90 percent of US Population Reduction Will Happen in the Next 7 Years

THE NEED FOR A DEPOPULATION OF PLANET EARTH HAS BEEN MUCH DISCUSSED AND RESEARCHED BY BOTH THE UNITED NATIONS AND THE UNITED STATES SINCE THE 1960s.

The primary purpose of U.S.-funded population control efforts is to maintain access to the mineral resources of less-developed countries, or LDCs. NSSM-200 says that the U.S. economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries. That fact gives the U.S. enhanced interest in the political, economic, and social stability of the supplying countries. Wherever a lessening of population pressures through reduced birth rates can increase the prospects for such stability, population policy becomes relevant to resource supplies and to the economic interests of the United States.

Much of the urban management class is being seriously reduced by AIDS, which is also lowering life expectancy. Only 28% of married women of childbearing age are using contraceptives, compared with the global average of 62%. Conflicts continue to prevent development investments, ruin fertile farmland, create refugees, compound food emergencies, and prevent better management of natural resources.


It is surprising how little scientific and public attention has been directed toward establishing quantifiable, testable, and socioculturally agreed-upon parameters for what the Earth's long-term human carrying capacity might actually be. Unfortunately, with only a few notable exceptions, many otherwise well-qualified scientific investigators and public policy analysts have been rather hesitant to take a clear and forthright position on this profoundly important matter. One wonders why-inherent caution, concerns about professional reputation, the increasingly specialized structure of both the scientific and political enterprises, or any of several other reasons. Given the issue's global nature and ramifications, perhaps the chief reason is simply "scale paralysis," that enervating sense of individual and collective powerlessness when confronted by problems whose magnitude seems overwhelming.

Certainly the rough-and-ready human carrying capacity estimates of the more distant past show considerable variation, ranging from fewer than 1 billion to over 20 billion. And it is obvious that it will be difficult to engender any sort of effective response to the crisis if the desired future population goals continue to be poorly understood and imperfectly articulated. It is, however, worthy of note that several investigators and organizations have developed reasonably well thought out positions on future global population optima, and those estimates have all clustered in the range of 1 to 3 billion.

I hope my hypothesis is wrong and that various demographic optimists are correct in claiming that human numbers will begin to stabilize and decline somewhat sooner than expected. But this optimism is warranted only by corroborative data, that is, only if the above-mentioned "irreconcilable numbers" show unmistakable evidence of coming into much closer congruence.

Clearly, assertions that the Earth might be able to support a population of 10, 15, or even 20 billion people for an indefinite period of time at a standard of living superior to the present are not only cruelly misleading but almost certainly false. Notwithstanding our current addiction to continued and uninterrupted economic growth, humanity must recognize that there are finite physical, biological, and ecological limits to the Earth's long-term sustainable carrying capacity. And to judge by the growing concerns about maintaining the quality, stability, and/or sustainability of the Earth's atmosphere, water, forests, croplands, fisheries, and so on, there is little if any doubt that many of these limits will soon be reached, if they haven't already been surpassed. Since at some point the damage stemming from the mutually reinforcing effects of excessive human reproduction and overconsumption of resources could well become irreversible, and because there is only one Earth with which to experiment, it would undoubtedly be better for our species to err on the side of prudence, exercising wherever possible a cautious and careful stewardship.

Perhaps it is time that the burden of proof on these matters, so long shouldered by so-called neo-Malthusian pessimists, be shifted to the "cornucopian optimists." Let them answer: What is the evidence that the Earth can withstand, without irreparable damage, another two or more centuries during which global human numbers and per-capita consumption increasingly exceed the Earth's optimal (sustainable) carrying capacity?
 

 

In reaction to the prediction by Thomas Malthus that the world's population would soon outgrow its food supply, a movement began in the early twentieth century to limit the number of births and therefore limit the growth of the world's population. The movement is supported by groups such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation. A number of countries have made population control a national policy. To varying extents, the methods of population control include family planning, birth control, contraception, and abortion. 

In any event, having established a "quantifiable and falsifiable" frame of reference, it is time to make the case that current rhetoric about "slowing the growth of" or even "stabilizing" global human numbers is clearly insufficient. Both the empirical data and inexorable logic suggest that our default position for the next two or three centuries ought to seek a very significant reduction in global human numbers.

Many people will have to die a lot sooner than they otherwise would do. Babies born now have a one in 3 or 4 chance of reaching 100. So even if nobody was born for a hundred years, there would still be about 2 billion people. They would be in great trouble since they would all be too old to keep civilization running. So you need to both drastically reduce the birth-rate and kill people by the thousands. At least nine out of every ten people needs to die and probably nearer to ninety nine out of every hundred to keep the population age-range workable.

The results of such a disaster would have long-term effects on society but until you know what the disaster was you can’t predict them. A smaller population would probably huddle closer together; some towns and farm-land would be abandoned in favour of the best places to live and the best land. People on the margins would move in to the spaces left. So you would end up with the big cities still more or less the same. The smaller cities would be sparsely populated and lawless and the others would fall into ruins. Likewise with the infrastructure — we’d only need a tenth or less of the power stations.

If the disaster was gradual and didn’t involve too much catastrophe then society could continue largely unchanged. Or it could all fall apart into warring city-states, none of which maintain the necessary infrastructure.

90% of the people don't even know what agenda 21 or agenda 2030 is. They have never even heard the term. Ignorance is destroying this land an well as treason by our govt, both seen and hidden. I can only laugh when these elites are NOT going to be in that 10% left standing. 

KISSINGER SUGGESTED WITHHOLDING FOOD SUPPLIES AS ONE MEANS OF LOWERING POPULATIONS DEPENDENT ON FOOD IMPORTS AND FOOD AID.

HE ALSO SUGGESTED COVERT STERILIZATION IN THIRD WORLD NATIONS.

 

SOURCE : youtube.com

The Conspiracy Of The New World Order World War 3 The Secret

The genocidal depopulation plan generally involves poisoning or sterilizing people through the use of chem. trails or water fluoridation. Agribusinesses transnational like Monsanto are often implicated in some sort of scheme to monopolize the world's food supply so it can be easily tainted with deadly toxins. Just about anything that can be said to involve "chemicals" can be implicated in this nefarious scheme: vaccines, alleged covert geo-engineering schemes, genetically modified food, etc. Variants of the theory include those with an anti-abortion tinge who incorporate conspiracy theories about Planned Parenthood, and AIDS conspiracy theorists who believe AIDS was concocted in a laboratory for the purpose of reducing the population. Another variant, largely attributable to Lyndon La Roche, has worldwide nuclear war as part of the conspirators' alleged plan along with a deliberate economic collapse and de-industrialization to force the world back into a "new dark age."

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.