Over population MYTH!!!!

[witchy1]

Yes I know, there is desert in Australia - but the principal is sound!!

The world isnt over populated at all. In fact lets look at it realistically with a simple comparison of population versus land mass, and we can do a rough estimate and formulate a quick hypothetical to demonstrate this very easily.

There are approximately 6 billion people in the world and there is 2.97 million square miles of land in the Island continent of Australia. 2.97 million square miles breaks down to 1 billion, 900 million, 800,000 acres which then converts down to 7,603,200,000 quarter acre blocks of land. So we could hypothetically give every person in the world a quarter acre block of land and they would all fit into an area the size of australia, each would have enough land that they could all have gardens and grow a substantial supply of their own food, and we would still have 1,603,200,000 quarter acre blocks, or an area roughly half the size of queensland left over - plus the entire rest of the world.

Now just pause to let that sink in to your brain for a second.

ALL the people, thats every man woman and child on earth would comfortably fit inside australia, each individual person could have a quarter acre block of land and we would still have half of queensland and the entire rest of the planet left totally unoccupied


The world is not over populated at all. Its just very badly managed and without overstaing the obvious - we have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this bad management is intentional, and it is methodical.

A sound case could then be put forward for the weather controllers (NOAA) to water the dessert areas and make them habitable.

Problem fixed.:cool:

[morguana]

i personally feel that the earth allthough can in theory sustain a larger population of humans, but my question is why should it? witchy1 a massive overhall would be needed to ensure that we do not polute, over farm, treat all being on this planet with equal respect, better use of resources etc etc, we cant even look after our fellow humans as it is let alone the environment and other lifeforms. untill we as a race of beings can change our behaviour to work with nature in a collective and connected way then i think it is prudent to keep the satus quo with regards to population.

http://www.fi.edu/guide/hughes/images/pop-1a.jpg

m

[witchy1]

Hi Morguana, I agree, my point is that the ptb are trying to depopulize the earth.....based on feeble lies of it being overpopulated.
I am not promoting an increase the population at all, (not sure where you got that from) I am just pointing out that there is more than enough room for everyone.

Imagine if everyone decided to move to a central point on the planet, created their own sovreignity almost - to live in peace and harmony and without fear. (A new new world order). We could make our own little world - seperated entirely from the one we now have.

I have faith in mankind to do the right thing by the planet and each other if given the chance and without interference.

[Luke]

i personally feel that the earth allthough can in theory sustain a larger population of humans, but my question is why should it? witchy1 a massive overhall would be needed to ensure that we do not polute, over farm, treat all being on this planet with equal respect, better use of resources etc etc, we cant even look after our fellow humans as it is let alone the environment and other lifeforms. untill we as a race of beings can change our behaviour to work with nature in a collective and connected way then i think it is prudent to keep the satus quo with regards to population. (...)
Very much so!
the crucial problem is our way of farming- remember, land is just a fraction of resources, water and constant supply of nutrients are another. Every garden needs fertilizer, and you must build system very carefully factoring that. Not to mention ZERO pollution to ground water, which is damn difficult. Right now because of extensive farming ground water to 70m below surface is undrinkable in my country (and Poland did not used it over-extensively). Farming overall is no.2 polluter (no.1 is Army/Armies).

You CAN build life support system that will extend natural cycles and will support large population, but before that we must completely change the way we think about environment (both "no worries" and eco-Nazism are no go!).
Stewards of the land for starters. extending over existing systems is another- remember it is not only humans that we need to factor in - you must do so for every other creature that builds this marvellous system we so often overlook .. or take for granted.

Just think about roadkills and out transport network-it's not only about "what our cars run on" but about very idea of "extensive land infrastructure" transport system!

[Steven]

Getting rid of all these tremendous wastes (water, wood, metal, plastic, oil, food, energy, time) our poor consumption system produce would solve a lot of problems.

Establishing a system where the countries doesn't get dictated their priorities by the IMF and the World Bank, because of a tremendous national depth (nearly all countries are deep into it), so they can base the economy on something else rather than "growth". Yes, because "growth" is what these Banks choose for our government to pay the depth.

"Economical growth" is the real enemy, not the population. The "growth" since the last century is also exponential. We do not need to produce, consume and waste that much.

Overpopulation pinpoint Asia (India, China) as the one who has the biggest problem. Over-consumption pinpoint the northern Atlantic countries.

Just to make a quick comparison, an Indian man consume 3000 time less steel than an American in a given year. It is about the same "ratio" for nearly all the goods and services.

Why we always talk about overpopulation? Without talking about over-consumption.

We produce so much "useless gadgets", all these industries in the world are going frenetic to maintain the "growth" and pay the "eternal black hole depth". We could use the human work energy for so many useful things!

Namaste, Steven

[sjkted]

Oh, come on Steven, are you really saying that us Americans eat 3000 times as much as an Indian man. Now, I know must of us are fat, but... lol.

--sjkted

[Luke]

(...)Just to make a quick comparison, an Indian man consume 3000 time less steel than an American in a given year. It is about the same "ratio" for nearly all the goods and services.(...)

Oh, come on Steven, are you really saying that us Americans eat 3000 times as much as an Indian man. (...)
Last time I checked people do not eat steel.
On the other hand, western societies do eat much more highly processed food .. meaning- more energy cost to produce it, and less units per raw stock! (wonder if somebody calculated that :) )

[sjkted]

He said it was the same ratio for nearly all "goods". Food is a good.

--sjkted

[Steven]

He said it was the same ratio for nearly all "goods". Food is a good.

--sjkted

Yes, you are right. It was over exaggerated indeed. Steel is one of the largest "gap" due to infrastructures. The overall ratio of consumption between rich and poor countries is 32:1. But still, if you do the math and take the population of India being 1 200 000 000 and the USA being 300 000 000, it gives a ration of 1:4. Meaning that for the same amount of population, India consume 120 times less. Which is still enormous.

Of course, it gives a rough idea. It is always hard to "number" these huge and complex human activities. On the other hand, no need to make big studies to clearly see that there is an actual frenzy behavior to produce and consume in the world. The producing and consuming activities not being evenly spread among the countries and population.

There is an imbalance that creates a problem to the carrying capacities of the planet. It leads to pollution and depletion of the natural resources. Because we live in an economical system where we "owe" so much to the banks (national dept), that we need to produce so much to pay it, regardless of the negative impact on the humans beings, the environment and all Life. In an economical system that only encourage "profits". "Profit" being the difference between production cost and sells, there is two way to increase it. Reduce production cost (at all cost) and increase the sells. So we witness the "big companies" reducing their production cost often regardless of the negative impacts. Human oppression, natural resources depletion, environmental degradation... to reduce production cost. At the other extreme, we witness them increasing the sells by "creating false needs" (publicity, propaganda, alliance between corporation and government, vaccine, etc...) merging of already large consortium creating monopolies, answering to every human desire (for the best and the worse) as if we were only "puppets" (a behavior in which we do answer the call) ending up being created instead of being creators.

I find it hard to swallow coming from the elite themselves (who are at the very top of over-consumerism) bombarding us with "studies and facts" (almost all of the demographic studies of importance with overpopulation as issue came from the Club of Rome) that we need to reduce our number, at a moment in history where they begin to loose control. In fact, I don't even swallow it, it became rather obvious to me once involved that we got not a problem of number, but rather one of behavior and activity.

We should eliminate these national dept and start anew.

Namaste, Steven

[ponda]

One possible way of working out how many people the planet could support might be to first work out what is a sustainable Earth,taking into account all of the other species that live here and then work back from there

[Taurean]

Are there a finite number of Souls in the Universe ? or does a single thought create a new soul ?

[sjkted]

I'm not sure if this is even needed. The solution is to bring the rest of the world up to Western-level standards. If you consider that many families in the third world have 8-10+ people, this system of breeding usually goes away as they get more affluent. I think we ought to focus on the parasites that are plaguing humanity first before we start pointing the finger at other people.

--sjkted

[felixq78]

:sad:Of course you are correct. I heard Jim Marrs make a similar statement except he was using Texas, his home state, for the exercise.
The Elites want us to believe this lie to divert attention from their accumulation of all the wealth and more importantly, advanced energy producing technology that's been hidden by their Military Industrial Complex. These are the REAL REASONS for the problems they blame on population growth.
Share the wealth "THAT WE HAVE PRODUCED" and they have STOLEN, uncover the hidden technology and we'd have a planet with NO POLUTION & NO POVERTY OR HUNGER.:attention:

[felixq78]

If the Great Spirit, God, The Divine, The Universe,.. whatever you want to call it, is infinite, and we are all part of this great spirit then the number of souls must also be infinite.
However I'm only using human logic which compared to our extraterrestrial friends is still in the trees, let alone the knowledge of the infinite.
Who knows? I don't, I'm only guessing.:confused:

[jcocks]

i personally feel that the earth allthough can in theory sustain a larger population of humans, but my question is why should it?
m

The answer is simple - BECAUSE THEY WANT TO COME HERE, THEY WANT TO INCARNATE HERE! If a soul wants to incarnate on this precious orb now and share our journey that we are undertaking then who are we to deny them that right? Mother Earth certainly doesn't want to! It's only our egos that want to say no, we do not have the food, space, etc...

And, of course, this fallacy is fed by TPTB...

If the advanced technology and food wasn't being horded by TPTB then we'd be able to support the extra population. If Mother Earth didn't want the extra souls here they wouldn't be able to incarnate here.

Of course, this is a spiritual answer to the question, but we're only looking at these issues in a 3d sense without taking into account the spiritual side of things.

All these billions of souls wouldn't incarnate on Earth at this time if they didn't want to, if there wasn't anything here that they wanted to share in. We should be blessed that so many feel it worthwhile to be here despite all the problems this Earth faces at this time!

[lightworker27]

IMHO I believe overpopulation is an issue that could cause Gaia to be exploited to the point of no return. I agree with Morguana: why should it? Bringing a life into this planet is a big responsibility and as a father of 2, I ask my self how some families that can't afford a good home and food still have more kids. And not only the issue of money but not spending enough time with each of them to help them on their different stages of their life. We have the religious fanatics which believe that we must procreate to no end because God told them so without thinking of the consequences. We can say a better technology can help us, or the monetary or economic system can be improve which will bring a better live for all, but at the end the important thing is to educate a person and by that I mean having enough experience in life to pass it down to his/her kids. We are not the only living beings in this planet, overpopulation is causing so many animals to dissapear or come to a residential area and attack humans and of course they must be killed. We have hunting seasons to reduce the population of deers, bears, wolfs, or killing ducks by the airports because it can cause a plane crash. We have to be accountable for our actions and keep things in balance. To keep growing means killing more trees, animals and infesting the planet with more waste

[sjkted]

I agree with many of these statements, but as long as we have the current regime/paradigm, this is just a divide-and-conquer social stratification strategy.

--sjkted

[keramikus]

Just a quick one here if many people dont take good care of their bodies and treat them as if "today is the last day of their life" then naturally they dont care about what will be on Earth in the next day and not to say in another 20 years. Thats the biggest problem and not over population. Its like parting one night for all the money you have , and tommorrow? Who cares about tomorrow

[lightblue]

.
sure it's a myth..thank you for pointing that out witchy1,,

the more the merrier!

i love people, they/we are wonderful and indispensible. :yes4: l

.

[Arrowwind]

I would say that we are indeed over populated when the people who are here are dying of malnutirion and starvation, something like 25,000 children a day. Much of this is due to war.

This is not to say that we do not potentially have the ability to feed them as we may, if we ever choose to develop it. So far we have not.
Even if we already produce enough food we do not have the culture and strategy required to make it available to them.

So the reality as I see it is yes, we are over populated. We also have too many people for the amount of work available hence putting the burden of their survival onto someone else.

All these problems could be worked out I suspect if imposing forces were dissuaded from imposing but until that day we are looking more and more over populated to me and people greatly suffer for it..

It is also my opinion that the mother earth allows us to be here. The will of a soul to incarnate does incarnate by the good grace of the mother. When we depete her generosity that will be it and no souls get to come anymore. If we learned to live sustainably then the mother most likely would entertain our presence for quite a bit longer. Out of the mother comes all things on this planet.

I do not see that the soul has divine right to be here no more that the Europeans had Manefest Destiny which they felt entitled them to treat indiginous people like animals and slaughter them. To be is a gift, rights start after you are here.

[lightblue]

I would say that we are indeed over populated when the people who are here are dying of malnutirion and starvation, something like 25,000 children a day. Much of this is due to war.


war and famine are encouraged, engineered and carried out by the parties who benefit from it, not by the parties who die from/in it...l

.

[Heartsong]

The argument that we can simply spread people out based on a mathematical model is not useful to the point of being down right silly. Parts of the earth are not habitable by humans (snow covered or barren) as evidenced by the fact that no one lives there now. Birth control is the answer. Neuter the males I say.

[mondaze]

if you believe in over population then the next step is carousel ala logans run... It depicts a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources are managed and maintained in equilibrium by the simple expediency of killing everyone who reaches the age of thirty, preventing overpopulation. if there is a problem, who decides the expediency?

[Arrowwind]

war and famine are encouraged, engineered and carried out by the parties who benefit from it, not by the parties who die from/in it...l

.


Regardless of how the over population is caused it is still over population... a non sustainable situation for those involved. I covered it in my previous reply.
It would be best to fix the cause but so far the planetary will is not doing it.

[Arrowwind]

if you believe in over population then the next step is carousel ala logans run... It depicts a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources are managed and maintained in equilibrium by the simple expediency of killing everyone who reaches the age of thirty, preventing overpopulation. if there is a problem, who decides the expediency?

If one believes that there is over population it does not necessarily lead to the result that you state. This is a very narrow point of view.
Recognizing the problem regardless of the cause does not lead to killing and culling.
Recognizing the problem should lead to intelligent intervention.
If NWO agencies like the WHO and the UN and legit and rogue nations and corporate interests would keep peace and work for sustainability there would be no over population. Instead they do create the problem.
The problem and the cause are not the same and a problem never has only one possible course to resolvement... as as you state the only resolvement to a BELIEF IN OVER POPULATION is culling and killing.

I believe in many things including over population, but I do not believe the cure is in killing eveyone over 30...

[Arrowwind]

Only voluntary birth control is acceptable. It is a human right to reproduce and to determine how many children will be born.

Education is the answer as well as access to birth control. The more educated a culture becomes the less they reproduce and the more educated their off spring are. Just giving a woman the knowlege of how her body works can go a long way towards self determination and family size.

Was neutering the males suppose to be a funny comment? I am not laughing so I guess I missed the punch line.

[lightblue]

It would be best to fix the cause but so far the planetary will is not doing it.

who/what do you understand is "planetary will"? thanks l

.

[mondaze]

If one believes that there is over population it does not necessarily lead to the result that you state. This is a very narrow point of view.
Recognizing the problem regardless of the cause does not lead to killing and culling.
Recognizing the problem should lead to intelligent intervention.
If NWO agencies like the WHO and the UN and legit and rogue nations and corporate interests would keep peace and work for sustainability there would be no over population. Instead they do create the problem.
The problem and the cause are not the same and a problem never has only one possible course to resolvement... as as you state the only resolvement to a BELIEF IN OVER POPULATION is culling and killing.

I believe in many things including over population, but I do not believe the cure is in killing eveyone over 30...

america and england two nations divided by a shared language! you take what i say so literally.... i'm merely suggesting a logical sequence. if a then b. not a natural sequence. if a then b must follow.

[str8thinker]

Being Australian too, I understand witchy1's premise. Why can't we turn the big Aussie desert into arable land?

I too used to think this was a practicable solution, until I realized how much more fragile the Australian ecosystem is compared to that in other parts of the world. Australian native trees and plants have learned to make do with low phosphate levels; we need them to bind soil and prevent erosion. Phosphates run off from fertilized farmlands and manure (especially pig manure) causing algal blooms and reef damage. It is no accident that the population really only fits into a seaboard strip. Beyond that the infrastructure struggles to accommodate a large influx of immigrants. Australia has been an isolated continent for way too long. We need to learn her ways.

At one stage in the distant past, the whole of central Australia was an inland sea. Australia has the largest artesian water basin in the world (George Bush and Sun Myung Moon, eat your hearts out), only this water is hard and mineralized. Our mighty Murray River needs a great deal of care to restore it to its former glory, as do many others such as the Snowy.

You can't just plonk a large number of people down in poor soil areas and expect them to thrive. For a priceless example of how this can go wrong, look no further than our own Soldier Settler Scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldier_settlement_%28Australia%29), where returned servicemen with no farming skills were virtually handed a shovel and told to make good. A large number simply walked off the land and back to the cities.

One step in the right direction might be the genetically modified, low-phosphate excreting Enviropig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enviropig).

[Icecold]

An animal, especially a hunter gatherer needs space, lot's of space. Humans need space to live, to think, to experience nature and the world in a spiritual way. This has been taken from us. These arguments that we can sustain huge population numbers are ludicrous and usually emanate from people who live in the 43rd floor apartment 'womb' of some building in some large city. I'm sorry, that is not my idea of living. If its yours, then so be it. Do the numbers and get back to me. I need space....lot's of space.

Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies above,
Don't fence me in.
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love,
Don't fence me in.
Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze,
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees,
Send me off forever but I ask you please,
Don't fence me in.

Just turn me loose, let me straddle my old saddle
Underneath the western skies.
On my Cayuse, let me wander over yonder
Till I see the mountains rise.

I want to ride to the ridge where the west commences
And gaze at the moon till I lose my senses
And I can't look at hovels and I can't stand fences
Don't fence me in.

Oh, give me land, lots of land under starry skies,
Don't fence me in.
Let me ride through the wide open country that I love,
Don't fence me in.
Let me be by myself in the evenin' breeze
And listen to the murmur of the cottonwood trees
Send me off forever but I ask you please,
Don't fence me in

Just turn me loose, let me straddle my old saddle
Underneath the western skies
On my Cayuse, let me wander over yonder
Till I see the mountains rise.
Ba boo ba ba boo.

I want to ride to the ridge where the west commences
And gaze at the moon till I lose my senses
And I can't look at hobbles and I can't stand fences
Don't fence me in.
No.
Poppa, don't you fence me in

POPULATION IS THE MAIN GAME.

[Taurean]

quote ;- The world is not over populated at all. Its just very badly managed and without overstaing the obvious - we have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this bad management is intentional, and it is methodical.

A sound case could then be put forward for the weather controllers (NOAA) to water the dessert areas and make them habitable.

Problem fixed.:cool:[/QUOTE]


Like they say " Be careful what you wish for "

[joedjemal]

I've studied this issue in considerable depth. The problem isn't the physical space that people need but the footprint of their way of life. I live in a bender on a permaculture farm and grow a proportion of my needs for myself but by no means am I self sufficient (yet) Achiveing self sufficiency is hard. 25 years of learning and 5 years hard physical labour to get to the point I'm at. It'll take me another year or two to get myself to the position where I can reliably feed myself and produce a surplus to obtain the things I can't make myself. Even having got as far as I have I still have a huge footprint compared to a hunter gatherer (Who probably needs a couple of square kilometers at least to supply his needs) I drive a small car, I get things I like and can't grow from shops and they've been grown and transported and have cost a certain amount of ecosystem.

What matters most in the end is the effect we have on the ecosystem that permits our existence. Looking around the UK, even in the most remote areas, the original forest ecosystem is gone. What remains is profoundly degraded. You see the same thing all over the world wherever humans live. Cities and concentrations of humans anywhere exist by sucking in the life of thousands or millions of square kilometers of land that would have had an ecosystem on it.

We cannot continue with exponential growth. To do so would result in our extinction and the extinction of most species on the planet although I don't deny that I suspect we could support this many if we lived another way. The fact of the matter is though, that for the moment we do not live that way and that a dieoff of a percentage of our species is currently looking inevitable.

Can we change that?

[Samurai]

The world is overpopulated as we continue within this structure we are in at the moment.

sure if we had an identical planet to earth but the populous had developed on a completely different technological/ethical/spiritual pathway, then i am sure it would be possible to sustain a higher population than we have now.

but the structure we find ourselves in has a worldwide economy based on fosil fuels worth trillions of dollars, and a technological development cycle that is completely relient on that system.

the developing world is aspiring to, and entering the developed world within this existing structure.

the resources that are available to support the rate of population growth as it is, at the present rate, within the structure we find ourselves in, (and taking into account the undeveloped world is rapidly becoming developed, a natural right that these nations have, which in turn is adding to the consumption of resources) is unsustainable at present.

The billions of people in the developing world currently consuming a fraction of what the western individual is consuming, are all aspiring to be consuming exactly the same as the western world, and are chasing that dream as a collective, with vigor.

the minority of the worlds population who are at present the main consumers, are not going to give up this way of life in a hurry that is for sure, and society and governments are not going to willing allow the trillion dollar fuel based economy of the world come to a halt any time soon.
thats not an illuminati power stopping this from happening, but the billions of people embeded within the only structure that they know, a structure that feeds and provides them shelter within that structure, that is stopping that from happening.

yes i am sure we have the means to change the planet and live in a harmonious way, allowing fairness and equality for all, but in my opinion this is not going to happen in the limited timeframe that we have.

this would require the destruction of the existing structure and the implimentation of a new one. this isnt just a technological issue, it is a matter of changing the way that people think and make ethical decisions, in fact, fundimentally changing what has become human nature, and changing it within the whole of humanity. this takes time, education, and massive collective effort, when at present the will for this effort is not there in the masses, and it will take the masses.

the developing nations would be the ones that would be needing to impliment the new technology first, to build the infrastructure with these new technologies in place from the start.
but seeing as its the developed nations with the knowhow and the capability for this to happen, and a distinct lack of will to give a competitor a step up on the ladder, its not likely to pan out that way.

what would it take to impliment this worldwide change at the required speed, before say the population doubles once more, and therefore avoiding a mass reduction of population?

centralisation of power and a one world government?
an supposed or real alien race invading and forcing us to change?

the exact sort of things that even those who have the earths wellbeing at heart would most likely fight against!

in my opinion it has already gone to far, i belive that once the population doubles again we will be in serious trouble in this current world structure. and it has pretty much doubled in my lifetime.

to bring about the changes required in a smooth and painless way will take many many years, and we dont have that sort of time from what i can see.

see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

terence mckenna once said that if every couple in the world was limited to one child then we would have a population solution

see here:

http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=szY6GmbAQVs&feature=related


http://il.youtube.com/watch?v=szY6GmbAQVs&feature=related

but then this is considered a breach on your personal freedom, look at the western man on the streets reaction to the chinese when they implimented such a rule

every solution meets resistance from somewhere!!!

it will get to the point very soon when action will have to be taken, and the longer the wait, the harsher the action.

But then maybe my opinions are a product of the daily conditioning we are undergoing, and i have been shaped into this belief. reality seems to be a increasingly difficult concept the further you pear down the rabbit hole.
:confused:

grr video didnt embed. please see link instead.

[Steven]

The problem is not overpopulation, the problem is over consumption/production, especially of waste.

There are 3 billions people living on Earth, cultivating the lands with hand tools like it was done 3 thousands years ago. These people have nearly no impact on Earth.

The problem is this other part who consume and produce in a frenzy rhythm way too quickly for Earth to regenerate. It is not a problem of being too many, but rather of behavior.

Namaste, Steven

[Steven]

I never believed it, for several reasons.

First, it comes from the elite's members. Those who manipulates the propaganda machines to make us believe we are too many.

We do not have a problem of numbers, we have a problem of behavior. We produce and consume in a frenzy way, faster than the planet regeneration cycle. Soon, the northern countries (all westernized nations, including Japan, Australia, Europe and the continental America) will financially collapse. We are deep in debts. http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock?page=4

Ever wonder why we are still going on even if we do not produce what we consume? All these stores and supermarkets full of stuff ALL MADE IN CHINA! Sometimes, it doesn't even comes from China, but manufactured in the Atlantic Sea in Mega Cargo Factory! How come we still work and consume? Where the money comes from if we do not produce what we consume? It comes from the banks, not because they have it (money), but because they print it out of nothing. And they land us this fake money at unknown rates and interests!

Then, we got to pay back. We are actually in average giving 25% of our work to the banks because of our stupid way of life. And the banks ask our government to increase the production in order to pay back. That is the root of overproduction/overconsumerism. DON'T PAY THESE DEBTS!

We are about to fall from the chair of comfort in the world of abundance. We will not consume like crazy animals forever. Without buyers, productive countries like China will suffocate under their plastic gadgets. And it is dam time it happens.



WORLD DEPOPULATION IS TOP NSA AGENDA: CLUB OF ROME

A Timely Repost:


The Haig-Kissinger depopulation policy by Lonnie Wolfe

Special Report EIR (Executive Intelligence Review) March 10, 1981

Investigations by EIR have uncovered a planning apparatus operating outside the control of the White House whose sole purpose is to reduce the world's population by 2 billion people through war, famine, disease and any other means necessary. This apparatus, which includes various levels of the government is determining U.S. foreign policy. In every political hotspot -- El Salvador, the so-called arc of crisis in the Persian Gulf, Latin America, Southeast Asia and in Africa- the goal of U.S. foreign policy is population reduction. The targeting agency for the operation is the National Security Council's Ad Hoc Group on Population Policy. Its policy-planning group is in the U.S. State Department's Office of Population Affairs, established in 1975 by Henry Kissinger. This group drafted the Carter administration's Global 2000 document, which calls for global population reduction, and the same apparatus is conducting the civil war in El Salvador as a conscious depopulation project.

"There is a single theme behind all our work-we must reduce population levels," said Thomas Ferguson, the Latin American case officer for the State Department's Office of Population Affairs (OPA). "Either they [governments] do it our way, through nice clean methods or they will get the kind of mess that we have in El Salvador, or in Iran, or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it "The professionals," said Ferguson, "aren't interested in lowering population for humanitarian reasons. That sounds nice. We look at resources and environmental constraints. We look at our strategic needs, and we say that this country must lower its population-or else we will have trouble.

So steps are taken. El Salvador is an example where our failure to lower population by simple means has created the basis for a national security crisis. The government of El Salvador failed to use our programs to lower their population. Now they get a civil war because of it.... There will be dislocation and food shortages. They still have too many people there."

Civil wars are somewhat drawn-out ways to reduce population, the OPA official added. "The quickest way to reduce population is through famine, like in Africa or through disease like the Black Death," all of which might occur in El Salvador. Ferguson's OPA monitors populations in the Third World and maps strategies to reduce them. Its budget for FY 1980 was $190 million; for FY 198l, it will be $220 million. The Global 2000 report calls for doubling that figure. The sphere of Kissinger In 1975, OPA was brought under a reorganized State Department Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental, and Scientific Affairs-- a body created by Henry Kissinger.

The agency was assigned to carry out the directives of the NSC Ad Hoc Group. According to an NSC spokesman, Kissinger initiated both groups after discussion with leaders of the Club of Rome during the 1974 population conferences in Bucharest and Rome. The Club of Rome, controlled by Europe's black nobility, is the primary promotion agency for the genocidal reduction of world population levels. The Ad Hoc Group was given "high priority" by the Carter administration, through the intervention of National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and Secretaries of State Cyrus Vance and Edmund Muskie.

According to OPA expert Ferguson, Kissinger initiated a full about-face on U.S. development policy toward the Third World. "For a long time," Ferguson stated, "people here were timid" They listened to arguments from Third World leaders that said that the best contraceptive was economic reform and development. So we pushed development programs, and we helped create a population time bomb. "We are letting people breed like flies without allowing for natural causes to keep population down. We raised the birth survival rates, extended life-spans by lowering death rates, and did nothing about lowering birth rates.

That policy is finished. We are saying with Global 2000 and in real policy that you must lower population rates. Population reduction and control is now our primary policy objective- then you can have some development."Accordingly, the Bureau of Oceans, International Environmental, and Scientific Affairs has consistently blocked industrialization policies in the Third World, denying developing nations access to nuclear energy technology--the policies that would enable countries to sustain a growing population. According to State Department sources, and Ferguson himself, Alexander Haig is a "firm believer" in population control.

"We will go into a country," said Ferguson, "and say, here is your goddamn development plan. Throw it out the window. Start looking at the size of your population and figure out what must be done to reduce it."If you don't like that, if you don't want to choose to do it through planning, then you'll have an El Salvador or an Iran, or worse, a Cambodia."According to an NSC spokesman, the United States now shares the view of former World Bank President Robert McNamara that the "population crisis" is a greater threat to U.S. national security interests than "nuclear annihilation." "Every hot spot in the world corresponds to a population crisis point," said Ferguson who would rename Brzezinski's arc of crisis doctrine the "arc of population crisis."

This is corroborated by statements in the NSC Ad Hoc Group's April 1980 report. There is "an increased potential for social unrest, economic and political instability, mass migration and possible international conflicts over control of land and resources," says the NSC report. It then cites "demographic pressures" as key to understanding "examples of recent warfare in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, El Salvador. Honduras, and Ethiopia, and the growing potential forinstability in such places as Turkey, the Philippines, Central America, Iran, and Pakistan." Through extraordinary efforts, the Ad Hoc Group and OPA estimate that they may be able to keep a billion people from being born through contraceptive programs.

But as the Ad Hoc Group's report states, the best efforts of the Shah of Iran to institute "clean programs" of birth control failed to make a significant dent in the country's birth rate. The promise of jobs, through an ambitious industrialization program, encouraged migration toward "overcrowded cities" like Teheran. Now under Ayatollah Khomeini, the "clean programs" have been dismantled. The government may make progress because it has a program "to induce up to half of Teheran's 6 million residents to relocate, as well as possible measures to keep rural migrants from moving to the cities." Behind the back of the President Ferguson and others involved with the OPA and NSC group maintain that the United States will continue a foreign policy based on a genocidal reduction of the world's population.

"We have a network in place of cothinkers in the government," said the OPA case officer. "We keep going, no matter who is in the White House." But Ferguson reports that the "White House" does not really understand what they are saying and that the President "thinks that population policy means how do we speed up population increase. "As long as no one says differently," said Ferguson, "we will continue to do our jobs. "


the rest here: http://home.iae.nl/users/lightnet/world/depopulation.htm


Namaste, Steven

[witchy1]

Also here http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?8106-Over-population-MYTH!!!! :-)

[Hawkwind]

For me, the whole question of "over-population" suggests the idea of an "ideal population". That, in turn, can only be defined in terms of desired qualities. I have no doubt that the Earth could support far more people than it currently does. I also have no doubt that I wouldn't want to live in such a world. I don't know. I'd kind of like to live in a world where the goggle satellite view of most major cities doesn't look like a cancer on the landscape. That isn't likely to happen with 7 billion people. It certainly isn't going to happen with say 70 billion people. The point is, we may not yet have reached the mathematical limit of human population on the planet, but we have fairly certainly crossed the limit where humanity can exist in harmony with the environment (at least at our current level of technological, social and spiritual development).

[maggie]

What John and Yoko Lennon said about over population :peace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3yRh5NNiFG0

[plumr2007]

The answer is NO!!! this whole question is a problem-reaction-solution. This whole Charles thing is a perfect example. People on this site who should be wary of anything given to them from the PTB are buying into this myth. The PTB created this paradigm by free trade agreements that restrict food production. They invest in Franken food companies that poison the soil and surrounding non GMO crops. They sell us on an idea of overpopulation to make their eugenics based solutions palatable when all they really want is to cull the herd because we are too many to control properly. I've said it before whenever somebody is trying to sell you an idea it is always for their own good and not yours. Question authority.

[ASIA]

Fellows, we are quiet alone on this thread, it is not ? ASIA

one of my posting, à propos : http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?11154-Charles-comments-about-a-False-Flag-ET-threat-event-important-new-information&p=103628#post103628

[Steven]

Totally,

I have this feeling... since a long time. There are a lots of distractions out there. Presented like the all end of everything. It attracts peoples focus and meanwhile, not much meaningful action is taken. Humanity is strong when united and focused. The global Elites and their system is great at creating divisions and confusions. You see it efficiently done here too.

Namaste, Steven

[plumr2007]

David Icke is fond lately of reciting the stanza from Shelley's The Masque of Anarchy:

Rise like lions from your slumber
In unvanquishable number
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which while you slept had fallen on you
Ye are many
They are few.

This scenario is exactly what the powers that be are terrified of. There aren't enough weapons in the world to stop us once we get going.

[Steven]

Here is an old thread I made on this topic. You can see the opposite discourse too.

http://projectavalon.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19908

Namaste, Steven

[blufire]

As I read through these posts and in withchy1’s thread http://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...opulation-MYTH I had an overwhelming sadness and exhaustion come over me.

I am almost 52, female and have been an organic farmer all my life. I am currently on a 75 acre farm in Kansas and live sustainable as possible. Sustainable meaning I feed my family and my animals from the food grown on this land while maintaining ecological balance. I also am able to grow enough food to sell to others in my community.

This is extraordinarily difficult under the best of circumstances.

Especially now that we are dealing with erratic weather, vanishing bees and other pollinators, drift from gmo fields . . . . and so much more. Those who cannot adapt and make immediate determinations on the next blight or disease moving through lose their crops almost overnight.

I read the eloquent words and insightful thoughts and heartfelt compassion and empathy but I come back to the simple thought of “These people have no idea what it would take to feed the world and current population.”

It simply cannot be done at this immense level organically or sustainable. Period.

Bill upset or dismayed many people in a post when he agreed that the world population should be reduced, although his suggestion would that it would be over several generations. I agree.

I do know that I have had to make the determination on my farms many times when the animal population becomes too much for the land to take care of. This is done in several ways and usually by selling them (good lord! somebody will jump on me and say I’m advocating selling people) but, sometimes the animal may be too old or has a mean disposition or has genetic defects that should not be continued in breeding. It is my responsibility as the owner or steward of that animal to make an appropriate decision and for me that responsibility includes not just passing the problem to someone else. My decision always includes deep thought and consideration, respect and resolution . . . . not only for the animal in question but in with all the other animals, myself and my family and in with maintaining the ecological balance of the land under my stewardship.

I know I will get answering posts that say that we should all be vegan or vegetarian and eliminate the consumption of animals or their products (milk, eggs etc). My answer to that is I have been completely perplexed on how vegans and vegetarians would propose to feed themselves through the winter and early spring, when many plants cannot be grown without the benefit of energy consuming greenhouses or non-sustainable shipping from other countries. There are those of us with the blood type that requires protein only found in red meat to be fully healthy. (I guess I’m not far enough along in my spiritual development ;) ) As well as, I truly believe plants are as sentient as animals. Look up the defining nature of a sentient being.

I would ask those of you who think feeding the world is possible to farm one complete growing season. Starting with just 5 acres of hard pack, over cultivated or dead soil, no water source and hand tools and see how many people you can feed. That would be none. And it would take many many years before you would be able to feed even a handful of people truly healthy nutrient dense food. I know . . . I have done it many times and with the added benefit of large sums of money, machinery and years of knowledge and experience. .

There are those who are put in the position to make soul rending decisions. I ask myself, who am I to add to their burden.

[onetruth]

deleted by author

[maggie]

blufire
Did you see the Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory about them moving the PLUM ISLAND expirimental facility to KANSAS.. May want to watch the whole horrifying show.
Plum Island - Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory - Part 3/3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2_oiNU0QRw
at about 7:50 minutes

[Ricker]

Well said everyone. I would like to place my head on the chopping block if I may. I am new here so please be gentle ;-) I feel that being brought up in a consumer based society we still tend to sacrifice quality for quantity. I think its the same with this population issue we are facing today. It isn't the question of the numbers but the quality of life that are inhabiting this planet. I think the "culling" had two purposes. First to control the numbers which might give mother earth a little rehab. Second to adjust the quality of the people themselves that will remain. We need to improve the quality of the people before we are able to make the changes necessary to improve our quality of life.

Ricker

[plumr2007]

All due respect to you blufire but the reasons you sighted for the current problematic conditions are all manmade. You might want to add one more which I feel has been a major problem the past five years in my garden and that is Chemtrail spraying. I had read that the only crops that have been able to resist the heavy metal poisoning are Monsanto franken seeds . This is by design not nature. There is a reason why the elites have a seed vault in Iceland. It is for when the population is culled then they and theirs won't be eating the poison seeds that they developed to kill us. Hardtack land can be made arable . Your efforts at organic growing must have some value or Congress wouldn't have passed the food bill last week. They are afraid of something and I think it is the healthy choices people will make to buy organic. I know I sound like some city-slicker know -it - all but my family comes from farming stock in Italy and I know it can work. It has to.

[Steven]

...It simply cannot be done at this immense level organically or sustainable. Period. Bill upset or dismayed many people in a post when he agreed that the world population should be reduced, although his suggestion would that it would be over several generations. I agree.

Hi Blufire, I totally disagree with you :) But rest assure, I deeply respect your views. For food, we do not have a problem of production, we have a problem of distribution. Their is no lack of resource on Earth, their is a lack of sharing them. Just eliminate all the waste created in the food production process by large corporation, and you would feed countries.

Another part of the problem lies in our own western indoctrinated diet. We simply have too much diversity. Many importation are not necessary for our health. And we are brainwashed to believe we need a whole lot of different kind of food variety to be healthy. I lived many years on vegetables, fruits, rice and fish. We do not need to eat all that we do eat in this current system.

We currently produce much more food than we consume, on Earth. The problem is not in production, but in distribution. Our production is organized under large corporations and they have only profit in mind. If we would distribute more evenly the resources of the world, we would all be fed more than enough. If the lands wouldn't be all concentrated into the hands of a few rich players, many people would cultivate it. The whole issue of the "Sem Terra" in Brazil lies in this disproportion.

The world economy is largely disproportionate. That is the root of the issue.

Solve the problem of redistribution of the resources and you'll solve the problem to feed 7 billion people. Coming up with the idea of population reduction is just giving up what was taken from us. There are 3 billions people on Earth living like it was 3000 years ago. These people have almost no impact on Earth, because their mark is quickly regenerated by the planet natural cycles. But you only need 1 billion of frenzy consumerist westerners, wasting like there is no end to the planet, fed by China and you have the situation we are bathing in. A waste land.

Of course, no personal ill intention. We are confronting ideas. Take care.

Namaste, Steven

[Nela]

I have been reading posts on the Charles forum and I am very sad to see how easy good and well meaning people can be seduced to base their thinking on the logic of the "dark side". Can we remind ourselves that questions of life and death were never and still are not in our hands? That nature of our experience is that we are veiled and blinded even to our own purpose of being here not to mention of purpose of other souls on this planet? I am sure that all of you would readily agree that each soul has a purpose in this life. So, by believing in overpopulation you actually believe that certain souls here are redundant. Please, don't let yourselves be caught up in limited 3D thinking when our mutual aim is to transcend that level. The nature has its way of solving those kind of problems without our interference and there might be things at play which we cannot comprehend. I have seen people mentioning how China "elegantly" solved that problem. Do we really believe in that kind of repression? The name of the game of the dark side is CONTROL. The opposite is respect of free will and reverence for other beings. Which we are going to apply? Would you really carry control games into your ideal world? There is no human being on this planet with consciousness high enough to have right to make rules on who should be born. Or how many people should live. There are other laws and forces governing this.
Also, ask yourselves this question: what if there are so many souls here at this time for a specific, definite purpose? What if we are all here to experience death and rebirth of one world?
We are all in search and on the path of discovery of our own purpose. Who has the right to even ponder on how to define number of souls today or in the future that would have right to be born here at certain time? Is that our job? That is an act against nature, and don't forget that even thinking this kind of thoughts is infringement upon the free will of the creation itself.

[Star Gazer]

There's plenty of room and resources for all but the TPTB allow suffering to exist on this planet--to what end I do not know.

[Nela]

Well said everyone. I would like to place my head on the chopping block if I may. I am new here so please be gentle ;-) I feel that being brought up in a consumer based society we still tend to sacrifice quality for quantity. I think its the same with this population issue we are facing today. It isn't the question of the numbers but the quality of life that are inhabiting this planet. I think the "culling" had two purposes. First to control the numbers which might give mother earth a little rehab. Second to adjust the quality of the people themselves that will remain. We need to improve the quality of the people before we are able to make the changes necessary to improve our quality of life.

Ricker

Hi Ricker,

Do you think that we should implement some kind of quality control for each baby when it is born? Or invent HACCP for human beings? ;)
I do have objections to the quality of some people on the mother Earth, but somehow I don't think this is feasible. :bounce:

Sorry, I couldn't stop myself!:kiss:

[Ricker]

No harm no foul Nela. In an ideal society men and women are born sterile. When they reach a certain level of enlightenment and understanding only then Will the reproductive organs become functional. just a random meaningless thought.

Ricker

[witchy1]

These people have no idea what it would take to feed the world and current population.” It simply cannot be done at this immense level organically or sustainable. Period.

Hi Blufire and welcome to Avalon, I read your post twice and I feel your pain. I am a carnivore (sorry vegs) as well and have also have come of a farm of animals and produce (minimal). I was the daughter that cried every morning on the way to school because of the "Bobby calves" in the pen at the gate while I waited for the school bus. (If anyone doesnt understand this, I will PM them)

I think at times it is very hard to see the woods for the trees especially when you are suffering the difficulties that you clearly face. Certainly all on Avalon would empathise with the plight of the farmers in your area. We are aware of what is going. However, Kansas is but one part of the planet (and clearly an important part of the US for food supplies - thats why Monsanto is targeting it) Blufire, not everyone on mother earth is suffering these consequences of the Monsanto dictatorship GMO seeds drought etc (not yet anyway), and there are other parts of the planet where bees still live (although not sure for how much longer) Dad had bees and his brother made honey commercially in NZ until recently when he retired. The bees in NZ are fine (as long as Beroa virus doesnt strike again) and Teakai found 3 the other day at the park in Australia - lol

I would ask those of you who think feeding the world is possible to farm one complete growing season. Starting with just 5 acres of hard pack, over cultivated or dead soil, no water source and hand tools and see how many people you can feed. That would be none.

One would ask why anyone is even trying to farm the land under these circumstances? Clearly this is impossible and not the place to be farming until water, fertalizer etc is applied.

IMHO, tptb are perfectly capable of turning dry arid soil into fertile gowing land via weather control. (plus a bit of fert.) Yes they can control the weather and it does not have to be for destruction and the creation of disasters. It can be used for good, clearly the people running HAARP have different ideas.

Once we gain control back of the planet, major changes will occur, and this includes the ability to feed and nourish everyone here. I agree that some countries do not yet have the capacity to feed their populations, however I believe they are painfully aware of this fact and do have plans in place to assist - e.g. education and appropriate health care. Population decreases once people are educated and healthy. I am ever the optomist.

Stay strong and hopeful. You are loved:angel:
Witchy

[plumr2007]

[QUOTE=Icecold;98008]An animal, especially a hunter gatherer needs space, lot's of space. Humans need space to live, to think, to experience nature and the world in a spiritual way. This has been taken from us. These arguments that we can sustain huge population numbers are ludicrous and usually emanate from people who live in the 43rd floor apartment 'womb' of some building in some large city. I'm sorry, that is not my idea of living. If its yours, then so be it. Do the numbers and get back to me. I need space....lot's of space.

This is simply not true. Just a few years ago I hiked the Appalachian Trail. I went days without seeing another hiker through dense forest and fields . Mind you this trail runs right through the most populated corridor in the US and maybe the world. there is PLENTY of space out there . This is another example of an untruth being taken for gospel because it comes from someone in authority. Most folks only know what other people tell them. Most of the time those other people have an agenda.

[peaceviddie]

The world is not overpopulated,

In the current paradigm where the PTB have decided to maintain/increase their power through a monetary system of exponential waste, the only solution is to kill the vast majority of us. Absent this cancer that has been imposed on us, I can only presume a better future. As far as I know, I haven't destroyed the entire gulf of Mexico in my lifetime. The few that control us are destroying this planet (1 percent holding 40 percent of wealth and near infinite power); blaiming this problem on the average Joe is double think on the part of the PTB.


Cheers!

[witchy1]

This is a great web site on depopulation http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_depopu.htm#menu.

And here for those responsible: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_rockefeller09.htm

W

[plumr2007]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRlXieQohhA This may help answer why there is bound to be a false food shortage.

[Krullenjongen]

I came across this interesting video about overpopulation.
I always thought of it as a myth and this video seems to share that opinion.
It is also interesting in the light of the agenda of depopulation that Charles is talking about.
Is the science behind overpopulation wrong, what do you think?

sq3WlRxfWC0

[jjl]

It isn't the overpopulation where I live, it's the kinds of people who are parenting or should I say NOT! It's not the quality of the new souls that are brought in, but the quality of the parenting that they need.

[blufire]

Hello jjl, I see you are from Bahrain. The turmoil and protests that is happening there is all over CNN.

Please take care and be safe…….


Well, I correct myself . . . . Bahrain must be your country of heritage . . . . I see you are in New England. I hope that if you have family or friends there that they are safe.

[jjl]

Hello jjl, I see you are from Bahrain. The turmoil and protests that is happening there is all over CNN.

Please take care and be safe…….


Well, I correct myself . . . . Bahrain must be your country of heritage . . . . I see you are in New England. I hope that if you have family or friends there that they are safe.

I'm so sorry to mislead you, I change my flag every day to send my heart energy there *wince* I am in the US

[aikya]

This may sound like a dumb question but do we know for sure that the statistics they are giving us are even accurate? I'm thinking they could easily be 'rigged' if it suited the agenda of TPTB. This doesn't really contribute to the debate, lol, but it's a question which recurs in my mind frequently. So I thought I'd post it here and maybe someone with more insight can help me put it to rest.

Btw, I do believe that 7 billion and more is sustainable. A global rise in consciousness and the elimination of poverty would contribute largely to resolving the issue, imo. A significantly higher global consciousness means more people would make informed choices about whether to have children or not, and if so, how many - based on a perspective of what is best for the whole. Eradication of poverty would mean those who perceive procreation as a means of future survival would no longer have the need to create large families.

As someone has also said, distribution is a significant problem. The technology exists already to resolve those problems. We just need to wrench it from the hands of the oppressors, along with their power.

I'