I disagree with Marshall's reductionist, deterministic, mechanistic world view of the relationship between humans, technology and the natural world.
Destruction and degeneration are not inevitable. Humans are not inherently parasitic and extractive as this man implies.
Humans have the capability of either being takers/consumers (extracting from the Earth but giving nothing back) or givers (living within a web of reciprocal gift exchanges). Both choices can be observed in individuals in our lives and cultures throughout history.
Here are some examples of when cultures decided to use their genius, technology, horticultural/botanical knowledge and ecological literacy to define themselves as givers living within a web of reciprocal gift exchanges:
Some other examples of technology serving as a regenerative tool that fostered increased biodiversity, increased human habitation and permanent food production systems that do not require fertilizer:
"land, fertilizer and food will never be unlimited. If you believe they are unlimited, you’re simply insane."
They are indeed unlimited if you simply look upward at space and other planets.
But population decrease is our most threatening problem. All developed countries are in a demographic crisis now, and all undeveloped countries are rapidly decreasing their rate of birth as well.
Why does no one mentions the fact that *ALL* first world countries have natural population decline (migration out of the equation)? We are talking about, what 20, 30, countries? Any exceptions? I see none.
There is an exponential curve in almost all development and it ends always at some point. Always. We don't grow to be 500m tall, even if we grow exponential in the beginning.
Computer speed grew exponentially. This ended some 15 years ago.
How can these people not see what is happening just in front of their very eyes?
And finally please leave the exponential grow scare curve alone already. I cannot hear it anymore. Every doomsday prophet looks out for his personal exponential grow scare curve... it's like a sport at this point.
Exactly! Japan's population isn't even replacing itself. Many countries are in the same boat. Infertility was rampant even before the jabs. Why won't this over population myth die despise the facts?!
Because there are ten times too many people for a sustainable human species. Most tech needs to go too, although low levels of electricity and refrigeration could work if a way were found to keep overpopulation levels in check. (good luck with that)
There aren't actually. And that misconception feeds right into eugenics, which makes the culling of the population we're currently experiencing okay. Which it isn't.
Unless you also believe we should start with those who believe we're overpopulated? Seems only fair ...
That IS the strongest argument in favor of overpopulation. When sustainability of the species is the criteria, this planet is massively oversubscribed by humans.
My opinion is based in part on the following observations.
1. Our species is unable to self-regulate.
2. We discover and use technologies that destroy us.
3. We've spread like cancer on the face of our only planet.
Our current trajectory has led us to ruin and most people live horrific lives, even if they've been programmed to tolerate it. "Civilization" is flying apart because we've vastly exceeded our carry capacity, which should never have been within sight in the first place.
The reduction is coming now no matter what we do. It's disappointing to realize your species is retarded. Oh well, we'll wreck ourselves and whatever happens happens. I'd like to say it didn't have to be this way, but it's obviously who we are.
I know, probably 95% of people would disagree with my opinion that 95% need to go. It's going to be a mess either way, because you just can't undo what we've done. \o
Yes it does. But why do so many people, who seem to know what's up, still believe it when there's so much evidence to the contrary? Even Elon Musk talks frequently about how the slowing of population growth is very concerning for the future of humanity. The idea that we don't have the resources or space for more human beings is ridiculous. The problem is in how wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people, who have the power to intentionally keep half the world in poverty so they can have even more power.
Hell man, the reference to Henry George deserves a boost! Though too late on this thread to make a suitable impact, you should slip that one in again, at the very next opportunity.
99.9% of all internet debate suffers from the debility of imagination which stems from the $power's successful campaign to collapse all debate into the moronic 'left vs right' trope which has done more damage to human brains than CORONA or any other competing 'virus' ever will!
One thing I like about Henry George is that he synthesizes the best arguments of left and right. The people who own the most valuable land would pay the most in taxes, but capitalism would still provide a very high standard of living for everyone.
until you can give an EROIE exceeding 1,000 or something, there is no space mining or harnessing great solar power or whateverjibgah. NO INTELLECT means NO TECHNOLOGY. And a caste system for choosing who gets resources is what elites have always planned in the end.
patrick, with all due respect, you need energy to get up there. and energy, or new sources of access, requires basic science, theories of interdimensional galatical energy or whatever. so no, you cannot defeat physics without intellect.
whats the solution? globalists told COP26 oil-man to not industrialize his nation because the people there are too low IQ to actually do anything meaningful, of course he got annoyed because he would no longer be a leader if his people got angry. either subsistence for people that are incapable, genocide and redistribution to capable people or we all die.
the anthropogenic cause of global perpetual feed-forward loop of unidirectional climate variability beyond permanent stability narrative hoax is just justification to redistribute resources from west to asia. even elon musk posts a lot about iq and talking about declining population, of course hes talking about the intelligent population. there are no solutions without intelligent people. whats yours solution to declining energy sources? peak uranium mining, no fusion power, etc. not enough mathematical or spatial g to engineer solutions.
i personally don't want to eat bugmeat thats toxic or seed oils to slowly die to malnutrition. rather be shot in the head than be ran over by low iq protesting third worlders. personally rather be in a room of fusion scientists or whatnot and be discussing solutions.
why does fewer people overall necessarily require us to be enslaved and killed?
why can't it be engaged in broad scale by humanity as a whole for everyone's benefit?
just because the wrong people have yet again gotten hold of the reins doesn't mean that lowering population itself is a bad idea. certainly they will do so through nefarious means, or it will happen naturally (the Four Horsemen), or we can choose to limit ourselves and enact policies and resources for women (since we unfortunately bear the brunt, literally) to choose what do for the right reasons.
there is no situation here on a scarce planet that requires ever more human beings consuming resources. not all of us have depopulation through "spraying the roaches" in mind. it may actually improve everyone's lot if actual scarcity can be held off. scarcity is the whip that the Owners use against us to justify all of their heirarchy and abuse. if we insist on butting up against those limits, then more people will fold to their evil logic rather than a more rational one.
only in economic ponzi schemes will "more and more people in future" benefit anyone, and we all know who will benefit most--it won't be the majority of us, but those same elites you appear to decry.
We do not need to go into space to solve world hunger, that is absurd.
Our current modern conventional agricultural methods are idiotic, irrational, shortsighted, arrogant and inefficient.
There are more horticulturally advanced methods to cultivate food where the food cultivation system is seamlessly integrated into a forest ecosystem (and thus, it does not require irrigation or fertilizer as those materials are provided by the syntrophic cycling of nutrients that are inherent in a functioning ecosystem).
I provide an example of one of many types of ancient food cultivation systems that produce exponentially more in quantity, quality and diversity in food crops per acre than our current mainstream methods in this post:
Elon Musk is one of the main people advocating for abandoning Earth to go mess up and extract resources from some other planet. He is also a proponent of transhumanism, he spends billions in an effort to find a way to make brain machine interface tech work by implanting microchips in mammal's brains to allow for an interface between smart devices, the internet, AI and the human brain. He also spends billions creating big messy controlled petroleum explosions to get rich people and microwave emitting 5G satellites into space, which are detrimental to the well being of many organisms on Earth (while also aspiring to use that same archaic rocket tech to colonize Mars). We are talking about dilapidated rocket tech is basically a smoothed out version of 100 year old technology (that was invented by Wernher von Braun).
If Musk is such a genius, why is he using that type of archaic tech when military contractors and active covert military operations have been using electrogravitic propulsion systems for decades now?
But I digress…
Another concern I have about Musk (and pretty much every other billionaire that is a vocal transhumanist and thinks we should run away from our problems and go mess up Mars) is that he has openly stated he champions synthetic mRNA products stating these pharmaceutical products are capable of "Turning Someone Into a Butterfly or Reversing Aging". He has also stated "Synthetic mRNA Is Like a Computer Program" and he thinks that is a good thing (which should be expanded upon). He has described how he feel that some kind of mRNA (and/or some kind of DNA based/gene editing) injections and transhumanist brain machine interface tech (see: Neuralink) can allow him to cheat death and make artificially augmented 'super humans'.
Let us for a moment assume that he (or any of his oligarch peers like Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos and/or Larry Fink) can actually succeed in the deluded ambitions they espouse (some of which I described above).
Are these really the types of aspirations you want for your children? Is a world filled with cyborgs building space ships to abandon our Mother Earth when she needs us most the type of future you want to contribute towards making a reality?
For me personally, that is definitely not the vision I aspire to co-create as our shared future on the Earth (nor beyond it).
no the threatening problem is EROIE of oil is approaching to low values, once more energy is expended than returned, we are screwed. and that is due to both high large population size scales, a large old population where compulsory euthansia is likely starting with MAID in canada, and also low native birth rates of the HIGH IQ, INDUSTRIOUS, RESOURCEFUL population being too low too. So it's actually a dual problem.
land that has the ability to support biological life is indeed limited, or the other planets around us would have something living upon them (beyond the microorganisms they have potentially found in some, but all unalived by the conditions in those planets and satellites).
yeah, you may be able to grow a tomato on a rock with just adding liquid nutrients and light bulbs, but the energy taken to do so now has to be arranged and managed by us, rather than the natural systems that biology employs. oh, and also the tomato is now usually inferior somehow than what the natural system would have produced.
just finding liquid water "out there" is a rarity and worthy of amazement. the fact that the dust on Mars alone would kill us faster than asbestos is an argument that we weren't really designed for these places, and they were not designed for us. what is "out there" that we can use? metals? water? minerals? and how much energy and technology (which comes at a usage and pollution cost) to get them? is it even worth doing?
using minerals spread over nearly barren ground is inefficient and substandard (and eventually deleterious to the health of ecosystems involved, including to those who eat food produced in such a way) than what the natural world has and can provide just doing what it already does. it just can't provide at the rate we now need to continue our existence, and with the regularity that our settled "civilizations" require.
My god, what a sad and sorry interview. The words "I am neither so academic nor diligent" are certainly true as his entire line of thinking is riddled with factual errors and lazy assertions.
Look, i get it - it's important to hear dissenting points of view, and finding someone who isn't saying "don't worry, it'll be all right" is a good way to shore up your own world view foundations. But this half-assed effort just isn't going to cut it.
To avoid writing my own 41-page response, let's just start with one major error: there will NEVER be 13 billion people. Even if unlimited food rains down from space, there will never be more than 11 billion people. That's because the limit to human population is NOT the availability of food.
Yes, the UNAVAILABILITY of food, whether due to drought or crop failure or something else, does result in population decline. But the opposite simply isn't true - infinite food availability does NOT equal infinite population growth, and the proof of this is all around us - countries with the lowest hunger rates are seeing STEEP declines in population. But by his (and Malthus') logic, it should be the opposite - wealthy (in terms of food availability) countries like Japan and Norway should be popping out babies right and left when they most definitely aren't.
I'm hardly the first one to notice or study this, btw. And far smarter people than i have looked into the mechanisms of what does curb population growth OTHER than sickness or starvation or war, and we now have a very clear understanding of how this works (and no, it's not just an increase in formal education). So do your fucking research, dude! You can start with Hans Rosling, you lazy sack of s--t charging $9 for your BS.
" But the opposite simply isn't true - infinite food availability does NOT equal infinite population growth, "
In fact, I didn't say that it does. If you had kindly spent $8.99 on my BS, you would know that. And I even mentioned leveling (+ population momentum) in the interview.
"countries like Japan and Norway should be popping out babies right and left when they most definitely aren't."
Abundant food does not countermand r/K selection, of course. And as you mention, there are more factors in population growth leveling than lack of food, which I think is not even that relevant -- namely simple consumerism. This is not merely my opinion, but consensus among the usual think tanks. When people have things, they become more selfish and loath to share, and less likely to reproduce; see Japan and Norway.
Anyway ... my BS little book isn't even about population, per se. So I'm not going to waste time on this.
What the fuck are you on about did you not read Planned Parenthood targeted SES policies? They were ALL implemented on all westernized nations, and through BiS/IMF control. My god, you sound retarded again. And it's not infinite food, but other things too. A westernized desire for a better life inoculated in women makes them less willing to mate, regardless though I guess you aren't one to understand perception control.
While not one to turn down a good 'conspiracy theory'(in truth I revel in em!)this blizzard of acronyms (sorry-tried but failed to find out what "SES" stands for-even moar "retards" to try your patience chumly!) and the Planned Parenthood reference fail to qualify for "you nailed it" status.
If you're really set on dismissing us as "retards," why don't you critique and demolish the guy's reference to the Malthus paradox. It's an intriguing 'anomaly' wouldn't you agree? If your preference however is to eschew debate for the compact utility of ad hominem, I understand. Most 'geniuses' are troubled way beyond their capacities to deal with the small details of social discourse!
There's actually no killing vampire Malthus – i.e. the scarecrow everyone sets up without having read his 'Essay' or considering the difference between his time and ours. It's pointless to try.
"For example, you write that Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab shouldn’t be viewed as villains or freaks, but rather as the “summation of technology."
I say Gates and Schwab are not so much the summation of technology but the outcome of a species genetically deformed allowing for one out of every hundred humans to be "certifiable sociopaths."
In the case of Gates he might actually be more representative of the "psychopathic" segment of society. In any event, it's clear that on every continent sociopaths and psychopaths very often rise to the top especially, if like Bill Gates you're a primogeniture to your parent's fortune and connections, namely the Rockefeller ghoul.
Psychopaths and sociopaths who are lucky enough to be connected to great power and vast resources are extremely dangerous, as they're frequently given the opportunity to determine the destiny of billions.😨
People born to great wealth are indoctrinated to believe they are superior - even if their supremacy is based, as it often is, on Deception and Brute Force.
existence has to justify itself. would you rather believe everyone is equal and go with communism? you need to be objective here. someone that has more self control, and at least minimum of intellect is more superior than a druggie with pants down living in squandor. they may not be the superior superior of high intellect but at least they managed to make their offspring live better than most. psychopathy is simply removal of residual empathy, empathy is just there to create stable bonds. you remember ejaculation for men right? post-sex clarity? stop feeling loveness towards women. same thing, you become objective and able to make decisions on billions of people. empaths and non-thinkers make bad CEOs and leaders for this reason. our brain is only limited to tribe of 250 or whatever by dunbar's number, we cannot compute utility functions with empathy of closeness or gene-reciprocity kinship or homophily alone. If you do this, you cannot make objective decisions.
Bill Gates is not intelligent in the actual tech, he's the guy given the money to hire people who can program. Steve Jobs too, he had Wozniak who was the real genius of apple along with his team.
stop talking about elon musk and steve jobs, when the fuck are you going to label the dynastic royalty and the subsidiaries of WHO, Group of 30, BiS, interparliamentary union and players who give claims on resources to people to fund midwits to create their own imprisonment. The longer you focus the attention on people who don't make the decisions and are just there to make you scapegoat them, the less intelligible people can understand the situation. The fact that you are unable to conceive the notion of supranational entities beyond public figures, and that organized collective self-interests is possible within human societies and civilization is probably why you still repeat the muhhh durrr elites are idiot slogans when they hire academics to put out 10,000 page bills and policy objectives at the high-level.
So my point stands. These people like Musk are puppets of the elite globcap system. (CJ hopkins term for the goobalists who run shit today like the lockstep con-vid sham).
The people that are on the top of globocap are also morons.
We both know this because they're obsessed with forcing population control and sickness on us when there is a more elegant and effective solution. Stop creating conditions that make populations increase.
But they're too cheap and really don't give a fuck about making people happy.
Their mandate of heaven is over and we're seeing that in how there's a new sheriff in town that's dismantling things that failed, like they expected to work. One such example is the con-vid crisis and their plans to mandate shots on us.
Why is this happening? It's because the people are no longer as stupid as you claim they are.
Even if they still won't admit the shots are dangerous, they're automatically avoiding them.
Single digit% of people in the USA are getting the shots now.
True change comes from bottom up, not top down. If they really controlled everything, we would still be working 6 days a week in dangerous factories next to children.
Looking back for an event horizon, I'm increasingly convincing myself that the collapse tragectory began when we develpoed conceptual language, thereby driving an unfixable wedge between ourselves and the direct experience of existence.
I believe it actually started with the start of mankind itself, because there always have been people turning away from wathever 'good', in one way or the other.
Because the moment that, for example, a situation occurs within people can gain something at the expense of another person, there always are, and always have been I suppose, a few people who will actually abuse those others
Great interview. Good to see the reality of civilizational limits being discussed. The "nature is a limitless cornucopia" take is almost as prevalent on the alt-media as "Putin is playing 7d chess with the globalists trust me bro"
"The pseudo-vaxx drive is unique in that it ranged a majority of the planet against you if you resisted — it wasn’t just your friends or family or community, but everybody at once. People internalize that and get scared."
This gave the convincing impression that a small cabal is indeed running the whole world. Not sure exactly how that would be done. Maybe by the Fed simply creating unlimited money to credit accounts as bribes, and by global Epstein-like entrapment operations for all government officials.
Strong thoughts. What we are faced with is the inevitability of material evolution. Old biological forms are replaced with new forms. There have been several sea changes in the history of biology. Such as symbiogenesis, when one lineage of cells engulfed another lineage of cells to form an entirely new lineage of cell: the eukaryote, distinguished, among other things, by its genetic nucleus, a little walled library that would enable the leap from single celled organism to plants, animals and fungi. Two forms of life merged to become a brand new biological paradigm.
What we are witnessing today may be the same. It is the unthinkable reality that will be the last thing anyone wants to consider. What the globalists have done, in their decades of occulted research, is engineer synthetic biology at the nano scale. They made a pivotal breakthrough with the isolation of graphene in 2004. Graphene is a much more body friendly nanomaterial that can be used to build numerous structures including antennae and quantum dots. It is an optimal component of hydrogel, which can integrate other structural components like chitin and polymers. Hydrogels are capable of self assembly from nano materials introduced to the body. They are capable of interfacing with organic tissues including the brain.
Truly, a new form of life has been introduced at the nano scale and it is integrating with our bodies as we speak. And it seems to be nothing so much as inevitable. Evolution is not actually blind; intelligence is the will of life, and it has always sought to surpass itself. Ideologies used to matter, when synthetic technology was restricted to the external environment. Ideology is a means to religion which literally means the binding of people together. If people become bound by an internet of bodies, religion will cease to matter. 8 Billion will become one.
Yet these scientific wizards did their work behind provocative ideological shades and shields. They knew if they were open about their work, the human zeitgeist would turn and destroy them. We are left with the conclusion that deception is the very means of evolution. Human ethics are becoming an anachronism. To the inhuman, the end justifies the means.
We should also note that the Zionist prophecies of world domination and end of nature would be fulfilled by a transhumanist singularity. Thus we are also left with the niggling possibility that this great reset was all motivated by religious spite or a need to validate the scriptures. We know who's been running Western Civilization from the shadows since the end of WWII, at least. They are not exactly new age hippies. They are devoted to their own ethnic grandiloquence.
Is Zionism inevitable? What technology will enable the wolf to lie down with the lamb? What technology will allow a single altar to rule the entire world?
Evolution is not actually blind; intelligence is the will of life, and it has always sought to surpass itself.
Finally, someone that understands!!! Everyone with intelligence has this nature of industriousness, refinedness, wanton desire to control, become something greater than itself, see all outcomes, become god. Well it doesn't matter who becomes god, either we become trans or post-human or a meteor hits us or solar earth flare renders us dead because we are super dependent on technology. We created our own environment. Our insensitivity to our environment is the bane, yet the our artificial environment is what accelerates evolution, Self-directedness. Openness in higher IQ people is strongly correlated. Unfortunately susceptibility to high trust beliefs and erroneous we can all get alongism is also in it too.
Yes: "We are left with the conclusion that deception is the very means of evolution. Human ethics are becoming an anachronism. To the inhuman, the end justifies the means."
It seems they have been 'running civilisation from the shadows' for centuries, possibly millennia.
My dilemma is I hate using the word "God" at all, because I think it has been so abused, that it is almost meaningless, and highly likely to be misunderstood regardless.
I did not mean that there is no God.
I meant that "there is no God" - is the mantra of the atheistic world we live in.
There is One true and living "God", who is the creator and sustainer of the universe.
However, this "God" is not any of the gods of the religious cults - churches, mosques, synagogues, etcetera - who mostly strip the flesh of true faith away, leaving only the skeleton - the dead dry bones of religion.
Not sure what you mean by the scriptures.
The sacred writings acknowledge the One, as the One true and living supreme being.
The Jewish path is complicated.
Most Orthodox Jews reject the Messiah, and therefore estrange themselves to some extent from their creator.
Hence, Orthodox Judaism often just clings to the religious skeleton of the faith, without the flesh of true faith.
There are Messianic Jews, regarded as dangerous heretics by most Jews.
Arguably, Christians are just gentile messianic Jews - the first Christians were Messianic Jews - salvation is of the Jews.
Then there are those who are outside, both the orthodox and messianic Jewish communities.
These are doubly dangerous heretics, to both Orthodox and Messianic Jews.
I do not touch the true "name of God" agenda.
This is sacred ground.
People who know the One, know the name of the One, and others presuming to dictate to them about this is offensive.
Those who pontificate about the true name of the One, don't really know the One, only know about the One.
For the record, I am profoundly orthodox, and also profoundly unorthodox.
What I was trying to say is that when God should not exist, 'all that what God is, what He stands for' is the only possible guidance (way of life) to leading a meaningfull loving life for yourself as well as the people in your life
Bill Gates: "What he is trying to do isn’t “wrong”, it is logical according to the entire development of technology to this point. We might not like it, we might try to resist it, and it might not work out for him, but it isn't “evil” or “unnatural”, and if it weren’t one guy, it’d be another."
If Bill wasn't trying to destroy humanity, some other schmuck would.
From Bill Gates point of view killing people might be a good thing to do, from my point of view it isn't. Even not because in future there might be a lack of resources.
In future, this is for very extremely sure, I will die. So I kill myself now?
In this case killing myself is stupid, especially while I prefer to stay alive, but in case of Bill Gates is doing the exact thing but than killing others, who prefer to stay alive too.
In my opinion that is very wrong as a matter of fact.
Keep in mind lots of people are allowing him to hurt or kill them, without their permission he couldn't or wouldn't kill them.
Although he deceives them in the worst kind of way, deceiving is more or less commonly used in allmost all business since we don't trade a pair of shoes for groceries anymore.
Why wouldn’t reshuffling resources to highest iq people to extract more energy or create more powerful minds from harnessing intellectual power be more moral than pursuing a path of bread and circuses until the day there is no more free energy for fertilizer?
Do you know Catherine A Fitts? - she has said re: Bill Gates (near quote): "When I heard everyone start saying what an absolute genius he was, I knew it was an Op"
I can feel an op-ed coming on: 'The Scam that is Meritocracy: How an entire culture was deceived into believing that the Tech Oligarchs are highly intelligent, self made men."
SO many media people were fixated on that aspect of the Elizabeth Holmes operation: "first Silicon Valley, female self-made BILLionaire" ! I kinda miss her - it actually may have been HER operation, once known as "scams".
again, you sound stupid. most come from dynastic wealth, the royalty, they ruled for generations and are good at propaganda. they are not the most intelligent, but they are intelligent and power-hungry enough to get shit done. also if you stratify by SES, the more diligent, more capable people do have higher IQ statistically. They may not be the highest IQ, but those who make better decisions in life actually do have better life outcomes. Tech Oligarchs are probably around 135 IQ -- the Nationalist Socialist people of Germany had IQs around 125-140 and they managed a population of 70 million. In this world you need a drive for power, and at least intellect above 99% of the population to continue dynastic wealth. Also, almost all elites are eugenicists. Meritocracy doesn't exist, you are either born a slave or a ruler in this world. If you're an idiot, you can continue to believe in muh freedoms. Guess what? Freedom isn't what most people like. Yup, you can't handle killing people, backstabbing others or lying to dumb people to get the resources to distribute it to useful people, hence you are not the ruling class. Gregory Clark covered this, you are either genetically predisposted to high SES and minimize class-recirculation and have a family that maximized continuous generations of wealth or you are a middle SES with time-horizion of merely your lifespan instead of centuries, and then complain about elites stealing your wealth, or your time horizion is merely a few weeks or a year and you are a slave acting pay-cheque to pay-cheque. I guess if you are retarded, you continue to believe in retarded things.
Scandinavia genes are just predisposed to high-trust. There is no natural plateau of population whatsoever, the elites instituted decreasing purchasing power policies worldwide, forced women to go to work, put organophosphates into food to sterilize the population or turn some of them gay, and turned single-dom culture to the maximum by giving women free gifts and making them preferential to higher-status and higher-wealth men, but since a lack of energy precludes this, this also naturally lowers the population creation by reducing economic opportunities available for the less able population. Also they inflate the housing prices and inflate the stock market to divert resources to the more disciplined. Every action is calculated.
LMAO ok, that doctor prescribe shit drugs that kill people. The idiot cashier that lets the idiot eat KFC garbage. You, especially you, the retard that sits on oil extracted from middle east.
i bet you didn't notice almost every upper SES person is a CEO, manager, director, business owner or someone that convinced
others to worked for them, sent marketing campaigns or perception management schemes, or are reward-system control engineers
that make smartphone games, or whatever to convince the stupider population to work for them, or eat their toxic foods,
or expend their lifespans playing smartphone games. In this world, you cannot sit in an air conditioned room
with all your luxuries handled without someone who has a lower material standard of living or who is more willing
to work or do whatever that is more valuable to them than you enjoying a higher standard of living, thing of the
92138123929 african mining cobalt slaves, 9319231839 asian drone slaves working in factories. Did you want to pay $32499
for that gadget-gibzo instead? No? Thank god the elites inflated away the currencies and de-instrualized your nations.
Aristotle already said this. Merit is not just determined by intellect, but your capacity to dominate and think
about the future of your progeny, and of society altogether. The elite, naturally think about making sure the world caters
to them. The middle class, like you only think for their lifespan at max. That's the difference. Seriously. TL;DR next.
You're very preoccupied with IQ ... as if it's the be-all. Also, it seems from other comments, with the erroneous belief that race or nationality somehow predict intelligence. Neither the assumption that higher intelligence is apt to lead to more innovation, nor that nationality determines IQ are true. Tenacity, access to resources, discipline and an overriding need to succeed are far better predictors of success than IQ. And the idea that some races are less intelligent than others was a propaganda tool that made it "okay" for elites to enslave other people and plunder their national resources.
The only morality that exists is one of existence and higher negentropic migration of civilization. Anything else is just a lack of ergodicity and disposition towards self annihilation. It is not moral relativism it is the truth of existing in this universe.
Stop valuing life so much and start valuing the results of life itself. I don’t care if there’s a billion agreeable Linda’s if we just sit in mud huts and stare at the sky. That kind of existence doesn’t appeal to me.
Guess how neurons work? Inhibiting some and activating others. Guess how organizations work? Telling some people to do stuff and others to refrain from attacking others. How do economic systems work? Exchange of information. Civilization itself is dependent on chaos and control and the management of those processes, stop being retarded and arguing for infinite freedom. A Japan is clearly superior to a Detroit, there is more self stratification and organization inoculated in the behaviour. No nation or society existed without a ruler and slaves, the subordinate and the superior exist in a codependent relationship because time and energy is finite and we are embodied entities. Again your retarded moral relativism argument goes against the principle of existence and that is the justification of itself.
the job of a ruler is not to make you happy, it's to manage resources and burdens. the job of a puppet or pr people is to look good in the camera and act as a scapegoat, scapegoats exist because people don't want to hear the truth that some people are more useless than others in society. if you don't want to be the ruled or slave, then stop playing taxes, kill the elite and become the elite. else you are another childish idiot who keep complaining about the elite all day and never step out to bomb or drone mudpeople for resources, never create free banks or anything. 99% of humanity act like children who whine and complain about leeching elites and corrupt bribes when those people are the ones that divert resources, set policies and redistribute burdens, while making sure less of you come to existence because the ruling class can never enjoy a moment without another idiot complaining about how they are parasites. every king is a fucking parasite you dimwit, you can't be on top without having tons of resources or command of all resources to distribute stuff, are you just a moron.
The job of a ruler is to make sure the people aren't upset and burned out.
The same job of the boss of a company.
When people at the company or the country are impoverished, that's mismanagement of resources.
That leads to people feeling stressed and higher population as we see in the third world dictatorships or "free market" governments.
Productivity and quality of industry goes down when workers are stressed, even Henry Ford knew this and paid his workers better.
The Chinese Dynastic cycle speaks of a mandate of heaven where eventually the leadership loses power and gets changed. What do you think about the current leadership? You seem to defend them as if this is how things should be run.
Maybe you're the dimwit who Nietzsche would call a person who has a slave mentality, which justifies the actions of the masters. Maybe that's why the best masters were slaves. Ever hear of the term Uncle Tom?
You sound like the WEF slave drivers who justify control because people are "evil".
Here's an interview with former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis on fiefdoms such as capitalism and what the ruling class does... Extract rent for mere ownership. Jeff Bezos is his primary example.
bill gates or musk are just puppets, please be realistic. the world is controlled by dynastic wealth, if you still believe in PR images and public figure, then you are gullible. No one magically gets tens of billions of dollars or claims on resources overnight in the garage.
The main position of elites is logical positivism and eugenics. They sit in the city of london and have been ruling for centuries, notably the black nobility, the roman catholic church and whatnot. Guess what? you are also a parasite, it's called trophic level in biology. Notice how humans are apex predators, you are also in this hierarchy. If you are retarded, you are a slave in Africa mining cobalt with your hands. If you are intelligent, the mangerial class will divert resources
to the tech economy and you will live your life contributing to civilization by creating a mind-product or whatever.
That is the job of the elite or ruler, you cannot have 31921832193219 rulers in this world, we all fight over each other.
Again, you sound retarded. You already are a parasite dumping waste into Asia, South America and exporting inflation
while Kissinger bombs the fuck out of middle east to get oil to fund your lavish lifestyle. Now shut the fuck up, and
realize some people are born as slaves, and others as rulers. Rulers, the rule of power is to stay in power, work
together as a family and not squander resources. Your dads and granddads squander the resources to go on vacation
or whatever shit instead of gathering power, and you always need resources to bribe others to work for you to do something
useful. If you want to be philosopher-king, go acquire power and kill the useless power, please be realistic. We are all
self-interested apeshit dictators in our core, your resentment towards the elite class is a reflection of your genetic
interests to fight over power and status struggles, you are no different than them. You would not sacrifice your life
for another african or muslim or whatever idiot, or the 912383282 chinese drones that slave labor for your amazonshit.
mafias can well come to agreement and stability. otherwise it wouldn't be them who keeps power over centuries. and some of them appear to have indeed kept that power that long.
plus their property gives them a kind of solidarity with each other against the masses (class consciousness?).
I don"t know if Malthus was "right" or "wrong" or if he had good or bad intentions when he wrote his Essay or if he was missundertood or not.
What I'm pretty sure about is that global overpopulation is a hoax brought out by eugenesists. James Corbett, among others, has excellent information about this topic.
Here is a short video (he has many others in his site where he exposes this scam):
There are certain overpopulated geographic areas, sure. But the whole world isn't "overpopulated": nature knows and has always known perfectjy well how to regulate itself.
Unfortunately, nowadays many are convinced that it is, so "birth control" and mass cullings are then "justified" and have to be carried out by whatever means (including "vaccinations").
Regarding the "pessimistic" issue, it's true that many people is addicted to "hopium" these days, but is equally true that the technocraric agenda is going to fail at the end by its own weight. The problem is that between that "end" and now it will be a lot of struggle and suffering.
And if guys like Gates or Schwab or the "ellites" aren't evil by themselves, then they are the clear product of an evil system, anyway.
"the problem obviously remains and there must be a reckoning, because land, fertilizer and food will never be unlimited."
That is backward extractive GMO, reductionist, parasitic, industrial, agriculture thinking.
He is thinking like a Roman and our civilization is acting like a Roman one. If those two things remain constant he is correct.
Instead of growing food like a Roman, we should grow food like a forest. If we do that, then there is no shortage of land, nor fertilizer nor food (and in addition to having access to all of those things via aligning with the regenerative capacity of natural ecosystems we gain access to beauty, soil stabilization, stable rain patterns and food for the soul).
a given land, even managed wisely "as a forest" does not support endless population growth.
in fact, this management you speak of would be better for nature than it would for us. why? because then we would be back to having to range over a larger landmass to collect sustainably what we need while allowing enough also to go back into the system. you aren't going to have cities of millions supported that way. numbers will have to lower and possibly be spread out more geographically. and all landmasses are not forest anyway, nor are all biomes able to support the same kinds of organisms, or in the same numbers.
i am for "food forests" but you just open up a whole ghetto of a city to one and see what happens and how sustainable it would be.
there is no getting around "carrying capacity" unless we get Star Trek replicators that can make foot out of random elements, and then we are back to the energy extraction problem again.
Well then it is a good thing that endless population growth is not happening and is not necessary to begin again in the future.
In reality, most people who have been paying attention to fertility rates over the last decade acknowledge that our population on Earth is actually decreasing, not increasing.
RE: "in fact, this management you speak of would be better for nature than it would for us. why? because then we would be back to having to range over a larger landmass to collect sustainably what we need while allowing enough also to go back into the system."
There are several obvious fallacies and inaccuracies in your suppositions regarding regenerative agroforestry as a means of food production.
Food Forests do not require a larger landmass you are thinking 2 dimensionally (like a GMO soy farmer). Food forests are stacked vertically, with 7 or more layers of productive crops in each square foot that is cultivated in that way. Not only plants but edible and medicinal fungi are also cultivated in an integrated system which requires no fertilizer and no irrigation. The yields produced by that system are many magnitudes greater than the yields of conventional agriculture methods (measured in both quantity, and nutritional density/diversity). Therefore, food forests would support larger communities of humans than are currently supported by the parasitic and extractive idiotic conventional farming methods used all over the developed world.
I work in designing, installing and maintaining resilient, self-sustaining and edible landscapes (Permaculture design) so I am not talking about theoretical harvests but rather measurable observable harvests, which my customers and my family have been enjoying for many years now from the forest gardens I helped to design and co-create.
RE: "you aren't going to have cities of millions supported that way"
Well I agree with you there (at least if we are talking about cities in their current form), especially because food forests cannot be created or maintained by 2 dimensional thinking giant machine driving people looking for quick profits (they are food cultivation systems that require hands on work and ecological literacy on the part of community members). Most people in cities can recognize over one thousand corporate logos yet they can identify less than ten species of plants. Those people are choosing to live as infantilized consumers, handicapped by their poverty of plant knowledge, botanically illiterate and fluent in the language of materialism and corporate dependance.
Cities (in their modern form) are degenerative and inherently destructive to life (human and non-human) on many levels. Those systems (if they remain as they are) are most certainly top heavy parasitic structures that depend on flimsy centralized supply lines and weak infrastructure and they will collapse (causing mass starvation and suffering for those who continue to live as infantilized consumers living in ecological knowledge poverty). When that collapse happens, many of those people will likely roam out of the city once the shelves are empty, looking to feed themselves, they may find people who pity them and help them or they may find themselves starving to death in a forest while being surrounded in food that they are not capable of recognizing. That potential will be the result of their choices and there is nothing we can do about that.
Your thoughts about carrying limits contain some truth, and yet they also are born of a view point of the universe and nature based in the fallacy of endless entropy. The universe is in fact Regenerative and Syntrophic (it is capable of recycling matter/energy and re-organizing that matter and energy into ever higher levels of beauty, complexity and diversity). The death of a solar system in a supernova explosion marks the beginnings of the birth of a new solar system and planets full of potential for life and diversity to be born. The volcano burns down forests but births entire islands and continents that will become the home for countless lifeforms to live and grow for millions of years in the future. The tree gathers cosmic radiation emanated from the stars (Sol, our sun) transforming that cosmic light into food for countless beings and building soil enabling more diverse habitats to be born. We are capable of aligning our efforts and designs with that inherent syntrophic abundance to support billions of humans in a way that is far beyond "sustainable" and is in fact regenerative.
It is hard to imagine since most humans on Earth are so ecologically illiterate and behave like either apathetic anthropocentric consumers or marauding vicious pillagers, but in truth humanity is capable of beautiful and wonderous things. We are capable of choosing to live in a way in which the living Earth will be grateful for our presence.
humans do not get to harvest every usable thing in a food forest. in fact, doing that would be as extractive as regular farming.
i would not count on an extraction rate above a certain percentage, although what would be i am admittedly not sure. some will be used to keep all the many animal, insect, and microbial/fungi species going and some will simply return to the soil itself. otherwise it won't be sustainable.
i would like you, if you are able, to show me a food forest in operation that is supporting a whole (city sized) neighborhood of all it's goods. i am sure they exist, but i bet anything they are in the "third world" where living standards are not as high, technology usage has not expanded as much, and people are living much more "traditional" lifestyle (not as many consumer goods, most naturally produced). which you indicate you are also replicating.
and i think that's the problem. most of us aren't going to go back to living that way. even if it would be better for us or the earth.
i take difference with your "choosing to x". having access to land, and the knowledge to exploit it in the way that you are doing is not something everyone has, and is not something that will be allowed to be within everyone's power. it takes money, time and skill and money most of all that people don't have. that plus uprooting "modern civ life" and you're talking about people being trapped by this world into something they didn't choose, and possibly can't choose otherwise.
how many people are you supporting with how many acres, and how much of the goods they use are coming from this land you are wisely stewarding? are all of their goods coming from it, or only foodstuffs? what percentage of these people's foodstuffs are coming from how many acres? what other things in the "modern tech civ" world are supplementing this rarified consumption pattern? or are you indeed living in a less developed way than modern tech civ?
You lack the understanding and experience of how a food forest functions and what it produces, so your suppositions are again, inaccurate and not based in reality.
Also, I clearly stated that current cities and the current way their inhabitants are choosing to live are not compatible with food forest design, so I will not be providing you with any examples of city neighborhoods being fed with that food cultivation system.
Re: "third world" where living standards are not as high" and "most of us aren't going to go back to living that way. even if it would be better for us or the earth."
The so called "high" standards you prefer also often coincide with poverty of the spirit (a life full of technological and material distractions but lacking any real meaning, fulfillment or nourishment for the soul which can only be accessed through an intimate/reciprocal connection with nature) and it also often coincides with ecologically illiterate communities of humans.
Those people you describe as "most of us" will eventually have to learn the hard way what it takes to feed themselves/yourself, even if it results in them starving due to their own ineptitude. I am not trying to be harsh or demeaning, but rather, just observing historical trends, current trajectories of centralized infrastructures and the inevitable destination that dependent consumers will reach.
Refusing to educate yourself about the ecosystem you depend on to survive and refusing to develop your pattern recognition skills through working closely with plants in the garden (as your ancestors did) means you are allowing significant portions of your brain to atrophy and your are stunting yourself from being able to achieve your true potential as a human being. Making the decision to remain in 'plant knowledge poverty' (lacking botanical literacy) represents a choice that gives you a significant handicap in life (which no amount of money, technology or "high" standards of city life living can fix).
Choosing to intentionally take on the infantilizing role of being purely an industrial food system dependent consumer means that when economic, political, ecological or technologic aspects of our industrial civilization are disrupted, you are at the mercy of those who may take pity on you when those systems collapse or/are seriously destabilized.
Many in modern western civilization have been conditioned into adopting a pervasive fallacious belief system that relates to their associating the act of gardening or working with one’s hands in the soil as a farmer as some kind of lowly, archaic, savage, unpleasant, dirty and ‘uncivilized’ activity which should be avoided by ‘respectable’ and ‘advanced’ intellectuals that have ‘moved beyond such things’ in their more ‘modern and civilized pursuits’.
In order to provide an example of what I am talking about with the tendency for some to have a subconscious (and some times not so subconscious) association in their head between gardening and “lowly, dirty activities of serfs and savages” I will share a quote from a Corbett Report subscriber which was part of a discussion we were having in a thread on the Corbett Report website.
The following is part of a comment from a Corbett Report subscriber that goes by the screen name “mutig”:
“The solution, as you point out, is to forage and grow one’s own food, but that isn’t possible for most people, or they must spend most of their time on food gathering and preparation, which takes us back to the way of life of an earlier century, which we might find unacceptable.”
Whether one makes the choice to deem taking action to cultivate skills and knowledge related to food cultivation and preservation as “unacceptable” (in other words, something they would rather not do) because they have chosen to mistakenly associate the act of cultivating and preserving one’s own food as some “lower class”, “dirty”, “peasant-like” activity that people in the past did (or just out of laziness) or whether one musters the courage to step outside their comfort zone and excuses to take responsibility for their future through growing some of their own food may decide whether they and their loved ones survive the storm ahead.
Some of us see the wisdom, nobility, foresight, courage and untapped potential in learning from and emulating our ancestors in how they had a close knit relationship to the land. There are others though, that continue to choose to look upon our ancestors as the oligarchic billionaires do (as dirty ‘peasants’). Each of us is capable of choosing either perspective and each of us will have to face the consequences down the road.
The mentality I often come across where people in the modern western world have made the decision to avoid gardening/preserving (and making a long list of excuses for themselves why that choice makes sense) is a corrosive and degenerative mentality that cripples many individual’s effectiveness in their efforts to resist tyranny and build parallel systems.
I even saw this mentality reflected and overtly expressed in some of the presentations at the recent “Greater Reset Conference” (Organized by Derrick Broze and John Bush) where there were individuals (such as Mark Moss) promoting the idea of getting rich fast using various schemes so that one would not have to “go live out in the forest or one a mountain top with goats” because, as Mark Moss stated stated “who wants to have to do that? Not me”.
For an interesting deeper etymological exploration of the delusional, egotistical superiority complex and laziness/apathy based mentality that sees gardening, food forests, and farming as some dirty lowly activity for unintelligent plebs (rather than acknowledging those pathways of learning and self-empowerment for what they are, which are, in fact, forms of higher education that surpass any offered by universities or book knowledge as it means learning directly from Creation through biomimicry and thus, by extension, learning directly from Creator) watch the following video:
Thus, the "high" standard of living you seek to perpetuate and stagnate in, will come at a high cost for you and others who choose that path down the road. I prefer to hedge my bets and cultivate universally applicable skillsets and pathways of learning so that I can thrive with or without centralized food production and distribution systems, but to each their own.
I take steps to be capable of feeding, sheltering and protecting myself and my loved ones through both living in connection with modern amenities (boycotting corrupt corporations and degenerative industries where possible) while simultaneously learning how to grow and preserve food without technology, so regardless of what ever consumption pattern I am engaged in now, I will be able to take care of my self and my loved ones in any situation.
I do not claim my path is better than yours, it is just what works for me and lets me sleep well at night knowing i am doing my best to learn what I can to be a good steward of the little patch of Earth I tend and a responsible/adaptable provider for myself and my loved ones.
When the shit hits the fan and top heavy parasitic civilizations collapse, history teaches us that it is those who know how to grow and preserve their own food that survived. You choose what ever path works best for your priorities and goals in life. The information I provide is intended to empower those who are willing to lift themselves out of plant knowledge poverty and become ecologically literate so they can grow their own food while leaving this world a little bit more beautiful than it was when we got here for those who will call this place home after we are gone. Take it or leave it.
i am not allowing anything. i was born in a poverty stricken urban jungle and had no money to get out from "modern civ" to see a cow up close until i was 12 y.o. and that was only because a distant family member owned some and i was allowed to visit.
your comments are unduly denigrating. there are many billions of people who no longer have the skills you deem they should have, and have no one nearby willing to teach them those skills, much less the land access to learn how to use them. and this is through no fault of their own. not everyone is as free as you obviously are to move about, taking up a new lifestyle and teaching themselves things they will never be able to apply, much less apply successfully.
you won't find me in favor of supporting this pure technological lifestyle and the road it appears to be going down, but neither is it realistic to assume that people will be able to live the way you are doing unless utterly driven by necessity and after much die off and misery and a reorganization of control over land and resources allowing it to happen.
i find it interesting that i am "too ignorant" to talk to at all about how much land you are managing this way, and how many people you are supporting this way, and how much of and which kinds of their goods are supplied this way. these are relevant details to your argument and my understanding. if you are sourcing 80% of all goods for a goodly number on a reasonable area of land, that would imply that it can be replicated (at least if land quality is comparable and skills are raised). but that means you do not have a plan for the rest of us except "go die, you are too stupid to live or even talk to".
if people end up starving in future because they "failed" to learn this, and you find that just, i guess you are some sort of social darwinist. not a person i want to be talking to. i might agree we are on the wrong road technologically for good health for humanity, and the means we are employing are the wrong ones, and that the number of human beings should come down and people should flourish more, but we obviously don't agree on the methods to get there. not all depopulationists want people to "go die, soon". good day to you.
I did not have a financially privileged upbringing either, though I was blessed to spend a lot of time in nature when I was young as my parents were park rangers.
One does not require land to learn the skills I am talking about, even growing some nutrient dense medicinal herbs and veggies in pots if you live in a city apartment is a step in the right direction.
People in cities not having access to anyone nearby willing to teach them those skills is not my doing, all I can do is offer those willing to learn the knowledge I have been able to gather and help them to become more ecologically literate if they are willing.
Telling yourself "taking up a new lifestyle means teaching yourself things you will never be able to apply" is a cop out excuse to stagnate in learned helplessness. If you are serious about taking action to educate yourself, and those around you, and taking action to grow some of your own food at home, I am willing to help you. I can provide you with actionable intel you can use to turn waste materials in the city into usable compost and soil, how to use waste materials to grow gourmet mushrooms inside and how to save seed, perpetuate the cycle and scale up your self-sufficiency (regardless of your living situation).
I do not think the earth needs depopulation, I think it needs humans that are willing to stop making excuses and make a positive impact on this world rather than no impact or a negative one.
I am willing to help people who are willing to help themselves. Let me know if you have a genuine interest in developing universally valuable skillsets and building knowledge and experience in cultivating food for yourself and we can talk more about what would work best for your current living situation.
I disagree with Marshall's reductionist, deterministic, mechanistic world view of the relationship between humans, technology and the natural world.
Destruction and degeneration are not inevitable. Humans are not inherently parasitic and extractive as this man implies.
Humans have the capability of either being takers/consumers (extracting from the Earth but giving nothing back) or givers (living within a web of reciprocal gift exchanges). Both choices can be observed in individuals in our lives and cultures throughout history.
Here are some examples of when cultures decided to use their genius, technology, horticultural/botanical knowledge and ecological literacy to define themselves as givers living within a web of reciprocal gift exchanges:
“Architects of Abundance: Indigenous Food Systems and the Excavation of Hidden History” https://www.proquest.com/openview/17597a179528716e1a9e8515ca76ec77/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y
Here is a video presentation that touches on some of the content in her dissertation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxxRV44-wZ0
Some other examples of technology serving as a regenerative tool that fostered increased biodiversity, increased human habitation and permanent food production systems that do not require fertilizer:
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ancient-indigenous-forest-gardens-still-yield-bounty-150-years-later-study
http://www.daviesand.com/Papers/Tree_Crops/Indian_Agroforestry/index.html
https://returntonow.net/2018/08/01/the-amazon-is-a-man-made-food-forest-researchers-discover/?fbclid=IwAR0-XsOZCldwRzlMG_mkBxxqqYAeZ90TAVEsO4nB-noboHGqX1TZS_nn0xo
https://www.sdvforest.com/agroforestry/the-fascinating-story-of-human-made-forests?fbclid=IwAR3OVHhCywwzOiCSBMWyk6_Bdy_q-GRRN2N7-525iqdnYmc_BqtKeyu6Wz4
https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art6/
https://canadianfeedthechildren.ca/what/food-security-projects/indigenous-food-forests/
https://www.sdvforest.com/agroforestry/the-fascinating-story-of-human-mad
Civilization is destruction and domestication. Collapse is not a bad thing. Probably it is the only way to defeat the system.
"land, fertilizer and food will never be unlimited. If you believe they are unlimited, you’re simply insane."
They are indeed unlimited if you simply look upward at space and other planets.
But population decrease is our most threatening problem. All developed countries are in a demographic crisis now, and all undeveloped countries are rapidly decreasing their rate of birth as well.
That's the point.
Why does no one mentions the fact that *ALL* first world countries have natural population decline (migration out of the equation)? We are talking about, what 20, 30, countries? Any exceptions? I see none.
There is an exponential curve in almost all development and it ends always at some point. Always. We don't grow to be 500m tall, even if we grow exponential in the beginning.
Computer speed grew exponentially. This ended some 15 years ago.
How can these people not see what is happening just in front of their very eyes?
And finally please leave the exponential grow scare curve alone already. I cannot hear it anymore. Every doomsday prophet looks out for his personal exponential grow scare curve... it's like a sport at this point.
Exactly! Japan's population isn't even replacing itself. Many countries are in the same boat. Infertility was rampant even before the jabs. Why won't this over population myth die despise the facts?!
Because there are ten times too many people for a sustainable human species. Most tech needs to go too, although low levels of electricity and refrigeration could work if a way were found to keep overpopulation levels in check. (good luck with that)
There aren't actually. And that misconception feeds right into eugenics, which makes the culling of the population we're currently experiencing okay. Which it isn't.
Unless you also believe we should start with those who believe we're overpopulated? Seems only fair ...
>There aren't actually.
That IS the strongest argument in favor of overpopulation. When sustainability of the species is the criteria, this planet is massively oversubscribed by humans.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. My research has obviously led to different conclusions than yours.
My opinion is based in part on the following observations.
1. Our species is unable to self-regulate.
2. We discover and use technologies that destroy us.
3. We've spread like cancer on the face of our only planet.
Our current trajectory has led us to ruin and most people live horrific lives, even if they've been programmed to tolerate it. "Civilization" is flying apart because we've vastly exceeded our carry capacity, which should never have been within sight in the first place.
The reduction is coming now no matter what we do. It's disappointing to realize your species is retarded. Oh well, we'll wreck ourselves and whatever happens happens. I'd like to say it didn't have to be this way, but it's obviously who we are.
I know, probably 95% of people would disagree with my opinion that 95% need to go. It's going to be a mess either way, because you just can't undo what we've done. \o
The myth serves the needs of those who are trying to impoverish, enslave, and kill us off.
Yes it does. But why do so many people, who seem to know what's up, still believe it when there's so much evidence to the contrary? Even Elon Musk talks frequently about how the slowing of population growth is very concerning for the future of humanity. The idea that we don't have the resources or space for more human beings is ridiculous. The problem is in how wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people, who have the power to intentionally keep half the world in poverty so they can have even more power.
Yes, I agree. That's the problem.
I think a big part of the solution is the Georgist land value tax. Most wealth is land, even now.
Hell man, the reference to Henry George deserves a boost! Though too late on this thread to make a suitable impact, you should slip that one in again, at the very next opportunity.
99.9% of all internet debate suffers from the debility of imagination which stems from the $power's successful campaign to collapse all debate into the moronic 'left vs right' trope which has done more damage to human brains than CORONA or any other competing 'virus' ever will!
Thanks!
One thing I like about Henry George is that he synthesizes the best arguments of left and right. The people who own the most valuable land would pay the most in taxes, but capitalism would still provide a very high standard of living for everyone.
until you can give an EROIE exceeding 1,000 or something, there is no space mining or harnessing great solar power or whateverjibgah. NO INTELLECT means NO TECHNOLOGY. And a caste system for choosing who gets resources is what elites have always planned in the end.
patrick, with all due respect, you need energy to get up there. and energy, or new sources of access, requires basic science, theories of interdimensional galatical energy or whatever. so no, you cannot defeat physics without intellect.
Sure, but those problems have solutions.
whats the solution? globalists told COP26 oil-man to not industrialize his nation because the people there are too low IQ to actually do anything meaningful, of course he got annoyed because he would no longer be a leader if his people got angry. either subsistence for people that are incapable, genocide and redistribution to capable people or we all die.
the anthropogenic cause of global perpetual feed-forward loop of unidirectional climate variability beyond permanent stability narrative hoax is just justification to redistribute resources from west to asia. even elon musk posts a lot about iq and talking about declining population, of course hes talking about the intelligent population. there are no solutions without intelligent people. whats yours solution to declining energy sources? peak uranium mining, no fusion power, etc. not enough mathematical or spatial g to engineer solutions.
Proven reserves of oil go up every year and not down. There is no decline in energy sources, only a demand that we stop using them.
i personally don't want to eat bugmeat thats toxic or seed oils to slowly die to malnutrition. rather be shot in the head than be ran over by low iq protesting third worlders. personally rather be in a room of fusion scientists or whatnot and be discussing solutions.
why does fewer people overall necessarily require us to be enslaved and killed?
why can't it be engaged in broad scale by humanity as a whole for everyone's benefit?
just because the wrong people have yet again gotten hold of the reins doesn't mean that lowering population itself is a bad idea. certainly they will do so through nefarious means, or it will happen naturally (the Four Horsemen), or we can choose to limit ourselves and enact policies and resources for women (since we unfortunately bear the brunt, literally) to choose what do for the right reasons.
there is no situation here on a scarce planet that requires ever more human beings consuming resources. not all of us have depopulation through "spraying the roaches" in mind. it may actually improve everyone's lot if actual scarcity can be held off. scarcity is the whip that the Owners use against us to justify all of their heirarchy and abuse. if we insist on butting up against those limits, then more people will fold to their evil logic rather than a more rational one.
only in economic ponzi schemes will "more and more people in future" benefit anyone, and we all know who will benefit most--it won't be the majority of us, but those same elites you appear to decry.
We do not need to go into space to solve world hunger, that is absurd.
Our current modern conventional agricultural methods are idiotic, irrational, shortsighted, arrogant and inefficient.
There are more horticulturally advanced methods to cultivate food where the food cultivation system is seamlessly integrated into a forest ecosystem (and thus, it does not require irrigation or fertilizer as those materials are provided by the syntrophic cycling of nutrients that are inherent in a functioning ecosystem).
I provide an example of one of many types of ancient food cultivation systems that produce exponentially more in quantity, quality and diversity in food crops per acre than our current mainstream methods in this post:
https://nevermoremedia.substack.com/p/did-the-ancient-maya-practice-permaculture
Elon Musk is one of the main people advocating for abandoning Earth to go mess up and extract resources from some other planet. He is also a proponent of transhumanism, he spends billions in an effort to find a way to make brain machine interface tech work by implanting microchips in mammal's brains to allow for an interface between smart devices, the internet, AI and the human brain. He also spends billions creating big messy controlled petroleum explosions to get rich people and microwave emitting 5G satellites into space, which are detrimental to the well being of many organisms on Earth (while also aspiring to use that same archaic rocket tech to colonize Mars). We are talking about dilapidated rocket tech is basically a smoothed out version of 100 year old technology (that was invented by Wernher von Braun).
If Musk is such a genius, why is he using that type of archaic tech when military contractors and active covert military operations have been using electrogravitic propulsion systems for decades now?
But I digress…
Another concern I have about Musk (and pretty much every other billionaire that is a vocal transhumanist and thinks we should run away from our problems and go mess up Mars) is that he has openly stated he champions synthetic mRNA products stating these pharmaceutical products are capable of "Turning Someone Into a Butterfly or Reversing Aging". He has also stated "Synthetic mRNA Is Like a Computer Program" and he thinks that is a good thing (which should be expanded upon). He has described how he feel that some kind of mRNA (and/or some kind of DNA based/gene editing) injections and transhumanist brain machine interface tech (see: Neuralink) can allow him to cheat death and make artificially augmented 'super humans'.
Let us for a moment assume that he (or any of his oligarch peers like Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos and/or Larry Fink) can actually succeed in the deluded ambitions they espouse (some of which I described above).
Are these really the types of aspirations you want for your children? Is a world filled with cyborgs building space ships to abandon our Mother Earth when she needs us most the type of future you want to contribute towards making a reality?
For me personally, that is definitely not the vision I aspire to co-create as our shared future on the Earth (nor beyond it).
no the threatening problem is EROIE of oil is approaching to low values, once more energy is expended than returned, we are screwed. and that is due to both high large population size scales, a large old population where compulsory euthansia is likely starting with MAID in canada, and also low native birth rates of the HIGH IQ, INDUSTRIOUS, RESOURCEFUL population being too low too. So it's actually a dual problem.
land that has the ability to support biological life is indeed limited, or the other planets around us would have something living upon them (beyond the microorganisms they have potentially found in some, but all unalived by the conditions in those planets and satellites).
yeah, you may be able to grow a tomato on a rock with just adding liquid nutrients and light bulbs, but the energy taken to do so now has to be arranged and managed by us, rather than the natural systems that biology employs. oh, and also the tomato is now usually inferior somehow than what the natural system would have produced.
just finding liquid water "out there" is a rarity and worthy of amazement. the fact that the dust on Mars alone would kill us faster than asbestos is an argument that we weren't really designed for these places, and they were not designed for us. what is "out there" that we can use? metals? water? minerals? and how much energy and technology (which comes at a usage and pollution cost) to get them? is it even worth doing?
using minerals spread over nearly barren ground is inefficient and substandard (and eventually deleterious to the health of ecosystems involved, including to those who eat food produced in such a way) than what the natural world has and can provide just doing what it already does. it just can't provide at the rate we now need to continue our existence, and with the regularity that our settled "civilizations" require.
My god, what a sad and sorry interview. The words "I am neither so academic nor diligent" are certainly true as his entire line of thinking is riddled with factual errors and lazy assertions.
Look, i get it - it's important to hear dissenting points of view, and finding someone who isn't saying "don't worry, it'll be all right" is a good way to shore up your own world view foundations. But this half-assed effort just isn't going to cut it.
To avoid writing my own 41-page response, let's just start with one major error: there will NEVER be 13 billion people. Even if unlimited food rains down from space, there will never be more than 11 billion people. That's because the limit to human population is NOT the availability of food.
Yes, the UNAVAILABILITY of food, whether due to drought or crop failure or something else, does result in population decline. But the opposite simply isn't true - infinite food availability does NOT equal infinite population growth, and the proof of this is all around us - countries with the lowest hunger rates are seeing STEEP declines in population. But by his (and Malthus') logic, it should be the opposite - wealthy (in terms of food availability) countries like Japan and Norway should be popping out babies right and left when they most definitely aren't.
I'm hardly the first one to notice or study this, btw. And far smarter people than i have looked into the mechanisms of what does curb population growth OTHER than sickness or starvation or war, and we now have a very clear understanding of how this works (and no, it's not just an increase in formal education). So do your fucking research, dude! You can start with Hans Rosling, you lazy sack of s--t charging $9 for your BS.
Sigh...
" But the opposite simply isn't true - infinite food availability does NOT equal infinite population growth, "
In fact, I didn't say that it does. If you had kindly spent $8.99 on my BS, you would know that. And I even mentioned leveling (+ population momentum) in the interview.
"countries like Japan and Norway should be popping out babies right and left when they most definitely aren't."
Abundant food does not countermand r/K selection, of course. And as you mention, there are more factors in population growth leveling than lack of food, which I think is not even that relevant -- namely simple consumerism. This is not merely my opinion, but consensus among the usual think tanks. When people have things, they become more selfish and loath to share, and less likely to reproduce; see Japan and Norway.
Anyway ... my BS little book isn't even about population, per se. So I'm not going to waste time on this.
What the fuck are you on about did you not read Planned Parenthood targeted SES policies? They were ALL implemented on all westernized nations, and through BiS/IMF control. My god, you sound retarded again. And it's not infinite food, but other things too. A westernized desire for a better life inoculated in women makes them less willing to mate, regardless though I guess you aren't one to understand perception control.
While not one to turn down a good 'conspiracy theory'(in truth I revel in em!)this blizzard of acronyms (sorry-tried but failed to find out what "SES" stands for-even moar "retards" to try your patience chumly!) and the Planned Parenthood reference fail to qualify for "you nailed it" status.
If you're really set on dismissing us as "retards," why don't you critique and demolish the guy's reference to the Malthus paradox. It's an intriguing 'anomaly' wouldn't you agree? If your preference however is to eschew debate for the compact utility of ad hominem, I understand. Most 'geniuses' are troubled way beyond their capacities to deal with the small details of social discourse!
There's actually no killing vampire Malthus – i.e. the scarecrow everyone sets up without having read his 'Essay' or considering the difference between his time and ours. It's pointless to try.
"For example, you write that Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab shouldn’t be viewed as villains or freaks, but rather as the “summation of technology."
I say Gates and Schwab are not so much the summation of technology but the outcome of a species genetically deformed allowing for one out of every hundred humans to be "certifiable sociopaths."
In the case of Gates he might actually be more representative of the "psychopathic" segment of society. In any event, it's clear that on every continent sociopaths and psychopaths very often rise to the top especially, if like Bill Gates you're a primogeniture to your parent's fortune and connections, namely the Rockefeller ghoul.
Psychopaths and sociopaths who are lucky enough to be connected to great power and vast resources are extremely dangerous, as they're frequently given the opportunity to determine the destiny of billions.😨
People born to great wealth are indoctrinated to believe they are superior - even if their supremacy is based, as it often is, on Deception and Brute Force.
existence has to justify itself. would you rather believe everyone is equal and go with communism? you need to be objective here. someone that has more self control, and at least minimum of intellect is more superior than a druggie with pants down living in squandor. they may not be the superior superior of high intellect but at least they managed to make their offspring live better than most. psychopathy is simply removal of residual empathy, empathy is just there to create stable bonds. you remember ejaculation for men right? post-sex clarity? stop feeling loveness towards women. same thing, you become objective and able to make decisions on billions of people. empaths and non-thinkers make bad CEOs and leaders for this reason. our brain is only limited to tribe of 250 or whatever by dunbar's number, we cannot compute utility functions with empathy of closeness or gene-reciprocity kinship or homophily alone. If you do this, you cannot make objective decisions.
They're a result of fiefdoms, like our so called democracy.
Former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis explains how Amazon for example is the wet dream of what the USSR ruling party wanted lol.
https://youtu.be/JKzlB_jrOyk
Bill Gates is not intelligent in the actual tech, he's the guy given the money to hire people who can program. Steve Jobs too, he had Wozniak who was the real genius of apple along with his team.
Same with Elon Musk and others.
stop talking about elon musk and steve jobs, when the fuck are you going to label the dynastic royalty and the subsidiaries of WHO, Group of 30, BiS, interparliamentary union and players who give claims on resources to people to fund midwits to create their own imprisonment. The longer you focus the attention on people who don't make the decisions and are just there to make you scapegoat them, the less intelligible people can understand the situation. The fact that you are unable to conceive the notion of supranational entities beyond public figures, and that organized collective self-interests is possible within human societies and civilization is probably why you still repeat the muhhh durrr elites are idiot slogans when they hire academics to put out 10,000 page bills and policy objectives at the high-level.
So my point stands. These people like Musk are puppets of the elite globcap system. (CJ hopkins term for the goobalists who run shit today like the lockstep con-vid sham).
The people that are on the top of globocap are also morons.
We both know this because they're obsessed with forcing population control and sickness on us when there is a more elegant and effective solution. Stop creating conditions that make populations increase.
But they're too cheap and really don't give a fuck about making people happy.
Their mandate of heaven is over and we're seeing that in how there's a new sheriff in town that's dismantling things that failed, like they expected to work. One such example is the con-vid crisis and their plans to mandate shots on us.
Why is this happening? It's because the people are no longer as stupid as you claim they are.
Even if they still won't admit the shots are dangerous, they're automatically avoiding them.
Single digit% of people in the USA are getting the shots now.
True change comes from bottom up, not top down. If they really controlled everything, we would still be working 6 days a week in dangerous factories next to children.
People are unable to disagree without calling each other sacks of shit. This alone will curb population growth.
if arguing on the internet did anything useful, i would choose that result. at least it would finally produce *something.
Looking back for an event horizon, I'm increasingly convincing myself that the collapse tragectory began when we develpoed conceptual language, thereby driving an unfixable wedge between ourselves and the direct experience of existence.
I believe it actually started with the start of mankind itself, because there always have been people turning away from wathever 'good', in one way or the other.
Because the moment that, for example, a situation occurs within people can gain something at the expense of another person, there always are, and always have been I suppose, a few people who will actually abuse those others
Great interview. Good to see the reality of civilizational limits being discussed. The "nature is a limitless cornucopia" take is almost as prevalent on the alt-media as "Putin is playing 7d chess with the globalists trust me bro"
Thanks for your contribution.
"The pseudo-vaxx drive is unique in that it ranged a majority of the planet against you if you resisted — it wasn’t just your friends or family or community, but everybody at once. People internalize that and get scared."
This gave the convincing impression that a small cabal is indeed running the whole world. Not sure exactly how that would be done. Maybe by the Fed simply creating unlimited money to credit accounts as bribes, and by global Epstein-like entrapment operations for all government officials.
Plomo or plato.
Strong thoughts. What we are faced with is the inevitability of material evolution. Old biological forms are replaced with new forms. There have been several sea changes in the history of biology. Such as symbiogenesis, when one lineage of cells engulfed another lineage of cells to form an entirely new lineage of cell: the eukaryote, distinguished, among other things, by its genetic nucleus, a little walled library that would enable the leap from single celled organism to plants, animals and fungi. Two forms of life merged to become a brand new biological paradigm.
What we are witnessing today may be the same. It is the unthinkable reality that will be the last thing anyone wants to consider. What the globalists have done, in their decades of occulted research, is engineer synthetic biology at the nano scale. They made a pivotal breakthrough with the isolation of graphene in 2004. Graphene is a much more body friendly nanomaterial that can be used to build numerous structures including antennae and quantum dots. It is an optimal component of hydrogel, which can integrate other structural components like chitin and polymers. Hydrogels are capable of self assembly from nano materials introduced to the body. They are capable of interfacing with organic tissues including the brain.
Truly, a new form of life has been introduced at the nano scale and it is integrating with our bodies as we speak. And it seems to be nothing so much as inevitable. Evolution is not actually blind; intelligence is the will of life, and it has always sought to surpass itself. Ideologies used to matter, when synthetic technology was restricted to the external environment. Ideology is a means to religion which literally means the binding of people together. If people become bound by an internet of bodies, religion will cease to matter. 8 Billion will become one.
Yet these scientific wizards did their work behind provocative ideological shades and shields. They knew if they were open about their work, the human zeitgeist would turn and destroy them. We are left with the conclusion that deception is the very means of evolution. Human ethics are becoming an anachronism. To the inhuman, the end justifies the means.
We should also note that the Zionist prophecies of world domination and end of nature would be fulfilled by a transhumanist singularity. Thus we are also left with the niggling possibility that this great reset was all motivated by religious spite or a need to validate the scriptures. We know who's been running Western Civilization from the shadows since the end of WWII, at least. They are not exactly new age hippies. They are devoted to their own ethnic grandiloquence.
Is Zionism inevitable? What technology will enable the wolf to lie down with the lamb? What technology will allow a single altar to rule the entire world?
Evolution is not actually blind; intelligence is the will of life, and it has always sought to surpass itself.
Finally, someone that understands!!! Everyone with intelligence has this nature of industriousness, refinedness, wanton desire to control, become something greater than itself, see all outcomes, become god. Well it doesn't matter who becomes god, either we become trans or post-human or a meteor hits us or solar earth flare renders us dead because we are super dependent on technology. We created our own environment. Our insensitivity to our environment is the bane, yet the our artificial environment is what accelerates evolution, Self-directedness. Openness in higher IQ people is strongly correlated. Unfortunately susceptibility to high trust beliefs and erroneous we can all get alongism is also in it too.
Yes: "We are left with the conclusion that deception is the very means of evolution. Human ethics are becoming an anachronism. To the inhuman, the end justifies the means."
It seems they have been 'running civilisation from the shadows' for centuries, possibly millennia.
Correct. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1187117922582282351/1204157873064775720/order-of-malta-tribute.png?ex=65d3b669&is=65c14169&hm=dd470721c566f2c75e9775a04fb4cbc627869d5dd5f77ad8710259bdf2690ca2&
Genesis 1:28 "and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply.."
Gates/Schwab We must do the opposite.
This might be the crux of the issue.
Who is God?
There is no God, so Gates/Schwab and Co, are filling the void, as demi-gods.
They make the rules, we obey, they do whatever they like.
Have as many offspring as they like, legitimate or illegitimate, yet push the overpopulation fear agenda to limit the reproduction of the rest of us.
Problem number one - there is a real God, but not the popular fiction "God" of the cults.
Problem number two: demi-gods can only rule if fools believe in them and follow them obediently to technocratic, or whatever other, utopia.
My idea of a god is nature, life itself. Not a control system as in monotheism.
“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”
― Epicurus
Yeah the old merry-go-round.
People ride for life, confident of their intellectual and moral conclusions.
Gotta get off to see the merry-go-round for what it is.
But I'm paid up to ride for life ...
Where is the merry-go-round going?
Hold a baby in our arms, preferably our own, and we will see "God".
Kinda part of nature, life itself, wouldn't you say?
Who created nature and life itself?
Oh yeah ... evolution.
Dead end.
Even worse than a merry-go-round.
Agreed - not the clearest input.
My dilemma is I hate using the word "God" at all, because I think it has been so abused, that it is almost meaningless, and highly likely to be misunderstood regardless.
I did not mean that there is no God.
I meant that "there is no God" - is the mantra of the atheistic world we live in.
There is One true and living "God", who is the creator and sustainer of the universe.
However, this "God" is not any of the gods of the religious cults - churches, mosques, synagogues, etcetera - who mostly strip the flesh of true faith away, leaving only the skeleton - the dead dry bones of religion.
Not sure what you mean by the scriptures.
The sacred writings acknowledge the One, as the One true and living supreme being.
The Jewish path is complicated.
Most Orthodox Jews reject the Messiah, and therefore estrange themselves to some extent from their creator.
Hence, Orthodox Judaism often just clings to the religious skeleton of the faith, without the flesh of true faith.
There are Messianic Jews, regarded as dangerous heretics by most Jews.
Arguably, Christians are just gentile messianic Jews - the first Christians were Messianic Jews - salvation is of the Jews.
Then there are those who are outside, both the orthodox and messianic Jewish communities.
These are doubly dangerous heretics, to both Orthodox and Messianic Jews.
I do not touch the true "name of God" agenda.
This is sacred ground.
People who know the One, know the name of the One, and others presuming to dictate to them about this is offensive.
Those who pontificate about the true name of the One, don't really know the One, only know about the One.
For the record, I am profoundly orthodox, and also profoundly unorthodox.
Seems to me, our Messiah was likewise.
This is an interesting dialogue. Thanks for taking the time to hash it out. Not enough of this...
Does it matter if there is a real creator God or not? And if it does matter, why does it?
I believe that if there would be no creator God, we have to behave equally, or maybe (a little bit) better
Completely agree on your comment
What I was trying to say is that when God should not exist, 'all that what God is, what He stands for' is the only possible guidance (way of life) to leading a meaningfull loving life for yourself as well as the people in your life
And still Gates/Schwab act like they are God
Amen.
Moral relativism devoid of fancy phrasing:
Bill Gates: "What he is trying to do isn’t “wrong”, it is logical according to the entire development of technology to this point. We might not like it, we might try to resist it, and it might not work out for him, but it isn't “evil” or “unnatural”, and if it weren’t one guy, it’d be another."
If Bill wasn't trying to destroy humanity, some other schmuck would.
From Bill Gates point of view killing people might be a good thing to do, from my point of view it isn't. Even not because in future there might be a lack of resources.
In future, this is for very extremely sure, I will die. So I kill myself now?
In this case killing myself is stupid, especially while I prefer to stay alive, but in case of Bill Gates is doing the exact thing but than killing others, who prefer to stay alive too.
In my opinion that is very wrong as a matter of fact.
Bill Gates is a murderous little douche bag.
Most probably you've written your comment with the douche-bag's software package ... 🤔🤔🤔
Not a chance.
I have also boycotted Amazon since about 2008.
My sincere compliments !! I've still got a LOT to learn ...
Keep in mind lots of people are allowing him to hurt or kill them, without their permission he couldn't or wouldn't kill them.
Although he deceives them in the worst kind of way, deceiving is more or less commonly used in allmost all business since we don't trade a pair of shoes for groceries anymore.
{...schmuck...} ???
Why are German sounding words always embroiled in doomsday-scenarios ?
Easy: because German governments are always embroiled in genocide !!!
I had a little laff when I read this:
"Leo Rosten writes in The Joys of Yiddish that schmuck is commonly viewed among Jews as an obscene word that should not be said lightly."
The Joys of Yiddish....
Why wouldn’t reshuffling resources to highest iq people to extract more energy or create more powerful minds from harnessing intellectual power be more moral than pursuing a path of bread and circuses until the day there is no more free energy for fertilizer?
Bill Gates is not a high IQ person.
Neither was Steve Jobs and neither is Elon Musk.
They're charlatans who take credit for their management of creative people.
A real high IQ person wouldn't need to institute population control.
Look at Scandinavia, they have less children because people are allowed to live life with basics provided.
Competition drives breeding.
Check out the rat park experiment and the variation that lead to a natural plateau of population...
https://robc137.substack.com/p/the-milgram-experiment-and-how-we
Do you know Catherine A Fitts? - she has said re: Bill Gates (near quote): "When I heard everyone start saying what an absolute genius he was, I knew it was an Op"
Quite.
I can feel an op-ed coming on: 'The Scam that is Meritocracy: How an entire culture was deceived into believing that the Tech Oligarchs are highly intelligent, self made men."
SO many media people were fixated on that aspect of the Elizabeth Holmes operation: "first Silicon Valley, female self-made BILLionaire" ! I kinda miss her - it actually may have been HER operation, once known as "scams".
again, you sound stupid. most come from dynastic wealth, the royalty, they ruled for generations and are good at propaganda. they are not the most intelligent, but they are intelligent and power-hungry enough to get shit done. also if you stratify by SES, the more diligent, more capable people do have higher IQ statistically. They may not be the highest IQ, but those who make better decisions in life actually do have better life outcomes. Tech Oligarchs are probably around 135 IQ -- the Nationalist Socialist people of Germany had IQs around 125-140 and they managed a population of 70 million. In this world you need a drive for power, and at least intellect above 99% of the population to continue dynastic wealth. Also, almost all elites are eugenicists. Meritocracy doesn't exist, you are either born a slave or a ruler in this world. If you're an idiot, you can continue to believe in muh freedoms. Guess what? Freedom isn't what most people like. Yup, you can't handle killing people, backstabbing others or lying to dumb people to get the resources to distribute it to useful people, hence you are not the ruling class. Gregory Clark covered this, you are either genetically predisposted to high SES and minimize class-recirculation and have a family that maximized continuous generations of wealth or you are a middle SES with time-horizion of merely your lifespan instead of centuries, and then complain about elites stealing your wealth, or your time horizion is merely a few weeks or a year and you are a slave acting pay-cheque to pay-cheque. I guess if you are retarded, you continue to believe in retarded things.
Scandinavia genes are just predisposed to high-trust. There is no natural plateau of population whatsoever, the elites instituted decreasing purchasing power policies worldwide, forced women to go to work, put organophosphates into food to sterilize the population or turn some of them gay, and turned single-dom culture to the maximum by giving women free gifts and making them preferential to higher-status and higher-wealth men, but since a lack of energy precludes this, this also naturally lowers the population creation by reducing economic opportunities available for the less able population. Also they inflate the housing prices and inflate the stock market to divert resources to the more disciplined. Every action is calculated.
LMAO ok, that doctor prescribe shit drugs that kill people. The idiot cashier that lets the idiot eat KFC garbage. You, especially you, the retard that sits on oil extracted from middle east.
i bet you didn't notice almost every upper SES person is a CEO, manager, director, business owner or someone that convinced
others to worked for them, sent marketing campaigns or perception management schemes, or are reward-system control engineers
that make smartphone games, or whatever to convince the stupider population to work for them, or eat their toxic foods,
or expend their lifespans playing smartphone games. In this world, you cannot sit in an air conditioned room
with all your luxuries handled without someone who has a lower material standard of living or who is more willing
to work or do whatever that is more valuable to them than you enjoying a higher standard of living, thing of the
92138123929 african mining cobalt slaves, 9319231839 asian drone slaves working in factories. Did you want to pay $32499
for that gadget-gibzo instead? No? Thank god the elites inflated away the currencies and de-instrualized your nations.
Aristotle already said this. Merit is not just determined by intellect, but your capacity to dominate and think
about the future of your progeny, and of society altogether. The elite, naturally think about making sure the world caters
to them. The middle class, like you only think for their lifespan at max. That's the difference. Seriously. TL;DR next.
From which IQ, according to your metrics, is the management of creative people a cake-walk ?? ...
You're very preoccupied with IQ ... as if it's the be-all. Also, it seems from other comments, with the erroneous belief that race or nationality somehow predict intelligence. Neither the assumption that higher intelligence is apt to lead to more innovation, nor that nationality determines IQ are true. Tenacity, access to resources, discipline and an overriding need to succeed are far better predictors of success than IQ. And the idea that some races are less intelligent than others was a propaganda tool that made it "okay" for elites to enslave other people and plunder their national resources.
The only morality that exists is one of existence and higher negentropic migration of civilization. Anything else is just a lack of ergodicity and disposition towards self annihilation. It is not moral relativism it is the truth of existing in this universe.
Stop valuing life so much and start valuing the results of life itself. I don’t care if there’s a billion agreeable Linda’s if we just sit in mud huts and stare at the sky. That kind of existence doesn’t appeal to me.
I am not at all 'agreeable'.
Guess how neurons work? Inhibiting some and activating others. Guess how organizations work? Telling some people to do stuff and others to refrain from attacking others. How do economic systems work? Exchange of information. Civilization itself is dependent on chaos and control and the management of those processes, stop being retarded and arguing for infinite freedom. A Japan is clearly superior to a Detroit, there is more self stratification and organization inoculated in the behaviour. No nation or society existed without a ruler and slaves, the subordinate and the superior exist in a codependent relationship because time and energy is finite and we are embodied entities. Again your retarded moral relativism argument goes against the principle of existence and that is the justification of itself.
Wisdom of companies does not depend on a good leader like Bill Gates or Musk.
Those people are the parasites that feed on the work of people who actually discover and create things.
the job of a ruler is not to make you happy, it's to manage resources and burdens. the job of a puppet or pr people is to look good in the camera and act as a scapegoat, scapegoats exist because people don't want to hear the truth that some people are more useless than others in society. if you don't want to be the ruled or slave, then stop playing taxes, kill the elite and become the elite. else you are another childish idiot who keep complaining about the elite all day and never step out to bomb or drone mudpeople for resources, never create free banks or anything. 99% of humanity act like children who whine and complain about leeching elites and corrupt bribes when those people are the ones that divert resources, set policies and redistribute burdens, while making sure less of you come to existence because the ruling class can never enjoy a moment without another idiot complaining about how they are parasites. every king is a fucking parasite you dimwit, you can't be on top without having tons of resources or command of all resources to distribute stuff, are you just a moron.
The job of a ruler is to make sure the people aren't upset and burned out.
The same job of the boss of a company.
When people at the company or the country are impoverished, that's mismanagement of resources.
That leads to people feeling stressed and higher population as we see in the third world dictatorships or "free market" governments.
Productivity and quality of industry goes down when workers are stressed, even Henry Ford knew this and paid his workers better.
The Chinese Dynastic cycle speaks of a mandate of heaven where eventually the leadership loses power and gets changed. What do you think about the current leadership? You seem to defend them as if this is how things should be run.
Maybe you're the dimwit who Nietzsche would call a person who has a slave mentality, which justifies the actions of the masters. Maybe that's why the best masters were slaves. Ever hear of the term Uncle Tom?
You sound like the WEF slave drivers who justify control because people are "evil".
Here's an interview with former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis on fiefdoms such as capitalism and what the ruling class does... Extract rent for mere ownership. Jeff Bezos is his primary example.
https://youtu.be/JKzlB_jrOyk
bill gates or musk are just puppets, please be realistic. the world is controlled by dynastic wealth, if you still believe in PR images and public figure, then you are gullible. No one magically gets tens of billions of dollars or claims on resources overnight in the garage.
The main position of elites is logical positivism and eugenics. They sit in the city of london and have been ruling for centuries, notably the black nobility, the roman catholic church and whatnot. Guess what? you are also a parasite, it's called trophic level in biology. Notice how humans are apex predators, you are also in this hierarchy. If you are retarded, you are a slave in Africa mining cobalt with your hands. If you are intelligent, the mangerial class will divert resources
to the tech economy and you will live your life contributing to civilization by creating a mind-product or whatever.
That is the job of the elite or ruler, you cannot have 31921832193219 rulers in this world, we all fight over each other.
Again, you sound retarded. You already are a parasite dumping waste into Asia, South America and exporting inflation
while Kissinger bombs the fuck out of middle east to get oil to fund your lavish lifestyle. Now shut the fuck up, and
realize some people are born as slaves, and others as rulers. Rulers, the rule of power is to stay in power, work
together as a family and not squander resources. Your dads and granddads squander the resources to go on vacation
or whatever shit instead of gathering power, and you always need resources to bribe others to work for you to do something
useful. If you want to be philosopher-king, go acquire power and kill the useless power, please be realistic. We are all
self-interested apeshit dictators in our core, your resentment towards the elite class is a reflection of your genetic
interests to fight over power and status struggles, you are no different than them. You would not sacrifice your life
for another african or muslim or whatever idiot, or the 912383282 chinese drones that slave labor for your amazonshit.
So you're calling me retarded now?
Look in the mirror.
In the end, if they win, psychopaths will tear each other's throats out. Hell, that's what they do.
Interested of course to see finer minds think they won't. Win.
Organise locally. That's where you are going to have to survive.
You are going to have to find out how to grow and ferment cabbage. Or grow Red Brandywine tomatoes. The hardest of all tomatoes to do.
Depending on your latitude.
Hurry tf up. You don't learn this stuff overnight.
mafias can well come to agreement and stability. otherwise it wouldn't be them who keeps power over centuries. and some of them appear to have indeed kept that power that long.
plus their property gives them a kind of solidarity with each other against the masses (class consciousness?).
If Marshall Lentini and Edward are not one and the same- if - then I hereby declare you man & wife.
We wish you a Long and Happy Life !
By the way, Lentini is an Italian footballer. Nod to the wise. Gnome saying ? Oh god. Reading too much Sage Hana.
I don't recommend it unless you like seasickness.
Edward will disagree with me. Can't help it.
Today's, yesterday's and tomorrow's pick:
David Nixon's microscopy on Substack.
Yep. Right here.
I don"t know if Malthus was "right" or "wrong" or if he had good or bad intentions when he wrote his Essay or if he was missundertood or not.
What I'm pretty sure about is that global overpopulation is a hoax brought out by eugenesists. James Corbett, among others, has excellent information about this topic.
Here is a short video (he has many others in his site where he exposes this scam):
https://corbettreport.com/the-last-word-on-overpopulation/
There are certain overpopulated geographic areas, sure. But the whole world isn't "overpopulated": nature knows and has always known perfectjy well how to regulate itself.
Unfortunately, nowadays many are convinced that it is, so "birth control" and mass cullings are then "justified" and have to be carried out by whatever means (including "vaccinations").
Regarding the "pessimistic" issue, it's true that many people is addicted to "hopium" these days, but is equally true that the technocraric agenda is going to fail at the end by its own weight. The problem is that between that "end" and now it will be a lot of struggle and suffering.
And if guys like Gates or Schwab or the "ellites" aren't evil by themselves, then they are the clear product of an evil system, anyway.
"the problem obviously remains and there must be a reckoning, because land, fertilizer and food will never be unlimited."
That is backward extractive GMO, reductionist, parasitic, industrial, agriculture thinking.
He is thinking like a Roman and our civilization is acting like a Roman one. If those two things remain constant he is correct.
Instead of growing food like a Roman, we should grow food like a forest. If we do that, then there is no shortage of land, nor fertilizer nor food (and in addition to having access to all of those things via aligning with the regenerative capacity of natural ecosystems we gain access to beauty, soil stabilization, stable rain patterns and food for the soul).
a given land, even managed wisely "as a forest" does not support endless population growth.
in fact, this management you speak of would be better for nature than it would for us. why? because then we would be back to having to range over a larger landmass to collect sustainably what we need while allowing enough also to go back into the system. you aren't going to have cities of millions supported that way. numbers will have to lower and possibly be spread out more geographically. and all landmasses are not forest anyway, nor are all biomes able to support the same kinds of organisms, or in the same numbers.
i am for "food forests" but you just open up a whole ghetto of a city to one and see what happens and how sustainable it would be.
there is no getting around "carrying capacity" unless we get Star Trek replicators that can make foot out of random elements, and then we are back to the energy extraction problem again.
Well then it is a good thing that endless population growth is not happening and is not necessary to begin again in the future.
In reality, most people who have been paying attention to fertility rates over the last decade acknowledge that our population on Earth is actually decreasing, not increasing.
"We Are No Longer Replacing Ourselves" :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OONLMSbG8Y&t=15s
RE: "in fact, this management you speak of would be better for nature than it would for us. why? because then we would be back to having to range over a larger landmass to collect sustainably what we need while allowing enough also to go back into the system."
There are several obvious fallacies and inaccuracies in your suppositions regarding regenerative agroforestry as a means of food production.
Food Forests do not require a larger landmass you are thinking 2 dimensionally (like a GMO soy farmer). Food forests are stacked vertically, with 7 or more layers of productive crops in each square foot that is cultivated in that way. Not only plants but edible and medicinal fungi are also cultivated in an integrated system which requires no fertilizer and no irrigation. The yields produced by that system are many magnitudes greater than the yields of conventional agriculture methods (measured in both quantity, and nutritional density/diversity). Therefore, food forests would support larger communities of humans than are currently supported by the parasitic and extractive idiotic conventional farming methods used all over the developed world.
I work in designing, installing and maintaining resilient, self-sustaining and edible landscapes (Permaculture design) so I am not talking about theoretical harvests but rather measurable observable harvests, which my customers and my family have been enjoying for many years now from the forest gardens I helped to design and co-create.
RE: "you aren't going to have cities of millions supported that way"
Well I agree with you there (at least if we are talking about cities in their current form), especially because food forests cannot be created or maintained by 2 dimensional thinking giant machine driving people looking for quick profits (they are food cultivation systems that require hands on work and ecological literacy on the part of community members). Most people in cities can recognize over one thousand corporate logos yet they can identify less than ten species of plants. Those people are choosing to live as infantilized consumers, handicapped by their poverty of plant knowledge, botanically illiterate and fluent in the language of materialism and corporate dependance.
Cities (in their modern form) are degenerative and inherently destructive to life (human and non-human) on many levels. Those systems (if they remain as they are) are most certainly top heavy parasitic structures that depend on flimsy centralized supply lines and weak infrastructure and they will collapse (causing mass starvation and suffering for those who continue to live as infantilized consumers living in ecological knowledge poverty). When that collapse happens, many of those people will likely roam out of the city once the shelves are empty, looking to feed themselves, they may find people who pity them and help them or they may find themselves starving to death in a forest while being surrounded in food that they are not capable of recognizing. That potential will be the result of their choices and there is nothing we can do about that.
Your thoughts about carrying limits contain some truth, and yet they also are born of a view point of the universe and nature based in the fallacy of endless entropy. The universe is in fact Regenerative and Syntrophic (it is capable of recycling matter/energy and re-organizing that matter and energy into ever higher levels of beauty, complexity and diversity). The death of a solar system in a supernova explosion marks the beginnings of the birth of a new solar system and planets full of potential for life and diversity to be born. The volcano burns down forests but births entire islands and continents that will become the home for countless lifeforms to live and grow for millions of years in the future. The tree gathers cosmic radiation emanated from the stars (Sol, our sun) transforming that cosmic light into food for countless beings and building soil enabling more diverse habitats to be born. We are capable of aligning our efforts and designs with that inherent syntrophic abundance to support billions of humans in a way that is far beyond "sustainable" and is in fact regenerative.
It is hard to imagine since most humans on Earth are so ecologically illiterate and behave like either apathetic anthropocentric consumers or marauding vicious pillagers, but in truth humanity is capable of beautiful and wonderous things. We are capable of choosing to live in a way in which the living Earth will be grateful for our presence.
Thanks for the comment.
humans do not get to harvest every usable thing in a food forest. in fact, doing that would be as extractive as regular farming.
i would not count on an extraction rate above a certain percentage, although what would be i am admittedly not sure. some will be used to keep all the many animal, insect, and microbial/fungi species going and some will simply return to the soil itself. otherwise it won't be sustainable.
i would like you, if you are able, to show me a food forest in operation that is supporting a whole (city sized) neighborhood of all it's goods. i am sure they exist, but i bet anything they are in the "third world" where living standards are not as high, technology usage has not expanded as much, and people are living much more "traditional" lifestyle (not as many consumer goods, most naturally produced). which you indicate you are also replicating.
and i think that's the problem. most of us aren't going to go back to living that way. even if it would be better for us or the earth.
i take difference with your "choosing to x". having access to land, and the knowledge to exploit it in the way that you are doing is not something everyone has, and is not something that will be allowed to be within everyone's power. it takes money, time and skill and money most of all that people don't have. that plus uprooting "modern civ life" and you're talking about people being trapped by this world into something they didn't choose, and possibly can't choose otherwise.
how many people are you supporting with how many acres, and how much of the goods they use are coming from this land you are wisely stewarding? are all of their goods coming from it, or only foodstuffs? what percentage of these people's foodstuffs are coming from how many acres? what other things in the "modern tech civ" world are supplementing this rarified consumption pattern? or are you indeed living in a less developed way than modern tech civ?
You lack the understanding and experience of how a food forest functions and what it produces, so your suppositions are again, inaccurate and not based in reality.
Also, I clearly stated that current cities and the current way their inhabitants are choosing to live are not compatible with food forest design, so I will not be providing you with any examples of city neighborhoods being fed with that food cultivation system.
Re: "third world" where living standards are not as high" and "most of us aren't going to go back to living that way. even if it would be better for us or the earth."
The so called "high" standards you prefer also often coincide with poverty of the spirit (a life full of technological and material distractions but lacking any real meaning, fulfillment or nourishment for the soul which can only be accessed through an intimate/reciprocal connection with nature) and it also often coincides with ecologically illiterate communities of humans.
Those people you describe as "most of us" will eventually have to learn the hard way what it takes to feed themselves/yourself, even if it results in them starving due to their own ineptitude. I am not trying to be harsh or demeaning, but rather, just observing historical trends, current trajectories of centralized infrastructures and the inevitable destination that dependent consumers will reach.
Refusing to educate yourself about the ecosystem you depend on to survive and refusing to develop your pattern recognition skills through working closely with plants in the garden (as your ancestors did) means you are allowing significant portions of your brain to atrophy and your are stunting yourself from being able to achieve your true potential as a human being. Making the decision to remain in 'plant knowledge poverty' (lacking botanical literacy) represents a choice that gives you a significant handicap in life (which no amount of money, technology or "high" standards of city life living can fix).
Choosing to intentionally take on the infantilizing role of being purely an industrial food system dependent consumer means that when economic, political, ecological or technologic aspects of our industrial civilization are disrupted, you are at the mercy of those who may take pity on you when those systems collapse or/are seriously destabilized.
Many in modern western civilization have been conditioned into adopting a pervasive fallacious belief system that relates to their associating the act of gardening or working with one’s hands in the soil as a farmer as some kind of lowly, archaic, savage, unpleasant, dirty and ‘uncivilized’ activity which should be avoided by ‘respectable’ and ‘advanced’ intellectuals that have ‘moved beyond such things’ in their more ‘modern and civilized pursuits’.
In order to provide an example of what I am talking about with the tendency for some to have a subconscious (and some times not so subconscious) association in their head between gardening and “lowly, dirty activities of serfs and savages” I will share a quote from a Corbett Report subscriber which was part of a discussion we were having in a thread on the Corbett Report website.
The following is part of a comment from a Corbett Report subscriber that goes by the screen name “mutig”:
“The solution, as you point out, is to forage and grow one’s own food, but that isn’t possible for most people, or they must spend most of their time on food gathering and preparation, which takes us back to the way of life of an earlier century, which we might find unacceptable.”
Whether one makes the choice to deem taking action to cultivate skills and knowledge related to food cultivation and preservation as “unacceptable” (in other words, something they would rather not do) because they have chosen to mistakenly associate the act of cultivating and preserving one’s own food as some “lower class”, “dirty”, “peasant-like” activity that people in the past did (or just out of laziness) or whether one musters the courage to step outside their comfort zone and excuses to take responsibility for their future through growing some of their own food may decide whether they and their loved ones survive the storm ahead.
Some of us see the wisdom, nobility, foresight, courage and untapped potential in learning from and emulating our ancestors in how they had a close knit relationship to the land. There are others though, that continue to choose to look upon our ancestors as the oligarchic billionaires do (as dirty ‘peasants’). Each of us is capable of choosing either perspective and each of us will have to face the consequences down the road.
The mentality I often come across where people in the modern western world have made the decision to avoid gardening/preserving (and making a long list of excuses for themselves why that choice makes sense) is a corrosive and degenerative mentality that cripples many individual’s effectiveness in their efforts to resist tyranny and build parallel systems.
I even saw this mentality reflected and overtly expressed in some of the presentations at the recent “Greater Reset Conference” (Organized by Derrick Broze and John Bush) where there were individuals (such as Mark Moss) promoting the idea of getting rich fast using various schemes so that one would not have to “go live out in the forest or one a mountain top with goats” because, as Mark Moss stated stated “who wants to have to do that? Not me”.
For an interesting deeper etymological exploration of the delusional, egotistical superiority complex and laziness/apathy based mentality that sees gardening, food forests, and farming as some dirty lowly activity for unintelligent plebs (rather than acknowledging those pathways of learning and self-empowerment for what they are, which are, in fact, forms of higher education that surpass any offered by universities or book knowledge as it means learning directly from Creation through biomimicry and thus, by extension, learning directly from Creator) watch the following video:
"How Civilization Has Tricked Us All | Dr. Lyla June Johnston" : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lljSJVF6wgY
Thus, the "high" standard of living you seek to perpetuate and stagnate in, will come at a high cost for you and others who choose that path down the road. I prefer to hedge my bets and cultivate universally applicable skillsets and pathways of learning so that I can thrive with or without centralized food production and distribution systems, but to each their own.
I take steps to be capable of feeding, sheltering and protecting myself and my loved ones through both living in connection with modern amenities (boycotting corrupt corporations and degenerative industries where possible) while simultaneously learning how to grow and preserve food without technology, so regardless of what ever consumption pattern I am engaged in now, I will be able to take care of my self and my loved ones in any situation.
I do not claim my path is better than yours, it is just what works for me and lets me sleep well at night knowing i am doing my best to learn what I can to be a good steward of the little patch of Earth I tend and a responsible/adaptable provider for myself and my loved ones.
When the shit hits the fan and top heavy parasitic civilizations collapse, history teaches us that it is those who know how to grow and preserve their own food that survived. You choose what ever path works best for your priorities and goals in life. The information I provide is intended to empower those who are willing to lift themselves out of plant knowledge poverty and become ecologically literate so they can grow their own food while leaving this world a little bit more beautiful than it was when we got here for those who will call this place home after we are gone. Take it or leave it.
i am not allowing anything. i was born in a poverty stricken urban jungle and had no money to get out from "modern civ" to see a cow up close until i was 12 y.o. and that was only because a distant family member owned some and i was allowed to visit.
your comments are unduly denigrating. there are many billions of people who no longer have the skills you deem they should have, and have no one nearby willing to teach them those skills, much less the land access to learn how to use them. and this is through no fault of their own. not everyone is as free as you obviously are to move about, taking up a new lifestyle and teaching themselves things they will never be able to apply, much less apply successfully.
you won't find me in favor of supporting this pure technological lifestyle and the road it appears to be going down, but neither is it realistic to assume that people will be able to live the way you are doing unless utterly driven by necessity and after much die off and misery and a reorganization of control over land and resources allowing it to happen.
i find it interesting that i am "too ignorant" to talk to at all about how much land you are managing this way, and how many people you are supporting this way, and how much of and which kinds of their goods are supplied this way. these are relevant details to your argument and my understanding. if you are sourcing 80% of all goods for a goodly number on a reasonable area of land, that would imply that it can be replicated (at least if land quality is comparable and skills are raised). but that means you do not have a plan for the rest of us except "go die, you are too stupid to live or even talk to".
if people end up starving in future because they "failed" to learn this, and you find that just, i guess you are some sort of social darwinist. not a person i want to be talking to. i might agree we are on the wrong road technologically for good health for humanity, and the means we are employing are the wrong ones, and that the number of human beings should come down and people should flourish more, but we obviously don't agree on the methods to get there. not all depopulationists want people to "go die, soon". good day to you.
I did not have a financially privileged upbringing either, though I was blessed to spend a lot of time in nature when I was young as my parents were park rangers.
One does not require land to learn the skills I am talking about, even growing some nutrient dense medicinal herbs and veggies in pots if you live in a city apartment is a step in the right direction.
You can also create or contribute towards a community garden (for more info: https://corbettreport.com/solutionswatch-communitygardens/ )
People in cities not having access to anyone nearby willing to teach them those skills is not my doing, all I can do is offer those willing to learn the knowledge I have been able to gather and help them to become more ecologically literate if they are willing.
Telling yourself "taking up a new lifestyle means teaching yourself things you will never be able to apply" is a cop out excuse to stagnate in learned helplessness. If you are serious about taking action to educate yourself, and those around you, and taking action to grow some of your own food at home, I am willing to help you. I can provide you with actionable intel you can use to turn waste materials in the city into usable compost and soil, how to use waste materials to grow gourmet mushrooms inside and how to save seed, perpetuate the cycle and scale up your self-sufficiency (regardless of your living situation).
I do not think the earth needs depopulation, I think it needs humans that are willing to stop making excuses and make a positive impact on this world rather than no impact or a negative one.
I am willing to help people who are willing to help themselves. Let me know if you have a genuine interest in developing universally valuable skillsets and building knowledge and experience in cultivating food for yourself and we can talk more about what would work best for your current living situation.