This is fodder for New World Order fanatics, but nothing Rockefeller says here is untrue:
This week I got into a debate about this subject on Disinfo, being called a eugenicist for the sheer mention that a smaller population would mean fewer problems. That’s not advocacy of genocide, but basic math. Still, I see our world as so incurably fucked up that I can’t quite see how to correct the world’s ills without fewer people to keep exploiting each other.
The real prescription for the population is redistribution of wealth so that more resources go to education and sustainable projects. The trouble is that half of this country thinks any kind of redistribution is socialism. Well, actually, it is socialism – but people think that socialism is inherently evil, rather than potentially more sustainable, if the new system could manage not to be totalitarian. But because so many people are so violently opposed to wealth distribution, this could lead to an all out war that would lead to…depopulation.
I’d love to see something like the Venus Project take hold, but I wonder how that could possibly be done on as grand a scale as the current population. What you’d probably get is a small enclave like Arcosanti, but not something that totally reforms society – unless that society had very, very different priorities. Which means our priorities would have to be significantly altered for some reason – such as tragic depopulation and the will to never recreate it. This is basically the premise of “Star Trek” – post World War III, we realized we needed to correct our ills.
So depopulation of some kind needs to occur to put mass societal changes into effect. Currently, our non-sustainable world (war, economy, environment) seems bent on ensuring that mass population growth doesn’t occur, and perhaps even ensuring mass depopulation at some future date. So we already have eugenics via our economic system. The poor are not being cared for, the rich are. Acknowledging this scenario is not the same thing as advocacy. I wish it were different, but it might explain why governments enact legislation that is so self-defeating.
I don’t really buy the figures in this UN report that the population is going to peak by 2050. This implies that technology is going to remain static. Advances in medicine or other technological advances could improve lifespan and quality of life, thereby increasing the population. Ideally, the technology would lead to a sustainable society, but it could just as easily lead to a larger population that consumes more resources:
While it appears likely that human population will level off mid-century, the human footprint on the planet is expected to grow as larger numbers of people achieve higher levels of affluence, especially in China and India. In general as quality of life improves, a population uses more resources. For example the United States appropriates more than 20 percent of the world’s resources despite having less than 5 percent of global population.
This is an issue I think about a lot and I’ve touched on in The American Books, which is why the Disinfo debate hit me somewhere specific. The character in TABOTD says he feels like a dictator bent on worldwide destruction. I’ve read people say that by the end of the book they’re actively hoping for the apocalypse – because the book, in part, makes the case that depopulation may just be necessary if we’re ever to improve as a species. As I’ve written about here, something like first contact would cause unbelievable havoc, possibly leading to violent confrontation. We seem more primed to kill each other than understand each other. There are so many people willing to go to war over unnecessary reasons that the self-defeating war mongers need to be killed off if we’re going to live in peaceful world. That’s ironic, but it’s not exactly inaccurate.
Part of me really does believe this is necessary or I wouldn’t be writing about it. The world’s fucked up. A tragedy a second. Smaller population means fewer problems. The trouble is that there’s no way to enforce this. The guy who was going at it with me links to this book by John Holdren, which I didn’t know about. According to some reviews on Amazon, this is a “get every issue on the table” sort of book, rather than all-out advocacy of these programs. But still, a lot of this is too close to advocacy for comfort.
A lot of this is – if a terrorist knew where a bomb was located, would you torture him – worst case scenario sort of stuff. If our civilization really was on the edge of collapse, what steps could be taken? The guy on Disinfo seems to think even mentioning these topics is the same thing as building camps for undesirables, which is the mantra of fear addicts like Alex Jones. If Global Warming is real (Alex Jones types don’t believe that) and peak oil is going to happen (not sure where Jones stands on that) then overpopulation is very definitely a real world problem. It’s just impossible to legislate. The best legislation would be pro-education/pro-sustainability, but for whatever reason, that’s not the direction politicians are taking us.
In The American Book of the Dead Part II, this issue gets particularly out there. Imagine a world where some of the population evolved and the rest did not. And part of that evolution is being able to “see” a person’s true worth. In a sense, seeing their aura. If also in this world it was determined that there was life after death and these “less worthy” people would just make another go of it in the next life, then there would be some justification of eugenics. That’s the can of worms opened up by the concept of consciousness evolution – it’s no doubt a touchy subject. The “elite” in this case would literally be more elite – not in the Aryan sense, but in the brain power sense. So it’s a topic that’s driving these books, and frankly, it’s a topic I haven’t completely figured out.