For years, people have told me that the elites have a plot to reduce the world’s population. I’ve been incredulous toward these claims because those elites have lacked the means to do so even if they wanted to. Also, that would be dumb because prosperity depends fundamentally on the human mind: The more minds the better.
The expansion of population in the past century and a half has been consistent with every technological achievement.
Why should we pay attention to crazy eggheads in the elite class and their pipe dreams?
These days, we shouldn’t be so unconcerned about elite plots. After all, three and a half years ago, they locked down most of the world’s population, wrecking whole economies and ruining lives in ways that will take generations to recover. There was some element of popular panic, to be sure, but mostly, it was a science experiment conducted by a tiny elite. This actually happened, and they actually got away with it.
In other words, they are predicting (dreaming of?) a 99 percent drop over time.
Is this alarming? Indeed, it is. That would impoverish the world in appalling ways. Indeed, it is unthinkable. Oddly, the article seems positively fine with such a result. Here, I quote:
“It would be tempting to welcome depopulation as a boon to the environment. But the pace of depopulation will be too slow for our most pressing problems. It will not replace the need for urgent action on climate, land use, biodiversity, pollution and other environmental challenges. If the population hits around 10 billion people in the 2080s and then begins to decline, it might still exceed today’s 8 billion after 2100.
“Population decline would come quickly, measured in generations, and yet arrive far too slowly to be more than a sideshow in the effort to save the planet. Work to decarbonize our economies and reform our land use and food systems must accelerate in this decade and the next, not start in the next century.”
What can we make of such claims? “Too slow” for the experts, huh? Have to destroy economic functioning even before then, do we?
“This isn’t a call to immediately remake our societies and economies in the service of birthrates,“ the next paragraph adds with assurance. ”It’s a call to start conversations now, so that our response to low birthrates is a decision that is made with the best ideas from all of us.”
By “our response,” the writer means the usual muckety-mucks who imagine that they are the ones in control and can tell the rest of us what to do. Thank you for not “immediately” remaking “our societies and economies in the service of birthrates.”
It’s hard to miss the creepy hatred of human life behind this kind of language. What our religious traditions tell us is a glorious gift from God, the intellectuals are calling the bane of existence. It’s hard to know where to begin with such thinking.
It’s emphatically not true that humankind is the main problem for the environment. The human mind is what solves environmental problems—if by problems, one means features of the environment that are inconsistent with human thriving. If that is what we mean, humans have been cleaning the environment since the ancient world and continue to do so. Indeed, where we see disease, famine, poisoning, and death triumphing is where decentralized human intervention and innovation is the least effective.
We are talking about elite planners here who were convinced, when the world population was less than half its current levels, that we had reached a massive crisis that would lead to rampant famine, despoliation of everything, resource depletion, shortages of all things, political upheaval, and generalized ruin.
None of that happened, despite a more-than-doubling of the world population and a dramatic increase in overall resource demand.
But here’s one thing we’ve learned about elites who are wrong: They never admit error. On the contrary, they get angry at the world for not conforming to their own wishes for it. They end up doubling down and getting even more ferocious in their ghastly recommendations. And this is precisely what has happened. Today, there is more hysteria about global population trends than ever before, despite that every previous prediction of doom did not work.
How does this play into COVID policy? Central to the Kissinger memo was the figure 8 billion. That was said to be the point of disaster. For many in government and many within this orbit, this number has long been a key. We turned that corner.
Dr. Malone comments: “This major objective—to not exceed 8 billion—combined with the fact that we hit the 8-billion mark in 2022 might help explain the intense urgency of so many planned and organized actions during the past three years.”
We have every indication that lifespans are shrinking now after many centuries of having expanded. This isn’t death from the virus. Rather, it’s death from ill health, suicide, substance abuse, and dependence on pharmaceuticals, including the COVID vaccine itself, the evidence regarding which keeps declining to prove that it saved lives and indicates that it might have on net cost lives. That’s an awesome realization.
In other words, the COVID response—lockdowns, poverty, depression, and otherwise—very likely represents a genuine turning point in the growth of the world’s population. This has led many people to speculate that this was the whole point of the policy. That we can even entertain such questions is a commentary on the level of distrust out there today toward government and elite institutions and people.
Can we entirely rule out this possibility? Five years ago, I would have said absolutely we can. Today? Not so much. We’ve seen too much.
Keep in mind that U.S. elite opinion from 1880 to about 1935 was unified in its pro-eugenic opinions, even if you hardly read about this reality these days. Pick up any academic journal from the period and you will find a warm embrace of genocidal ambitions. In many ways, U.S. elite circles hatched the idea and then carried it forward to its grim end. After the war, the notion largely disappeared or went underground.
After a few decades, the whole movement was rechristened as a movement for population control. The eugenicists were just lying low. That’s what gave birth to the 1974 Kissinger memo. Not much has changed in 150 years since eugenics first emerged as a pseudo-science. The ruling class still wants to curate and cull the population.
We’ve seen how seemingly insane policies from elite sources—governments, science foundations, world bureaucracies, universities—make their way from theory to practice. The preposterous idea of locking down to stop a virus, for example, began some 18 years ago with a computer model, and eventually, it became our daily reality.
How many of the policies of the past few years are really about depopulating the world, which we know for sure is a priority of the World Economic Forum and others? I wish I had the answer. I will say this much: I would be far less worried about such a dystopian possibility if The New York Times today did not predict with some level of satisfaction the reduction of the world’s population to what it was 3,000 years ago.
This kind of agenda doesn’t realize itself on a voluntary basis. Such nightmarish fantasies come about only by design, and by the force of government policy.
