"You don't need a
weather vane to know
which way the wind blows."
Reading and collating information on various subjects is what I do: like pieces of the jigsaw, they fall into place and at a certain point, an essential element of the bigger picture can be seen. The process is deductive in nature - that is, prying without trying to prove a pre-established proposition. All the issues mentioned here are documented and published in this blog.
For some time I have been gathering current information on
- starvation (food resources),
- war crimes (exactly how many people do die globally in one day from the actions of warmongers?),
- the progressive acceleration of technological advance (soon, technology will be able to double its capabilities in under a month as opposed to 900 years),
- the projected population in 21 years vis-a-vis the earth's ability to support so many people,
- advances in robotic technology for industrial and military use (by 2020, 30% of the US military will be robots),
- stem cell research (with the ability to repair bodies indefinitely),
- Big Brother (currently racing ahead with plans to monitor human units through DNA databases, implants and constant surveillance),
- strategies to divide the resources of Africa among the Big Dogs
- the nuclear arms race
- the identities of the Masters of the Universe and their plans for the rest of us
- and the emergence of the One World economic system.
I wish to comment on the problem of overpopulation as it relates to the above subject matter.
Several questions occur to me:
- If I had enormous power in the form of money, military resources, and international influence, would I allow the population of earth to grow at such a rate as to deplete the resources so none would survive? Wouldn't it be a good idea to reduce the population of the planet?
- If the military (of the US in this case) is to be 30% robotic in eleven years, doesn't this mean that fewer people will be necessary?
- If robotics are to become the future of manufacturing, won't there be fewer jobs for people globally? Won't fewer people be necessary?
- If stem cell research can regenerate tissue and extend lifespans indefinitely, who should receive this treatment and how many will be sustainable? And how many will not?
- Why are we creating more weapons of mass destruction (including biological warfare) than we are investing in methods of sustainable survival? Who has decided this?
- Why is it necessary for the USA federal government to legally demand DNA samples from all newborns?
- Why do the Rothschild's (and other Big Dog families) insist on genetic engineering for the superiority of their offspring over the rest of humanity?
Is this harsh? In nature, how does an imbalance of one species correct itself? Either reproductive cycles are altered to match existing resources (See Jared Diamond, 'Why sex is fun.'), or the species becomes extinct eventually from starvation or disease. This explanation is given regularly by hunters who claim they are doing nature a favor in keeping the predator/food ratio in check; the reader has probably heard this rationale many times. Shooting a deer is much kinder than letting it starve to death.
With less jobs, less income and less food, many people will fall into the category of the righteously hunted (and culled) for the benefit of the balance of 'nature'. I suggest that this is the direction in which the political objectives of the major powers are leading us. One way or the other, the population growth of earth will need not only to be stabilised for the technological advances in our future, but perhaps reduced.
Already in China, there is a 2 child maximum, a comprehensive population control program based on demographic predictions, which rewards those alive with housing, education, employment and medical care by preventing an excessive birth rate which would deprive all through causing unsolvable problems of social infrastructure and resource allocation.
Let us take the issue of my cats: if I were to allow them to breed indiscriminately and produce up to 24 kittens per year, I would soon be overrun with cats and unable to feed them. Most likely, without my protection and help, the kittens would be eaten by foxes, minks and various animals with a taste for small prey. Well, in a sense, this is letting nature take its course. But is not nature cruel? I prefer to have my cats fixed: that eliminates the 24 kittens who may be eaten alive so that nature can balance itself out. This is the option China has implemented and which seems quite reasonable and humane to me.
On the other hand, if my cats were not pets, but a food source as in some countries, I would want to breed as many as I need to satisfy my needs for consumption. This is in fact what we do with pigs, cows, chickens and other animals humans we find tasty and useful. Thinking of sentient pets as a food commodity may be disorienting but a habit we are well inured with through the ages.
The problem is....ratio of humans to required resources: traditionally dealt with through commodity breeding and selective genetic improvements of an animal. I suggest this is the solution that is most logical and the one that has occurred, long ago, to the Masters of the Universe, for humans as well. This is not rocket science - just plain common sense. Try these facts: Three Earth Day Doozies
Considering the topics of reading mentioned here already, and the questions such readings have suggested, a cull of human beings will of necessity occur within the next 15 years, if not through starvation and lack of employment, then perhaps from warfare and disease: scarcity has a way of naturally eliminating those who are not able to outperform others. It is in the best interest of the survivors to carefully control the genetic pool of the remaining population, as well as establishing 'functions' which serve the survival of the genetically superior.
It's not a pretty picture; but, it is inevitable that population control (and perhaps culling) are of major significance in the political and economic strategies of major world powers today. In the West, however, such ideas are heresy of the highest order to those who still think they live in a democracy and have rights. Russia is the exception - with a declining birth rate.
So one last question: If what I say here has any semblance of reason, how do you think you and your family will fare in the cull of the next decade?