Population. Reduction or otherwise?


It is never a good idea to post too rapidly on a blog. The short-termism that has come be be a strong social driving force in most of our lives, either by choice or necessity, means that previous blog entries ascend into blog heaven at a greater pace than is sometimes useful, however, somethimes the urge to post is just too strong and it’s what I’m going to to here. Oh dear.

This post comes from Stef, famous for 15 megapixls[1] post: “C’mon baby take a chance with us“[2] and “The Andrew Gilligan Drinking Game“[3]

A large number of very important issues were raised. I want to extract some of those issues to discuss them more deply. No offence Stef, but I think the they deserve at least an entire thread to themselves (so I post them here)

The first one is population levels.

 There are 9 possibilities:

1) population reduction, food produce increased
2) population reduction, food produce levels maintained
3) population reduction, food produce reduction

4) population level is maintained, food produce increased
5) population level is maintained, food produce levels maintained
6) population level is maintained, food produce reduction

7) population increases, food produce increased
8) population increases, food produce levels maintained
9) population increases, food produce reduction

For the sake of arguement, ‘food’ can be thought of as being replaceable by ‘resources’ or even ‘sustianability’

To me, options 7-9 and in rank order, are the least sensible kinds of situation to get ourselves into. These possibilities would be the likely product of uncontrolled population growth, surely there is some point where population growth is too great for the planet to cope with. This amount would be very difficult to quantify and hence is simply not worth entering into a game which is likely to resemble Russian ruolette. 

The remaining options mean that some form of population control (redutive as in option 1-3, or static in option 4-6) is prudent. This is sensitive issue amongst NWO critics such as myself, but of course, it is very much dependent on how it is done. If it is by consensus and leads to a situation whereby the position of the elite scumbags don’t gain (preferebaly they would lose!) then I can’t see the problem with that. As for consensus, well obviously not everyone would agree to one side or the other, but if the majority of people agree (no kobold diebold’s please!) the only other option is to go back into the more risky 7-9 choices. Population control is strongly associated with eugenics (I hope my good internet buddy antireptliain can make a comment there) rejection of which is of course a no-brainer, but I don’t think anyone (other than the plutocrats) is advocating such a method.

Many people automatically impose their own population control in their own lives. For example, my ex-driving instructor said he didn’t want another child becasue he couldn’t afford it. Others only have one or two becasue that is all they can cope with. China has population control. It has faults no doubt, but perhaps that example of local population control is necessary?

To me I think population reduction (again ensuring the cake that’s left doesn’t go to the elite – danger is of course, how to prevent it from doing so?)  is perhaps the most reasonable choice IF the planet is going to face energy challenges and this seems quite likely. 

But I would hazard a guess that our current population level, albeit high, is currently sustainable. I see market stalls, shops, supermarkets, restaurnats and so forth turn out into the bins, loads of old or slightly damaged produce simply becsue it didn’t meet the critera of profitability. I see natural produce go unpurchased or rejected in certain supermarkets (when they slip through the net) becasue they have some kind of russeting or have an unsymmetrical shape or whatever. I see traders even in poor countires with loads of goods which is also likely to be discarded if they are not exchanged for money.

Credit where credit is due, the big supermarkets ‘Whoops” thier perishables near closing time, albeit to the panic of store mangers who envisage a cue of all customers forming just waiting for the ‘reducred’ labels to be stuck on goods that seconds before would have sold for a higher proce.

I believe is there is enough food for all, and given the power to do so, I would force the most big supermarkets to give say 10 to 20% of the value of their profits to the poor in vouchers either discount or FOC to the poor, and some of this in the form of foodstuffs for people overseas (obviously foods that could be in good enough shape after transport, tinned cans, smoked meats, dry goods, grains adn rice etc) either that or have the supermarkts use this percentage to pay farmers in countries closer to the hungry to ship goods DIRECT to the poor via a non profit organisation, NGO or otherwise.

But I’d go further, I believe option 6 and 3 must be looked at becasue I think the method of food production these days is actually constructing a time bomb for later generations. Sloppy intensive farming – pesticides, GM, ionic non-complexed fertilizers and so forth are already causing us problems[4]. I would like to see a regession to traditional farming methods and put the unemployed people onto the land under the direction of those farmers who know what they are doing and use low level methods of farming organic and GM free.

What is the point in having so many children anyway? I think we’ve all seen examples of where poor people (some sufferingly poor) have large families, sometimes with the rationale that there will be more chance to have a breadwinner in the family. Well, if there were less people in the world, one can imagine there would be more bread per head of population – but as ever, the difficulty is going to be ensuring they actually get that food and not life the life an animal so that some tryant leader , greedy and ungreateful oil Sheihk or some CEO can live the life of Riley.

I think it is beneficial if a world audit (next topic perhaps – a global centre or government) of population and food / resources could be made. I guess someone has already done such a report but I’ve yet to hear about it. Whatever, the side issue of all this is the fact that some are living on the edge of existence while some eat gold leaf fine cakes is disgusting and drastically needs readdressing. Thing is, it involves the whole world undergoing a holistic revolutionary change, and right now, that just ain’t gonna happen.

What’s your view on world poulation levels and resources/sustainbility?


[1] Stef, Famous for 15 Megapixels.

[2] Stefs “C’mon baby take a chance with us”

[3] Stefs “The Andrew Gilligan Drinking Game”

[4]Caulerpa taxifolia – which I suspect is proliferating in synthetic nutrient rich waters

5 Responses to “Population. Reduction or otherwise?”

  1. 1 StefZ December 31, 2007 at 9:57 am

    IMHO the simplest and most humane way to limit population growth is to ensure that everyone has a decent standard of life and education

    Rapid population growth is the hallmark of undeveloped, poorly educated countries not developed ones

    I can still remember back to the late 1970s when environmental alarmists were claiming that world population was going to top 12 billion and we were all going to starve within a generation

    This was the same crowd that was also claiming a New Ice Age created by human pollution was on the way


    Malthusian predictions of catastrophic over-population have failed time and time again, partly because human population growth limits itself naturally but mostly because people are different to animals in the degree to which they can create technology and change the environment in which they live

    There is plenty of land and technical know how in the world to support its current population level or even a significantly higher one and in a sustainable way. What is lacking is the will

  2. 2 StefZ December 31, 2007 at 9:58 am

    Oh yes, and a HNY btw

  3. 3 StefZ December 31, 2007 at 10:22 am

    and btw, I’ve said this before but the bastards who are trying control us all from the shadows are always going to come at us from behind a facade of doing something which appears to be reasonable – environmentalism, along with the bogus war on terror seem to be their two favourite Trojan Horses of the moment.

    Just take a look at the organisations and individuals promoting population control, past as well as present, scratch their surface a little and you will almost always find a Goldsmith, or a Rockefeller, or a Windsor, or a Rothschild behind them. These people are scum and if they’re promoting a cause you can bet your last pound, lire or rouble that the welfare of us plebs has got nothing to do with it

  4. 4 lwtc247 December 31, 2007 at 9:59 pm

    Hi Stef. Thanks for contributing. Unfortunately my low readership mean this important issue isn’t getting the discourse it’s worthy of.

    I agree a decent lifestyle for all is something ALL of us should want and actually actually get off our behinds and physically do something about it. This is likely to be harder to achieve the more people there are.

    Yes; It is undenyable that there does indeed exist an ‘elite’, (albeing still not fully identified) and their agenda for maintaining that position impacts upon everyone elses lives across the planet. Also agreed that they use “good causes” (whether actually good or purportedly good) to advance that agenda.

    But I’d say that is (at least part of) the problem – some things they manipulate are on balance, ‘good’. Currently, I think population control is ‘the better goal’, for reasons given above, it may well play into the plans of that elite, but those plans may fail. Perhaps I’m kidding myself here, but I’d say there appears to be a lot more outing of this elite and dislike of them. The 9-11 and 7-7 atrocities have seen to have catalysed that and of course one of the greatest tools for the aquition of knowledge man has ever devised – the www, has helped an enormous number of people understand the filth behind what this elite do – war financing, medical research atrocities, Crimes of kings etc…

    Is it always the case that; everything the elite may want (I say ‘may’ because we just read what others say the elite want) is actually bad and contains no benefit, whether anysuch benfeit is unintended or unwanted?

    There is a lot of lobbox when it comes to environmentalism – carbon tax comes instantly to mind, but the lack of tolerance towards pollution and peoples enhanced awareness of pollution issues is overall better. Aspects of environmentalism suggest these elite are past their hidden best. Aspects of their modern day plans for greater control seem to rebound against them.

    Do you feel there is any merit in doing nothing about the growth in the world population?

    Childless couples could be financially enticed not to have children, or rewarded for adopting a child. Alluding to what you said before, If very poor people were given a better life, they wouldn’t have to have 10 kids to try and ensure from among that 10, at least one would be breadwinner, but such a nice society doesn’t address the problems we have now in this corrupted society and wouldn’t ensure a global negative growth rate.

    You mentioned previously on your blog, something like to go back to the past would mean we couldn’t sustain the population. Isn’t the best answer to this population reduction rather than increased production?

  5. 5 StefZ January 2, 2008 at 3:10 pm

    We don’t need to increase production to sustain current population levels. We just need to stop producing consumerist crap and weapons

    And as I’ve said before when we were discussing this subject, reminiscing about or event trying to return to a fantasy Golden Age is a nonsense.

    I can only speak for myself but I’d much rather live in a society where human life was celebrated and new technologies were developed and employed to support proliferation and diversity of that human life rather than some feudal throwback created to suit the fantasies of a handful of billionaires

    If you look at the data, development and education result in a natural tailing off of population growth levels. Looking at my own family history all my Grandparents and Great Grandparents, all peasant farmers, lived a bloody hard life and all of them had four or five kids per family. My parents’ generation knocked out two or three kids per family.

    Should we pollute less? Undoubtedly. Should we produce less crap? Certainly. But that doesn’t necessarily mean playing into the hands of the Eugenicists and Elitists. Listen to what that crowd says, their contempt of and dislike of the mass of humanity is only very thinly disguised

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Viva Palestina – break the siege:

Viva Palestina - break the siege

This blog supports victims of western aggression

This blog supports victims of western aggression

BooK: The Hand of Iblis. Dr Omar Zaid M.D.

Book: The Hand of Iblis
An Anatomy of Evil
The Hidden Hand of the New World Order
Summary Observations and History

Data on Fukushima Plant – (NHK news)

Fukushima Radiation Data

J7 truth campaign:

July 7th Truth Campaign - RELEASE THE EVIDENCE!

Recommended book: 3rd edition of Terror on the Tube – Behind the Veil of 7-7, An Investigation by Nick Kollerstrom:

J7 (truth) Inquest blog

July 7th Truth Campaign - INQUEST BLOG
Top rate analysis of the Inquest/Hoax

Arrest Blair (the filthy killer)

This human filth needs to be put on trial and hung!


JUST - International Movement for a Just World


Information Clearing House - Actual News and global analysis

John Pilger:

John Pilger, Journalist and author

Media Lens

My perception of Media Lens: Watching the corrupt corporate media, documenting and analysing how it bends our minds. Their book, 'Newspeak' is a gem.

Abandon the paper $cam:

Honest and inflation proof currency @ The Gold Dinar
December 2007

%d bloggers like this: