�
�
by Marco Torres
January 30, 2012
from
PreventDisease Website
�
�
|
Marco Torres is a research
specialist, writer and consumer advocate for healthy lifestyles. He
holds degrees in Public Health and Environmental Science and is a
professional speaker on topics such as disease prevention,
environmental toxins and health policy. |
According to a satirical piece
from The Onion news source, the answer is
yes.
�
However, satire aside, depopulation agendas are
a serious matter that many top government officials and scientists believe
in for fear of depletion of earth's resources. Unfortunately, those that
endorse these concepts know very little (or don't want to know...) about,
The fact is, man-made depopulation of the earth
is a ridiculous concept since Mother Nature knows exactly what to do with
the planet and its inhabitants to maintain balance.
�
�I do not pretend that birth control is the
only way in which population can be kept from increasing War has
hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological
war may prove more effective.
�
If a Black Death could be spread
throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate
freely without making the world too full."
- Bertrand Russell
Throughout history, some very frightening and
chilling viewpoints have been seriously discussed by prominent figures who
endorse
depopulation agendas.
�
Some of these include,
...to name but a few.
Ted Turner, CNN founder and donor to United Nations� population control
programs of more than a billion dollars,
stated his advocacy:
�A total
population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels,
would be ideal.�
The basis of depopulation is unfounded, based on nothing but opinion and
conjecture, yet it is a common theme that continuously repeats itself
throughout the agendas at the highest levels of political and social
structures.
The January 26 piece, entitled "Scientists
- 'Look, One-Third Of The Human
Race Has to Die for Civilization to Be Sustainable, So How Do We Want to Do
This?" reads in part:
Saying there�s no way around it at this
point, a coalition of scientists announced Thursday that one-third of
the world population must die to prevent wide-scale depletion of the
planet�s resources and that humankind needs to figure out immediately
how it wants to go about killing off more than 2 billion members of its
species.
[...] �I�m just going to level with you
- the earth�s carrying capacity will no longer be able to keep up
with population growth, and civilization will end unless large
swaths of human beings are killed, so the question is: How do we
want to do this?�
Cambridge University ecologist Dr. Edwin
Peters said.
�Do we want to give everyone a number
and implement a death lottery system? Incinerate the nation�s
children? Kill off an entire race of people? Give everyone a shotgun
and let them sort it out themselves?�
�
Keep The World
Poisoned Indefinitely!
Eugenicists and
the global elite have long advocated for draconian
population reductions over the past several centuries.
�
For example,
Thomas Malthus argued that
the population growth, by the poor, inevitably outstrips food production and
leads to a massive retaliation from Mother Nature (i.e., Malthusian
Controls).
�
His infamous �Malthusian Controls� which are taught to every
first year sociology student, has become a cornerstone belief for many
modern day globalists who advocate population control by any means
necessary.
�
This radical and dangerous idea promotes the
unproven notion that the poor deserve to die because there are too many of
them for the Earth to adequately support.
�
Malthus believed that higher wages and welfare
should be withheld from the great unwashed because he believed that these
two factors would allow the poor to survive and exponentially breed, thus
compounding the overpopulation problem.
Under the guise of population control, and through the precise
science of incrementalism, eugenics has been able to passively and globally achieve its
goal with little or no physical force to the masses.
�
Step by step, simply through the process of,
...we have witnessed the gradual advancement of,
It is the perfect plan to destroy human health,
create zero population growth and reap the profits in the process.
�
�
�
Why Overpopulation is
a Myth
Overpopulation is a radical and dangerous myth promoted by elite and
international societies.
�
The unproven notion, as Malthus believed, that
higher wages and welfare should be withheld from the great unwashed because
he believed that these two factors would allow the poor to survive and
exponentially breed, thus compounding the overpopulation problem.
�
�
�
Overpopulation is a misnomer, a problem that exists only in dramatically
erroneous theories that are not mathematically based and it is simply one of
the most flawed concepts right up there with global warming.
Overpopulation theories are based on myths not science or accurate
statistical correlations or causation principle. These myths are radical and
dangerous in nature to the human species and are currently aggressively
promoted by elite and international societies.
Overpopulation cannot exist in a close system designed to maintain
homeostatic balance.
�
This is what Mother Earth does for us. She balances our
entire planet with all the resources required to maintain the status quo.
Should that population exceed the necessary resources, the earth will
naturally purge as all macro-ecosystems do.
Peak populations, peak resources, peak oil, peak food, peak water are all
invented fabrications by world governments who are always trying to convince
the masses that we are running out of something and need to do something to
correct it. This is simply not true, never has been and never will be.
When it comes to human or non-human studies, not one ethological population
study nor cross-cultural or ethnographic data on more universal patterns has
ever successfully used comparators to establish overpopulation theories as
fact, especially considering the unique nature of human culture.
�
Instead, western social �folk� assumptions about
what constituted population problems are often based on resource
justifications reflecting cultural ideas about what population growth really
is and how it evolves.
"Overpopulation panic" seems to overlook issues such as inequality and bad
infrastructure as the real problems, and it sees people as just consumers
and not producers.
�
There are actually many reasons to celebrate 7
billion. This milestone proves how ingenious we are, that we're better at
keeping more people alive longer now than ever before, and we have more
brains to create and develop more useful technologies and innovations to
accommodate a growing population. Yes, there are still problems of
starvation and lower standards of living for many on the planet, but neither
history nor mathematical logic bears out the conclusion that population
pessimists reached of resource scarcity.
�
Where there are these problems, we need to go
about creating more for everyone rather than curbing our numbers. In the
Victorian times, the world's population was a small fraction of what it is
now, yet there was still poverty.
�
What changed and improved our lives in the West
was not going down from 1 billion to less, but improving sanitation
infrastructure, healthcare, our general standards of living, and taking
advantage of scientific breakthroughs.
�
We should see humanity as a solution
and not the problem.
The extent to which the junk science which serves as the basis for
overpopulation theories and especially peak resources concepts are held
captive by government ideologies (biases) and ethnocentrism especially with
regard to the culturally perceived relationships of monetary systems cannot
be overstated.
�
Simply put,
people are not the problem, but our systems of
government and democracy are.
The earth recycles itself every X thousands of
years and human intervention has never been needed.
�
We have always survived and always will.
�
�
Sources