The 'Climate Change' narrative is a big part of the Culture of Death narrative.
What the Culture of Death Is:
The Culture of Death is a belief that humans are a threat both the environment and themselves, and that death, including the prevention of life, is the only solution. On this argument they justify deliberate measures to oppress, prevent, and destroy human population, and entice humanity to support it as a necessary measure for a supposed greater good.
The basic ideas are as follows:
That humans are a multi-faceted threat to the Environment:
Pollution: Indeed pollution is a problem, but it is wrongfully blamed on citizens even though Government controls all waste management directly or indirectly.
Wildlife Habitat Destruction: Government controls this but doesn't seem to care about this at all except in occasional narratives to portay how bad humanity is.
(Non-Human) Species Extinction. In this narrative, humans are portrayed as destructive pests on all other life forms to their extinction. Non-human animal extinction is seen as always being caused by human, espcially consumer, activity.
Competition for Limited Resources: This is based on two ideas combined: that resources are limited and that we need to compete for them. Under that rationale, at some point the resources are not sufficient to support the population and there is a collapse. The basic idea of this thinking is that humans deplete resources and the only way to stop them being deplieted is to eliminate the humans. For example, if there were no humans, there would be no human starvation.
Militance: Humans are seen has having an inescapable tendency to war, which danger only grows more with more powerful weapons. Interestingly, war is also seen as a good thing, under the 'culture of death' narrative, if it reduces population.
That the human threat is related to human population more than human behaviour, or waste management, such that any kind of behavioural or management change is not seen as enough.
For example, please see this video of Bill Maher preaching this kind of narrative:
That humanity is the only threat to the environment not anyone or anything else.
That a wild non-human environment is perfection even though we find the wild environment harsh for ourselves and support ourselvs with many artificial conveniences. Herein lies a key challenge to the Culture of Death, as we'll explain later.
That the human threat is against all life including humanity itself. That's right: human population is considered a threat to itself, and in this model.
Overall, the heart of the Culture of Death is the argument that humanity is its own greatest threat, and that therefore humanity must be destroyed to protect it.
The Mathematical Argument:
The scare depends on a projection of increasing population in the face of fixed resources, resulting in gradually less resources per individual, until at some point it's insufficient. This is the 'overpopulation' presentation: that an increasing population must always stress its environment until eventually the population and perhaps even the environment are both destroyed. The fully assembled ideology of 'overpopulation' goes something like this:
an assumption of absolutely fixed resources
the belief that human population is the greatest threat to itself and all life on earth, and that most or all problems we face even now are due to overpopulation.
mathematical models showing exponential growth of human population over time if left unchecked
The belief that there is no environmentally-tolerable level of human population, because humans only destroy the environment and nothing else is possible. Specifically, the belief is that the Planet would be much better off without any humans, the ideal being human extinction, such as promoted by the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, or the Ahuman Manifesto
the belief that, for the greater good, reducing human population is the most necessary thing for us to do to save all life on Earth
the belief that, due to exponential growth tendency of population, that action is needed the sooner the better
In other words, belief in a constant threat of 'overpopulation', as meaning 'too many humans on the planet', begets an environmental-protection attitude which is strongly and self-destructively anti-human.
Usually such arguments will cap it off by portraying examples of shortage in the world now, and claiming that we're already at a breaking point. This creates a sense of emergency to do something now.
Consequences of the Culture of Death
Attitude Tendencies of a Culture of Death Mentality:
Seeing other people as a threat, however secretly or subconsciously, leads to the implementation and acceptance of many attitudes an policies which are against human life or rights, including:
A tendency to react to strangers with disdain, as though being infesting pests, unless and until they prove useful to you in some way. After all, by overpopulation and anti-human environmentalist mindets, humans are the pests of the Earth. When you believe that, it must subconsciously cause you to react with disdain as your starting point when encountering strangers.
A tendency to be glad for disasters, so long as they don't directly affect us, since they quickly reduce population: perhaps not to rejoice over it, but to see it as a 'necessary evil'. The tendency is to no longer even desire world peace, since in the 'overpopulation' mindset, allowing everyone to live is not an option.
A reluctance to help others in critical need, since if we help them they might not die. In fact, allowing others to die is the best possible helpfulness in the 'overpopulation' mindset: evil justified as good.
Keeping a Distance from the Needy: When other people are seen as a threat, yet relationships still desired, there is a tendency to prioritize relationships based on who is more likely to be a benefit or cost. Therefore even if you have friends and family they may take care to distance themselves from you the more you seem to be in need or in a trouble which might possibly result in some expectation on them to help.
A tendency to support Government interventions, including war, purposed towards reducing population. This is indirect killing through Govrenment.
A tendency to advocate for the killing of the weak or stupid first, or letting them die, as a Darwinian argument for reducing population by eliminating the weakest should make our species stronger.
A tendency to collapse human rights. An 'overpopulation' believer is lead to lose all regard for human rights for anyone but themselves, since reducing population tends to conflict with upholding human rights, and they don't want to be the ones eliminated. Unfortunately, if people won't defend rights for each other, there are no human rights for anyone.
The human rights elimination tends to start with those who have the weakest voice to object.
It can lead people to feel guilty for reason of their our own existence. Some people who believe in 'overpopulation' actually do derive personal responsibility, and assume guilt, out of that belief. For example:
Policy Tendencies of a Culture of Death Mentality:
Depopulation: If population is seen as the problem, depopulation is the only logical solution within that mental framework.
Any Means Approval: In a mentality where depoulation is seen as needed to save all life on Earth and very urgent, any measures tend to seem justified. There aren't a lot of nice ways to quickly depopulate, and followers of the Culture of Death would need to understand that at some point.
Prefenting or Destroying Pregnancy: When population is seen as evil, children are seen as an evil, and there is a tendency for adults to reduce or eliminate the number of children they have, by a variety of means. One of these means is murderous: to kill their conceived children at some stage, usually before being born. In some cases the Government has legally restricted the number of children people may have (such as the former 'one child policy' in China). Regardless of the method used, or who is imposing it, there are many sad results of deliberate reproduction restriction, including elders with no one to care for them: Dec. 31, 2022 'I have no one': Kinless Canadians struggling to age with dignity.
Deliberate Abortion: killing your own child has become seen as a good thing under the 'underpopulation' narrative.
This is faciliated by denying the child any human status either in law or in any other acknowledgement. Even referring to the child as a 'fetus', an animal term, denies the humanity of the child.
Somtimes abortion is mandated to combat the scare of 'overpopulation'. For example, China has long physically forced women to abort (ie. forced surgery) above a certain child limit set by the Government, as a way to control population (video: One Child Nation - Official Trailer.
Assisted Suicide. Also called Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), assisted suicide has been gaining popularity with rise of the Culture of Death. It is based on two assumptions: that suicide is suddenly good if it's legal, that human life has no value and is better exterminated to save money.
Based on that thinking, some Governments are funding and promoting assisted suicide more than efforts to relieve suffering or prolong life.
Government Initiatives to Restrict Carbon and Nitrogen: far from being toxins, these are among the top 4 atoms most essential to life (the others beign hydrogen and oxygen), yet under the environment-protection exuse, they are not recognized as a direct attack on life.
Euthanasia, especially as protected and supported by Government.
Geoengineering, especially as performed and denied by Government.
Starvation: Our modern world seems to accept that millions of people are hungry and could be fed easily if the political will existed. It would cost only a tiny fraction of the USA military budget, for example, to theoretically feed all hungery people on Earth.
Genetically Modified Foods. Even though crops are still abundant despite concrete cities being built over the best farmland, and quota and other systems trying to limit production to support prices, and even though it's often illegal for city dwelelrs to grow their own food, our society pretends that genetic modification is the only way to produce more food, and has thereby justified direct tampering with the fabric of life.
War including Military Genocide: What faster way to quickly reduce life on Earth which you believe is a threat to ... life on Earth?
Emergency Measures: Once we see other people as a threat,
we don't mind the suspension of their human rights as a ready option to tackle any emergency;
in fact we see it as more than fair to allow them to continue to live with us.
Military Investment: Due to the culture of death our societies have tended to direct maximum amounts of money and technology in military applications, rather than life-support applications. That's why they develop hypersonic ways to kill people but not to feed them.
Unsolved Murders: If we see others as a threat, we don't really care if other people get murdered so long as we're still alive, so we don't put a lot of effort into solving them.
Missing Children: Adherents of the culture of death have no reason to lament missing children. To them, and similar to the attitude behind abortion, they see less children as less problems.
Rationing. A belief in overpopulation and limited resources leads towards a justification that consumer access to resources must be restricted.
Establishment Support for Depopulation:
Inferno (2016): In this movie, the villain tries to quickly kill half the population of Earth, on the belief that a quick and dramatic reduction in human population is the best way to save humanity from extinction threatened, as though unavoidably, by its own existence.
It portrays the damage to the earth's living environment simply a consequence of human presence, and although the protagonist of the film stops him, no one in the film refutes the villain's arguments directly.
Remarkably similar to the premise of Inferno (2016), the comic-book movie, Avengers: Infinity War (2018), set in a fictional living and interacting universe, portrays a villain who is determined
to quickly slay half the population in the universe as the best way to save the population from what he sees as its greatest threat: itself.
Again, population is seen as a threat with no redeeming qualities and not a question of behaviour change.
Although the movie’s heroes fight the villian, none of them refute his premise that everyone else would be far better off with half the population dead, or try to negotiate any better solution.
Furthermore, never for a moment did it occur to anyone in the film that with less magical power than it would take to kill 50% of everyone in the universe (for which the villain needed to collect 6 magical stones at great sacrifice), he could have simply doubled the life-supporting resources of the universe with just one of the stones he acquired early in the movie (the reality stone), and this would have achieved the same increase of resources per person with no death.
With a similar premise (that humanity is the paramount threat to life on earth), the movie Noah(2014) showed extreme internal conflict of the hero, Noah, over whether or not he could allow
any human to be left to reproduce, as humans were supposedly so extremely dangerous to the environment.
He spends a significant part of the film attempting to kill his newly-born granddaughters for this reason, but not much time teaching anyone how to care the environment.
Other Social Support:
A depopulation agenda has been advocated or actioned by scientists, corporations, Government, and international bodies for decades:
Strange Things about the Culture of Death Movement:
The movement presents itself as protecting life by encouraging death and scarcity. But there are some features of the movement which show that the movement don't really care about the Environment or life, these only being an excuse for the worship and service of death:
A mad rush to exotic technologies for all of our problems while ignoring a myriad of natural options readily available. For example, not only natural remedies but even natural immunity was ignored by Government in the COVID-19 crisis, while rushing approvals for radical gene-therapy injections for which long-term harms could not possibly be known.
Abortion was never locked down during pandemics, not anywhere, even when many other medical services were suspended by Government order.
There is no popular concern for the slave labour associated with certain materials essential for green technologies. Article: Slavery links and quality concerns: Why there could be a dark side to your solar panels. Yes, we could produce materials without slavery, but since it's not a popular issue to talk about, because the Green movement doesn't care about slavery, the problem is never acknowledged by enough people to fix it.
Greenpeace's founder, Patrick Moore, said that the organization had retained the 'green' value but largely forgotten the 'peace' value of its foundation, the result of which is that humanity is portrayed as the only evil species with a message that we are better off with less humans.
Although there are some suicides among followers of the Culture of Death, who also kill their own children in this religion, leaders of the Culture of Death generally exempt themselves and their lifestyle from the kinds of restrictions they advocate for everyone else. For example:
It's as if these climate leaders don't care about 'climate change' to change their own lifestyles but are only fulfilling some kind of role to promote the culture of death publicly. If so, who is directing them to play that role?
Enemies of Humanity
It should be easy to see how enemies of humanity might want to induce a belief in 'overpopulation' in us: to lead us to destroy each other in the belief that there isn't enough for all of us. It's a lot easier for them to get us to kill each other, directly or through goverment, than try to kill us all themselves.
It should have at least been obvious that narratives presented to us to entice us to kill our own children were crafted by enemies.
The Culture of Death mindset is so specifically anti-human that it is difficult to explain by human greed or human megalomania alone; it is evidence for the existence of some kind of non-human malevolent force with major influence in our society. It's one thing to want to dominate and dictate humanity, to show that you are the best, but to want to destroy humanity is something else unlikely to arise within it.
Regardless of that, anyone advocating for human depopulation is an enemy of humanity, regardless of their arguments.
Prophecy on Depopulation
The message is that humans are a threat to the environment, and death is the solution, is implied by the vision of the 'pale' horse in the Biblical Book of Revelation. A verse describes a spirit of literal death riding a pale horse:
"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth." (King James Bible, Revelation 6:8)
A necessary correction is said to be that the Greek word translated as 'pale' actually is 'green'.
Reinterpretation of this image is exactly what we're seeing today: riding on a force of green (environment-protecting excuse), death will have access to (politicized green movement, government-supported depopulation intiatives) and kill a large part of the population (depopulation). Since there is no weapon involved, the implication is that death will be accepted rather than inflicted by an opponent. Article: Spotting the Green Horse of Revelation.
Counter-Narrative: Exposing the Culture of Death
Basic Fallacies of the Theory of Overpopulation
Depopulation won't even work to make the world a better place for those who remain. Here's why:
Everyone would be a target and therefore be living under some kind of threat or fear of extermination.
Depopulation doesn't end environmental destruction. That is only ended by a change of attitudes in the management of the Earth's resources. For example, if you have 8 billion people in the world who believe it is OK to pollute the earth with trash, and you reduce the population to 1 billion people who pollute the earth with trash, you still have a lot of people polluting the earth with trash. It's a reduction, not a solution.
Depopulation ignores and destroys the contribution for good each person can make, portraying
each person's potential impact as only negative. Humans don't need to be a plague on the planet. We have the ability to use our ingenuity to make the planet even more life-supporting than if we weren't here, ie. even more life-supporting than the wild environment, if we wanted to. Depopulation destroys the potential we could have brought to the planet.
To decide that humanity should be exterminated is a question for God and not our authority to work on. Governments elected by the People still don't have more authority than the People. Just because you elect someone doesn't make them a god.
There is a moral hazard in any time of participating in depopulation of humanity. It's actually not OK to participate in mass killing of innocents, whatever your beliefs are.
Believing population is a threat leads to justification of not only killing, but all other evil morality. If you believe that other people need to be killed to save the planet, it's difficult to find a moral imperative to be respectful to them in other ways.
Believing population is a threat actually leads us to use our technology and resources to kill life rather than support it.
Population is strength and stability; depopulation is vulnerability and disaster.
Humans have a capacity to improve the world for all life better than the wild state. The non-human wild state is not perfection but harsh. Wild animals don't have it easy, a proof of which is that the same animals tend to live vastly longer in compassionate captivity. We are good at creating conveniences to support our own lives; we could do this for all life. For example, if we see wild animals in an unusual crisis, such as a great drought, we could easily top up their water supply. It's artificial, but we don't mind artificial life supports for ourselves, and inventiveness is what humans contrbute to Earth.
Individual humans have a unique potential which is priceless to lose. Humans are not all the same but rather each person is a unique part of existence and divine spirit. When we destroy humans, besides the loss to them, we don't even know what we might be losing: maybe even forever.
Testing the Assumption: The main assumption behind the Culture of Death is the implied doctrine that there is no value to the existence of each additional person: that whatever they might contribute is either not needed at all,
or even if it is, could easily be replaced by many, if not every, other person.
Therefore they are only a drain on our resources and planet.
Is that true?
No. Although it's difficult to see what the dead could have done for us if they were allowed to live,
we know from fields where we value advancement, such as music and science, that
there is no reason to think that what was contributed by one person would have been contributed
by others if they had not been there. For example, in vocal music, besides who composed each song,
most of us like each song best when it's performed by just one person. What if that person
wasn't allowed to be born? Similarly, some of us have a special love for just one person. What if they didn't exist:
is anyone else an acceptable substitute?
The fact is that we're not short of resources so much as we're short of ideas, talent,
courage, and manpower. Sure, we might have enough to run our farms and convenience stores, but
it's not enough to colonize other planets in a reasonable time, for example,
especially if we're competing with any other spacegoing species out there. Better put, we just don't
know how our lives might be better if we allowed people to live and helped them make the
contribution they were born to make. Are you lonely? Maybe our society killed your perfect soulmate already.
Are you fed up paying high energy prices? Maybe we shouldn't have let Nikola Tesla's project for a free worldwide communication and energy generation
system go bankrupt despite being partially constructed already.
The 'overpopulation' narrative is that it is just a cheap excluse for worship of death and implied worship of the spirit of death. Humans are touted as the problem, and death is touted as the solution, to all of our environmental problems. Death is touted as our saviour.
Ways we can see the diagnosis of 'overpopulation' is misleading:
It only considers size of population, rather than the ratio of population to supporting resources. Of course, only that ratio should matter in determining threat of population size. For example, if you need to drive 6 people to the ballgame, it's not the size of the group that determines if you have space for them, somuch as how that size compares to the number of seats in your vehicle.
Although population keeps increasing and the Earth's resources seem fixed, technology also keeps increasing. Technology enables us to use the same resources to support more life. This means that there is no clear point at which population will exceed the capacity of the Earth resources as utilized by our increasing technology. If there is a limit, it's an astronomically long way away.
How efficiently we use our resources also plays a critical role in determining the size of the population we can support. This fact was also conveniently left out of the 'overpopulation' narrative.
Humanity has been grossly mismanaging the Earth's resources, and investing technology more in ways to destroy life than support it, and creating false narratives of scarcity. We could support vastly more life cleaner, cheaper, and better than we do now. We have the resources and technology. However we lack the political and to some extent Public will. Here are some of the problems:
Framing understanding of resources based on a mindset of scarcity. For example, naming hydrocarbons 'fossil fuels' sets our understanding of them as a limited resource, even though that's only a false theory of their origin, and they're actually unlimited. Think for a minute: have you ever heard of any oil producing country, or even a single oil well, running out of oil? Rather we hear about them conspiring to limit production.
Mis-development of potentially life-supporting resources to other uses.:
For example, many concrete cities today are built on some of the best farmland in the region, which is why communities started out there. That land should have been protected for farming use only. What do we eat when we've covered all our best farm land with concrete? Dust.
Imagine how much more food we could produce if cities were build on land unsuitable for farm production, and the most suitable land reserved for farming.
Allowing key life-supporting resources to be recklessly polluted.
Government may have strict rules against private dumping, but they tend to be lax in their own waste management and sometimes with large industry also. For example, many cities even in developed nations dump raw sewage into our waterways,
especially when heavy rains overhwelm their inadequate and poorly implemented sewage treatment systems.
Often these systems cause storm and sewer water to be collected in the same pipes, even though rainwater doesn't need treatment, and if it rains enough the underfunded system is overwhelmed. Even at best, these systems are typically designed to kill bacteria, but not remove chemical contamination (such as prescription drugs), before releasing it into natural bodies of water.
Lack of political interest to upgrade our life-supporting systems. For example, upgrade of our sewage treatment facilities, ie. before we dump into the lake or ocean, is virtually unheard of to even be mentioned as a political issue in an election.
Government Disomterest tp Pick Up Household Hazardous Waste:
They don't make it convenient, presumably because they can't make money off it. If Government really cared about the environment, they would be eager to collect any amount of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) rather than risk you throwing it out in the regular trash or down the sink.
Their attitude would be that environment is too precious to risk people disposing of HHW incorrectly, and they would go out of their way to see that inappropriate disposal of even the smallest amount hazardous waste will not happen.
Instead, Government has typically been relatively unhelpful for residents to easily and properly dispose of HHW. Typically,
either there is nothing in place for its collection, or residents are required to take it themselves to a remote waste station.
It's completely unreasonable.
I suspect that many, even most, people simply put their HHW in the regular trash because they have no better convenient option.
It's not because of overpopulation that HHW disposal options are inconvenient. It's because we don't care, as a society, to make it convenient.
Investment of our best technology in ways to kill (weapons, 'defense') rather than support life. Our society has the technology, but would just rather use it to kill.
Specific examples of suppression (or concerns of suppression) of planet-improving technologies:
Governments unable to find money to support life, but always finding enough money for weapons, war, and anything they want to do, even though these things are often extreme expenses. For example, Government spent literally no limit of money to battle COVID-19 and supply vaccines, even ordering the shutdown of their own societies and paying people to stay home, but are unable to find the money to end any other health problem, or provide government-funded healthcare in most countries, or provide enough beds for their homless, or clean up water pollution. Specific reports include:
People who own land but don't use it for anything. Sometimes the Government will pay farmers not to sow their fields.
Hoarding: Some people who control resources seem to set no limit to how much they insist to accumulate for themselves while ignoring the needs of others. Whether or not the earth has enough resources to support everyone isn't the problem so much as lack of sharing those resources with the many.
Deliberate Undersupply at the Government, Production, and/or Distribution Levels:
Producers and distributors sometimes have cooperated to limit production or distribution of products to create artificial scarcity. This is usually done to prop up prices but can have other political purposes also. The priority being money, they will actually waste even food rather than overproduce. For example:
Non-Charity. Supporting life with a certain amount of resources brings into question the issue of distribution of those resources, and often the issue of charity comes up, because those who don't have cannot afford to buy it from those who have. If money is more important than life, you don't give away for free what can be sold to someone else. This is why many nations with large hungry populations still export food: they can feed them but they don't want to give that food away for free, not even to their own people.
Best Before Dates without Use-By Dates alongside
Although use-by dates are about safety, best-before dates are about quality, such as taste
It's not unsafe just because the best-before date has recently passed; it just might not taste as perfect.
Yet since the best-before date is usually the only date on the product, grocers, food banks, and households
typically have no practical way to distinguish when to throw it out, and may feel responsible to throw out food by the best before date, even though it's still safe to eat. It's profitable for the manufacturers, because the product must be purchased again to restock, but it's wasteful in terms of supporting life on this planet. Example article: Canadians rely on 'best before' dates even if it causes food waste, study finds
Wasteful Inefficiencies in the System:
We waste food and other goods in many ways.
For food, we waste at every stage of the process from sowing the crops to putting it on our dinner table, and
there doesn't seem to be any big fight against this.
Restaurants are notorious to waste tremendous amounts of food based on a policy to only sell what is very fresh to customers to preserve their reputation. Anything less than extremely fresh is generally thrown out, even if still quite safe to eat, rather than anyone being allowed to eat it. For example, there is a large coffee show which advertises that their coffee is always made less than 5 minutes ago. That means they must not only keep making it, but, unless it's always bought, keep throwing it out. There is a similar policy for baked items and solid food: at a certain time of day they typcially throw everything out in the garbage and make fresh items. They usually won't even allow animals to eat it, or homeless, because they see the accumulation of either one near their restaurant as a threat.
At home we also waste food. We often throw out produce which we didn't eat while it was still fresh because we forgot about it or we just didn't care. Some people will throw out good fresh food just because they don't fancy the taste, or because they allowed it to get cold.
Deliberately Poor Quality in Manufacturing:
Some products seem actually designed to break or go obsolete earlier than they need to, apparently so that we buy the next version of the same thing again rather than the old one lasting.
That generates revenues for manufacturers, who seem to have this incentive to design products to break, wear out, rust, or become obsolete, rather than build them to last.
It's also difficult for consumers to judge quality at the point of sale, since much of it is unseen and of a technical nature, or there just isn't much choice on the issue provided to consumers by the industry.
For example, most cars are made out of rustable steel, computers their peripherals and their software constantly become obsolete, light bulbs are designed to have only a limited life span, and hidden gears (such as in a digital camera with moving lens) might be plastic instead of metal.
This strategy might work well for manufacturers, but
it wastes consumers' money and manufacturers' production capacity from producing what is most useful.
It's tremendous inefficient on both sides.
We'd be better off making more enduring products and putting our manufacturing to do something we really do need, like
products for the needy, even for free. But it's more profitable the way it is.
Virus Creation: If Government was inventing viruses, that should prove that it is more interested in killing than helping people.
Unlike military equipment, viruses are an offensive rather than defensive tool, they don't discriminate between civilian and military targets, or even discriminate friend from foe, and they don't stop at the signing of a peace treaty.
They don't obey the rules of war at all, and therefore cannot be part of any moral military operation.
You can't say you make viruses to defend lives.
Sadly it's been done, as as this (inventor's) patent for SARS shows. The COVID crisis has brought special attention to labs performing gain-of-function virus research.
How much more life could we support if we used our ingenuity to support life, rather than inventing new ways to destroy it?
Non-Decomposablle Products: The combination of making products which don't decompose well, such as plastic, with Governments dumping them directly into the environment, pollutes the environment with unnatural garbage which does not decompose. Either we should make nothing which doesn't decompose, or we should not allow that waste to be dumped into the natural environment that way.
Chronic Governmenet Debt: Governments tend to get themselves into debt with no plan and often no realistic ability to repay it. That cuts off our ability to spend money on life supports, and has been implicated as a direct cause in
some cases of famine.
Wasteful Budget Exhaustion: Anyone allocated an expense budget, especially Government agencies but also many other people including politicians and grant recipients, is typically allocated a maximum amount they can spend (the budget), with penalties to go beyond it, but no rewards to spend less than that. In fact, if they spend less, they may be allocated less next time. Simply because of this method of accounting, their incentive is to deliberately spend out every cent of what they are allocated whether their mandate actually needs that money at that time or not. Stories of the most outrageous waste in doing so are common. If only we rewarded people to not spend out their budget, or provided a way that the excess could be given to charity without reducing the allotment next time to the person with the budget, that would be far better for everyone.
Wasteful Spending and Risk of Money: We waste money in ways that’s disgusting considering that so many people
are starving, by which I mean wasting big sums of money for very insignificant benefit. For example:
Sometimes-outrageous spending on anything called ‘art’, including:
of dollars each year on lottery tickets we know are not only designed with the
odds unprofitably against us, for many of them the odds of winning are so small that even if we play for our
whole lives we have no reasonable chance of winning. Sure,
its’ your money and you don’t need it, but by definition that means you could afford to give it
to a needy person instead of blatantly wasting it.
Gambling: This is done in casinos and financial institutions.
Many stock market investors, who use funds, don't even know or care what underlying stocks they're investing in.
Supposedly, they know the risks and accept them, and it's their money to do with as they please.
That's true, but if we're striving for a better world we should ask: if you can afford to waste that money, why not
give it to some hungry person? Does the world really have too few resources or are we just wasting them?
Designer Clothing: just for someone else’s name on your clothes?
Cigarettes: do you need to spend money to destroy your health? Can't that money be better used?
Diamond Engagement Rings: Who convinced us these are required to get engaged? By a simple marketing campaign, we've been conditioned to believe that something we don't need is a need, and we will pay any amount of money for it, because men don't want to be seen as not 'loving her enough' to buy her a diamond ring. The bigger the diamond, the more he loves you ... right?
Human society has been building our habitations to exclude all life except human life (and the occasional pet we choose), despite the planet being the natural home of many species,
as if all the Earth is ours alone and wildlife have no right to use it.
Life on this planet should not just be measured in human life, and our administration of this planet's resources should not be judged only on the support of human life.
There are many other indigenous lifeforms here, ie. earthings, than just us, and we should be respectful towards them in our shared habitat, to cause them
no unnecessary destruction.
Although land can be used to support life, often easily with changes which persist without any further effort on our part,
our culture hasn't fostered a sense of responsibility to use land to support more than human life. Our culture has
encouraged us to buy land, clear it for human use only, put a house on it, put grass on it, deter wildlife from entering, and watch television.
Then we are encouraged to spend time, money, and effort maintaining it just that way, including cutting/fertilizing/watering
the lawn and spraying our plants against 'pests' (which can mean any wildlife).
We've attacked any wildlife which persists despite our efforts to exclude it. In cities today, it's typical that what little wildlife has found ways to survive despite us, such as pigeons, squirrels, and raccoons,
have been hated and our society has been waging a war with them to allow them no shelter in our buildings and
ensure they have no access to our food: not even the food we discard.
Sometimes we plant flowers, but few gardeners do it to provide anything for wildlife, this boon usually being accidental.
In contrast, the same land used for our habitations could be used to support abundant wildlife with the same effort or even less effort, simply by, for example,
a different choice of plants. For example, instead of a big maple tree on your font lawn, you could have a red oak tree, which by its acorns alone
supports wild mammals and birds all through the year, as well as humans (if you soak the tannins out of the acorns first).
If we could be more respectful of the reasonable rights of the other species on this planet, we
could include some provisions for wildlife to be supported on the land we use, even in our cities.
Some of this we can do for free: we plant trees in our cities, anyway, so we only need to choose ones which produce food for wildlife;
neither does it cost us anything to allow wildlife to eat food waste (in fact it saves money from having to collect it in trucks for city composting).
Beyond that, we could tolerate the small costs of building small living quarters for wildlife into our homes,
as a kind of compensation to wildlife for taking over the land we're supposed to share.
It is our choice for wildlife exclusion, not merely human population, which is the reason why expansion of land under human use has almost always meant an equal loss of habitat for animals.
The Earth's Resources might actually be Increasing: Since our universe came to being out of nothing, the universe may have ways to continue to do that, to make our resources truly unlimited if we ever did start running out of matter. In particular, there is a theory that even the earth itself has been growing: that the spreading apart of tectonic plates is not simply due to flows of magma but a physical growth of the size of the planet. Perhaps we actually live in a universe of abundance, and we are mentally viewing it as a universe of shortage.
The 'Overpopulation' mindset denies personal responsibility and blames God. There's no individual responsibilty for believing the Earth's problems are 'overpopulation'. The 'overpopulation' diagnosis implicitly blames God, who is the source of life, for putting allegedly too much life here, rather than thank Him for giving us not only life but ample resources to support it.
We actually live in a place of abundance. That is to say, scarcity is only created by misinformation and mismanagement:
The universe is designed with abundant matter and energy, which can be interconverted. Example article: https://www.naturalnews.com/2022-08-26-globalists-are-terrorizing-humanity-with-artificial-scarcity-of-everything-food-energy-fertilizer.html#
Although there have been many promoted scares that we will run out of our presumably non-renewable resources, even those deadlines of when we were predicted to run out have been well breached without shortage and there doesn't seem to be a shortage for the forseeable future. For example, petroleum shortage should not be any immediate concern (article Why We'll Never Run Out of Oil).
We have plenty of space. For example, this article explains that approximately 50% of the Earth's surface remains relatively untouched by us. Beyond that, even for the land we are actively using, we could build higher or deeper, we could also colonize the oceans, and we could colonize space. It's plent of space to grow!
There is a legend that free energy was not only achieved but publicly implemented in a kingdom called Tartaria (at northern Russia), and in old Western and old Eastern sophisticated architecture. It is thoguht to have been a marvellous society of human innovation and freedom, especialy in the area of electricity. It seems that the society was destroyed (maybe they didn't invest in weaponry to defend themselves) and most of its beautiful but buildings deliberately demolished (although a small number remain in Western use for things like government buildings and rare monuments). It is thought that the technology relied on some kind of atmospheric electricity and groundwater. In particular, the tall spires with metal rods on top, typical of gothic architecture, are thought to be electrical recievers under this free-energy system.
Nikola Tesla may have been working on similar lines in pursuit of free energy, and despite all the money and effort by Government to restrict society in the name of helping the Environment, you don't see them spending a pennny to attempt to reproduce the free energy technology which the very competent Nikola Tesla was known to be working on.
The Practical Evidence of the Truth in Plain View:
If Overpopulation was the true problem, with resources to support life scarce to breaking point, then:
Everybody would be trying to grow food in every crevice they can.
Put another way, it wouldn't be illegal to have a vegetable garden in front of your house instead of a lawn (as it is in most cities today, for appearances): it would be illegal not to.
It definitely would be illegal to throw out edible food: even for composting.
If we sincerely cared about life on our planet, we would find ways to get edible food to life who can use it
in an appropriate manner and place. Only inedible food waste should be composted.
For example, edible-food waste from a restaurant could be taken to an appropriate place in the forest for the
benefit of wildlife there.
Unfortunately the reality is far from that, with food thrown out (not redistributed or price reduced) without almost any concern by government, restaurants, and grocery stores: even just for minor drops in freshness in otherwise safe-to-eat food. They usually don't even want the Public to have this food for price, reputation (eg. freshest taste), and legal reasons.
Varieties of food-producing plants, and their seeds, would be the most precious commodity: not pretty bars of metals that do nothing but sit in a vault.
It would be illegal to cut down real trees for Christmas celebrations. It is environmentally insane to cut down and transport for sale trees which take 13 years to grow only to be used for a one-day celebration.
If our Government, (which makes so many things illegal no one can keep track of all the laws) sincerely cared about the environment it would make this illegal.
Recycling programs would be aggressive and convenient, like they are in wartime when the Government actually cares to win because they want to hold on to power. Instead, our society has focused on which recycling programs are profitable, and
made disposal of hazardous waste very inconvenient because the Government loses money on them.
NO wastewater would be dumped into natural bodies of water. The water in these bodies must be kept at
drinking-water-quality, for the sake of all life, and therefore wastewater must not be directly poured into them.
Yet virtually every town in our world dumps their waste into the water because it is most convenient.
Sink disposal of environmentally inappropriate products would be a hot political, criminal, and scientific topic. For example, harsh cleaning products are expected to eventually be rinsed into sinks, down the drain, and into waterways. No one should be allowed to do this. Rather, better means would need to be invented.
Everyday Evidence that Public Attitude, not Overpopulation, is the Problem with managing resources for life:
Littering is still a problem even where trash bins are provided.: If you take a walk along most city sidewalks, you usually find trash littered on the ground, even if there are many city trashbins at regular intervals along the path. This proves that it's a failure of attitude, not a failure of resoures, which has been destroying our planet.
Almost no one picks up the litter (which they easily could on their way and deposit into bins along their way).
Can't be Bothered to Harvest: Many people, have fruit trees and actually leave the fruit to rot, apparently because we have so much food available cheaply enough that we don't need to bother collecting it.
Does that sound like a society which is so desperate for food that we need to reduce population?
Direct Mail Marketing: It's amazing how many companies have extra money to blatantly waste it by sending us advertising in our mailbox which we don't want.
This wastes not only materials (paper, ink) but effort (mail service).
This waste of paper would be illegal if it was actually in short supply.
War on Wild Animals: Not only are wild animals unwelcome in houses, but they are often attacked anywhere on a person's land if that person doesn't like them being on 'his' or 'her' land. The premise of this thinking is that humans have rights to the planet but animals don't, especially if you paid some for that land, even though whoever sold the land in the first place claimed it for free.
Halloween: Have you noticed Halloween, the traditional day of the dead, becoming more and more supported in our society,
even though there is no gift-giving? What is good about death, monsters, and fear that we should celebrate them?
Why do we primarily focus on getting children involved in this evil, and
is there on any level a connection between this and our crisis of missing children?
Popularity of Undead in Entertainment: Have you noticed unending entertainment programs about vampires and zombies?
What is our fascination with these animated yet dead (undead) creatures?
How do these stories continue as supposedly indispensable,
even though they be based on complete fiction?
The Bottom Line:
All of the resources available to humanity are actually either unlimited or abundant, and keeeping that abundance away from the commmon people, in mind and in practice, is only a method of oppression ofhumanity.
Is it reasonable that we could ever change the way we do things to stop wasting resources and support life? It is.
Around the time I've been writing this, the Covid-19 pandemic has been raging and I've seen many articles on how farmers' can't get their produce to market, and it's wasting away at the farms, with the added insistence that anyone who thinks the food can be redistributed to the hungry simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND food supply.
They insisted it was impossible.
Suddenly the Government decided to buy the food and give it to food banks, and now they're not saying it's impossible anymore.
To save life on earth, it's not humanity which needs to end, but rather our tolerance for our own reckless mismanagement of the planet's life-supporting capacity. That needs to end immediately.
Furthermore, it's not that we should only tolerate more human population. Human population is not just tolerable, but desirable, because:
Humans deserve to be on earth no less than any animal.
Human population is progressive. Ideas,
music, literature, scripture, and knowledge: these only come through
people. Technological advances, in particular, have to be invented. The more population you have, the greater the odds that one of those people will invent something wonderful which will benefit humanity forever after.
Human population is emotional comfort. We
need to feel loved; we don’t want to live alone. The greater the population, the greater the chance that we can find someone compatible.
Human population is convenience. The
more population there is, the more we build up conveniences there for everyone’s ease of use. For example, we wouldn't have shopping malls if there were only a few people living in the area.
Human population is power. That's why people listen when the most populated nations speak, and are afraid to offend them in any way. For example, in the last few years I've noticed an
extreme aversion of politicians to criticize China for anything, despite it being a communist nation, not even acts of extreme cruelty, such as Government-forced organ harvesting or Government-forced abortions.
Why? China has the largest human population in the world, and that makes them a major force on economic, military, and many other levels.
For example, I've heard it boasted that if a company could sell one product or service to everyone in China, they wouldn't need to sell anywhere else.
Unfortunately for China, in trying to prevent the touted scare
of overpopulation, and implementing a one-child policy in 1978, they have lost much of their momentum
in being a global influence, as this article discusses.
Human population is safety. That's why it's safer to live with good neighbours than alone.
Human population is a stronger economy. Don't expect to make a lot of sales if you're the only person living there.
Human population is division of labor. That's why we don't all have to work on farms now.
Humans, in particular, have the ability to engineer enhancements and protections in the environment for the benefit of life which animals and plants could not do on their own.
For example, animals generally cannot plant their favorite foods, but only gather them.
That would be like us harvesting corn by waiting for it to grow on its own.
As another example, if a waterhole runs dry, there's not much an animal can do about it, but human engineering can usually refill it fairly easily from deep in the ground or some other source.
As another example, in the story of Noah's Ark, it was (Divinely inspired) human engineering which saved enough of Earth's life to repopulate Earth after the disaster. Humans can be a blessing to our planet's biome if we want to be.
Other people make life enjoyable, and isolation for a prolonged period is a great torment for us humans.
Some say that life becomes meaningless if you don't have someone to share it with.
In particular, most of us dream of meeting our soul mate, if we haven't found them already.
If you don't protect population, you might just be letting your soul mate die,
which traps you in a life without them.
On the other hand, if you encourage human population growth, you'll maximize your chances of finding that perfect match for yourself, as well as maximize
your options for good friendships.
The True Solution
Based on a corrected understanding of the necessary balance between population and resources, and realizing humanity's guilt not for multiplying but for reckless mismanagement of natural resources and misinvestment of technology, we can start to see a good solution:
We don't need to kill people or otherwise depopulate for our world to thrive. We only need to manage our resources and technology better towards the promotion of life. For example, to combat any rise in CO2, we should encourage more plant life, which we can do easily, such as by banning clearcutting of forests which cannot reasonably regrow (such as the Amazon jungle), in a way that's fair to countries which support forests for the planet, or using our best technology (including plant varieties) to promote more plant life in cities and areas where there is currently very little (such as encouraging deepest-root trees to get established in the deserts).
We need to ban the pollution of natural bodies of water, starting with where we draw our drinking water, but including all bodies of water where creatures live, out of respect to them.
We need to stop spraying chemicals in the atmosphere.
We need to ban genetic engineering which risks pollution of the natural biome in a way that can't be undone.
Realizing the solution is not to kill our neighbour but to invest in the life-supporting ability of our biome, such as to plant trees, we can see the evil in the promotion of the former mindset.
Other Forms of Attack
The most foundational molecules of life, such as carbon and carbon dioxide, are popularly portrayed as an evil to drastically reduce as an emergency. This is the basic idea about the many carbon-reducing initiatives.
Sunlight is also attacked as though an evil, claiming it could superheat the planet. There are initiatives to blot out the sun with stratosphere aerosol injection and other atmospheric means.
What should we do instead of attacking life/population?
Although some solutions should be fairly obvvious, our scientists have uncovered advanced knowledge which could help us to support more population in a more sustainable way. Unfortunately they may be unprofitable to the existing Establishment or not colinear with the way the Establishment wants our society to go. Options include:
Include a place for wildlife in city and even house design. It wouldn't be difficult, for examaple, to provide a place for birds to nest in a building, rather than have them nest in a location we don't want them to and/or which is dangerous to them. It wouldn't be expensive for cities to maintain some bird feeders.
Have a dedicated ministry to support wildlife in times of disaster. For example, it wouldn't be difficult or expensive to artificially supply extra water to dried-up waterholes which animals in hot climates depend on.
Make it illegal to pay someone to keep technology away from public use.
Research advanced 'free energy' technology. Even Nikola Tesla was working on this, but he wasn't supported, presumably because it wasn't profitable, and the project collapsed.
Why is the Establishment Pushing Depopulation Initiatives?
Mike Adams has an excellent free online video series called The Oblivion Agenda which details the Establishment war against life under the banner of 'climate change' as a clear fact. He further offers the theory that it may be at the order of a highly intelligent extraterrestrial species who want to take over Earth for themselves, using the human leaders who cooperate with them.
The reality might be worse than that, as there is significant evidence that many of our leaders are extraterrestrials, ie. able to disguise themselves as humans with technology and skills which seem magical to us, and, by virtue of their position, are able to advance narratives and initiatives to destroy us with our own approval, implementation, and funding. Please see our (Non-Human threat page currently in development) for details on that.
Population-capcity concerns must be viewed not in terms of population alone but in the ratio of population to resources, technology, and efficiency.
Resources aren't lacking. Our resources are abundant enough that shortage should not be a concern on a global scale.
There is more than enough room and resources for everyone if it was used efficiently to support life.
We have enough knowledge (technology) to run the world sustainably without attacking population. In fact we have much more technology than we're using, much of it being sequestered as 'classified' away from the Public. It's only a question of public and political will to use technology to support instead of destroy life.
Population isn't a threat. Population is a good thing.
All problems ascribed to overpopulation currently on this planet are actually due to mismanagement.
Environmentalism doesn't need to be anti-human, but human-inclusive, since we have the know-how to manage the Earth for all life harmoniously if we wanted to.
Our society cannot be peaceful unless we believe there is room for everyone. How you treat others simply follows as a consequence to whether you believe there's room and resources for them or not.
The 'overpopulation' narrative has been misleading us to attack humanity for nothing, ie. despite abundant technology and living on a planet of abundance.
Lunatics promoting the 'overpopulation' mindset should not be followed. Their message is strongly anti-life and should not have been accepted.
Underpopulation, if anything, is our society's problem. Humans have a potential of good to contribute, and destroying humanity is to destroy the most precious resource of this planet.
The depopulation plan actually begins with encouraging so much immorality in society to discourage God from saving us and actually encourage Him to destroy us or be glad for another species to rule Earth.
There are many movements and initiatves dangerously accepted in our society which are aimed at destroyling life, while being portrayed as helping it.
Our leaders may be cooperating with malevolent extraterrestrials against us, or some of them may be extraterrestrials themselves.
Why this Issue is So Important to Understand Correctly
The difference in attitude between viewing human population as a good thing or a bad thing is the foundation of morality or not. The 'overpopulation' mindset destroys morality, whereas an 'underpopulation' mindset supports morality. When you meet someone, whether you believe there aren't enough resources for both of you, or there are plenty of resources for both of you, determines whether you see them as a threat or a benefit, and will have a tremendous impact on how you treat them.. World war results from an 'overpopulation' mindset, but world peace grows from an 'underpopulation' mindset.
The foundation of whether we build our world kind or cruel begins with our choice of belief in whether there is room for all of us or not.
Escape from the Culture of Death:
The way out, also called the Culture of Life, begins if and when
we decide to see each other person as a precious and irreplacable value. With that kind of attitude, we would be motivated to:
Don't allow either humanity or the Earth to be destroyed but care both of them.
Don't embrace beliefs that it's OK to destroy either humanity or the Earth because it's prophesied that we'll be taken away by God or technology. Earth is a responsiiblity under our management.
Stop believing in scarcity. Every resource on Earth necessary for life and comfort is abundant. It's only a question of how we use or misuse our resources and technology. Don't allow these to be grossly mismanaged or even hidden by the Establishment, and then the same Establishment, sometimes even the very same people mismanaging the public resources, tell you that population and human freedoms are the problems and that they must be sacrificed.
Demand the release of free energy technology.
Demand the abolishment of production quotas as the first way to improve food supply.
Stop building cities over the best farmland. Make a long-term plan to slowly not replace and eventually effectively move cities wehre this mistake was already done.
Allocate more technology and funding to support life rather than destroy it.
Stop attacking the basic molecules and requirements of life as a threat. Attack toxins (like mercury) and obvious pollution instead.
Make abortion illegal. We shouldn't be accepting narratives which teach us to kill our own children.
Pursue missing children with at least the same ferocity that our Government would pursue missing money from a tax return.
Stop weapons of mass destruction. It is not fair to life to attempt to solve political problems with weapons that destroy so much more than just the political enemy.