Use the drop-down boxes above to navigate through the Website  
Return to Reasoning List
 

Here is a link to this page:
http://www.jah-rastafari.com/forum/message-view.asp?message_group=7715&start_row=1




1 - 4
Time Zone: EST (New York, Toronto)
Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 5/26/2022 5:29:45 PM
Reply

Now... when it comes to human population control there are facts and theories. Some people want more of SOME people and LESS of others. For example... when an "agent" comes to a website they perceive to be black or appeal to a majority black audience, and they start giving bad medical advice but presenting it as authoritative, that is an attempt at population control. Because they want these minority communities to commit suicide. This is part of the internal competition within a species over food, resources, and territory. There is also a fictitious "white replacement theory" they're reacting to but this is about (white) power disguised as "nationalism". So this part is true and it affects policy when their candidates get into office or in the courts.

On the other hand, a lot of conspiracy theories target Bill Gates. Why? Because he's rich. Rich people are generally not trusted by non-rich people. Therefore because Gates cares about the globe he is often taken out of context and I am a person who grew up not liking Bill Gates... at all. However, I try to be fair and unbiased if possible. Because that benefits my own growth as a person.

People report on Bill Gates and Elon Musk because doing so is clickbait. They can get paid based on this and the more outlandish and incredible the story is, the more clicks they'll get, the more money they'll get. Bill Gates did not do a TED Talk to tell people that he wanted to kill them. No one who had such designs would announce such designs. And yet this is what people took him as saying. Not at all. There is a difference between population control as a positive beneficial thing and population control via genocide. A one-child policy is population control. Planned parenthood is population control. The stigma that population control is negative comes from the idea that genocide is involved or that one group is being targeted.

When Bill Gates gave his TED Talk there were 6.8 billion people. He said it's heading towards 9 billion. The Gates foundation pumps millions of dollars into saving lives and that's why he was warning about a global pandemic, saying we weren't ready for it. Not only was it true, but he was saying this publicly and to the government in order to get them to prepare so that lives could be saved. So this goes against the notion of population control by genocide. Why would he spend millions to save people and then spend millions to kill them rather publicly in a way that any scientist who knows anything about chemistry would catch? So I wouldn't worry about the Gates Foundation. Rich people often use foundations to hide money or to get more money from other rich donors. But rich people often do turn to philanthropy after so many years of making huge profits. It allows them to do things most people can't which puts people on alert because they're not standing out, doing something most people can't. So I understand the concern. I just don't think it's warranted in this case.


Messenger: RasTafarIWork Sent: 5/27/2022 2:49:19 PM
Reply

Yeah population control is a problem of the rulers of this world. Consider a livestock farmer.
Of interest to I is how in insect colonies, the majority elements are sexless workers. Maybe if majority of people were homosexuals then population control would be very easy. So promoting tolerance and acceptance of homosex as much as possible, combined other measures, will surely achieve desired objectives.

Babylon mentality


Messenger: GARVEYS AFRICA Sent: 5/29/2022 11:02:24 PM
Reply

I believe (without fact checking) the main cause of the global population rise is because old people are living longer due to advances in medicine etc. But what would be the way to control this IF this is the main problem? Close hospitals? Planned euthanasia for the elderly? Very controversial....


I remember reading that 8/10 people on the planet are from third world or developing countries. Any attempts at global population control would affect these countries more than the developed countries which on the surface could also look like a rich vs poor thing, more controversy.

Two sides to every coin

Ites up


Messenger: IPXninja Sent: 6/1/2022 4:07:04 PM
Reply

It's not just medicine intervening. It's also other advances leading to better: diet, quality of food, water, air, less manual labor, less fighting, etc.


Quote:
Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65.

From the 1500s onward, till around the year 1800, life expectancy throughout Europe hovered between 30 and 40 years of age.

1300-1400 | Life expectancy: 24 years* 1400-1500 | Life expectancy: 48 years. 1500-1550 | Life expectancy: 50 years. 1550-1600 | Life expectancy: 47 years.

-end quote-

GA: But what would be the way to control this IF this is the main problem? Close hospitals? Planned euthanasia for the elderly? Very controversial....

No need to kill people. No need to stop saving people.

If every couple had 2 children... the population would stay the same.
If every couple had 1 child... the population would reduce by half (over time).

China successfully had a one-child policy

quote: In 2015, the government removed all remaining one-child limits, establishing a two-child limit. In May 2021, this was loosened to a three-child limit, in July 2021 all limits as well as penalties for exceeding them were removed.

This also had sociological consequences:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy/Consequences-of-Chinas-one-child-policy




1 - 4

Return to Reasoning List




RastafarI
 
Haile Selassie I