TruthArchive.ai - Related Post Feed
@annaban86699170 - Anna
DEPOPULATION: Anatoly Chubais, Former Chief of the Presidential Administration of RUSSIA “The aim is to bring world population of 7 billion people down to 2.5-1.5 billion. Our country (Russia) is capable to do its part at such unprecedented challenge.” https://t.co/fjomSRYXFw
Video Transcript AI Summary
Despite the wide range of opinions among experts, scientists, and analysts, there is a consensus that continuing the trends of the 20th century is impossible in the 21st century. This is because there are physical limits to all types of resources on our planet. The scenario of continued growth is excluded, and the only scenario that awaits us is one close to catastrophic. The world population, currently at 7 billion, is projected to decrease to 25.2 or even 15 billion by the end of the century. Our country is capable of making a real contribution to addressing these unprecedented challenges. Thank you for your attention.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Самом большом разбросе мнения экспертов, ученых, аналитиков сегодня абсолютный консенсус прогноза состоит в том, что в 21 веке продление трендов 20-го немыслимо. Этого быть не может просто потому, что физические пределы существуют у всех видов ресурсов на нашей планете Земля. Это означает, что сценарий продолжения роста исключен. Такого сценария, в той же динамике, и нам известная с этой динамикой, и мы провели всю свою жизнь, этой динамики больше нет и быть не может. Единственный сценарий, который нам предстоит, сценарий, близкий к катастрофическому.
Представьте себе, здесь кривая такая условная, но по сути речь идет о том, что численность населения земного шара, вот с тех самых 7 миллиардов, которые на этой неделе будут достигнуты, к концу века должна снизиться до 25, 2 или даже 15 миллиардов человек. И наша страна способно внести реальный вклад в решение этих беспрецедентных вызовов. Спасибо за внимание.
@LarryTaunton - Larry Alex Taunton
World Economic Forum “Agenda Contributor” Dr. Dennis Meadow says we need: • To reduce the global population to less than 2 billion “peacefully” • A global “dictatorship” This is why I went to Davos. #Globalists are dangerous and must be stopped.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that our current population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They hope for a civil and peaceful decline in population, where conflict is resolved without violence. The speaker suggests that the planet can support around 1-2 billion people, depending on the desired level of liberty and material consumption. They mention that a strong dictatorship with a low standard of living could support 8-9 billion people, but that is not desirable. The speaker hopes for a slow and relatively equal decline in population, where everyone shares the experience, rather than a few rich individuals forcing others to deal with it. These hopes are seen as pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: We are so far, goby, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another, it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way. And I mean civil in a special way. Peaceful.
Peace doesn't mean, that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through force, but rather in other ways. And so, that's what I hope for, that we can the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people. Maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people.
We could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships, they're always stupid. But if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have a but but we want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich, trying to force everybody else to deal with it.
So those are my hopes. I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes. But, that's that's what lies ahead.
@backtolife_2023 - Wittgenstein
Dennis Meadows, one of the original members of the Club of Rome & co-author of 'Limits to Growth' (1972) speaking openly about how the population must be reduced to 1-2 billion & mentions epidemics as a possibility. Source: Muh World (YouTube)
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that the global population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They express a desire for a civil and peaceful decline in population, where conflicts are resolved without violence. The speaker suggests that the planet can support around 1 to 2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. They mention that having more people would require a strong and smart dictatorship, which is unlikely. The speaker hopes for a slow and equal decline in population, where everyone shares the experience, rather than a few wealthy individuals imposing it on others. They admit that these hopes may be pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: But in one way or another, we are so far globally, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another, it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way. And I mean civil in a special way. Peaceful.
Peace doesn't mean, that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through force, but rather in other ways. And so, that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet, can support something like a 1000000000 people? Maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, if you can have more people, I mean, we could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000, probably, if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart.
Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships, they're always stupid. But if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have a But We want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich trying to force everybody else to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know, but, that's that's what lies ahead.
reSee.it AI Summary
Depopulation is not just a conspiracy theory. Numerous figures of authority openly discuss it. The goal is to reduce the global population. Bill Gates and others have advocated for this. The COVID vaccines have caused harm, and deaths have been reported. The predator class is behind this agenda, using fear and coercion. The truth has been discredited, but crimes against humanity have been committed. Autopsy results confirm the dangers of these vaccines. Governments are covering up their crimes. We must wake up and demand justice. A genocide is happening before our eyes.
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Depopulation is a conspiracy theory they say.... We'll here's a thread 🧵 of those responsible and the positions of authority/control talking about it, pretty openly... along with how they're doing it. We are the carbon they want to cut.. We're being exterminated.
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Dennis here speaks very openly about requiring the population of earth to be as low as 1,000,000,000 souls.... Now ask yourself, how will that happen? https://youtu.be/ojK05pVOlhs
Video Not Available
youtube.com
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Here's Stanley Johnson, father of Boris Johnson the man in charge of the "Let the bodies pile high" genocide in the UK.... Boris, along with Matt Hancock et al have literally just euthanasized and murdered thousands upon thousands of UK citizens... https://youtu.be/mTkLkr--R9g
Video Not Available
youtube.com
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
The club of Rome set a plan in motion decades ago.... https://youtu.be/cCxPOqwCr1I
Video Not Available
youtube.com
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Some of the drugs used to "treat" people with COVID were actually responsible causing serious harm...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Billy boy Gate and his chums war games out their plans the year prior to executing their deadly totalitarian fascist agenda....
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Bill Gates here "warning" that a pandemic will happen soon that will kill 10,000,000 million people... This isn't due to clever analysis, it's planning... https://youtu.be/gjAMH8luadA
Video Not Available
youtube.com
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
@profnfenton and @MaajidNawaz discussing how misclassification of people as unvaccinated was used to scam the world into believing their toxic gene therapies were safe.. https://youtu.be/2kqX47zqHnY
Video Not Available
youtube.com
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Here's a Whistleblower in 2009 warning us what the unelected globalist scumbags were planning...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Organisations responsible for the planning, organisation and implementation of a worldwide genocide....
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Bill Gates discussing the urgent need to stop the population growing in order to stop "climate change" it's a con job folks... It's all about control... Watch out for the social credit scores and carbon allowances.. and toxic cures.. https://youtu.be/obRG-2jurz0
Video Not Available
youtube.com
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Side effects and deaths from these toxic gene therapies have been known about by the manufacturers, the health authorities and governments from the outset..
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
The predator class used fear and useful idiots to sell toxic gene therapies to gullible idiots... With deadly consequences unfortunately...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
The predator class is exterminating us... They've used fear, panic and false or corrupt data to con people into accepting their depopulation agenda...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Many tried to warn about the dangers, while many tried vehemently to push this onto people.... The world went mad..
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Something absolutely horrific is happening to those who have unfortunately been murdered with these "vaccines" yet absolute crickets from the deadly "vaccine" pushers...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Lying, cheating and manipulating data in order to hide reality from the masses so they could trick, coerce and force toxic gene therapies into them... Vaccine genocide.. https://youtu.be/GrgUfVXAogk
Video Not Available
youtube.com
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Hospitals, doctors, pharmacists were all paid very well to push this deadly agenda onto the world, that's why they continued regardless of the warning signs...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
The predator/parasite class is trying to exterminate and sterilize us... it's time to wake the fuck up folks...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
A prior warning was given... these people were labelled as "quacks", "conspiracy theorists" and all sorts... They were spot on... Discrediting them was deliberate, it made people distrust the truth...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
The past few years we've literally watched as doctors pushed toxic gene therapies on people through coercion and fear... We literally just witnessed the largest medical fraud in human history..
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Those responsible for what we've just witnessed are responsible for many horrors over the years, they have somehow managed to con the whole world into believing they are in the health business, when in reality they are in the making people sick business.
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
The LNPs, the spike proteins and the mRNA itself, were all toxic and dangerous to humans... We're witnessing a worldwide genocide..
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
People really need to wake the fuck up.... It's time for the trials to begin... #Nuremberg2
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Listen to them when they speak.... These muthafxckers are creating Frankenstein virus, bacteria etc and using the human population as guinea pigs... WAKE THE FUCK UP...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Deaths around Europe and the western world continue to be horrifically high... Notice every age group experiencing massive consistent increase in mortality... Vaccine Genocide..
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Autopsy results now confirming what many of us knew and warmed about... These vaccines are killing people... no ifs or buts they are deadly....
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Does anybody need it spelling out to them... Here you go... This is what a genocide looks like...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Governments, their agencies and their puppets are covering up their crimes by cremating those affected by these toxic gene therapies... Crimes against humanity..
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
The worst medical drug in Japanese history... But but but, it's safe and effective... Yeah my fxckin arse it is..
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Why were governments around the world purchasing covid19 test kits in 2017.. and how was this possible given it was a "noval" virus discovered in 2019.. things that make you go mmmm..
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Why is there a patent for COVID19 tests that was granted in 2020... Which is attached to/part of a provisional patent filled in 2015?...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
It ain't no fuckin theory, these sociopathic malthusian megalomaniacs are trying to exterminate us... https://www.civilianintelligencenetwork.ca/2021/10/30/the-club-of-rome-the-cia-depopulation-program-at-faucis-fort-detrick/
The Club of Rome & The CIA Depopulation Program at Fauci’s Fort Detrick – Civilian Intelligence Network
civilianintelligencenetwork.ca
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
Malaysian Prime minister telling the world, we need a population of 1,000,000,000... That's 7,000,000,000 they are looking to exterminate... You awake yet..
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
The most "vaccinated" country in the world, Chile... Why the hell are all these people dying? I bet an overly with "vaccine" rollouts would tell a story...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
This is what these absolute evil evil bastards have done to us... To our children.... #GetTheGallowsReady
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
@LondonRealTV Bill and his band of merry malthusian megalomaniacs, puppets and useful idiots have allowed this man to implement his depopulation agenda while making millions... https://youtu.be/d40Zhb2J600
Video Not Available
youtube.com
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
@LondonRealTV Why are the people above and other governmental bodies continually talking about population reduction. https://expose-news.com/2023/04/15/deagels-premonitions-for-2025-revisited/
Deagel’s Depopulation Premonitions for 2025 Revisited
In October 2020, Swiss lawyer Michael Lusk wrote an article on his LinkedIn page urging that, in the wake of the coronavirus “pandemic,” Deagel’s 2025 Forecast be given serious attention. Lusk’s article focused on the economic well-being of people comparing citizens of NATO and non-NATO countries. Based on Deagel’s Forecast 2025, Lusk wrote: “In Deagel’s…
expose-news.com
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
@LondonRealTV Despite the proven harm these deadly toxic gene therapies are causing... We still have governments and health agencies pushing these onto people... Serious crimes against humanity are still being committed today... #Nuremberg2
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
In the UK the elderly were euthanized using high doses of Midazolam and morphine... #MidazolamMatt @MattHancock loaded up on doses of these deadly drugs in order to kill the elderly and create the illusion of pandemic...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
These are some of the people responsible for the planning, organisation and implementation of the largest deadliest medical fraud in human history...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
The so-called "elites" are trying to exterminate us... Here's a former puppet exposing their plans... People may mock those who understand this and try to warn them but as you can clearly see they are openly telling us...
@MemePirateer - Rehabilitated_Thought_Criminal 😉
We're witnessing a genocide... The pharmaceutical industry, along with our governments are trying to exterminate us... @Clucky92864053 https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1678518224483131392.html
Thread by @Clucky92864053 on Thread Reader App
@Clucky92864053: 1/THE LNP/mRNA VACCINE KILLS THE CELL IT TRANSFECTS AND CREATES DANGEROUS INFLAMMATION. Imagine that it transfects cells that do not regenerate and you have no control over that. This is not safe fo...…
threadreaderapp.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a Club of Rome member, envisions a civil depopulation of Earth to one billion, reducing today's population by 87.5%. The planet can sustain up to two billion people, depending on liberty and material consumption. More liberty and consumption require fewer individuals, while a strong dictatorship could accommodate eight or nine billion. Visit wideawakemedia.com for similar content. #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Prominent Club of Rome member, Dennis Meadows, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of Planet Earth, down to one billion—an 87.5% reduction from today’s population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have." "If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero
Video Transcript AI Summary
We are currently consuming and populating the planet at unsustainable levels. I believe that this will eventually lead to a decline, and I hope it can happen peacefully. Peace doesn't mean everyone will be happy, but conflicts should be resolved without violence. The planet can support a billion or two billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. If we want more freedom and consumption, we need fewer people. However, smart dictatorships with low living standards could support even more people. Ideally, we should aim for a slow and equal decline in population, where everyone shares the experience rather than a few wealthy individuals forcing others to deal with it. These hopes may seem pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far, Goboy, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way, and I mean civil in a special way, peaceful. Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have?
If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8,000,000,000 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid.
So but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have it. But we want to have freedom, and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But,
reSee.it AI Summary
The campaign to justify mass killings as a necessity and the belief in an inevitable global pandemic are major lies. The population growth is slowing naturally, except in sub-Saharan Africa. No evidence supports the claim that Earth is overpopulated. The same groups behind the pandemic lies also promote fake global warming. Both climate change and pandemic threats are fraudulent. The similarities in propaganda methods are striking. These stakeholder groups aim to curtail freedom and impose digital totalitarian tyranny. We must wake up to the real existential threat we face.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
https://youtu.be/b7lmh5XVRW0 Here you have one of the big lies than underscore the 50+year campaign to persuade us that killing billions is unfortunately necessary. The other big lie is that “virus pandemic” will inevitably sweep across the planet.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
Meadows pretends population is growing “exponentially”. It’s not. It’s slowing naturally. Almost everywhere than sub-Saharan Africa, the birth rate in scores of countries is already below replacement. Once that happens,there are zero examples of countries reversing that trend.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
He takes it as read that “earth is substantially above a sustainable population, while providing not a scrap of evidence for that. At no time in 50 years did Club of Rome ever model the possibility that population might peak & then begin to fall back. There’s a reason for that.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
The idea for a body of supposed experts to champion the ideas that you almost certainly hold, despite there being no evidence for them, came from certain quarters who are also centrally involved in the other great lie, virus pandemics.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
Malthusian ideas have gripped the self-appointed “elites”for over a century. Groups of clever people were funded by the Malthusian perpetrators & tasked with coming up with problems they argued couldn’t be tackled by individual nations. They chose “global warming” & “pandemics”.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
This is why, once you discard the beliefs you hold in relation to these fraudulent claims (that climate change & pandemics are existential threats) & start looking carefully yourself at the evidence, you discover nothing but lies and fraud in both fields.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
On the positive side, many of those who realised that covid was a total scam (for which tabletop simulations have been run for 25y) also noticed the tremendous similarities of propaganda method and narrative enforcement between pandemic threat lies and climate change lies.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
That’s because it’s the same stakeholder groups backing both fake pandemics (& associated deliberately toxic injections) and fake global warming (with its logical but also wrong reach-through to energy consumption & individual freedom).
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
I realised in 2020 that the pandemic was fake, enabled by lies, amplified by 24/7 media fear porn & knowingly untrustworthy PCR-based clinical diagnostics (enabling misattribution of cause of death) & that “vaccines” were going to be used to curtail freedom & begin mass killing.
@HCimiez - Henri Cimiez
You may be sure that this cycle of authoritarianism will continue until digital totalitarian tyranny is locked into place and from which escape is all but impossible, or until enough of us wake up to the real existential threat we face.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a member of the Club of Rome, envisions a civil depopulation of the planet to one billion people, reducing today's population by 87.5%. The planet can sustain up to two billion people, depending on liberty and material consumption. More liberty and consumption require fewer people, while a strong dictatorship could accommodate even eight or nine billion. Source: youtu.be/Dbo6uvJBtZg. For similar content, visit wideawakemedia.com. #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #DepopulationAgenda
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Dennis Meadows, a prominent member of the Club of Rome, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of the planet, down to just one billion people—an 87.5% reduction from today's population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #ClimateCult #NetZero #DepopulationAgenda
Video Transcript AI Summary
We are currently consuming and populating the planet at unsustainable levels. I believe that this will eventually lead to a decline, and I hope it can happen peacefully. Peace doesn't mean everyone will be happy, but conflicts should be resolved without violence. The planet can support around 1 to 2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. If we want more freedom and consumption, we need fewer people. However, smart dictatorships with low living standards could support even more people. Ideally, we should aim for a slow and equal decline in population, avoiding a few wealthy individuals imposing solutions on others. These hopes may seem pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far, Goboy, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way, and I mean civil in a special way, peaceful. Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have?
If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8,000,000,000 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid.
So but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have it. But we want to have freedom, and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But,
reSee.it AI Summary
The Earth can sustain around one to two billion people, depending on the level of freedom and material consumption desired. If we aim for more freedom and consumption, we must have fewer individuals. Conversely, if we want more humans, we may need to compromise on freedom and consumption. The reduction of one billion people is hoped to be achieved in the future.
@10121Ws - WS 10121
𝗗𝗲𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘀 𝗠𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘄𝘀, membre éminent du 𝘾𝙡𝙪𝙗 𝙙𝙚 𝙍𝙤𝙢𝙚, espère que le 𝙙𝙚́𝙥𝙚𝙪𝙥𝙡𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 "nécessaire" de la planète à seulement un milliard de personnes, soit 87,5 % de moins qu'aujourd'hui, pourra se faire "𝙙𝙚 𝙢𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙚̀𝙧𝙚 𝙘𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙡𝙚". https://t.co/4L79IOJQyG
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that our current population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They hope for a gradual and peaceful decline in population, with a focus on equality and shared experiences. The speaker suggests that if we want more liberty and consumption, we need fewer people, but notes that smart dictatorships are rare. They express pessimistic hopes for the future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far, Goboy, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet, that I know in one way or another, it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil sway, and I mean civil in a special way, peaceful. Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so, that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have?
If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. Spent conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid.
So but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have. But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, so that people share the experience, and you don't have a few rich, trying to force everybody else to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know, but, that's that's what lies ahead.
@10121Ws - WS 10121
"La planète peut supporter environ un milliard de personnes, peut-être peut-être deux milliards, selon le degré de liberté et de consommation matérielle que tu veux avoir. Si tu veux plus de liberté et plus de consommation, tu dois avoir moins de personnes. Inversement, tu
@10121Ws - WS 10121
peux avoir plus d'humains. Je veux dire, nous pourrions même avoir ou neuf milliards, probablement si nous avons une 𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙏𝙍𝙀̀𝙎 𝙁𝙊𝙍𝙏𝙀".
reSee.it AI Summary
Elites' mindset on reducing world population is explored in the 1973 documentary 'Limits to Growth' based on Dennis Meadows' book for the Club of Rome. Meadows suggests a peaceful, gradual decline from 7 billion to 1 billion people, ensuring shared experience and avoiding a few wealthy individuals imposing solutions. Balancing liberty and consumption determines the planet's capacity. Dictatorships may accommodate more people, but freedom calls for fewer. The aim is a controlled, equitable transition.
@Inversionism - Inversionism
If you want to look into the mind of the elites and understand the reasonings behind their insatiable need to reduce the world population, then you should watch this documentary from 1973 called Limits to Growth, which was based on the book written by Dennis Meadows, commissioned by the infamous and depopulation obsessed Club of Rome. If you're not familiar, Meadows is the man who said the following an interview... You are the carbon they want to reduce. "I hope this occurs in a civilized approach. I imply in a non-public approach. A peaceable approach, however peace does not imply everyone seems to be joyful. But it surely does imply that the street has been resolved by different means, not violence, which is what I imply. So there are 7 billion folks proper now however “We’re going to have 1 billion folks. We now have to return down. I hope it occurs slowly and evenly.” "The planet can support something like 1 billion people, maybe 2 billion depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people, I mean we could have 8 or 9 billion probably, if we have a strong dictatorship which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always so stupid, but if you had a smart one and a low standard of living.. but....but... we want to have freedom and so we're going to have a billion people, and we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich trying to force everybody else to deal with it"
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses the concept of growth and its impact on the world. It highlights the finite nature of resources and the need for balance between human activities and nature. The study conducted by the Club of Rome concludes that continued growth will lead to crises such as pollution, resource depletion, and food shortages. The video explores different scenarios and the potential consequences of growth, including collapse and instability. It suggests that a shift away from the emphasis on material goods and economic growth is necessary to create a more sustainable and equitable world. The video emphasizes the importance of informed decision-making, political action, and individual responsibility in shaping a better future.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Our riches and our numbers burden the world.
Speaker 1: If you remember the dramatic pictures taken by the Apollo fires of the Earth standing out in space all by itself, No one after seeing that could deny that the world is finite. Then it's impossible for people to go out and saying, We have an infinite supply of air, an infinite supply of water, an infinite supply of minerals. Man must Learn to balance his activities in nature against the regenerative power of nature Or he is inevitably going to join the, tyrannosaurus in extinction.
Speaker 0: As we grow richer, there is rising concern about pollution, Our ability to feed a growing population, and fears that we may run out of fuel and metals.
Speaker 2: A computer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has been used to look at these problems. To analyze, in broad terms, the direction in which our world is headed. Sponsored by a group of businessmen and academics, the Club of Rome, its conclusions are revolutionary.
Speaker 3: The most important lesson is that we're near the end of our development of society, which we've been going on for about 2000 years, That we've reached levels of prosperity, which carry the seeds of disruption and necessitate a complete relook at the whole world's social, political
Speaker 4: It's telling us that the world is in a completely unstable situation and is likely to fall to pieces if it doesn't stop growing.
Speaker 5: Let's put it bluntly. Our option is not between this kind of society, present society and a stable state society. It is between a stable state society and chaos.
Speaker 2: The world is 6,000,000,000 years old. That is unimaginable. So think of it as a week. All through Sunday and most of Monday Nothing much happens. Late Monday night, a cell divides.
Life has begun. Through Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and most of Saturday, life becomes more complex and more beautiful. In a barren Universe, Life on Earth is being sustained by an increasingly stable and complex biology. At tea time on Saturday, it is the age of the reptiles. At 3 minutes to midnight man appears.
One second before midnight, Man the hunter, becomes man the farmer. At 1 40th of a second midnight, The industrial revolution begins.
Speaker 0: It is now midnight. In that last 40th of a second, we have started to get richer to never increasing rate. Growth is explosive population now doubles in 30 years. Man now uses twice as much energy as he did 15 years ago. And industrial production has nearly tripled in the last 15 years.
Speaker 2: During this program, men on the earth will consume 200,000 tons of petroleum and 200,000 tons of coal, produce 2,000 motor cars, and use 400,000,000 kilowatts of electricity.
Speaker 0: If we use known stocks at present rates, there will be no copper left in 2008. No zinc in 1995, no tin in 1989 and no mercury in 1985. There will be no silver Without which we cannot make films in 1987.
Speaker 2: Today we consume more than yesterday. Our children, if they live as we do, we use up resources more than twice as fast as we do.
Speaker 0: Our grandchildren might need twice as much oil as we found in Alaska just to meet their increased needs for 1 year.
Speaker 2: Such growth threatens to use up all the resources the Earth has to offer us. Such are the enormous needs of the industrial society in progress.
Speaker 4: The industrial revolution has consumed vast quantities of fossil fuels, for example, and now there aren't many left And it's as simple as that. If you have a kind of society which is going to eat the the very planet we're on, eat it up, consume it, you will find that there's nothing left.
Speaker 2: Our industry, the way we make things, attacks the fabric and stability of nature, The ecosystem on which all life, including man, depends.
Speaker 6: It has been developed to exploit the ecosystem Without taking into account its continued existence. And our new technologies tend to disrupt ecological cycles, to break them, to intrude, harmful, unnatural materials on them, and, therefore, to destroy the base of its own existence. Because of that, we are on a suicidal course.
Speaker 0: We are faced by dilemmas. Industry cannot exist without the raw materials it must use up. Nor can it function without the natural world that it may be destroying. So great is our progress that it may push the Earth to its limits and beyond. We threaten a confrontation with nature.
Progress to that confrontation is speeding up.
Speaker 7: What we're really being told is that although nobody knows for sure exactly when it will happen or exactly what risk is the greatest risk man's face, man faces, scientists are fairly unanimous in saying that man does face extremely important risks. When global population is doubling every 33 years, when resource consumption is doubling every 20 years, No long term view of
Speaker 8: mankind can proceed without first forming some preliminary answers to these questions.
Speaker 2: Professor Dennis Meadows, at a conference in Washington to mark the publication of his team study for the club of Rome, the limits to growth, It concludes that economic growth always generates a crisis, that the road to riches is the road to disaster.
Speaker 0: Even if we solve problems like pollution, growth within a century or so would lead to widespread famine and social chaos. Dennis Meadows and his team used a computer. He explains why.
Speaker 8: With system dynamics, a methodology that we use, we Organize the available information on the relationships in some system, and then we express these mathematically and put them into a computer to calculate the results. It's possible for men to perceive the individual relationships in a system, But very difficult indeed without any assistance from a computer to understand what their implications will be when they interact.
Speaker 2: At first sight, there doesn't seem to be much relationship between farming and industry, but industry produces pollution and pollution affects crops, So a change in industry, affects farming via pollution. The man made world consists of a whole complex of subtle relationships like that. Change one thing, and it sets up a slow and complicated chain reaction.
Speaker 0: The equations in the computer define these relationships. So the computer can show how one thing affects everything else, not only immediately, but over many years. The runs on the computer show how these things would interact and affect man's future. They used the computer to see what would happen if man successfully tackled his obvious problems If he grew more food, found more natural resources and control pollution
Speaker 2: But first they run the computer to see what direction the world would take if it ran its present course
Speaker 0: As the century unfolds, industry grows, as does food production and population. But we're using up all our raw materials, the limited metals and fuel in the earth. These run out. Without fuel and metals for the factories, industry collapses. Farming has become highly mechanized, and without petrol and electricity, food production falls too.
There's no food and massive unemployment, so the population falls. People are dying. Dennis Meadows explains.
Speaker 8: Because of the high population levels and the increasing industrialisation, natural resources are depleted at an increasing rate. And finally, they fall down to the point where the industrial system can no longer be sustained.
Speaker 2: What might this mean in human terms to the average Western family. Over 50 years or more, we get richer, we consume more and more resources. Things like gas and electricity. When essential raw materials like oil and copper run out, Civilized life ends.
Speaker 0: If we go on as we are, society collapses because we run out of metals and fuel. Growth is halted by a resource crisis.
Speaker 2: Science and technology could help us here. We might find new sources of fuel, use nuclear power, or harness the energy of the sun to replace oil and coal. Metals could be used more carefully. We could save and sort out our scrap. We might find substitutes for scarce metals.
So they run the computer to see what would happen, If we solve the resources problem that caused the crisis in the first run.
Speaker 0: This time natural resources used carefully run down slowly But industry continues to grow. This industrial growth produces a serious pollution problem. Pollution attacks both people and plants crops cannot grow and farming starts to fail. The population starts to collapse when people die of hunger and pollution. Industry, without a workforce, collapses, too.
Speaker 8: But now pollution is permitted to rise because industrialization goes further. And finally, pollution begins to impair the lifetime of the people and the productivity of the agricultural sector.
Speaker 2: This time then, growth is not stopped by a resource crisis. Our family grows richer, consuming more and more goods. But the factories producing these goods are also producing pollution. This time, it is pollution that holds growth in catastrophe.
Speaker 0: To keep growing, we need more raw materials. If we find those materials, growth continues till we die of pollution.
Speaker 2: But we could control pollution. Indeed, we are already beginning to do so. We know how to clean up our water and air. The pollution created by technology can be restrained by technology. So in the next run, they assumed not only that we had solved our raw materials difficulties, but that we had controlled pollution as well.
Speaker 0: So resources still run down slowly. Industry can expand. Pollution, now controlled, doesn't become a problem. Growth is progressing. But this time the population grows so large that food becomes a problem.
Food production cannot keep pace with population. People starve, and industrial society collapses.
Speaker 8: In this case, the land resources become insufficient, pressure on the land begins to lead to land deterioration. And finally, food per capita collapses and brings about a population decline.
Speaker 2: This time the problem is food. Growth provides us with increasing wealth, but as the population grows Food becomes more and more expensive. The growing food shortage turned slowly to famine.
Speaker 0: So if growth is not halted by pollution or a resource shortage. It is halted by a food crisis.
Speaker 2: But there could be a solution to that too, the green revolution Scientists have been able to double and even treble yields. We can grow more food. So on the next run, as well as pollution controls and a careful use of resources, They assumed that food production could be doubled.
Speaker 0: Resources still used carefully fall slowly. Pollution still controlled is no problem And now food production, backed by the green revolution, rises. The system is experiencing explosive growth. The lines go off the graph. This growth of industry is so huge and rapid that it suddenly generates a pollution problem despite pollution controls And the industry and the population collapses.
Speaker 8: Because land is no longer a limit to growth, Industrialization rises to the point where even with the pollution control measures we had before, pollution becomes a very serious problem, And again brings about the collapse.
Speaker 0: So if we control pollution, conserve natural resources and grow more food, Growth is still halted by a pollution problem.
Speaker 2: Technical solutions are not sufficient. Revolution control, resource conservation, and the Green Revolution serve only to postpone or worsen the crises. The obvious is not enough.
Speaker 8: The runs illustrate very succinctly that Pollution, natural resource depletion are not problems themselves. The problem is growth in a finite world. So long as we ignore that fact and Rely on growth over the short term to solve our problems, overshoot and collapse of the form, which we see in the world model, seems to us to be absolutely inevitable.
Speaker 0: Famine, pollution, and scarcity are not really problems. They are symptoms symptoms of growth.
Speaker 2: But what about population? Was instability due to the pressures of population growth? A population that doubles every 30 years, that adds 70,000,000 extra human beings to the planet every year? They ran the computer to investigate what would happen if nothing but population were controlled
Speaker 0: population is stabilized. Only 2 children per family. Industrial production and food production surge ahead and pollution rises, too. The system is growing, But again, industry uses too many resources which run out, bringing down the system yet again. Even with population controlled, Growth brings us up against a resources problem.
Speaker 2: So population control is not sufficient either. They made other runs on the computer. Different combinations of policies. However they juggled population controls, with pollution controls, with resource conservation, with food production, the result was a breakdown. A breakdown that implies millions of deaths and the collapse of civilized life.
What had been the reaction of informed opinion to this study and its bleak prognosis?
Speaker 7: I think the study makes an important contribution to the environmental dialogue. It points up some of the fundamental issues that man is going to have to grapple with if he's going to survive and continue to improve his position on this planet.
Speaker 9: I think this has two Important advantages over other studies in this field, and have been many other studies, the first is that the computer allows you to handle a very complex situation, an enormous number of interrelated effects, So complex that one could not grasp all these within 1 human mind, but the computer can handle those easily and Explore the way they react upon each other and how they evolve, that's the first point. Second point I think is that because you have to put it into a computer, you have to get all your assumptions out on the table And that means that the thing is very precise, and if someone doesn't like the model or assumptions, they can see Exactly what bits I don't like and take those out and put their own in.
Speaker 0: Skeptics say forecasts of doom are the result of doomsday assumptions. Make different assumptions, change the equations a little, you would produce very different results. If you put nonsense into a computer, they say, You get nonsense out.
Speaker 8: I think that's a very reasonable response. The question comes, of course, is it possible to put something into the computer which can be defended as reasonable, which alters the conclusions. I'm rather confident that while in the precise nature of our conclusions, There will ultimately be made changes that the general conclusions, the fact that growth has a tendency to resolve itself through collapse. Those conclusions are simply not going to be altered by any reasonably defensible additions to the model.
Speaker 2: The computer does not predict. It sketches the direction in which our world is moving. It clarifies some of the conflicts between the natural and the man made world. Nature is balanced. Tamper with one part of it, and the complex and unexpected will turn up in another part.
That is what the study shows.
Speaker 0: Technological societies, too, are highly interconnected. Intervention in one part increasing say food production may have unexpected and unfortunate results elsewhere.
Speaker 2: It doesn't prophesy, but it does give us a new way of seeing the world. It is showing us how and why some of our most serious problems interrelate.
Speaker 0: The model is simple. The world is complex. The crude predictions we see in the study would appear in the world in much more complex ways. The real event, if it happens, would certainly be more complicated, and different kinds of countries are vulnerable in different ways.
Speaker 8: It seems obvious to us that decline, if it does come, will be experienced at different times and in different ways In various societies, the United States might conceivably have a natural resource problem, while Japan could conceivably fail to cure its pollution problems and be led into difficulty that way. Some of the less industrialized areas at the same time might be having a food crisis.
Speaker 4: The world is running out of many things that it needs. Fossil fuel for example is the classic example, but food. We are very very short of food and we have 2 thirds of the world under marriage to prove it.
Speaker 0: A report from the World Bank reads.
Speaker 2: What are we to say of a world in which millions of people are faced with day to day deprivations, that degrade human dignity to levels which no statistics can adequately describe.
Speaker 8: Many, many millions of people already starved to death in the world. Pollution is killing people, not very many. The health of a large number of urban dwellers are Being, is being decreased because of environmental deterioration.
Speaker 0: There is authoritative and growing evidence that we are polluting the planet.
Speaker 6: Generations will never take the sun. Year to 2000, early submission could melt the polar ice cap, Placing most of the left of
Speaker 7: the city in an adversity, a punitive situation.
Speaker 1: It turned out that the drinking water of the city in Buffalo, New York 9 preshipping amounts of nitric oxide. We don't know how heavily blue Perhaps it's related to people who breathe the dust.
Speaker 2: Is there evidence that the base forces shown in the model, are already at work in the world today? Some would say so, and go further. See the symptoms of growth in Vietnam and Bangladesh, in crime rates, and the state of the world's great cities.
Speaker 4: You look at the, the city. In America already, the city is falling apart from the center outwards So that, you can't walk in the center of the big American cities without, running great physical risks. They're covered in concrete, in cars. The poorer people can't get out of the center and therefore form ghettos, the problems are overwhelmingly bad. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the troubles we see are all part of this business of an overloaded society that doesn't know how to conduct itself any longer.
Speaker 1: We have to
Speaker 6: begin to solve
Speaker 1: the problem of drug abuse in this country right now.
Speaker 4: These are all symptoms of what Meadows is talking about, in my opinion. They're symptoms of instability, and that is what Meadows model is telling us.
Speaker 10: If one looks at the whole world, it is becoming better cultivated and more fully peopled than anciently. All places are now accessible, all open to commerce. And where once were hardly solitary cottages are now large cities. What most frequently meets our view is our teeming population. Our numbers are burdensome to the world, whilst nature fails in affording us her usual sustenance.
Our wants grow more and more keen and our complaints more bitter in all mouths. In every deed, Pestilence, famine and wars have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as a means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race.
Speaker 2: Those words, were an eyewitness report made during the decline of the Roman Empire.
Speaker 0: A dark age is followed. If this study is right, then our society is threatened. No one knows when or how, but if it does mirror the world, if we can see in our problems the stresses of growth, then the world is unstable. Growth, it seems, has an awful logic.
Speaker 5: It is so obvious in a way, so simple To consider that we cannot continually and exponentially grow as we are doing now, nothing in the world, Nothing in life grows continuously.
Speaker 0: Growth leads to crisis.
Speaker 2: What then if we stopped getting richer?
Speaker 8: We're not talking so much about certainties as about risks which no modern society really should be willing to bear. It's almost as though one were playing Russian roulette, and there were a 20 chamber gun with 5 different kinds of bullets. One question could be, what kind of bullet is it that's going to get you? It seems to me a more appropriate question is do we even want to play Russian roulette?
Speaker 2: Is there an alternative to Russian roulette? Is it possible to produce a stable world? Were there policies which would create equilibrium a balanced world? They found that if you controlled everything including industrial production no crisis emerged but this assumes that we will stop getting richer.
Speaker 0: Population was stabilized by effective birth control from 1975. Food production is stabilized using modern techniques at a high level. The key factor, industrial growth, was levelled off in 1975, too, enabling pollution, also carefully controlled, to be kept within bounds. Resources carefully used are falling gradually.
Speaker 8: When these are implemented in 70, we see that the world system is capable of moving into a equilibrium society, a stable state system, which can be sustained as long as we analyze it, through the computer.
Speaker 2: What is being suggested Is that the only way to ensure the future for our grandchildren is to stop getting richer? Only then will there be the resources and the unpolluted world that they will need to survive.
Speaker 4: The classic assumption that economic growth was what society had to do is being proven wrong. It is obvious that our instabilities are caused by this Endless, attempt to increase output, call it just output. Now our attempts have got to be directed to looking after people who haven't got anything and to reorganize reorganizing our own society so that, it doesn't have this built in instability, which we now have because of the growth phenomenon.
Speaker 0: But we expect to get richer. Growth promises a better tomorrow. We all, the trade unionists, the politicians, the businessmen, all expect growth. But because we expect more, we are careless of what we have, Much of it. We junk.
Speaker 2: 70% of this tip should not be here. Here are the metals that we grow short of. Here is the oil we transformed into plastic. Here ends the forest we turned into paper. Resources our children may need, used to wrap up
Speaker 0: our food, to pretty our shopping.
Speaker 2: Nor has wealth solved many of our social problems. Tempted by the trivia of affluence, there's not enough money for housing or the poor.
Speaker 0: Often, old ecologically sound things like soap, wool, and glass have been replaced by detergents, synthetic fibres and plastics. The new ways not only pollute but use up resources we cannot replace. Detergents, for example, pollute rivers and use up oil.
Speaker 2: The benefits of growth are obvious. The costs obscure. At first, growth seems fine. Take the motor car for example. Motor cars provide an escape route from the concrete cities into the countryside.
They have provided 1,000,000 with the opportunity to travel, to explore, visit their friends.
Speaker 0: Congested ride. Too many cars have destroyed the very freedom that the motor car gave us. Now there's only 65 yards of road for each of Britain's motor cars. London's motorway plan will cost 2,000,000. That money could house 2 and a half 1000000 people and build 200 new schools.
Lead is a scarce metal. 40% of the world's lead production is added to petrol.
Speaker 2: A quarter of London is road.
Speaker 0: Vehicles produce 60% of our air pollution.
Speaker 2: Half of our children will have a car accident.
Speaker 0: Each year, accidents cost £320,000,000 and 7,000 lives.
Speaker 2: A car driven from lands end to generates as much oxygen as a man in a lifetime.
Speaker 0: To manufacture a car requires a 100,000 gallons of water. Each of these cars has used 2,500 pounds of steel, 54 pounds of zinc, £51 of lead, £32 of copper and some aluminium.
Speaker 2: When the study talks of equilibrium, It is talking about halting this kind of growth. The kind that consumes resources and pollutes the environment. But what would equilibrium be like for people?
Speaker 3: I think it could be extremely pleasant. We're not suggesting a deterioration of material standards as being necessary to an extent, which should in fact frighten many people. Many things can be organized great deal better materially now. For example, the cluttering of cities with cars, it's disadvantageous as great as its advantages. But I think that there is a possibility, the world has the possibilities with a little better distribution and organization or providing a decent life with flexibility and freedom for people.
But with enormous possibilities of leisure, social development, Artistic development. I think it could easily be a much, much richer life than we have today.
Speaker 8: There's going to have to be a shift away from an emphasis on material goods to 1 on the social services. There has to be a shift which views man as part of a total system rather than as man, a person who has been given a system for his exploitation.
Speaker 0: But the idea and dynamic of growth are deeply embedded in society. To stop it challenges some of the basic assumptions we make about ourselves and the world we live in.
Speaker 8: Alright.
Speaker 6: So, any any time We're gonna hire anybody
Speaker 2: Business is firmly based on the assumption of growth. To produce profit, to reinvest, and grow is quite literally its business.
Speaker 11: Juan, you in at 7900. Hello? How are you going to do that? For sale 600. 250 for sale.
Speaker 0: The poor of the world look to economic growth for a way out of their poverty And there's starvation.
Speaker 2: And for us, in the West, It gives us the increasing standard of living we've grown to expect. Our science and technology too, have been harnessed in the service of growth.
Speaker 0: Can such powerful drives, economic and political, social and personal, that support the idea of growth be redirected? What kind of changes must be made in our economic system, in our politics, in our minds how do we organize the world without growth?
Speaker 2: What must we change? Growth since the war has been created by improved technologies. They have provided us with cheaper goods and industrialists with larger profits. But the impact of science was one-sided. Most ecologists, including those with reservations about the study, agree on this.
Speaker 6: Most of the ecological difficulties that we face in United States, and I'm sure it's true in Britain too, have developed as a result of technological transformation since World War 2. This is the period in which the environmental crisis has become so intense. Now during that period, the US and, I think, also Britain Engaged in a very intense research program in biology and medicine. An unprecedented of unprecedented size and intensity. And so here we were, with an unprecedented research effort in biology.
And all the while, the biological system, on which we depend was being degraded without our being aware of it.
Speaker 0: Scientists were taking apart the world and looking at the parts. Industry, technology, took that knowledge and exploited it. But nobody was looking at what was happening to the whole system, at what the effect of these changes would eventually be. It was, quite simply, nobody's job.
Speaker 6: The main thing, I think, is that it's the dismemberment of science into isolated specialties and their failure to develop, so to speak, a complex pattern which matches the complexity of nature, which has kept science rather isolated from a problem like the environmental crisis Where nature exists as a whole.
Speaker 2: Do we need a science that looks less at the way things are and more the way that they relate and change?
Speaker 0: Can we create to technology consistent with nature.
Speaker 8: When we talk about shifting to equilibrium, we're not talking about shifting to a state which will lock in the poor areas to a permanently inferior status. I personally don't believe there's any possibility of having a viable long term solution, which leaves such glaring disequalities.
Speaker 4: Well, we must expect the 3rd world to fight for their share of the cake. It is completely absurd to think that they are going to stop growing when they haven't got a thing. So I believe that, Unless the rich part of the world makes a careful plan and begins to spend real money In, adjusting the balance between the 2, there will be absolute uproar, and I mean physical Violence, it's inevitable unless these plans are made.
Speaker 2: Our development has proved unstable. What form will their development now take?
Speaker 0: And if equilibrium means equality between nations, does it mean more equality within nations?
Speaker 4: Well, this is going to be a very difficult one because businesses always gone ahead on the assumption that they're going to be bigger and more profitable than last year, and I don't think that this can possibly go on. And businesses have got to stabilize themselves along with everything else in society.
Speaker 6: My feeling is that since Environmental analysis, along with many other things, reveals to me anyway that The private enterprise system is simply incapable of staying off a suicidal course That the system will simply have to be changed.
Speaker 11: Bill Marsh. Yeah. Quote inside the Boman cabinet preferred.
Speaker 0: Can business as we know it survive the transition?
Speaker 11: On what, common? Defer.
Speaker 2: If so, how will it be changed?
Speaker 0: If not, what will replace it?
Speaker 11: At 9, blast 78. Burgess, 3858.
Speaker 2: So what do we do about population? How will we control our desires to have children?
Speaker 0: How do we change the idea that population control is for other people, usually the poor?
Speaker 2: Today, the economy has to grow by about 2% Just to keep people in work. Without growth, there would be less work of the kind we do today. Work, for good or bad, is what most people now do most of the time. In the stable state, Work will become much less important.
Speaker 9: A lot
Speaker 4: of things like this have got to change. I think that it's high time we gave up the Sure. It's a notion that work is the only good, and found ways of organizing societies so that people could do more or less what they wanted. After all, automation will take care of work if you plan it that way.
Speaker 0: There might be more subtle changes With less work, with fewer children, with different patterns of consumption, family life might change. To conserve resources, things like motor cars washing machines might be shared by larger groups of people.
Speaker 4: I'd like to see people experimenting with, like, communes, things of this kind, Because unless we make those experiments, we are not going to be able to adjust to this different kind of world.
Speaker 8: It's important, I think, to realize when we talk about this stable state, that that describes a large number of possible alternatives. We're not talking about some uniform society which would blanket the globe. Certainly not talking about that type of uniformity. We're talking about a system in which the various balances between material output and population can be engineered more or less to suit the particular objectives of a society.
Speaker 0: Equilibrium will be a very different world. It could also be a very varied world, A world with all kinds of societies. But they will all be societies radically different from ours. If it is right, And this study forewarns us of a watershed in human history.
Speaker 4: It's wholly revolutionary in its very nature. Hitherto, we've had revolutions thrust upon us by people who couldn't stand it any longer And then there is bloodshed and all sorts of horrors. Now, we now know, I contend, that we have to have a revolution And we ought to be able to plan it.
Speaker 8: Let's not overlook the fact that human society has gone through a number of revolutions in their implications, Even perhaps more profound than the one we're talking about today. Just at the dawn of of history, of men's history, we saw a transformation from hunting and gathering and nomadism to settled agriculture. The impact of that on man's religion, on his institutions, on his view of himself We're enormously profound. The shift from rural to industrialized man has been an enormous change. The shift from a primarily agricultural to a primarily Urban population has an enormous impact.
Speaker 2: Our own society reflects its origins, the Industrial Revolution. That revolution molded our institutions, changed our politics, and shaped our lives. The stability revolution, the equilibrium revolution, whatever future historians choose to call it, will also shape and change the way we live.
Speaker 0: The study has a sting in its tail. We're short of time. We have to act soon to keep our options open. This study and others show that there's a point beyond which it is difficult to pull back from disaster.
Speaker 7: I'm a layman, but I've received a lot of scientific evidence. And my impression of that evidence is clearly that the decisions which man takes In the next, in the next decade or 2, this coming generation are really going to determine his future. Many of these things are going to be difficult, if not impossible to reverse, if we are not prepared to face them and to reorient Our activities and our attitudes, on a global scale, if we're and I think that that is possible, but it's probably the biggest single task that mankind has ever faced.
Speaker 8: We can maintain for ourselves today a very much higher material standard of living, But at a cost, very likely, of decreasing the option which exist for people 50 or a 100 years from now, our children and our grandchildren. So this dilemma between satisfying needs in the short term and satisfying them over the long is perhaps the most fundamental one that comes out.
Speaker 2: If that is the case, then what can we do now?
Speaker 3: It's important that everyone should Have a concept of the world as a whole and should avoid as far as possible, bringing up their children in any sense of Local patriotism, nationalism,
Speaker 8: and parochialism. It's important for you, I think, to realize that you have really the right only to have 2 children, to expect that you're going to have to make short term sacrifices if they're to have a decent environment and the resources necessary to pursue the kind of life that they should have.
Speaker 7: 1st of all, inform yourself. 1st of all, become interested. Then let your political leaders, both locally and nationally, know that you're interested and show them that you're informed. Then look at your own habits as consumers, as producers, and the things that you do in your daily life and ask yourself What effect they're having on the whole problem? Are they making a positive contribution?
Or are you part of the problem?
Speaker 8: Is it necessary to buy the kinds of products that you do? And isn't it possible perhaps to use them somewhat longer and slow down the flow of material goods through your household?
Speaker 5: This transition from The present type of society for the new society, which will be balanced with its environment and within depends on all of us, on all of you, and that will require political action.
Speaker 4: And then, for the first time in the history of man, have the opportunity to design the society they want And the resources to put that into effect, that is the guts of the matter to me. We have to think out just what society do we want. We can have it, you know.
Speaker 0: We have to imagine what world we would like.
Speaker 2: Perhaps, it seems our children could live our dreams.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a Club of Rome member, envisions a civil depopulation of the planet to one billion people, reducing today's population by 87.5%. The planet can sustain up to two billion people, depending on liberty and material consumption. More liberty and consumption require fewer people, while a strong dictatorship could accommodate eight or nine billion. Visit wideawakemedia.com for similar content. Check out the best-selling T-shirt collection at wideawakeclothing.com (discount code: TWITTER15).
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Dennis Meadows, a prominent member of the Club of Rome, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of the planet, down to just one billion people—an 87.5% reduction from today's population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #NetZero #DepopulationAgenda
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that our current population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They express a desire for a peaceful and civil decline in population, where conflicts are resolved without violence. The speaker suggests that the planet can support around 1 to 2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. They mention that having more liberty and consumption requires fewer people, while a strong dictatorship with a low standard of living could accommodate a larger population. However, the speaker emphasizes the importance of freedom and a high standard of living. They hope for a slow and relatively equal decline in population, where everyone shares the experience, rather than a few wealthy individuals imposing solutions on others. The speaker admits that these hopes may be pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far, Goboy, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way, and I mean civil in a special way, peaceful. Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have?
If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8,000,000,000 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid.
So but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have it. But we want to have freedom, and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But, that's that's what lies ahead.
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
T-shirt available here: https://wideawake.clothing/collections/best-sellers-tshirts?filter.v.price.gte=&filter.v.price.lte=&sort_by=best-selling Use discount code 'TWITTER15' for 15% off (first 20 customers only)!
Best Sellers (T-Shirts)
Some of our best selling t-shirts. Click here for our best selling hoodies.
wideawake.clothing
@TedLogan1010 - Ted Theodore Logan
Over population is a myth. I don’t even believe the ≈ 8 billion number but even if it’s true, there is plenty of room. Not to mention the lands beyond the ice wall! 👀 https://t.co/YTl1egOHpY
Video Transcript AI Summary
If all 9 billion people in the world stood next to each other, they would fit on the Istrian peninsula. If each person had 1,000 square meters to grow food, they would fit on an area the size of Brazil. If each 4-member family had 700 square meters, they would fit on an area the size of Iran. In 2019, there were approximately 7.7 billion people. Most vegetable quantities for a family can be grown on 200 square meters. The arable land covers 31 million square kilometers, enough to feed 155 billion people or over 38 billion families. There is enough space for everyone, except for greed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If all the people in the world, 9,000,000,000 inhabitants, stood next to each other, 4 people per 1 square meter, the entire human population would fit on an area the size of the Istrian peninsula. If each person in the world were provided with a space of about 1,000 square meters to grow food for themselves, the entire human population would fit on an area equivalent to the size of Brazil. If each 4 member family were provided with a space of about 700 square meters to grow food for themselves, the entire human population would fit on an area equivalent to Iran. In 2019, it was estimated that there were approximately 7,700,000,000 people in the world. Isth.
Almost all the necessary vegetable quantities for a 4 member family can be produced on about 200 square meters of garden space. It is known that arable land currently covers an area of about 31,000,000 square kilometer. On this land, the vegetable quantities needed to feed 155,000,000,000 people or over thirty eight 1,000,000,000 4 member families could be grown. There are not too many people. There is more than enough space for everyone, except for greed.
reSee.it AI Summary
The rising concerns over depopulation are linked to the World Economic Forum's initiatives, raising questions about their global agendas. Whistle-blower Barry Young suggests a potential connection between Covid vaccines and increased mortality, prompting an investigation. Comparisons to Nazi ideology highlight the dangers of elitism in globalism. The devaluation of human life and disregard for ethics are reminiscent of the Nazis. We must challenge elitist notions and prioritize empathy and ethics in population and resource challenges. The infiltration of globalist groups into governments threatens sovereignty and democratic principles. Concentrated power in global entities undermines local needs and voices. The World Economic Forum's influence raises concerns about undemocratic decision-making.
@JimFergusonUK - Jim Ferguson
Are the elitists really looking to reduce the Global population by 6 Billion people? Beyond Boundaries: The Perilous Intersection of Global Elitism and Population Control. The rising concerns about the ideology of depopulation are increasingly linked to the World Economic Forum's (WEF) initiatives, sparking debates over the implications of their global agendas and the potential impact on world population dynamics. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ https://x.com/LarryTaunton/status/1732037113254707512?s=20 In response to alarming revelations emerging from New Zealand, whistle-blower Barry Young has brought to light information that suggests a potentially disturbing connection between the Covid Vaccines and an unprecedented increase in all-cause mortality and excess deaths. This revelation raises urgent questions about the possibility of a sinister agenda by certain global entities. Could there be an intentional effort to significantly reduce the world's population under the guise of public health measures? Such a scenario necessitates a thorough and unbiased investigation into the implications of these findings and their potential global impact. ⬇️⬇️⬇️ https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1731365553632055464?s=20 As we navigate the complex and often murky waters of the global population control debate, it's crucial to contextualize this discussion within the broader historical narrative, particularly the chilling parallels with the ideologies espoused by the Nazis. This comparison not only highlights the dangers of elitist attitudes in modern globalism but also serves as a stark reminder of humanity's potential for darkness. The notion of population control, as advocated by figures like Dr. Dennis Meadows, who desires a peaceful and equitable reduction, superficially appears humane. Yet, beneath the surface of these propositions, there lurks a shadow of elitism, reminiscent of the most sinister chapters in human history. Meadows' statement, "I hope that population can be reduced peacefully, in a fair way that everyone can participate in the experience," though seemingly benign, inadvertently echoes a mindset that can quickly spiral into dangerous territory. This is where the haunting specter of Nazi ideology becomes relevant. The Nazis, driven by a perverted sense of elitism and superiority, embarked on one of the most horrific genocides in history, systematically exterminating millions whom they deemed 'unworthy' or 'inferior.' Their actions were underpinned by a chilling belief in racial purity and a deluded view of social engineering, which they believed would lead to an improved human race. The parallels between this and the contemporary rhetoric of elitism in globalist circles, where certain individuals deem themselves fit to decide the fate of populations, are unnervingly clear. Attempts to silence whistle-blower Barry Young.⬇️⬇️⬇️ https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1731632653290344862?s=20 The psychology behind such elitist views, whether in the context of Nazi Germany or modern globalism, reveals a disturbing willingness to devalue human life. This mindset, which reduces individuals to mere variables in a demographic equation, is dangerously akin to the dehumanizing policies of the Nazis. It reflects a lack of empathy and a disregard for the sanctity of human life, where people are categorized and valued based on arbitrary criteria set by a self-proclaimed elite. The moral implications of drawing parallels between the elitism in globalism and Nazi ideology are profound. They force us to confront uncomfortable truths about human nature and the ease with which a sense of superiority can lead to the justification of atrocities. This historical context serves as a warning of the potential consequences when extreme views on population control are allowed to go unchecked. Moving forward, it is essential to challenge the elitist notions within globalist agendas, advocating for an approach to population and resource challenges that respects human dignity and rights. Solutions must be grounded in empathy and ethics, not in cold calculations or the arrogant presumption of a select few. The lessons from history, especially the horrors perpetrated by the Nazis, must inform our approach, ensuring that respect for every human life remains at the forefront of our global discourse. Why did Jacinda Ardern exempt 11,000 politicians and doctors from getting the vaccine in secret?⬇️⬇️⬇️ https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1709827142148628638?s=20 We must not forget the involvement in one of the most influential Globalist movements namely the World Economic Forum led by Chairman Klaus Schwab. The infiltration of globalist groups into national governments poses significant risks, fundamentally threatening the sovereignty and democratic principles of nations. Such a scenario can lead to the erosion of local governance and the prioritization of international agendas over national interests. This shift of power can dilute the voices and needs of local populations, as policies are increasingly influenced by a global elite with their own set of priorities and objectives. Moreover, the concentration of power in the hands of a few global entities increases the risk of unchecked, undemocratic decision-making, potentially leading to policies that are not in the best interest of the citizens they are meant to serve. This not only undermines democratic values but also jeopardizes the cultural, social, and economic well-being of nations, creating a global landscape where the diversity of local needs and voices are overshadowed by a homogenized global agenda. Is the World Economic Forum a dangerous death cult?⬇️⬇️⬇️ https://x.com/JimFergusonUK/status/1709159686325367167?s=20 #DepopulationAgenda #WEF2030Agenda #NewZealand #CovidVaccinations #VaccineInjuries #ExcessDeaths #Myocarditus #SuddenDeath #DiedSuddenly #JacindaArdern #KlausSchwab
@JimFergusonUK - Jim Ferguson
Barry Young: The Whistle-blower Who Stood Up for Transparency and Public Health Barry Young, a former employee of Te Whatu Ora, took a courageous stand. Disheartened by what he perceives as critical flaws in the national vaccination program, Young decided to act. He accessed…
@JimFergusonUK - Jim Ferguson
#JacindaArdern former Prime Minister of #NewZealand pushed the vax like a cheap city block drug pusher while telling everyone that the Government was the only true source of information. However evidence has emerged that she and her Government decided they were exempt from…
@JimFergusonUK - Jim Ferguson
Is the World Economic Forum a Cult. The command and control of members of the World Economic Forum by sole Chairman #Klaus Schwab is increasingly being likened to that of a #Cult leader. Unelected Schwab has groomed young people and assisted by other powerful fellow cult…
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a member of the Club of Rome, suggests a significant reduction in the global population to ensure sustainability. He believes the planet can support around one to two billion people, depending on the desired level of liberty and material consumption. Meadows implies that fewer people are necessary for greater freedom and consumption, while a strong dictatorship could accommodate a larger population.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Key Club of Rome member, Dennis Meadows, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of the planet, down to one billion—an 87.5% reduction from today’s population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have." "If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia Subscribe to our newsletter, for daily email updates: https://www.wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that the global population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They express a desire for a peaceful and civil decline in population, where conflicts are resolved without violence. The speaker suggests that the planet can support around 1 to 2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. They mention that a strong dictatorship could potentially support 8 to 9 billion people, but it is not desirable due to the lack of freedom and low standard of living. The speaker hopes for a slow and equal decline in population, where everyone shares the experience, rather than a few wealthy individuals imposing solutions on others. They admit that these hopes may be pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far globally, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet, that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a, a civil way. And I mean civil in a in a special way. Peaceful.
Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have? If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. Conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart.
Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid. So, But if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have a but but we want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience, and then you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it.
So those are my hopes. I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But, that's that's what lies ahead.
Video Not Available
youtube.com
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
reSee.it AI Summary
Ted Turner, in an interview 15 years ago, suggested that a population decline of 95% to 250-300 million people would be ideal to address overpopulation and climate change. However, the author questions the motives behind such proposals and criticizes the ideas put forth by Turner and others, suggesting an anti-human agenda.
@Inversionism - Inversionism
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner This interview with Charlie Rose was from 15 years ago, and he said that the changes needed to be made to save humanity from impending collapse from overpopulation and climate change would need to come in the next 15-20 years and require global cooperation from every country. Well it's 15 years later and we're still here, listening to the same criminal eugenicists like Ted argue for reduced consumption of meat, more abortions, geoengineering and solar radiation management programs to block the sun, worsening fertility, and all the other anti-human agenda goals iterated by the WEF and their degenerate colleagues. The one question that always lingers in my mind is whether or not these people actually believe the words coming out of their mouth and that overpopulation is the problem, or if there is another subversive evil motivation behind the push beyond just saving the earth.
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the credit crisis and believes it is a mess because people borrowed too much money on their houses. They emphasize the importance of having equity in one's home and saving money. They also talk about the need to mobilize and change the energy system to combat global warming. They mention the potential benefits of this change, such as job creation and clean air. The speaker warns that not taking action will lead to catastrophic consequences like extreme heat, crop failure, and societal breakdown. They compare not addressing these issues to committing suicide. The speaker expresses optimism that the world can come to its senses and make the necessary changes for the sake of future generations. They use a baseball analogy to illustrate the need to hold the opposition and score runs to win the game. They call for smart political leaders and criticize ineffective leadership.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: When you think of the credit crisis we're in now?
Speaker 1: You know, I think it's a mess.
Speaker 0: And why is it a mess?
Speaker 1: Well, I because I think what happened is people were borrowing too much money on their houses. I I you know? Doing that. I don't my house is paid for. I mean, it has been.
I mean, I I I don't believe you know, I think having equity in your home is a good thing. I I don't believe in spending every penny. Yeah. When I was making $80 a week after taxes were taken out of 20 when I was 21. I saved $10 a week and lived on $70.
I mean, I've I've always saved. I I believe that was the thing. That was one of my father taught me that too.
Speaker 0: What's possible? Tell me what's possible to do that
Speaker 1: in 15 or 20 years, we could completely redo it. If we we have to mobilize if this is how important it is and and how how how important that we do it quickly. We have to mobilize the same way we did when we entered World War 2 in 1941. We have to fully mobilize everything we have and put it into changing the energy system over and not just here in the United States but all over the world. It's gonna be the business business biggest business project in the history of the world.
Fortunes, 1,000,000,000 of dollars are gonna be made. Hundreds of thousands of people were gonna be employed. We're gonna have clean air. We're gonna have so many benefits from it. It's not gonna cost us anything.
Like, once we get going with it, it's not gonna cost us anything. Only the people that don't don't understand it think it's gonna not doing it will be catastrophic. Will have 8 degrees will be 8 degrees hotter in 10 not 10, but in 30 or 40 years. And basically, none of the crops will grow, most of people who have died and the rest of us will be cannibals. Civilization will have broken down.
What the few people left will be living in a in a failed state like Somalia or Sudan, and and living conditions will be intolerable. The droughts will be so bad. There'll be no more corn growing. It it will not doing it is suicide. Just like dropping bombs on each other, nuclear weapons is suicide.
So we've gotta stop doing the 2 suicidal things, which are hanging on to our nuclear weapons And
Speaker 0: global
Speaker 1: and and then after that, we've got to we've got to stabilized the population. When I was born, there
Speaker 0: was too What's wrong with the population? I mean
Speaker 1: With too many people. That's what that's why we have global warming. We have global warming because too many people are using too much stuff. But they If there were less people, they'd be using less stuff. If we don't get global warming and the nuclear weapons tried that we don't have to worry about human rights.
Well, all the humans will all be gone.
Speaker 0: You know? Okay. Do you think we'll do it? I mean, are you optimistic in the end
Speaker 1: I have country
Speaker 0: that the world will come to its senses?
Speaker 1: Behalf of my grandchildren and the children all over the world, I absolutely think we gotta do it, but I have a way of explaining it very simply. I see a human situation I like into a baseball game. It's in the 7th inning, and we're down by 1 run. What so we're backs to are to the
Speaker 0: wall. Right.
Speaker 1: What we have to do though in the next 2 innings, the game's not over. It's still winnable.
Speaker 0: But what we've got
Speaker 1: to do is hold them right where they are with our best pitcher.
Speaker 0: Right.
Speaker 1: And we've got to get a couple runs on the base.
Speaker 0: Get a man on the base.
Speaker 1: And then get them in. Get them in. And that ties it, and then another run to go ahead, and we win. That's where we are. We're we're in a tough situation, but we can play our way out of it if we do the right things.
It's time for smart political leaders. No more dummies. We can't afford dumb
Speaker 0: leadership.
reSee.it AI Summary
The idea that our planet is overpopulated is unfounded. It is suggested that population control is the true motive behind #Agenda2030. With adequate resources, the entire human population could reside in an area comparable to Iran.
@bambkb - Kevin - WE THE PEOPLE❤️ - DAD🦁 🐉 🔥
🚨🚨🚨Our planet is NOT even close to being overpopulated🤷♂️ It’s all about population CONTROL!!! If the population gets too big, they will NOT be able to effectively control us, and that’s what #Agenda2030 is really about “If a family of 4 people were given a home and about 700 square metres to grow food, the ENTIRE human population could live in an area equivalent to Iran 🇮🇷”
Video Transcript AI Summary
If all 9 billion people in the world stood next to each other with 4 people per square meter, they would fit on the Istrian peninsula. If each person had 1,000 square meters to grow food, the entire population would fit in Brazil. If each 4-member family had 700 square meters, they would fit in Iran. In 2019, there were about 7.7 billion people. A 4-member family can grow enough vegetables on 200 square meters. The arable land covers 31 million square kilometers, enough to feed 155 billion people or 38 billion families. There is plenty of space for everyone except for greed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If all the people in the world, 9,000,000,000 inhabitants, stood next to each other, 4 people per 1 square meter, the entire human size of the Istrian peninsula. If each person in the world were provided with a space of about 1,000 square meters to grow food for themselves, the entire human population would fit on an area equivalent to the size of Brazil. If each 4 member family were provided with a space of about 700 square meters to grow food for themselves, the entire human population would fit on an area equivalent to Iran. In 2019, it was estimated that there were approximately seven point 7,000,000,000 people in the world. Almost all the necessary vegetable quantities for a 4 member family can be produced on about 200 square meters of garden space.
It is known that arable land currently covers an area of about 31,000,000 square kilometer. On this land, the vegetable quantities needed to feed 155,000,000,000 population or over 38,000,000,000 core member families could be grown. There are not too many people. There is more than enough space for everyone except for greed.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a member of the Key Club of Rome, believes that the planet can only sustain a population of one to two billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. He suggests that reducing the population is necessary for more liberty and consumption, but emphasizes the importance of achieving this in a civil manner.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Key Club of Rome member, Dennis Meadows, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of the planet, down to one billion—an 87.5% reduction from today’s population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have." "If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg Subscribe to us on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia Subscribe to our newsletter, for daily email updates: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
Globally, our population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. I anticipate a decline, but I hope it happens peacefully. Peace doesn't mean everyone will be happy, but conflicts should be resolved without violence. The planet can support around 1 to 2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. If we want more freedom and consumption, we need fewer people. Ideally, we should aim for a slow and equal decline to around 1 billion people. This way, everyone shares the experience and avoids a few wealthy individuals imposing their will on others. These hopes may seem pessimistic, but that's what lies ahead.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far globally, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet, that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way. And I mean civil in a in a special way. Peaceful.
Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, The planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have? If If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart.
Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships, they're always stupid. So, but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have a, but But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share, the experience and you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But, I mean, that's that's what lies ahead.
Video Not Available
youtube.com
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
@RedpillDrifter - Redpill Drifter
UN AGENDA 21/2030: CLUB OF ROME AND THE CLIMATE HOAX The New World Order plan for depopulation and total control over natural resources under the guise of a climate crisis. To them, you are merely useless eaters. https://t.co/X9zjzWA55R
Video Transcript AI Summary
The video discusses various topics related to climate change, global governance, and the environmental movement. It highlights the belief that the climate change issue is being used as a means to suppress truth and promote propaganda by those who seek more government control. The transcript also mentions the concept of Agenda 21, a United Nations program that aims to implement collectivism and restrict personal freedoms under the guise of environmentalism. It emphasizes the importance of protecting private property rights and criticizes the idea of global governance. The video concludes by questioning the true intentions behind environmental programs and urging people to be aware of the agenda behind them.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I don't want to sound like a fatalist because I'm not. I'm absolutely convinced that, ultimately, the principles of freedom shall prevail. I Know that that will happen. I may not live to see it. I won't live to see it, but truth cannot Be extinguished.
And our great society promotes the discovery Discovery of truth, not the suppression of it. And those of you who are involved in the climate change issue know that It is the goal of the international community, those who believe in the Russo socialist Philosophy of governance, it is their chief objective to suppress truth in ordered for the propaganda to prevail that supports their power.
Speaker 1: When you
Speaker 2: said that, strap in. You don't have to tighten
Speaker 3: In a document called The 1st Global Revolution authored by Alexander King and Bertrand Snyder, On pages 104 and 105, it stated, in searching for a new enemy to unite us, We came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers, of course, will be caused by human intervention that will require a global response. That's the origin of libel warning, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 4: Some people involved may actually have a pure heart and believe in it the way you do. Most do not. Those who want more government controls are never gonna come out and say it. They've got to trick you into it. But the more you follow the usual suspects, the more you'll recognize their hallmarks, the more you can ring the bell and protect your own
Speaker 5: There should be a better coordination between United Nations' central organization and things like the UNDP He and his organs and the World Bank and the IMF, which had drifted way apart from the original intention, Which was to work in coordination with the United Nations rather than be totally independent rather arrogant looking down the nose at what these people did Up in New York, while we run the world essentially, through our big money pockets. I just Hope within 5 to 10 years' time, the we will have be at the we're at the bottom end of a political leadership trough at the moment. I'm hoping it will We will come up and we will get political leadership, but we need international structures of far greater power and authority and respect.
Speaker 6: That I have a pretty straightforward answer. It depends on whether Donald Trump is reelected as US president next year Or not.
Speaker 3: In a document called The First Global Revolution authored by Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, on pages 104 and 105, it stated, In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like could fit the bill. All these dangers, of course, will be caused by human intervention that will require a global response. That's the origin of global warming, ladies and gentlemen.
Speaker 7: Peter, what are we, seeing on this wall?
Speaker 2: Well, you're seeing the history of much the last, 60 years in terms of technology and ideas that have had a huge impact on the world. Jay Forrester passed away last fall and, about 3 weeks ago, we had a celebration here of his life. So this goes from the 1940, thirties, In his early, you know, life forties, he was actually if anything if anybody could be called the inventor of the modern digital computer, Jay would be it. He'd led the team at MIT that built the 1st general purpose digital computer. That's stuff you see over here.
How IBM got involved, IBM was their contractor. That's how IBM got into computation in the digital computers.
Speaker 8: It's not some science fantasy effect from 2001. This electronic display emanating from Australia's largest computer There's a picture of the condition past, present, and future of planet Earth. The program was originally devised by a scientist working from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Jay Forrester. It was developed under the auspices of the Club of Rome by an MIT research team to present a complex model of the world and what we humans are doing to it. The program called World 1 doesn't pretend to be a precise forecast.
What it does for the first time in man's history on the planet is to look at the world as one system. It shows that earth cannot sustain present population and industrial growth For much more than a few decades, it shows that simply cleaning up our car exhausts and making some small effort to limit our families simply isn't enough. It's like an electronic guided tour of our global behavior since 1900 and where that behavior will lead us. Well, this is the printed version of what we've just seen on the television screen. What looks at first to just amazed of computer characteristics is really a system of very simple graphs which project what's going to happen to the planet over the next 150 The years if we don't do something drastic to stop it.
Down the left hand side of the graph is the date, 1900, 1940, 1980, 2020 right down to 2,060. Now each of these lines of Of of letters represents a curve showing some aspect of the condition of the planet. The further out this way they go, the greater That figure is the further this way, the less. For example, p represents population.
Speaker 9: So here
Speaker 8: it is at 1900 And then it comes up to 1940. It starts to take off. Here we are at 1980 up to the turn of the century and then it starts to peter off. Let's now have a look at this next curve, the Q curve, which is the quality of life. And this is represented by, for example, the amount of space people have, The, amount of money they have to spend, the amount of food they have to eat.
Now it increases rapidly up to 1940, but from 1940 on, The quality of life diminishes. And here we are about the turn of the century and we come up to the year 2020 and it's really come right back. More people, of course, means that you start to chew up your supply of natural resources. And this is this curve here, the n curve, that shows That slowly but steadily, the pool of natural wealth in the world, natural resources, minerals, oil, and so on is slowly but steadily diminishing. So this is a situation.
As population increases, the quality of life decreases and the supply of natural resources decreases. But have a look at this curve here. This is called the zed curve, and it represents pop pollution. Now predictably enough, as the Population increases up to 1980, pollution increases. There's more rubbish.
But from 1980 to the year 2020, Pollution really takes off. This is assuming, of course, that we don't do anything about it. So the year 2020, the condition of the planet be starts to become highly critical. If we don't do anything about it, this is what's going to happen. The quality of life is going to go right back to practically 0.
Pollution is going to become so serious right out here that it will start to kill people. So the population will diminish Right back here, less than it was in the year 1900. And at this stage, round about the year 2040, 2050, civilized life as we know On this planet, we'll cease to exist. Well, hopefully, of course, it it won't be allowed to happen, but it's taken this kind of Shock treatment to nudge governments into doing something.
Speaker 2: So, one of the kind of milestones captured in Kelvin's wall here is a book called World Dynamics, which led to another book, the popularized version, called The Limits to Growth. It was the first Complete model of the global industrialization process, how economic growth interacts with all the environmental and social constraints. So today, virtually all the issues we talk about in the general heading of sustainability were foreshadowed.
Speaker 10: I came back to MIT, Walked into the office on Monday and it was announced that a group I never heard about before, the Club of Rome would be coming to MIT to learn about our computer modeling methods Because they were interested in doing some kind of global study.
Speaker 9: In 1972, Dennis Meadows was the 1st to be assigned with such future studies financed by Volkswagen Foundation.
Speaker 10: Then I put together a team of 16 people, and we worked for almost 2 years and produced the work. Limits to Growth It's not the goal of the project. The goal was a very big scientific report And limits was written as an afterthought. What we said is that Exponential growth will take us to the limits very soon. Actually, if you look at our book, our 1972 book, Although, we showed many different scenarios, all of them show that growth Stops sometime in the period of 2020 to, let's say, 2,060.
So soon.
Speaker 2: This little sketch here is the 1st, world dynamics model that Jay sketched out Sitting in an airplane seat flying back from Germany where the Volkswagen Foundation had hosted the 1st gathering of what became the Club of Rome. The Club of Rome, which still exists, was the sponsor of the Limits to Growth project. Jay sketched out the model, the systematics, while the airplane flight went back. And about 2 or 3 months later, he had a simulated model. And about 2 or 3 months after that, a book.
That was kind of midway in Jane's career. And The right half of this really chases out the second half, the last 40 years. Jay lived to be 98 years old, where a lot of us got involved. So a lot of these sustainability issues, the seeds were planted back here with the limits of growth. But then on the right side of the wall, you see the work on climate change.
You see the work on, on education. We'll talk maybe a little later about the Global Sustainable Food Laboratory, this whole unfolding that kind of occurred as a consequence the kind of seeds Jay had planted, it's it's quite remarkable.
Speaker 3: The Club of Rome has been described as a crisis think tank, which specializes in crisis creation. The main purpose of this think tank was to formulate a crisis says that we unite the world and condition us to the idea of global solutions to local problems.
Speaker 2: You know, again, it's easy to criticize. But if you think we're we're we're trying to invent something that's never existed, which is, you might say, A commons based, socially oriented and sensitive governance structures that can function globally as well as locally and how to create a new harmonious ecosystem between the local and the global.
Speaker 11: You disturb Stir up the system over this threshold of the so called tipping points.
Speaker 8: At the
Speaker 11: end of the century, we will have about 2,000,000,000 people living on Earth. Food production is Rather than 9,000,000,000, which is the usual number used in demographics around the world. We will lose soil, Erosion, densification, and we won't have to phosphate to feed 9,000,000,000 people. So it will be far less, far fetched.
Speaker 12: More than 11,000 scientists signed a petition calling for population control as a means of combating climate change. In an article published Tuesday in the journal Bioscience, the scientists wrote that planet Earth is, quote, facing a climate emergency. They argued that population control was a necessary response to this emergency, writing, quote, the world population must be Stabilized and ideally, gradually reduced. This ideology is dangerous because it suggests that Reducing the human population is the best solution to our problems, but the petition presents no facts or data to support its Claim that the human population is the cause of shrinking ice caps, rising ocean levels, and an increase in the average global surface temperature. And it doesn't show any data to prove that reducing human population could help the planet.
That's just bad science. And who gets to decide which populations are controlled? The UN? Individual countries? Global intellectual elites?
Elites?
Speaker 13: The myth of overpopulation originated in England in 17/98 when a vicar named Thomas Malthus, who fancied himself something of a mathematician, saw that food production increased Incrementally, but people reproduced exponentially. He sat down and did some simple math and summarily decided that the world would be out of food by 18/90. He blamed reduced mortality rates and recommended killing off the have nots of society, lest the haves starve to death. This cry was taken up by Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University in 1968, who claimed that reckless human reproduction had overwhelmed the earth. Massive famines were resolved, which would destroy, best case scenario, 1 fifth of humanity by the end of the seventies, and the planet We're followed.
This spirit produced large donations for the newly created UMFPA, which thrives on an imagined crisis that has Been both imminent and rescheduled again and again over the past 2 centuries. The truth of the matter is that every family on this planet Could have a house with a yard and all live together on a landmass the size of Texas, which is really just a small corner of the planet. The population of earth will Geek in 30 years and then start to go back down. We're not overpopulated. Do the math.
Speaker 12: For years, There's been a push to shove birth control and abortion down the throats of women in developing countries who don't want either, by the way. We don't get to pick Who is desirable or useful enough to reproduce and who should be restricted in the name of the global common good? That's called eugenics, and it can lead down a slippery slope to things like ethnic cleansing and genocide. Genocide.
Speaker 11: This is the new hockey stick, and the skyrocketing of the purple line tells us that the temperature is an automatic
Speaker 14: How do we get to focus on CO 2 as being this tipping In
Speaker 1: point, the the culprit. Because it's something we do ourselves, and that's what makes it special. It's It is human activity. The fact is that c o two is so beneficial in other ways. It would be crazy to try to reduce it.
Speaker 11: We have to develop a completely different energy system around the world. We have to get rid of carbon as soon as possible, and the challenge is to invest, To research and to develop and to educate the world in that direction direction.
Speaker 15: Global warming is merely the latest Environmental scare with the exact same solutions going back 50 years. In other words, it doesn't really matter what the science of global warming. They actually have quotes. The main figures say that. The EU climate commissioner said even if we're wrong on the science, we're doing the right thing by policy.
What is that policy? The UN Climate chief explicitly stated, and I interviewed her on this, we seek a centralized transformation that will make life on planet Earth very different for everyone. That's the UN climate chief's explicit goal. Her assistant, a guy named Edenhoefer, actually said we will Redistribute wealth by climate policy. This is not even about environmental policy anymore.
They're openly talking about it. They talk about global governance, global Governance.
Speaker 11: We gradually grow in understanding. Mark my words. We do. But, of course, the resistance also grows. And there is a very strange phenomenon, which is that for every so called scientific fact, we need another opinion.
And why do we need that? Because the media demands so. Demand.
Speaker 16: We've gotta remember, we have to be faithful as scientists. In a lot of cases, people have written that it's okay that the end justifies the means. He can make up these scary scenarios so people will listen to us. People will act. I don't think that's moral.
I think we have tell the truth to scientists, if you wanna be an activist, take off your scientist hat, then make make a statement as a public service servant. That's no problem at all. But you Cannot divorce the the truth from the debate. That is the important component.
Speaker 2: But we should be arguing about the right things, not is there or is there not climate change. Is what's the deliberate impact of this change or this change or this change knowing that we need to decarbonize our economies and that we're A sense of working on it together around the world. I think this particular decade, the one critical thing that I feel Could really happen is we start to feel we're in it together.
Speaker 17: We have 12 years to radically transform our economy and our society to stop this crisis and protect human Civilization as we know it. This is about humanity.
Speaker 14: That's why we demand a new green deal, and we Don't make it right now.
Speaker 18: People will vote if there is something worth voting for. And a Green New Deal is exactly what that is. Thank you all so much. Let's organize together. Don't settle for less.
Speaker 15: They don't wanna argue on the merits of their policies. In other words, the green new deal, they just admitted AOC's chief of staff said this was never about the climate. This was increase the government kind of thing. It changed the whole economy type of thing. Her former chief of staff, campaign manager actually said a similar thing that this was actually not about the climate.
They're openly admitting that. They don't wanna argue their points on the merit instead, So they use sub diffuse. We only have 12 years left. We're facing a climate emergency as cities and colleges are now comically declaring that across the world. So they don't have to they don't have to deal with it.
That's how global warming becomes part of the agenda tool for the regulatory state.
Speaker 19: They They've introduced through the Democratic Party and a lady called, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, who's kind of the the progressive poster girl at the moment, something called the Green New Deal. And the Green New Deal is basically what I'm talking about. It's the centralization of power to save the world. Now Once you centralize power, and this is what Marxism does, this is what fascism does, which are basically expressions same thing if we if we really look at them. Once you centralize power, you are creating a very simple situation.
You are giving control over the vast majority to a tiny few, and you are, hoping that they're benevolent. You're hoping that they will use that power, wisely. History tells us they never do. Once you have centralization of power, you have abuse of power. And what we've, been looking at through, human history It's the incessant centralization of power.
We were in tribes once. Loads of tribes were brought together under nations. Now, they're bringing loads of nations together under the European Union and and and now they're they're talking about, wanting a world government, which is what I Predicted they would want 30 years ago. And we're in a situation now where a globalization It's a total expression of what I'm talking about where the the the number of people who hold the real center of power in the world, never mind Britain, is tiny. It's tiny.
Speaker 15: Assuming we actually face the climate emergency,
Speaker 8: we would all be doomed if we
Speaker 15: had to rely on the EPA and the United Nations, over the green new deal to save us. So it's a way to transform the economy, massive wealth redistribution, Massive central planning with literally beam counters affecting every aspect of your life to your life.
Speaker 20: And this is the result, madam acting deputy president, of federal agreements with UN treaties, protocols, declarations, agreements Such as the 1975 Lima declaration. And then we had in 1992, the UN's Rio declaration 21st century global governance. Then we had the 1996 UN Kyoto agreement, which I've discussed, which led to the theft of property rights. Then we have the two thousand 15 UN Paris agreement. That was not an agreement, just an agreement for every nation to do what they wanted to do.
Speaker 4: This is a massive movement, And its real intentions are being masked with environmental issues. The bad news is this structure was set up By those who want to establish a global government system. They've set this struct structure up years ago. This is why I keep saying to you, you don't have any Yeah. How far behind we really are.
Far behind.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I think the the the first Real awakening is is like what we always say when people play the the, the climate simulation, the, the Sea Roads Climate Interactive simulation. If you really if you really watch how that works, you come to 1 overarching conclusion. 1, we gotta get going. However fast we're going, we gotta go faster.
Speaker 12: Faster. Faster.
Speaker 2: But 2, it's about everybody. You know, it is ultimately about the underdeveloped world Because if they stay on the same path as the alt world, in 30 years, they start to become significant emitters.
Speaker 6: Morality is Improving the lives of people. That means inexpensive and ready The access to food, to energy. From that perspective, the policies proposed are the Essence of immorality. And I find it, truly bizarre when you hear somebody who's distorting science, Following the path of fascists in the past who is proposing policies That will be harmful for millions of people. And he assumes he has the moral high ground and the people who are opposing this Don't seem to recognize they hold the moral high ground.
Speaker 1: I predict, and this is my sincere prediction, That 10 years from now, certainly 20 years from now, people will look back on this, and they'll say, What the hell was going on? What got into these people? Why did the world turn crazy about global warming? It's a non problem. It's fiction.
Speaker 7: Environmental groups have effectively created the public image as organizations caring for helpless species and protecting environments. This has allowed them to implement an agenda in America That if fully exposed would be opposed by the majority of the people. In fact, most people supporting these organizations are not aware of their long term objective, Even though it is no secret.
Speaker 20: I'd now like to quote from the UN Agenda 21 book that is driving this. Maurice Strong, the secretary general of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. He said, quote, in the preface in Forward to this this instruction, there is much to be done. And I look to the new United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development to be the focal point for the massive effort needed to create the new era of international cooperation for the new global partnership That will make this shift possible. So we're talking here about a global governance from the UN.
Agenda 21 stands as a comprehensive this is the UN's words. Agenda 21 stands as a comprehensive blueprint for action to be taken globally from now into the 21st century by governments, United Nations Organizations, development agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and independent sector groups In every area in which human activity impacts on the environment, and that means every area of human livelihood, human existence. The agenda, it goes on to say, the agenda should be studied in conjunction with both the Rio declaration, which provides a context for its specific proposals And the statement of forest principles, which is embraced by the UN, it is hoped that the forest principles will form the basis for a future International level agreement. The United Nations and Maurice Strong, who was the head of that entity at that time, that particular part of the UN, As admitted to pushing for an unelected socialist global governance.
Speaker 21: In September 2015, All 193 UN member states adopted the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. They recognize that ending poverty calls for transforming our world through strategies that build economic growth, address social needs, ensure environmental protection. To achieve this vision, 17 sustainable development goals known as SDGs were defined Fine. This part of the 2030 agenda. The SDGs and their targets balance the three dimensions of sustainable development, economic, Social and environmental, working in partnerships and calling for action by all countries.
The goals are integrated and indivisible.
Speaker 7: Take a look take a look at the wildlands map. It defines where environmentalists wanna take America in the very near future. The areas in red will be off limits humans. The areas in yellow represent buffer zones where limited use is allowed primarily to travel to and from populated areas. The areas in green are where normal use by humans will be allowed.
However, by the environmentalist's own admission, these normal use areas would be restricted. When this plan was first published in 1992, the author, Reid Noss, explained how Their agenda would affect the human population. He stated, eventually, a wilderness network would dominate a region and thus would itself constitute the matrix With human habitations being the islands. The islands.
Speaker 22: At European level, landowners' interests are represented in Brussels by the European Landowners Organization. Restoring biodiversity is one of the group's Concerns.
Speaker 23: The ELO has become involved in Natura 2000 because it represents one of the most essential aspects accept the life of rural landowners who have always developed and respected the quality of the environment. Even if Natura 2000 can be a constraint, it offers many opportunities, and that is what we try to highlight and develop by participating with Debating with civil society, NGOs, and political leaders in the development of a sustainable network acceptable to all the partners.
Speaker 22: Preserving or restoring biodiversity and the ecosystem in different habitats from the countryside to mountains to the marine environment. That is the main objective of the European Natura 2000 network.
Speaker 9: I think it's fair to say that, if, Natura two Thousands, didn't exist. In fact, I'm definite of this. I would not be sitting here now. And, the reason why I say that is because, I got involved in European politics because we had a situation in Ireland whereby we had a top down decision imposed on us without any consultation. That's the way we've seen it on the ground.
And the first time many of my neighbors heard of Natura two Thousand was when the police were threatening to arrest them for taking fuel from their bogs. Now some people mightn't think that's the best way to get fuel for your house, but we had done it for 100 of years. You can argue whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, but we were doing it. And that's the way we heated our house. And I would not be speaking with an English or a London accent if it wasn't for that method of producing fuel because my father, in some people's eyes, would be the ultimate He brought it home for people.
So you can imagine our shock and horror when we discovered that we would potentially face a half €1,000,000 fine And up to 5 years in prison longer than in many cases you get for rape in my country for doing something we had done for centuries. We can argue whether it's wrong or right, but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm having a discussion here or trying to tease out how this would work better. I tell you for definite, it would've worked better if people had been consulted with in advance, and they were not consulted. And it resulted in a situation, and hopefully people can learn from this, where we had hundreds and hundreds of people In a bog 1 night with members of our police force with machine guns, with assault Rifles attempting to stop people using their land.
Whether whether right or wrong to use it, we can have that debate. But I think we would have to conclude that the implementation didn't score too well.
Speaker 24: Seizing private property private property. You may have heard of eminent domain whereby the government, federal, state, or local, can seize private property if there is a need for the public good, they say. Now The government has to pay for it, but they can take it away from its rightful owner if the rifle owner won't sell.
Speaker 25: This ordinance is the biggest threat Our 100 year old family farm has ever faced. It imposes unnecessary regulations on our land that will mandate a conservation easement with no compensation. The precedent that this sets is that the government can come in and take away private land with zero compensation. It's un American. It's un American.
Speaker 14: The evolution of private property, we see that beginning to happen right now. Roads are being closed. Forest are being more limited, and the idea here is that you stack and pack people in Metropolitan areas, you put them on public transportation, and you never let them outside. So the wildlands gets protected in that fashion. This is why the pressure is mounting on landowners across America.
Soon, that battle is gonna shift the suburban neighborhoods and the battle for the resettlement of our suburban neighbors neighborhoods will begin. Agenda 21 will not stop its process until all the world is collectivized. Human beings are to be congregated in smart growth communities. That's why you see in every community in California and across the country the push for Walkable communities, which means you live on the 20th floor, and you walk downstairs where smart growth cages are really built for the American citizens. And we thought the one way in and one way out of Polish cities was a dangerous mistake.
Well, smart growth is designed to take control over all human action. A subset of the Wildlands Project allows for certain limited uses by certain special people, to include the general public. But in general, the Wildlands, as opposed to the smart growth proposals, which have to do with Metropolitan development. The wildlands project is is the idea to suck all the people into these metropolitan areas And to leave the wildlands free for the animals to roam. South San Jose is a good example of what's become or is becoming a Coming a wildlands project, South San Jose is called the Coyote Valley, and, gee, some coyotes like to cross that valley and some other animals as well.
And so that's off limits to development, and we're seeing that kind of activity happening everywhere across this country. And, It's only gonna get a whole lot more profound as time moves along. Wildlands Project is a massive undertaking. Take rural lands and put it off limits to human beings. World government is the program behind the Democrat Republican party sponsored agenda 21 program.
Your local politicians are are are paid, by parties who support The globalization included destruction of America because the programs of sustainable development have been in In process for a lot longer than simply since 1992, but the acceleration since then has been overwhelming.
Speaker 26: Anybody here heard about Agenda 21? Well, some. You need to all know about it. A it's a code phrase. It's the title of the program for collectivism, global pro collectivism, which was designed at the United Nations And it's being implemented as we speak in every country of the world, at least where the UN has an interest in implementing it in the more advanced nations, And it's being done under the guise of environmentalism.
They're using the label of let's be concerned about our planet Earth. Our planet Earth is is being destroyed. We're Losing our natural resources. Everything is going bad in in the environment. We've got global warming.
We've got all these things. We've got pollution. So, therefore, what we need is more laws. Surprise. More laws and especially at the international level To regulate and control these things and take away the personal freedoms that you and I have over our own property, because, I mean, we need to do it for the greater good of the greater number.
We need to do it to save the world, and it's being coordinated at the United Nations.
Speaker 7: No one, not even the long time opponents of the environmental movement believes such a transforming agenda was possible. However, it is being implemented quickly through innocent sounding programs that most Americans support. Wilderness areas, critical habitat for endangered species, wetlands, roadless areas, national heritage areas, and other programs are sold to the public as necessary to protect nature or as assurance that Americans will always have a place is to escape from the heavily populated cities. More invented tools and programs such as conservation easements, Smart growth, open space, and greenlining are being promoted as a way to control growth. What all these programs have in common is extinguishing the private property rights of American citizens and transferring the control of the property to elite land trusts or directly to the government.
It will not take the 80 to 100 years they originally projected to complete their task. They are much closer to achieving their goal that anyone realizes. Environmentalists have scared Americans into thinking that if we continue to live as we are today, The earth will self destruct, species will die, and the globe will be covered with development. However, government data shows that only six Percent of America's land mass is currently developed. Only 3% of America is classified as urban.
Yet 77% of all Americans live in these urban areas. The rest is still largely untouched by humans. The problem is not that our nation is being overdeveloped. The problem is as old as time. It is about who will own the land.
Large amounts of the nation's natural resources are still owned by private citizens. America's founders vehemently opposed the concept of government or elitists owning the land in America, Which would result in the citizens being leaseholders and serfs. One of the most well known property rights advocate of our Time, Wayne Hage said it best. Either you have the right to own property or you are property. Make no mistake.
This battle is not about whether the land will be used, resources extracted, and wealth created, but by whom? Karl Karl Marx wrote in the Communist Manifesto, the theory of the communist may be summed up in a single sentence, abolition of private property. America's founding father, John Adams, stated property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. Which course Will America take? Environmentalists are counting on their agenda never being fully revealed.
Taking liberty is committed to seeing that it is. Their plan must be stopped before all of our liberty is taken.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a member of the Club of Rome, suggests that the planet can sustain a population of one to two billion people, depending on the desired level of liberty and material consumption. He believes that achieving this reduction can be done peacefully. Meadows also mentions that a stronger dictatorship could potentially accommodate a larger population.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Club of Rome member, Dennis Meadows, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of the planet, down to one billion—an 87.5% reduction from today’s population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have." "If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg Follow my backup account: @wide_awake_news Subscribe to me on Telegram: https://t.me/realwideawakemedia Subscribe to my newsletter, for daily email updates: https://wide-awake-media.com
Video Transcript AI Summary
Globally, we are consuming more than the planet can sustain, and it will eventually come crashing down. The speaker hopes for a peaceful decline in population and consumption, where conflicts are resolved without violence. They believe the planet can support around 1-2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption. However, having a smart dictatorship with a low standard of living could accommodate even more people. Ideally, the decline should be slow and equal, ensuring that everyone shares the experience rather than a few wealthy individuals imposing their will. These hopes may seem pessimistic, but that's what the future holds.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far globally, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet, that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way, and I mean civil in a in a special way. Peaceful. Peace doesn't mean, that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways.
And so, that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people? Maybe 2,000,000,000 depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart.
Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid. So, But if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have a but but we want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1,000,000,000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, so that people share the experience, and then you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it.
So those are my hopes. I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But, that's that's what lies ahead.
Video Not Available
youtube.com
(The Real) Wide Awake Media
My original channel was hacked and taken over by a scammer. He's now stealing my content (look at the timestamps). This is now the official Wide Awake Media channel. Please spread the word!
t.me
Wide Awake Media - News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
News and commentary on the long-term agenda for global control that's unfolding before our eyes.
wide-awake-media.com
@liz_churchill10 - Liz Churchill
Compilation: The World Economic Forum’s Yuval Harari’s infamous line, “Humans are Useless Eaters” and Bill Gates’…“We need to reduce the Population…” https://t.co/3CmSzKC3iX
Video Transcript AI Summary
In this video, the speakers discuss the future role of humans in society. They question the necessity of having a large human population and suggest that keeping people content with drugs and computer games could be a solution. They mention the concept of the metaverse, where people can engage in various activities similar to the real world. The idea of a useless class is also brought up. The speakers briefly touch on population growth and the potential for reducing it through advancements in healthcare and reproductive services. Lastly, one speaker urges viewers to trust government agencies and get vaccinated.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: And then the big political and economic question of the 21st century will be, what do we need humans for? Or at least, what do we need so many humans for?
Speaker 1: Do you have an answer in the book?
Speaker 0: At present, the best guess we have is, keep them happy with drugs and computer games.
Speaker 1: We call this the metaverse.
Speaker 2: What you guys do in here?
Speaker 1: Pretty much everything that you would do in the real world.
Speaker 0: Or at least, what do we need so many humans for? Would constitute a suit a new useless class? When I say that these are useless humans, it's not from the viewpoint of the mother, of the wife, of the of the son, or at least what do we need so many humans for?
Speaker 1: 1st, we've got population. The world today has 6,800,000,000 people. That's headed up to about 9,000,000,000. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services? We could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%
Speaker 0: of at least what do we need so many humans for?
Speaker 2: Forget the conspiracy. Listen to our Government agencies. These guys are telling the truth. You know, there's no conspiracy here, folks. Just get your damn vaccine.
Speaker 1: Alright. Thank you, doctor.
@RealAlexJones - Alex Jones
Club Of Rome Unveils Plan To Cull Billions From The World Population This globalist cult wants every last human dead to reduce that pesky CO2 so they can have the planet all to themselves. https://t.co/DS9li8tn0P
Video Transcript AI Summary
Companies and governments need to prioritize long-term sustainability peacefully. Agriculture must play a key role in achieving net zero emissions by 2050. Transitioning to a low-energy lifestyle is crucial for a sustainable future. TerraPower is developing a nuclear power plant to combat climate change. The push for net zero faces challenges from coal use in China and India. Iodine deficiency is a major global issue addressed by X3 iodine supplement. Visit infowarsstore.com for discounted products supporting the broadcast.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: It will be a big revolution to bring companies and governments to really give importance to the long term. That would be a revolution. I hope that it can occur in a a a civil way. I I and I mean civil in a peaceful. Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through to force.
Speaker 1: We can't get to net zero. We don't get this job done unless agriculture is front and center as part of the solution. I
Speaker 0: mean, we could even have 8 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship and a low standard of living. You can have a buddy. But we want to have freedom and we want to have a high sense, so we're gonna have a 1,000,000,000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. So a key issue here is the speed of the decline.
We hope for a slow decline because that gives you time to adjust. So a a key question is what is the force that we're trying to adjust to? And if we know the speed, then that tells us something about kind of revolution we need. So we need personal revolutions. We need people to reimagine a lifestyle which, requires much less energy and material.
A minister of, let's say, agriculture would do something which actually makes the farming situation seem worse in the That would be a a hard revolution. We we need all of those, kinds of things.
Speaker 2: The British government with their top universities and government institutions has put out a report called absolute zero where they don't wanna just have net zero increase in carbon or lower it to a previous state. They wanna get rid of all carbon, which humans are.
Speaker 3: But because we need to get to 0 emissions by 2050, we have to come
Speaker 1: up with an alternate way, which isn't too much more expensive
Speaker 4: to perform those same activities without emitting any greenhouse gases. People began to talk about a world in which greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas removals balanced each other out so that the overall effect was net 0.
Speaker 5: We'll need to go from a world economy that pumps out on the order of 40,000,000,000 tons of c o two a year to one that sucks down, that is removes billions of tons per year in the future to get to that net zero future.
Speaker 2: Bill Gates and his 17 year old energy company, TerraPower, are planning their first cutting edge nuclear power plant.
Speaker 3: So this company TerraPower that, I'm I'm very involved in, it is talking with Chinese partners. It's signed, some, agreements where the pilot plant, there's a good chance it will be built first in China, but then it will be for global usage. I don't use some of the, less proven, approaches. Such as? I don't plant trees.
Speaker 4: Some people would even say
Speaker 6: that if you just planted enough trees, it could take care of the climate issue altogether. And that's complete nonsense. Okay.
Speaker 3: I mean, are we the science people or are we the idiots? Like, which one do we wanna be?
Speaker 7: 50 years ago, nearly everybody considered unlimited growth as the only pathway to greater prosperity for all. And then there came a group of young scientists and showed that there are indeed limits to growth. That truly was a revolution.
Speaker 0: If we begin making really drastic changes, we can reverse, the growth pressures and try to bring the system back down under the capacity, which can be supported, by the planet.
Speaker 8: But we don't burn coal anymore because we didn't just close down our coal fired power stations. We blew them up. At the same time, China is, even as we speak, building the equivalent of 2 new coal fired power stations a week. India has a vast expansion program of coal fired power stations. Everything that we do is completely blotted out by what other much larger countries are doing to maintain their own power.
Now if you want to live in a country with net zero, if you want to live in a country where nobody can afford to heat their house, where people have incredibly expensive and largely non functioning heat pumps inflicted on them, if you want lots of people to lose their jobs because there's no energy, if you wanna be cold all the time, if you want the computers which make life possible, in fact, every form of life, to shut down every so often, then carry on believing that the the the the demand to to to go for net zero, to keep it in the ground is intelligent and thoughtful.
Speaker 2: It it's it's so nightmarish that it it's it's just hard to describe, what they're doing other than total futilism, the end of civilization.
Speaker 3: Can you explain a little bit about how this, technology works? Okay. Basically And then you're just among friends here. Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 2: You shouldn't purchase the products at infowarsstore.com just because it keeps us on the air. You should get these products because they are game changing. Everybody knows our information. It's some of the most hardcore accurate intel on the planet. Well, our products are absolutely no different.
They are amazing. They are the missing links people need. And of all the deficiencies that are out there, one of the biggest problems on the planet is iodine deficiency. Just look up iodine deficiency on Wikipedia. More than 2,000,000,000 people that UN estimates have major cognitive disabilities because they haven't had iodine.
It is essential in all electrochemical activity in the body, but most iodine in plants or in meat is bound to other compounds or other elements. So you don't get the full absorption. Not with x 3. It has all 3 of the healthy types of iodine in it. The good halogens, the deep earth crystal, pure nascent iodine, and then 2 other types the scientists tell us help with absorption.
X3 has been sold out for 6 months. It's now back in stock for 40% off at infowarsstore.com and it funds the broadcast and everything else we do. So I wanna encourage you all to get your X3 for 40% off now at infowarsstore.com. Takes about 2 weeks to kick in, but almost everybody has incredible results. Separately, we have another great product, 10 hour clean energy, turbo force available discounted at infowarsstore.com as well.
It's discounted as well despite the fact we're about to sell out. So whether it's X3 Next Level Iodine or whether it's TurboForce 10 hours of energy, they're both available discounted right now atimpolewarstore.com. It funds the broadcast, and it's game changing. Take action now.
@wolsned - DD Denslow 🇬🇧
Do you believe Net Zero is about reducing the world's population? https://t.co/5Uz4YNqS1l
Video Transcript AI Summary
Patrick Moore, a Greenpeace co-founder, recently claimed that achieving net zero emissions could lead to the death of half the world's population. Some believe this is part of a depopulation agenda aimed at reducing the global population by 7.5 billion people.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: As you know, the one of the cofounders of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, he's recently said that if we get to net 0, half of the population of the world will die. Now many will say that that's part of the point that, you know, the agenda, the depopulation agenda, if it's if it does exist, is to remove 7 and a half 1000000000 people from the world.
@elon_docs - ELON DOCS
Elon Musk: Environmentalism in the extreme starts to view humans as bad, as a load Earth can't sustain. This is completely false. If you do the numbers, you see that Earth can potentially sustain 10X the population we have today. https://t.co/yxnKhf5NuE
Video Transcript AI Summary
Environmentalism can be extreme, viewing humans as a burden on Earth. However, Earth can support a population ten times larger than today. By analyzing factors like land area for food production, water availability, and energy, it is clear that there is no shortage of resources to sustain a larger population.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Thing which is, I think, generally, it sort of starts out with good intentions, but ultimately, sort of, pave the road to hell is is environmentalism in the extreme. Yeah. That that starts to view human humans as bad, humans as a load on the Earth that the Earth can't sustain. This is these are completely false. At least some of these things, one can actually apply physics, or, you know, one can analyze in a scientific way to say, is how many humans can Earth sustain without what what most people consider to be significant environmental damage.
And I think if you actually do the numbers, I think it's potentially 10 times the population we have today. Right. So So how did you arrive how did you arrive at that figure? I mean, you just say, like, okay. Well, how much land area do we need to grow food?
Yeah. How much would that encroach on natural habitats? What's the actual food growing potential given, Especially if we got good at it. Right. And we are actually quite good at it.
Yeah. Right. Right. Is there enough water? Well, actually, there's there's plenty of water because Earth is mostly water at 70% water buying.
That's convenient. By soaps area. Yeah. Desalination is actually very inexpensive. Mhmm.
So there's really not a shortage of water. There's not a shortage of surface area and energy to to grow food.
reSee.it AI Summary
Aurelio Peccei, in "The Chasm Ahead" from 1969, proposed three solutions for the issue of "surplus humans": a biological germ or virus, mass sterilization, and the elimination of all surplus humans. It makes me wonder what stage we are currently at regarding these ideas.
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
Club of Rome founder Aurelio Peccei in "The Chasm Ahead" London 1969 Peccei gives 3 "solutions" to the problem of "surplus humans" in 1969: 1. Biological "germ or virus" 2. "Mass sterilization" 3. "Elimination of all surplus humans" What stage are we at?
@robinmonotti - Robin Monotti
https://archive.org/details/chasmahead0000pecc/page/174/mode/1up?q=control&view=theater
The chasm ahead : Peccei, Aurelio : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
xvi, 297 p. : 22 cm
archive.org
reSee.it AI Summary
I've come across arguments from Malthusian globalists like Bill Gates claiming overpopulation is a problem. However, I believe that's not true. If we allocated about 1,000 square meters per person, the entire global population could fit in an area the size of Brazil.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Despite what you've been told by Malthusian globalists like Bill Gates, the planet is not overpopulated. "If all the people in the world, 9 billion inhabitants... were provided with a space of about 1,000 square metres to grow food for themselves, the entire human population would fit on an area equivalent to the size of Brazil."
Video Transcript AI Summary
If the world's 9,000,000,000 people stood together at four people per square meter, they would fit on the Istrian Peninsula. If each person had 1,000 square meters to grow food, the population would fit in an area the size of Brazil. For each four-member family to have 700 square meters for food, the population would fit in Iran.
In 2019, the world population was about 7,700,000,000. A four-member family's vegetable needs can be grown in 200 square meters. The world's arable land, about 31,000,000 square kilometers, could grow enough vegetables for 155,000,000,000 people or over 38,000,000,000 four-member families. There is enough space for everyone, except for greed.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: If all the people in the world, 9,000,000,000 inhabitants, stood next to each other, four people per one square meter, the entire human population would fit on an area the size of the Istrian Peninsula. If each person in the world were provided with a space of about 1,000 square meters to grow food for themselves, the entire human population would fit on an area equivalent to the size of Brazil. If each four member family were provided with a space of about 700 square meters to grow food for themselves, the entire human population would fit on an area equivalent to Iran. In 2019, it was estimated that there were approximately 7,700,000,000 people in the world. Almost all the necessary vegetable quantities for a four member family can be produced on about 200 square meters of garden space.
It is known that arable land currently covers an area of about 31,000,000 square kilometer. On this land, the vegetable quantities needed to feed 155,000,000,000 people or over 38,000,000,004 member families could be grown. There are not too many people. There is more than enough space for everyone except for greed.
reSee.it AI Summary
Dennis Meadows, a Club of Rome member, envisions a civil depopulation of the planet to one billion people, a drastic reduction from today. The Earth can sustain up to two billion individuals, depending on liberty and material consumption. Fewer people allow for more freedom and consumption, while a strong dictatorship could accommodate eight or nine billion. (Source: YouTube) Visit wideawakemedia.com for similar content. ClimateScam, NetZero, DepopulationAgenda.
@wideawake_media - Wide Awake Media
Dennis Meadows, a prominent member of the Club of Rome, hopes the "necessary" depopulation of the planet, down to just one billion people—an 87.5% reduction from today's population—can "occur in a civil way". "The planet can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty, and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have eight or nine billion, probably if we have a very strong dictatorship." Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Dbo6uvJBtZg… For more content like this, visit: https://wide-awake-media.com #ClimateScam #NetZero #DepopulationAgenda
Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker acknowledges that our current population and consumption levels are unsustainable for the planet. They express a desire for a peaceful and civil decline in population, where conflicts are resolved without violence. The speaker suggests that the planet can support around 1 to 2 billion people, depending on the level of liberty and material consumption desired. They mention that having more liberty and consumption requires fewer people, while a strong dictatorship with a low standard of living could accommodate a larger population. However, the speaker emphasizes the importance of freedom and a high standard of living, suggesting that we need to reduce our population from the current 7 billion to a more sustainable level. They hope for a slow and equal decline, where everyone shares the experience, rather than a few wealthy individuals imposing solutions on others. The speaker admits that these hopes may be pessimistic.
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In one way or another, we are so far, Goboy, we are so far above the population and the consumption levels, which can be supported by this planet that I know in one way or another it's going to come back down. So I don't hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a civil way, and I mean civil in a special way, peaceful. Peace doesn't mean that everybody's happy, but it means that conflict isn't solved through violence, through through force, but rather in other ways. And so that's what I hope for, that we can I mean, the planet can support something like a 1000000000 people, maybe 2,000,000,000, depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have?
If you want more liberty and more consumption, you have to have fewer people. And conversely, you can have more people. I mean, we could even have 8,000,000,000 or 9,000,000,000 probably if we have a very strong dictatorship, which is smart. Unfortunately, you never have smart dictatorships. They're always stupid.
So but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living, you can have it. But we want to have freedom, and we want to have a high sense, so we're going to have a 1000000000 people. And we're now at 7, so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow, relatively slow, and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal, you know, so that people share the experience and you don't have a few rich, you know, trying to force everybody else to to deal with it. So those are my hopes.
I mean, these are pretty pessimistic hopes, you know. But, that's that's what lies ahead.