Bill Gates explaining how we need to lower the population of earth to save the planet.

originally posted by: Edumakated
a reply to: jerryznv

Always interesting the people that want population control never want to be the first to volunteer....

Of course they don't, they want it all for themselves (pure unadulterated greed) because only they can afford to live here on Earth anymore by ripping off and stealing from the rest of us! The 1 percenters are totally mad / insane and we all let them take over our lives with their ideals and not our own! Stop buying their useless junk products and stop throwing money at them which only encourages them more!

They all completely worship the seven deadly sins and live by them to the letter!

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: TzarChasm

It's also interesting those people who regularly endorse the reduction/deceleration of population numbers, are the same people who suffer the least deficit if social imbalance forces a redistribution of economic resource.

There are way too many earthly resources being used; pollution is rampant and the destruction of nature can't continue at the rate it's going. The only solution is a rapid reduction in the number of people using up those resources and destroying the planet in the process.

Before there is any hope of the planet being restored to a more healthy, sustainable state a reduction of those destroying it has to come first-before Mother Nature does it for us.
JMHO

Seriously, how many people advocating for "a rapid reduction in the number of people using up those resources and destroying the planet in the process" are so committed to their ideal that they volunteer themselves to help in that regard by ending their own life? Or is it that those "numbers of people" are only OTHER people and the people advocating such a thing believe that they get an automatic pass because of their offered support? Seriously, this seems so, well, hypocritical, doesn't it?

Than Bill Gates wonders in news interviews why most of people in the world view as a villain comic book character?

originally posted by: paraphi
Why are people so vexed? Bill Gates is right.

If you improve life chances, health and reduce poverty, then birth rate will fall. This will lead to reducing populations.
Basically, there is a correlation between household size and poor life chances.

And, the world cannot sustain an ever-increasing population.

I partly agree and partly disagree with paraphi; I also think that Bill Gates has a point.

We have been pushing to this point for a very long time. Right back when we discovered Penicillin we have strived to cure ailments and prevent death. It was not that long ago that life expectancy was around 40 years of age and Jenner was doing his thing, which kept populations naturally in balance.

I do not think though that this is necessarily leading to a point of reducing populations though. I think it will lead to the reducing of the wrong population. From casual and personal observations, I see families who are working and better off having one or two children who are brought up "properly" by attending school promptly and learning.

On the other side of the coin, the families who are supported by "The State" to live a life of unemployment have many more children, who are brought into a life of accepting that having no money and no job is fine because the Government will give us money every month and we can just have multiple children and live on benefits. It's not uncommon, through my extended "Facebook Family" (IE seeing friends of friends posting) and just by listening to the local community go about their day; to see that in some cases they are actually earning MORE by not contributing to society and teaching each generation to do the same.

Like damn, We have families here who have never lifted a finger in their life to contribute to society, and when the eldest generation starts to naturally approach end of life they throw them into a convalescent home (paid for by The State) rather than rally around as a family.

So it is not that we are necessarily facing depopulation, but facing an economically sound depopulation.

originally posted by: Rich Z

originally posted by: nugget1
a reply to: TzarChasm

It's also interesting those people who regularly endorse the reduction/deceleration of population numbers, are the same people who suffer the least deficit if social imbalance forces a redistribution of economic resource.

There are way too many earthly resources being used; pollution is rampant and the destruction of nature can't continue at the rate it's going. The only solution is a rapid reduction in the number of people using up those resources and destroying the planet in the process.

Before there is any hope of the planet being restored to a more healthy, sustainable state a reduction of those destroying it has to come first-before Mother Nature does it for us.
JMHO

Seriously, how many people advocating for "a rapid reduction in the number of people using up those resources and destroying the planet in the process" are so committed to their ideal that they volunteer themselves to help in that regard by ending their own life? Or is it that those "numbers of people" are only OTHER people and the people advocating such a thing believe that they get an automatic pass because of their offered support? Seriously, this seems so, well, hypocritical, doesn't it?

Why, yes it does-and it explains the mindset of the 1% perfectly. They think they can out-smart Mother Nature with a controlled genocide AND a total wealth transfer in the process by blaming everything on global warming and directing billions to the green movement.

We fear the WMD coming from the MIC, but the ones created in the BSL4's are far more effective and stealthy.

I’m not a Bill Gates fan.

However, as a plebe I can say that, in some respects, I can see why Gates/Schwab/etc. would have this on their mind.

Look at it this way…

Those further down the economic spectrum are where you find most of the societal drain. Violence, popping out multiple/uncared for children, minimal societal contribution/maximum monetary drain, low motivation, low confidence, property crime, low education, etc.

Even your “upper-middle class” plebes don’t want anything to do with those people. Why? Because they’re working hard to avoid being those people.

Example: Stopped in at 7-11 the other day to get a Gatorade for one of my kids who was sick. The guy and gal behind the counter were obese, unkept, and chatting away about how they are going to get off work, toke up, and play video games. That was the extent of their day. Slang 7-11 products and then go get baked and vegetate for the balance. They make # money and do nothing. They do not value their own lives, but expect the tax paying citizen to value them.

Factually, we have too many people who fit the above profile. They are literally human robot labor that pacifies itself with drugs and dopamine hitting activities. That’s it. Then they procreate, and become a larger resource drain. They gobble up food resources, water, utilities, pollute, etc. What they give back is manual, low-intelligence labor so others don’t have to self-self their checkout. That’s about it in terms of societal contribution.

Do we need them? Have humans like I mentioned taken the time to grow themselves? Seek better? Give back to their community? Be self-sufficient? Not really.

When half of your country or more doesn’t pay taxes, that’s a problem. That means more than half your population isn’t contributing. So once you have the robots/AI who will efficiently present people with the goods they request, the people in my example will no longer be required for labor.

So then what does society do for them? My answer? Nothing. If we restored personal responsibility, everyone pays, etc. then this problem would solve itself.

We got too big and have too many useless eaters and, no, we don’t need anywhere near as many of these people as we do.

As an aside, I went to school in part to study Economics. Economics, the dismal science, says Gates and Klaus are right - the people I described above aren’t going to have much in the way of societal utility all that much longer. It’s up to them to change that, but, they aren’t really thinking about that when they’re baked and playing GTA all day.

We were talking about this subject 20 years ago in collegiate economics classes. The economist in me has no feels - it’s just saying what it is - and we have many, many humans who are going to be obsolete, the writing is on the wall, and they are doing nothing to change that for themselves.

All of that said, however, the idea that somehow mass genocide is underway is bogus. The shallow end of the human pool has for years culled itself based on their behavior at scale (drugs/violence/poor health and eating habits/etc.).

If you pay taxes (w2, cap-gains, etc.), you have nothing to worry about. You are a contributor to society. That’s the line of demarcation, in my mind.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

Well there are viable alternatives to there opinion.

National service for all able bodied young does not mean just the army but instilling into them discipline, a respect for authority and a sense of there place in society as well as life skill's and trades that were not but should have been instilled in school is a more than viable alternative to killing them like they were nothing but bloody animals.

As for the drain, lets see now in the US for example.

late 1940's through to the late 1950's the currently poorest sections of US society (Not later migrants) the Black US citizens were starting to become ever more successful, there middle class was growing and employing there working class.

Then a certain group of Alphabet agency employees being as they were comfortable upper middle class American's and perhaps fearing for the future of there nation's colour spectrum and tinged with more than a little bit of racism decided to use the US intelligence agency's they worked for to funnel drugs into these community's in order to undermine, create destruction thereof and create division among the people of these community's, it was very successful but then it spilled over into the working class white community's and the rot set in from there.

So the problem you are attributing to the lower end of society is actually down to actions of members of the upper middle class and perhaps higher whom were seeking to prevent members of the lowest class of there society from gaining an increasing foothold on the middle class of America, becoming socially and politically empowered by growing wealth and upsetting the status quo that they were comfortable with rather than it actually being born of the lower class.

But of course poor community's will always be hives of crime, enterprising wood be business men become gangsters and racketeers and of course drug dealers.

But remember who started that in the US whose citizens were ALL or mostly all once poor penniless migrants straight off boats for the most part fleeing poverty and disadvantage in there old home country's.

So really that is to my mind a rather flawed opinion and one that can easily be picked apart, it is true but why is it true.

Look at the US, back at the start of the twentieth century there were hardly any unemployed and those that were, well they were mostly people straight off the boats living in ghettos in city's like New York and Boston but of course all that human grief also drove incredible wealth as it was in those city's that this migrant economy created some of the richest men in the US, not all above board of course but many of them were honest enterprising business men.

Take away the poorest and the class system slides upward, the lower middle class suddenly find with no one to support them they have to do the crap jobs and they then become the poor and the underprivilege of society, the upper middle class likewise slide down to fill the place of the former lower middle class and the lower end of the elite spectrum lose there ground to slide down into the place the former upper middle class occupied.

You can not destroy poverty and crime by killing people off it simply does not work unless you live in a police state with no freedom's.

So these upper elite arseholes like Gates whom of course was nothing but a clever swindler and business man who had his big break when he bought the first version of DOS off a guy in a garage for just a couple of hundred dollars then managed to talk his way into getting the early IBM on board to license HIS product that all he really did was polish up was actually once just a lower middle class or even upper working class American whom had a lucky break, if that other guy who dies almost penniless had not sold him his invention you would NEVER have heard of gates.

Windows was just a clone of apple's OS and Apple just copied an earlier mainframe OS that had the ideas they nicked for there's and those being the mouse and icon based user interface.

Let's remember who these guy's are, people from the gutter that forgot the mud on there own shoes and like to regard there own former societal class as scum or worthless if all they want to do is push an agenda to have then neutered and murdered.

a reply to: nugget1

40 years ago mars bars came in grease proof paper, can's were made mostly of steel, pop came in glass bottles as did milk.
The problem is not the people it is the profit motivation and a serious overuse of polymer based product's, polymers are great you can make almost anything from them but they also pollute and that is a problem, far more than making glass ever did glass does not really pollute as it just breaks down over time back into silica sand and can be recycled far more easily.

Using aluminium if you know how much bauxite you have to dig out of the ground to make that aluminium is extremely wasteful as well and steel is far superior for most uses as well as being far more easily recycled.

Coal and carbon dioxide were never the problem, now don't get me wrong if you were a brit I would say ask your gran how she had to have to wash her neck and face every day because everyone back then had a coal fireplace to warm there homes and all our electricity was made using coal, it did not destroy the environment though, mining did cause a lot of harm I have to say as I used to live in a town full of old coal heaps and the river was polluted but you know it only really became dead and polluted despite all the mining there for hundreds of years beforehand when in the 1970's it was diverted to pass through an industrial estate were they made rubber products and many other polluting process as well as having raw sewerage dumped into it.

But that river today still flowing past those old coal heaps has fish in it again, the factory's face prosecution if they dump crap into it and one of the worse polluters today is an ice cream factory.

It's not the people, not the society but the flawed consumerism, now consumerism is actually good if it is managed correctly, created demand which creates jobs which helps the money to move as it is meant to around society instead of straight into offshore accounts as most of these crooks that want to cull the population do with theirs.

But it needs to be more recyclable and to go back in some cases to how it used to be done, instead of plastic wrappers that break down into microplastic particles that damage life and interfere with the sexuality of fish, frogs and people we need to go back to making our chocolate without palm oil and wrapping it back up in grease proof paper like it used to be, we need to stop wasting aluminium which we do still need but not for drink's can's and start making steel ones again, we need to open up our coal deposits (the low sulphur ones no one wants acid rain), use them instead of oil and radiation to power our nations, I mean China and India have burned more coal in one year than we did in over two hundred and fifty and theirs was low quality sulphur rich crap.

We need to respect nature but not let it take the life of a single human being as priority's should be set that human life and need's are the most important.

Mining that is dirty around the world for many minerals needs to be modernised even though that will make it more expensive and company's like Rio Tinto or whatever they are called now need to stop exploiting poor nation's and running slave operations and pollution in those third world country's they exploit.

But we do need the resources and if it is done correctly everyone benefits.

You know these electric cars take far more resources to make and overall are actually far more polluting because of this than there diesel and petrol ancestors.

But of course we are ruled by idiots and greedy puppet masters.

Humanity first, more people never a bad thing but society needs to be mended and our consumerism need's to be updated.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: VulcanWerks

Well there are viable alternatives to there opinion.

National service for all able bodied young does not mean just the army but instilling into them discipline, a respect for authority and a sense of there place in society as well as life skill's and trades that were not but should have been instilled in school is a more than viable alternative to killing them like they were nothing but bloody animals.

As for the drain, lets see now in the US for example.

late 1940's through to the late 1950's the currently poorest sections of US society (Not later migrants) the Black US citizens were starting to become ever more successful, there middle class was growing and employing there working class.

Then a certain group of Alphabet agency employees being as they were comfortable upper middle class American's and perhaps fearing for the future of there nation's colour spectrum and tinged with more than a little bit of racism decided to use the US intelligence agency's they worked for to funnel drugs into these community's in order to undermine, create destruction thereof and create division among the people of these community's, it was very successful but then it spilled over into the working class white community's and the rot set in from there.

So the problem you are attributing to the lower end of society is actually down to actions of members of the upper middle class and perhaps higher whom were seeking to prevent members of the lowest class of there society from gaining an increasing foothold on the middle class of America, becoming socially and politically empowered by growing wealth and upsetting the status quo that they were comfortable with rather than it actually being born of the lower class.

But of course poor community's will always be hives of crime, enterprising wood be business men become gangsters and racketeers and of course drug dealers.

But remember who started that in the US whose citizens were ALL or mostly all once poor penniless migrants straight off boats for the most part fleeing poverty and disadvantage in there old home country's.

So really that is to my mind a rather flawed opinion and one that can easily be picked apart, it is true but why is it true.

Look at the US, back at the start of the twentieth century there were hardly any unemployed and those that were, well they were mostly people straight off the boats living in ghettos in city's like New York and Boston but of course all that human grief also drove incredible wealth as it was in those city's that this migrant economy created some of the richest men in the US, not all above board of course but many of them were honest enterprising business men.

Take away the poorest and the class system slides upward, the lower middle class suddenly find with no one to support them they have to do the crap jobs and they then become the poor and the underprivilege of society, the upper middle class likewise slide down to fill the place of the former lower middle class and the lower end of the elite spectrum lose there ground to slide down into the place the former upper middle class occupied.

You can not destroy poverty and crime by killing people off it simply does not work unless you live in a police state with no freedom's.

So these upper elite arseholes like Gates whom of course was nothing but a clever swindler and business man who had his big break when he bought the first version of DOS off a guy in a garage for just a couple of hundred dollars then managed to talk his way into getting the early IBM on board to license HIS product that all he really did was polish up was actually once just a lower middle class or even upper working class American whom had a lucky break, if that other guy who dies almost penniless had not sold him his invention you would NEVER have heard of gates.

Windows was just a clone of apple's OS and Apple just copied an earlier mainframe OS that had the ideas they nicked for there's and those being the mouse and icon based user interface.

Let's remember who these guy's are, people from the gutter that forgot the mud on there own shoes and like to regard there own former societal class as scum or worthless if all they want to do is push an agenda to have then neutered and murdered.

You raise a number of valid points, Lab.

I also track your logic, which is logical.

Not so much to argue, but, I see the 1940s to 1950s as a frame of reference - perhaps a starting point - but it’s not necessarily applicable to the modern world/economy 80 years later.

I say that because of a few key drivers:
- Technological advancement (et. All)
- Healthcare improvement and access.
- Easy, abundant access to food.
- commoditization of more-less everything.
- Exponential population growth, globally.

80 years ago, you needed the human hands for labor. Now, you don’t in many cases - and the cases you do need them in are shrinking.

We have a ton of food, so we can feed all of those mouths, but at some point that becomes untenable.

Society loses a ton of productivity (and some make a ton of money) off of keeping people alive who otherwise would be dead - particularly amongst drug users, general substance abusers, and those with horrible eating habits that lead to any number of health issues (heart disease and diabetes, in particular). The number of people in this bucket keeps rising.

We also reach a point where “good paying jobs” will certainly exist but not for those who are the 7-11 clerks I referenced.

That’s not some conspiracy - it’s efficiency. And the private sector is efficient. Humans are the most expensive and problematic aspect of any business at scale (sometimes even small scale). Robots don’t need healthcare, sick days, call out because they’re hung over, steal money, or do really anything other than what they’re supposed to do. Business will and should use RPA and any other tech to eliminate menial, repetitive tasks. And that’s exactly what’s happening.

That’s all to say, the need for low-level human labor is evaporating. So, the “bottom of the barrel” of workers will look different in the future.

There isn’t an “easy” solution to all of this, nor am I trying to be an apologist for “the elite”. I have more of an “it’s what it is” mindset on this.

I’m aware of economic and societal history, but, I do caution folks about leaving too heavily on that. The people who continue to progress, remain relevant, and are rewarded at those who shape the future - not those who live in the past - as the rewards for past deeds/innovations/ways have already been reaped.

a reply to: jerryznv

I think if they were seriously thinking about saving the planet, they would get rid of Bush's Baked Beans.

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
The people who continue to progress, remain relevant, and are rewarded at those who shape the future - not those who live in the past - as the rewards for past deeds/innovations/ways have already been reaped.

Great post -- I just want to focus on this.

I'm 76 and currently raising a 15-year-old boy. Where does he go to be relevant in his future world?

I'm old enough to have lived at the end of "gender roles" -- mom stayed home and was depended on the man for his earnings.

Factories treated employees as family, sons followed dad into a trade. Before people were nothing but a number.

Who will be relevant and who won't? College degrees mean very little anymore.

Where are the renegades and "leftover/expendable" people that don't choose to be part of the "new" system gonna go?

Robotics is taking over most menial jobs.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

In a round about way, you've touched on the crux of the matter. The human identity hinges around our merits and utility, in direct contrast to the civics of our nation which indicate the unconditional guarantee human life is sacred and should be protected at all costs otherwise all the saints of industry and administration invariably have blood on their hands. This defines success not by achievement but by how many souls we stepped over, or worse, to arrive at the finish line.

a reply to: VulcanWerks

I am personally of the opinion that certain individuals are sitting on technology and science that could help humanity expand not only in our own solar system were let's face it all our eggs are in one basket and doomed unless we get a move on but that this group will not share and control that technology often simply shelving and suppressing it because they fear the liberty it would give to the individual, they are cosy in there own tiny power play since they are the big fish in the tiny pond.

I mean remember that it was JP Morgan that shut down Tesla's (that's old Nikolai Tesla not the modern electric car guy) Wardenclyffe tower before he could finish his plan to give free energy to everyone.

But I do believe that humanity has to grow, it has to expand but that won't happen while there are those with the mindset that has them suppress, oppress and keep down humanity for there own petty politics and greed.

Sadly it is a scourge we will not soon be free of but one day we will or else we will become extinct because of them.

Humanity is a seed, if the sapling keeps getting cut down and chocked by the weeds in charge how can it ever fulfil it's true destiny out there beyond the stars, instead because of them we shall become just another failed species among the graveyard of lost and dead civilizations that all made similar mistakes that must surely fill the cosmos (I actually believe in God so am talking practically and in a somewhat empty sense here).

But there failure does not have to be ours, we can do what must be done but not as long as the wrong folk are running the show, before we became aware of how small our planet is and how vase and endless the resources of the cosmos are I may have quoted my long past over nan whom used to say humanity needs wars to keep the population down, she was born in the late Victorian period so I sincerely hope we have evolved past that level of thinking but sadly it looks like we have not.

Even our earth alone could if properly managed feed and house over a hundred billion fully sustainably, the stumbling block's are our current economic model, our current corporate monopolization which is not incorporation for the good of the world but for the good of a tiny group of out of touch shareholders and often ran by men lacking morals and even empathy toward even there own workers.

Humanity is a jewel among the stars, it is the universe looking back at itself and I do wonder if anyone is out there watching how they must mourn our passing as many of us would mourn the other civilizations if ever we found evidence that they had once existed, there song's, there poetry, there art and philosophy's.

Much of our art and philosophy come from the lowest levels of our society and indeed the greatest book ever written the bible has this passage, great wisdom is great sorrow.

The truth is we are on a precipice not because of ourselves or our population numbers but because of those small minded power hungry and often intelligence challenged individuals that are ruining our world and ruling over the rest of us.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: VulcanWerks

In a round about way, you've touched on the crux of the matter. The human identity hinges around our merits and utility, in direct contrast to the civics of our nation which indicate the unconditional guarantee human life is sacred and should be protected at all costs otherwise all the saints of industry and administration invariably have blood on their hands. This defines success not by achievement but by how many souls we stepped over, or worse, to arrive at the finish line.

Not so much by achievement as by contribution.

Air is sacred, until you hyperventilate.

Water is sacred, until you’re hyper hydrated.

Food is sacred, until you eat yourself to death.

If anything, fewer humans places a greater value on human life. My 7-11 worker example, simply as an example, suggests that these humans only exist to make the wages they do, then go get high and play video games. I know plenty of successful people who will hit the peace pipe and do yoga, lift, write, paint, play games, whatever. The difference is, that’s the exception and not the rule for them. Why? They have careers, businesses, practices, families, etc. Things that motivate them to be successful and reach goals.

When you reach a point, like we have, where half of your population doesn’t contribute to it beyond being a human robot, then how valuable is life? Not very, apparently - they literally exist to help someone else get wealthy - and they get paid enough to have a place to sleep and food to eat.

Fact is, those people at 7-11 could just as easily get an education, get an entry level job, and work their way up. I mean heck, a manager at Taco Bell makes 100k. You don’t need to be Bill Gates to contribute.

I guess I see those folks and feel badly for them. They’re just existing, and seem to be ok with it. Their contribution is scanning a bottle of Gatorade for me - which I could have done just as easily myself (prefer self-checkout anyway) - and for all of that I will pay taxes to ensure people of a similar ilk are subsidized.

So, do we value life? Sure. But, life for the sake of life isn’t exactly valuable - and too much of it creates lots of problems. Particularly when that life has little to lose, and little to contribute - problems which are compounded when a huge swath of the population fits that mold.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
The people who continue to progress, remain relevant, and are rewarded at those who shape the future - not those who live in the past - as the rewards for past deeds/innovations/ways have already been reaped.

Great post -- I just want to focus on this.

I'm 76 and currently raising a 15-year-old boy. Where does he go to be relevant in his future world?

I'm old enough to have lived at the end of "gender roles" -- mom stayed home and was depended on the man for his earnings.

Factories treated employees as family, sons followed dad into a trade. Before people were nothing but a number.

Who will be relevant and who won't? College degrees mean very little anymore.

Where are the renegades and "leftover/expendable" people that don't choose to be part of the "new" system gonna go?

Robotics is taking over most menial jobs.

I suspect it’s less about what they do, and more about how they do it.

Consider this:

We had an issue at our house that was fixed by insurance. That included a relatively minor piece of plumbing work. Parts and labor for a 20 minute job was $500. Insane! And, I could just as easily have done it myself in about the same amount of time, but, insurance was on it. I chatted with the guy and it’s a family business. They make a # load of money because no one knows how to fix basic things any longer. The work he does, to his own admission, isn’t all that complicated - people just are lazy, want the liability protection, or too busy to fix it themselves.

On the other hand, Financial Services pays well and will almost always need a human component to it. That said, it’s very competitive, and until you graduate, very sales focused. It’s also fraught with a lot of conflicts of interest (in many cases), so be thoughtful if you engage this.

Finally, computers/robots et. All.

That’s just off the top of my head.

But, that plumber is making a killing because he works his tail off and runs a tight business.

If you’re willing to take on more responsibility and risk, put in the hours, be a professional, get into leadership, etc. You’ll be just fine.

I’d steer clear of the paper industry, public utilities, and any form of government work.

Look at it like this… if you took a snapshot of each industry and compounded its current trajectory forward - where does it reasonably go? Assuming you’re not emotionally invested in that answer, and just want to know, you’ll get a sense of what to do pretty quickly.

originally posted by: VulcanWerks

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: VulcanWerks
The people who continue to progress, remain relevant, and are rewarded at those who shape the future - not those who live in the past - as the rewards for past deeds/innovations/ways have already been reaped.

Great post -- I just want to focus on this.

I'm 76 and currently raising a 15-year-old boy. Where does he go to be relevant in his future world?

I'm old enough to have lived at the end of "gender roles" -- mom stayed home and was depended on the man for his earnings.

Factories treated employees as family, sons followed dad into a trade. Before people were nothing but a number.

Who will be relevant and who won't? College degrees mean very little anymore.

Where are the renegades and "leftover/expendable" people that don't choose to be part of the "new" system gonna go?

Robotics is taking over most menial jobs.

I suspect it’s less about what they do, and more about how they do it.

Finally, computers/robots et. All.

That’s just off the top of my head.

If you’re willing to take on more responsibility and risk, put in the hours, be a professional, get into leadership, etc. You’ll be just fine.

Thanks. He has connections in the movie industry.

Which surprisingly does well in down times.

a reply to: jerryznv

This is a reasonable stance to take. It's logical and easy and will benefit the planet and all the species that share the space.

And this is not NEW. "The Population Bomb" came out in 1968. Other natural philosopher's were signaling the alarm since the late 19th century.

It's only religious and racial fanatics that want to overpopulate the planet. It's a way to hobble women.

How many people a day die due to starvation? "Each day, between 7,750 and 15,345 people die from hunger and malnutrition, according to a 2021 report from Oxfam."

Most of them children.

When you think the problem through - morally, ethically, financially - this forced birth movement is evil and a drain on society.

Personally - No child should be born that cannot be cared for and loved. And women are the ones best (not perfectly) to make those assessments.

World wide, unconditional, family planning would go a long way to solving several of the worsening problems we face today.

a reply to: FyreByrd

This is a reasonable stance to take. It's logical and easy and will benefit the planet and all the species that share the space.

I disagree...it's not resonable!

And this is not NEW. "The Population Bomb" came out in 1968. Other natural philosopher's were signaling the alarm since the late 19th century.

That seems reasonably new! Seeing as the planet is how old???

World wide, unconditional, family planning would go a long way to solving several of the worsening problems we face today.

Also quite curious how long family planning has been around...but either way...this is nonsense to me! I absolutely disagree with you! I would not be surprised to hear of all the other things you think would be great ideas!

a reply to: LABTECH767

Please check your private messages at your convenience.
Thank you

all very 1920s/1970s thinking... at least in the 30s and 40s Hilter was honest about who lives who dies..

the green blueprint in the 70s had the uks population reduced to a stable 30m but they never explained how they would have culled 26m working class/poor people then or indeed how the gates supporters would cull +36m now

it couldn't work outside nazi Germany the soviet union or communist china the only outcome in the west will be to create and equal but opposite outcome.. you can't turn the clocks back to the dark ages..