Disclaimer up front. I am not supporting/agreeing with the ‘Limits to Growth’ theories here. I believe these are their excuses and what they feel make a good enough ‘noble lie’ to gain support from the managerial classes, who in turn feel superior to the masses and so will go along.
I assume the control aspect they are implementing is still utilizing the same old ‘limits to growth’ excuse. ‘Limits to Growth’ was the original Club of Rome think-tank synopsis from 1972 that claimed to predict the world’s status or outcome to the year 2100 based on energy (resources), population, pollution, food, and industrial output. The model for this was the “World3” model. In that model the ‘reference run’ was the 1972 prediction that there would be certain dates where major shifts would occur.
- “World population.. peaks at seven billion in 2030. After that population declines because of an increased death rate.”
- (Note- the model chart below show population peaking in 2050 not 2030. And, we should hit just over 8 billion by 2030, over 9 billion by 2050. Also, they cite declines will be caused by an ‘increased death rate’, from what?)
- “In 2015, both industrial output per capita and food per capita peak at US$375 per person (1970s dollars, about $2,430 in year 2000 dollars) and 500 vegetable-equivalent kilograms/person.”
- “Persistent pollution peaks in the year 2035 at 11 times 1970s levels”
I don’t see any detailed explanations on why they state population will decrease (around 2050) ‘because of an increased death rate’. But it is interesting that by the UN’s own projections, they already show this is happening. That is, the chart below shows mortality increasing by almost 30% from its low of 0.8% in the 2010’s to around 1.1% after 2050 (levels seen last in the 1970’s and earlier).
Bring out our favorite eugenicists’ sentiments again from decades ago, this one from Bertrand Russell around 1952:
“I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing,” wrote Russell in The Impact of Science on Society. “War so far has had no great effect on this increase . . . perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full . . . the state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to suffering, especially that of other people’s.”
…and…
“I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology. Mass psychology is, scientifically speaking, not a very advanced study, and so far its professors have not been in universities: they have been advertisers, politicians, and, above all, dictators. This study is immensely useful to practical men, whether they wish to become rich or to acquire the government.”
Aldous Huxley in both Brave New World and Brave New World Revisited describes pharmacological societal control as an important aspect. The effects and nature of perpetual injections we are normalizing this decade seem to be a perfect fit for this – SOMA -to dehumanize the masses. Or rather, ‘transhumanize’ them. (I don’t believe this is a direct quote from Huxley yet it circulates as a paraphrased summary):
“There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it.”
Even by the mid 1950’s when he wrote ‘Revisited’ to update where he saw humanity heading, Huxley was concerned at the population levels then. His analysis of population quantity versus quality of course pointed to needing interventions:
“In this second half of the twentieth century we do nothing systematic about our breeding; but in our random and unregulated way we are not only over-populating our planet, we are also, it would seem, making sure that these greater numbers shall be of biologically poorer quality.”
I bring up Huxley and Russell only to point out the thinking very common to the early and mid 1900’s. These ideas of ‘eugenics and dysgenics’ (Huxley), didn’t just go away, they just changed messaging and delivery. The managerial classes, feeling superior to the ‘unwashed masses’, study these topics in depth, and help parrot or repeat the sentiments of ‘we’re doing this for the good of future humanity’. Huxley’s “Revisited” is a must-read.
The societal changes they feel are needed to keep the population reducing after 2050, peaking at just under 10 billion then going down. The main population projections from the UN and others show sort of what ‘they’ want us to believe, that ‘if we do a really good job with vaccines (Gates)…’ the population will peak at 2050 then trend back down towards 8 billion+. They seem to be shooting for the lowest of the projection below. Not surprisingly, the lower projection is from IHME (Bill Gates-funded). They have already projected we will meet this lowering at least with the mortality side (it will increase by 30%, back to >1%, levels of the 1970s).
One main curve or metric not on the World3 chart is “Societal Control”. That is, they have always controlled resources and output for their own gain, but the main dividend is and always has been social control (control energy and money and you control humans). Climate changes have and will always be used to scare us, and, reinforce the notion that ‘humans are the cancer’ of the Earth, which further pushes the communitarianism behavior down to the masses – we self-police out of guilt and fear.
It is interesting to note that Technocracy, pushed mainly starting in the 1930’s, had an end goal of recording and tracking every person’s energy consumption almost real-time. There was no way of doing this at that time, and there still was no way of doing this in the 1970’s when Technocracy gained momentum again, detailed by Zbigniew Brzezinski, who termed it ‘the technetronic era’ *.
https://ia800208.us.archive.org/13/items/books_201603/between_twoages.pdf
All the tools needed for tracking and controlling of consumption have fallen in to place in the 50 years since the 1970s. And now, it is interesting that ‘they’ want to see the West return to 1970s’ levels of consumption and mortality (see below) by way of this technocratic control. In their models, the variables must all be under their control and targets, meaning drastic reduction of Western lifestyles. Their balance of energy, resources, population quantity, population quality, and social control has this hard target for what they foresee by year 2100.
Authors and contributors to “Limits to Growth”, as with many others with eugenicist agendas, may just be ‘useful idiots’ to help create the societal panic and fear. Author Dennis Meadows readily admits that to maintain Western levels of freedom, democracy, and consumption, the world would need to be limited to 2 billion people. Implying that the opposite is also true, if we want to ‘allow’ the world to hit and stay above 8 billion, then freedoms and consumption must then be drastically-reduced. Again it reinforces the quality versus quantity per Huxley. The target of this ‘quality reduction’ (in both wealth and independence), is the West. They are clearly pushing the West downwards over the 2020-2030 period, most likely down to average levels most of the developing world currently lives in.
Pushing the West downwards is continuously reinforced as a good thing for communitarianism by these leaders. Hence the push by the WHO to mandate all nations’ pandemic responses to be handled by them and not any one nation. (Tedros – ‘our freedoms got in way of the response, but China did well’) and Trudeau ‘I admire China’s efficiency’.
As Terence Corcoran noted in his article on science versus politics, one contributor to the ‘Limits to Growth’ group claimed: “There are two possible approaches: One is to try to build up an ethic which substitutes satisfaction for material reward. The other is to frighten people to the point where they will make sacrifices in order to avoid catastrophe. Both methods must be attempted.”
This ‘reset’ from 2020-2030, as Patrick Wood said of technocracy, is partly due to the fact we weren’t scared enough by climate change fear, and so ‘pandemics’ can and will be whipped up any time they are needed. Since the WHO now defines pandemics as whatever they want, whenever, and they are seeking to control all nations’ responses, they will have control of the masses.
Regardless whether ‘limits to growth’ is valid or not, ‘they’ have decided on this balance of resources, population, consumption, etc. for what they perceive is our own good. Of course, along the way they will always control and maximize their profits while they are at it (farmland, drugs/jabs, etc.), but that’s a side-benefit.
It seems like a long, ongoing differing of views – those who feel we would do just fine at 15 billion, 20 billion or higher, versus the status quo and the WEF vision pushed by Limits to Growth – even as low as 2 billion per Meadows. Many are optimistic that we will keep making ever-increasing efficiencies in agriculture, fertilizers, energy, etc. – even switch to all-nuclear for power as we move away from fossil fuels.
Jordan Peterson: “We’ll peak re population at ~9.5 billion and there’s no reason that can’t be sustainable and prosperous in a well-maintained world. If that’s what we decide. So, decide!”
But the missing piece of this optimistic view for ‘them’ is societal control. They only want the type of prosperity and flourishing for humanity that gives them total control of the masses and their consumption.