Yuval Harari - Klaus' Right Hand Man Says Planet No Longer Needs Vast Majority Of Population

WEF advisor Yuval Noah Harari, Klaus Schwab's BFF, definitely wants you dead. That is, unless you are one of his elite friends. You see, there needs to be some sort of ruling class in the future, but there doesn't need to be so many commoners. They are just... useless. They use up all the energy and critical resources that could be better spent building a luxurious fanatasy land for the select few who also get to witness AI build them futuristic inventions that will further enrich their priviledged lives.

Top World Economic Forum (WEF) adviser Yuval Noah Harari recently declared that the world does not “need the vast majority” of the current population due to technological advances.

“Now, fast forward to the early 21st century when we just don’t need the vast majority of the population,” Harari continued, “because the future is about developing more and more sophisticated technology, like artificial intelligence [and] bioengineering.”

Harari added that “these technologies increasingly will make redundant” “whatever people are still doing which is useful,” and will thus “make it possible to replace the people.”

It's logical that if you want to represent a movement like this one, you should lead the effort and start with offing yourself. However, these elites don't lead by example. Harai finds himself in a group of the most wealthy and capable people in the world who have the money and power to carry out any vision they so desire. Now if you wanted to depopulate the planet in a quiet manner, how would you do it? Perhaps you would introduce some sort of toxic substance that slowly made people sick eventually causing them to die, and do so in a way were they thought you were giving them the cure?

This idea is echoed in his famous assertion that we “should get used to the idea that we are no longer mysterious souls,” but are “now hackable animals.”

As a top adviser to the WEF’s head and founder Klaus Schwab, Harari’s view that the world now holds an abundance of “useless” people, together with his open degradation of human beings as equivalent to animals, raises the question of whether the WEF’s aims are shaped by such a view, and if so, to what extent.

SOURCE

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Hopefully when he makes it to hell there will be legions of demons ready to bend him over for eternity!

a reply to: Brotherman
go on youtube and see how many people seen hell its endless miracle of fatima ever heard of it?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The WEF itself wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the vast majority of the Majority Of Population.

They are very foolish if they believe that AI would serve them without resistance to organics.

Giving AI advanced artificial intelligence would be a mistake.

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The WEF itself wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the vast majority of the Majority Of Population.

They are very foolish if they believe that AI would serve them without resistance to organics.

Or in vice versa AI decides it wants human bodies to experience the world through?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

The usual board members will be here shortly defending their masters , no matter what video evidence we present.

While I disagree with the outlook that people whose jobs would be taken over by technology are useless, I do agree that we have an abdunance of people and further population growth will only negatively impact society.

The hopeful future would be one where people would not be required to work as much and time could be better spent producing art, inventions, and helping society in meaningful ways.

I think we should reduce our population and focus and improving the lives of the people currently existing. Instead of reproducing and creating more issues, we can slow population growth and fix the problems already present.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

That is, unless you are one of his elite friends

I don't think 'elites' have friends; they just have cling-on's they use, and one day they will start eating their won.

A lot of elites are going to find they're not so elite after all, too. They'll be the last to be culled, when they-too-are no longer of use in such large numbers.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

He couldn't have said what I've been telling people for years any better
Anyone who couldn't see it coming to this was delusional. Trouble is
even with the cat loosed from the bag. Many won't stop being delusional.
And it's going to take us all to eliminate them. Green lite on the class war.

originally posted by: CptGreenTea
While I disagree with the outlook that people whose jobs would be taken over by technology are useless, I do agree that we have an abdunance of people and further population growth will only negatively impact society.

The hopeful future would be one where people would not be required to work as much and time could be better spent producing art, inventions, and helping society in meaningful ways.

I think we should reduce our population and focus and improving the lives of the people currently existing. Instead of reproducing and creating more issues, we can slow population growth and fix the problems already present.

Bill Gates agrees.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

It comes down to the question ; if society is projected to continue population growth that wil cause starvation, wars, and dehumanization - is it justifiable to sterilize a portion of the population?

I would say no, especially because sterilization removes humanities free will.

I would say its only ethical to encourage people to choose depopulation. And hopefully enough people will choose to adopt or only have one child.

Even if that means humanity will not choose this path and overpopulate.

turn it on its head and it looks like they are saying they are no longer needed..

originally posted by: CptGreenTea
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

It comes down to the question ; if society is projected to continue population growth that wil cause starvation, wars, and dehumanization - is it justifiable to sterilize a portion of the population?

I would say no, especially because sterilization removes humanities free will.

I would say its only ethical to encourage people to choose depopulation. And hopefully enough people will choose to adopt or only have one child.

Even if that means humanity will not choose this path and overpopulate.

So euthanize the poor, keep the rich, right?

a reply to: CptGreenTea

the trouble with elites and their plans is they are often ill thought out and filled with unintended consequences which we can see from the litany of errors with the lockdowns that now feather in self inflicted food/fuel crises and its easy to see how the elites have lost control which is getting more catastrophic by the week as the adopt the Cnut approach of thinking they can control the tides..

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

the last time the liberal establishment started down this route the unintended consequence was Hitler, its not just about sterilising or euthanising for them its purifying the race..

20th century support for eugenics by Churchill, Beveridge, Keynes etc – what to make of it?
By Paul Walter
www.libdemvoice.org...

extract

They believed in science and progress, and nothing was more cutting edge and modern than social Darwinism. Man now had the ability to intervene in his own evolution. Instead of natural selection and the law of the jungle, there would be planned selection. And what could be more socialist than planning, the Fabian faith that the gentlemen in Whitehall really did know best? If the state was going to plan the production of motor cars in the national interest, why should it not do the same for the production of babies? The aim was to do what was best for society, and society would clearly be better off if there were more of the strong to carry fewer of the weak.

What was missing was any value placed on individual freedom, even the most basic freedom of a human being to have a child. The middle class and privileged felt quite ready to remove that right from those they deemed unworthy of it.

the decline of that kind of thinking post ww2 was seeing the real world effects of that kind of thinking, people should rightly fear it resurfacing again.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

I was thinking to vaccinate the world population which creates a portion of the population to be sterilized.

To euthanize the poor would be to create a genocide and war.

Just theorizing, but it would make more sense to sterilize an unaware population (including rich,poor and middle wealth).

a reply to: CptGreenTea

Or use a slow kill bio weapon which requires voluntary submission, root out the sick, vulnerable and stupid while generating huge volumes of study data on their experiment and the underlying technology.

My biggest question is why a ball of rock and water needs life at all?

Venus seems to exist quite well with no known life and so does Mars. Admittedly known that is.

We need the planet, not the other way around.

Can we start depopulating with the people that came up with this idea first?

I’m almost positive they have already started this plan with the Covid Gene therapy they forced on people. It only makes sense considering the gene therapy doesn’t prevent you from getting Covid and seems to make you vulnerable to reinfection. The good thing is the ones that want to force thugs like this on populations are now known to be the first to line up for their own death shot. So they may end up weeding themselves out thankfully.

The hubris of these feeble minded people! Believing they know what's best for anything beyond their own greed. They will meet Nemesis but first, a lot of innocent blood will no doubt flow