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

originally posted by: CptGreenTea
. . . 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.

You should be aware of your terminology, population reduction and slowing population growth are two different things. Reduction is culling the herd, I believe you may have meant reducing growth, although that may mean sterilization.

originally posted by: nugget1
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.

They are the least useful of anyone. The use the most resources and do the least amount of work.

They are putting way too much stock in AI and software. Software is perpetually buggy, as will be AI.

a reply to: teapot

isn't it always thus thinking they are like gods in control of the universe, their own hubris will be their demise..

Imo it's a no brainer that if a species can't control its own population growth, then it's more dumb animal, or even an infestation than an intelligent species.

But, to be an intelligent species they also have to figure out a way of doing this humanely and with the cooperation of the individuals. Therefore it's a long process of limiting family numbers to slowly reduce the population via natural cause death etc. Personally i completely advocate this, or else our grandchildren will exist in the living hell of resource scarcity, famine and the conflict that always follows that.

What i don't advocate is any plan the elites have or may enact without full public disclosure. Such a plan would no doubt involve an accelerated timeline that culls and sterilises those they deem unworthy, while protecting their sick arses. Even if Covid and/or the vaccines are not such a plan rolling out before us, don't doubt that these discussion have been held at high levels being closed doors, with the headline being 'when', not 'if'.

This is all inherently evil. How do we put value on a human life? What makes one worth more or less than another? By what standard does he presume to judge?

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.

#ThanosWasRight

/s

a reply to: McGinty

It's not really about the population, it's about the consumerist behaviours of humans.

If you calculated the tonnage of all the termites on Earth it would dwarf the entirety of our species many times over.

There's plenty of land, food and water for everyone. It's the materialist nature of Western society and our selfish and wasteful actions which is the problem.

Also, we're almost at peak population, the idea of a runaway and out of control human population is a myth. Current forecasts and trends actually suggest an imminent population collapse, Europe without immigration is looking at 30-80% declines over the next 50 years. If you exclude sub Saharan Africa we face somewhat of a population decline crisis. Most likely as a result of the destruction of religious values and the traditional family unit.

The problem isn't the poor, it's these so called elites who want it all for themselves and have no empathy or appetite to feed their soon to be useless slaves. It's easier, cheaper and more effective to control a synthetic robot over a biological slave.

a reply to: Grenade

Sure looks like a runaway population in London. Homes being sub-divided to a ridiculous extent to cater for the numbers; you can barely fit onto public transport at peak times and the access to medical treatment for non-life threatening conditions - once a given in the UK is now a distant memory, with appointment waits in the years (and that's before Covid).

The fundamental cause of these problems in built up areas is sheer numbers; some may say it's the Brexit exodus, or funding. If it's the former then this apparent exodus hasn't made the city any less overcrowded (see housing and transport above). Or the latter - well, funding is an issue because of the constantly ballooning budgets caused by the ballooning numbers. And i know from experience there's other cities out there just as bad - some worse.

Population self-management isn't the only solution. Better, re-imagined infrastructure of satellite towns instead of cities to avoid the 'flies on sh!t' scenario we currently exist in (WFH is the first real step towards fixing that).

In the short term perhaps population numbers may to be ebbing, but surely the writing's on the wall looking at how much population has exploded this past century. Is it really unreasonable to expect that in the long term (allowing for temporary variances and sans pandemics and apocalypse) this trend will continue? Thinking of that broader upward curve a hundred years from now i'd expect the global total to be a few factors larger than it is now, not smaller.

So there may currently be room on the planet for everyone if we were to spread out, but do we keep on dividing up the space and resources indefinitely, hoping for a miracle, or a catastrophe, until one day the whole of the habitable globe looks like today's cities?

Imo population, space and resources are in a competition with one another that can only, eventually, end badly for all life on earth. The longer we avoid accepting that responsibility the more frakked we'll be when the responsibility is truly forces it upon us.

a reply to: McGinty

You may think that due to uncontrolled immigration over the last 20 years or so pre-Brexit however the statistics don't lie. It's simply not true, nor are your expectations realistic. When in London how often do you meet English speaking white folk, born in this country?

Deaths will soon be more than births and that's the key metric here.

Population Decline

"UN data shows that the total population of the post-socialist countries in Central, Southeast and Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus and Central Asia will drop from 418mn in 2021 to an expected 362mn by the end of the century, according to the median projection in the World Population Prospects 2022 report.

Taking out the countries of Central Asia — the only region where countries have rapidly growing populations — the slump is even deeper, from 339mn to 231mn, or a decline of 32%, according to bne IntelliNews calculations.

For the emerging Europe region excluding Central Asia, the population will fall below 249mn — the 2050 level — in 2084.

By 2021, three Southeast European countries are set to see the steepest population decline compared to 2021. Albania’s population will slump by almost two thirds (61%), while Bulgaria’s population will drop by 57% and Serbia’s by 55%.

Bulgaria’s population is thus forecast to drop to the level it was at around 1880, following the re-establishment of the Bulgarian state after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878.

For Albania the level was similar to that around the start of the Second World War, when the last king of Albania, Zog I, fled into exile after Italy’s invasion in 1939.

Serbia’s population is also expected to fall to levels last seen in the early 20th century.

Ukraine is the fourth country expected to lose more than half of its population by 2100, with a projected decline of 53%."

UN Report

If you discount net migration and look at total fertility rate pretty much every western nation is looking at reduction, anywhere from 30-80%

Here's some projections which only cover the next 30 years, which will have even more drastic decline in the second half of this century.

World Population Review

I realise the nightly news doesn't agree with what i'm saying here, but it's the truth regardless of the lies they peddle in order to push the agenda.

a reply to: Grenade

I’m in London everyday - I live there, unfortunately! And there’s English speaking white folk all over the place. I don’t think the population issue is down to immigration; it plays it part, but there’s many reasons for population booms/baby booms. The council estate I grew up on in the 70s had no shortage of school age girls pushing their new babies in buggies - babies having babies just so they can get a council flat of their own. And the vast majority of them were white, despite it being a diverse area.

I think it’s a universal problem common to all races and nations and even alien races should they exist: population management. And btw, management doesn’t just mean keeping it low, but understanding the optimum number and everyone playing their part to achieve this, be that more or less folk needed. But it’s only management by rewarding optimum family sizes; none of the Logan’s Run-Hugo Drax-12 Monkey-Agenda 21 voodoo bullish!t

If it were just an immigration issue cities such as Mumbai (Bombay when I was there) wouldn’t have such extreme poverty issues. Mumbai is rammed with folk simply looking for work, looking to feed their families and so are crammed into overcrowded, dilapidated abodes as well as corrugated metal shanty towns without pluming etc.

It’s a bad situation ignited by the need to congregate upon the city for money. You could call this a kind of immigration, since these folk are economic migrants from poorer parts of the country. But the problem is exponentially exacerbated by the generations then born into these hell holes. These hell holes will become hell towns, adding to the size of the hellish city. And why? Because there wasn’t enough work to sustain the populations of the towns they came from. All of these problems stem from irresponsible population growth.

However, we shouldn’t make ‘family number’ rules for some areas, some people and not others. Any management plan needs to be agreed to by democratic means and apply to everyone equally, no matter their wealth or location.

sorry for bleating on and on… Bottom line, would you say that in 500 years, if there are no natural or man made culls there will be fewer humans? Personally I see there being far more, no matter the current UN stats.

a reply to: McGinty

You’re not listening pal, this isn’t up for debate. Without immigration from the African and Asian continents it’s statistical fact that our total fertility rate is now below replacement levels throughout Europe and still dropping.

I also live and work in London, it’s an overcrowded sh!thole, still that city doesn’t represent the overall picture either here in the UK or in Europe. Over the next 50 years the population will decline! No ifs, buts or maybes, women simply don’t have as many children as they used to, it’s really that simple, which will lead to an ageing population and eventually a crisis. Most likely why Covid ripped through and appeared to target the elderly, pension age folk are a strain on national resources.

If woman continue the trend of having less and less children, if sexual health improves in the third world with more general access to contraception then I see a huge population reduction by 2500.

Your great grandmother would have had on average 10 children. Your grandmother on average would have 5 children. Your mother on average 3 children, your sister on average 2 children and your children on average will have 1 child each. Once that falls below one you have a real population crisis. The baby boomer generation are all reaching end of life, we simply aren’t having children at a high enough rate to replace them.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

In the first minute of the interview the smart guy sounds like a retard. He says something along the lines of, "Only people can create fictional stories about gods above the clouds and if you don't do what I say he will send you to hell. If you tried to convince a chimpanzee to give you his banana and if he don't when it dies is going to hell, the chimpanzee will never believe you."

If he was so #ing smart and was all about technology, maybe he should make a way that people and chimps can actually have a meaningful conversation. Chimps can't talk to people and people can't talk to chimps.

He's so arrogant that he probably does not believe there are humans in this world with unbreakable character and humanity that will not accept his "futurist" (dystopian future) bull shi t. I have been pondering his claim "We should accept that humans are not mystical souls but in fact hackable animals." All this becomes possible when people like animals are conditioned more and more through generations to be meek little pussies, some of us haven't got with the program yet.

I hope when this asshole meets Crom, Crom jams a T-Rex skull right up his ass and laughs at him while drinking meade out of Harari's grandmas titanium hip replacement.

a reply to: Grenade
P
opulation is currently increasing at an eye-watering rate...

www.worldometers.info...

World population is over 7,968,507,'000' and increasing at around 2-3 p/second by the looks of it. A lot faster than deaths.

However, you are right! Although it is increasing, the rate of that increase is slowing. This place predicts that it will continue to slow from 78.42 million in 2022 to 3.25 million in 2099...
ourworldindata.org...

So i humbly concede that your point is correct - that's a mighty decline in growth that mirror's the previous century's increase.

The graph stops at 2099, but if you continue the trajectory population would begin to decrease for the very first time around the year 3010. For a planet that went from 1 billion to almost 8 billion in one hundred years that'll be the start of a paradigm shift for humans if it comes to pass (wouldn't be the first time the numbers people got it wrong). But there's currently no evidence to suggest a change in direction for that curve. And if it plays out then around one hundred years after that, 4010ish, we'll be back to 1 billion global population.

a reply to: McGinty

We'll be back to the stone age or designed and grown in labs by then.

originally posted by: Grenade
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.

That is already happening. Since the introduction of the COVID vax the number of excess deaths each month is substantial.
IE In the UK total deaths in the first 4 months of 2022 exceed total deaths from 2020 and 2021.

It is the vaccine playing out as intended, and as we warned.

a reply to: Brotherman

If he was so #ing smart and was all about technology, maybe he should make a way that people and chimps can actually have a meaningful conversation. Chimps can't talk to people and people can't talk to chimps.

I bet the chimp wouldn't a banana from this troglodyte.

a reply to: McGinty

Imo population, space and resources are in a competition with one another that can only, eventually, end badly for all life on earth. The longer we avoid accepting that responsibility the more frakked we'll be when the responsibility is truly forces it upon us.

Cross that bridge when we come to it partner till then? Remove the
evil bastards that seek our demise by day. And party by night.

Why worry about something that may be intercepted by a rock
from space tomorrow? Let those who think they're Gods pretend
to worry about such things. For their own obviously selfish motives,
that in turn present us our own fully warranted motivation.

a reply to: Grenade

A senior maths moment from me there I’m afraid. Meant 2110, not 3010! By 3010 it’ll probBly be AI growing us in labs to be used as a power source, if we’re not careful

originally posted by: Randyvine2

Cross that bridge when we come to it partner till then? Remove the
evil bastards that seek our demise by day. And party by night.

You should put that on some guidestones so our great-grandchildren know who to blame

a reply to: McGinty

Indeed, by 2200 and following current trend we will be back to around 1 billion total population, simply due to reduced TFR.