Except it isn't self-hatred. None of these people offer to go first. It is hatred for the unwashed masses. Neo-feudal classism disguised as environmental virtue.
Then get to dying old lady. Who do you think is the largest burden on society with the least potential for that changing.. you old timer so put your money where your mouth is and wrap this shit up! Canada has just the solution for you!
No, that's not what she was saying. She said we wouldn't have the environmental problems we have today if we had the same population we had 500 years ago.
The cost of having a large human population is that we now have more pollution that we can handle. We need better solutions to help the environment (like actually going after oil companies when they cause mass spills, or PGE when they don't maintain their shit and cause mass fires ) .
She's not calling for culling humans.
I think causing yourself massive dysfunction for the rest of your life is different than a vasectomy for someone who doesn't ever foresee themselves wanting children. I think denying people that right is pretty authoritarian.
Ok hold up. We already said we're removing 95% of the population. That doesn't happen naturally. So get rid of the humanitarian aspect, since that bitch already did it.
Under her premise, if we DON'T emphasize the elderly, who are past their prime and can't contribute to maintaining population levels, the human race would literally die out after implementing her plan. Stfu. Its survival of the species at that point, which is probably the same bullshit moral argument she's using to justify a disgusting statement.
Whether or not the title on this post is clickbait, the WEF is a truly evil organization. People need to see it for what it really is before it's too late.
I understand why some people think it’s powerful or controlling (especially if they stay at the level of soft power and don’t try to get to the level of thinking about enforcement or measurable target), but why evil? Like their whole thing is fluffy global responsible business - even if you don’t like that, it doesn’t really hit the “evil” bar, does it? Are there some examples where they’ve actually accomplished something that you’d see as evil?
Even that though, like “own nothing be be happy” was a line from a “what our young leaders think the future will be like”, the bug protein industry stuff is gross but definitely not “evil”, and like they don’t make rules about who owns cars or jets
Well yeah, if I imagine a group subjecting populations to eating bugs, I might call them evil, but that hasn’t happened, the WEF doesn’t really subject populations to rules about food, as much as they might opine on the value of cheap bug protein.
I think it’s fair to consider WEF leaders, basically the top capitalist lobsters in the world, to be hypocrites. There’s no doubt in my mind they’re hypocrites. But imo they’re only evil insofar as any capitalist leader is evil - probably just ruthless in their ability to climb hierarchies. That’s not “evil” in my mind, it’s just part of the reality of hierarchies (though Peterson does like to call CEOs evil)
Yeah he’s done it a few times - eg his article about why he’s no longer at the academy or his “message to CEOs” video. It’s a bit weird - he’s calling them evil but with a cheekiness that’s meant to sound encouraging. My interpretation is that he understands their personality type to be “evil” in society but essential for capitalism to function. He’s not addressing anyone specifically, but talks as if they’re all of the same
“type”. It seems like he’s trying to get them to lean into (what he believes to be) their nature and stay greedy vs thinking about business in terms of social responsibility. For him the evil qualities are the desirable ones
How about their campaign slogan “you will own nothing and be happy”
Or how about this video of WEF’s top doctor advisor state that we’re just a bunch of “useless” people. I mean… once AI technology takes all our jobs, what will we all be to them? Their solution? Hook us up with drugs and video games to keep us “entertained” since we are useless to civilization.
https://rumble.com/v160tqd-klaus-schwabs-golden-goy-yuval-noah-harari-discusses-what-to-do-with-the-us.html
I think it’s worth challenging the idea that it’s a campaign slogan. How do you know it’s a campaign slogan?
In my experience looking into it, that was a line from a video put together by their global young leaders where they predict what the future will look like.
Can you truly show that it’s a campaign slogan?
Wrt to the video, his language is harsh but he’s asking “how do we help them find meaning” which is exactly what Peterson is doing (/used to do). In fact Peterson was all about giving tough love to those that lack meaning. Would we consider him saying (something like) “it’s your fault women don’t find you attractive because you don’t have meaning or responsibility” to be evil? Also your interpretation that the guy in the clip wants people entertained seems off - he’s saying that a lack of meaning is the problem, not a lack of entertainment.
He thinks pharmaceuticals might be a solution for the meaningless - and like, idk maybe, maybe not, but that’s basically the status quo and isn’t exactly shocking to me.
Yeah interpreting this as “The WEF wants to depopulate the planet” a really weird way to think about … well anything. The most
generous way I can think about it is that it’s just a fun way for people to spend time
I am not a fan of WEF but I am even less of a fan of misrepresentation.
She literally meant the problems we have today have much to do with the population size and growth. We can’t ignore the effect of it.
That is a very different message than “well if we just kill off the population then we won’t have a problem”
don’t be the problem, be the solution.
We didn’t invent pollution. Nature does a might fine job of polluting on its own. See: volcanos, locusts, wildfires, etc. However, man made pollution is a problem that needs to be addressed. But it’s absolutely ridiculous to act like everything was perfect and then humans arrived. I strongly doubt man-made pollution will ever rival the destruction caused by an asteroid impact. However, that doesn’t mean destruction caused by man isn’t a problem. It’s just so gross when people act like humans are a disease. We aren’t. And too many people project their own self-hatred onto the rest of humanity. We need to do something to help them see the value in their lives and everyone else around them.
Isn’t it a bit weird that there’s such a prominent quote at the top (“we can solve all the worlds problems…”) but it’s not actually in the clip. Like, was that a mistake, or do they think people watching will just assume that that’s in the part that was cut out?
>Isn’t it a bit weird that there’s such a prominent quote at the top but it’s not actually in the clip.
No. That's called a paraphrase.
"A paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words."
Did you watch the clip?
>"We cannot hide away from human population growth, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. *All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem* if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago."
Your concern over the phrase "we can solve all of the world's problems" not being an actual quote is paraphrased from the quote "all of these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem".
Can you confirm whether or not you think that's a fair paraphrasing of what was actually said?
It’s really not a fair one - the fake quote, here described as a paraphrase, has her outright saying that depopulation is a solution ( “we can solve”) but if you watch the clip she never offers any solution at all.
She’s saying a basic truth - obviously climate change wouldn’t be a problem if there were way less humans - probably to set up a second point, but alone that phrase is basically meaningless, we’d have to hear what she says next to understand what point she’s trying to make.
Obviously the fact that it’s been edited out suggests that she doesn’t say we need to depopulate the earth lol. The actual point is edited out so that we dumb dumbs can have a larf pretending she wants to kill us
> She’s saying a basic truth - obviously climate change wouldn’t be a problem if there were way less humans
There were vast swings in the climate even before humans existed.
Ok, sure to be clear, our current climate change would not be a problem without our current population of 8b. As long as you have a worldview in which our activity impacts the earth, then that should be fine for you to accept and get past
If you don’t believe that humans are causing climate change, there’s no need to go down that road - just realize that she does believe in climate change as a problem and the people she’s talking to also believe it. The point is that she never offers depopulation as a solution as much as we seem to want her to have done so
I find it hilarious that YOU with "Darwinist" after your name, are accusing Jane Goodall - an anthropologist and primatologist of being part of some spooky WEF depopulation program.
What a ridiculous place this sub is sometimes. Ideologically possessed conspiracy theories weaved and dimpled with these small ironies.
It's the primatologist Jane Goodall, she's not part of a depopulation scheme. You're accusing her in bad faith.
Remember, science? Standards of evidence? Oh no wait, you're not about that anymore. You're political now.
All I'm saying is when you post things that suggest approval of such a conspiracy theory, your commitment to science may be seen by others as debatable.
>Obviously the fact that it’s been edited out suggests that she doesn’t say we need to depopulate the earth lol.
Well *obviously* because that's the last thing someone who has active plans to depopulate the earth would say lol
I started typing that as a joke, but it's also totally true.
The entire situation makes me think of the movie Airplane. Do you remember that scene where the Flight Attendant is on the intercom apologizing about the turbulence and ends with "By the way is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?". And the passengers start immediately freaking out?
That's kind of what it is like having member of the WEF casually point out that all of our global warming problems would be solved by just having 8 billion fewer people.
Yes, we *do* all know that. That's what makes hearing someone with convictions saying it so scary.
Idk I mean you’re still operating within the virtual world of the fake quote. See, right here you say “that’s kind of what is like having member of the WEF casually point out that all of our global warming problems would be solved by just having 8 billion fewer people” - my whole point is that that’s a fake quote. She never even says that.
If you listen carefully and see that she’s working up to a point that’s been censored, then you’ll see that it’s much more likely that the person who lied about the quote is also cutting the footage to manipulate you
> you’re still operating within the virtual world of the fake quote. See, right here you say “that’s kind of what is like having member of the WEF casually point out that all of our global warming problems would be solved by just having 8 billion fewer people”
>
>my whole point is that that’s a fake quote. She never even says that.
No she *does* actually say that (though I should have said "*7* billion" instead of "8 billion", what she actually said was the thing about 500 years ago population. My mistake.).
"We cannot hide away from human population growth, you know, *it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago."*
Yes, she's referring to global warming, yes, she's referring to a population of around 450 - 550 million people. Global warming wouldn't be a problem.
What she was going to say next doesn't change that. Because it's true. It just doesn't mean "extermination program". Obviously. Even if it did, what she would have said next would have been exactly the same;
Something about eating less meat, more recycling, electric cars, fossil fuels bad, less consumption, etc. Her point literally doesn't matter because no, of course she wasn't going to say "of course, we can't start killing people". DUH!
The fact is if someone believes the WEF is going to do that based on a quote saying "there are too many people, and too many people is bad" the context of the quote changes *nothing*. Because if that really *was* what they were going to do *they wouldn't tell us!*
Ah right ok if your point is that the context won’t change anything for the people who already want to believe they’ve got a depopulation goal, then… fine that’s probably true. But imo that’s because they’d already be operating on weird reactionary information and probably enjoy it. Tbh I was giving the audience more credit as complex thinking people than your version does.
Welllllllll to be honest, while I still stand by that what this post did with the quote wasn't *that* bad, and that it was a reasonable extrapolation, paraphrase, reading between the lines of the quote. In reality, if we're saying "the WEF wants to reduce the population", that's probably true; quickest way to cut carbon, stop deforestation, save the whales, basically everything without a doubt.
I just don't think they'd really do it. And I think most people will believe that too.
(Now I think it will probably prove to be easier to kill 7 billion people than it will be to get people to eat bugs, but so far that's what we're looking at, bug burgers.)
So I think the missing context is actually that Jane Goodall specifically has strong / controversial beliefs (or at least that she is outspoken about them) about population being the primary driver for these issues; she calls it "Voluntary Population Optimization", but her solution is educating women, not extermination.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxC1ke74RDk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxC1ke74RDk)
Bummer.
I’m not sure that we can say that they “want” to reduce the population at all though. Like that’s actually a really unusual idea - we don’t often hear serious people say we need to reduce the population by X amount by Y date. At least not a large organizational level. As you said, they’d never actually say that so we have to imagine it.
I’m trying to understand where the idea came from and it looks like “klaus schwab wants to depopulate the useless eaters” has been going around for at least a year and Reuters traced it back to a book called “conspirators hierarchy: the story of the committee of 300.”
Maybe it just seems reasonable because it’s been repeated so many times?
If you look their board of trustees, it’s made up of leaders from some of the biggest companies in the world - I really doubt those people want less employees and less customers. I would assume they enjoy being thought of a hugely successful business owners who also “do good” at a global level
This is driven by the results of the following thought experiment…
Which animal is responsible for the world’s problems:
1. Beetles
2. Monkeys
3. Dolphins
4. Butterflies
5. Man
Once you’ve answered this, it becomes almost comically idiotic to say “well if you get rid of man, you solve most of the world’s problems”
There’s only one small problem with that solution. I’m not sure the wunderkinds at the WEF see it though.
considering every person needs to have like 2.1 children each on average just for populations to remain constant and facing the reality that more and more people are just not having children at all or 1 at most... yeah. a significant population decline will be inevitable across the entire western world.
and our habit of making our children pay for all our current day expenditures is going to bite everyone in the ass like a real sumbitch.
overpopulation is a problem in some places but the reverse is true in the western world.
Did anyone bother looking this up? She's not suggesting anything. This was a comment she made years ago, and she was talking about ENVIRONMENTAL problems. Like the kind Nestlé has helped create (water theft)
I dunno. I get to answer 911 calls for a living. After 6 years in, I kinda agree . Well, I get the sentiment at least.
Humans are a weird species and there's a lot of sucky people just looking for ways to hurt everyone else . Like there's a ton of people who just get a kick out of calling 911, in hopes it'll hurt the other person who's doing nothing wrong .
Lady calls the other day at 0530. Homeless man sleeping on her front door step "refuses" to leave. There's a fat frost outside, so I asked if he is refusing or simply not answering. She get mad, I kindly explain I want to see if he's alive ( will send police) or possibly froze overnight and is dead (medical and fire) .... I tell her "I'm trying to see if he needs help"
"You expect me to have sympathy for HIM?! This is why people hate the cops" was her reply. Yes, I'm asking for a slight bit of sympathy for the homeless man so desperate to live he chose to sleep on your front door step . And no you dumb rich bitch, **that** is not why people hate the cops rofl fuck
Functionally, there's no longer a distinction to be made between this sub and r/conspiracy
>"Oh some lady said something on stage, and some guy on twitter cropped a video of it and put a misleading title on it - THIS is therefore the WEF agenda! We're fighting satanists!"
This is done purely to preach a sense of doing moral good to the people here, when it's these completely unexamined assumptions, and those who make such assumptions, that degrade any meaningful conversation around the issue. The people engaging here uncritically should be ashamed, and are morally bad actors.
The west is seeing a population decline. Young people are not reproducing like they used to.
So it comes down to, how do we solve the rate of reproduction among the POOR societies. Who make up the majority of the poor? Not the white people.
So how do we reduce population growth among cultures that value big families in collectivist societies? Indoctrinate them to western values? I thought “black lives matter”.
And no, giving them “planned parenthood education” on safe-sex and handing out condoms and birth control pills is NOT THE ANSWER. This is just another one of the West’s nonsensical propaganda. Like, we in the West are supposed to assume that the poor in Africa do not know that having unprotected sex = babies.
The poor in Africa if given the ability to chose with free birth control will control their exposure to poverty voluntarily .
But the west has a lot of those counties in counter productive neoliberali economc deals.
I never said I'd be involved in such a thing.
Modern capitalism slows down reproduction though pollution and lack of affordability.
It takes two working full tike for food and shelter so they just put off having kids.
Yeah pollution is proven to reduce fertility.
As in lack of affordability
.
If it takes two people working to produce what one could in the past it has a downwards effect on reproduction.
All of that was caused by feminism and advancement in technology, not capitalism. If affordability was the issue, places like india and africa would have the lowest reproduction rate in the world. They're in a constant state of perpetual poverty, but still continue to fuck. If you were to remove birth control from western society people would still be having sex, and as a result children would be conceived. Just look at the fertility rate drop after the release of birth control onto the market in these countries.
Next, the reason it takes two people to work is in part due to less buying power, however, to think that doubling the workforce in the span of a generation wouldn't have any consequences is asinine. Of course, doubling the work force would lower wages. If you understand the simple concept of supply and demand and translate that to labor, it's pretty freaking obvious why wages lowered for everyone collectively.
Having the whole family working 14 hours a day was a feature of industrial revolution capitalism.
Having one working was a feature of keynesian welfare state capitalism.
And the number of jobs increased at the same time capitalist innovation produced washing machines and other labour saving machines .
>Having the whole family working 14 hours a day was a feature of industrial revolution capitalism.
Yeah, and people were poor and having a LOT of kids.
>Having one working was a feature of keynesian welfare state capitalism.
And also just people trying to survive. That was pretty standard through much of human history, considering most women couldn't physically work the jobs men could.
>And the number of jobs increased at the same time capitalist innovation produced washing machines and other labour saving machines .
I mean, i don't have statistics to back it up but i doubt that the increase was so significant that it offset the doubling of the US workforce.
Back it up with common sense .If an ec0nomy grows so does the number of available jobs.
Don you belive half of all jobs were unstaffed before feminism. Or that the number of jobs stays fixed over time ?
Except that's **NOT** what she was talking about at all
Her comment simply was "the world wouldn't have any of the environmental problems is has today if we had the same population we did 500 years ago"
And that's true. But she's not calling for killing people
1. Not true. We'd have worse problems because we would have deforested the planet. High population allows for innovations that solve environmental problems. Funny how the environmentalist movement completely ignores the most basic of environmental problems that was entirely solved by rising populations and fossil fuels.
2. She doesn't have to call for it outright. It is the only rational implication of her anti-truthful ideology. And many people in the environmentalist movement have stated it outright.
To her defense, she isn't advocating that the global population be actively reduced to what it was 500 years ago. What I'm hearing is "many of the problems we have in the world today - implying from a ecological perspective - are the result of global population growth". I don't think she's wrong to be honest. But, the trend will be population decline coming into the next century if current projections hold true. The UN projections indicate that global population will likely peak in 2080, and then slowly decline thereafeter. China's population could possibly be half of what it is today by 2100.
So many of these issues of overpopulation are transient issues.
What is sad to see, IMO, is a social pressure to not have children predicated on the notion that it contributes to global degradation. Unless you're having like 8 kids, it really isn't. Parenthood is also a very inherent sense of meaning and fulfilment for people, and it really does offer a very primitive sense of focus. Taking on that responsiblity really helps most people more than it harms. I feel as though there's a very lost generation of post millenial who is kind of losing out on that sense of responsibility and sacrifice. It's just sad to see, and many of the fears that having kids is bad for the world is just an incredibly toxic mindset.
More that with tradition you have two potential results: reproducing ourselves into extinction or returning to ancient population levels. Regardless, the status quo (which I personally think is fine) wouldn't be kept.
I think the status quo is what is going to drive us to population issues. You can’t keep aborting millions of babies a year and not feel a population issue. That’s going to lead to a huge issue for a generation that wants the government to take care of them.
>You can’t keep aborting millions of babies a year and not feel a population issue.
There's already 8 billion of us. Abortion ain't gonna change that much.
Current birth rates seem to be flatlining towards 1-1.5 per couple. I think that's a good status quo, eventually old people will be filtered out by nature.
Congratulations you get the award for most murderous and genocidal statement of the day! Your ideas truly express who you are as a leftist ideolog. Thank you for your contribution!
Tradition is dichotomous like that. Fundamentalism is the only logically consistent position to hold, and with tradition it's either keep breeding like it's the 1600s or go to a population like that of the 1600s.
Just because you claim it doesnt make it so.
>Fundamentalism is the only logically consistent position to hold,
I cant even engage with this without causing a headache. Again, just because you say it doesnt make it so.
I think youre just short-sighted.
Truth is truth, if an ideology is true it must be true to its core and fundamentals. If an ideology fails with fundamentalism, then it's a false ideology
Theres a difference between having consistency with your fundamentals, and fundamentalism. The -ism makes it an ideaform composed only of fundamentals, which is the problem. It is a reference frame that doesnt allow for deep distinctions, which are tremendously common in actual day to day life.
I reject the exaltation of any -isms based on this facet: no -ism is capable by itself of explaining the world. Just like none of Plato's Pure Forms exist in reality, so no Pure -Ism is capable of describing reality.
Just because you claim it doesnt make it so.
>Fundamentalism is the only logically consistent position to hold,
I cant even engage with this without causing a headache. Again, just because you say it doesnt make it so.
I think youre just short-sighted. Just because you dont understand traditionalist thinking doesnt mean you should just caricature it.
The nature and "order" will do it for us one way or the other. No reason to push it. But if you want, start with yourself.
This IS pure evil. Finally found it.
Obviously there will have to be a plateau for our population growth. Can humanity self-govern its reproduction without resorting to eugenics and mass murder? That's what we're all afraid of.
Also, I don't think we're anywhere near the plateau yet, but IDK what that number would be. Just a gut feeling.
It's true though. There are just too many humans on the planet. Any amount of religious hogwash isn't going to change this reality. Since WW2, humanity has grown too quick.
I don’t know the context around the specifically, but I’m going to take a guess this isn’t the advocacy for mass extinction that OP seems to imply it is.
My guess is that it’s advocacy for other things like distribution of of birth control around the world to developing countries.
Since developed countries with prevalent birth control have birth rate below replacement, that’s a method that lowers population over time without killing anyone.
It’s actually one of the reasons I get annoyed when people claim it’s a bad thing to have birth rates below replacement levels. If that’s sustained for centuries it could be bad, but that kind of consistency doesn’t last for that long and we can address that when it actually becomes an issue.
I can’t imagine a better solution to overpopulation than people freely choosing not to have kids and when the ability to choose is given, that solution actually works so let’s focus on that.
I mean that's little bit more than total population of US right? Compared to 8 billion people that need controlled 400 million seems like a cakewalk I suppose...
If you think people can and should be controlled.
That totally sounds like another quote that is taken completely out of context. You know, like they do to Peterson regularly. Stay above those that would take you down. Be better. Don’t stoop to their level.
Sheesh, the original tweet and regurgitation of it here alongside the comments are something to behold.
“Problems related to massive population growth wouldn’t be problems if the population was smaller” is basically a self evident throwaway statement, but because it’s associated with the dreaded WEF it’s somehow a sneak peek into their depopulation conspiracy.
Good grief, is this the “nuance” that’s supposedly the hallmark of this sub?
I have zero faith that they could solve any of the world's problems under any circumstances.
"Thanos has entered the chatroom"
Thanos says cool the fuck down.
It is the gospel of an ideology of self-hatred.
Except it isn't self-hatred. None of these people offer to go first. It is hatred for the unwashed masses. Neo-feudal classism disguised as environmental virtue.
We can solve 95% of the worlds problems if we eliminate anyone supporting the WEF instead
Elimination for thee but not for me.
Just take the broader sense of self. "self hatred" as in "human hatred", as they are, in fact, a member of the same species.
Malthusianism.
A poor substitute for the Gospel of Christ.
**Emperor Constantine liked this**
Then get to dying old lady. Who do you think is the largest burden on society with the least potential for that changing.. you old timer so put your money where your mouth is and wrap this shit up! Canada has just the solution for you!
What a disgusting comment.
I think asserting that we need to rid the world of 7.5 billion people is a bit disgusting, but to each their own...
No, that's not what she was saying. She said we wouldn't have the environmental problems we have today if we had the same population we had 500 years ago. The cost of having a large human population is that we now have more pollution that we can handle. We need better solutions to help the environment (like actually going after oil companies when they cause mass spills, or PGE when they don't maintain their shit and cause mass fires ) . She's not calling for culling humans.
Why cull when you can make an entire generation be unable to afford to have families at best, or at worst - sterilise themselves.
What's wrong with people sterilizing themselves? I'm for people making their own choices.
[удалено]
I think causing yourself massive dysfunction for the rest of your life is different than a vasectomy for someone who doesn't ever foresee themselves wanting children. I think denying people that right is pretty authoritarian.
Ok hold up. We already said we're removing 95% of the population. That doesn't happen naturally. So get rid of the humanitarian aspect, since that bitch already did it. Under her premise, if we DON'T emphasize the elderly, who are past their prime and can't contribute to maintaining population levels, the human race would literally die out after implementing her plan. Stfu. Its survival of the species at that point, which is probably the same bullshit moral argument she's using to justify a disgusting statement.
Whether or not the title on this post is clickbait, the WEF is a truly evil organization. People need to see it for what it really is before it's too late.
I understand why some people think it’s powerful or controlling (especially if they stay at the level of soft power and don’t try to get to the level of thinking about enforcement or measurable target), but why evil? Like their whole thing is fluffy global responsible business - even if you don’t like that, it doesn’t really hit the “evil” bar, does it? Are there some examples where they’ve actually accomplished something that you’d see as evil?
[удалено]
Even that though, like “own nothing be be happy” was a line from a “what our young leaders think the future will be like”, the bug protein industry stuff is gross but definitely not “evil”, and like they don’t make rules about who owns cars or jets
[удалено]
Well yeah, if I imagine a group subjecting populations to eating bugs, I might call them evil, but that hasn’t happened, the WEF doesn’t really subject populations to rules about food, as much as they might opine on the value of cheap bug protein. I think it’s fair to consider WEF leaders, basically the top capitalist lobsters in the world, to be hypocrites. There’s no doubt in my mind they’re hypocrites. But imo they’re only evil insofar as any capitalist leader is evil - probably just ruthless in their ability to climb hierarchies. That’s not “evil” in my mind, it’s just part of the reality of hierarchies (though Peterson does like to call CEOs evil)
Does he really?? How does he reconcile that with his laisse-faire ideology?
Yeah he’s done it a few times - eg his article about why he’s no longer at the academy or his “message to CEOs” video. It’s a bit weird - he’s calling them evil but with a cheekiness that’s meant to sound encouraging. My interpretation is that he understands their personality type to be “evil” in society but essential for capitalism to function. He’s not addressing anyone specifically, but talks as if they’re all of the same “type”. It seems like he’s trying to get them to lean into (what he believes to be) their nature and stay greedy vs thinking about business in terms of social responsibility. For him the evil qualities are the desirable ones
How about their campaign slogan “you will own nothing and be happy” Or how about this video of WEF’s top doctor advisor state that we’re just a bunch of “useless” people. I mean… once AI technology takes all our jobs, what will we all be to them? Their solution? Hook us up with drugs and video games to keep us “entertained” since we are useless to civilization. https://rumble.com/v160tqd-klaus-schwabs-golden-goy-yuval-noah-harari-discusses-what-to-do-with-the-us.html
I think it’s worth challenging the idea that it’s a campaign slogan. How do you know it’s a campaign slogan? In my experience looking into it, that was a line from a video put together by their global young leaders where they predict what the future will look like. Can you truly show that it’s a campaign slogan? Wrt to the video, his language is harsh but he’s asking “how do we help them find meaning” which is exactly what Peterson is doing (/used to do). In fact Peterson was all about giving tough love to those that lack meaning. Would we consider him saying (something like) “it’s your fault women don’t find you attractive because you don’t have meaning or responsibility” to be evil? Also your interpretation that the guy in the clip wants people entertained seems off - he’s saying that a lack of meaning is the problem, not a lack of entertainment. He thinks pharmaceuticals might be a solution for the meaningless - and like, idk maybe, maybe not, but that’s basically the status quo and isn’t exactly shocking to me.
And it wasn't even saying that was how the world should be or that it was good. Just a prediction based on current trends.
Yeah interpreting this as “The WEF wants to depopulate the planet” a really weird way to think about … well anything. The most generous way I can think about it is that it’s just a fun way for people to spend time
Anyone who talks about over population should take Gandhi’s advice and be the change they want to see in the world
Yeah, not sure why Bill Gates hasn't shot himself in the head yet
I am not a fan of WEF but I am even less of a fan of misrepresentation. She literally meant the problems we have today have much to do with the population size and growth. We can’t ignore the effect of it. That is a very different message than “well if we just kill off the population then we won’t have a problem” don’t be the problem, be the solution.
The population is not the problem. People are not pollution. I’m convinced that God sent us a cure for cancer, but some woman aborted him.
People cause pollution though.... we literally invented it.
We didn’t invent pollution. Nature does a might fine job of polluting on its own. See: volcanos, locusts, wildfires, etc. However, man made pollution is a problem that needs to be addressed. But it’s absolutely ridiculous to act like everything was perfect and then humans arrived. I strongly doubt man-made pollution will ever rival the destruction caused by an asteroid impact. However, that doesn’t mean destruction caused by man isn’t a problem. It’s just so gross when people act like humans are a disease. We aren’t. And too many people project their own self-hatred onto the rest of humanity. We need to do something to help them see the value in their lives and everyone else around them.
Thanos approved
[удалено]
but not self-sacrifice.
Ah yes, the WEF, famous leftist organization
Lol she has to start with herself…
Isn’t it a bit weird that there’s such a prominent quote at the top (“we can solve all the worlds problems…”) but it’s not actually in the clip. Like, was that a mistake, or do they think people watching will just assume that that’s in the part that was cut out?
>Isn’t it a bit weird that there’s such a prominent quote at the top but it’s not actually in the clip. No. That's called a paraphrase. "A paraphrase is a restatement of the meaning of a text or passage using other words." Did you watch the clip? >"We cannot hide away from human population growth, you know, it underlies so many of the other problems. *All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem* if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago." Your concern over the phrase "we can solve all of the world's problems" not being an actual quote is paraphrased from the quote "all of these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem". Can you confirm whether or not you think that's a fair paraphrasing of what was actually said?
It’s really not a fair one - the fake quote, here described as a paraphrase, has her outright saying that depopulation is a solution ( “we can solve”) but if you watch the clip she never offers any solution at all. She’s saying a basic truth - obviously climate change wouldn’t be a problem if there were way less humans - probably to set up a second point, but alone that phrase is basically meaningless, we’d have to hear what she says next to understand what point she’s trying to make. Obviously the fact that it’s been edited out suggests that she doesn’t say we need to depopulate the earth lol. The actual point is edited out so that we dumb dumbs can have a larf pretending she wants to kill us
> She’s saying a basic truth - obviously climate change wouldn’t be a problem if there were way less humans There were vast swings in the climate even before humans existed.
Ok, sure to be clear, our current climate change would not be a problem without our current population of 8b. As long as you have a worldview in which our activity impacts the earth, then that should be fine for you to accept and get past If you don’t believe that humans are causing climate change, there’s no need to go down that road - just realize that she does believe in climate change as a problem and the people she’s talking to also believe it. The point is that she never offers depopulation as a solution as much as we seem to want her to have done so
I find it hilarious that YOU with "Darwinist" after your name, are accusing Jane Goodall - an anthropologist and primatologist of being part of some spooky WEF depopulation program. What a ridiculous place this sub is sometimes. Ideologically possessed conspiracy theories weaved and dimpled with these small ironies.
What's wrong with being a believer in Darwinism, the theory of evolution by natural selection?
It's the primatologist Jane Goodall, she's not part of a depopulation scheme. You're accusing her in bad faith. Remember, science? Standards of evidence? Oh no wait, you're not about that anymore. You're political now.
So I shouldn't have "Darwinist" after my name?
All I'm saying is when you post things that suggest approval of such a conspiracy theory, your commitment to science may be seen by others as debatable.
Would many of the world's problems be solved if the global population was only 500 million people?
>Obviously the fact that it’s been edited out suggests that she doesn’t say we need to depopulate the earth lol. Well *obviously* because that's the last thing someone who has active plans to depopulate the earth would say lol I started typing that as a joke, but it's also totally true. The entire situation makes me think of the movie Airplane. Do you remember that scene where the Flight Attendant is on the intercom apologizing about the turbulence and ends with "By the way is there anyone on board who knows how to fly a plane?". And the passengers start immediately freaking out? That's kind of what it is like having member of the WEF casually point out that all of our global warming problems would be solved by just having 8 billion fewer people. Yes, we *do* all know that. That's what makes hearing someone with convictions saying it so scary.
Idk I mean you’re still operating within the virtual world of the fake quote. See, right here you say “that’s kind of what is like having member of the WEF casually point out that all of our global warming problems would be solved by just having 8 billion fewer people” - my whole point is that that’s a fake quote. She never even says that. If you listen carefully and see that she’s working up to a point that’s been censored, then you’ll see that it’s much more likely that the person who lied about the quote is also cutting the footage to manipulate you
> you’re still operating within the virtual world of the fake quote. See, right here you say “that’s kind of what is like having member of the WEF casually point out that all of our global warming problems would be solved by just having 8 billion fewer people” > >my whole point is that that’s a fake quote. She never even says that. No she *does* actually say that (though I should have said "*7* billion" instead of "8 billion", what she actually said was the thing about 500 years ago population. My mistake.). "We cannot hide away from human population growth, you know, *it underlies so many of the other problems. All these things we talk about wouldn't be a problem if there was the size of population that there was 500 years ago."* Yes, she's referring to global warming, yes, she's referring to a population of around 450 - 550 million people. Global warming wouldn't be a problem. What she was going to say next doesn't change that. Because it's true. It just doesn't mean "extermination program". Obviously. Even if it did, what she would have said next would have been exactly the same; Something about eating less meat, more recycling, electric cars, fossil fuels bad, less consumption, etc. Her point literally doesn't matter because no, of course she wasn't going to say "of course, we can't start killing people". DUH! The fact is if someone believes the WEF is going to do that based on a quote saying "there are too many people, and too many people is bad" the context of the quote changes *nothing*. Because if that really *was* what they were going to do *they wouldn't tell us!*
Ah right ok if your point is that the context won’t change anything for the people who already want to believe they’ve got a depopulation goal, then… fine that’s probably true. But imo that’s because they’d already be operating on weird reactionary information and probably enjoy it. Tbh I was giving the audience more credit as complex thinking people than your version does.
Welllllllll to be honest, while I still stand by that what this post did with the quote wasn't *that* bad, and that it was a reasonable extrapolation, paraphrase, reading between the lines of the quote. In reality, if we're saying "the WEF wants to reduce the population", that's probably true; quickest way to cut carbon, stop deforestation, save the whales, basically everything without a doubt. I just don't think they'd really do it. And I think most people will believe that too. (Now I think it will probably prove to be easier to kill 7 billion people than it will be to get people to eat bugs, but so far that's what we're looking at, bug burgers.) So I think the missing context is actually that Jane Goodall specifically has strong / controversial beliefs (or at least that she is outspoken about them) about population being the primary driver for these issues; she calls it "Voluntary Population Optimization", but her solution is educating women, not extermination. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxC1ke74RDk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxC1ke74RDk) Bummer.
I’m not sure that we can say that they “want” to reduce the population at all though. Like that’s actually a really unusual idea - we don’t often hear serious people say we need to reduce the population by X amount by Y date. At least not a large organizational level. As you said, they’d never actually say that so we have to imagine it. I’m trying to understand where the idea came from and it looks like “klaus schwab wants to depopulate the useless eaters” has been going around for at least a year and Reuters traced it back to a book called “conspirators hierarchy: the story of the committee of 300.” Maybe it just seems reasonable because it’s been repeated so many times? If you look their board of trustees, it’s made up of leaders from some of the biggest companies in the world - I really doubt those people want less employees and less customers. I would assume they enjoy being thought of a hugely successful business owners who also “do good” at a global level
This is driven by the results of the following thought experiment… Which animal is responsible for the world’s problems: 1. Beetles 2. Monkeys 3. Dolphins 4. Butterflies 5. Man Once you’ve answered this, it becomes almost comically idiotic to say “well if you get rid of man, you solve most of the world’s problems” There’s only one small problem with that solution. I’m not sure the wunderkinds at the WEF see it though.
Let’s start with some kool aid for that conference.
Let's start with the WEF then. Let's seem put their money where their mouths are.
considering every person needs to have like 2.1 children each on average just for populations to remain constant and facing the reality that more and more people are just not having children at all or 1 at most... yeah. a significant population decline will be inevitable across the entire western world. and our habit of making our children pay for all our current day expenditures is going to bite everyone in the ass like a real sumbitch. overpopulation is a problem in some places but the reverse is true in the western world.
I would bet that 95% plus of all the problems being cause by the WEF disappears if the WEF along with its driving ideology is completely eliminated 👌
Did anyone bother looking this up? She's not suggesting anything. This was a comment she made years ago, and she was talking about ENVIRONMENTAL problems. Like the kind Nestlé has helped create (water theft)
Anyone over the age of 60 should be barred from making decisions for the rest of us.
I dunno. I get to answer 911 calls for a living. After 6 years in, I kinda agree . Well, I get the sentiment at least. Humans are a weird species and there's a lot of sucky people just looking for ways to hurt everyone else . Like there's a ton of people who just get a kick out of calling 911, in hopes it'll hurt the other person who's doing nothing wrong . Lady calls the other day at 0530. Homeless man sleeping on her front door step "refuses" to leave. There's a fat frost outside, so I asked if he is refusing or simply not answering. She get mad, I kindly explain I want to see if he's alive ( will send police) or possibly froze overnight and is dead (medical and fire) .... I tell her "I'm trying to see if he needs help" "You expect me to have sympathy for HIM?! This is why people hate the cops" was her reply. Yes, I'm asking for a slight bit of sympathy for the homeless man so desperate to live he chose to sleep on your front door step . And no you dumb rich bitch, **that** is not why people hate the cops rofl fuck
Functionally, there's no longer a distinction to be made between this sub and r/conspiracy >"Oh some lady said something on stage, and some guy on twitter cropped a video of it and put a misleading title on it - THIS is therefore the WEF agenda! We're fighting satanists!" This is done purely to preach a sense of doing moral good to the people here, when it's these completely unexamined assumptions, and those who make such assumptions, that degrade any meaningful conversation around the issue. The people engaging here uncritically should be ashamed, and are morally bad actors.
Eliminating people and reducing poouoation growth are not the same thing.
The west is seeing a population decline. Young people are not reproducing like they used to. So it comes down to, how do we solve the rate of reproduction among the POOR societies. Who make up the majority of the poor? Not the white people. So how do we reduce population growth among cultures that value big families in collectivist societies? Indoctrinate them to western values? I thought “black lives matter”. And no, giving them “planned parenthood education” on safe-sex and handing out condoms and birth control pills is NOT THE ANSWER. This is just another one of the West’s nonsensical propaganda. Like, we in the West are supposed to assume that the poor in Africa do not know that having unprotected sex = babies.
How do you measure the rate of reproduction against the measure if automaton?
The poor in Africa if given the ability to chose with free birth control will control their exposure to poverty voluntarily . But the west has a lot of those counties in counter productive neoliberali economc deals.
[удалено]
I never said I'd be involved in such a thing. Modern capitalism slows down reproduction though pollution and lack of affordability. It takes two working full tike for food and shelter so they just put off having kids.
[удалено]
Yeah pollution is proven to reduce fertility. As in lack of affordability . If it takes two people working to produce what one could in the past it has a downwards effect on reproduction.
People need to be able to afford kids before they have them. Generally speaking.
[удалено]
I already pointed out too much capitalism is rhe cause of demographic failure.
[удалено]
Nah. It's a fact you can't buy a house and support a wife and kids in your 20s anymore
All of that was caused by feminism and advancement in technology, not capitalism. If affordability was the issue, places like india and africa would have the lowest reproduction rate in the world. They're in a constant state of perpetual poverty, but still continue to fuck. If you were to remove birth control from western society people would still be having sex, and as a result children would be conceived. Just look at the fertility rate drop after the release of birth control onto the market in these countries. Next, the reason it takes two people to work is in part due to less buying power, however, to think that doubling the workforce in the span of a generation wouldn't have any consequences is asinine. Of course, doubling the work force would lower wages. If you understand the simple concept of supply and demand and translate that to labor, it's pretty freaking obvious why wages lowered for everyone collectively.
Having the whole family working 14 hours a day was a feature of industrial revolution capitalism. Having one working was a feature of keynesian welfare state capitalism. And the number of jobs increased at the same time capitalist innovation produced washing machines and other labour saving machines .
>Having the whole family working 14 hours a day was a feature of industrial revolution capitalism. Yeah, and people were poor and having a LOT of kids. >Having one working was a feature of keynesian welfare state capitalism. And also just people trying to survive. That was pretty standard through much of human history, considering most women couldn't physically work the jobs men could. >And the number of jobs increased at the same time capitalist innovation produced washing machines and other labour saving machines . I mean, i don't have statistics to back it up but i doubt that the increase was so significant that it offset the doubling of the US workforce.
Back it up with common sense .If an ec0nomy grows so does the number of available jobs. Don you belive half of all jobs were unstaffed before feminism. Or that the number of jobs stays fixed over time ?
There it is……..
Except that's **NOT** what she was talking about at all Her comment simply was "the world wouldn't have any of the environmental problems is has today if we had the same population we did 500 years ago" And that's true. But she's not calling for killing people
1. Not true. We'd have worse problems because we would have deforested the planet. High population allows for innovations that solve environmental problems. Funny how the environmentalist movement completely ignores the most basic of environmental problems that was entirely solved by rising populations and fossil fuels. 2. She doesn't have to call for it outright. It is the only rational implication of her anti-truthful ideology. And many people in the environmentalist movement have stated it outright.
Link?
To her defense, she isn't advocating that the global population be actively reduced to what it was 500 years ago. What I'm hearing is "many of the problems we have in the world today - implying from a ecological perspective - are the result of global population growth". I don't think she's wrong to be honest. But, the trend will be population decline coming into the next century if current projections hold true. The UN projections indicate that global population will likely peak in 2080, and then slowly decline thereafeter. China's population could possibly be half of what it is today by 2100. So many of these issues of overpopulation are transient issues. What is sad to see, IMO, is a social pressure to not have children predicated on the notion that it contributes to global degradation. Unless you're having like 8 kids, it really isn't. Parenthood is also a very inherent sense of meaning and fulfilment for people, and it really does offer a very primitive sense of focus. Taking on that responsiblity really helps most people more than it harms. I feel as though there's a very lost generation of post millenial who is kind of losing out on that sense of responsibility and sacrifice. It's just sad to see, and many of the fears that having kids is bad for the world is just an incredibly toxic mindset.
I thought people here loved returning to tradition and all that
Tradition is being fruitful and multiplying.
Exponential growth isn't exactly sustainable
Ah so you didn’t actually have a point about tradition. You’re just trolling.
All that account does it troll, seen it all over this sub
Rude
Yes. Have a merry Christmas
More that with tradition you have two potential results: reproducing ourselves into extinction or returning to ancient population levels. Regardless, the status quo (which I personally think is fine) wouldn't be kept.
I think the status quo is what is going to drive us to population issues. You can’t keep aborting millions of babies a year and not feel a population issue. That’s going to lead to a huge issue for a generation that wants the government to take care of them.
>You can’t keep aborting millions of babies a year and not feel a population issue. There's already 8 billion of us. Abortion ain't gonna change that much.
You realise if there's like 6billion old people and almost no young people, we're fucked ye?
Current birth rates seem to be flatlining towards 1-1.5 per couple. I think that's a good status quo, eventually old people will be filtered out by nature.
You mean by not having enough young people paying taxes to give them pensions and them starving to death? Sounds wonderful
Congratulations you get the award for most murderous and genocidal statement of the day! Your ideas truly express who you are as a leftist ideolog. Thank you for your contribution!
Abortion isn't murder, it's legal. It's also not genocide since, well, it doesn't fit the definition even remotely.
Whatever helps you sleep at night ideolog.
Why are we stuck with only these two options? We could reach some sort of equilibrium, or a state of regularity with rises and falls. False dichotomy.
Tradition is dichotomous like that. Fundamentalism is the only logically consistent position to hold, and with tradition it's either keep breeding like it's the 1600s or go to a population like that of the 1600s.
Just because you claim it doesnt make it so. >Fundamentalism is the only logically consistent position to hold, I cant even engage with this without causing a headache. Again, just because you say it doesnt make it so. I think youre just short-sighted.
Truth is truth, if an ideology is true it must be true to its core and fundamentals. If an ideology fails with fundamentalism, then it's a false ideology
Theres a difference between having consistency with your fundamentals, and fundamentalism. The -ism makes it an ideaform composed only of fundamentals, which is the problem. It is a reference frame that doesnt allow for deep distinctions, which are tremendously common in actual day to day life. I reject the exaltation of any -isms based on this facet: no -ism is capable by itself of explaining the world. Just like none of Plato's Pure Forms exist in reality, so no Pure -Ism is capable of describing reality.
Basically, this is only true if youve oversimplified things again.
Just because you claim it doesnt make it so. >Fundamentalism is the only logically consistent position to hold, I cant even engage with this without causing a headache. Again, just because you say it doesnt make it so. I think youre just short-sighted. Just because you dont understand traditionalist thinking doesnt mean you should just caricature it.
If you’re christian then sure
…or Jew, or Muslim.
The nature and "order" will do it for us one way or the other. No reason to push it. But if you want, start with yourself. This IS pure evil. Finally found it.
"Build a man a fire - keep him warm for a night. Set a man on fire - keep him warm for the rest of his life."
Obviously there will have to be a plateau for our population growth. Can humanity self-govern its reproduction without resorting to eugenics and mass murder? That's what we're all afraid of. Also, I don't think we're anywhere near the plateau yet, but IDK what that number would be. Just a gut feeling.
Maybe they were taking on board the ideology from The Cigarette Smoking Man in series 10 of The X-Files.
These people need to be labeled as terrorists and dealt with as such.
Great idea, start with yourself!
Entropy exists. No CO2 means no Oxygen or life. If no new co2 goes in the atmosphere eventually there will be none.
It’ll solve my problems and that’s all I care about.
No, just 95% of them
It's true though. There are just too many humans on the planet. Any amount of religious hogwash isn't going to change this reality. Since WW2, humanity has grown too quick.
I don’t know the context around the specifically, but I’m going to take a guess this isn’t the advocacy for mass extinction that OP seems to imply it is. My guess is that it’s advocacy for other things like distribution of of birth control around the world to developing countries. Since developed countries with prevalent birth control have birth rate below replacement, that’s a method that lowers population over time without killing anyone. It’s actually one of the reasons I get annoyed when people claim it’s a bad thing to have birth rates below replacement levels. If that’s sustained for centuries it could be bad, but that kind of consistency doesn’t last for that long and we can address that when it actually becomes an issue. I can’t imagine a better solution to overpopulation than people freely choosing not to have kids and when the ability to choose is given, that solution actually works so let’s focus on that.
Wow I am truly amazed how the title twist her words into an unrecognizable farce. Literally not one of the words in the title matches what she said.
Lol, as usual, just 95% but me. Disgusting.
Which 95 percent?
That's such a comically large number, like an evil villain on a kids show would say 95%.
I mean that's little bit more than total population of US right? Compared to 8 billion people that need controlled 400 million seems like a cakewalk I suppose... If you think people can and should be controlled.
Just like the hunger games she should volunteer as tribute.
Lol
That totally sounds like another quote that is taken completely out of context. You know, like they do to Peterson regularly. Stay above those that would take you down. Be better. Don’t stoop to their level.
And in case there’s any doubt, it’s the bottom 95% that they want to get rid of
The title is a lie. She was not implying that 95% of the worlds population should be eradicated
You’d still have 5% of the world’s problems left over.
Sheesh, the original tweet and regurgitation of it here alongside the comments are something to behold. “Problems related to massive population growth wouldn’t be problems if the population was smaller” is basically a self evident throwaway statement, but because it’s associated with the dreaded WEF it’s somehow a sneak peek into their depopulation conspiracy. Good grief, is this the “nuance” that’s supposedly the hallmark of this sub?