Why do we need to ask if population control is needed?
So I wanted to talk about a mantra. A mantra? Yes. The mantra. There’s too many humans on this planet. Repeat. Whose mantra is that?
Well, it’s everyone’s who is involved in global politics. And it is a prevalent idea that is so often repeated that people simply believe it. We see a parroting of the idea that population control is needed.
Who is behind population control as an idea?
Why? Well, first of all, who is behind it and why are they all behind it? It is an idea that started with Malthus. Malthus is a philosopher, economist, the 18th century in England.
Who’s the first to have devised this idea that the population control, due to population growth is exponential and problematic. Yet the planet has the ability to produce plenty of energy, food, etc., it’s not an exponential problem at all, it’s linear.
At any point the resources can be made available to a large population. Boy, talk about a fear tactic. So that’s enough to scare people.
You know, humanity goes through an evolution on this planet. And each phase of the evolution have been defined by an access to a certain level of resources.
Why we think everything is truth
So our ancestors with their tools, for example, they would just have some stones, to be able to to extract some food and to defend themselves. For them the resources were their only tools. Stones and rock. Then we had the spear. Then the first metallurgy, you know, extracting the first copper.
This copper is not very strong. Then we got the iron. So at each phase, some people could have said the planet cannot support more than so many people because we only have so many metals. And so this is the funny thing, that in England, 18th century, people suddenly started to think of themselves as so much on the top of the food chain that everything they knew was the truth.
And we have a very good example with the one of the scientists of Napoleon of France, called Laplace. He lamented, actually to Napoleon, saying, “I regret so much that I’m living in the wrong period of time”. So Napoleon said, ”why do you say so?”. He said, “because everything has been discovered already. There’s nothing more to discover.”
You know, this is the arrogance. That what you know is all that exists. There could be nothing more possible beyond what you know. We’ve been learning since the time of the ancestors. It doesn’t stop. There’s an expression that we are all dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants.
If we can contribute a little bit to this orchestra, to the symphony of humanity. It’s only a small contribution. It’s not the whole definition. So this mantra of there’s too many humans on the planet has been, that population control is the issue, in my opinion, has defined the last hundred years of our history.
Solid revival of the population control scare
And it was revived very solidly in the beginning of 20th century by the Rockefeller Foundation. The Rockefeller Foundation has been very instrumental in redefining medicine in questionable ways. Because it’s all about chemicals. And is being imposed on us.
They also played a huge role in downplaying and even eliminating natural cycles of medicine. Like, your old grandma’s remedies. The family doctor who had so many tricks. We now learn, was driven by the need to control people. They needed people to be dependent on the chemical based medicines rather than grandma’s remedies.
It could be simply hubris that now the modern way is the best way and the only way. And so you kill everything else because you believe that’s it. We can see now that it was a huge mistake.
Human beings can be stupid
But what was driving this effort? So you have several schools of thought on this side. It was a devilish plan to control the health of people. Humans beings can be stupid to not understand this, and not work towards a balance in their lives.
For example, antibiotics have saved countless lives. And this is not a myth. So we know that it is appropriate to certain conditions. But if you generalize and every disease is treated through antibiotics, you will create a lot of problems in your health. That’s the balance we are talking about.
An approach would have been to identify within medicine what was working, and not push for unnecessary frameworks. That is what is taught in schools of medicine today. Basically that you have symptoms and these symptoms have to be treated by drugs.
And as long as there’s no symptoms, the person is fine. So there is no looking into the actual underlying problem that causes symptoms? No. And it’s terrible because the symptom is just a signal. It’s just the body’s reaction.
We must know that something is causing this reaction. The body is reacting to something, so you kill the reaction with the drugs. And sometimes the reaction of those drugs can be dangerous.
Let’s say you need to control the fever, for example. But what is causing the fever in the first place? This fever is the reaction to something. It’s your body trying to fight something.
But one will go out to buy something to kill the fever, rather than looking at it deeper. That’s what their plan was. Because it sells. There are chemicals that provide the perceived solution. Pharmaceuticals.
The bottom line
Well, let’s say that this way of thinking is very much aligned to the financial bottom line. It’s definitely a commerce based model. There’s a Boston consulting group who devised the report a few years back saying that curing patients was a very bad business model. It’s bad for business when everyone’s healthy and happy.
So returning to this mantra, there is too many people on this planet. The Rockefeller Foundation has also devised and spread this model called the transition model. It measures the population transitions in a dubious way. We can estimate that around 100, 120 billion humans have already passed through this planet. Since the beginning of humans.
And the larger number of these humans are in recent times. Because there was a population explosion with the advent of more hygiene, food, etc.
At the beginning of the 1980s, we were maybe 4 billion people. Right now we are close to 8 billion. So it’s a doubling in like 30 plus years. That is so the transition model. It is seeing the population go through certain phases.
Maintain population, not population control
So for a population to be maintained, you need the number of births to match number of deaths. And if you do that, it’s a balance. Let’s forget the considerations of how many male to female ration. Basically, there’s a magic number, 2.1 kids.
So if women have 2.1 kids. Then you can replace two generations. Then you have a stable population. Now, what’s happening is that from a legacy perspective, you had a lot more births, like in Africa, West Africa, etc. Where there was an average of eight children per woman until very recently.
But as we develop, women went to school and work, they tended to have fewer babies. And now the increase of the population is driven by other factors. They said that it was from the fact that we had medicines now, which claimed to prolong life. And it’s not the medicines.
The real killer
It’s really better conditions of life, better sanitation. You know, access to clean water. Which is a real killer. Water, when it’s not clean, is a real killer. Cleaner water meant that people live longer. So you have full term births. People don’t die.
Because people are living longer and healthier, that contributes to population. In the 19th century, life expectancy was like 40 years old. So now we’re living twice as long, at least. And there is also a lot of less death of babies.
It’s horrendous to think that one baby out of three was dead right during delivery. It’s because of the poor hygienic conditions of the deliveries, especially since the 19th century in Europe. They started to have maternity and to deliver babies in hospitals.
There is a man in Vienna who looked at all the public and private hospitals to determine that death rates in public hospitals was 3 times less. And he wondered why. Why in public hospitals. And he Observed that doctors in these hospitals delivered babies in the afternoon because they were at the morgue in the morning.
And they didn’t wash their hands. So he understood they brought in all the germs that from the morgue. Passing it on to the mother and the baby. Hence mothers and babies dying in childbirth was happening a lot then.
Such a simple thing that we know today. But discovered the hard way. And it took probably 30 years for medicine to adopt this. Yet this man was scorned. He was ruined. He was incarcerated in a mental hospital because the doctors said, How can you say that? We we are the top food chain of human intelligence. How can you believe that we transmit something? The germ theory at the time, was not solidified.
The model is breaking down
Just by cleaning your hands, things can change. Simple. In those times there was limited knowledge about microbes. So this transition model now is reflecting a higher population increase. Today they say we’re at an alarmingly high population rate.
It’s the only model they apply. They show we have an explosion. Then they can predict that in 100 years, 80 years, we will be 15 billion on the planet or whatever. And so this is the kind of stuff that Bill Gates and the likes are screaming about. That the population is getting out of control. We need to control the population.
Except that in the past 30 years, this model is breaking down in reality. Why is it breaking down? Because this is not what’s happening in reality. What’s happening? For example, we are now the first generation in America that will have a life expectancy lower than the parents.
It is known currently we have a lower life expectancy than the previous generation. Just because of the explosion of chronic diseases. We also have women who absolutely don’t maintain the 2.1 kids. These are fertile women. So the generations are not replaced.
Currently in Spain, you have 1.1 baby per woman. So it’s on a decline. The birth rate generally everywhere is in decline. And I definitely see there’s a high death rate these days. Everywhere you read headlines, it’s always died suddenly. This person died suddenly. So many people are dying suddenly. So, yes this is another factor that I don’t want to consider because it’s going over and above even the normal factors. But it’s true.
A broken model making the predictions
Governments, NGOs, they are still applying the transition model and counting on it to make their predictions. Why is nobody saying that, as Elon Musk said, that the main threat to humanity is not more humans, no it’s the fact that there is too few humans on the planet. Too few. So Elon Musk is saying there’s not enough population and Bill Gates is saying it’s too many, and that we’re out of control in population and we need to control. Yet Elon Musk disagrees with Bill Gates.
It’s a big marker of not only intelligence, but of breaking free of the indoctrination. Because objectively, if you look into the matter, the worry that you can have is that I mean, the predictions 20 years ago was already if you really look at reality. They predicted that in 2100 the population would be at something like 7 billion.
China is going to lose half of its population by then. You look at the population today and you can easily predict which way it’s going. But they’ll have you believe that humans you are killing the planet. The resources are diminishing because we are going to be 15 billion.
The convenience of climate change
But that fear factor is due to the fact that they want to be able to control us. Because there is that scare of the climate is changing everything so that they can keep tabs on human activity. So the climate change fear that’s being drummed up is related to this.
And then to say the humans are responsible, you need the justification. So they say we are facing a population control issue and the population is going to increase, so we need to do something. Except it’s not even the case.
No one is having babies
Even Muslim countries are not having as many babies. Outside of Western Africa, the only country making more babies, is Israel – and not even the religious Israelis. Israelis in general, they’re procreating the most, probably by design. Obviously, it’s because they still feel they have a project.
For some today. having babies is just a burden for them. You know, and there’s no more collective project. So even in North Africa, birth rates are plummeting. Plummeting. Russia until recently was losing 1 million people every year. You know, natural deaths. So more deaths than births.
And whatever you do in trying to incentivize, whether to give money to women when they have babies, etc. For example, the Swedish government tried that, right? Sweden 15 years ago, rolled out a generous program of social aid for people who have babies. To provide, daycare and tax breaks, etc. And the birth rate moved from 1.5 to 1.7 babies per woman when they did that.
So it works like three years. And then it goes down even lower than it was in the beginning. Because all people did was accept if they did want a child, then why not have it now? So you only make the babies sooner, but it’s the same babies that you would have to deliver later.
So what is driving a population to diminish itself? That is where we are now. I agree when Elon Musk says it’s the biggest threat facing humanity today, the lack of population growth. And nobody is really addressing this issue.
Justifying population control
On the contrary, governments and media, they are using the opposite. The lie of the transition model that was sold by Rockefeller. That doesn’t work to say that we are exploding in numbers. Why? It’s because everything the governments do, they are justified on population growth.
For example, if your whole system of retirement is tax based, governments are spending money yet collecting money from their population. If imagine a government that sees the truth and says, okay, population is going to decline. People are going to ask, where’s your revenue going to be? And what revenue will you have with maybe 30% less people in 50 years?
Now all confidence in our current model will be gone. So they have to maintain the lie and say, no problem. It’s like a Ponzi scheme. I had maybe 20 years ago, access to a private conference in a Parisian school. It was a demography group. With big name engineers in polytechnic school. And the man who was talking about this subject said that if you really want to be serious about demography and projections, you don’t go to the governments, don’t do statistics, institutes, etc. They’re all funded by governments.
So all have vested interest in lying. What you do is to go to private people who do these assessments of what is the population going to be in such and such country. There’s not many of them because it’s a lot of resources and to find an institution that does this free of the burden of government control is very rare.
But there’s one the in general with the petroleum companies, oil companies. He said that, according to him, they produce such reports. I’ve not seen these reports, they’re internal reports. These types of companies are interested in knowing how many people will have cars and, and anything that benefits their petrol interests.
Internally their assessments say that in 2100 we could be 4 billion people on the planet. No, really? 4 billion. Yeah. This is their projection. But, you know, the sad thing is that we’ve actually got people believing Bill Gates.
I’ve heard people say, you know, that they’re really worried about the overpopulation and there’s not enough space for everybody. I mean, they’re actually talking like that because they’re buying the narrative. Exactly. And meanwhile, the truth is that we’re probably going to be half of how many we are right now.
the planet is still absolutely empty.
Optimism is key
We should be careful not polluting. Detoxifying our environment. It can recover very fast if we take the right actions. We have enough agricultural knowledge, especially regenerative agriculture, with ruminant animals, to nourish everyone largely and without any more discoveries necessarily.
Now, even if we were to double the population, the worry that we would be constrained by current technologies has never been the outlook of humans. We should be more optimistic than that. Meaning that we will find a way. And we know that it has been revealed to us that God is in charge of providing, of course, and we should not worry about that. And everyone is born with their sustenance.
You know, Allah has awarded everyone’s sustenance already. And so every soul is spoken for by God. So there’s a fine line there because it does not give a license to do whatever.
So we should remember. But we have to live within the principles of the the guidelines; that we’re born with this worry that everything is limited. Humans have always found a way to find new sources of energy, more dense energies.
And if we are acting like we are at the end of history, again, we are in Laplace facing Napoleon. Where we say, “well, everything has been discovered.” The repetition of the same mistake. Today we know better. We know everything has not been discovered because we’re living in an age of discoveries.
There’s just new discoveries coming up. I mean, the younger generation must be just riveted that when something comes up, whether it’s a video game or, a new type of car, something even more exciting comes up beyond that, just another few years later.
So we’re living in a different era. So people have every reason to believe and have hope that there’s always going to be a solution. And that’s something deeply rooted.
No discoveries in past 100 years
When you see we’re in an age of discovery, I may disagree. Okay. I think that nothing serious has been discovered in the past 100 years. Okay. Look, nuclear energy, for example, it’s late 19th century. Yeah. Okay. Since then, we have been making things. Engineers have been using the same discoveries. Same principles. Right.
Better, smaller, faster. But there’s nothing really new. And this is a bit like there was a cascade of tremendous discoveries. Electricity was discovered, the engine, electric, nuclear, the structure of the atom, etc.. But for the past 100 years, what really was discovered, that was a breakthrough? New principles, you know, a new outlook on things, etc.. There’s none.
That means that we’re not really as innovative. No, we’re not as our ancestors were. Well, big innovations are rare. Yeah, but they happened and we should look for it and not be stuck into our current framework of principles. And we are just better technicians of it. We can make, microchips smaller and smaller, faster and faster. The GPUs, but it’s not really something new.
Even in medicine, really, since the antibiotic, nothing great has come out. Yeah. For example, cancer. It has been plaguing more and more humans since the fifties and sixties. Nothing is really bettering the situation. The death rate is the same. Protocols are being enforced. Make many people a lot of money. But there’s no real breakthrough.
But I wonder if it’s because the real thinkers are being suppressed in today’s day. They’re considered a threat to the big money. It’s pharmas or companies that don’t like thinkers.
I remember listening to a really incredible scientist, and I have to pull that up so that I can bring it maybe into the next episode. Who was saying that, cancer, for example, can be very useful for us. The cancer cells can be useful and they can come and do their job to our bodies and then leave.
And chemotherapy is not the way to deal with it. So you’re right. I mean, if thinkers like that aren’t going to be supported to come forward with their theories and their work, then we’re just going to stagnate. We’re just going to keep thinking of cancer as the way it is, whereas this woman is proposing for us to look at it as something completely different.
Yes, well, the system is all locked and geared towards exploiting the current knowledge. So for example, if you want to do research today, you need to prove that you’re going to do this, this, this, and it will lead to this discovery, you know? Right. Which is totally crazy, because if you’re searching and something new has always been discovered by chance or by someone so original, you would not follow anything.
So in all, I think this question of population control has no merit. And if we try to do it, it is gearing us towards probably the worst human disaster that we have ever faced.