Well if you seriously believe such plans are in motion (I don’t) what information do you know about this?
Go to a popular national university and look up some professors. Ask them what they really think about human global population and natural resource sustainability in the long run.
Then, while your at it ask them about how they envision the future.
Also understand that a majority of their opinions very much correlate with the private corporations that pay them.
Look up some of the most powerful individuals on the planet and read their memoirs or public commentary.
Are you good with seeing patterns?
I’m not sure the people in power are that godlike or immune from being influenced themselves. I think we need to spread information about the secrecy apparatuses of governments and put pressure in any way we can on those in power. Currently a country is not run from an economy and resources standpoint by 5% of it’s population, much of the remaining 95% is needed.
That’s a good question, do you think there is a relationship between the global population level and natural resource sustainability?
Would it be nefarious to think that there is better and worse balance between population level, consumption, and natural resource sustainability?
Anyway, what would the university professors be likely to tell me?
Being that transhumanism is the dominant philosophy everywhere I’d imagine you would get a typical reply in that ideological format.
If there is a overpopulation it is one technological society created in the first place.
There probably is.
It’s all about implementation, isn’t it?
If there is a solution to it, what would the implementation or enforcement look like?
Okay, interesting video, thanks.
I don’t think it conflicts with what I said though. The 95% are still need for the power structures that are currently in place. And they spend a great deal of time and effort trying to control people when they could more easily kill people. So I think that supports my position that we are somewhat necessary right now.
Agreed and I don’t know.
Yes, rather in a short term myopic view they still need us for now.
However, looking through the long term into the future there will come a time of disbandment and probably by a genocidal or technological replacement means.
Probably a combination of the two at the same time.
Say, isn’t this civilization thing great? 
Don’t we all just feel very civilized? 
More cost effective to kill and replace them all. Don’t you agree?
They certainly think so.
How about we agree that between a possible then and the certian now we do what we can to make sure that doesn’t happen. And let’s not kill each each other either in the process, okay?
I’ll agree that I wouldn’t like to see that happen because it largely effects me if I’m still alive. If they try to kill off the world that would be a bummer even for a guy like me.
I’m against anything that threatens my own survival and chasing after fleshly pleasure pursuits.
I cannot guarantee on the not killing part. At least I’m honest.
Tyler, as much as the above couldn't be truer then true, the facts are supportive of that view, inasmuch as, the world has changed dynamically so as the vast formerly colonial populations, to be able to support large pockets of privileges, as the modern industrial state has exhibited. Sure, the 5 percent of large accumulators will protect their own but where do they get their gross accumulation? From taxing the other 95. The fact is, if these 5 percent did not go global, the 5 percent in other systems would go to war, whether to the death, and it's an old story. The so called developing nations, with autocrats totally cruel, some totally insane, would not hesitate to go kamikaze.
Robotics conveniences citizens of the world into a universal application of a techno-democracy , as shallow that seems, by subserving those, who always felt themselves to be only plaything-servers to those they were indebted or sold to.
The new world order is a reaction to changing numbers of vast populations with increasing grasp unto knowledge, and the finding of what it takes to regain control of their lives in a ‘democratic society’ It has been planned out carefully by intelligentsia, who saw this coming. The British Empire’s dissolution was a foregone conclusion, and acute thinkers were able to fathom some consequences early on, at a time when they were thought of as visionaries.
Let’s face it, the United States is still looked upon as colonials, and associations, such as the Club of Rome and others, are a testament to it.
If asked in a survey ,if there was one, the question, what would you want to be red, or dead, i would think most would have answered red.
In a bad harvest, or even in good ones, colonial nations, and even the former Soviet Union, imported vast quantities of grain from the US, whose mode of production differed only in that, it used more automated forms of production. Simple? Another way to avert war, is to feed the populations, so as to save face for their autocrats, who stole their people blind. Unfortunately, nationalism has broken down, because the emergence of the democratic model of the US had become the blueprint to go by for developing nations, including the communist world.
Lastly, as to the 5 percent who will try to retain their edge, and that being the most basic, universal urge, of the survival instinct with limits beginning to show their rough edges ,when these counter the benefits agains the losses in this regard, then other, finely tuned approximations will be made, to prevent the kind of possible meltdowns, as exemplified by the last Great Recession. Automation can assure a continuance of production even in the event of a human resistance.
The ideas for which eighteen century wars were fought are no longer applicable, the methods of warfare has irredeemably be altered, and Marx thought everyone a good lesson : It’ no longer an ideal, rational world we live in, but a dressed up one, within an inverted material logic.
obe, I admit I get lost sometimes by your posts, but when I do “get it” i really get it. that was super clear to me. well said.
now I have like 30 questions about the significance of this, that, and the other!
Fuse, i can’t guarantee to all Your questions, however, i would like to try, nevertheless.
obe,
I appreciate that, but I’ll have to process things and ask them where they are more manageable and clearly defined. That’ll most likely take some time.
I certainly hope You will find congruence.
me too
Obviously those people who are supposed to be loosing their jobs will not be able to buy the shit that the machines are making. So the machines won’t be able to work either.
Clearly machines do not “replace” humans, but release them from menial tasks has they have done for thousands of years, to allow humans do to something more interesting; labour saving is the fuel of progress, and will continue.
However if you don’t engineer the economy so that a broad base of persons get to benefit from the liberation from the tedium of work there will be no one to buy the goods manufactured by those machines…
In this sense, capitalism is a self defeating process. Or at least self limiting.
This dynamic has been the case since we first began to make technology, but has been more keenly felt since the onset of the Industrial Revolution from the late 18thC when canal building, steam engines, mine machinery, steam ships, mechanisation of textile production started to both take away jobs and create new ones.
This is not new.
When photocopying machine salesmen walked through an old fashioned typing pool, he knew that he was providing the means to send 100s of women onto the dole. And when those typing pools had been reduced to a handful, the guy selling the Word Processors knew he would also be introducing major changes.
Now “typing” per se is not even a recognised skill, as everyone uses computer keyboards and so “Typing” like printmaking, once a career in themselves are now “de-skilled”. All those manual functions are just memories.
FYI.
Ever wonder why you have a keyboard that runs qwertyuiop, asdfghjkl, zxcvbnm ? This is a legacy of the time when typewriting keys used to jam together as keys were often hit at the same time (or close to). The separation if keys in this way has no function. But is testament to a recently replaced technology. When font designers discuss the spaces between letter they still talk of leading. This is because printers would have to place lead shims between some letter, and not others, as the gap between them is not uniform (eg iiii ww
Lev: Right. A little addendum here, mostly superfluous, but noteworthy nevertheless: The process did start way back at the dawn of the industrial revolution, and has been gathering momentum, but it hasn’t been noticed, because of the lack of population numbers back than.
Some people, like Spengler, took early notice, in a general sense, and only people like N i believe took primary notice. (It was Nietzche’s recurrence which attracted Spengler, to form his theory of periodicity of cultures qua morphology).
Nevertheless, what You are implying is old news, and the modern world has an entirely new look at issues such as global warming, equity imbalance, gay marriage, free trade zones, oil fracting, use of advanced technology in warfare, women serving on front military lines, right to euthanasia, the list goes on.
The transvaluation has effected more than the Continent, it has reinforced the anti logic of Marxist phenomenology, by cleverly using it as a way to destroy the true human dialectic of the spirit. It was not N’s fault he was also used by demonic hands who saw a perfect opportunity in applying it to mass stupidity of the then panicked public, who became unaware, that the whole world war fiasco was started on a whim, on account of an Austrian prince. It is not ironic, that the instigators, neither of whom were German, were both Austrian, and conveniently classifying them as Germans, was a gross de-differentiation for political gain.