I'm going to watch these videos when i get a chance, maybe later.
But as for your OP debate question i wan't to be the first to answer it since it's the ultimate conspiracy theory question.
And this answer can simply explain pretty much all these conspiracy theory related topics.
Rich people hoard wealth so them and the future of their family genetics can have a high quality of life.
And poor people don't seem to have what it takes yet to mass organize and stand up to rich people.
You can over analyze that however you want but it basically summarizes everything we talk about on these forums.
Are you defining rich people being born rich or people who have made a few bob by working hard?
Ill lead your fucking revolution...for a price
Poor people: Do they have drive and determination to get themselves out of the shit ? Or are they happy with TV, a chinky, some weed and a few white lightening's or a bottle of the finest lidels own Red wine
A small cabal of greedy, wealthy, powerful people - not twelve families but a trivial number of people in terms of the world population - want more for themselves and less for everyone else. The reason they want less for everyone else is that they're well aware that the existing socio-economic paradigm is completely unsustainable. They know this because they instigated the shift from a needs to a desires culture. And they're well aware that it's impossible to sustain a social system in which people have to consume, consume, consume to keep it going, and not merely consume, but also consume more and more each year in order to continually increase production.
Obviously, even if this is achieved, the economy has become completely dependent on numerous finite materials that will run out, that's before you go into the obvious environmental costs of acquiring them in many cases, or the human cost considering the number of resource wars that are fought. And, in addition, even if you do manage to continually increase production and achieve economic growth, it's not even enough to make a small downpayment on the vast amount of debt that is created by this debt-based economic system.
So we're continually moving steadily into a new paradigm where the controllers of the society want to maintain their lifestyle, but know that if we continue along the current path of consumerism this won't be possible. So you're going to steadily see the lifestyles of virtually everyone in society being increasingly proscribed. 'Austerity' is just the start of it, in the coming decades you will see fuel and electricity in particular being essentially rationed - although it won't be called rationing - possibly food as well, if only by simply making it so expensive that people of modest means have to monitor how much they use. Although, this won't be the only way. All the plans are already in place in black and white to do this, and you will see a strong push to do this once the inevitable collapse of the dollar has occurred and a new financial system has been put in place.
This is why you're seeing such desperation to demonise oil-rich countries at present; it's not a supply and demand issue, it's a control issue. By the same token, in a world in which billions are starving, food is increasingly being made into fuel to keep this economic system going. One day people will look back at this period in history and consider it insane, if the human-race, of course, survives long enough to do so.
The reason that you've seen abject poverty in some parts of the world, while 'Westerners' have lived in relative comfort is that it was necessary for us to be productive in order to build this crony capitalist, corporate fascist system. It's built now, so our acquiescence is no longer required, thus the rug is being pulled from under us. We're now seeing production increasingly being switched to the so-called third-world and economically developing countries, where there are literally millions of desperate, needy people that create an ideal, pliable, malleable workforce for corporations.
Without a shadow of a doubt the standard of living in the 'West' will decline considerably in the coming decades, indeed it already is, although we probably won't see quite the same level of exploitation and poverty that we saw in Africa, for example, as we're required to buy a certain number of products from the multinational industrial production system. Increasingly, the likes of Indians, Africans, Mexicans, Chinese, etc, will also be required to do this, and their standard of living will either level out with that of 'Western' society, or in some cases exceed it. They will, thus, accept the proscriptions placed on their lives and consumption much more readily, as they will consider it to nevertheless be a vast improvement from living in a cardboard box and begging (although there will still be, conservatively, hundreds of millions of people living this way), which will help the 'international community' standardise living standards across the planet for what they consider to be the great unwashed proletariat; ie. everyone else apart from the very upper echelons of society.
That said, global deals that have been signed are already preferential toward the 'third world' and 'newly industrialising nations' as the corporate fascists want them to become production powerhouses as it (a) saves them money, for obvious reasons, and (b) the people don't demand decent working conditions / unionise, etc, because they see no other option for themselves, and have no social, cultural or historical basis to believe they have a right to ask for these things.
So eventually you end up with a completely neo-feudal society. Feudalism was, to quote Wikipedia, "a system for structuring society around relationships derived from the holding of land in exchange for service or labour." The difference between ancient feudalism and the modern variety is that in a feudal society everyone knew precisely what was occurring. There was no pretence, nothing was hidden, the slavery of the proletariat was achieved through force, intimidation and coercion. In the neo-feudalist society that will exist, people will be told that they're free, and will indeed believe it, but will have highly limited liberty, have every area of their lives dictated by the establishment, and exercise no impact over the society, or engage in any decision-making process of significance (they will still have a choice between Coke or Pepsi, though). This is achievable without pharamacological methods as suggested by Huxley, or technological, 'virtual reality' methods, as are becoming increasingly probable, but either or both of these elements could enhance and / or speed up the process.
The neo-feudal society will look something like this:
The true measure of a man is not his intelligence or how high he rises in this freak establishment. The true measure of a man is this: how quickly he can respond to the needs of others and how much of himself he can give - Philip K. Dick.
I'm going to watch these videos when i get a chance, maybe later.
But as for your OP debate question i wan't to be the first to answer it since it's the ultimate conspiracy theory question.
And this answer can simply explain pretty much all these conspiracy theory related topics.
Rich people hoard wealth so them and the future of their family genetics can have a high quality of life.
And poor people don't seem to have what it takes yet to mass organize and stand up to rich people.
You can over analyze that however you want but it basically summarizes everything we talk about on these forums.
The 1st video approaches the question from an international perspective, Blair makes the argument for the status quo but I like the Indian woman's critique of Western capitalism/Imperialism, she says "poverty is not the natural state of people" deprivation is enforced by the need for Western Capitalist nations to harvest resources from foreign lands.
The 2nd video about Africa shows an example ongoing of how the modern Multi-National corporations like Glencore use Swiss banking rules to avoid paying fair tax on their copper exports from African copper mines, the workers there literally don't have what it takes to organize etc, even the government lacks resources to tackle complex corporate tax laws that Glencore would employ lawyers and accountants to keep them in line with.
The problem with the West is imo, we're all living off the child labour of Bangladesh and China, the Oil of the Mid east, the copper and tin of asia etc etc, we all generally benefit from globalization and are comfortable, but you see in all the documentaries you watch that the Nations being exploited by Multinationals always come up against international resistance because as you say RA, rich middle aged white guys dominate western and international politics/the poor people haven't overthrown the Bourgeois class domination over the Western state and production.
As always WUB, that's an excellent summation, there's one factor missing though: pro-natalism.
Poverty is created by the rich. Period. There is no other way to look at it, but at the same time, the poor breeding themselves to oblivion doesn't help. Having said that, the ones that push natalism onto the masses are the ones that benefit from it, i.e. the usual plutocrat suspects. To them 'people' are a renewable resource and they don't want to run out of it nor run short so they push for high birth rates (sometimes with incentives). Failing that they open the borders to immigration yes, but immigrants come from somewhere and that somewhere is some other country with its own pro-natalist agenda and therefore a surplus of workers/population. People don't leave their home land if prospects are good and jobs are plentiful.
After years of studying the state of the world, economics, corporatism, politics, etc... eventually I realized that it all comes down to simple numbers; too many people not enough jobs for example. Or too many people, not enough houses, or too many people not enough resources for everyone and so on. This is still true even if you account for the hoarding at the top and artificial scarcity.
I give you 3 examples, from moderate to severe; UK overpopulated - can't produce its own food to feed its own population, 42% of UK's foods products are imported. What would happen if the countries that export food to the UK decide to keep it to themselves (as per the future food shortages you mentioned) or simply choose to take their business elsewhere?
Egypt underwent a population explosion in the past 30 years, result? Water, food, electricity, housing and job shortages.
Worst case of them all: Philippines. Seriously overpopulated as a result of the iron grip the Catholic Church had on this country and its policies for decades (birth control were largely outlawed and/or unavailable, only recently the government finally introduced a new bill to change this, much to the Church protests). Average number of children per woman: 12 (used to be 16 only few years ago). The poverty levels on that country are nightmareish to the point where things such as child prostitution are common place. Their problem is so obvious that even the average Joe on the street knows that the number one problem in their country is: overpopulation.
Those are just 3 examples, but I'm sure that whatever country you study (doesn't matter if its India or the US) the problem is always the same: not enough of 'X' too many of 'Y'.
But once again, let me be clear about this: pro-natalism is being advocated from the top, it’s been standard governmental policy since the Roman empire to the date.
As always WUB, that's an excellent summation, there's one factor missing though: pro-natalism.
Poverty is created by the rich. Period. There is no other way to look at it, but at the same time, the poor breeding themselves to oblivion doesn't help. Having said that, the ones that push natalism onto the masses are the ones that benefit from it, i.e. the usual plutocrat suspects. To them 'people' are a renewable resource and they don't want to run out of it nor run short so they push for high birth rates (sometimes with incentives). Failing that they open the borders to immigration yes, but immigrants come from somewhere and that somewhere is some other country with its own pro-natalist agenda and therefore a surplus of workers/population. People don't leave their home land if prospects are good and jobs are plentiful.
After years of studying the state of the world, economics, corporatism, politics, etc... eventually I realized that it all comes down to simple numbers; too many people not enough jobs for example. Or too many people, not enough houses, or too many people not enough resources for everyone and so on. This is still true even if you account for the hoarding at the top and artificial scarcity.
I give you 3 examples, from moderate to severe; UK overpopulated - can't produce its own food to feed its own population, 42% of UK's foods products are imported. What would happen if the countries that export food to the UK decide to keep it to themselves (as per the future food shortages you mentioned) or simply choose to take their business elsewhere?
Egypt underwent a population explosion in the past 30 years, result? Water, food, electricity, housing and job shortages.
Worst case of them all: Philippines. Seriously overpopulated as a result of the iron grip the Catholic Church had on this country and its policies for decades (birth control were largely outlawed and/or unavailable, only recently the government finally introduced a new bill to change this, much to the Church protests). Average number of children per woman: 12 (used to be 16 only few years ago). The poverty levels on that country are nightmareish to the point where things such as child prostitution are common place. Their problem is so obvious that even the average Joe on the street knows that the number one problem in their country is: overpopulation.
Those are just 3 examples, but I'm sure that whatever country you study (doesn't matter if its India or the US) the problem is always the same: not enough of 'X' too many of 'Y'.
But once again, let me be clear about this: pro-natalism is being advocated from the top, it’s been standard governmental policy since the Roman empire to the date.
Crowding is restricted to very small areas of the planet, to serve the rich and their easy life yet again.
There are enough resources to go around hundreds of times over for every person on the planet so less of the malthusian divide et impera shite.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
Crowding is restricted to very small areas of the planet, to serve the rich and their easy life yet again.
There are enough resources to go around hundreds of times over for every person on the planet so less of the malthusian divide et impera shite.
I’m sorry Andyh... I love ya, you know I do! But I wasn’t really talking about ‘crowding’ so population density is not even a part of my argument. It’s all down to resources, sustainability and mostly standard of living (if you will). There might be (or might not) enough resources for, and I quote; ‘hundreds of times over for every person on the planet’, BUT! a) there’s no reason to deplete them all... just because they‘re there... and b) somebody has to get to those resources and get them out. These normally are 3rd world, exploited workers that never get their fair share on the ‘loot’ on said earth resources. So excuse me, if that doesn’t sit well with me at all.
Then there’s the issue of arable land (I know you favor the Venus model, I don’t, not until I see it up, running and implemented successfully that is) which in turn means in one way or another; usurping natural habitats just for the sake of feeding several billion Homo Sapiens. Call me crazy, but I’m not down with that either. And that only addresses the issue of food, how about housing? Or... things that go insde the house? How about; careers, jobs, transportation, fuel? ...water works, and so on...
Nope. I stand by my original statement; pro-natalism needs to go. There are just too many people as it is, we certainly don’t need anymore let alone multiply that 7 billion exponentially, which is what’s gonna happen for sure.
Careers are rapidly becoming irrelevant by robots and other such technology.
Theres also expansion to consider..theres a whole universe out there, alternative energies such as abundant geothermal etc etc.
All just left unused because people are daft enough to accept the paradigm as you just have in your post ajfa.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
Careers are rapidly becoming irrelevant by robots and other such technology.
Theres also expansion to consider..theres a whole universe out there, alternative energies such as abundant geothermal etc etc.
All just left unused because people are daft enough to accept the paradigm as you just have in your post ajfa.
Don’t be obtuse just because you don’t have anything better else to do. Come on now: ‘...accept the paradigm as you just have in your post ajfa’, I mean really? I’m accepting the paradigm? Since when? That’s news to me! You have any idea how taboo is the subject of natalsim? And I hope the comment wasn’t alluding to anything relating to climate change / global warming because I can assure you I don’t subscribe to those, like: at all!
But in any case... robots and expansion. No offense but those are you’re answers to the problem of overpopulation?
Riddle me this; who do you think are gonna own the robots and/or fund (via FIAT money of course) exploration, when it’ll eventually happen to outer space in search for those precious resources, hmm?
Side note; I don’t want those fuckers anywhere near, any sort of space exploration of any kind BTW.
Careers are rapidly becoming irrelevant by robots and other such technology.
Theres also expansion to consider..theres a whole universe out there, alternative energies such as abundant geothermal etc etc.
All just left unused because people are daft enough to accept the paradigm as you just have in your post ajfa.
Don’t be obtuse just because you don’t have anything better else to do. Come on now: ‘...accept the paradigm as you just have in your post ajfa’, I mean really? I’m accepting the paradigm? Since when? That’s news to me! You have any idea how taboo is the subject of natalsim? And I hope the comment wasn’t alluding to anything relating to climate change / global warming because I can assure you I don’t subscribe to those, like: at all!
But in any case... robots and expansion. No offense but those are you’re answers to the problem of overpopulation?
Riddle me this; who do you think are gonna own the robots and/or fund (via FIAT money of course) exploration, when it’ll eventually happen to outer space in search for those precious resources, hmm?
Side note; I don’t want those fuckers anywhere near, any sort of space exploration of any kind BTW.
You're saying the world is overpopulated precisely because of issues created by the monetary paradigm.
Simple as
Most of the planet remains unpopulated, FACT.
The only thing that needs to change is human perception and thinking. We are only overpopulated if we want to carry on with the same model of thought forever.
Just put yourself in the place of a human colonist 1000 years from now sitting there and reading this overpopulation bullshit, he'd be laughing his head off at it.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
You're saying the world is overpopulated precisely because of issues created by the monetary paradigm.
Simple as
Fair enough, but right there you’re also agreeing that the world is overpopulated By the way; I’m only partially going by the ‘ issues created by the monetary paradigm’, mostly I’m going by the ever so elusive (depending on what source you cite) earth’s carry capacity < Fierce debate going on there I know! It still doesn’t dispute the fact that 7 billion plus is waaaay too many by any standards.
. andyh wrote:
[...] Most of the planet remains unpopulated, FACT.
True, but irrelevant when one considers: habitable and arable land. Fancy living in the middle of the pacific ocean or at the very top of the tundra? Knock yourself out
. andyh wrote:
[...] The only thing that needs to change is human perception and thinking. We are only overpopulated if we want to carry on with the same model of thought forever.
You see? There I agree with you 200% (natalsim, among other, many things... needs to GO)
. andyh wrote:
[...] Just put yourself in the place of a human colonist 1000 years from now sitting there and reading this overpopulation bullshit, he'd be laughing his head off at it.
Very true. But then... the agricultural revolution happen.... then the next (or current?!) stage is artificially modified crops...Monsanto wares anyone? Yum. < I know that’s not how it has to be, BUT that’s where we at!
Fair enough, but right there you’re also agreeing that the world is overpopulated By the way; I’m only partially going by the ‘ issues created by the monetary paradigm’, mostly I’m going by the ever so elusive (depending on what source you cite) earth’s carry capacity < Fierce debate going on there I know! It still doesn’t dispute the fact that 7 billion plus is waaaay too many by any standards.
.
No, I'm saying its overpopulated by monetary standards.
The whole reason the whole debate comes up is simply because the vast majority of wealth sits with a small few thousand people.
Kill them off and the other several billion would have no problems at all any longer!!
(At least until some few get around to hoarding it all again)
True, but irrelevant when one considers: habitable and arable land. Fancy living in the middle of the pacific ocean or at the very top of the tundra? Knock yourself out
Hardly.
There's vast amounts of countryside all over Europe,Russia,China and the US that remains empty, theres nothing wrong with it.
Again, silly old fashioned extremism.
Australia is a mostly empty continent the size of Europe for chrissake lol..
Even the UK is sparsely populated in Scotland ftlog
You see? There I agree with you 200% (natalsim, among other, many things... needs to GO)
Natalism is about pro-birth, simple as.
You'll note that the FACTS I linked earlier show a massive die-off come 2040 approx.
Most of the western world is already beginning to decline so your position is already erroneous and invalid.
Very true. But then... the agricultural revolution happen.... then the next (or current?!) stage is artificially modified crops...Monsanto wares anyone? Yum. < I know that’s not how it has to be, BUT that’s where we at!
So!
Monsanto = profit motivated business.
“Fascists are not human. A snake is more human.” - Hugo Chávez
No, I'm saying its overpopulated by monetary standards.
The whole reason the whole debate comes up is simply because the vast majority of wealth sits with a small few thousand people. Kill them off and the other several billion would have no problems at all any longer!!
(At least until some few get around to hoarding it all again)
Put me down for that one
If it works I’m all for it, don’t get me wrong! On the other hand... do you have any time scale for when this is gonna take place?
. andyh wrote:
Hardly.
There's vast amounts of countryside all over Europe,Russia,China and the US that remains empty, theres nothing wrong with it.
Again, silly old fashioned extremism.
Australia is a mostly empty continent the size of Europe for chrissake lol..
Even the UK is sparsely populated in Scotland ftlog
Yeah, yeah... what it looks ‘empty’ to the layman’s eye it’s actually being used by other creatures, say a meadow. But there are other highly complex, irreproducible habitats that’d I’d really like to see untouched, whenever possible.
Australia and its deserts? Lovely place to build houses, pretty much useless for anything else though. (Good luck with that)
.
andyh wrote:
Natalism is about pro-birth, simple as.
You'll note that the FACTS I linked earlier show a massive die-off come 2040 approx.
Most of the western world is already beginning to decline so your position is already erroneous and invalid.
I think there’s whole lot more than just 'pro[random]birth'... It’s a policy, and a universal one at that; capitalist, socialist, democrats, authoritarian (doesn’t matter) they all agree on that one. But...
IF! That happens, which I don’t agree it will. As I was saying... if it happens it’ll be because educated enough women will say: no go folks. Which is something I should had probably mentioned; if you want to solve the population issue you need to empower/educate women. There’s no other way around that. But as I said; I’m not nearly as optimistic as you (or that link) are.
Oh, and btw: ‘the western world’ is not THE world, and the fertility rates in US are up - which many consider it ‘the western world’ so as ever, it depends who you listen to.
. andyh wrote:
Monsanto = profit motivated business.
I think there’s a bit more to it than just a ‘profit motivated business’, I believe they’re a mafia and many farmers that suffered them through the courts would agree, Indian families of suicided farmers would agree too...
The EPA (environmental protection agency) and OSHA took air samples in the days following September 11th, they reported that they found no excessive levels of asbestos contrary to other findings....
With the anniversary of September 11th literally just around the corner, unanswered questions still remain for families who lost loved ones during the tragic event, as well as from families...
In 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review a series of lower court rulings that restrict the United States Navy's use of sonar in submarine detection training exercises off...
Whether its 50 cents or five dollars, your donations are appreciated and help keep this community site running so we can all continue to enjoy using it.
This target is to meet our server cost for one year, June 2020 - May 2021,
in USD.
No one is obliged to donate, please only donate what you can afford. Even the smallest amount helps. Being an active member is a positive contribution. Thank You.
Today3111 Yesterday3600 Week15607 Month40542 Total1138966 Your IP Address: 216.73.217.69Your Browser and OS: Unknown - UnknownThursday, 27 August 2026 10:40
Who Is Online
Guests : 870 guests onlineMembers : No members online
and a few white lightening's 
or a bottle of the finest lidels own Red wine 
By the way; I’m only partially going by the ‘ issues created by the monetary paradigm’, mostly I’m going by the ever so elusive (depending on what source you cite) earth’s carry capacity < Fierce debate going on there I know! It still doesn’t dispute the fact that 7 billion plus is waaaay too many by any standards.
