to kids who are malnourished because the parents literately cannot produce enough food to feed their children. If Birth C…
In the Western world, yes. The calculus includes cost of living etc. In the poorer African countries, medicine and birth control is a luxury unaffordable to many. You see many African countries were people give birth to kids who are malnourished because the parents literately cannot produce enough food to feed their children. If Birth Control existed, you'd think they'd just take a pill and not have a child they can't even afford to feed that has to live a life of suffering...except....those children do exist which implies the birth control does not exist or they are immoral monsters. I believe the former.
Remember too, on the "hierarchy of needs" basic goods and long term survival is one of the highest priorities.
You originally said you believe the "most innocent answer" (vaccines decrease infant/child mortality) was "probably wrong." So you actually believe it is more nefarious than the "most innocent answer"? What do you think is actually going on?
You should watch the video "2 minutes to midnight" made by a University of Bolder Colorado mathematics professor about exponential growth. There's an old rule where if you want to know the length of time it takes for doubling via exponential growth, you take a key number (70) and divide it by the % increase per year. When it doubles though, the interesting part is the sum-total of amount used in that doubling period, is equal to all the doubling periods prior. So if there was 3.5% growth, you'd go (70/3.5) = 20 years. The doubling time where you are using "twice as much oil" would be 20 years. So if oil is being used at 3.5% more than the year before and its a fixed-increase, over those 20 years or by 2043, you'd use twice as much oil in 2043 as in 2023. Now, of course, from 2023 to 2043, you'd have used as much oil as from 0000 to 2023. From 2043 to 2063, you'd use 2x as much oil as you used from 0000 to 2023. From 2063 to 2083, you'd use 4x as much oil as mankind as used in all of history up to 2023. In the years 2083 to 2103? 8x.... 2103 to 2123 16x...
Do you think we've used..... 1/8th of the world's oil reserves and we still have 7/8th left? That's ton's right? Yes and no. We'd have approximately 20 years (the doubling time) x 4 time periods before we are out of oil, with a 3.5% yearly fixed increase or 80 years. Now, does 1963 seem like a long time ago? Because that's 4 doubling times in the past.
If someone said, "Don't worry, there's as much oil in the ground/seas as we've used in the entire existence of mankind!", how many more doubling periods do you have left before you run out? One. 20 years.
If someone says "Don't worry, there's twice as much oil in the ground/seas as we've used in our entire existence of mankind!", how many doubling periods do you have left before you run out? Two. 40 years
If someone says "Don't worry, there's four times as much oil in the ground/seas as we've used in our entire existence of mankind!", how many doubling periods do you have left before you run out? Three. 60 years.
If someone says "Don't worry, there's eight times as much oil in the ground/seas as we've used in our entire existence of mankind!", how many doubling periods do you have left before you run out? Four. 80 years.
If someone says "Don't worry, there's sixteen times as much oil in the ground/seas as we've used in our entire existence of mankind!", how many doubling periods do you have left before you run out? Five. 100 years at 3.5% annual fixed rate growth.
How much OIL do you think we've used throughout our entire existence as humans compared to how much is left? Does 15/16th remain in the ground so we've got 80 years left? or 7/8th in the ground so we have 60 years? or 3/4 in the ground so we have 40 years? or 1/2 in the ground so we have 20 years left?
Let's say....you pick... we've used only 1/4th of the world's/earth's oil. Okay, so now we've got 40 years left before the oil economy crashes. I give you $500B combined net worth to fix the issue. What do YOU do?
1. Strategy a: decrease carbon used per person (How? lockdowns? no travel? no meat? eat the bugz?)
2. Strategy b: decrease the number of people (How? one-child policies? that will take generations to work. Mass deaths? How? Can you keep society/life going as we know it, with mass deaths? Better healthcare/vaccination in third world countries to keep their population fixed?)
3. Strategy c: stop the oil production/usage increase from 3.5% down to 1% so we have a 70-year doubling period and two doubling periods buys us 140 years? Okay. How will you convince China/India to not-increase usage of oil?
Interesting response. So you are saying the Gates crew has elected "all of the above"?
Also, doesn't this entirely omit any analysis of the cost of oil increasing as supplies dwindle, thereby creating more incentives for viable alternative sources of energy?
"creating more incentives for viable alternative sources of energy"
Even this... I am not confident of. Say we give everyone solar-panels, great. How much CO2 will be produced to create those solar-panels in China? How much oil will be used in container ships to transport it across the seas, in semi-trucks to local distribution centers, from distribution center to house, from house to house or workplace to house as people come to install them, etc? How about the CO2/oil necessary for the giant 20 Ton tires used on mining trucks, the diesels for the mining equipment, etc? The energy used in coal-fire to generate enough heat to refine/extract the metals like lithium necessary to build your green-cars that are barely a net-positive?
What would increasing cost of oil look as supplies dwindle look like? Are you saying, you think we are running out of oil? Once again, how much is left in the ground, in your opinion? I would be interested to hear your answer. I guess dwindling supplies, you'd probably see the government trying to artificially limit supply like....underground pipelines being blown up or carbon fuel taxes for heating homes in Canada....perhaps $6-8 / gallon at at the pump? $12-16 / gallon? Perhaps enforcing everyone to drive electric cars by 2030 in some states. Ahem.....yeah...about that. Seems already here / in the very near future for every item listed, respectively.
However, all joking aside, yes the model presumed FIXED 3.5% growth. Growth might be faster or slower....if the population increases, and we use the same oil-per-person, you'll see increased oil usage, right? So any positive population growth, without a reduction in oil usage, will be an increase. Any positive oil usage per person with fixed population, also an increase. So you'd need to stop population and stop oil usage per person..... to end growth. How? More importantly, how on a worldwide stage and getting China/Europe/Africa/All of North America and All of South America on board?
Oh I have no idea whether we are running out of oil. Or the timeline. By assuming for the sake of argument that we are, I was just positing that that would create a legitimate and massive market for innovation (not just a government-inflated "market" like we see with current alternative energy sources). Necessity being the mother of all invention and all.
Anyway, is it fair to say your bottom line is that the vaccines are intended to decrease population by decreasing child mortality, not by decreasing fertility?
Yes, I would completely agree with you that pressure on oil reserves dwindling may create innovation in terms of carbon capture, carbon sequestering, carbon -> oil conversion, etc.... but I feel its almost like nuclear fission where trying to get more energy out of carbon -> oil conversation than you put in is the real challenge. Is nuclear fission possible? Is it possible before society goes upside down? Is solving the carbon -> oil conversation possible before we run out of oil?
It depends. Let's say...we have two doubling periods left or there's 3/4th of all oil still in the ground, can you solve these issues in 40 years?
I would argue with you, politely, for devil's sake that if oil/fossil fuels becomes so expensive on the market as it runs out, that you no longer have access to the energy necessary to heat your home, I would say that's when we've "ran out of time" even if oil is in the ground. As the first-year that happens, people's pipes will freeze in places like Minnesota and the damage when thawing happens will be .... well.... disastrous. So basically living in areas that are not "no-winter" climates would become impossible. You'd end up with climate-refugees.
A huge influx or people to California's already taxed water/energy systems from cold-in-winter climates? Yikes! Social unrest recipe. So either you have to stop Americans from travelling across America/coming or find a way to provide a place for them to live. If only there were a lot of empty houses or apartments in California for those refugees to go to...how could you make a lot of empty-homes? You either build them or remove the occupants from the homes. Perhaps in a body bag after they "die suddenly" or "get turbo cancer"?
"Anyway, is it fair to say your bottom line is that the vaccines are intended to decrease population by decreasing child mortality, not by decreasing fertility?" Yes, this is the most innocent and probably wrong explanation. The other explanation is we are running out of resources so fast, the "good guy club" sees a 80 years till we run out and 40 years till resources become unaffordable and thus 40 years till societal collapse at current population levels, current resource usage per person and current rates of population and resource usage growth.
Would it be better 300M live a life of luxury and scientific advancement for the next 5,000 years or 7B people live in a mad max world starting in 40 years for maybe 20 years before society collapses? If you're a billionaire elite, you might want the world to continue and opt for the 5,000 years....with yourself in charge...of course. As the person who holds the means of production, the resources, digital IDs, cameras and tracking everywhere and so-on.
Ok, so part of the depop strategy then is likely to harm fertility? All of this supposes that these geniuses are not themselves taking the shots, right?
I say this in a joking manner but the book the great reset suggests we as a planet have far too many "useless eaters" and if one cannot figure out something is wrong, they are probably one of the people they want gone
In the Western world, yes. The calculus includes cost of living etc. In the poorer African countries, medicine and birth control is a luxury unaffordable to many. You see many African countries were people give birth to kids who are malnourished because the parents literately cannot produce enough food to feed their children. If Birth Control existed, you'd think they'd just take a pill and not have a child they can't even afford to feed that has to live a life of suffering...except....those children do exist which implies the birth control does not exist or they are immoral monsters. I believe the former.
Remember too, on the "hierarchy of needs" basic goods and long term survival is one of the highest priorities.
You originally said you believe the "most innocent answer" (vaccines decrease infant/child mortality) was "probably wrong." So you actually believe it is more nefarious than the "most innocent answer"? What do you think is actually going on?
You should watch the video "2 minutes to midnight" made by a University of Bolder Colorado mathematics professor about exponential growth. There's an old rule where if you want to know the length of time it takes for doubling via exponential growth, you take a key number (70) and divide it by the % increase per year. When it doubles though, the interesting part is the sum-total of amount used in that doubling period, is equal to all the doubling periods prior. So if there was 3.5% growth, you'd go (70/3.5) = 20 years. The doubling time where you are using "twice as much oil" would be 20 years. So if oil is being used at 3.5% more than the year before and its a fixed-increase, over those 20 years or by 2043, you'd use twice as much oil in 2043 as in 2023. Now, of course, from 2023 to 2043, you'd have used as much oil as from 0000 to 2023. From 2043 to 2063, you'd use 2x as much oil as you used from 0000 to 2023. From 2063 to 2083, you'd use 4x as much oil as mankind as used in all of history up to 2023. In the years 2083 to 2103? 8x.... 2103 to 2123 16x...
Do you think we've used..... 1/8th of the world's oil reserves and we still have 7/8th left? That's ton's right? Yes and no. We'd have approximately 20 years (the doubling time) x 4 time periods before we are out of oil, with a 3.5% yearly fixed increase or 80 years. Now, does 1963 seem like a long time ago? Because that's 4 doubling times in the past.
If someone said, "Don't worry, there's as much oil in the ground/seas as we've used in the entire existence of mankind!", how many more doubling periods do you have left before you run out? One. 20 years.
If someone says "Don't worry, there's twice as much oil in the ground/seas as we've used in our entire existence of mankind!", how many doubling periods do you have left before you run out? Two. 40 years
If someone says "Don't worry, there's four times as much oil in the ground/seas as we've used in our entire existence of mankind!", how many doubling periods do you have left before you run out? Three. 60 years.
If someone says "Don't worry, there's eight times as much oil in the ground/seas as we've used in our entire existence of mankind!", how many doubling periods do you have left before you run out? Four. 80 years.
If someone says "Don't worry, there's sixteen times as much oil in the ground/seas as we've used in our entire existence of mankind!", how many doubling periods do you have left before you run out? Five. 100 years at 3.5% annual fixed rate growth.
How much OIL do you think we've used throughout our entire existence as humans compared to how much is left? Does 15/16th remain in the ground so we've got 80 years left? or 7/8th in the ground so we have 60 years? or 3/4 in the ground so we have 40 years? or 1/2 in the ground so we have 20 years left?
https://youtu.be/sI1C9DyIi_8?t=88
Let's say....you pick... we've used only 1/4th of the world's/earth's oil. Okay, so now we've got 40 years left before the oil economy crashes. I give you $500B combined net worth to fix the issue. What do YOU do?
1. Strategy a: decrease carbon used per person (How? lockdowns? no travel? no meat? eat the bugz?)
2. Strategy b: decrease the number of people (How? one-child policies? that will take generations to work. Mass deaths? How? Can you keep society/life going as we know it, with mass deaths? Better healthcare/vaccination in third world countries to keep their population fixed?)
3. Strategy c: stop the oil production/usage increase from 3.5% down to 1% so we have a 70-year doubling period and two doubling periods buys us 140 years? Okay. How will you convince China/India to not-increase usage of oil?
4. Strategy d: all of the above?
Interesting response. So you are saying the Gates crew has elected "all of the above"?
Also, doesn't this entirely omit any analysis of the cost of oil increasing as supplies dwindle, thereby creating more incentives for viable alternative sources of energy?
"creating more incentives for viable alternative sources of energy"
Even this... I am not confident of. Say we give everyone solar-panels, great. How much CO2 will be produced to create those solar-panels in China? How much oil will be used in container ships to transport it across the seas, in semi-trucks to local distribution centers, from distribution center to house, from house to house or workplace to house as people come to install them, etc? How about the CO2/oil necessary for the giant 20 Ton tires used on mining trucks, the diesels for the mining equipment, etc? The energy used in coal-fire to generate enough heat to refine/extract the metals like lithium necessary to build your green-cars that are barely a net-positive?
What would increasing cost of oil look as supplies dwindle look like? Are you saying, you think we are running out of oil? Once again, how much is left in the ground, in your opinion? I would be interested to hear your answer. I guess dwindling supplies, you'd probably see the government trying to artificially limit supply like....underground pipelines being blown up or carbon fuel taxes for heating homes in Canada....perhaps $6-8 / gallon at at the pump? $12-16 / gallon? Perhaps enforcing everyone to drive electric cars by 2030 in some states. Ahem.....yeah...about that. Seems already here / in the very near future for every item listed, respectively.
However, all joking aside, yes the model presumed FIXED 3.5% growth. Growth might be faster or slower....if the population increases, and we use the same oil-per-person, you'll see increased oil usage, right? So any positive population growth, without a reduction in oil usage, will be an increase. Any positive oil usage per person with fixed population, also an increase. So you'd need to stop population and stop oil usage per person..... to end growth. How? More importantly, how on a worldwide stage and getting China/Europe/Africa/All of North America and All of South America on board?
Oh I have no idea whether we are running out of oil. Or the timeline. By assuming for the sake of argument that we are, I was just positing that that would create a legitimate and massive market for innovation (not just a government-inflated "market" like we see with current alternative energy sources). Necessity being the mother of all invention and all.
Anyway, is it fair to say your bottom line is that the vaccines are intended to decrease population by decreasing child mortality, not by decreasing fertility?
Yes, I would completely agree with you that pressure on oil reserves dwindling may create innovation in terms of carbon capture, carbon sequestering, carbon -> oil conversion, etc.... but I feel its almost like nuclear fission where trying to get more energy out of carbon -> oil conversation than you put in is the real challenge. Is nuclear fission possible? Is it possible before society goes upside down? Is solving the carbon -> oil conversation possible before we run out of oil?
It depends. Let's say...we have two doubling periods left or there's 3/4th of all oil still in the ground, can you solve these issues in 40 years?
I would argue with you, politely, for devil's sake that if oil/fossil fuels becomes so expensive on the market as it runs out, that you no longer have access to the energy necessary to heat your home, I would say that's when we've "ran out of time" even if oil is in the ground. As the first-year that happens, people's pipes will freeze in places like Minnesota and the damage when thawing happens will be .... well.... disastrous. So basically living in areas that are not "no-winter" climates would become impossible. You'd end up with climate-refugees.
A huge influx or people to California's already taxed water/energy systems from cold-in-winter climates? Yikes! Social unrest recipe. So either you have to stop Americans from travelling across America/coming or find a way to provide a place for them to live. If only there were a lot of empty houses or apartments in California for those refugees to go to...how could you make a lot of empty-homes? You either build them or remove the occupants from the homes. Perhaps in a body bag after they "die suddenly" or "get turbo cancer"?
"Anyway, is it fair to say your bottom line is that the vaccines are intended to decrease population by decreasing child mortality, not by decreasing fertility?" Yes, this is the most innocent and probably wrong explanation. The other explanation is we are running out of resources so fast, the "good guy club" sees a 80 years till we run out and 40 years till resources become unaffordable and thus 40 years till societal collapse at current population levels, current resource usage per person and current rates of population and resource usage growth.
Would it be better 300M live a life of luxury and scientific advancement for the next 5,000 years or 7B people live in a mad max world starting in 40 years for maybe 20 years before society collapses? If you're a billionaire elite, you might want the world to continue and opt for the 5,000 years....with yourself in charge...of course. As the person who holds the means of production, the resources, digital IDs, cameras and tracking everywhere and so-on.
Ok, so part of the depop strategy then is likely to harm fertility? All of this supposes that these geniuses are not themselves taking the shots, right?
I would think not. Why would they?
I really don't know what to think. The whole thing is so far beyond my comprehension.
I say this in a joking manner but the book the great reset suggests we as a planet have far too many "useless eaters" and if one cannot figure out something is wrong, they are probably one of the people they want gone