war = population control

Wow, literally just thinking about this a few moments ago reading a gun control thread..

The mad dash for all the guns and talk of revolution spurred on the idea that the higher ups might be thinking its about time to thin out the 330,000,000 herd

reply to post by BlindBastards


The rise of the techno-terrorism will be something that no one can avoid, especially biological attacks, it is cheap and hard to detect. I think that when it happens they will not target humans but the food supply if they manage to create scarcity the social instability and the economic divide amongst nations will do the rest...

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin


lobotomizemecapin,

You may want to look into this little booklet by Major General Smedley Butler, entitled:
"War is a Racket".

I believe you can read big parts of it here:
War is a Racket by Smedley Butler

You can also read some reviews of this book on Amazon.
The booklet ("War is a Racket") at Amazon

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin


Yes, it is population control.

No, it is not population reduction.

Two seperate ways of accomplishing two seperate objectives.

reply to post by lobotomizemecapin


Yes, something to consider, but, then the next question would be, well who is fighting at war and where would the largest loss of life be? Hmmmm,

Population by Country

As you'll see, China and India tip the balance here representing about 2.6 Billion of the worlds population which is approximately at 7.1 Billion and growing>>>>>neat little tracking of world population HERE

Anyway, to follow your consideration, you would think China and India would be at war and trying to control and reduce their populations. But they are not. Happy 'bout that too.

Now, then, how would earth's population be significantly reduced? As others have said, a worldwide pandemic which in today's world could spread very rapidly. Of course there are unpredictable catastrophe's like a massive earthquake or volcano (like if Yellowstone as a volcano were to blast it could destroy half of the worlds population or more) or some other natural disaster.

So, as horrible as war is, and the tragic loss of life, over ignorance, greed and power, war is probably one of the least factors in reducing the worlds' population. I am not minimizing it, just stating the facts.

Peace!! ID

What better way to reduce the world's population by 90% than to have a world wide thermonuclear war.....Hmmm, maybe that is what those deep underground bases are for (paid for with your tax dollars but you dont get access).

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
What better way to reduce the world's population by 90% than to have a world wide thermonuclear war.....Hmmm, maybe that is what those deep underground bases are for (paid for with your tax dollars but you dont get access).

Well, you are right of course. We can never rule out the stupidity of mankind at times. And for sure, even as we accomplish great things, we equally have created the chance for mass destruction......of all of us. I sure hope that never happens!! But back on topic, the individual wars say in Syria, North Africa, Afghanistan, etc., they in themselves won't reduce the worlds population.

What will happen in the world in the future, I don't know, but I hope for a more peaceful world.

Peace!! ID

Population reduction may be a part of it but war is mostly used to change political landscapes and shift substantial sums of money. War is also the fastest way to gain power and that is really what those war start wars are after.