West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: David Mack on December 16, 2009, 09:06:37 PM
-
http://www.larouchepac.com/print/12763
December 13, 2009 (LPAC)—The official British policy for the Copenhagen conference is now out, in explicit language: Massive population genocide, on a scale that would make Adolf Hitler blush. The London School of Economics, the anchor of the Fabian Gordon Brown government, has produced a study for Copenhagen, released by the British organization Optimum Population Trust (OPT), calling for the reduction of world population by between three to five billion people between now and 2050. This flagrant call for mass extermination is based on the argument that the single greatest cause of global warming is over-population, and that the most "cost-effective" cure for global warming is radical population reduction.
According to a recent OPT study, the so-called global warming crisis can be solved, most cheaply, by reducing the world population by 500 million between now and 2050. Since linear population projections put world population at well-over 9 billion by that date, the proposal to cut back world population to just over 6 billion people, would mean the elimination of 3 billion people. Indeed, an OPT press release, dated March 16, 2009, titled "Earth Heading for 5 Billion Overpopulation?" reported, "Based on ecological footprint and biolgoical capacity data which have become available over the last decade, OPT estimates the world's sustainable population currently at 5 billion and the U.K.'s at 18 million (the U.K.'s actual current population is 61 million).
"However," the release continued, "these figures are predicated on present levels and patterns of consumption. Greener lifestyles in the U.K. could push up its sustainable population; by contrast, if the world as a whole grows richer and consumes more, this will reduce the planet's carrying capacity. If present trends continue, by 2050, when the UN projects world population will be 9.1 billion, there will be an estimated 5 billion more people than the Earth can support."
A later OPT report, prepared for Copenhagen, called "Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost," spelled out London's solution: Place population reduction at the top of the agenda. OPT "called on climate change negotiators to ensure that population restraint policies are adopted by every state worldwide to combat climate change."
The UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, gave its de facto blessing to this mass murder scheme on Nov. 18, when they featured Optimum Population Trust director Roger Martin, as a presenter of the UN's own "State of World Population 2009" report, a document geared to the now-ongoing Copenhagen conference on global warming. While the UN report, itself, makes the same link between global warming and population growth, it is the OPT study and its "Pop Offsets" program of targeted population reduction in the world's poorest countries, that defines the true London agenda at Copenhagen. It is the agenda spelled out, repeatedly, by the Royal Consort Prince Philip, for decades: Reduce the world population by 80 percent, create a global feudal dictatorship, eliminating the nation-state system altogether.
-
Its a controversial topic.. its up to our generation to basically decide whether our species survives or collapses. Our population has grown at an exponential rate for the last 300 years... its obvious that we are reaching the Earth's carrying capacity.. There are only so many nutrients in the land/ocean to support the food chain..and we're taking them out at an unprecedented rate. Until we have the technology to colonize other planets, our only option is to stabilize our birth rate or will will inevitably see a dramatic population collapse.
The only solution I can see is to adopt a global one-child policy. It has had some success in China.. The downside is there has been widespread forced abortions, sterilizations, corruption etc. But really its our only option, there must be a way of doing it ethically.
Maybe offering the first-born free education/health care if the parents have a historectimy/vasectomy after the birth... or giving free education to couples who choose not to have kids at all. The problem is how to punish couple who 'accidentally" have 2nd or 3rd kids... a $$ fine might have to be good enough. The money can go towards green initiatives. The rich get to have more kids.. Problem?? Fuck that, at least they can support the families.. and eventually they arent so rich anymore because the money gets spread out over more descendants. Its bullshit that the poorest families in the world have the highest birthrate.. when they have no hope of supporting so many kids. (I know in some cases they dont have access to birthcontrol.. thats something that needs to be addressed) Obviously I'm against genocide and exterminations... but our current global birthrate isnt sustainable
How can a child-limiting policy be enforced on a global scale? A binding international treaty? A global government? I dont know.. but if there's a better idea out there.. I'd like to hear it
If we don't bring our population to a sustainable level.. Mother Earth will do it for us.. with disease and starvation.
also.. I thought i'd point out that if all humans became vegetarians... the Earth could support waaaaaaaaay more people, every step up the food chain loses 90% of the energy - thats a simple biological fact.
-
Its a controversial topic.. its up to our generation to basically decide whether our species survives or collapses. Our population has grown at an exponential rate for the last 300 years... its obvious that we are reaching the Earth's carrying capacity.. There are only so many nutrients in the land/ocean to support the food chain..and we're taking them out at an unprecedented rate. Until we have the technology to colonize other planets, our only option is to stabilize our birth rate or will will inevitably see a dramatic population collapse.
The only solution I can see is to adopt a global one-child policy. It has had some success in China.. The downside is there has been widespread forced abortions, sterilizations, corruption etc. But really its our only option, there must be a way of doing it ethically.
Maybe offering the first-born free education/health care if the parents have a historectimy/vasectomy after the birth... or giving free education to couples who choose not to have kids at all. The problem is how to punish couple who 'accidentally" have 2nd or 3rd kids... a $$ fine might have to be good enough. The money can go towards green initiatives. The rich get to have more kids.. Problem?? Fuck that, at least they can support the families.. and eventually they arent so rich anymore because the money gets spread out over more descendants. Its bullshit that the poorest families in the world have the highest birthrate.. when they have no hope of supporting so many kids. (I know in some cases they dont have access to birthcontrol.. thats something that needs to be addressed) Obviously I'm against genocide and exterminations... but our current global birthrate isnt sustainable
How can a child-limiting policy be enforced on a global scale? A binding international treaty? A global government? I dont know.. but if there's a better idea out there.. I'd like to hear it
If we don't bring our population to a sustainable level.. Mother Earth will do it for us.. with disease and starvation.
also.. I thought i'd point out that if all humans became vegetarians... the Earth could support waaaaaaaaay more people, every step up the food chain loses 90% of the energy - thats a simple biological fact.
But who are we to play the role of God? If this one child policy is adopted, do you think the elite and powerful will adopt this policy? Hell Naw. It will be the poor and average joes gettin their balls pinched. What makes the elite have this right over everyone else? Just cuz they got money and power? I think many countries are overpopulated but many countries are underpopulated such as Canada, Russia, parts of Europe and Africa. I think its vastly exaggerated just so the elite can carry on with their operations of Eugenics and world domination. Why don't they outright come out and say the world is too populated? Why are they hiding behind Global Warming? Deception just shows how evil the men behind the curtain really are and how they try to play God's role.
-
It doesn't get any more hard core than the government controlling life itself, fuck these fantatics wet dreams.
However some people are clearly begging for tyranny so let them sign a pledge and be bound by it.
-
isnt this part of agenda 21? overpopulation is a big problem, but when it comes down to it the western democracies are probaly the last thatll be hit with a nationwide starvation.
but i think the whole vegeterian thing is gonna happen later on in a 500 or 1000 years, its already known that in 50 or 100 years beef is going to be luxury because of the cattle and human population ratios. chickens going to be basically the main meat on the market.
-
Population reduction is already being put in place with wars, disease, famine and severe weather. Obviously war and famine is intentionally done. But there is beliefs that diseases are gentically modified and that weather is being controlled by Haarp in Alaska to create Tsunamis, hurricanes etc. A more drastic step will be taken if they plan on fulfilling the goals of reducing the population by 3 billion in the next 40 years or so.
-
when it comes down to it the western democracies are probaly the last thatll be hit with a nationwide starvation.
Yes.
-
isnt this part of agenda 21? overpopulation is a big problem, but when it comes down to it the western democracies are probaly the last thatll be hit with a nationwide starvation.
but i think the whole vegeterian thing is gonna happen later on in a 500 or 1000 years, its already known that in 50 or 100 years beef is going to be luxury because of the cattle and human population ratios. chickens going to be basically the main meat on the market.
The vegetarian issue is another control freaks wet dream, the english made the indians vegetarians, gee i wonder why ::)
-
:D
Most Indians are Hindus. They don't eat beef, or pork, and some dont eat any animal products at all because of their religion. Hinduism is the world's oldest religion; it began around 5,000 BC its older than the British.
LOL @ 'Copenhagen is all about genocide'.
That thinking is too simple moving at an unexceptional pace
-
That's simply not true to state that Hindu's do not eat meat in fact Ghandi was a hindu all his life and realised one of the greatest holds the occupying english force had over the indians was the fact that many indians were vegetarians and he realised that made them less hungry for change, more docile, weaker more passive individuals. However I wrote it in incorrectly, I should have said the british loved the state of affairs, easier to control millions when they don't have the strength to fight.
Copenhagen is not the finish, in the end the aim is for complete centralised globalised control of everyone, which is a panopticon dystopian nightmare. These control freaks are sick perverts and i feel for their lack of humanity.
-
I still haven’t heard anybody come up with an alternative to population control... Yes it seems like it is an infringement of civil liberty to say you cant breed, but to demand the right to have more than 2 kids is downright selfish when the Earth has finite resources and there isnt enough food/water to go around for the community as it is.
I understand that the idea of another level of government is scary, politicians are corrupt.. blah blah blah, but its an inevitable step. Eventually ( could be 50 years, could be 500) as we begin to step further into space.. we will have to do so as united as possible... We are all humans, as long as we always divide ourselves by religion, race or even country.. there will never be peace.
We already have several layers of government.. here in Canada its Municipal, Provincial, Federal... each with their own responsibilities, whats another one on top? Especially if it prevents war, enforces sustainable environmental policy and facilitates the distribution of food, water and medicine. I'm not saying it will be easy, we will have to fight to make sure its democratic and our civil liberties remain intact... but we've done it in the past. If we don’t even try then our species is doomed.
That's simply not true to state that Hindu's do not eat meat in fact Ghandi was a hindu all his life and realised one of the greatest holds the occupying english force had over the indians was the fact that many indians were vegetarians and he realised that made them less hungry for change, more docile, weaker more passive individuals. However I wrote it in incorrectly, I should have said the british loved the state of affairs, easier to control millions when they don't have the strength to fight.
Copenhagen is not the finish, in the end the aim is for complete centralised globalised control of everyone, which is a panopticon dystopian nightmare. These control freaks are sick perverts and i feel for their lack of humanity.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.. but are you saying that vegetarianism is a conspiracy? It should be common knowledge that there are other ways of getting protein.. and like I said in my last post.. using land to raise cattle is a waste of space, 90% of the energy cattle consume is wasted.. we wouldn’t need to cut down entire rainforests to create farm land, or soak our crops in fertilizer if more people were vegetarians. We also wouldn’t need to rely on steroid-pumped beef for protein.
I’d also to point out that sometimes for things to get done, somebody has to be in charge. The constant bickering between nations doesn't get us anywhere
Something has to change.. and it has to happen soon. I still can’t believe that some people don’t think climate change is happening and think its a hoax... literally tens of thousands of highly-educated people are working on this problem, but because of ‘climate-gate’ or whatever they ignore the rapidly expanding deserts, the loss of %50 of the rainforests,the rapidly dying coral reefs (the rainforests of the ocean), the mass extinctions of the Earth’s species and on and on and on
Y'know what the definition of a parasite is? Its an organism that lives off its host, slowly killiing it. Humans are a fucking parasite.. its about time we started taking better care of our host
-
No I am stating what Ghandi also stated, that vegetarians are weaker, mentally softer individuals, who are more frail, usually fraught with bad health because they don't get the right mix of nutrients. I didn't say vegetarianism itself was a conspiracy, merely that it plays into the hands of those who would look to control if you can make everyone a vegetarian.
-
There are no state democratic means when a nation signs on the line of a legally binding international treaty. That is a top down implementation where future elected governments are then powerless to do anything about the already introduced global government laws. Secondly new borns in the west are actually at a low level, particularly white people and in regards to Africa, they have so many children because they lose so many children at a young age. The state (whoever the state may be) has no business controlling life itself and when it does, you have no freedoms, it simply becomes a word.
-
it probably sound stupid but what is copenhagen? is is the bankers? top economist advisers? some sort of american or british aristocracy? corporation ceos?
my understanding is something of that sort
-
http://www.larouchepac.com/print/12763
December 13, 2009 (LPAC)—The official British policy for the Copenhagen conference is now out, in explicit language: Massive population genocide, on a scale that would make Adolf Hitler blush. The London School of Economics, the anchor of the Fabian Gordon Brown government, has produced a study for Copenhagen, released by the British organization Optimum Population Trust (OPT), calling for the reduction of world population by between three to five billion people between now and 2050. This flagrant call for mass extermination is based on the argument that the single greatest cause of global warming is over-population, and that the most "cost-effective" cure for global warming is radical population reduction.
Haha, I studied at the London School Of Economics and it's anything but an anchor for a Labour government, not since Prof Tony Giddens left anyway.
No I am stating what Ghandi also stated, that vegetarians are weaker, mentally softer individuals, who are more frail, usually fraught with bad health because they don't get the right mix of nutrients. I didn't say vegetarianism itself was a conspiracy, merely that it plays into the hands of those who would look to control if you can make everyone a vegetarian.
A lot of Indians have been vegetarian since way before the British came in to power. It's not really a religious thing, although when it comes to Hinduism, culture and religion blur into one. Basically, if you're a poor family in India you can usually afford one cow or buffalo to cart your goods around the streets and provide milk for the children. However, if that cow was to be killed for meat or by accident, that family has lost a key part of their livelihood. Hence why cows are seen to be 'sacred' by Indians, as everyone gives them right of way on the roads, because you could condemn a family to starvation if you knocked into it.
-
No I am stating what Ghandi also stated, that vegetarians are weaker, mentally softer individuals, who are more frail, usually fraught with bad health because they don't get the right mix of nutrients. I didn't say vegetarianism itself was a conspiracy, merely that it plays into the hands of those who would look to control if you can make everyone a vegetarian.
Just a side note, don't you think this is a tiny little bit too generalized to make a valid point? :D
-
Ghandi is a much wiser man that I, in my experience, his findings echo my own. i have friends that are vegetarian, family that there are vegetarian, work colleagues who are vegetarian etc and they all seem mostly frail, fraught with illness and such. In fact a few of them, readily admit to the fact that from their own experiences and from friends who are vegetarian, that they would be better off healthwise eating meat.
So make of that what you will
P.S There are vegetarians who call themselves vegetarian when they eat fish, i am not including those lol
-
it probably sound stupid but what is copenhagen? is is the bankers? top economist advisers? some sort of american or british aristocracy? corporation ceos?
my understanding is something of that sort
Copenhagen is a city in Denmark Homie. It is where the world leaders met this week to discuss climate change. The article is referring to climate change being an excuse for population control and eugenics. I think the world is starting to wake up big thanks to those leaked emails and info. The Summit was a bust and countries were skeptical and untrusting of Climate Change and Obama.
-
Tbh the developed world is so wasteful its probably more down to using whats necessary and being more efficient than mass genocide.
-
That's simply not true to state that Hindu's do not eat meat in fact Ghandi was a hindu all his life and realised one of the greatest holds the occupying english force had over the indians was the fact that many indians were vegetarians and he realised that made them less hungry for change, more docile, weaker more passive individuals. However I wrote it in incorrectly, I should have said the british loved the state of affairs, easier to control millions when they don't have the strength to fight.
Read how I said 'most' Hindus -as in most, not all are vegetarian.
Quit with the self-centered victim complex because you know what else is 'simply not true'? Ratcheting up the fictional fear-driven bullshit saying the 'British made Indians into vegetarians'. Check yoself.
Copenhagen is not the finish, in the end the aim is for complete centralised globalised control of everyone, which is a panopticon dystopian nightmare. These control freaks are sick perverts and i feel for their lack of humanity.
You are free to believe that and its a needed perspective.
Governments are an extension of ourselves, they are a human institution and so individual perspective is essential for humankind's survival. Because before most of us act in our daily lives or make a big decision we always consider what could go wrong. 9 Billion minds are better than 130 million or whatever number the Georgia guidestone says.
No one person speaks for all of Freemasonry.
http://www.masonicinfo.com/leader.htm
-
There are hopes and fears with anything government institutions do but you are naive of humanity if you think thats what Copenhagen is 'all about'.
I appreciate all the post-modern oligarch nightmare scenarios being put forward on here and the wider inter-webs, but having less people won't solve the problem of energy consumption. The real issue is how we get and use our energy.
Tbh the developed world is so wasteful its probably more down to using whats necessary and being more efficient than mass genocide.
Exactly.
-
Hence the reasons why i said I miswrote and misread to, I was responding on here while at work, not easy to do
-
Copenhagen is in a long line of things that government has tried to do.
The reality often then not is that nothing gets done....
...and everybody has an opinion on it. But the science is solid on what CO2 does. All that 'climate-gate' bullshit was insignificant. Carbon emissions help cause the atmosphere to heat people! Get it together...
Now whether that can be used to excuse genocide is another story, the fact of the matter is, is that it simply isn't a national problem, it is the entire worlds problem.
The shall be more climate conferences to come.
The word today is: comitology.
-
Copenhagen is in a long line of things that government has tried to do.
The reality often then not is that nothing gets done....
...and everybody has an opinion on it. But the science is solid on what CO2 does. All that 'climate-gate' bullshit was insignificant. Carbon emissions help cause the atmosphere to heat people! Get it together...
Now whether that can be used to excuse genocide is another story, the fact of the matter is, is that it simply isn't a national problem, it is the entire worlds problem.
The shall be more climate conferences to come.
The word today is: comitology.
Dude how the science be well established when the east anglian insitute is pivotal to the underpinning data for which we now don't have because they have deleted or "lost" the raw data".
Read the emails for yourself instead of relying on soundbites about them, here is another example one the media hasn't been playing a lot
From: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 08:12:02 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
<x-flowed>
Hi Phil,
laughable that CA would claim to have discovered the problem. They would
have run off to the Wall Street Journal for an exclusive were that to
have been true.
I'll contact Gene about this ASAP. His new email is: generwahl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
talk to you later,
mike
Phil Jones wrote:
>
>> Mike,
> Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
> Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.
>
> Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't
> have his new email address.
>
> We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
>
> I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature
> paper!!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>
>>
>
> Prof. Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
> University of East Anglia
> Norwich Email p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
-
I havent looked into much of this climategate stuff, from my understanding a few scientists fudged some numbers.. probably to advance their own careers and got caught doing it, it doesnt take away from the countless hours of research that thousands of qualified scientists have done. I've seen first-hand the coral bleaching, without a doubt the atmosphere's temperature is rising.. I admit that the planet naturally goes through periods of heating and cooling, but the rate at which its happening now is unprecedented in known-history.. if reducing carbon emissions can slow the process... then we should be all for it, regardless if its the main cause or not.
There are hopes and fears with anything government institutions do but you are naive of humanity if you think thats what Copenhagen is 'all about'.
I appreciate all the post-modern oligarch nightmare scenarios being put forward on here and the wider inter-webs, but having less people won't solve the problem of energy consumption. The real issue is how we get and use our energy.
Tbh the developed world is so wasteful its probably more down to using whats necessary and being more efficient than mass genocide.
Exactly.
Agreed, but only up to a certain point. Even if we maximize the efficiency of farming etc the population is doubling every 40 years... eventually it wont matter how efficient we are.
Technology will likely continue to advance until pretty much the end of human existence. Eventually we should be able to convert energy with 100% efficiency (Zero Point Energy/Perpetual Motion). E=MC^2. We’ll be able to convert matter into pure energy and vice versa. When this happens, our options are pretty much infinite.. we’ll be able to make food out of thin air.. and potentially terra-form new planets. Probably allowing our species to reproduce and expand indefinetly. I just have no idea how long it'l take for our tech to advance that far..
The problem right now is providing food for 7 billion people, and the population is doubling roughly every 40 years. No amount of nuclear power can provide the nutrients required to feed the population we have.. or are going to have in the next century. We’d have to cover the Earth in green houses
-
I havent looked into much of this climategate stuff, from my understanding a few scientists fudged some numbers.. probably to advance their own careers and got caught doing it, it doesnt take away from the countless hours of research that thousands of qualified scientists have done. I've seen first-hand the coral bleaching, without a doubt the atmosphere's temperature is rising.. I admit that the planet naturally goes through periods of heating and cooling, but the rate at which its happening now is unprecedented in known-history.. if reducing carbon emissions can slow the process... then we should be all for it, regardless if its the main cause or not.
There are hopes and fears with anything government institutions do but you are naive of humanity if you think thats what Copenhagen is 'all about'.
I appreciate all the post-modern oligarch nightmare scenarios being put forward on here and the wider inter-webs, but having less people won't solve the problem of energy consumption. The real issue is how we get and use our energy.
Tbh the developed world is so wasteful its probably more down to using whats necessary and being more efficient than mass genocide.
Exactly.
Agreed, but only up to a certain point. Even if we maximize the efficiency of farming etc the population is doubling every 40 years... eventually it wont matter how efficient we are.
Technology will likely continue to advance until pretty much the end of human existence. Eventually we should be able to convert energy with 100% efficiency (Zero Point Energy/Perpetual Motion). E=MC^2. We’ll be able to convert matter into pure energy and vice versa. When this happens, our options are pretty much infinite.. we’ll be able to make food out of thin air.. and potentially terra-form new planets. Probably allowing our species to reproduce and expand indefinetly. I just have no idea how long it'l take for our tech to advance that far..
The problem right now is providing food for 7 billion people, and the population is doubling roughly every 40 years. No amount of nuclear power can provide the nutrients required to feed the population we have.. or are going to have in the next century. We’d have to cover the Earth in green houses
Then you don't understand the significance of the east anglian institute they are essentially one of the very few central institutions which the other institutions relied upon for their information. What it illustrates is manipulating the data, withholding the data, deleting data, all criminal actions and if they are found guilty in court, then they need to do some serious prison time.,
-
Yes but virtuoso the science on what CO2 does to the Earth and how it works is kinda basic and has been around for ages.
Science knows how plants absorb CO2, how rocks absorb it and the effect it has on heating the Earth, after that there is a lot of estimation as to how much, etc.
This 'climate' gate has done nothing, of course scientists need to select data that is appropriate to politicians.
But what I like about the alternative post-modern critiques like 'Fall of the Republic' is that it highlights how easily manipulation does and can occur. I see it like this:
science is like the bible, its there for whoever can be bothered to read it or do it themselves,
but like the Bible before the Reformation it is only able to be read by a few people, therefore it is easier to manipulate its affect on society.
And peoples jobs are becoming more and more specialized, so people don't always develop a well-rounded understanding on different areas.
Control by some over others is inevitable, because we depend on each other to all do different things.
You realize that there is always people...and growing. Some are born and some are dying....
and People always have the same needs, food luxury, etc
but the Planet's needs are not like ours...there is an ecosystem and solar-system that maintains the conditions for life on this planet.
Pushing everybody toward renewable energy is about long-term survival and renewable infrastructure.
Whether it was engineered this way or not, there will be starvation and death with or without a binding international treaty on carbon emissions...even if the globalist leaders do nothing, the same world problems will remain unsolved if they do nothing and considered only their short-sighted national sovereignty -then nothing would ever happen....and we will eventually go down divided squandering our potential amongst each other until the climate shifts by whatever cause you believe....
But doing something is far-sighted.
My fear is that greed and pointless cruelty is masquerading behind genuinely creating for the Earth & the whole of Humanity.
Over the past decade humankind has turned inward to look in on itself, become focused upon itself...
...when we are a speck in the sea of the Universe.
Astronomers are growing optimistic about there being thousands of other Earth-like planets.
If we can thrive and bubble with brilliance upon this world in harmony with ourselves and the environment we can venture.