• Blog

    A Perfectly Sustainable World Is Within Our Grasp

    No technological breakthroughs needed
    by Adam Taggart

    Friday, June 19, 2020, 8:15 PM

Before you read this article, if you haven’t yet, please take our new survey. With national lockdowns easing and creating concerns for a surge in new covid-19 cases, and tens of millions (in the US alone) finding themselves out of work, we’re being asked by the world for an update on how households and businesses are facing the uncertain future.

TAKE THE SURVEY NOW

You can pretty much reduce all of the big problems and predicaments facing the human race down to resources.

The over-indebted global economy? We’ve been living beyond the means of our current resources, stealing prosperity from the future to fund today’s demands and desires.

Society’s addiction to fossil fuel? Nothing will come close in our lifetime to replacing the energy we get from hydrocarbons. And as they deplete further over the coming two decades, higher prices, supply shortages and wars will result.

Accelerating ecological destruction? Vanishing species, topsoils, aquifers, canopies and ores are an alarm bell screaming that we are consuming our essential resources way faster than the planet can replenish them.

And the single greatest factor, by far, affecting consumption of the resources we humans depend on is the size and growth of our population.

This is a highly emotionally-charged topic; one that frequently triggers outbursts from any/every side. We’re taking a risk facing it head-on here, but we think to ignore it equates with sealing an unhappy fate for our species. In order to improve our destiny, society first needs to start having an adult-sized discussion on the matter. We have confidence the Peak Prosperity audience can do that better than most.

Too Many Of Us

As humans multiply on the Earth, our demands on the planet increase in proportion. And as new technologies enable us to harvest/mine/drill faster and more efficiently, our per capita impact on the planet increases, too.

When my Peak Prosperity co-founder Chris Martenson was born back in the early 1960s, human population on Earth was 3 billion people. Today it’s 7.8 billion. By the time he’s an old man, it will likely be over 9 billion souls.

That’s a 3x increase in humans on the planet during a single person’s lifetime(!). An infestation of humans, mind you, who are consuming more per capita with each passing year:

resource depletion per capita charts

To truly get a sense for how fast the human race is multiplying, watch this short video from the American Museum of Natural History. As it notes, it took over 200,000 years for there to be 1 billion homo sapiens living on the planet. It only took 200 years more to exceed 7 billion. The jump from 7 to 8 billion is happening over the span of a single decade.

As you watch the video, notice how the clicks denoting the frequency of another million souls added resembles the sound of a Geiger counter detecting maximum radioactivity. It simply becomes a continuous droning hum when the present century arrives:

How much longer can the ferocious consumption demands of the human race continue before the last tuna is fished? The last tree in the Amazon is chopped down? The last freshwater aquifer is sucked dry?

And what will we do then?

Growth Is The Enemy

Nature is clear on what happens to organisms that exceed the carrying capacity of their environment: they experience mass die-offs. Always.

Be it amoebas in a petri dish, deer in a forest — excess population collapses when essential resources do.

Over the past few centuries, humans have succeeded in far extending their population limit by tapping the dense power embedded within fossil fuels while simultaneously expanding into new resource-rich territories.

But that era of limit extension has ended. There are no undiscovered continents left and the remaining deposits of fossil fuels are much harder to find and expensive to extract. And yet, the human population continues to grow.

So here we are, on a planet of finite and diminishing means, with too many people and more on the way.

Complicating matters further is the extreme imbalance of ownership of the resources that yet remain. As we’ve been pointing out for years, the deeply unfair nature of our elite-captured economy results in just a very few controlling the majority of the pie:

wealth distribution chart

The results we’re currently seeing from of all this?

Unsustainable overall demand and acute shortages among the dispossessed. Growing hunger, homelessness, oppression and conflict — and pandemic risk, too — across the globe. An increasing race to find, extract and consume the resources that are left. And a lack of investment in and maintenance of our existing world infrastructure, as that’s increasingly seen as ‘competition’ for the dwindling surpluses.

Our blind pursuit of ever more “growth” served our interests as a species as we evolved from nomadic hunter-gatherers into farmers and manufacturers. But it no longer does. In fact, it’s now an existential threat.

There are too many of us chasing too little. And it’s only going to get worse as we first exhaust what’s left and then succumb to the inevitable culling.

But it doesn’t have to be this way.

In fact, we have the ability — right now — to create a PERFECT future for the human race. One in which our progeny will enjoy a higher average per capita lifestyle. Forever.

The Opportunity

A global society of nearly 8 billion people, primarily powered by non-renewable energy sources, is simply too much for this planet.

But the Earth is a big place. And while, yes, a growing list of key resources are beginning to “run out” given current overwhelming demand, what remains could be an inexhaustible supply if managed correctly.

Current science estimates that at a population of 1.5 to 2 billion people, the planet can guarantee ‘the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life’ to every person.

Let’s set a loftier goal, though. Let’s give everyone a great quality of life.

Assume for the moment, we could provide that to 750 million people, a population only 10% of the world today and yet twice that of the United States.

We’re talking excellent infrastructure: roadways, railways, ports, cities and towns built to last for hundreds of years with minimal maintenance.

100% organic food production, done sustainably and at scale within an ecologically closed system without the need for outside inputs like chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

This world would be powered by renewable energy which, given the much smaller density of cities, is much more realistic than today. Fossil fuels would be strategically tapped, but at rates far lower than today’s and only for investments that will increase society’s future self-sufficiency.

The unused infrastructure left vacant by the billions no longer using it can become a salvage source, reducing the need for mining for a long time. Centuries?

And stressed ecosystems can be allowed to recover and restored to their previous glory. Imagine the cod fisheries of the Grand Banks or the bison herds of the Great Plains back to pre-1900s levels.

It’s all possible. And we can do it all with existing technology. We don’t need to wait for cold fusion. Or for humans to start colonizing other planets.

It sounds amazing — no, unbelievable. Doesn’t it?

But it’s actually extremely achievable and simple. In concept.

If we were to work in concert as a global society, we can humanely create a gentle glide path to bring the world human population down to this 750 million level over just a few generations. Certainly within 150 years.

It can be done without a single person being euthanized, or being forced to live a diminished lifestyle (resource-wise).

It’s all about managing the birth rate. Mathematically-speaking, if we brought world births per woman down from its current ratio of 2.43 to 1, we’d halve the human population within 50 years or sooner.

Do this just a few more times and we’re at our 750 million target. At which point, we’d want to raise it again (but not too much!) in order to stay at that level.

In this way, we can create a global human society living in balance with natural resources, in which everyone participates in the resulting perpetual high degree of prosperity and comfort. Food, shelter, health care — all basic needs can be affordably met, sustainably.

The Obstacle

Of course, this sounds so easy and yet it’s likely to never happen. Why? Because of our human nature.

I’ll bet nearly everyone reading this already has several questions/objections erupting in their minds:

Who gets to decide who can procreate and who can’t? Will certain ethnic/religious/socio-economic groups get preferred treatment at the expense of others? How will this be enforced? What will the penalties of non-compliance be? Is this just a veiled form of genocide?

Forgetting for a moment about the practicalities of getting all 7.8 billion people bought into this plan (40% of whom live in such poverty that they don’t have clean fuel to cook with), our human instinct for survival is our biggest obstacle here.

Our very reason to exist, evolutionarily-speaking, is to procreate. It’s hard-wired into our programming, just like breathing and eating. Convincing a single human to sacrifice their biological directive is a herculean challenge. Convincing billions seems an exercise in futility.

Humans can be extremely distrustful. And authorities these days only give us more scandal, fraud and abuse of power to be distrustful about. In a world full of victims of economic injustice, racial prejudice, class warfare, religious intolerance, ethnic conflict, and worse — how many will put their faith in authorities directing them to intentionally prune their future family tree, especially without any offer of an immediate benefit in return?

The fascinating field of behavioral economics helps us understand that humans are poorly-wired to face large, faceless future threats like overpopulation. As a species, we’re wired the same way our hunter-gatherer forebears were: for the visible immediate threat. The snarling tiger, crouched and ready to spring. Do we flee? Or fight?

Amorphous threats that will arrive at a future date, that we can’t directly observe worsening, and don’t feel any personal agency in (i.e., I could kill myself and the world will still have 7.8 billion people on it) — these we discount highly. Maybe the day of reckoning will never arrive. Maybe ‘someone’ will fix it. Maybe I’ll be gone by then and this will be someone else’s problem. Our brains are constantly looking to rationalize why we don’t need to pay attention to these indirect kinds of threats — even if the expected outcome is really severe.

So, the concept of planned humane depopulation is exceptionally simple. But the path to get from here to there is so filled with practical, ethical and behavioral minefields that it’s pretty much a guaranteed impossibility.

The Invitation

Given this impasse, what do we do? Simply resign humanity to a Mad Max future and pray it arrives after we’re dead?

Here at Peak Prosperity, we are realists. We know our own efforts won’t be enough to turn the tide of humanity’s fate.

But we’re also optimists. We think that by becoming part of the solution, by bringing into existence the change we wish to see, we improve the future for ourselves, our families, and — if enough others take similar action — just maybe society at large, too.

Absolutely, humans have a tremendous capacity for resource consumption and destruction. But we also have the ability to be agents of tremendous regeneration and restoration. We can enable ecological recovery and production at a remarkable pace, oftentimes much faster than natural forces alone can achieve (watch this short video on soil building by Singing Frogs Farms as just one example).

Peak Prosperity’s focus on resilient living is rooted in this directive. Through this website, we do our best to educate and empower our readers to take informed action in their own lives to act regeneratively. And in the process, reducing their vulnerability to risk while simultaneously boosting their quality of life.

Chris Martenson has been very busy of late serving as a living model as he works to get his new property converted into a productive family homestead. His recent video detailing the specific projects and installations he’s implementing offers valuable and inspiring “how to” steps for those interesting in becoming more regernative to consider. (If you’re not yet a premium subscriber to PeakProsperity.com, enroll here to view it)

We get contacted all the time by readers who are desperate to start living differently, who feel trapped in a system they don’t believe in and crave a way of life better aligned to their values.

In Part 2: Breaking Free: Escaping the old system for a more meaningful life, we revisit a report Chris issued last year that has become even more important in the aftermath of covid-19 for those looking to change their trajectory for the better.

The virus has triggered an acceleration of the failure of the economic and social systems we depend on. Time is running out to decide whether you’re going to cast your lot with the failing order or become part of the solution.

Choose wisely.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access).

Related content
» More

136 Comments

  • Fri, Jun 19, 2020 - 9:48pm

    #1
    Soar07

    Soar07

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Aug 05 2010

    Posts: 32

    4+

    Soar07 said:

    The only way to save the earth that works with man's nature is to go to space. To go to space for resources. To go to space to allow population to grow. Asking mankind to shrink like this article suggests is not possible given human nature as it has existed since Adam and Eve ate an apple. You would have better luck asking a wolf to become a cow. Whose population do you reduce first? The NAZI's and the Communist Chinese have tried to answer that kind of question, and neither of their solutions was civilized or humane. We need to find solutions that work within the scope of human nature as it is, not as some might wish it to be. Either we go to space, or we will turn earth into Easter Island bit by bit. We might be able to slow our consumption through technology, but we won't be able to out run the parabola of human population. People on Easter Island probably thought of changing their nature too, but it didn't work.

    The other issue I see is that people that embrace the idea of reducing population and who can grasp that we are facing an eventual existential problem if we don't get our populations demand for resources under control, are exactly the people who should be having lots of babies but they are not. They are the smartest in terms of seeing the future, but they choose a biological path destined to fail. Instead the world is going to burst with population growing from the groups that do not control their population whatsoever and who are growing their populations exponentially faster than everyone else. They are the dumbest, perhaps, but biologically they are the smartest, because biology has always favored those who reproduce the most. And that works until you follow all the other lemmings off the cliff.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 19, 2020 - 10:37pm

    Mots

    Mots

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jun 18 2012

    Posts: 219

    6+

    "[T]he only way to save the earth that works with man's nature is to go to space"

    Soar07
    Many share your opinion.  Jeff Bezos stated a similar sentiment when he explained why Blue Origin (his spaceship project) is most important to him, in an interview done some years ago.

    The fact of this matter is that human beings have lived in steady state culture for many thousands of years before the recent exponential growth phase.  We  don't have to consume and kill off everything and then move to unspoiled lands.  That is not an inherent nature.  (I keep thinking of the Edo Period in Japan, which developed a very sustainable society (recycled everything, stable population) for about 200 years in this context)  We lost our ability to pay close attention to our immediate environment.  We forgot to honor, respect and pay close attention to the physical forces from the environment that buffet us, such as weather.  We need to get back to steady state culture again before starting another exponential growth phase in an extremely unforgiving environment in outer space that quickly kills those who act selfishly, emotionally and impulsively in my opinion.  We need to unlearn consumerism that we learned from our exponential growth phase.

    I suggest that a middle ground is best (and a likely alternative):
    a. we will (have to) learn to live more sustainably for a generation or two or more.  We need to develop homeostatic mores, cultural habits where we recycle everything and learn to live with our differences FIRST before we expand into outer space.  This is because we must create sustainable ecospaces as the basic requirement of living in outer space.  Outer space is not for mindless consumers of resources, for emotional non-rational people to inhabit, or for sociopaths.  We are not ready yet.
    b. Going out and living in outer space REQUIRES a more sustainable mind/set of values and habits.  We need to live sustainably before we take off (pun intended) because living in outer space (especially long trips to far away places) is all about sustainability.  We need to create and live within artificial ecospheres.  That ability will be learned after we re-enter steady state during the new dark ages.
    c. we will learn to tame nuclear transformations for energy, it's coming along.  I am confident that a hundred years from now or later, we will have the right stuff to combine with an enhanced ability to live sustainably (both physically and spiritually).

    John Wayne and Lone Ranger types will not and cannot develop civilization in outer space.  The people that succeed will come from sustainable communities.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 12:51am

    #3

    sebastian

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 08 2010

    Posts: 20

    25+

    To the moon!

    Any time I read this idea of salvation through space travel I want to hit my forehead on the table in despair! Really? We stand on the edge of global collapse and we are going to get off this rock and what? colonize the solar system! I want to argue all the points why its so absurd but mostly I find it very discouraging that on this site of all places the idea is even taken seriously. Because I rather laugh than cry and Dan Aykroyd said it best:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urBWDCQWTTM

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 4:04am

    #4

    Rector

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 376

    10+

    Umm. . . I hate to be negative and all, but this is NEVER going to go anywhere.

    Sorry, but this is absolutely NEVER going to happen in any form - we might as well be dreaming about colonizing Mars.

    A short list:

    1.  Strong disagreement among LOTS of people.  Outright resistance by many, indifference by some, and ignorance of the program by a few.

    2.  Biology.  Never bet against the sex drive.

    3.  Human nature and behavior. People respond to immediate concerns over abstractions.

    4.  Stupidity.

    5.  The real risk that such an initiative would end up as a genocidal, soul-crushing, totalitarian nightmare.

    6. The ultimate good result would accrue to a future generation - and we see how concern for the future generations is going.  Not enough people are willing to change their behavior for an abstraction.

    Perhaps this result could be achieved if we were to turn the rest of the planet into Japan - but it will take too long and consume too many resources to make every other culture suicidal.

    Rector

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 4:13am

    #5
    Pomfrey

    Pomfrey

    Status: Member

    Joined: Sep 11 2019

    Posts: 3

    14+

    Permaculture

    I'm a big fan of permaculture principals. Although it probably wont save the world, those who employ its fundamentals and pass it onto generations  moving forwards I think will be better off than most.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 5:18am

    David Turin

    David Turin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: May 12 2020

    Posts: 54

    2+

    Salvation through space travel isn't for "we"

    @sebastian I never viewed this concept from the "we" view.  I always inserted a "NOT" in your

    we are going to get off this rock and what? colonize the solar system!

    Humans though, a select few, are getting off this rock, right now.  Some may well colonize the solar system.  "We," on the other hand, are indeed stuck to the planet, right here, right now.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 5:19am

    #7
    Mpup

    Mpup

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 01 2020

    Posts: 61

    12+

    Great article

    Great article, very well written. While the concepts are sensible and logical, we as humans can't even get a reliable study done on HCQ.   So much for saving the world.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 5:20am

    #8

    jturbo68

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Aug 04 2009

    Posts: 112

    9+

    Not gonna work

    As I see how hard it is to change behavior in the face of a relatively quickly exponential ... covid19

     

    I understand that there will be no serious societal response to Energy Descent and climate change.   It is just too slow to be seen and understood by enough to make serious changes at a societal level

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 5:42am

    #9
    Durable

    Durable

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 24 2020

    Posts: 34

    3+

    Baby steps

    Great thought experiement article.

    I like the math that shows everyone (current population of earth) could fit in texas with a reasonable single family home size with yard. You guys rock at dismantling bad arguments, so feel free to poke holes in that one.

    But assuming it is basically accurate, it would seem that the earth could support our current population if we lived more efficiently. Nutrient cycling. Permaculture style.

    So if we spread out, got self reliant, worked hard in the dirt like Chris. Then what. Would our kids reproduce at 1x or 3x rate? Where would parcel of dirt for them come from?

    It does seem the reproduction rate / human nature issue will be a factor even in a thought experiment.

    As weve seen w masks, scarcity and laziness leads to lying and graft which breaks trust. So unless we rebuild trust, we cant just make the rational case to fix our trajectory.

    So, yes, a population collapse is coming. Perhaps its being engineered preemptively by those who claim to be situationally aware. Elite awoke.

    But, put any color lipstick on that at its still democide.

    I like your approach better. Do right, speak right, let the chips fall. Sleep well.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 5:48am

    ChrisKaz

    ChrisKaz

    Status: Member

    Joined: May 09 2020

    Posts: 3

    12+

    Resources in Space

    Can someone tell me what the resources are in space that will keep us all alive? Has a new energy source that can replace fossil fuels been found out there that I don't know about? Have we even discovered water there? I don't understand how this new frontier will be our salvation.

    I certainly believe that if we invested as much time, money etc in conservation and technology to decrease consumption and increase conservation of resources instead of space travel, that would go a long way. Add to that a decrease in the enormous amount of useless waste in developed countries where frivolous consumption rules. The people growing all the food they need on a 1/4 acre and then some should be the norm. We can't all have 182 acres :).

    Chris

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 6:10am

    #11
    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 139

    13+

    Space is no panacea for the provision-appropriation dilemma

    Sorry. I would like to, but I just can't believe flying off-planet will solve our problems. The first overwhelming issue is that everything near enough for us to colonize in the next century or more will need massive provisioning from the very earth we're already exponentially depleting. Massive provisioning. Resource-wise, those colonists would be the most expensive members of the human species, consuming many times what even the most extravagant earthling consumes. The calculus is not good.

    Really, I think the conceit of moving off-world is just an extension of the same fanciful idiocy that makes the megalopolis seem like a good idea. People in cities think everything they need and want is available at the local supply depot (bar, club, grocery or department store, uber delivery, drone shipment). They seldom have any to-scale understanding of the real cost in resources of appropriating, processing, and delivering their lifestyle to their door. It's all abstracted. And then the detritus is shipped back out from the city to the rural areas they've colonized to supply them. No muss, no mess, no fuss living. It ain't really real. And to top it off, the urbanites cop condescending attitudes toward the rural people whose lives have  been oriented around supplying distant mega-cities from local resources, which impoverishes local economies and ecology. (I mean the disdain of "coastal elites" for "flyover country" rubes.)

    Economists talk about this issue as the provisioning of resources, and the appropriation of resources. The questions are about who is responsible for provisioning, who has rights of appropriation, how the two are interconnected or distinct, and what are the benefits of compliance and penalties for cheating or breaking the rules. My take-away from looking at the material: if the appropriators are not also the provisioners, there is no accountability for resource appropriation and cheating is far more likely. That's because the appropriators don't understand the true cost (in time and labor) of provisioning, and so use resources with abandon. When appropriators must first provision the resources they get to appropriate, they are much more conscientious and show greater willingness to follow group provision and usage norms.

    Cities don't provision what they appropriate. They get away with extracting resources from the countryside around them - even from the third world - and exporting their trash back to the countryside - and even to poor countries - because they have the numbers to overwhelm local desires in the locales over which they exert economic, cultural, and political power. That's not democracy; certainly not self-rule or localism.

    But no city, especially megalopolis, can survive on its own resources, while every rural village could. So cities are fascist and elitist by necessity - residents have to think they deserve what they extract from others, and they need their government strong and embedded into business in order to assure regularity in provisioning and to secure some rough adequacy (recognized fairness) in appropriation rights within the city; they also have to dominate governments and enterprise in other locales, at far distances, to expropriate wealth from afar to be consumed in the urban area.

    Flying off earth and colonizing other planets is nothing more than megalopolis living writ large. Like all city living, colonization of space will require strong governments to regulate the flow of resources in and the flow of garbage and sewage out. In space, regimentation has to be stronger because the risks of provisioning breakdown or appropriation cheating become more immediately life-and-death for everyone.

    The provisioning will all have to come from earth, the appropriation will all take place far away from earth. The costs in resources just to go off-planet would stress our planet's ecology. Plus the structural dependence of the colony on earth necessarily breaks the accountability standard. Only a strong off-planet government will be able to regulate in-colony appropriation and punish cheating with sufficient severity to curb it. And only a strong on-earth government will be able to both limit the demands of the colony and force the provisioning of the colony by earth's people as planetary resources become increasingly scarce or very expensive.

    Imagine the tensions. There is no salvation in the idea. Only a resource-rich planet can afford to subsidize such space-based visions.We are not that planet. We can't even sustain our currently sized urban centers indefinitely, and they're still growing. Looming disaster seems increasingly easy to predict, without adding a space colony.

    I don't hold out hope we'll get wiser about how we live on earth. Human progress has been motivated as much as anything by our innate quest to develop technology simply to make it easier to survive, thrive, and multiply. Who chooses to work harder rather than smarter? (Answer: only those who know they have a resource safety net under them. Third world people will always adopt machines to increase results with decreased labor because their survival depends on it and it makes a material difference to the quality of their lives. First world people will sometimes - not often, but sometimes - choose the hard way because their survival is assured, and they have a good enough quality of life in reserve that they can play at going off-grid or working by hand or draft animal, understanding that if it becomes tiresome they can get a tractor or move back to the suburbs and city. Meanwhile, they won't skip a meal or face an injury without access to medicine.)

    The longer I live on my rural acreage and involve myself in the seasons and patterns of nature, the clearer it becomes that every species and every individual within a species seeks its own expansiveness. I fight a continual battle with wild raspberry plants that want to convert my natural field into forest. I understand why nature seeks dense canopy coverage, and I know the role of aggressive colonizers in the grand scheme. But those raspberries do not grow into a space without crowding out - killing - prior species. And each plant within the patch seeks to extend its own reach in competition, not cooperation, with each other plant. Together, they operate to cover my field with a more dense protective layer than the underlying grasses can achieve, which also assures the ongoing survival of wild raspberry as a species. But individually, they mindlessly grab what resources they each can even if doing so works against the welfare of other wild raspberry plants.

    The rabbits, hedgehogs, field mice, birds, foxes, and bears are no different. Nor, for that matter, are my chickens who will thoughtlessly start consuming an injured - not even dead, yet - coop mate if they have the opportunity. And each bird will grab as much of the resources available to the flock as that bird's strength allows, at the expense of each other bird.

    We are no different. We are animals, and deep down that rules over our sense of morality and ethics, it governs our reasoning and most often turns rational thought into thoughtless rationalization. It gets steadily worse for us when we cut ourselves off from ongoing interaction with nature and natural processes.

    I am convinced cities are not just destructive for extracting far too many resources from "away," and wasting them on unfettered appetite fulfillment, but that they untether the human mind from the limits imposed by nature as experienced in the country - where streetlights don't come on at dusk to banish the dark, where there is no local all-night restaurant or bar, where  you can't call up for pizza delivery at noon, let alone at midnight, where animals need to be fed and milked and turned out to pasture and brought in for winter no matter how cold you feel or how hot the summer sun and humidity have made you, and crops have to be planted in the spring even if the black flies and mosquitoes extract their pound of flesh from you in tiny bites and welted, itchy skin, then weeded and harvested and either sold or put up for the winter before frost kills a hard summer's work.

    If we were still a predominantly agricultural society (or species) I could harbor some hope we'd learn from our daily interactions with the real world around us that we cannot keep multiplying and consuming with abandon, however increasingly efficient we become, without exhausting our niche and causing our own die-back. Since our daily "wants" are no longer limited by the provision supplied by nature where we live, nor by the limitations imposed by natural processes, I think we have no chance of choosing limits for ourselves. We see no inherent reason to impose unwanted personal limits; and even though we recognize the necessity of strong governments to guarantee that the provisioning processes and appropriation rules operate, we don't recognize their right to limit our "freedom."

    I heard a wag comment that Americans don't favor "socialism," we favor "gimme-ism" on both the Left and Right. We want what we want. We might think our society squanders too much resource wealth, but we also each think we individually should be able to have whatever we want and can afford - or even if we can't afford it. (Bernie Sanders, America's iconic Socialist, thinks we don't need several dozen brands of deodorant, but he also thinks he has the right to own 3 homes. Who among us is really all that different? Looters have been gang-rushing stores, even before the recent protests, because they think they have a right to take things they want but can't afford.)

    We're not going to learn to forego our "wants" either soon or easily, because we have confused fulfilling our appetites with securing our individual rights. That confusion is going to get worse as our cities grow larger and our government less ethical. I don't believe the trajectory will reverse until something breaks. And when something big enough breaks, all hell will follow.

    We're facing a lot of breaks in our future until we finally exhaust the carrying capacity of earth for the human animal. Then comes the die-off we've so successfully forestalled through exponential increases in our rate of depletion of that carrying capacity.

    That's why I'm building out a generational ark as a "100 Year Solution." I can't assure my family will continue to use it, but I can give them that option. I think it'll soon become obvious it's their best option to rediscover living close to the land, tending one's own garden.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 6:25am

    #12
    davidrussell22

    davidrussell22

    Status: Member

    Joined: May 31 2020

    Posts: 2

    5+

    The thesis of this article is silly, but not as silly as the idea of addressing the thesis by going to outer space.

    We will never run out of resources and while we might send a few hundred to establish a beachhead on another planet/moon in our solar system, that won't impact population one bit.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 6:30am

    davidrussell22

    davidrussell22

    Status: Member

    Joined: May 31 2020

    Posts: 2

    2+

    Your ark idea is fine for end of times, but that's not the immediate problem. Most of the issues facing us today can be addressed by moving to a rural community with arable land, preferably close to headwaters of a freshwater source.

    That's it/

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 6:37am

    #14
    Stephanie Romero

    Stephanie Romero

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 12 2019

    Posts: 9

    20+

    Finally someone said it

    I'm glad that overpopulation has finally been brought up. It's such a taboo subject to talk about.

    My husband and I have decided not to have children for so many reasons, and he just got his vasectomy last week. It wasn't a hard decision for us as it seems impossible to raise a child in this current culture and I wouldn't want to bring them into this depressing world.

    It can allow us to have the time and the means of at least creating a beautiful permaculture homestead in our community, even if it doesn't change the trajectory of the rest of the world.

    It definitely feels like the movie Idiocracy has become reality, and there are days where as a species I wish we were done for. But then I spend time in our food forest or sit around a fire watching the lightning bugs and shooting stars and have some hope for us yet.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 6:51am

    Mike from Jersey

    Mike from Jersey

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 22 2018

    Posts: 86

    15+

    Mike from Jersey said:

    Mpup,

    I agree.

    Once I posted on another bulletin board that we must reduce the world population. The responses that I received were to the effect "that there is plenty of room for population growth we just have to ..." - and then there followed a litany of energy intensive, ecologically destructive techno-fixes that would supposedly allow us to keep adding billions to the global population without end.

    A lot of people think like that.

    In many developed countries population is decreasing naturally, but governments actually institute programs to encourage population growth in order to increase "economic growth." In Denmark, for instance, the government actually sponsors advertisements encouraging couples to have more children.

    In France, Emmanuel Macron denounced French citizens who oppose mass immigration, calling their objections "racist."

    It is the same here in the United States. If you oppose immigration due to concerns about overpopulation you are roundly denounced as being xenophobic. People won't even listen to environmental or quality of life arguments. If you oppose mass immigration, you are simply a "racist."

    Every time I see trees being being bulldozed for a new housing development or a new strip mall, I just shake my head and say to myself "when will this end?"

    Well, it will end.

    The problem of overpopulation will indeed be solved.

    But it will be solved by a systems crash, not by rational planning.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 7:11am

    Curt504

    Curt504

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 22 2020

    Posts: 7

    2+

    Curt504 said:

    The best and biggest farming, farming technology, sustainability conference in the world happens to be in the mid-west of the US:   acresusa.org .  I suggest (strongly if I may) that folks join Acres, get their quarterly paper, and go to their conferences!!   Huge huge can't talk up Acres enough!   For a decade we've known (from Acres speakers) that global warming can be reversed with "mob grazing of grass fed animals".  Carbon sequestration of how nature is supposed to work, and WILL work if nudged is amazing.

    The Dollar;  I'm but one semi educated guesser on the topic of dollar crash vs rally;  My views are;  The dollar will not crash (sorry gold bugs) due to TINA;  there is no alternative in the world and will be the reserve currency for life times (probably) certainly for the near future.  IMHO the best thing for the economy, stock market is for the dollar to drop into the 70's!!!   Our exports will fly off the shelves and the stock market go to the moon.  BUt as it is hovering in the high 90's edging into a rally its hurting everything!   I wish for a dollar drop.  But am pretty certain it will not happen any time soon.

    I remember one force selling the dollar was the Japanese yen/bond carry trade in the 2000's helping the market rally and dollar drop into the low 70's for a while.   I don't know enough about world dynamics to not understand why the carry trade seems to be dead and TINA forces more in play propping the dollar up but I fear we'll have a strong dollar for some time to come.  ;(

    Mean time please look into acresusa.org .  This part is great news.

    curt

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 7:18am

    Curt504

    Curt504

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 22 2020

    Posts: 7

    5+

    Curt504 said:

    Hi, I left a longer comment at the bottom, mentioning here an increadible org dedicated to advancing farming sustainability and saving the soil, earth and the family farm is:

    acresusa.org  annualy conferences every fall in the mid-west, a qtrly newspaper and training / education events around the country.   JIMHO if you believe in peak you'll love acresusa.  Take care.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 7:20am

    Soar07

    Soar07

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Aug 05 2010

    Posts: 32

    2+

    Soar07 said:

    Man did live sustainably before the development of agriculture. But, ever since we figured out how to produce more than we could eat we have been on the exponential path of growth and our nature has been on that same path. I should say we should try both solutions, but let's give up the ideas about controlling population. There is no way to do that without becoming totalitarian. The question will instantly become whose population do we control first? I don't about you, but I won't be a volunteer for taking the  jump depicted in the video attached below with my family. I don't think many people that will volunteer for it either....so then that leaves force, and somehow I don't think that will be very interesting to many people either.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpMvIZRUPf4 

    Let's pursue conservation ideas, and try to be more sustainable for sure. But, let's also get into space. Sooner or later something will happen to make earth unsustainable for most human life, lets make sure that we have gotten sustainable in space before that happens. Sustainable communities will be best able to weather the things that earth will do to try to return to stasis. The hoards won't be able to adapt, but the smart will. In the meantime, my advice is that the people who are here at PP should be looking to grow their populations. Have kids! Tell your kids to have kids. Grow strong and sustainable families. Western Civilization is self selecting to disappear currently, so sustainablity will disappear as we disappear. The whole idea of living a life of expensive vacations, driving fancy cars, being wealthy in $, but having 1 or 2 kids doesn't work in the long term. What works is having farm, raising 6 kids to work it, and teaching them to be good stewards of the land, and good honest upright people. Until something changes biology selects based on the populations that grow and survive. Those who have 1-2 kids will be controlled by those who have 10 kids with three wives. To save earth, the smart people need to have lots of smarter kids. I know it is simple minded, but I don't see any other solution working.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 7:24am

    Soar07

    Soar07

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Aug 05 2010

    Posts: 32

    4+

    Soar07 said:

    Like that idea can ever work, not having kids gives the world to those who will have lots kids, and those people do not share any of the PP mindsets. My advice to those considering this issue is to look at the Middle East. Ruled by a religion and a mindset that is growing incredibly fast in population, it is a desert there in part because they do not understand sustainability whatsoever. There were once large forests in areas of Syria,Israel,Iraq, and they cut down every tree to support their growth. Their concept is more, more, more. It is a huge demonstration of man affecting his environment, and this was done long ago when man didnt even have oil to burn. Now, look at Norway, people have lived there for thousands of years and you can still drink the water in most lakes and rivers there. Mindset matters, but you have to have kids who have enough power to protect those ideas of a civilization that can lead to or maintain sustainability.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 7:45am

    Mike from Jersey

    Mike from Jersey

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 22 2018

    Posts: 86

    3+

    Mike from Jersey said:

    David,

    Sometimes I wonder if it is biologically possible for humans to survive in the long term on other planets.

    I remember learning that when a human is born, the newborn actually breathes in bacteria in the air which are necessary for good digestion. This makes me wonder if there are  interconnections between humans and the ecosphere of this planet which are as yet unknown but nonetheless necessary for life. It could be that many, many such interconnections exist but have yet to be discovered.

    If this is true  - as a practical matter - it may impossible for humans to colonize other planets. Humans may attempt to colonize other planets but fail to thrive for reasons related to the lack of connections to earth's biosphere which are not yet understood.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 7:57am

    David Turin

    David Turin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: May 12 2020

    Posts: 54

    David Turin said:

    @chriskaz -- welcome aboard and thanks for the questions!

    Can someone tell me what the resources are in space that will keep us all alive?

    Clearly this not what space is about, today.  I would also suggest for sake of discussion that resources can be intangible.

    I certainly believe that if we invested as much time, money etc in conservation and technology to decrease consumption and increase conservation of resources instead of space travel, that would go a long way.

    What makes you feel this way?  Among the 50 states, based on their public budgets, they collectively spend upwards of $20,000,000,000.00 a year.[1]  It might be the federal government is spending another $20 billion.  Taken together, this is just about what the NASA budget is.[2]

    Up until recently an aerospace engineer might expect $120,000[3] a year in salary and benefits.  This is the system we all live in. I don't mean to say this is a good thing or a bad thing.  This is what it is.  Aerospace employs  1.5 million people, directly and indirectly, or it did.  It contributes hundreds of billions to the economy, or it did. [4]

    Can you answer a few questions for me?  My family is planning a relocation into Maine and away from Washington, DC and northern Kentucky.  We want our Gen Z members to move with us.  How do we convince these younger generations that they should not pursue their own dreams, aerospace engineering or anything else, but rather join us in a rural community on our own land learning to become more self reliant, more apart of our community, more resilient.  They have been living with us all their lives.  They know what we value and where we see the future.

    What if young people want to design new solar power systems, not install them?  What if aerospace has been funding significant research in this area and there have been lots of jobs?  I want to understand and not judge.  Not sure how well I am doing.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 8:55am

    ChrisKaz

    ChrisKaz

    Status: Member

    Joined: May 09 2020

    Posts: 3

    1+

    ChrisKaz said:

    @ David Turin,

    Your point is well taken. How much of that technology is applied to conservation, sustainability or reducing resource use? Is there even an equivalent of NASA for this, and what is their budget? IMO it should be a household name just like NASA. I suppose you could make the same arguments for the military complex which has contributed so much to our world today in terms of technology etc besides keeping us safe. But it seems most people realize we have a problem but I do not see or hear much about funding research into solutions.

    Advances in technology can help in many ways, provided there is investment there - which I guess also assumes that there must be profit in it, which is always an issue. Also a 'coolness factor' or something else to drive interest like there must be in the aerospace industry. One example learned through the pandemic is that a portion of business can be conducted at home with technology reducing the need for daily commutes and some air travel. We had oil sitting in tankers with no where to go...

    Regarding your children and move to a rural area, I don't view the two as mutually exclusive. They could design solar or satellite systems from home and use their free time to maintain the self-reliance systems like tending to the veggie garden, composting etc. It goes without saying from the topic of the article though that their dreams of continuing our lifestyle of convenience, McMansions, and over consumption will need to change - either by their choice or worse.

    I'm fairly sure my ideas are relatively naiive at this point and may be way to little to solve the problem of future overpopulation. But I think we haven't even scratched the surface of how we can feed everyone sustainably, greatly reduce resource use etc. The downside is it will require massive change to systems that are quite entrenched at this point.

    Chris

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 9:47am

    Mike from Jersey

    Mike from Jersey

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 22 2018

    Posts: 86

    3+

    Mike from Jersey said:

    Soar07,

    John Michael Greer has pointed out that there are places on earth which are more suitable for life than Mars but those places remain unsettled due to the severity of the climate.

    I just looked up weather conditions to check that out.

    For instance, in Esperanza, Antartica (an Argentine research station) the temperatures range from -28 F to 77 F degrees.

    On the other hand, at the Martian equator (probably the warmest spot on the planet), the temperatures range from -100 F to 70 F.

    Thus, it seems that the Esperanza station has a better climate along with more water and more oxygen than Mars.

    But no one attempts to settle there due to climate. And this is despite that fact that are climate refugee and political refugee problems already in process on earth.

    I think that there is a second problem. A large scale attempt to settle other worlds would take staggering amounts of natural resources and financial backing. Chris and Adam have effectively argued that we are in a state of rapidly escalating resource depletion. Additionally, many credible financial commentators are arguing that much of the world already appears to be effectively bankrupt. Thus, it appears that neither the resources nor the capital is available to make colonization a possibility.

    Now, it is conceivable that a sudden breakthrough in fusion energy technology coupled new rocket propulsion technologies to facilitate asteroid mining could somehow make colonization possible. But at this point, this is speculation and very far from being accomplished science. Space colonization - as it stands now - does not seem to be realistic.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 12:37pm

    #24
    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    5+

    Sustainability is a joke

    Nothing is sustainable. Entropy rules. It is a fundamental law of the universe. This site was on to the correct approach RESLIENCE. It should stick to that mantra.

    I read the "Population Bomb" in 1968. while his predictions have not completely manifested Ehrlich was quite prescient in his thesis.

    "Ehrlich has argued that humanity has simply deferred the disaster by the use of more intensive agricultural techniques, such as those introduced during the Green Revolution. Ehrlich claims that increasing populations and affluence are increasingly stressing the global environment, due to such factors as loss of biodiversityoverfishingglobal warmingurbanization, chemical pollution and competition for raw materials.[38] He maintains that due to growing global incomes, reducing consumption and human population is critical to protecting the environment and maintaining living standards, and that current rates of growth are still too great for a sustainable future"

    I have worked in various parts of the world grappling with the effects of over population. The best (in terms of humaneness) is education. Educating girls is critical to lowering population. Educated women have 2 or less children. Uneducated women have 6 or more. Educated women have more choices and control over their reproductive systems. I do what I can but I am far from optimistic. Large portions of the world do not have a social safety net. There is no Social Security. Social security is large families. Large families also provide manual labor.

    Every place I have been the people want to live like Amerikaans and Western Europeans. They want cars, tv's cell phones, computers, etc. People want to immigrate to the US for economic freedom and the material comforts we take for granted. There is no way in hell 7.8 billion people can live like Amerikaans.

    Jared Diamond wrote "Guns Germs and Steel " in response to the question of his guide (I believe in Borneo)who asked "why does the white man have all the goods"

    I am amused at people going back to the land and using high tunnel hoop houses, tractors, solar panels, and all the other "stuff" that relies on fossil fuels and think they are being sustainable. I have a friend who has zero plastic in his life, none. He uses mules and horses to work his land. He is a close to "sustainable" as I know.

    Then this discussion turns to Eugenics and freedom of choice. Freedom of religion " be fruitful and multiply" or as I like to say "be fruit flies and multiply". Enter people like Bill Gates who is dedicated to reducing population. People like him have far more power and ability to "do " something than anyone here.

    No one here wants to give up their Amerikaan lifestyle. Change will come with catastrophe. It will result in destruction globally. I don't know exactly what but too many factors are converging. There is no bargaining with the devil. My best guess is 3/4 of the world will be destroyed.

    I am reminded of what JHK said in the last podcast about the 11th hour. I suppose it is better late than never but this site is approaching this from the 11th hour or maybe 11:59

    How many here have 0 children? How many 1? 2? or more? 4.4 % of the world's population consuming 25% of the resources?

    If the owners wish to really explore this topic i suggest a podcast with Jared Diamond. Ehrlich is 88 and probably not up to it but maybe.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 2:01pm

    Shplad

    Shplad

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 21 2020

    Posts: 10

    Shplad said:

    For someone that sounds highly educated, your position comes across as completely absolutist. I doubt most people believe the earth in its current form will exist millions of years into the future. The people who have studied the problem believe certain practices make things MORE sustainable, not 100% sustainable.

    You're blurring the issue, and frankly, that just makes things worse.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 2:41pm

    #26
    skipr

    skipr

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jan 09 2016

    Posts: 182

    3+

    sustainability is a HUGE joke

    The recently released "The Planet of the Humans" documents what a (wishful thinking) fraud high tech sustainability is.  Michael Moore, a lefty, was the executive producer.  He has gotten a lot of flak from the environmental groups and green energy profiteers for it.  YouTube even removed it for a while.  He even touched on the "sacred" population bomb.  He's used to it.  Remember all the shit that came down on him during the Academy Awards for pointing out all of Junior Bush's lies in getting us into the Iraq etc etc war?  I wonder if they would still boo him off stage 17 years later.

    The Limits to Growth study got a similar reaction from the economics community back in the early 70's.  The "mental giant" Jeff Bezos would continue the tradition: “We have the resources to build room for a trillion humans in this solar system, and when we have a trillion humans, we’ll have a thousand Einsteins and a thousand Mozarts. It will be a way more interesting place to live.”

    https://planetofthehumans.com/

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcqSTX2yDNc

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 3:08pm

    #27
    nordicjack

    nordicjack

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 03 2020

    Posts: 572

    1+

    Sustainability not in our grasp

    We have far too many people on the planet.  Perhaps why the virus was engineered to get rid of the deadweight primarily.   We would need some kind of property grab for the masses in the US to make it happen , there is enough land - but its too expensive or grabbed by the US government.  I think more we have to think of agrarian society rather than sustainability first.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 3:16pm

    Matt Holbert

    Status: Member

    Joined: Oct 03 2008

    Posts: 104

    1+

    Zero kids

    I met my wife on a ClubMed vacation 33 years ago. We never even discussed having kids because it was obvious to us that the world already had too many killer apes...

    With respect to Jared Diamond, I have enjoyed his books but found him to be a pompous ass when listening in person to his presentation at a local university. I can say the same about Gates. The sustainable amount of kids to have is one or none. Gates has three and should know better.

    Our concern at the moment is insects. Our organic/permaculture garden in Spokane has been inundated by insects that threaten to severely diminish production this year...

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 3:31pm

    Torii

    Torii

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 03 2020

    Posts: 30

    Corvids, Pyramids and Kites

    This is my third effort to post this comment.

    In another superb but deeply sobering post, JMG extrapolates a millennial evolutionary progression for this our island home in which adaptive Corvids ultimately inherit the scant remains of the earth. Human dominion of the planet during what Greer has called the Cthulhucene becomes a forgotten moment of wanton destruction in the vast annals of geological time. Do not read if you feel gloomy.

    http://archdruidmirror.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-next-ten-billion-years.html

    But while we’re still here and determined to make even a small difference, let’s give more credence to population policy and its effective outreach (education, contraception, health care) as a key tool to improve global ecology and human health, and to reduce overconsumption and waste. The demographics of countries where couples cannot plan their families correlate to poverty, famine, disease and squandered potential. If we left Mars to the Martians and empowered women instead, could we save our world?

    https://populationmatters.org/news/2019/09/12/world-and-un-must-reduce-population-growth

    Finally, any sudden effort to shrink national populations risks inverting the economic grid from stable pyramid (many young people working to support few elders) to unsustainable kite (few younger workers trying to shoulder the burden of many very old seniors); e.g., Japan’s demographic time bomb. No easy answers.

    http://www.ipss.go.jp/site-ad/TopPageData/PopPyramid2017_E.html

    https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/japan-rural-decline/537375/

    Best wishes.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 3:49pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    LOL

    I am making things worse???????????????

    Uh okay.

    I am sure you have data to back that up. And btw just what is it I am making worse?

    Just what is it you are doing to make it better?

    Is more sustainable like a little pregnant?

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 4:19pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    Diamond

    Let's see you liked Diamond's books but found him "pompous"

    . Okay. I believe that is an ad hom which has no bearing on the discussion. Do you find his ideas valid?

    Gates has three kids and should know better. Okay. I believe one of the owners of this site has three kids. Should he know better and is that relevant?

    As for the insects you mention I am quite sure they are grateful for providing such a wonderful buffet.

    Other than those minor points I agree with you completely

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 6:41pm

    David Turin

    David Turin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: May 12 2020

    Posts: 54

    1+

    Will Gen Z embrace a resilient lifestyle?

    Regarding your children and move to a rural area, I don't view the two as mutually exclusive. They could design solar or satellite systems from home and use their free time to maintain the self-reliance systems like tending to the veggie garden,

    Agreed, @ChrisKaz -- before COVID-19 we talked about their living and opening their own businesses in Portland.  They'd be near enough to support us and us them.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 7:58pm

    Matt Holbert

    Status: Member

    Joined: Oct 03 2008

    Posts: 104

    1+

    I'll continue to attempt to keep my comments to less than 10 per year...

    but I'm going to respond...

    Obviously if I like Diamond's books, I like his ideas -- perhaps they might even be valid. However, I am not a fan of those who use their fame to marry someone much younger and procreate.

    Should he know better and is that relevant?

    It may or may not be relevant. Depends on the scenario described above. I have to admit that I was privileged to travel widely in the US during my career. It was being exposed to the insanity of suburban sprawl -- and being an INTJ/P -- that shaped my perspective that there were too many folks and too many crappy environments. (BTW, the one time that I met Kunstler in person, he was a pompous ass, but I have found him to be quite gracious in email correspondence through the years -- and I like his books... Maybe there is some hope for Diamond -- but I still have more respect for Kunstler because he didn't use his fame to procreate.)

    I'm okay with the insects getting their share but they have been off the charts this year. Perhaps it is because the average temp in Feb of last year was 20 degrees and this year it was 37 degrees.

    Don't expect a response. Got to keep the 10 comments per year record intact. Call me pompous. : ) Sort of like an "ad hom" against moi.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 8:10pm

    #34
    Hladini

    Hladini

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2011

    Posts: 189

    3+

    Mismanagement

    Yes, Adam,  while reading your article I was immediately thinking of all the counter arguments.  Population control is a very controversial and emotionally charged subject.

    I'm so cynical that when I hear a broadly accepted mainstream (msm)  narrative, by BS meter is on high alert, and I like math.  So when you calculate how many  animals across the globe are being raised for food and when you calculate all the food production that goes into feeding these animals and compare that food production to using that same food production to feed humans directly, what you get is plenty of food for people.

    World wide over 70 billion land animals are killed each year globally for food.  See here: https://faunalytics.org/global-animal-slaughter-statistics-and-charts/

    Land animals are pretty big and eat way more than humans do.  I know that chickens are big part of that slaughter, but if you include the food production to feed seafood, there is plenty of food to feed the world population sans the animal slaughter industry.

    Please don't worry  yourselves with the fear of protein deficiency. There were 9 cases of protein deficiency found in children in the US over a 9 year period. Protein deficiencies are really only possible if you are starving to death because every food you eat has amino acids, which are the building blocks of all proteins.   Search for the term kwashiorcor - that's the official name for protein deficiency.   https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/fullarticle/478323

    The "Gold Standard" on the effects of animal protein on the body is The China Study.  Instead of winning some serious global award, the poor author got de-funded and ostracized but has hung in there because he has tenure.  An interesting study caught his attention and he was able to repeat it for 20 years.  The China Study is based on the longest running human/animal study of it's kind in history.

    In addition to being a mis-allocation of resources, the animal slaughter industry is The Number Two Energy Sucking Activity on the Planet.  Stop animal slaughter and save some energy.

    The Number One Energy Sucking Thing on the Planet are buildings.  Just look at all the buildings on the planet!  If our buildings were built in a passive solar design, guess what?  No  one would need another heater or air conditioner in almost any climate.  And these buildings can be built to be very beautiful and awe inspiring.

    Counterintuitively,  transportation is The Number Three Energy Consuming Activity on the planet.  Developing local food sources and local goods/services production will mitigate some.  Trade  will continue.  Long before the steam engine, there was trade.

    One outcome to expect would be............... drum roll.......... building things to last, again.  I think fine workmanship and long lasting durable goods will become sought after again.

    Mismanagement is the problem, not population.

    Adam's article reminded me eerily of the Georgia Stones, only instead of a half billion people to usher in Planet Utopia, TPTB have calculated maybe another 250 million would OK.

    I don't think so.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 8:34pm

    #35

    000

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 123

    1+

    100 Degrees in Siberia, sho'nuff

    Snow cover is disappearing, sea ice is melting and fires, including possible ‘zombie’ blazes, are raging.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/05/22/siberia-heat-wave/ 

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 8:42pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    LOL

    Well procreation IS one of the three functions of life. The other 2 being eating and shitting.

    Beyond that what else is there?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 8:43pm

    #37

    000

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 123

    1+

    Paul Beckwith Discusses Jet Stream Fracturing and Blocking With Abrupt Climate Change

    I'll not trigger anyone with Guy McPherson's "predicament", that is to say the McPherson Paradox. But living the life you choose is now or never and not for very much longer, it seems.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 20, 2020 - 8:48pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    1+

    Mismanagement

    What about water?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 12:53am

    #39

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 384

    15+

    Mark_BC said:

    Space travel / colonization is one of the most widespread and destructive fantasies afflicting our collective psyche. There has been lots of analysis of the stages people go through with cognitive dissonance and having your core beliefs challenged. Space colonization is the denial mechanism people use to avoid coming to terms with our overpopulation and inevitable collapse. It doesn't help that scammers like Musk and Bozo play it up so much, wasting precious resources, time, hopes, and money (money they didn't even really have since neither of their companies can turn a profit, yet they are somehow some of the world's top businessmen? WTF? But I digress...)

    Firstly, the problem. IT'S A FREAKING VACUUM. We'd die instantly there. The only other rocky planet that isn't a vacuum is HOT ENOUGH TO MELT LEAD.

    "We'll terraform new atmospheres." Lol what???? Using what process? I get a kick out of the sci fi stories with these huge factories spewing out massive amounts of gases to create an atmosphere. Ummm, okaaaayyyy... Where is the gas coming from? Rocks? Rocks don't have gas. What is the chemistry behind turning rocks to gas? What special process do people bring to the rocks that wouldn't happen naturally? How much energy does it take? Where does the energy come from?

    "We'll use fusion". Lol and how does this fusion reactor work? How are you converting the heat it generates into useful energy? How does the reactor get built and maintained when YOU ARE IN A FREAKING VACUUM? And there are ZERO manufacturing facilities on this fantastic new world to make the parts needed for the reactor? You can't just bodge a nuclear reactor together with bits and pieces left behind from your spaceship. They require extremely high precision and competent operators. Without it, they blow up.

    "We'll build enclosed societies then to avoid the vacuum". Using what resources? You can't send the resources from Earth because it's way to energetically expensive and I thought we were colonizing Mars because Earth is running out of resources?

    "We'll mine the resources on Mars then". Lol do these people have any clue what's involved in mining ore and turning it into pure metal? Its staggeringly complex when you consider the entire process and all the global engineering that goes into suplliying the equipment needed to do it, and incredibly energy intensive. And it relies on water based processes, which don't work when YOU'RE IN A FREAKING VACUUM.

    Where does the replacement solenoid, bolt, breaker come from when it breaks, which happens constantly in mining since it is so hard on equipment? There are no factories making these thing on Mars and it is too intensive to send them from Earth.

    Finally, our supposed expansion beyond the constraints of Earth is actually completely dependent on Earth. Rocket fuel pretty much comes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels come from algae living millions of years ago. We could not possibly be more dependent on Earth's ecology. The hyped imminent grand age of space travel (haven't we been constantly fed this propaganda ever since supposedly walking on the moon 50 years ago? Why has it never materialized?) will forever end once fossil fuels "run out", or become too scarce.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 3:48am

    #40
    TamHob

    TamHob

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 13 2020

    Posts: 39

    3+

    @ChrisKaz

    I agree with the sentiment and agree gardens greatly increase resilience but, outside of a few incredibly fertile areas such as the Yangtze/Yellow River plain, 1/4 acre is far too small an area to support even one person in terms of caloric, protein and micronutrient needs (not to mention cooking fuel, clothing etc).

    I base this on the fact that Farmers of 40 Centuries, first published in 1911, found that the 'better class' of Yangtze/Yellow River Plain farm household farmed 1.6 to 2.5 acres supporting 6-12 people (grandparents, 1-2 brothers and their wives and children) via incredibly intensive methods. Admittedly there was also a pretty heavy burden of government 'overhead' and quite a bit of land was reserved for grave lands. However, it was also noticeable in the descriptions of the farming methods that the farms were highly specialised. Most farms grew at least some rice and had a few animals but then specialised in particular crops or animals. Their farms were very productive but not in any way self-sufficient.

    By contrast, farms in the German river valleys in the late medieval period were far more self-sufficient and required approx 10 acres/person which included garden, plowed or fallow field, meadow and forest. They also had a reasonably significant 'government overhead' to meet. Of course, the agricultural technology and capital improvements  compared to the early industrial Chinese was pretty low...

    Possibly judicious application of certain modern farming ideas/tools etc might decrease the minimum sustainable land area to achieve reasonable self-sufficiency. However, I do think it is important to be realistic about what is possible

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 4:31am

    Hladini

    Hladini

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2011

    Posts: 189

    1+

    Water. It's really important!

    A proper passive solar designed house should provide, at least some, of what its inhabitants need.  Each building includes a cistern.  The old Tampa Courthouse has a basement cistern still.  Don't think it's used anymore.  MM, I'm sure you've seen the film Garbage Warrior.  Water collected from the roof is first used in sinks/showers, then filters through the green house in the front of the building, then filters to the toilet, then is flushed through to a garden pod outside.

    Each building should generate at least some of it's own energy needs, like a wind turbine or solar panels.  Without an ac/heating unit, no electric dryer, no electric stove, and no electric hot water  heater,  our energy needs in the home are minimal.

    How many jobs would be created if we converted/retrofitted all the residences and office buildings into passive solar buildings requiring no ac/heating units?   It could become a national past time!

    And we don't have to produce another "thing."  Everything this world needs has already been built. It just needs to be salvaged - the industry of  the future.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 4:40am

    Hladini

    Hladini

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2011

    Posts: 189

    6+

    Tam Hob

    It's not that difficult to rebuild your soil and no till farming is the way to go.  There are some 3rd and 4th generation farmers who will never go back to tilling.  Google no till farming and see how farmers, using tractors, DO NOT TILL THE LAND.   Their soil is amazing.

    Poor soil loves microbes.  Aerated compost tea is a probiotic for the garden.  Laying cardboard then mulching over it is a honey pot for earth worms.  Certain plants are extremely beneficial to the soil, especially hemp.

    Any shortages are due to mismanagement, not scarcity.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 5:26am

    David McKenney

    David McKenney

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 25 2020

    Posts: 80

    000, I'm triggered.

    Having followed Guy for 10 years, I have never heard a good argument presented against his case, only name calling. I would love to hear what you folks have to say about the "predicament". I don't want to believe what he says, but still do.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 6:30am

    #44

    Rector

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2010

    Posts: 376

    4+

    The Exponential Function - We Are Destined for Annihilation

    At this site, most PP members are familiar with the exponential function as it applies to natural resources, population growth, etc.  That insight was a powerful change agent in my life ten years ago as I began to transition to a more resilient lifestyle.  Notice I did not say "sustainable" lifestyle.  It is my belief that the inevitable future of mankind is total destruction - we just can't escape the tyranny of self-interest and personal corruption.

    If you spend a moment thinking about the exponential function you will see it.  Even if per capita consumption decreases dramatically, the exponential function will make a mockery of those gains promptly.  If you think about the world around you, your observations will tell you that we are on the road to destruction - no need for me to catalog the factors.  The heart of man is dark - and darkening.  You're experience will confirm the truth of that statement.

    Annihilation is the destiny of mankind in his current form on Earth.

    If this sounds familiar, it may be because such a fate was predicted in the Judeo-Christian scriptures and has become widely known in the western world.  God understands the exponential function better than mankind - perhaps it's time to think about what comes after death.

    Rector

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 6:44am

    #45
    Ision

    Ision

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2020

    Posts: 121

    6+

    You Do Not Need To Worry...

    Please understand, other...much more powerful...people have been fretting about these same topics for many years now.  You do not elect them and they are not subject to public attitudes.  Instead, they are involved in whom is elected and for shaping public attitudes.  And, they have been busy.

    Even though the Earth's climate has been cooling for the last 6,000 years, you have been deliberately convinced it has been dangerously warming, instead.

    You have been taught Man-Made CO2 (18PPM) is changing Earth's Climate, when CO2 does not drive the climate, nor does it cause climatic warming, and is completely meaningless to climate change.  Even removing ALL Man-Made CO2 would not alter Earth's climate in the least. But the odds are you have already rejected this notion, out-of-hand, due to the profound effects of many years of propaganda you have been subjected too.

    The population problem is not that much of a problem, if the goal is to reduce it.  But what part of Earth's population would one seek to reduce the most?  What would work best to reduce a population, which might become upset it was being reduced?  What method of population reduction would be the most effective, and politically safe, while being entirely removed from the volition of those being "reduced?"

    The best way to reduce the population is via disease....just like with AIDS, and with COVID19, and a host of other illnesses.   Disease is much better than gassing, or shooting, or radioactive explosions...and escapes the problematic political issues around the term "genocide."

    Yes.  The "cure" for Humanity is already in play.   So, the game now is to see if your particular genetics makes it past "the cut."

     

    Evolution In Action.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 6:52am

    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 139

    1+

    What a wonderful word!

    Great comment!

    Great refrain: IT'S A FREAKING VACUUM!

    "Bodge" - what a beautiful, perfectly wonderful word. Thanks.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 7:54am

    richcabot

    richcabot

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 05 2011

    Posts: 239

    7+

    Democracy

    You said "because they have the numbers to overwhelm local desires in the locales over which they exert economic, cultural, and political power. That's not democracy"

    It is democracy, the majority rules.  50% + 1 and you win.  That's why we have limits on government power through the constitution.  Unfortunately those have been whittled away through tortuous interpretations of what the constitution says.

    Many people think democracy is the ideal form of government and complain when faced with undemocratic outcomes.  Democracy can be described as two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.  When you are one of the wolves it's a great system.  When you are the sheep it's not so great.  The US was not intended to be a democracy.  It was designed as a representative republic.  We abandon that at our peril.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 8:13am

    David Turin

    David Turin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: May 12 2020

    Posts: 54

    Should we come to know?

    Good Sunday Mike from Jersey,

    I remember learning that when a human is born, the newborn actually breathes in bacteria in the air which are necessary for good digestion.

    I did not know this.  The studies I have seen suggested the bacteria issue was influenced by the berthing method. [1]

    interconnections between humans and the ecosphere of this planet which are as yet unknown but nonetheless necessary for life.

    If this is the case, should we come to know it?

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 8:27am

    climber99

    climber99

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 12 2013

    Posts: 190

    1+

    climber99 said:

    You can't go into space without fossil energy.  All of Earth's fossil fuel reserves (that can be extracted at an energy profit, that is) will have been long burnt by the end of this century.

    If more people knew this they might think twice about having children.  Only once it becomes common knowledge that our energy descent with its accompanying die-off is inevitable, will we have any chance of voluntarily deducing population size in order to create some sort of soft landing.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 10:07am

    David Turin

    David Turin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: May 12 2020

    Posts: 54

    1+

    You can't go into space without fossil energy.

    Space colonization, even harnessing any harvestable space resources, is clearly not happening, not today and not tomorrow.  So what? And just what is the downside of being curious or taking risks? Seems all typically human to me.

    Some people will devote their lives to farming, some to exploration, some to ecology, some to living as self-reliantly as possible.  Others will dream about space.  Again, so what?

    Dreams and efforts into space are not the cause of any of our problems today.  Perhaps they are symptoms of underlying problems?  The depletion of fossil fuels is not because someone wants to explore low earth orbit or even the moon and beyond.

    You can't go into space without fossil energy.

    What does this mean @climber99 ?   Rocket fuel is not fossil fuel, is it?  Do we need fossil fuel to make rocket fuel? Rocket fuel is liquid hydrogen [1] and solid propellent fuels surely have some polymers but the main ingredients are not fossil fuels either [2]

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 10:41am

    #51
    yracaz

    yracaz

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 23 2009

    Posts: 6

    1+

    Bruce Wilds: Idealism, Optimism, & Why We're Doomed

    https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bruce-wilds-idealism-optimism-why-were-doomed

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 12:06pm

    #52

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 384

    4+

    Mark_BC said:

    The mass of most rockets are more than 95% fuel. Building bigger rockets with bigger payloads means more fuel is used for each launch. The current fuel for Falcon Heavy is RP-1 (a refined kerosene) and liquid oxygen, which creates a lot of carbon dioxide when burnt.

    The amount of kerosene in three Falcon 9 rockets is roughly 440 tonnes and RP-1 has a 34% carbon content. This amount of carbon is a drop in the ocean compared to global industrial emissions as a whole, but if the SpaceX’s plan for a rocket launch every two weeks comes to fruition, this amount of carbon (approximately 4,000 tonnes per year) will rapidly become a bigger problem.

    https://theconversation.com/falcon-heavy-spacex-stages-an-amazing-launch-but-what-about-the-environmental-impact-91423#:~:text=The%20current%20fuel%20for%20Falcon,has%20a%2034%25%20carbon%20content.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 12:16pm

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 384

    6+

    Mark_BC said:

    So what? And just what is the downside of being curious or taking risks? Seems all typically human to me.

    Space colonisation is the denial mechanism people use to avoid coming to terms with our overpopulation and inevitable collapse. If people really understood how impossible it is, along with our environmental predicament, they'd be lobbying hard for change here on Earth. The hope of space colonisation provides an "out".

    Another thing I didn't mention before. It would be one thing to send a few hundred or thousands, or even millions of people to Mars. But BILLIONS, meaning that it will somehow allow us to escape overpopulation here???? Not ever going to happen. Based on the number above, let's say each rocket can take 200 people. Let's also say we'll take 2 billion people. So that is 10 million flights. At 440 tonnes per flight, that is 5 billion tonnes. With 136 kg per barrels of oil, that is over 30 billion barrels of oil. The world consumes 35 billion barrels of oil a year. And I thought we were going to run out of oil.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 12:19pm

    Hladini

    Hladini

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2011

    Posts: 189

    1+

    Ision is Back!

    Ision, always on alert for your posts; I get such a cacophony of feelings when you comment.

    I jumped on then off the global warming band wagon when I learned the Sun and the Earth's position in the Milky Way are the most important factors determining Earths' temperature, and that CO2 has NOTHING to do with Global Warming.

    I figured because the Earth is actually cooling and even mini ice ages can create wide spread famines, the "global warming" was actually man made with all the chem trailing and advanced geothermal engineering technology/patents.

    When the "Global Warming" meme went mainstream (msm), there went my BS meter!

    Should we expect a more virulent form of the/another virus down the pike?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 12:26pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    9+

    Micro vs. Macro

    You are looking at the micro. This post is particularly about the macro. Yes individuals can collect water in a cistern, it has been done for millenia.

    Unfortunately that does not water hundreds of thousands of sq.miles of farms. The aquifer that supplies the farms in the Punjab is being pumped at 145% of recharge rate.

    https://india.mongabay.com/2019/07/hope-runs-dry-as-groundwater-sources-in-punjab-drop-to-alarming-levels/

    The Punjab is India's bread basket. it is the equivalent of our Midwest. Wells are having to be driven deeper, where water is scarcer.  The situation is identical in the US with the Ogallala aquifer.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-ogallala-aquifer/#:~:text=Today%20the%20Ogallala%20Aquifer%20is,keep%20up%20with%20human%20demands.

    The Green Revolution fueled by fossil fuels enabled farmers to mine the soil. The Green Revolution relies on vast amounts of chemical inputs.. As chemical fertilization increases water demands increase as well. As fertilizer use increases salt builds up in the soil. I lived in an area in India that averaged 14 inches of rain a year. That is sufficient for individual use but not for agriculture. Farmers in India are committing suicide in record numbers.

    Ms. Vandana Shiva ; If one were to read anything or watch anything on this topic this is the absolute best, first place to start. It is short less than 10 minutes but profound.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nze2K2hgTqY

    "Many of the world's great rivers – such as the Indus, the Colorado, and the Yellow rivers – no longer reach the ocean, turning once-productive deltas into biological deserts."

    https://www.internationalrivers.org/rivers-in-crisis#:~:text=Many%20of%20the%20world's%20great,productive%20deltas%20into%20biological%20deserts.

    There has been a somewhat unfortunate issue with PP. It is supposedly based on the three e's but as quite a few others have pointed out there is little discussion of the environment. The discussions are mostly centered on markets and oil. The rare discussions on the environment are usually about climate change. Unfortunately the entire environmental movement has been hijacked by climate change.

    Water is seriously undervalued. It has been on the radar of the multinational pirates for quite awhile. Most people have been unaware of that fact. But the fact remains we don't exist w/o a good clean source of water and it is becoming more and more difficult to find.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 12:29pm

    Hladini

    Hladini

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2011

    Posts: 189

    7+

    Van Allan Belt

    Mark_BC,  just wondering if all those billions of people will survive going through the Van Allen Belt to get to some unknown destination in space.  Don't you think it's a curious thing that the ONLY country that EVER made it to the Moon was the US?

    Are we THAT exceptional?

    Sorry, but if folks believe space is gonna save us, I've got tickets for sale to LaLaLand.  Musk is not really working on space travel for  rich people.  He's working on space weapon(s) - the digital net over everybody and everything.

    I  say money spent on so called Space colonization is a waste of money and precious resources.  It ain't gonna happen.  In the mid sixties when I was in grade school, I was taught we were gonna colonize the Moon.

    How's that Moon colonization coming along after 50+  years?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 12:55pm

    Hladini

    Hladini

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2011

    Posts: 189

    Micro is the Macro

    MohammedMast, how are ya doing today?  Things are a little rough in my corner of the world.  We have a trouble maker in our village, I  have a squatter in my Airbnb that will not leave and bc of Covid, I can't evict her!  The  Hubby is completely disturbed today.

    I think it's the effect the solar eclipse - bad mojo.

    But I'm digresssing.  Back to the water and micro v macro discussion.

    If a large percentage of the population has a clean source of water collected in a cistern type container on the micro level then the macro issue is less of an emergency because lots and lots of mircos add up to macro, and the result of most folks having access to drinking water will be increased security, calmer people, and we buy time to work a another plan.

    Remember the  Crash Course?  It's better to be 8% prepared rather than zero% prepared.

    I'm just thinking about the US, I know other countries have their issues, but I live here so this is where my concerns are focused.  The more each of us has built in resilience - like water collection - the better chances of surviving and thriving and helping others.

    Will we all have to revert to some level of subsistence farming?  I think so.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 1:04pm

    Mike from Jersey

    Mike from Jersey

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 22 2018

    Posts: 86

    3+

    Mike from Jersey said:

    David, that study says that microbial transmissions can (and do) come from the mother but also comes from other different sources as well. The study actually speaks of trying -  in the future - to trace the various ways in which bacterial colonies are acquired by individuals as they age. Other studies clearly indicate the existence of environmental factors in the acquisition of microbial colonies. For instance, this study notes:

    These latter observations emphasize the importance of a history of numerous common environmental exposures in shaping gut microbial ecology.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3376388/

    That is exactly the point that I am making. We are not separated from the ecosphere but rather are a part of it.

    In regards to your question:

    If this is the case, should we come to know it?

    I am not sure what you mean. Could you clarify that? Studies of the interconnections in the ecosphere are going on all the time.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 1:08pm

    Hladini

    Hladini

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2011

    Posts: 189

    2+

    Good News

    Well Rector, the good news is that you cannot destroy consciousness.  Every single material body is destined for annihilation - even the mountains, even universes.  In every square inch of soil the hard struggle for material existence is taking place - life and death battles.  Humans are not exempt.

    For humans, our consciousness will determine our next destination at the time of death, however it's only the body that is annihilated.  Matter does not move spirit, quite the opposite and spirit/consciousness cannot be destroyed.

    Being prepared for the Clusterf- coming our way due to piss poor managers is one thing, but the real thing to be prepared for is the time of death.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 1:20pm

    Hladini

    Hladini

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2011

    Posts: 189

    1+

    Defending

    Hey  Mohammed, all living entities engage in eating, sleeping, mating and defending - you left out this last one.

    So what makes humans different from every other animal, bird, fish, amoeba on the planet?  If humans merely engage in eating, sleeping, mating and defending this is animal life - not human life.

    Human life is meant to ponder the big questions in life:  Who am I?  Where did I come from?  Where am I going?  How did I get here?  Why am I here?

    You won't see dogs, cats or birds pondering these questions.  This is what human life is meant for, not just eating, sleeping, mating and defending.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 1:27pm

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 384

    2+

    Mark_BC said:

    I don't know, I had a wolf dog that seemed to be pondering some of those things. Since they can't speak, we will never know... but the non verbal communication between dog and people is just as meaningful as people vs people so it stands to reason they are capable of some of those thoughts, at least to the level that humans were several thousand years ago before science answered a lot of the questions, knowledge which has been handed down through language. But without language I doubt we are that much different than dogs.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 1:43pm

    Ision

    Ision

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2020

    Posts: 121

    1+

    Expect More Culling Via Manufactured Diseases, Bogus Vaccines & Deliberate Social Mismanagement.

    Hladini:
    Simple answer...Yes.  Expect more population control programs via manufactured pathogens, along with continuous disinformation and propaganda efforts, designed to shatter one's personal confidence in one's own mind and thoughts.

    I have no doubt the Human Race will be culled way down, especially in the Third-World, no matter how many biological accidents it takes to do so...or ifthe strategic use of EMP weapons is deamed necessary.

    But, the LAST THING we need to worry about is CO2!...and making more of it...the VERY LAST THING!  In fact, the more CO2 the better!

    What if their target population is only 500 Million?   If so, lots of death and disease coming.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 2:24pm

    David Turin

    David Turin

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: May 12 2020

    Posts: 54

    3+

    Wait,

    dogs can't talk?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 2:52pm

    ABMath

    ABMath

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jun 19 2020

    Posts: 3

    7+

    The only way... go to space

    The only way to save the earth that works with man's nature is to go to space. To go to space for resources. To go to space to allow population to grow.

    How about the alternative of not growing the population?  Why is growth the only path we consider?

    This is an excellent example of the cost of growth:

    https://youtu.be/ihPfB30YT_c

    Going to space is not a permanent fix.  It only delays the day of reckoning.  I did the math once.  Assumptions are unlimited space travel and 1% population growth.  We could overpopulate the entire galaxy in less than 2,500 years.

    perpetual growth is not sustainable.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 3:09pm

    Mike from Jersey

    Mike from Jersey

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 22 2018

    Posts: 86

    4+

    Mike from Jersey said:

    ABMath,

    I remember reading an article by Issac Asimov. He ran calculations like the one you just noted. As I recall, he stated that in about six and a half thousand years, every particle of matter in the Universe would have to be appropriated just to constitute the matter necessary to build all the human bodies that would exist.

    I may be wrong about the number of years he calculated, but you get the point.

    We can't go on like this.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 3:26pm

    Hladini

    Hladini

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2011

    Posts: 189

    1+

    Dogs are people too?

    Dogs and cats and in fact all living entities have a consciousness, which is the symptom of the soul.  The soul is absolute, there are not different souls for dogs or cats or humans; the only difference is, what vehicle has the soul taken birth in this time around?

    When consciousness leaves the body - especially mammal/foul/fish bodies - it immediately starts to rot and is quickly disposed of because spirit moves matter, matter does not move spirit.

    Anyone who loves a pet knows that pet is a unique personality and no other pet is exactly like that specially loved pet.

    No difference of opinion  there.

    However, animals cannot contemplate the purpose of life, the meaning of life, or aspire to meet the  Creator/Lord.

    It's interesting that Americans are absolutely horrified when they hear of some Asians  eating cats and dogs; similarly Hindus are horrified when they hear of some Westerners eating cows - their beloved cultural pet/household member.

    I believe in the laws of physics:  for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It's the law of Karma.  When I truly understood that concept, I stopped eating flesh food.

    Since then (1983), I have become much more in tune with animals and can relate to them as a spirit souls with unique personalities, not objects to be exploited for my pleasure.  (Maybe to keep body and soul together, but not for pleasure, taste buds, or status.)

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 4:21pm

    #67
    ezlxq1949

    ezlxq1949

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 29 2009

    Posts: 364

    12+

    Take our decaying civilisation into space????

    Good heavens, what good would that achieve? Don't for a moment think that we would leave the sociopaths and psychopaths behind! Oh no, they'll be there in droves, exciting new fields to conquer and exploit! I cynically imagine they'd show up among the second or third waves to migrate — having waited until the first wave took the casualties and subsequent waves made things more comfortable and psychopath-friendly.

    Give the poor long-suffering universe a break!

    Trite observation: we are already living in and on the best possible spaceship for our journey. It's called Planet Earth. It has air, water, food, and above all the abundant microbial lifeforms without which we will quickly die.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 4:35pm

    #68
    ezlxq1949

    ezlxq1949

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 29 2009

    Posts: 364

    12+

    Animal intelligence

    Some years ago I got to know the Keeper of Primates at the Perth Zoo. He has special love for his orangutans, adamant that they possess self-awareness and a theory of mind. Very advanced characteristics for a "mere" animal. He's now spending a lot of time in Borneo trying to preserve orang habitat, any amount of which is being destroyed for profit and the orangs slaughtered as being irrelevant to development.

    On my living room wall is a painting by an orangutan living at the Perth Zoo. The orang herself chose the colours, chose the brushes, and produced the painting within a controlled, designated area of the paper. Zoo staff noted how she was being extra thoughtful about this design, proceeding deliberately. The results are better than a lot of human efforts, and are the calibre of work that a human artist, once admitted to the "Art Club" of course, would be given much credit for.

    On the same wall I've got a painting done by a Thai elephant named Gung at the Melbourne Zoo. Gung wielded the brush but the keeper chose the colours and brush, and held the canvas for Gung. Even so, he made a great piece of abstract art. Other elephants have applied brush to canvas and each elephant creates a different design. Some are better than others.

    It's this aspect of nature and human-animal relations that is in line for destruction as our machine civilisation ravages the biosphere. It makes me weep.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 5:24pm

    ezlxq1949

    ezlxq1949

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 29 2009

    Posts: 364

    1+

    Rate of culling

    If TPTB wish to reduce total human numbers, then all they need to do is bring the net reproduction rate down, way down, and let nature take its course.

    TPTB could appear benign and civilised while the rest of us live out our lives and die off. No need for mass extermination programs, no need for coercion. Maybe something in the water or food which in effect causes mass sterilisation. This is also an old idea which was never practicable — until now.

    A lot depends on how quickly they want to reduce the population.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 5:40pm

    #70
    Mots

    Mots

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jun 18 2012

    Posts: 219

    2+

    Please abandon American Energy Lifestyle: we need behavioral change

    Solar Panels require progressively less and less energy to manufacture, and are on a par with high quality oil wells.

    The main argument against solar panels is that they take more energy to manufacture than they produce over their lifespan. While that may have been true years ago, fast moving developments in the semiconductor industry has made solar panels very cheap and very low energy to produce. In fact, the vast amount of energy that goes into producing solar electricity is not from the panels themselves but instead a result from big corporation solar farm practices that are extremely wasteful (but lucrative) and that jack up the cost and energy input more than 5 times. Further, the main obstacle to low cost and low input-energy solar electric (the intermittency problem) can largely be overcome by behavioral changes that reject the high cost equipment and methods offered by Big Solar.

    Many of the reductions in energy needed to produce solar cells have come from improved cutting of wafers, which are 2.5 times thinner than before (i.e. 2.5 times less energy/starting material), improvements in silicon usage and improvements in chemistry.1 Recycling of energy and of cutting waste contributes energy savings.2 Further efficiency (lower energy consumption during manufacture) improvements are ongoing and the progression of lower cost solar cells is not stopping.3

    The remaining energy inputs (and increased costs) for making solar electricity comes directly from the “need” to store energy to overcome the “intermittency problem.” But this high energy input/cost largely can be avoided by altering behavior to consume most of solar energy by using high demand items such as water heating, cooking, making of ice, air conditioning, clothes washing during daylight hours, with appliances that tolerate low and intermittent power sources. Think like a plant. Use batteries sparingly for night time lighting, television, computer, cell phone and fans, to drastically cut costs and energy inputs. By rejecting Big Solar practices and by thinking like a plant (separating light reactions from dark reactions) the energy returned on investment for solar electric can approach 100.

    (I have a longer detailed writing on this topic but no one has time to read 15 page essays these days, thus this summary,
    This Stupid Dream about solving energy problems by going to outer space is part of the stupid wasteful thinking brought to us by television and a corrupt corporate system.  We can walk away from the corrupt system, in part by making our own energy but only if we reject Big Solar)

    1 “advanced gas phase poly-silicon production processes, ...are still making impressive progress in decreasing costs... and present the promise to reduce the cost of silicon down to $12/kg” See “Approaches to the development of environmentally friendly and resource-saving technology for solar-grade silicon production” by Sergey M. Karabanov (a1), Dmitriy V. Suvorov (a1), Dmitry Y. Tarabrin (a1), Evgeniy V. Slivkin Energy and Sustainability vol. 4 issue 35 2019 pp. 1937-1947 chapter 5.

    2“Recycling of silicon metal powder from industrial powder waste streams”

    by Monica Moen, Terje Halvorsen, Knut Mørk, SjurVelken Metal Powder Report

    Volume 72, Issue 3, May–June 2017, Pages 182-187.

    3Newer techniques are being implemented that are “environmentally safe, scalable and has low power consumption...” Much of this is basic large scale manufacturing technology wherein large scale allows efforts to reuse energy such as counter-current flows. “Approaches to the development of environmentally friendly and resource-saving technology for solar-grade silicon production” by Sergey M. Karabanov (a1), Dmitriy V. Suvorov (a1), Dmitry Y. Tarabrin (a1), Evgeniy V. Slivkin Energy and Sustainability vol. 4 issue 35 2019 pp. 1937-1947

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 5:53pm

    #71

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 384

    8+

    Mark_BC said:

    I think the important point not really being discussed is that WE dont have much of any say in the matter. On the whole, we are debt serfs with little to no net assets to our names. While the best thing we could do for the environment is "nothing", for the majority of us that isn't possible because we'd starve. We'd have no money for rent or food.

    As a result, we are forced to go get a job. To "produce" as the economists like to say. There are two types of jobs. In the public sector you can get paid for doing work, regardless of whether it is deemed "productive". But an economy geared around this is frowned upon as it is socialism. The other job you can get is in the "private" sector. And a company is only going to hire you if you can "produce" profits. Real profits = growth.

    The origin of this system is the debt slavery monetary system we are all a part of which is creating a few extremely wealthy people at the top who aim to own the entire world. They will own it via debt. If you spend your life trying to get rid of your debt, you are owned by them.

    This system FORCES people to go out and rape and pillage the land, to "produce", which is really just a synonym for "consume" -- consume natural resources.

    While it would be great if we could all just do "nothing" (at least, economically nothing) for half the day, living simply on our 5 acre plots of land, only working enough to buy a few extra things in life, that isn't going to happen. Our masters have other plans for us.

    They are getting richer and richer stealing from the middle class. To keep itself from starving, the middle class must go out and consume more and more.

    So before we talk about the possible future of everyone living sustainably on their little plot of land, the bigger issue we first need to figure out is how to take that wealth and land back from the elites.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 9:25pm

    #72
    ezlxq1949

    ezlxq1949

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 29 2009

    Posts: 364

    4+

    Purpose of Planet Earth

    The longer I live, the more convinced am I that this planet is used by other planets as a lunatic asylum.

    — George Bernard Shaw

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 10:06pm

    nordicjack

    nordicjack

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 03 2020

    Posts: 572

    1+

    Regarding George Bernard Shaw

    What was he doing here then?  and why I am here, other than this , i'd agree.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sun, Jun 21, 2020 - 10:10pm

    #74
    nordicjack

    nordicjack

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 03 2020

    Posts: 572

    3+

    Re culling rate

    When china went to 1 child policy, they didnt think they will kill half their population that quick.    Bringing reproduction to 1 - will halve the population in less than 50 years.   IN the US if not for hispanics, we would be declining severely.  And even with them we are marginally staying close to even.    What the heck the rest of the world did , I am not sure..   because , in the "richest" country in the world , I cant afford more than 1.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 12:52am

    cielodeoro

    cielodeoro

    Status: Member

    Joined: May 21 2013

    Posts: 1

    5+

    This system FORCES people...

    This system FORCES people to go out and rape and pillage the land, to "produce", which is really just a synonym for "consume" -- consume natural resources.

    This is very reminiscent of the description of Christopher Columbus in "A Peoples History of the United States": because Columbus found no gold among the Arawak people, he was forced to load his ships with the Arawak as slaves to take back to Spain, to show something for his efforts.  Before his return to the New World, his benefactors told him that he could not come back a second time empty handed: without gold.  With this goal in the forefront of his mind, he and the Spanish then forced the Arawak people to mine for gold, leading to the rather accelerated genocide of the Arawak people as a whole.  As Zinn wrote, genocide was justified in the name of "progress", all because of the demand by the Spanish monarchy that Columbus "produce" gold for their coffers.  Please excuse my loose paraphrasing of Zinn's text.

    It seems to me that the concepts of "production" and "progress" are very closely related, as well as very much baked into our system - our history - as is slavery.  Whereas Columbus and the Spanish used physical force and death as the yoke to enslave the Arawak people, we are much too "civilized" to use the same barbaric methods on our own people.  Debt is the "modern" tool by which our citizens are tricked into slavery, and a very seductive tool at that.

    Mark, your statement that "we first need to figure out is how to take that wealth and land back from the elites" reminded me of the article Adam had posted a week or so ago asking for ideas for peaceful, non-violent revolution against the current system.  It occurred to me that if a debt-based system is predicated upon its "slaves" paying back the debt - the very yoke that keeps them enslaved - then the antidote to this type of slavery would be for the debtors to stop paying their debts.

    As we learned way back in the "Crash Course", the fractional reserve system is based upon the implicit agreement that the debtor makes their monthly payments to the lender and thereby supports the creation of the currency that is loaned into "existence" in the first place.  If "We the People", i.e. tax donkeys and debt slaves, just stopped making the payments would we not disrupt the system at its foundation?  And non-violently at that?

    It seems ironic to me that the same system that demands progress at all costs, including the genocide of many different cultures at least since 1492, is the very same system that finds itself in need of a "solution" to the human population problem that it created - albeit inadvertently - in the first place.  I believe that there are just too many coincidences that support the idea that COVID was created in a lab and not "naturally occurring".

    It sounds like everyone on this thread is pretty much in agreement about human nature and the ethical challenges of population control, including myself.  My initial response after reading this article was that the best solution is the example of the plagues that have non-selectively reduced the human population in the past.  Other comments above have spoken to this as well.

    The biggest challenge to naturally occurring pathogens at this point in history is that our own technology can and would neutralize any naturally evolved pathogen with the speed and veracity expected of an advanced culture.  This issue, coupled with the 'sloppiness' (i.e. high rate of infection) of most historical pathogens, almost presents the "need" to present a solution using genetic engineering.  One would want a pathogen that is non-selective (mostly), is highly resistant to vaccines, does not have an infection rate that is too high or too low, has a tendency to ebb and flow over time so as to allow complacency to arise in the affected population(s), and has staying power - either through massive damage of organ systems to those it infects but doesn't kill (so that they are taken out the second or third time), or by complexity of design.

    Couple this pathogen with a msm/propaganda machine that can continually promise a vaccine but never quite deliver, and you have a near perfect method of drawing out the entire pandemic long enough to achieve the desired result - lowering the population by the prescribed amount, both non-selectively and without prejudice.  Sounds an awful lot like COVID. And why wouldn’t any upwardly aspiring multi-billionaire(s) (in the $100’s of billions) not want to be celebrated ten generations hence as the one that had the vision to support the development of the, “Solution that saved the world!”?  “Oh, and if COVID doesn't work, then we've got a few more in the pipeline…”

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 3:50am

    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 139

    2+

    Really? THAT's what you got from my post?

    Oye, dude. I employed the word "democracy" in its frequently used sense as  a denotation of a class form of government - you know: where the people of a locality have a say in their own government; hence fate. To denote a general principle, not a specific example. "Republicanism," after all, is a version of democratic governance. (One I also prefer.)

    It would not have changed my argument at all to have said "that's not representational government." You could as easily have replied to that: "Yes it is. The people elect representatives who do the will of 50% + 1 of their constituents. It's great if you're the dominant group of wolves who get to elect the animal who chooses the menu. Sucks to be the minority sheep."

    All you did is export your preoccupation with a pop side-bar argument onto my discussion, whether it fit or not.

    My theme had much more to do with "local" vs "regional" government (state level or national - and please don't sidetrack into 'we're not a "nation" but a "federation".' Please). I'm asserting that cities must of necessity be fascist* in function in order to secure and sustain the supply chain of goods expropriated from other people's land and resources. IE, a large urban center is just a colonial empire writ small.

    Freedom as our founders meant the term does not and cannot exist where people aggregate into large clusters because those clusters can't live off the land they're so densely packed onto, and therefore they must appropriate resources from places to which and for which they have no accountability; and, I asserted, because they have no responsibility to first provision what they later consume, they have no nature-delimited curb on their appropriation behaviors. That leads to over-consumption and under-conservation.

    Put another way: where the provision-appropriation link is broken human appetite knows no limits. There's a significant moral hazard, but it's toothless: bad behavior is rewarded in the short and medium term. Degradation follows.

    If you want to engage the real theme of my post, I welcome the discussion.
    ____
    * By "fascist" I mean the class form of government in which governors** use the power of their offices to intervene in the marketplace, directing enterprise to provision according to government plan rather than according to the enterprise's own vision. It is, colloquially, "government management of private business".

    ** By "governors" I do not mean to only indicate persons elected to the position of Governor of a state of the United States of America (if I did I would have capitalized the word). I mean anyone who holds an elected or appointed position of governing authority and power within a politico-economic structure - whatever the provenance of that structure.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 4:17am

    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 139

    4+

    David Turin: Resources for you

    See: "The Good Gut," Sonnenberg and Sonnenberg (Penguin, 2015). Both authors, husband and wife, are on staff in the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at the Stanford University School of Medicine.

    Also: "Farmacology," Miller (William Morrow, 2013). She's a practicing family physician with a degree in Medical Anthropology.

    And: "The Hidden Half of Nature," Montgomery and Bikle (W.W. Norton, 2015). Montgomery is professor of Earth and space sciences at the University of Washington; Bikle is a biologist and environmental planner. This book is the 2nd of 3 Montgomery has written about soil health and its connection to both environment and human health. Bikle, his wife, contributed her expertise to this book's topic, "the microbial roots of life and health."

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 4:43am

    Oliveoilguy

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Jun 29 2012

    Posts: 749

    3+

    Please post a photo of the artwork

    Would love to the the picture painted by the Orangutan.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 6:18am

    #79

    Barbara

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 15 2009

    Posts: 159

    5+

    What's beyond change efforts by small groups like PP? - reaching critical mass

    Time for all of us to start putting our favorite future oriented leaders in contact with each other.  Leaders like Chris and Adam are emerging everywhere with spot-on analytical critiques of existing systemic failure and attempts to catalyze a clear vision of a better future.

    An excellent example of the power of the analytic approach is Chuck Marohn's Strong Towns.  "THE PROBLEM: GROWTH WITHOUT PROSPERITY"
     https://www.strongtowns.org/about
    https://www.strongtowns.org/about  "We Don't Need More "Invitations to the Table." We Need a New Table."

    A more feminine flavor, we have groups attempting to catalyze compassion globally through deep listening , in an attempt to counteract identity politics and growing tribalism.
    Otto Scharmer's U-lab is a good example.  Most of us will feel they aren't analytical enough but they're building a large glocalized network that is making grass-roots local improvements.  https://www.ottoscharmer.com/programs/ulab
    You may find them a bit touchy-feely, but if we want change we need to understand and work with those who naturally prefer this communitarian approach to change.  https://www.presencing.org/programs/course

    We all naturally gravitate to one approach or the other, depending on whether we prefer left-brain, analytical problem-solving or more right-brain interpersonal values analysis.  If you hang out with the processing style you prefer, when you interact with the other style you find while you may intellectually agree with the group's approach, there will always be a lack of resonance, so we have to stretch our deep listening capacities to an often uncomfortable amount.
    I challenge each of you to step forward an do it now.

    There is a maturity stage beyond making the most of our preferred abilities by partnering with others attempting to move basic change in the same direction.  If we can agree on a superordinate goal, such as reducing inequality, then we should be able to work together using our own preferred methodologies. Instead of arguing we should just let each other get on with transformation in our own unique way.

    The term for such efforts is meshworking.  "Meshworking intelligence uses imagination, courage and powers of attraction. It articulates designs from the meshing of the diversities in people and thereby releases and reorganizes new intelligences that are currently locked and blocked in silos of sameness."  Some examples:

    https://integralcity.com/voices-intelligences/meshworking-intelligence/

    http://www.humanemergence.nl/  (select the English option)

    We all tend to preach to the choir.  Time to get the choirs together!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 7:46am

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 384

    3+

    Mark_BC said:

    What I can't quite figure out is if they used Covid as a way to reduce population, then why are they on the other hand fervently promoting immigration to increase population to offset the otherwise naturally declining population of the west? They need growth to fill the new condo developments. It seems all they want is growth growth growth.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 8:13am

    bbtruth

    bbtruth

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 05 2020

    Posts: 42

    2+

    bbtruth said:

    Nothing short of violent force will restore the kind of order and balance necessary for a sustainable reset.  I'm not a advocate of using force against others, but I'm a huge fan of allowing people to suffer the consequences of their actions; which, in and of itself would lead to violence.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 8:32am

    bbtruth

    bbtruth

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 05 2020

    Posts: 42

    2+

    bbtruth said:

    That has more to do with the erasing of western culture than it does population control.  Classical liberalism and individualism and the private ownership of property must be curtailed or eradicated before they can begin a real culling.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 8:52am

    #83
    blkstph

    blkstph

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jun 22 2020

    Posts: 6

    7+

    How, specifically, do we get the world population down low enough?

    The article is fine so far as it goes, but it leaves the most important question - the question of "HOW" - completely unaddressed.  HOW do you get the world population to shrink fast enough, far enough, and yet peacefully enough?

    Eugenics was a nice idea, as a basic idea; but an authoritarian, top-down implementation has been tried repeatedly and always ends in soul-crushing totalitarianism.

    Also, while I don't dispute that the system rigged to encourage concentrating wealth, evenly distributing wealth means - ipso facto - shooting productivity in the head.

    Look, we need to talk about IQ; culture; and a lot of other things which circle around the question of "best practices". Humanity needs a cultural and value change - an "upgrade" dare I say? - more than it needs a centrally planned solution which always comes down to psychopathic kings and politicians.

    And at the heart of this it needs to get clear about what sustainable economic wealth actually is: production exceeding consumption in a sustainable fashion.   It also needs to recognize that some people, and some cultures, encourage wealth creation and some just squander resources and "poke holes in the bottom of the boat":  feeling entitled to receive more than they produce through the whole of their lives.

    If a system has limited resources shouldn't those resources best concentrate under the control of those persons who make the most productive (sustainable, net wealth creating) use of them?

    In the natural world, those animals who can't sustain themselves on their own activity get their genetics extinguished.  So this leads back to eugenics.  How does humanity upgrade its IQ, its wisdom, its culture, and its sustainable (ecological) productivity?  How do you draw those lines?  How do you enforce them - especially in a culture which keeps confusing values, and productivity for racism?  Discrimination is a really, really, really important and valuable human attribute -- when it is properly applied.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 9:21am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    1+

    blkstph

    Excellent first post. welcome.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 9:26am

    #85
    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    3+

    Space

    I have posted this before but it seems appropriate to do so again. It is a quote I read many years ago and have never forgotten.

    "Whether men soar to outer space

    or dive to the bottom of the deepest ocean,

    they will find themselves as they are,

    unchanged, because they will not have forgotten themselves,

    nor remembered to exercise the charity of forgiveness"

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 9:44am

    blkstph

    blkstph

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jun 22 2020

    Posts: 6

    4+

    blkstph said:

    "Men are anxious to change their circumstances but are unwilling to change themselves. They, therefore, remain bound."  -James Allen

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 11:14am

    #87
    skipr

    skipr

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jan 09 2016

    Posts: 182

    1+

    population reduction (not)

    If China could not get it's one child policy to work, good luck getting it to work on a global scale.  The Easter Islanders saw first hand how close they were to the end, but they continued their destructive ways anyway.  On a global scale everything that's not in our face is an abstraction that can be easily ignored, until it can't.  Ecological collapse is the only way I see a population reduction happening.

    Good luck getting it done at the local level and hoping it propagates globally.  If Dunbar's Number (150) is the optimum community size, there will be 2 million such communities here in the US that will be fighting for the remaining resources, especially water.  If you live in a region with plentiful water, better get ready to cuddle up.  If you can figure out how to survive in a Death Valley environment, move there and enjoy the relatively peaceful times.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 11:34am

    Ision

    Ision

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2020

    Posts: 121

    Specifically, Via Disease & Warfare & The Removal of Support.

    Obviously, you use targeted diseases, which afflict the desired segments of the population, as you misdirect and confuse the population, and act to remove availability to any cures and effective therapy...by outlawing them..or making them as expensive as possible.

    As you release your pathogens, manipulate your policies to enhance control over these populations and their political benefactors.  With any luck, most of the targeted population will attribute their affliction upon God's Will, those who do not can simply be ignored, until they become a problem...then simply smeared, charged, and disappeared.

    Remember, there is no need to adapt the culling to preserve IQ, as it is well known those managing the Cull have sufficient IQ, either in themselves and families, or on retainer...and privy to any actual nucleotide serums required for their continued health.

    Should the Culling speed need to be increased, one simply arranges to release more pathogens, or arranges for very targeted wars, which both advances the rate of death, but removes all hindrances to the desired control.

    A few EMP satellites can be employed to great effect and easily blamed upon what Nation one dislikes the most, which is why it is so unimportant to one's future vision.

    The surviving powers continue to exist via mutual black-mailings and forced agreements, until some party displays some future weakness.

     

    I think they are seeking a total population  of about 500 million for the planet.

     

    Evolution in Action

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 11:44am

    Ision

    Ision

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2020

    Posts: 121

    No permission is required...

    One's attitude toward population control is of no concern, as the most effective population control method does not need the cooperation of the population being reduced, nor of that of their government.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 12:22pm

    #90
    Doug

    Doug

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1408

    9+

    Educate women

    There is one time proven way to decrease birth rates: educate women.  The success of this method implies that the more women are educated, the more equal is their participation in culture and economy.

    https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/228/pdfs/female-education-and-its-impact-on-fertility.pdf

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 12:37pm

    blkstph

    blkstph

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jun 22 2020

    Posts: 6

    1+

    Space is like

    Thank you for the light bulb moment!   Considering going to live in space as akin to going to live in Death Valley without supplemental water,  produced a revelation for me.

    After the die-off the spacemen and spacewomen may return.  Those who qualify to go to space are healthy; high IQ; very productive; and very well-balanced in terms of EQ as gauged by the OCEAN model of personality traits.  They are also, increasingly racially and culturally diverse. And they have been battle-tested.

    So space becomes not so much a way to postpone the collapse of the human Ponzi but a way to make it acceptable. Then, if we could only figure out a way to take the collapse without warring, it becomes almost like a best practice....

    This might explain why Elon Musk has suddenly decided to sell all his worldly possessions.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 12:37pm

    #92
    Kat43

    Kat43

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 10 2020

    Posts: 48

    Circadian rhythms

    We evolved over millions of years on a 24 hour day.  Our entire physiology is based on that.  It may make living elsewhere impossible.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 1:30pm

    #93

    Locksmithuk

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 19 2011

    Posts: 120

    1+

    "Growth Is The Enemy".... no, it's not.

    ... parasitic human greed and ignorance are the enemies.

    As for travelling to space -: I can think of few worse things than the selfishness & arrogance of inflicting the human mindset on other planets and/or life forms, before we've learned to stop shitting on our own doorstep. It's a daft idea.

    The reason that ants, bees and reptiles have been around for so much longer than humans is that they're far, far better than us at living - cooperatively - within their means. That's a damning indictment on us as the supposedly superior species on this planet.

    The spread of humans

    .

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 1:42pm

    David Allan

    David Allan

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 15 2009

    Posts: 51

    4+

    Guy Macpherson

    Having followed Guy for 10 years, I have never heard a good argument presented against his case, only name calling. I would love to hear what you folks have to say about the "predicament". I don't want to believe what he says, but still do.

    Hi David, I have watched a few of Guys videos over the years and have a couple of problems with his message.

    1. He cherry picks data and draws conclusions based on extremes. An example is the melting of Arctic sea ice. He has been expecting it to disappear for the last several years (based on data from early in the 2010's). However other analysts see our first ice free summer more likely in the 2025 to 2032 range - and another 10 years till Arctic ice free winters occur.

    2. He is a chronic catastrophist. Last  I heard he was predicting human extinction by about 2026.

    Having said that I think he is more right than wrong. To use the 'over the cliff' metaphor I suspect the wheels of the bus called Human Civilization have well and truly left the ground. The consequences may unfold a little more slowly than Macpherson expects but the end result will be the same - and not just for climate reasons but all the other domains of mankinds stupidity discussed here at PP.

    The jury is still out as to whether humans will completely die off or whether a reduced number may squeeze through the 21st century keyhole that lies just ahead. Need to finish now and get to work

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 2:02pm

    Doug

    Doug

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1408

    5+

    Educate women redux

    After I wrote the above post I read back through the thread and found that Mohammed Mast had made the same point.  No one responded to him just as no one has responded to the several times I have made the point over the years on this site.

    The question is why people seem to not want to discuss educating women.  The success of that approach is demonstrable.  Most of the best educated women on earth are in Europe and North America, both of which would have negative growth rates in the absence of immigration.  What's not to like?  Do good by doing the right thing.  Comments?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 2:39pm

    Adam Taggart

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: May 25 2009

    Posts: 4938

    5+

    Thumbs Up For Educating Women

    Doug (and MM) -

    Just for the record, I think educating/empowering women worldwide is a critical and necessary step towards combating overpopulation. It's also the right thing to do on moral/human rights/and quality of life dimensions, too, IMO.

    Will it be sufficient on its own to bring the human population into balance with the planet? I strongly doubt it. As I wrote in my original post, there are just too many of us at this point.

    But even though by itself it may be insufficient, it is still necessary. Chris and I talk a lot about the solutions we should start adopting if we want a better future. Individually, pretty much all of them fall into the "insufficient but necessary" bucket.

    But combined together? That's our best chance of getting to "sufficient".

    So I'm all in on educating and empowering women, on reproduction and all other matters.

    girl's education on global population

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 3:27pm

    VTGothic

    VTGothic

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 05 2020

    Posts: 139

    4+

    Culture matters

    I agree with Adam's comment, but you know it's all been said...many times over since I was a college Freshman in 1971. And there are a host of past and present programs aimed at it. Last I looked, progress was being made; I assume it's continuing. Seems to me what you're decrying is the lack of virtue signalling on PP comment streams - which is all such comments amount to.

    The biggest obstacle I see blocking the road to women's education/empowerment on a worldwide level it is now politically incorrect to mention. Inequality is not a major First World problem, but a "mop up operation" here. Yes, we need to keep moving forward, but a major impediment (perhaps the major impediment) - especially if we're talking about the worldwide need to reduce population through women's empowerment - is a particular religious perspective that as a matter of stringent faith discredits the full humanity/equality/rights of women.

    IMO, the Western/Northern/First World feminist movement - including in the halls of power and among major media - has done the women of the countries where that religious attitude dominates a great disservice by taking a post-modern, multicultural, hands-off attitude. The movement attacks comparatively minor residual discrimination here as if it were a major obstacle while ignoring major roadblocks and cultural/attitudinal impediments where the few, brave women stepping forward at great personal risk are in desperate need of voices of support, and actions to back them up.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 3:30pm

    #98
    Zana Hart

    Zana Hart

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 23 2011

    Posts: 32

    11+

    Zana Hart said:

    I figured out overpopulation about the time Chris Martenson was born. Never had kids, but found plenty of kids to love.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 3:49pm

    #99

    thc0655

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Apr 27 2010

    Posts: 2024

    5+

    Let’s never forget this inconvenient reality

    Who’s reproducing at prodigious rates while Westerners aren’t? (It’s not Clevon.) So who’s going to tell them to stop?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 4:26pm

    David McKenney

    David McKenney

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 25 2020

    Posts: 80

    1+

    Thanks for your reply about Guy.

    I tend to agree with your opinion about timing; events may proceed slower than he predicts. However if methane increases much, things could go faster.

    I don't see how we can decommission the reactors; it takes too long and costs too much.

    David

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 8:03pm

    JWhite

    JWhite

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jul 12 2016

    Posts: 104

    5+

    The elephant in the room

    This is a very important topic, and a great post.

    Regarding the overpopulation problem, I suggest that it is not necessary for all 7.8 billion people to participate in reducing the world population. Many people speak of the overpopulation issue as if it’s a problem equally spread throughout the world. But the reproduction rate of the natural citizens of many countries is either declining or has been somewhat of a flat line since the last World War. The elephant in the room is the exploding birth rates of African countries. These countries cannot feed and support their populations and have sought, and received, monetary aid from other nations for many years. And yet, I am not aware of any government requiring that the African countries take control of their situation. Other nations continue to give money to African countries and don’t effectively mentor them to help their people become self sufficient and responsible. Other countries don’t effectively work with them to help them control their exploding populations. Offering free birth control for example, especially for every female of child bearing age, would be one simple and inexpensive step, and would also help to curb the incidence of child pregnancies resulting from rapes of young girls, and of child brides. A series of reward systems could be set up to facilitate the goal of population reduction and other improvements, both for the governments and for individuals. These could include financial aid, education programs, gifts etc. But by simply giving money and medicine to these countries in the absence of birth control, education, and mentoring, the rest of the world is enabling the problem to continue.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 8:14pm

    Barbara

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 15 2009

    Posts: 159

    2+

    Stamping out Political Corruption and instituting positive social change has been catalyzed by good government at a local level

    It's interesting that reform worked on a local level in 1910 when socialist kicked corrupt politicians out of Milwaukee.  They ran on good government and balanced budgets.

    Then their ideas were co opted by the New Deal Democrats, who unfortunately had no commitment to fiscal responsibility and were plagued by a history of government corruption (Daily, Hoffa, Tammany Hall).

    onmilwaukee.com/history/articles/americas-socialist-experiment-film-pbs.html 

    So perhaps the alternative is to take our lives back one small city at a time.  It's true that large cities have to unfairly appropriate provisions from the hinterlands under the current system.  Perhaps smaller cities with access to local food and other resources could try such systems.

    Looking at some of the things Milwaukee did local between 1910 and 1950, perhaps there are a few examples of old practices we could model from.  What it requires is honest politicians who can balance a checkbook and who look to the interests of main street, not wall street.  Take a look at the summary on the link.  I'm not sure you can see the full video unless it's running on your local PBS.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Mon, Jun 22, 2020 - 10:53pm

    nordicjack

    nordicjack

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Feb 03 2020

    Posts: 572

    regarding reality video

    Yep, I have been saying this for years. We are dumbing down significantly.  The most intelligent population is having less and less kids and the dumbers are having more and and more.. Intellect has to be receding ...  no other way about it,

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 12:29am

    planfortomorrow

    planfortomorrow

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2017

    Posts: 115

    1+

    planfortomorrow said:

    JWhite, yes, good idea. However, the goal here is to reduce the population to 750 million people and quickly, I don't see where that's remotely possible until someone comes up with a virus that can't be controlled. Oh wait!, Dr. Fauci tried this already, we are living in this nightmare scenario and it hasn't gone as he supposed it would. Darn it. I cannot believe he is still walking around. Peace

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 1:22am

    David Allan

    David Allan

    Status: Member

    Joined: Nov 15 2009

    Posts: 51

    2+

    Snap!

    I tend to agree with your opinion about timing; events may proceed slower than he predicts. However if methane increases much, things could go faster.

    I don't see how we can decommission the reactors; it takes too long and costs too much.

    We seem to think along similar lines David. I agree methane is a significant consideration. The frequently postulated  50 gigatonne 'burp' is a wild card that could erupt at any moment. However the likelihood of it occurring in say, the next 5 years, could well be lower than Guy thinks.  Again he seems to have latched on to the most alarming data and discounted what doesn't fit his narrative. Have you seen any of Peter Wadhams Youtube talks? - he is Cambridge Professor of Polar Ocean Physics and seems like a voice of reason to me.  He concludes also that we are past the point of no return and now and the only way out is to sequester massive volumes of carbon.

    The nuclear issue is also one that has concerned me. This is a bitter pill for those of us who initially thought a collapse out of industrial civilization could see a recovery of the natural environment and a diminished number of humans once again living in harmony with nature. Fat chance of that; We seem hellbent on wiping ourselves off the face of the planet along with all creatures larger than a mouse.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 2:06am

    David McKenney

    David McKenney

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 25 2020

    Posts: 80

    1+

    David McKenney said:

    I believe intelligence was an evolutionary mistake. (humans are the only species that have it) Consider that most species that move around have excellent eyes, ears, smell, locomotion etc. buy not intelligence. Intelligence allowed us to defeat the forces of evolution; we simply don't like those "survival of the fittest" forces so we figured out how to beat them. Thus, we destroyed our habitat or will destroy what is left. Nature eliminates evolutionary mistakes. Always has. The population explosion is a result of all of these things. Let's tell it like it is.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 5:49am

    Ision

    Ision

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2020

    Posts: 121

    1+

    Voluntary Birth Control Has Already Been Tried...

    Your ideas simply do not work to reduce populations, comprised of poorly educated and mystically controlled individuals.   If one's culture and religion and traditions fight against your solution of using volitional birth control, it will not be effective in reducing said population.

    If birth control is then made mandatory in this population by their current government, that government would shortly be overthrown for doing so.

    If you try to educate people in an effort to alter their religious beliefs and social folkways, they will conclude this "foreign" effort to destroy their traditions is simply a plot to destroy their culture and depopulate them....which such efforts ARE.  The schools will burn and the teachers killed by the local leaders with the aid of their followers.

    We tried all your notions way back in the 1960s & 70s...

    The only way to reduce the human population is via targeted diseases...that is...IF you wish to avoid political responsibility for the resulting deaths, which can be managed much easier than using any other means of population reduction.

    Back in the 1950s, we thought of just using nuclear weapons to control Third-World populations...using them here and there...as needed.   Luckily, a unified consensus for doing this never manifested and the idea was dropped.

    Now, with the advent of advanced biological sciences, those wishing to act to reduce our population no longer NEED A CONSENSUS to do so.  It is not even necessary to inform those outside of one's organization of your population reduction plan, or activity.  And, the ability to shelter your efforts in doubt and confusion offer one a concealing fog in which to dwell...let alone the power of having the ONLY cure brings.

    Since most of Humanity is far less intelligent than is required for volitional agreements to work, volition shall not be required of them.  They will simply be managed by engineered pathogens they can never hope to cope with, or, escape from.

    It is true.  The more unintelligent a woman is, the more children they are likely to have, and the more intelligent...the less they shall bare.   Thus, more and more people become dependent upon less and less people to solve problems, create fixes to issues, and to sustain their lives...right up until things fall apart...and Evolution acts.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 6:41am

    000

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 123

    1+

    Inventory Time

    Methane "burp" from somewhere in Siberian Arctic: recent temp there 100--increasing likelihood in the short-term (We Can't Breath)

    Aerosol Masking: this will be tested this Summer as the Sun heats up the surface and diurnal variation churns the lower atmosphere making pretty T-storms and tornado or completely dries out the moisture. BBQ anyone?

    As the arctic heats the lessening variation of temps between the arctic and equator is slowing the jet stream. This in turn will cause it to meander and widen, ("which way did it go George?"--Looney Tunes)

    What about equatorial heating, oops we're ignoring that.

    Economic systems (Capitalism primarily) evolved to benefit greed for the few at the expense of the many, have become very complex and therefore fragile. The inevitable cycles of greed, and or debt which religions have warned against starts turning, not once, not twice, not three times but apparently (according to bean counters) four times. "Who's going to do the dirty-work when the slaves are free?"--Joni Mitchell

    Let the famines begin, loose the dogs of War, but first listen to your spouse and take out the garbage and bring in the mail.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 6:55am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    Depopulation

    State initiated violence in the 20th century resulted in the deaths of over 200 million people. Add to that the Spanish flu which added at least 50 million and you are close to 300 million added deaths.

    That should give some idea of the scale necessary to reduce population since with those numbers in mind we are still at 7.8 billion and counting. We are adding the population of the US every 4-5 years. I seem to remember a concept here called TIME, SCALE, COST

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 7:33am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    9+

    Educating Women

    Maybe they should be educating men. LOL

    When in India I have a family that is our watch(men/women) The family is composed of a father , mother and 6 children. The mother did not want 6 children she only want 2. She had no say in the matter. The entire family is illiterate. They are tribal people. The children are following the same pattern.

    I have worked for over 2o years in India, Ghana, Argentina, and the Dominican Republic. The story is identical. Few of these people have access to the cheap energy slaves that most of us do. ie. fossil fuels. Manual labor is far more prevalent. Land is plowed with animals using animals and wooden plows. There is no social safety net. There is no social security. Social security comes in the form of children taking care of the parents in old age. There is no crop insurance. If the crop fails there are real consequences. A little anecdote; We primarily work with education and medical care. I always go into the classrooms and look at the children's work. I went into a 7th standard class in India and picked up one of a girls note books. She had written an essay about her life. It included stories of farmers committing suicide. Does anyone in the US expect to read a 7th grader's notebook telling about farmer suicide?

    In many poor countries people survive by animal husbandry. Goats in particular are very prevalent. They are a double edge sword. They are able to eat just about everything, and do. Biomass is used for cooking and heating.

    The very first Indian girl I sponsored has graduated from college. She will not have six children. Is it enough? Probably not. Is it something? Yes. If we take some of the resources we donate to China through Walmart and apply them to the issue then maybe a critical mass might be able to achieve some change.

    I am not optimistic. I have lived with the problem. The alternatives on the other hand , which are pretty much guaranteed are not very appetizing. The problem of resource depletion is not so much a problem of the third or developing world but the first world. The US is less than 5% of the world's population and consumes 25% of the the resources. Add other western countries, Japan, China etc. and there is not much left for the poor.

    If you think population is the problem you have a choice to be either be part of the problem or part of the solution. Of course it is a predicament with no solution only coping mechanisms.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 9:27am

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 384

    2+

    Mark_BC said:

    Also, while I don't dispute that the system rigged to encourage concentrating wealth, evenly distributing wealth means - ipso facto - shooting productivity in the head.

    It's not about evenly distributing wealth, which everyone except die hard socialists agrees doesn't work. It's about preventing runaway wealth concentration. I'm sure there are many trillionaires in the world we aren't told about. Reducing them back down to mere multi-millionaires is a far cry from evenly distributing wealth.

    The heart of the "solution" is a wealth tax. A wealth tax is not about punishing profit -- far from it. It would actually punish capital gains and profit less than taxation today does. I'd go so far as to say that it would actually encourage profits. This is because people lower down on the wealth scale would not pay any tax at all. They wouldn't pay tax until they become wealthy. It would be the ultimate boost for Main Street. Currently, income and capital gains taxes specifically target profit -- unless you are rich and can afford lawyers to help you use loopholes. So, essentially, today's taxation system punishes profit by Main Street, and rewards profit by Wall Street. It rewards the freeloaders at the top.

    some people, and some cultures, encourage wealth creation and some just squander resources and "poke holes in the bottom of the boat":  feeling entitled to receive more than they produce through the whole of their lives.

    The best part about a system based on a wealth tax is that those lazy people would not succeed so well as today. There wouldn't be a need for massive social welfare programs in a wealth tax system. Because people would only be taxed once they reach near-ridiculous levels of wealth, with excess assets then being sold off into the market, assets such as land, houses, anything really, would be affordable for everyone due to simple supply and demand forces. But you'd need to get a job to afford them first. And wages and the work week would automatically adjust via market forces to provide liveable wages for everyone who wants to work.

    This all sounds nice but I'm not naive since the only way a wealth tax would be implemented would be by the elites who are in control. Since the wealth tax would specifically target them, it won't happen. Instead expect to see some phony wealth taxes (in name only) implemented which actually just target the middle class and allow the elites to use loopholes to again avoid paying taxes. But it's important to start spreading the message now about what a proper wealth tax entails and how it works so it becomes more widely understood and accepted for what it is and why the current system based on income tax will inevitably fail.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 10:28am

    MKI

    MKI

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 12 2009

    Posts: 188

    3+

    Ignores the basic reality of human population growth

    This entire post ignores the basic reality of human population growth:

    1. Humans are animals. Like all animals, we breed until we fill our environment. If certain people decide not to for some personal reason, no problem. Nobody will miss you. Just don't expect anyone else to go extinct willingly.

    2. Humans are still growing in population, and thus (by definition) have not yet filled our environment. We will only know we have hit this limit when death due to resource depletion occurs.

    3. The only way to restrict natural population growth is a) by force within a political structure (like China does), AND b) closed borders to prevent growing populations from coming in (like Japan has).

    4. Give up trying to "persuade" people from restricting children. Somebody will always wish to have large families. Check out Africa or the Amish.

    5. Give up trying to "educate" women to not breed. This may work for some Western women, but only for so long; for example, when you look at large families in the US, it's bimodal as both poor/uneducated women AND wealthy/well-educated women tend to have >2.1 children. This is basic Darwinian logic, and totally predictable.

    6. If anyone wants to restrict population growth in the USA (give up trying to enforce this over the whole world, esp Africa), the only practical solution I can posit is to A) build a massive border wall with zero immigration, and then B) pass draconian laws against having >2.1 children. Good luck with that! As for myself, I'd possibly go along with A, but promise you that I (and nearly all people like myself) will fight you tooth and nail on on B, with violence if necessary.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 11:06am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    2+

    IQ and Timothy Leary

    Interesting question about how to raise IQ. Before he died he was working on computer software to increase human intelligence  and creativity.

    Perhaps there is a parallel need to increase heart. Perhaps achieving a balance of IQ and heart is a useful goal.

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 11:58am

    JWhite

    JWhite

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jul 12 2016

    Posts: 104

    1+

    Replying to planfortomorrow

    Planfortomorrow – thanks for sharing your opinion – not everyone will agree on solutions as we try to solve all the problems of the world 🙂

    I did read of Ision's solution of releasing deadly pathogens until the desired world population level has been achieved, but I confess I’m not overly enthusiastic about it. One problem is that it could kill me, you, and/or our families. It seems doubtful that someone, or a group, would purposely release such pathogens, partly due to the risk that the plan could also come back to affect them, and/or their loved ones.

    Of course, Africa isn’t the only area with high birth rates, where religion, personal beliefs or superstitions, and simple failure to take conscious decisions results in overpopulation. Since most other countries have flat or declining birth rates, I believe the other nations need to focus a spotlight on these specific areas and pressure them to take action.

    Even the simplest of people respond to incentives and rewards where they can get things they need and want in return for behaviour modification. This is true for leaders and citizens, men and women, boys and girls. And what 12 year old girl would not take a tablet or other form of birth control if it would prevent her from suffering the consequences of rape? What 17 year old girl would not wish to avoid having more children if she’s given birth to 3 or 4 already, especially if they can’t be afforded? I like the idea of education of girls too, although many females in overpopulated countries with exploding birth rates do not have the freedom to make their own choices and it is the man or men in their life who make the decisions. So in poor countries where richer nations are already giving generously, incentives and gifts (and the withholding of them) could be used to motivate and effect change among males as well as females, and made a condition of receiving the aid and gifts. Also, religion needs to take a back seat here, and it is possible to effect this – it happened with the Roman Catholic religion, where very large families were the norm a few decades ago but now attitudes have changed.

    It may not happen as quickly as you’d like, but it could be a good start.
    Peace to you as well….

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 12:28pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    9+

    A Sense Of The Sacred

    Like the blind men and the elephant we are all holding a part of the elephant.

    My part of the elephant is the sacred. I have been blessed to live among indigenous people. It has shaped my perspective in profound ways.

    This site presents a very specific paradigm. It is based on the three E's. It is a very mechanistic view which enables one to make sense of a mechanistic world. It is a map but it is not the terrain nor is it the journey or goal. The human condition, progress(regression lol) cannot be encapsulated in charts.

    Western mechanistic culture has come to be the dominant paradigm on the planet. If this post is any indication it does not appear to be working to well. Most of the "solutions" proposed are mechanistic. It would seem that doing or operating in ways that got us here is not going to get us out of here..

    Western culture sees things through the lens of competition. It is very Darwinian. It is survival of the fittest. I got mine , I don't care if you got yours. (ex. Black Friday) Indigenous culture views life through cooperation. There was once an experiment where a group of "anglo students were given a test. They all dutifully sat in their desks, all in a row and worked the test. A group of Native American students were given the same test and they immediately arranged the desks in a circle and worked the test together. They got 100%. The concept is we all pass together or we fail together. A completely different paradigm.

    Individual property ownership is a  uniquely mechanistic paradigm. It is inconceivable to indigenous culture to "own" the earth. It separates us from not only our mother but each other. The idea of tribal land joined the tribe to the mother. It joined the people to the sacred. There is nothing that is not alive. Everything in creation has its place.

    A Lakota elder once asked me , "Do you know why the white man uses a chainsaw to cut down a tree?" I said "no why." " Because he does not want to hear it scream"

    At one time we walked directly on the earth. We slept directly on the earth. We now walk with shoes and sleep on beds and insulate ourselves from the earth.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3265077/#:~:text=Earthing%20(or%20grounding)%20refers%20to,the%20ground%20into%20the%20body.

    The mechanistic paradigm relying on competition as it does has made a point to eliminate any and all competitors. Those competitors are the indigenous people. Those people who hold the all life is one, that we are all connected, that none of us makes it if we all don't make it. Ishi was the last known member of the Yahi tribe in California. They were wiped out in the 18th century. Tens of millions of Native Americans were killed and the survivors placed in gulags. The Aborigines of Australia, the Maori, the Polynesians, the Bushmen of Africa and more have been crushed by the global mechanistic paradigm.

    Thom Hartmann in his book "Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight" posits at the end that perhaps where our future lies is in a return to small tribal groups. The knowledge necessary for such an existence is rapidly disappearing. We are rapidly depleting the resources all species need to live. We are displacing and causing the extinction of numerous species. Anecdote; I often visit a valley in India called Tiger Valley. Less than a 100 years ago there were numerous Bengal tigers. There has not been a tiger there in decades. There is now a water park at the top.

    I was once involved with a group studying the differences between "modern " society and indigenous ones. We looked at many different elements from, education to art, to politics and war, religion and everything in between. It was really quite striking just in the area the knowledge of the bioregion where people lived. Indigenous people knew all the flora and fauna. Very few modern people know those very important items and it is left to experts like entomologists, zoologists, etc.

    There was a great schism in western thought in relation to nature. St Benedict the founder of western monasticism was concerned with stewardship. St Francis was concerned with living in harmony with nature. It is clear which one dominates.

    The Hopi have a word for the current state of affairs. It is Koyaanisqatsi. It means life out of balance.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4MXPIpj5sA&t=442s

    The Hopi have prophecies about our situation.

    https://sacredland.org/hopi-prophecy/

    https://www.ancient-origins.net/myths-legends-americas/hopi-prophecy-and-end-fourth-world-part-1-002280

    They are well worth paying attention to.

    Specifics are good to discuss but imho the macro means a return to the sacred. An understanding that all is one. That there are many different paradigms and they all have hold of a different part of the elephant. There are other ways of knowing besides logic and reason. Mysticism is just as valid. Just as humanity first functioned by instinct then moved to reason, we are now moving into the age of intuition. It is not an easy transition and clearly painful. Maybe to move into the future we need to look to the past, which is still barely here.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 1:19pm

    Doug

    Doug

    Status: Platinum Member

    Joined: Oct 01 2008

    Posts: 1408

    4+

    MKI

    "5. Give up trying to "educate" women to not breed. This may work for some Western women, but only for so long; for example, when you look at large families in the US, it's bimodal as both poor/uneducated women AND wealthy/well-educated women tend to have >2.1 children. This is basic Darwinian logic, and totally predictable."

    You completely miss the point.  Educating women "not to breed" is almost certainly destined to fail.  Merely educating women in a general sense is the point.  The more education people undertake, the more likely they are to pursue professions that make having children inconvenient.  They are frequently less likely to marry, and when they do they are frequently two income households with both partners doing what it takes to advance in their professions.

    Among my social group are many Ph.D.s, many Masters and virtually all have at least Bachelor's degrees.  There are surprisingly few children among them.  None of the couples I can think of off hand have more than two children.  Many have none.  None were coerced to not have children.  All were the result of personal choices.  The average overall is well below replacement.  I don't think my experience is unusual.  We are not controlled by hormones to reproduce endlessly.

    BTW, where did you get that stat of everyone averaging >2.1 children?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 1:59pm

    Ision

    Ision

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 07 2020

    Posts: 121

    4+

    Concern of Using Disease as Population Control...

    I understand your fears and concerns regarding the use of pathogens for population control.  However, I must point out this technique is already in use, and shall continue to be in use, until the goal is achieved.

    You see, the managers of the "Plandemics" are not afraid of their released diseases, as they are protected from their effects, due to the prior development of nucleotide serums, which alter certain abilities of the pathogen...even though this same pathogen cannot be defended against via vaccines.

    Any such effort to cull population numbers would include safeguards against political fallout, such as allowing the pathogen to manifest worldwide.  No Nation would be free of the pathogen to make it stand out and be suspect, as the managers make a great show of trying to fight the pathogen and provide substantial aid in the international efforts to create an effective vaccine (even if they already know no vaccine is possible.)

    This is just the Confusion Game at work.

    Behind the scenes, the cure for the managed pathogen is used to obtain cooperation and achieve other goals, besides population reduction.   Further, the use of bio-weapon population control is effective to prevent such things as nuclear exchanges and avert a nuclear holocaust.

    As I have said, do not waist your time fretting about population control, Global Warming, or your Carbon Footprint.  Just concentrate on the next six months and what you might do if your electricity no longer works...and do your best.

    The Future will be exactly as it shall be...

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 3:07pm

    000

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Dec 10 2013

    Posts: 123

    Blame it on Fang, that sexy beast!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 4:00pm

    yagasjai

    yagasjai

    Status: Member

    Joined: Apr 18 2009

    Posts: 117

    MA Has Lowest R0 ?!?!

    Chris,

    Maybe you are already going to address this in your video that you release today, but in case you hadn't seen it, I am wondering if you think these calculations are legit? I am also wondering if it's actually as "safe" out there as a lot of people are seeming to think it is. I personally don't, I think we've got to see what happens after all the roits and people being out in the street. But would love to hear your take on it, as different parts of the US have vastly different curves. Would also love to know if there is any further evidence about the virus mutating and losing it's leathality, as you mentioned in a recent video. Case rate vs death rate.

    https://www.wbur.org/commonhealth/2020/06/22/mass-lowest-covid-transmission-rat?fbclid=IwAR0lHV8tyZBgt8lxzr-SrUVAZI_7XVx-h-VzQ4OgHVAyJIzdV8R_sV-P9oc

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 4:49pm

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 384

    1+

    Mark_BC said:

    And maybe the makers of this virus have lots of hydroxychloroquine etc. on hand...

    I've heard it said that the elites plan to ride out the storm in New Zealand when everything goes to sh!t. It is interesting that New Zealand has also eradicated the virus... up until the other day when someone brought it in from the UK. Maybe their extra vigilant efforts there are not by accident.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 4:53pm

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 384

    2+

    Mark_BC said:

    I studied native American culture a bit in university and it seems that they were all killing each other just like the white man did. They at times took slaves from other groups too. The white man just had better weapons and methods than they did so the white man won. The Incas were pretty brutal. I don't disagree with the beneficial connections that aboriginal cultures have with the world at large but if anything, their behavior in spite of this teaches us that xenophobia is hard wired into our social behavior and we are going to be fighting other groups forever.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 5:00pm

    JWhite

    JWhite

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Jul 12 2016

    Posts: 104

    Replying to Concern of Using Disease as Population Control

    Ision – it appears that at this point in time we do not share the same underlying assumptions. But that’s perfectly fine and not everyone believes the same things, or at the same time. If there were some more concrete, verifiable pieces of information to go with your statements (eg. Names, dates, places) then perhaps I would spend more time on this line of thinking. I would also observe that the efforts of those involved in these pathogen releases don’t seem to have been highly successful in meeting any concrete goal, whether population control or any other goal for their country/countries. But if there was concrete evidence of this I would probably also be interested in seeing a ‘Nürnberg Trial’ type of investigation as well.

    In any case you’ve given me some things to think about – thanks for your comments!

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 5:34pm

    Barbara

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 15 2009

    Posts: 159

    4+

    Adam, Thanks for having the courage to confront overpopulation

    Adam,

    Many sustainability groups pretend that it's all a matter of fair distribution.  We know exponential growth of consumption or wealth inequity is catastrophic.    Unfortunately, the underlying driver of overpopulation is a taboo subject.
    It's definitely time to start the discussion and not to step back when we're accused of being affluent white elites asking the poor to cut birth rates.

    Keep up the good fight.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 7:21pm

    green_achers

    green_achers

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 03 2009

    Posts: 49

    4+

    Feedback

    Adam, I have been following Chris Martenson since before Peak Prosperity was a thing, and greatly admire both of your work. I have pushed everyone I could to watch the Crash Course, and bought his book when it first came out. But I have never been able to bring myself to become a subscribing member of this forum. I suppose I should, just out of thanks for the work y'all do. I support a few online groups when there is absolutely no obligation to do so. When I think about it, there are two main reasons I haven't done so.

    The first is that I'm just not interested in the kind of material that seems to be available behind the paywall. I am not interested in investments, I am already as educated on farming/homesteading/alt energy/permaculture as I need be: my lack is in time, energy and motivation. I had my fill of consciousness work way back in the 70s and early 80s. When I look over at the summary of the Part II of this post, for instance, as is usual I do not see anything that seems to add to what we have, but what looks way too much like New Age/Human Potential Movement mish-mash I was so deeply immersed in during back in the day, and which came to have little value to me. I'm not blaming; I honestly don't know what else you could follow this post with. There isn't much I disagree with, but what in the world are we left with? No deliberate, organized, cooperative act of humans is going to bring the population down to where you and I think it should be. Back to that old predicament thing. Find peace for myself? Sure, but I've been working on that for a while.

    The other thing about this forum that is a turn-off to me is the lack of oversight exercised over the discussions. I know, it's a conundrum. Exercise too much control, and it kills the free flow of ideas, as well as making many think you are treating them unfairly. But it is a feature of this medium that when you begin discussing the sort of topics you discuss, that it brings out the crackpots. And that can shut down honest inquiry just as effectively.

    Oh, who am I to judge that? Well, no one, but I know a crackpot when I see one, and you do, too. I received a decent primary and secondary education in a cultural backwater during the 1960s that, despite some really horrible social inequities, gave me the tools to read with discernment, and to judge sources. Is there a "mainstream" narrative that excludes some very important and necessary perspectives, and that tends to protect entrenched interests? Yes, anyone who studies history, current events, and has a background in any rigorous field will know this. But it does not follow from that observation that evil "deep state" one-worlders are using deliberately manufactured, intentionally released, diseases, lying about resources, or cooking up environmental data as a cover for taking our wealth, enslaving us, or killing us all. Just to name a few. Of course, I dare not call them "CT" because that would just make me a tool of the evil overlords.

    Yeah, I see people with various political agendas making terrible blunders with public policy. Hate Trump? Then you MUST hate the drug he recommended, even though whether he says anything or not is almost random. Hate Democrats? Then masks are a plot to enslave us all.

    Would that some of those things were the case, then we would have something besides our own human nature to work against, a much less difficult prospect.

    Well there's more to say, but I really don't want to rant on. I do thank you for the content you provide, and I am trying to convince myself to be more than a freeloader. Can you give me a reason I should?

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 9:30pm

    Island girl

    Island girl

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Nov 27 2017

    Posts: 141

    1+

    The Mechanistic view of the world

    Mohammed M (and others) perhaps you would be interested in this view of how we have come to think in the West, the mechanistic subordinating the holistic. Left hemisphere of the brain insists on what it already knows, right hemisphere intuits reality more broadly, including what could be but is not yet. McGilchrist thinks our culture is too left-brained.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFs9WO2B8uI

    This one is quite a bit more heady - but it ends with the Jewish concept of Tikkun Olam - repair of the world.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtf4FDlpPZ8

     

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Tue, Jun 23, 2020 - 9:31pm

    planfortomorrow

    planfortomorrow

    Status: Member

    Joined: Dec 28 2017

    Posts: 115

    1+

    planfortomorrow said:

    As I suspected this thing was going nowhere. We have so many real issues to resolve in the next couple of years, hell, immediately that this subject could have waited to be discussed. Honestly, very depressing. To achieve 750 million people from 7.5 billion will take a nuclear holocausts and then what does it matter. It's a subject that won't even be considered because like Truman, there is only one real solution or have Fauci create something from his prison cell that will do the trick including cleaning up the waste. Fauci won't do one minute of time put away. Peace

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 24, 2020 - 2:11am

    David McKenney

    David McKenney

    Status: Member

    Joined: Mar 25 2020

    Posts: 80

    1+

    It's the petri dish thing

    Food is what limits any population, plant, insect or animal. We grow until we can't. Our food comes from our habitat. How's that doing? Imagine getting all your food without the use of any fuel, like all the other species do right now.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 24, 2020 - 9:47am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    Island Girl

    Yes. Good finds.

    As the Hopi say Koyaanisqatsi.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 24, 2020 - 10:12am

    MKI

    MKI

    Status: Member

    Joined: Jan 12 2009

    Posts: 188

    MKI said:

    Doug,

    You can read about the segment of highly educated women having large families here. This is concening the USA, but Jews are even more extreme, with PhD women cranking out double-digits.

    This is, of course, predictable via basic Darwinian logic. The vast, vast majority of individuals (of every species) will watch their genetics go extinct. IOW, everyone alive today is the merely progeny of the lucky lotto winners. 99.9% of genetics slowly go extinct.

    So: large swaths of women may restrict their birth rates, and for whatever reason, but this won't do anything to our overall population, as some segments are still going to have large families to fill the gaps left behind by those not breeding. Note the growth of militant Muslims in just the last 50 years, it's crazy. A primary skill they have? Traditional family roles for women. Note it wasn't that they did anything different; they just filled the gap left behind by Occidental women who were not breeding by choice.

    Basically, the only ones who matter in this game are those who have >2.1 children over 3 generations. Everyone else (for example, all those highly educated women who don't breed for whatever reason) are merely not "fit" to pass on their genetics over the centuries and thus their genetics vanish. They won't be missed. But what will happen over time is Darwinian theory shows SOME educated women will figure out how to breed, and that will spread, while those who don't will vanish. It's really not that hard.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 24, 2020 - 10:36am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    Bioneers

    https://bioneers.org/about/purpose/

     

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 24, 2020 - 10:40am

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    1+

    The Eden Project

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eden_Project

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Wed, Jun 24, 2020 - 1:09pm

    Mark_BC

    Status: Bronze Member

    Joined: Apr 30 2010

    Posts: 384

    Mark_BC said:

    Once the masses accept that we have limited resources and it becomes generally understood that we can't actually grow our population indefinitely (if that realisation ever happens), then it wouldn't be too hard for TPTB to do some social engineering (like they already do with shaping what opinions we should have), and make it socially shameful to have more than 2 children. I don't see changing this public attitude as un-feasible to achieve at all, with some expected resistance from religious groups which in the grand scheme of things should be fairly minor.

    Once it becomes acceptable to socially shame people with more than 2 children, it then becomes socially acceptable to cut off the extra government support for such people. In a wealth taxation system rather than an income tax system, welfare support would be greatly diminished because it wouldn't be needed so much. Instead, people would need to go get a job to get by, and there would be lots of jobs. Being cut off from extra welfare would be increasingly financially uncomfortable for parents, with each additional child increasing the discomfort. On the other hand, if you are an evolutionarily "fit" person you will likely be able to make more money and accumulate more wealth to better support extra children, so you would be contributing to improving the gene pool.

    The freeloading people would then probably start taking family planning more seriously and selection pressures would revert back towards what they are in wild populations where the fittest survive the best. This would have the unfortunate side effect of punishing the children of these freeloading people, which doesn't seem fair. But I see no way of preventing the freeloaders from pushing out everyone else's genes from the pool.

    Socially, I don't see any reason why that wouldn't work. It simply means trimming back the Nanny State and switching to a wealth tax system. It all comes down to what our "leaders" prioritise -- if they actually want to reduce population in a humane way.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Fri, Jun 26, 2020 - 1:07pm

    tbp

    tbp

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: Apr 12 2020

    Posts: 261

    Secrets, covert resource-discovery programs, incarnational reasons for exponential pop growth

    There are so many secrets we need to uncover first, before these ideas of population reduction or 'peak' anything (even general/worldwide prosperity).

    If anything, we need MORE free, intelligent, starseeds that cannot be mind-controlled, not less. That's already the main reason for or cause of the exponential population growth (souls checking out the big 5D shift this planet is undergoing), and the reason why the global elitists, currently mainly via the big pharma cartel, want to depopulate using various techniques/tools including vaccination programs (injecting BBB-free children with toxins so that they won't reproduce).

    Resources are only limited on a finite planet until you realize you can tap into the Source of infinite abundance within you, so that you, and each human soul, will synchronously pair with whatever resources it needs at any given time.

    Besides, white reproduction rates have already been tanking for a while; good luck convincing the Muslims to intelligently curb their population growth!

    SSP whistleblowers say we, or a subset of humans, already covertly colonized Mars and have been mining the inner Solar System at least up to the asteroid belt (formerly Maldek) and Ceres. Not for any resources shared with us of course, and that's why some are hoping the new Space Force will allow the beginning of disclosure of these covert programs and secretly developed technologies going way beyond primitive fossil-based propulsion tech.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 27, 2020 - 4:23pm

    n_doveikaite

    n_doveikaite

    Status: Member

    Joined: Feb 01 2020

    Posts: 4

    Nonsense

    This racist, elitist article just killed my Peak Prosperity subscription.

    This sort of nonsense is promoting worse than bare chattel slavery in placing an arbitrary "lesser" value on other humans' experience of life and at the same time suggesting that the undesireables/chattels ought to have no autonomous right to self-determination toward the next generation.  Based on what?  Based on your dogmatic belief that the planet can sustain some limited number of people?  And you know this because history has proven it?  Or because some god has revealed it?  Or because some computer model has suggested it?

    What arrogance.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 27, 2020 - 5:11pm

    Matt Holbert

    Status: Member

    Joined: Oct 03 2008

    Posts: 104

    One of the "computer models" out there has proven to be extremely accurate...

    even though the "elites" did and still do their best to ignore it. Read a few of the books on this list and you might change your mind. While you don't need to agree with the ideas in all of them -- or any of them for that matter -- the contents might provide a perspective that is enlightening. They certainly aided me over the past 2-3 decades in making sense of the finite world. Based on your comment you might want to focus on books that address systems.

    Login or Register to post comments

  • Sat, Jun 27, 2020 - 8:09pm

    Mohammed Mast

    Mohammed Mast

    Status: Silver Member

    Joined: May 17 2017

    Posts: 621

    Education and fertility

    https://blogs.worldbank.org/health/female-education-and-childbearing-closer-look-data

    Login or Register to post comments