ASPO's Plan for Population Reduction

by **chiggerbit** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:08 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>there is plenty of room for increased food production: there is one acre of growing land per person, and agriculture can feed 100 people per acre - a family can be fed from 4 sq metres of garden -<hr></blockquote> Sorry, I do not buy it. No way, no how.

by **AnnaLivia** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:14 pm

some relevant theses in the population discussion 1. the planet is not near its limit of sustainable population 2. the population explosion idea is promoted to soften up the population to genocide data: robert macnamara of the trilateral commission is quoted ['the naked empress'] as saying that 'we have failed to control population by artificial means, so we will have to use natural means' - in other words, contraception hasnt worked, so we are going to use diseases - the trilateral commission want to reduce population to 2 billion - ie, kill 4 billion is it likely that aids and sars were sitting around in africa and china for centuries without moving and then suddenly got up and travelled? there is plenty of room for increased food production: there is one acre of growing land per person, and agriculture can feed 100 people per acre - a family can be fed from 4 sq metres of garden - obviously, if the most intensive, efficient agriculture, as that of holland and china and the ganges, is extended to the whole world growing area, many times more than present population can be fed - there are large areas of desert that can be productive with intelligent practices - practices that are not used by the five corporations who control WHO and world food markets - when moneymonomaniacs run things, they dont use intelligence - moneymonomaniacs run things whenever there is unlimited fortunes to be had - seawater can be desalinated very cheaply, esp. so in desert areas - trees establish in the australian desert with just the effect of fences [which concentrate bird crap] agricultural efficiency of sudan and china are 30 times agric. eff. of usa ['the book of world rankings'] - small farms are 16 times more efficient than big farms - they have been talking about a population explosion for 200 years - since 1800, when the world population was 1 billion - based on malthus, who later repudiated his own false ideas - his dumb idea was taken up by the people who wanted an excuse not to feed the starving - widespread famine would not be the effect of population outgrowing food - population would merely level off at the food limit - famines are caused by theft of better land and inefficient use of it when in the hands of few - profitseeking leads to creating scarcity in food - ie, the starving of some, so that prices are kept high - they did it in britain in the early 19th c, preventing importation of grain during bad harvest times 'to make a killing' - they are doing it in the world today - the price doesnt go up until there is a shortage; when there is a shortage, some people miss out world population is not so great as we are brainwashed: present world population in a crowd would cover an area of only 25x30 kilometres - the bahamas - the present population could be housed and fed off 100,000 sq miles=250,000 sq kilometres=25,000,000 hectares=60 million acres=1/100th of the world growing land ['population matters'] the superpowerful figure they dont need more than 2 billion slaves - also, population is heading for 100 billion by 2100 - 98% blacks and browns - only 2 billion whites - im sure the white superpowerful, the texas oilboys, dont like the look of that any mathematician will tell you that the exponential graph of the population explosion is a 'smooth' graph - ie, the 'elbow' in the curve, when the population seems to take off, can be set at any time, just by altering the vertical scale - 1000AD or 3000AD - or 2000AD these are just some pointers to show that what they say maybe just aint so

by **jowettknowit** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:34 pm

people might prefer a bit of colour - and i didnt shout as loud as you - does anyone else dislike colour or dislike red? - maybe im a bit dislexic - they say dislexic people find the black and white hard to read, and they give dislexic people tinted glasses and they can then read fine

by **Dreams End** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:40 pm

I'm gonna try to keep this thread a little more narrowly focused. While I did bring up that there were others preaching "resource depletion" before Peak Oil, my point was simply that this argument has simply changed outfits. The thread, of course, seeks to question why people give the Colin Campbells and Mike Rupperts of the world so much credibility when their agenda is, rather openly, to support a program of depopulation. And I thank Mr. Stanton for explaining exactly what that means.

by **dbeach** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 2:42 pm

I remeber lectures from health care professioanls who said the green monkey caused it..WOW and I sorta believed it.. BUT even then some said CIA all the way..getting rid of the underprivleged..

by **jowettknowit** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:39 pm

think they can get rid of the underpaid - the underpaid produce 99% of the goods and services - 'the poor man pays for all' - and woman - lot more women underpaid than men

by **somebody** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:26 pm

I've read similiar reports along these lines: "Addressing the theory in circulation that oil is not solely of organic origin, but that there may be another mode of origin as well from deeper in the crust, involving magma." <a href="http://www.freeenergynews.com/Directory/Theory/SustainableOil/">www.freeenergynews.com/Di...inableOil/</a> and check this out: "Odd Reservoir Off Louisiana Prods Oil Experts to Seek a Deeper Meaning" hmm, Louisana, you say! From The Wall Street Journal: <a href="http://www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm">www.oralchelation.com/faq/wsj4.htm</a> There's more info out there about this and studies that were done decades ago by Russians. And of course, they are drilling very deep wells with much sucess, as we speak. <a href="http://www.vialls.com/wecontrolamerica/peakoil.html">www.vialls.com/wecontrola...akoil.html</a>

by **thrulookingglass** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:51 pm

It can and maybe should be argued that there are too many humans roaming around this planet. However, I must beg to differ. Is it that there are too many of us? Or is it that too many of us consume a ridiculous amount of resources. Need you take a peak at all the recyclable in your trash? Metals, paper goods, organics which can be used as compost. Overpopulated? Please! Here in the US we pride ourselves in a hedonist consumption that is unparalleled in history. Plain and simple we treat this planet like shit. And this hands off faux-laissez faire government who doesn't need to initiate a social recycling program? Bullshit, anyone with a pulse should realize this. I'm sure many here have heard of the multitude of uses for the hemp plant. This plant alone might be able to solve most of our resource problems. Henry Ford built a car made of mostly hemp materials (yes, the frame and body were metal). Hemp oil can be refined to be burnt in internal combustion engines. It is also useful as feed for animals (hemp seed is second only to soy in protein). The many benefits of saving old growth forests from use in paper products, the list goes on. Keeping this plant illegal is criminal. It is the horrific and institutional abuses of OUR resources that leads us to deceptive, distracting and demagogic response of "thinning the heard." Further, the illogical and treacherous society were huge SUV's are heralded as a pinnacle achievement, palatial mansion decimate forests, golf courses mass consume millions of gallons of palatable water, chemical fertilizers and the delusive rantings of commercially fueled populace redefine irrationality. Peak oil?! Who gives a shit! Where is our completely feasible and necessary mass transit system? Oh, I forgot, they're too vulnerable to terrorist. Maybe if we could get those CCTV cameras working? Just my two cents...

by **dbeach** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 10:28 pm

billy bob NEVER inhaled that hemp stuff and bush NEVER was a powder lover who deserted the Air Guard BUT seriously to take better care of this planet and each other.. and not buy the corporta lies..

by **Iroquois** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:29 pm

somebody said: There's more info out there about this and studies that were done decades ago by Russians. And of course, they are drilling very deep wells with much sucess, as we speak. Personally, I'm still a believer in Peak Oil. My theory is that the PTB is viewing it as an opportunity, and not just as a means to justifying war and other policies of population reduction. Oil is power. If one faction feels that it can grab a the lion's share of the remaining oil resources just as we go over the hump, their power relative to their competing factions will accelerate as the remaining factions struggle over the scraps that remain. To me, it helps explain the policies of China and the US that have encouraged exponentially greater consumption of oil in recent years. (I also tend not to view these competitions in nationialist terms.) Still, that does not mean we are getting the full story. Abiotic oil can be real without completely contradicting the consequences of Peak Oil if the rate of global oil generation is significantly less than the rate of consumption. And, the motivation for looking deeper, can be supported by both the "PO is True" and "PO is False" camps. Anyway, I thought this was interesting: <a href="http://www.jamstec.go.jp/chikyu/eng/">www.jamstec.go.jp/chikyu/eng/</a>

by **jowettknowit** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:43 pm

is it just based on what youve heard, on what youve thought was so, the accepted ideas of the politically corrupted environmental lobby? - if the latter, you will like 'population matters' - eg contrary to the accepted idea that minerals are scarce, eg copper has been getting cheaper all thru the 20th c - a halfton satellite passes more phone calls than 100,000 tonnes of copper under the atlantic, etc - even land is increasing - there is a lot more desert than arable land, and much desert is recoverable - with sane leaders - ie, not powermad usurper-leaders; - greece was once wooded, north africa was wooded before the romans tried to grow wheat on it, the fertile crescent was once much larger there is great room for expansion of fishfarms the peak oil thing MAY not be true - estimates of running-out times are based on present known reserves, and present extrapolated consumption - the factor of extrapolation of speed of discovery of new fields is not included in their eta's of end of the oil - the real eta of end of the oil may be further off than they are panicking the people into believing another thing - people lived until post-1800 without oil - we can do it again - when land is not stolen by the few, more can live rurally, and then less transport for food is necessary - there are 5 acres of arable [growing] land per family - enough for orchards, chickens, goats, pigs, cows, manure, playspace - wars will be so much less powerful without oil - people have been FORCED into cities for 200 years - so when they are free from poverty, many will want to go back - the stress of cities is too great for survival - density causes psychopathologies - few want to go to the country now because there are so few people and hence facilities there, but there will be people and hence entertainment also planet core heat can provide millions of times enough energy for us - temperature increases one degree every 25 feet or so - with limitless energy to split water, we can burn hydrogen forever the problem is total nutters, superthieves, worldplunderers and megalomaniacs usurping leadership positions - intelligent people are marginalised by overpower - eg one thing economists are [98%] sure about is that tariffs, duties and quotas are bad for everyone, but lobbies [bleedinghearts for bigbusiness, probably including the 2% of economists who are for quotas and tariffs] push out this sanity, and every other sanity just read the blurbs of all the interesting, nondry books in the relevant 300s sections of a university library, and you can get a quick education in many points that dont make the mainstream, people-patronising press

by **wintler** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:48 am

So many unfounded claims and allegations, where to start. Why bother, i also ask myself, when y'all are so attached to your infinite earth fantasies, it feels like breaking the 'no santa' news to children. So i'm going to start with "who benefits", then maybe do the boring rebuttals of misinformed opinion later. Who benefits from suppressing recognition of the oil production peak? Our rulers, thats who. They fear everyone finally realising that growth economics and economic 'progress' is neither inevitable nor a result of the divine brilliance of humans, but rather primarily the result of our tapping some fairly extraordinary but still finite energy stores. If people really knew just how bare the pantry was, they would buy no more ipods, no more shares, dedicate no more years of their lives to making the wealthy wealthier. People would not labour on in hope of change or advancement, but instead demand NOW a more equitable distribution of power, land and other resources. That gives the wealthy the willies, they know it wont go well with them, so its in THEIR interests that discussion is routinely sabotaged with hysteria, misrepresentation, misinformation and plain old lies. Its only with the constant promise of jam tomorrow (or cheaper housing, holidays in space, a Democrat President, an uncompromised UN.. ) that people are kept obedient, docile, and productive. THATS why any suggestion that we humans have outgrown available resources is vociferously attacked and misrepresented. E.g. everyone says the Meadows et al 1973 Limits to Growth report was completely wrong because its predictions haven't come true. But since it made no concrete forecasts for before 2050, how can it be wrong yet? That hasn't stopped Rightthinking journo's slagging off LTG and anything similar for last thirty years, which gives you a good idea of which way the owners of media lean. Why do so many on RI prefer the authorised 'plenty for all' fantasy? Because its nicer, its soothing, one doesn't have to worry about your trip to the beach outbidding a village full of children in Kenya who can't afford the bus to school any more. But its the real world, suck it up, else abandon any pretension to right livelihood or choosing moral actions. Dreams end wants y'all to forget the wars in Iraq, Columbia, & Sudan, all coincidentally big oil exporters, forget that we (meaning the White West) daily import huge volumes of food, timber, oil, gas, gold, titanium, copper, you name it, from the 'less developed' world, while they starve and die in their millions. Capitalism is its own population reduction scheme, and you're already buying it.

by **wintler** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:33 am

OnoI812 wrote: "He, like all other POS 's, do not take into account, the classified pools most nations are hiding." -Where? Evidence, please. Have some previous POS predictions been wrong? Yes. Does this prove oil will never peak? No. Annalivia: (& jowettknowit echo'd) wrote: "We have not reached over-population yet. We won’t if we start acting in accord with what we believe." -Can i ask why you think 6.5+billion people isn't too many people for the available resources? And if the resources we consume are declining daily e.g. fisheries, forests, arable soils, as population still grows, why isn't this a problem? As a semiprofessional in natural resource management, i'd dearly love for there to be 'plenty more room for fishfarms', or that 'deserts are easily revegetated', but sorry, thats just the soma bullshit they feed you via infotainment tv to keep you okay with work/shop/die existence, the jam tomorrow fantasy mentioned earlier. -- Dreamsends' smears: "Nazi style eugenics" The nazis and eugenics in general involved theories of racial fitness, but nowhere does Stanton suggest or imply any racial basis for population reduction. If we're at the schoolyard think-up-a-name level, can i say "takes one to know one"? "Though ASPO puts no official endorsement stamp on this, it is clear they consider this a valid option." -How is this clear? Because 1 article in 1 newsletter canvas' such a plan, all of ASPO support it? On that logic presumably Rupert Murdoch supports Chavez, cos theres an interview with him in The Australian. And MSNBC supports a 911 enquiry cos they once did a news clip on a demo at ground zero. Uh huh, s-u-r-e.. (incidentally i'm not an ASPO member, have no plans to become one). -------- Just because some elites think population is a problem doesn't prove it isn't, nor does it prove that 'they' are allpowerful and able to fabricate data about real resource flows across the planet and over decades. You all have so much faith in 'them', in their power to determine the future, so little in yourselves or in your fellow (nonelite) humans. And so little sense of responsibility for your own actions in creating the world as it is.

by **Dreams End** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:11 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>So many unfounded claims and allegations, where to start. Why bother, i also ask myself, when y'all are so attached to your infinite earth fantasies, it feels like breaking the 'no santa' news to children. So i'm going to start with "who benefits", then maybe do the boring rebuttals of misinformed opinion later.<hr></blockquote> Is it inherent in Peak Oil to be patronizing to those who don't agree with you? I get that a lot. But thank you for deigning to linger a bit longer with us mortals. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Dreams end wants y'all to forget the wars in Iraq, Columbia, & Sudan, all coincidentally big oil exporters, forget that we (meaning the White West) daily import huge volumes of food, timber, oil, gas, gold, titanium, copper, you name it, from the 'less developed' world, while they starve and die in their millions.<hr></blockquote> Gosh, wintler, ya found me out. Though, I have to say, the Peak Oil folks of ASPO have put forward a pretty horrific plan that you don't seem to have much problem with. I, on the other hand, am arguing that Peak Oil is a construct created by elites...especially oil companies, from whom this data comes. You have confused this with arguing for capitalism. I can understand your confusion, as many Peak Oilers tend to see Peak Oil as the only issue on the planet. So I'll be clear. I am against capitalism...which, by the way, is why I don't trust the oil industry to tell the truth and think them fully capable of lying to meet their own agenda or in concert with other agendas. And since some of the people pushing Peak Oil are OPENLY suggesting a die off of all those countries that were previously dependent on aid of developed nations, I'd think your sentiment about me would apply quite well to them. Meanwhile, the military domination the US seeks of oil rich nations does not prove there is peak oil...only that oil is a valuable resource and the US would like to control as much of it as possible. Actually, it's probably more accurate to say that they are simply opening up resources for the oil companies themselves to more freely exploit. If you haven't noticed, the people currently pretending to run the country are all oillionaires. No wonder Bush does much of the "country's" business from Texas. Might as well move the White House there. Meanwhile, even if there is TONS of extra oil, if it's concentrated in a few places, the logic of imperialism and capitalism is that you go get it. I'll quote the report in the ASPO newsletter: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Of course, in a Darwinian world, a militarily powerful nation might try to take oil by force anywhere on the planet. World War Two provided recent examples: oil supply being critical to Germany and Japan.<hr></blockquote> It's actually a little weird that everything you accuse me of believing is explicitly stated as a part of this plan put forward in the ASPO newsletter. Maybe you just didn't read it. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Who benefits from suppressing recognition of the oil production peak? Our rulers, thats who. <hr></blockquote> Suppressed? Really? Here are quotes from just a few establishment figures that show that Peak Oil is not "suppressed" at all. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>RECENT PEAK OIL QUOTES Circumstances seem to me as dangerous and intractable as any I can remember. .... What really concerns me is that there seems to be so little willingness or capacity to do anything about it. Paul Volcker, Former US Federal Reserve Board Chairman April 16, 2005 To me, a hope is that we are going to hit Peak Oil when oil resources begin to decline. ... and some geologists say we already hit it last year. The business community is now starting to take this very seriously. The impact of fossil fuel depletion is going to create enormous suffering, no doubt about it. David Suzuki, April 23, 2005 So its very probable that the world is peaking in oil about now. .... The world in general, and the US in particular, has pretty much blown 25 years of time that we had, but no longer have, for preparation for the necessary transition. Roscoe Bartlett, Maryland Republican Representative, May 4, 2005 Peak oil is starting to become conventional wisdom. Edward Schreyer, Former Governor General of Canada, May 5, 2005 Peak oil is real and we are on the Peak now. Al Gore, Former US Vice President, June 5, 2005<hr></blockquote> Looks like lots of our "rulers" are letting the little secret slip out. Woops. Oh, and thanks for providing these quotes in the other thread. Saved me some time. (I deleted the Campbell quote only because I did not consider him one of our "rulers" and not due to its content.) Meanwhile, if you want to play cui bono...then you can flip the whole thing on it's head. The rulers benefit by faking Peak Oil to: a. Justify atrocious social policies in the name of population reduction or, at the very least, by arguing that peak oil suggests there's nothing they can do about it...a die off is inevitable. You do know, do you not wintler, that this idea of a die off is so pervasive among these resource depletion folks that there's a website called dieoff.com. Charming. The article, printed in the ASPO newsletter is quite clear on some of the policies Peak Oil, in their eyes, will justify. b. Justify unrestrained exploitive pricing from the oil companies. As mentioned, lots of them hang out with da prez and, to be fair, they are certainly no less influential with the Dems. c. Create a sense of hopelessness so that those who might otherwise be committed to social action to make the world a better place and who might, therefore, act in ways that challenge the power structure. d. Justify further military intervention in oil rich regions. Come on, we are all against war, but if the alternative is some economic meltdown, well, we gotta do what we gotta do. And Stanton's article makes this point quite explicitly. e. It gets the "rulers" off the hook. Hey, it's not OUR fault...the oil just ran out. In sum, Peak oil can be used to justify all of the things you are so sure I'm the one advocating. However, I've never advocated these things, while this article printed in ASPO's very own newsletter does so quite clearly. Why you let them off the hook, I don't know. My point in starting this thread is that this article is direct evidence that people who are central to the Peak Oil ideology (for such is what it has become) are part of a long tradition of using the idea of "resource depletion" as a peg to hang their eugenic hats on. Been around since Malthus...only they switched resources to oil from food. And please do not confuse shortages due to the inherent inequalities in a globe dominated by ruthless capitalism and engineered shortages of various resources with ACTUAL shortages. The capitalists are in charge and they are ruthless. You justifiably point to the starving masses around the world. Is this because of "Peak Food"? Saw your second post as I wrote this. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>wintler said: "Nazi style eugenics" The nazis and eugenics in general involved theories of racial fitness, but nowhere does Stanton suggest or imply any racial basis for population reduction. If we're at the schoolyard think-up-a-name level, can i say "takes one to know one"?<hr></blockquote> Here's the ASPO article: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>Initially the greatest threats to UK security would come from rogue nations unwilling to curb traditionally high birth rates but lacking the means to feed the ever-growing numbers of new mouths. In the past, these were the poverty-stricken nations that repeatedly received humanitarian aid and famine relief, which did nothing to reduce the birth rate. In a Darwinian world, Nature would take its course. In consequence, their populations would reduce particularly fast and their threat would fade away.<hr></blockquote> You, who called us the "White West" see no racial content in this paragraph? Seemed obvious to me. In any event, I propose that eugenics is all about "weeding out the bad stock." Doesn't have to be by race, though it sure looks to me like that's what they had in mind. Hitler, of course, didn't just weed out by race, as surely you just momentarily forgot. He went by religion, sexual orientation, mental and physical handicaps and political ideology. Finallly, this: <blockquote>Quote:<hr>"Though ASPO puts no official endorsement stamp on this, it is clear they consider this a valid option." -How is this clear? Because 1 article in 1 newsletter canvas' such a plan, all of ASPO support it? On that logic presumably Rupert Murdoch supports Chavez, cos theres an interview with him in The Australian. And MSNBC supports a 911 enquiry cos they once did a news clip on a demo at ground zero. Uh huh, s-u-r-e..<hr></blockquote> The obvious difference is that ASPO newsletters are exlusively about Peak Oil and what to do about it. And their intro, "hope it doesn't come to this" but it has a "chilling logic" is far from condemnatory. Hey and in one of those weird coincidences, the original link is not working. The main ASPO site does not offer Pdf's of the newsletter, but the Ireland ASPO did so. Unfortunately the entire ASPO Ireland site is down. Maybe even they realized this article was not wise to have floating around. If it's just server maintenance, I plan to go back and peruse the newsletters more closely. However, I don't see ASPO newsletters as freewheeling discussion and debate...they are simply putting forward the case as they see it, through their own writing and the articles they choose to reprint. As for Murdoch...yes, unlike you, I assume if something gets on FOX news, there is a reason and it somehow supports their ideology. Sorry if that comes as a shock to you. <blockquote>Quote:<hr>(incidentally i'm not an ASPO member, have no plans to become one).<hr></blockquote> Great...it's nice to be able to end on a note of agreement. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p216.ezboard.com/brigorousintuition.showUserPublicProfile?gid=dreamsend@rigorousintuition>Dreams End</A> at: 9/20/05 12:41 am

by **somebody** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:23 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr> So many unfounded claims and allegations, where to start. Why bother, i also ask myself <hr></blockquote> That is a good question! Why DO you bother?

ASPO's Plan for Population Reduction

Re: no way

problem solved, Pants Elk

sorry, i find the plain harder to read, i thought

Re: no way

Re: sorry, i find the plain harder to read, i thought

the elite are going to get a shock if they

peak oil- NOT

Re: over-population/management of resources

Re: over-population/management of resources

re: peak oil- NOT

chiggerbit, is your rejection based on data or

..

replies

Re: ..

why bother??

Who is online