Dr Albert A. Bartlett [H/T Xxxl] gave a lecture, now captured on youtube [if you look at nothing else, at least look at Part Two from 5:35]:
… in which he makes a strong case that key influencers of opinion, e.g. governments, their advisers or scientists are simply not doing the maths necessary to create a true scenario from which people can judge more accurately. He says:
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
He speaks of “doubling time”, by which you take a steady growth rate and divide it into 70 to give you years. Thus, if you have a 7% growth rate, this would take 10 years to double the overall amount. Simple maths, he calls it. He uses the example of the potentate who wanted to reward a mathematician and the mathematician asked for one grain of wheat on the first square of the chessboard, two on the second, four on the third and so on.
As you know, the result became 2 to the 64th power minus 1. So, in the area of fossil fuels, there is a certain amount available, even counting new discoveries but essentially, it is finite. You can predict increased need, based on previous need but that does not take into account exponential population growth.
It’s a measure of people’s minds that Part One of his talk had 1,391,626 viewers but by Part Five, it was down to 121,659. One other reason he might not have been watched all the way through was that he is a Malthusian and that is a trigger word, creating all sorts of hostile reaction. Essentially, the problem is not Malthus and his carefully worded theories on population but the “Applied Malthusians” who have developed the neo-Marxist “sustainability” hoax which grips the UN and all major blocs, e.g. the EU and the Gorites.
Engels called Malthus’s hypothesis “the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed’ [Wiki] and Marx simply misunderstood, as he did in most of his social and economic theory, by seeing “the reserve army of labour” resulting.
Malthus argu[ed] that population growth generally expanded in times and in regions of plenty until the size of the population relative to the primary resources caused distress … [he] put more emphasis on moral restraint. By that he meant the postponement of marriage until people could support a family, coupled with strict celibacy until that time. [Wiki]. That would be a most efficacious thing in our prostituted society today.
The trouble, as many know, was that the evildoers of the world, the sociopaths, seized on his ideas to promote eugenics, the theory of constant war, the supremacy of the fittest, the efficacy of AIDS and other pestilence and so on. Prince Philip is one of these and it is significant that he does not include himself, nor do any of the others secretly promoting this neo-Malthusianism, within the expendable portion of the population.
In real terms, this is precisely what the global elite is doing now – shoring up their own positions and to hell with the riff-raff. This is what the Albion Alliance is tangentially connected with opposing and one of Bartlett’s statements was that population growth is inimical to democracy. One of his slides read:
In this, he is right and his maths is right and his conclusions are right but the top two questions still remain:
1. How to reduce population;
2. Who is to die?
You see where this is at and you also see how the politicians, EU bureaucrats, CFR, TLC and so on are all thinking, why there are havens in Switzerland and bunkers under the Appalachian Mountains. Bartlett disposes, through simple Maths, of certain notions:
This relates to why spokespeople are talking absolute rot and giving false figures to assuage discomfort that not only can’t we sustain ourselves but that the 50 years or so spoken of is highly optimistic. He points to a whole climate of opinion being churned out, even by scientists and that it is quite demonstrably, mathematically … wrong. He cites examples. He asks:
He then gets into the solution becoming the next problem, mentioning the River Nile.
For millennia, it flooded and deposited alluvial silt into the fertile, food growing areas. Then man began to interfere with his clever solutions. He built the Aswan Dam which produced clear water, as intended but also sent it down, in lesser quantities, to the fertile belt. Minus nutrients, the crops suffered and so another artificial solution had to be found – adding nutrients, which themselves had cost energy to produce and now set off or accompanied another string of side-effects, including little bugs which burrowed into the feet of anyone in that water.
And so on.
The solution becomes the new problem. This is Tower of Babel stuff – the infernal [and I use the word deliberately] arrogance of Man who thinks he can outreach nature and unlock all her secrets, e.g. via the LHC. He cannot conceptualize that there are failsafes in nature, many of which are only slowly being recognized and/or discovered. It’s the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
It can also be applied to Labour’s social experiment in the UK which went all pear-shaped. It can be applied wherever Man interferes and the place he interferes the most is through governments and the people behind them – the global elitists. Tied in with this is the notion, militating against the Darwinian concept of natural selection, that every single mutation must be preserved because of this false construct of “impossible equality” and that this backwashes into the gene pool and causes problems further down the line.
This last statement of mine, as you’d have noted, sails awfully close to the wind of eugenics and there’s the rub. We have a problem of population, no doubt about it but the solutions put forward by Them are completely anathema to the left-liberal and unacceptable, in their current form, to the rationalist with a conscience.
In any morally acceptable way, the solution of the EU globalists, revolving around the logical conclusion from the Malthusian premises:
1. Subsistence severely limits population-level
2. When the means of subsistence increases, population increases
… is anathema, not least because those proposing it do not see themselves as part of the subsistence class. The new proletariat, consisting of the current poor, together with the former middle-class, can do all the subsisting and dying in sufficient numbers through the old favourites – war, famine, pestilence – to bring the population to within “acceptable limits”.
You see, we are not in a dystopic novel here – we are coming into a dystopic reality, even as we read. We need to ensure that, even if we cannot find an acceptable solution to population growth and diminishing resources, then we apply a Marxist solution and distribute the misery equally to all … including and especially to Them.
A society “fair for all”, isn’t that right?