I was going to write up a comment but this is exactly what I was going to say. As far as how to manage populations, I think if people were more free to move to places with more opportunities and if everyone had access to safe, effective birth control, the human population would manage itself. Assuming we could stop the wars, coups and ot…
I was going to write up a comment but this is exactly what I was going to say. As far as how to manage populations, I think if people were more free to move to places with more opportunities and if everyone had access to safe, effective birth control, the human population would manage itself. Assuming we could stop the wars, coups and other atrocities.
I’m way more concerned about declining births + increasing mortality + increasing autism and other chronic diseases. How do we cope with lower numbers of people and higher disability rates among them?
I thought this was a good argument, but one to be directed to Stephanie, the person who wrote that article praising the benefit of lower population. Why did you direct it to Elizabeth? I don't get it.
She is much better than us. She wants population decline, just not her population decline. Too bad, that would be a great first step, rid the world of elite, narcissists like this bitch.
We can feed everyone today. We can provide water pretty much to all and use our technology to lessen the pressure of population on the animals and eco sphere. IF WE ONLY WANTED TO DO SO. The uber rich could chose to spen on that, but being as they are about POWER and GREED not LIFE....they won't.
Anyway, if we ONLY cna manage to control the African reproduction rate and maybe India's as well the problem reduces every generation after. Everyone else on all other continents has gone past peak water flood stage and are slowly but surely reproducing LESS population. For whatever reasons. I believe Africans are too smart to take the poison jabs, and thus there will be some other methods employed there to reduce their numbers by our overlords. Famine perhaps or an engineered disease? The sad truth is, we don't need depopulation, and never have, except again perhaps in Africa or areas where the population breeds IN ORDER TO ENSURE survival and/or care of the aged parent! These pressures once removed and incentivized correctly (eg few children result in better life style for the family overall) automatically reduce population. China used to be that way. Thanks to the one child policy brutally enforced it is not anymore in fact it is now on the path to shrinking. More education, more resources for living better life, and less dependence on children to ensure a parent's old age. Oh, and educating women. Very simple stuff.....Once the person / family unit sees that a) you can control your reproductive rate and b) less reproduction results in BETTER outcomes for you and your current family members? No brainer. Fewer people popped out.
yes, what you say is common sense. but those who are greedy use this against your countries - it's a paradox of the worst kind and greed is the root, as you have said. the rest of the lie is that quality of life will improve for us with THEIR depopulation plan. that is what most of the masses are still asleep to.
A vanishingly small amount of people work on farms now. A hundred years ago it was more than fifty percent and now it's two percent. So maybe some of the folks making bombs could be moved to growing food eh.
What I meant was agriculture is far less labor-intensive now compared with a few generation ago, even without GMOs. Only 1% or less of the population are needed as farmers and farmworkers in the Global North, compared to 40% 100 years ago and 80% 200 years ago. So a shrinking population need not lead to starvation.
One farmer in North Carolina uses 4 tractors with 8 people farm 2,700 acres a year i/e doesn't take that many people to feed the world just saying-----
and how is that working out? Soils are depleted, eroded, etc. We need to go back to more "primitive" small scale local farming and not wreck our soils with things like tilling, deforestation, etc. Farming works best in complex, diverse ecosystems, not monocropping and doing everything with machines. that was the beginning of the end IMO.
Please elaborate what you are saying here about today's technology, because I see much of it is being used for ILL, not wellbeing - like 5G, EMFs, "smart" cities, meters, digitizing everything - your money, your water, electricity, all to control us if we don't "behave."
Genie is out of the bottle now. Ask Sri Lanka exactly what happens when you try to go cold turkey from industrial farming. Otherwise, I largely agree with you. Regardless, my central point is, we don't need to breed like jackrabbits just to keep from starving.
Mechanization is no match for the Machiavellian machinations of the moneyed elites, of course, but it's not all bad. We just have to learn to use our tools more wisely.
And my point is, the Machiavellian machinations include putting rural people into "smart cities: where they can surveil and control everyone through behavioral punishment and reward. Not "needing" so many farmers is part of that plan and people should be extremely concerned about it. No one said go cold turkey from industrial farming - but recognize the cost to the lands, waterways and watersheds of industrial farming.
Thanks for the links... I read them...watched the video and agree about the greed part. I wonder, though, about Primary Water - if what we do to the earth doesn't matter, then why does deforested land turn desert and dry up completely? Is it worth it to find out if the earth can still make primary water after every last tree is razed? These people arguing this are profiting by extraction, export, and selling oil and precious metals and minerals. I don't think we know enough to assume - either way. And why would we inject poisons into the water by fracking etc? If we are sane, would we want to do that? Why? Please explain. The man in the video said, "oil is a lubricant." that is exactly what it is. It is the lubricant for the earth. What right do we have to assume we can take all we want if it is there for the earth's wellbeing? Do you believe the earth and all creatures on it are sentient? If so, would you poison that which allows you to have life? Be careful where you get your information, it is all politicized by greedsters on both "sides" of the bought-by-elites polititricks. they all LIE and they all have an agenda.
Definitely agree with mass non compliance, divestment wherever possible, including divestment from digitizing everything - and in a consumer society, mass boycott and education of the masses - as much as can be done, which seems to be little, since they are as a rule so compliant and completely duped.
Lawful rebellion becomes harder to define, since what is "lawful" changes as the criminal cartel's grip on the masses gets tighter - protest and honest investigative journalism is now a crime, as is telling the truth - plus the "laws" are made by the criminals themselves.
Unemployment will rise with the development of robots. Soon they will also be used in the care of our elderly. In many cases, I guess I would prefer an intelligent robot speaking my own language, instead of an immigrant that I cannot understand.
i agree that elders should be comfortable - how is stating I prefer a human over a robot, not saying that? your question is kind of a trick question and I disagree with your premise that robots can do elder or human care better than humans. I can't understand robots.
You can always tell a human being that you are having trouble understanding them, ask them to slow down or enunciate etc... you know - make the effort. I am one of the "older" folks over 70 that you say you care about. I want the right to choose a human over a robot, even if I may have trouble understanding. I have hearing issues - a type of deafness where if people don't pronounce consonants I can't understand them. Many immigrants speak better and more clearly than so called 'born here' Americans, so your argument falls flat and it's not one size fits all.
I don't know how it is in your country. You have some unpronounceable language after your name, then what looks like a French word after that, but I'm not versed in French or whatever other language you use with your name. You write something called the "Rainbow Coalition newsletter," which claims to want to unite all colors for peace. I checked it out briefly. I don't understand where you're coming from with this comment. Should we old people not have the right to choose? Many immigrants are "people of color." That's why your comments are not making a lot of sense to me.
I would rather try to converse and have a human connection with an immigrant - or simply a human being - than sit on the phone with a robot that can't even understand what I am saying, and gets it wrong about 50 times in a row - or gives me no choices for "other" that only a human can solve, not a program with only 5 menu options. I shudder to think of a world where robots take over even more important human roles. Humans can still act from their hearts. I don't want to live in an 'automated' world where I can't talk with another human.
Don't think there is much more to say here that I haven't already tried to say.
What they did to our elderly in the genocide plandemic proves to me that s.c. "humans" wanted to kill them. Not only them, but also other people and children.
They did almost not mention vitamin C, D, Zink and Magnesiumcitrate and other prophylactics, known to protect. They called Ivermectin "horse dewormer". A well known medicine with good results.
They lured the frail out in splash-masks, that do not filter viruses, and killed them with different kinds of bioweapons and palliative "care".
In Sweden they exposed them to uneducated immigrants unable to communicate well, and different ones all the time, in order to increase confusion and chances of contamination.
I would prefer a robot programmed with a good and open free AI, giving me good advice, over all those s.c. "humans", when I grow old. I imagine that could be far more "humane".
The best would of course be a Christian woman speaking my own language clearly and correct, a woman scientific enough to understand what filter quality is needed to filter out viruses. (HEPA14) It has nothing to do with color, but with truth, compassion, ethics and common sense.
Yes, I agree with everything you said in the first 3 paragraphs. Then you completely derailed on the last 3 paragraphs - don't blame the immigrants. Blame the system that you so aptly described in the first 3 paragraphs, the .01 percent, and all those racists, bigots, and "othering" people who put all the rest of us through hell - which you are sounding like in the last 3 paragraphs. There is a disconnect there and you speak of truth and compassion, ethics, etc. but then the last paragraphs contradict that. You bring in your preferences - 'a good Christian woman- where does that leave the rest of us who may have different spiritualities or who are non religious? Then you talk about masks and filters - and wearing hepa filter masks to filter out viruses - that's where you lost me, if you mean Covid - the bioweapon used to make the vax bioweapon. Again.... None of this is the fault of 'immigrants.' It' the fault of the people who made lepers out of the unvaxxed, fired them after years of service, etc. It was evil - I totally agree with you on this.
Here in the USA, vicious, hateful lies are being spread about immigrants south of our borders (many fleeing from countries where the US had a hand in instigating coups and turning peaceful governments into violent dictatorships), making them all out to be baby eaters, sex traffickers, etc. To put those accusations on an entire people without proof, including brainwashing the gullible and fearful to blame the immigrants or anyone not like them ... including those of us who refused the bioweapon vaccine... It is wrong-headed and has nothing to do with peace, compassion, ethics, OR common sense.
Here is where we disagree. I appreciate our attempting a dialogue about this and it is ok that we agree to disagree. If there were choice, and you could choose a robot and I'd take my chances on the immigrant, that would be fine, but we're not going to be offered a choice. We'll have robots, surveillance, AI, social reward and punishment, and the like, continued to be thrust upon us and we should all resist that with all our might and not fall for the trap of what looks easy but is really a jail sentence for us and for future generations who will be born into this and think nothing of turning in their neighbor for daring to defy "orders." No thanks. Fascism by human OR technocratic means is not for me.
"Assuming we could stop the wars, coups and other atrocities."
Except we CAN'T! All these nice upper middle and upper class -- or even just nice normies at the low end -- REALLY STILL BELEIVE that MOST people are like them. They. are. not. If 'bad youts' in NYC can go on the subway and use razors or knives to SLICE UP THE FACES of 'just folks' riding home -- NOTHING comes of it, except hundreds of stitches for the victims. Heard of "the polar bear game"? (It's NOT a game!) That's where they come up behind you, and punch you in the head as HARD as they can -- and if they knock you OUT, they win! People have lost TEETH when they faceplant on the cement. One man DIED when he landed on the curb.
You 'nice' folks are ALWAYS chiding OTHER nice folk that they're bad and should do things differently and then the whole world will be sunshine and unicorn droppings! You NEVER go to a 70% black, hispanic, or immigrant school and try to convince THEM to 'save the world, kumbaya' -- do you? Go work for a year in an inner city school, and if you live through it -- try to figure out how to convince THOSE young people to stop the atrocities!!
I was going to write up a comment but this is exactly what I was going to say. As far as how to manage populations, I think if people were more free to move to places with more opportunities and if everyone had access to safe, effective birth control, the human population would manage itself. Assuming we could stop the wars, coups and other atrocities.
I’m way more concerned about declining births + increasing mortality + increasing autism and other chronic diseases. How do we cope with lower numbers of people and higher disability rates among them?
Yep, all pension systems go broke with an inverted population, for starters.
Which is a tacit admission that such systems are nothing more than Ponzi schemes. (Which does NOT have to be the case, by the way).
And we will all starve because there won’t be enough people to farm our food.
Then suicide should be where you start, right?
I mean, if you REALLY believe that, shouldn't you be the first to make the ultimate sacrifice? To show us all the way? Guide us down the proper path?
Come on, Elizabeth. Show us all the way. Be our example.
I thought this was a good argument, but one to be directed to Stephanie, the person who wrote that article praising the benefit of lower population. Why did you direct it to Elizabeth? I don't get it.
Wow, yes of course! Mandating self sacrifice….get the shots ~~ Maybe start there
Unbelievable.
Molech and that bunch, ….”in the times of Noah” Look around you
Back to the future….what decencies and innocence we have lost
Making me sick!
She is much better than us. She wants population decline, just not her population decline. Too bad, that would be a great first step, rid the world of elite, narcissists like this bitch.
My sentiments exactly! Time for these psychos to take one for the team and fall on their sword 🥳
They are planning on automation and farming indoors under controlled conditions. Cricket anyone?
We can feed everyone today. We can provide water pretty much to all and use our technology to lessen the pressure of population on the animals and eco sphere. IF WE ONLY WANTED TO DO SO. The uber rich could chose to spen on that, but being as they are about POWER and GREED not LIFE....they won't.
Anyway, if we ONLY cna manage to control the African reproduction rate and maybe India's as well the problem reduces every generation after. Everyone else on all other continents has gone past peak water flood stage and are slowly but surely reproducing LESS population. For whatever reasons. I believe Africans are too smart to take the poison jabs, and thus there will be some other methods employed there to reduce their numbers by our overlords. Famine perhaps or an engineered disease? The sad truth is, we don't need depopulation, and never have, except again perhaps in Africa or areas where the population breeds IN ORDER TO ENSURE survival and/or care of the aged parent! These pressures once removed and incentivized correctly (eg few children result in better life style for the family overall) automatically reduce population. China used to be that way. Thanks to the one child policy brutally enforced it is not anymore in fact it is now on the path to shrinking. More education, more resources for living better life, and less dependence on children to ensure a parent's old age. Oh, and educating women. Very simple stuff.....Once the person / family unit sees that a) you can control your reproductive rate and b) less reproduction results in BETTER outcomes for you and your current family members? No brainer. Fewer people popped out.
yes, what you say is common sense. but those who are greedy use this against your countries - it's a paradox of the worst kind and greed is the root, as you have said. the rest of the lie is that quality of life will improve for us with THEIR depopulation plan. that is what most of the masses are still asleep to.
A vanishingly small amount of people work on farms now. A hundred years ago it was more than fifty percent and now it's two percent. So maybe some of the folks making bombs could be moved to growing food eh.
Swords into plowshares.
They are planning on automation.
With today's technology, that is an outdated argument.
Oh you mean like abortion, birth control pills that cause cancer and big ag that uses gmo? Ok. Whatever.
Have you made plans to make the ultimate sacrifice to secure humanity's future yet?
What I meant was agriculture is far less labor-intensive now compared with a few generation ago, even without GMOs. Only 1% or less of the population are needed as farmers and farmworkers in the Global North, compared to 40% 100 years ago and 80% 200 years ago. So a shrinking population need not lead to starvation.
One farmer in North Carolina uses 4 tractors with 8 people farm 2,700 acres a year i/e doesn't take that many people to feed the world just saying-----
and how is that working out? Soils are depleted, eroded, etc. We need to go back to more "primitive" small scale local farming and not wreck our soils with things like tilling, deforestation, etc. Farming works best in complex, diverse ecosystems, not monocropping and doing everything with machines. that was the beginning of the end IMO.
Great system but won't grow as much as big agra grows, so depopulation is key.
Please elaborate what you are saying here about today's technology, because I see much of it is being used for ILL, not wellbeing - like 5G, EMFs, "smart" cities, meters, digitizing everything - your money, your water, electricity, all to control us if we don't "behave."
Genie is out of the bottle now. Ask Sri Lanka exactly what happens when you try to go cold turkey from industrial farming. Otherwise, I largely agree with you. Regardless, my central point is, we don't need to breed like jackrabbits just to keep from starving.
Mechanization is no match for the Machiavellian machinations of the moneyed elites, of course, but it's not all bad. We just have to learn to use our tools more wisely.
And my point is, the Machiavellian machinations include putting rural people into "smart cities: where they can surveil and control everyone through behavioral punishment and reward. Not "needing" so many farmers is part of that plan and people should be extremely concerned about it. No one said go cold turkey from industrial farming - but recognize the cost to the lands, waterways and watersheds of industrial farming.
I wanna live in a fifteen minute village where i won't have to get in a car to go to town to get food.
Thanks for the links... I read them...watched the video and agree about the greed part. I wonder, though, about Primary Water - if what we do to the earth doesn't matter, then why does deforested land turn desert and dry up completely? Is it worth it to find out if the earth can still make primary water after every last tree is razed? These people arguing this are profiting by extraction, export, and selling oil and precious metals and minerals. I don't think we know enough to assume - either way. And why would we inject poisons into the water by fracking etc? If we are sane, would we want to do that? Why? Please explain. The man in the video said, "oil is a lubricant." that is exactly what it is. It is the lubricant for the earth. What right do we have to assume we can take all we want if it is there for the earth's wellbeing? Do you believe the earth and all creatures on it are sentient? If so, would you poison that which allows you to have life? Be careful where you get your information, it is all politicized by greedsters on both "sides" of the bought-by-elites polititricks. they all LIE and they all have an agenda.
good point! thanks.
I am extremely concerned. Any ideas on how we can stop this collectively?
Definitely agree with mass non compliance, divestment wherever possible, including divestment from digitizing everything - and in a consumer society, mass boycott and education of the masses - as much as can be done, which seems to be little, since they are as a rule so compliant and completely duped.
Lawful rebellion becomes harder to define, since what is "lawful" changes as the criminal cartel's grip on the masses gets tighter - protest and honest investigative journalism is now a crime, as is telling the truth - plus the "laws" are made by the criminals themselves.
No, they are, like all government programs, insolvent from the outset.
#MonetarySovereignty and #MMT begs to differ. Just saying.
I care about the opinions of people who belive in those about as much as Lysenkists, perhaps even less.
I like it. Make them poor. Like in Trading Places.
Well put.
Unemployment will rise with the development of robots. Soon they will also be used in the care of our elderly. In many cases, I guess I would prefer an intelligent robot speaking my own language, instead of an immigrant that I cannot understand.
wow. go for it. You can have your bot. leave me the intelligent human immigrant any day; language barrier and all.
The best is of course that our old people feel comfortable AND can understand the one helping them. Do you not agree?
i agree that elders should be comfortable - how is stating I prefer a human over a robot, not saying that? your question is kind of a trick question and I disagree with your premise that robots can do elder or human care better than humans. I can't understand robots.
You can always tell a human being that you are having trouble understanding them, ask them to slow down or enunciate etc... you know - make the effort. I am one of the "older" folks over 70 that you say you care about. I want the right to choose a human over a robot, even if I may have trouble understanding. I have hearing issues - a type of deafness where if people don't pronounce consonants I can't understand them. Many immigrants speak better and more clearly than so called 'born here' Americans, so your argument falls flat and it's not one size fits all.
I don't know how it is in your country. You have some unpronounceable language after your name, then what looks like a French word after that, but I'm not versed in French or whatever other language you use with your name. You write something called the "Rainbow Coalition newsletter," which claims to want to unite all colors for peace. I checked it out briefly. I don't understand where you're coming from with this comment. Should we old people not have the right to choose? Many immigrants are "people of color." That's why your comments are not making a lot of sense to me.
I would rather try to converse and have a human connection with an immigrant - or simply a human being - than sit on the phone with a robot that can't even understand what I am saying, and gets it wrong about 50 times in a row - or gives me no choices for "other" that only a human can solve, not a program with only 5 menu options. I shudder to think of a world where robots take over even more important human roles. Humans can still act from their hearts. I don't want to live in an 'automated' world where I can't talk with another human.
Don't think there is much more to say here that I haven't already tried to say.
What they did to our elderly in the genocide plandemic proves to me that s.c. "humans" wanted to kill them. Not only them, but also other people and children.
They did almost not mention vitamin C, D, Zink and Magnesiumcitrate and other prophylactics, known to protect. They called Ivermectin "horse dewormer". A well known medicine with good results.
They lured the frail out in splash-masks, that do not filter viruses, and killed them with different kinds of bioweapons and palliative "care".
In Sweden they exposed them to uneducated immigrants unable to communicate well, and different ones all the time, in order to increase confusion and chances of contamination.
I would prefer a robot programmed with a good and open free AI, giving me good advice, over all those s.c. "humans", when I grow old. I imagine that could be far more "humane".
The best would of course be a Christian woman speaking my own language clearly and correct, a woman scientific enough to understand what filter quality is needed to filter out viruses. (HEPA14) It has nothing to do with color, but with truth, compassion, ethics and common sense.
Yes, I agree with everything you said in the first 3 paragraphs. Then you completely derailed on the last 3 paragraphs - don't blame the immigrants. Blame the system that you so aptly described in the first 3 paragraphs, the .01 percent, and all those racists, bigots, and "othering" people who put all the rest of us through hell - which you are sounding like in the last 3 paragraphs. There is a disconnect there and you speak of truth and compassion, ethics, etc. but then the last paragraphs contradict that. You bring in your preferences - 'a good Christian woman- where does that leave the rest of us who may have different spiritualities or who are non religious? Then you talk about masks and filters - and wearing hepa filter masks to filter out viruses - that's where you lost me, if you mean Covid - the bioweapon used to make the vax bioweapon. Again.... None of this is the fault of 'immigrants.' It' the fault of the people who made lepers out of the unvaxxed, fired them after years of service, etc. It was evil - I totally agree with you on this.
Here in the USA, vicious, hateful lies are being spread about immigrants south of our borders (many fleeing from countries where the US had a hand in instigating coups and turning peaceful governments into violent dictatorships), making them all out to be baby eaters, sex traffickers, etc. To put those accusations on an entire people without proof, including brainwashing the gullible and fearful to blame the immigrants or anyone not like them ... including those of us who refused the bioweapon vaccine... It is wrong-headed and has nothing to do with peace, compassion, ethics, OR common sense.
Here is where we disagree. I appreciate our attempting a dialogue about this and it is ok that we agree to disagree. If there were choice, and you could choose a robot and I'd take my chances on the immigrant, that would be fine, but we're not going to be offered a choice. We'll have robots, surveillance, AI, social reward and punishment, and the like, continued to be thrust upon us and we should all resist that with all our might and not fall for the trap of what looks easy but is really a jail sentence for us and for future generations who will be born into this and think nothing of turning in their neighbor for daring to defy "orders." No thanks. Fascism by human OR technocratic means is not for me.
"Assuming we could stop the wars, coups and other atrocities."
Except we CAN'T! All these nice upper middle and upper class -- or even just nice normies at the low end -- REALLY STILL BELEIVE that MOST people are like them. They. are. not. If 'bad youts' in NYC can go on the subway and use razors or knives to SLICE UP THE FACES of 'just folks' riding home -- NOTHING comes of it, except hundreds of stitches for the victims. Heard of "the polar bear game"? (It's NOT a game!) That's where they come up behind you, and punch you in the head as HARD as they can -- and if they knock you OUT, they win! People have lost TEETH when they faceplant on the cement. One man DIED when he landed on the curb.
You 'nice' folks are ALWAYS chiding OTHER nice folk that they're bad and should do things differently and then the whole world will be sunshine and unicorn droppings! You NEVER go to a 70% black, hispanic, or immigrant school and try to convince THEM to 'save the world, kumbaya' -- do you? Go work for a year in an inner city school, and if you live through it -- try to figure out how to convince THOSE young people to stop the atrocities!!
So g.d. NAIVE!