My friend and FB pal David M Hendrix sent this along: http://silencednomore.com/kissinger-eugenics-depopulation/. It started me on this rant. I won't be able to do it justice in one sitting, so bear with me as I add to it, and amend it over time. Feel free to offer suggestions.
I quote the first paragraph:
"“ Dr. Henry Kissinger, who wrote: "Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign
policy towards the Third World.”"
I think the first victims of this idea have already been disappeared. Would anyone care if Kissinger was next? I wouldn't. He's so eager to purify the species, let him set the example. If we use one's humanity as a criterion, surely he should be in front of the line for lack of same.
Is the population huge and growing? Sure. In the 'third world'? Yes. What changes that trend? Feeding people, employing people, giving people chances to grow in their humanity, the top level in Maslow's hierarchy.
What happens when people have financial security and can enjoy the blessings of a good life? Birth rates go down. Carried to its extreme, we all have great lives but no one to carry on.
If we carry that along, what does that mean for first world nations? Aging populations are greater than younger ones. Who's to take care of the elderly? Immigrant care givers.
President Nixon gave us some good things, like the EPA (out of pragmatism not nobility). Unfortunately, he burdened us with Henry, and the bastard is still with us.
The problem is not that we have too large a population. It's that we don't want to share with them. We prefer to take advantage of them and we want to increase their numbers that they might serve us, the few, the select.
If there were fewer of them, would it really impact global warming? Not much, not really. They hardly consume all that much. We are the consumers, the ravagers, the rapers and pillagers. We need them to do it for us but increasingly they are less needed. The smart guys are creating their replacements: robots for plants, robots to repair robots in plants; self driving cars which will lead to self directed semis, operating 24/7 instead of 10/7, also serviced by robots; algorithms to replace financial planners; drones to eliminate fighter aircraft, aircraft carriers and expensive pilots. We get more efficient, more profitable, less human. If only there were ways to speed up the process, to amass greater wealth more quickly and accrue it to the fewest of us.
Wait! There are. Let's get rid of the drains on the economies of the world -- the unwashed. Let's bioengineer their demise. Let's speculate on crops and commodities and drive people to riot across nations, and to kill one another. We're doing that now. We just have to do it better, faster.
If we get rid of those savages in the rain forests. we can extract the oil and minerals while we destroy the environment. Whoever came up with the concept of 'externalities' really did us a disservice. They focused people against us. How wrong-minded can one be?
Lloyd Blankfein had it right. Buy an SEC employee to 'approve' commodities for speculation. We drive the prices for wheat and other food through the roof. Who'll take note?
Let's buy us a Congress. Who'll catch on? And they would not have, if the bottom had not fallen out. But, hey!, We made a killing on that, too.
A world with a third fewer people is much more manageable, anyway. Remember white collar layoffs? Now that was efficient. We get rid of the bottom 15% of the low performers, the overwork the hell out of the rest. We can do better later -- by cutting another 15% and call them low performers, too. It's great for our bonuses and stock options.
Later
I quote the first paragraph:
"“ Dr. Henry Kissinger, who wrote: "Depopulation should be the highest priority of U.S. foreign
policy towards the Third World.”"
I think the first victims of this idea have already been disappeared. Would anyone care if Kissinger was next? I wouldn't. He's so eager to purify the species, let him set the example. If we use one's humanity as a criterion, surely he should be in front of the line for lack of same.
Is the population huge and growing? Sure. In the 'third world'? Yes. What changes that trend? Feeding people, employing people, giving people chances to grow in their humanity, the top level in Maslow's hierarchy.
What happens when people have financial security and can enjoy the blessings of a good life? Birth rates go down. Carried to its extreme, we all have great lives but no one to carry on.
If we carry that along, what does that mean for first world nations? Aging populations are greater than younger ones. Who's to take care of the elderly? Immigrant care givers.
President Nixon gave us some good things, like the EPA (out of pragmatism not nobility). Unfortunately, he burdened us with Henry, and the bastard is still with us.
The problem is not that we have too large a population. It's that we don't want to share with them. We prefer to take advantage of them and we want to increase their numbers that they might serve us, the few, the select.
If there were fewer of them, would it really impact global warming? Not much, not really. They hardly consume all that much. We are the consumers, the ravagers, the rapers and pillagers. We need them to do it for us but increasingly they are less needed. The smart guys are creating their replacements: robots for plants, robots to repair robots in plants; self driving cars which will lead to self directed semis, operating 24/7 instead of 10/7, also serviced by robots; algorithms to replace financial planners; drones to eliminate fighter aircraft, aircraft carriers and expensive pilots. We get more efficient, more profitable, less human. If only there were ways to speed up the process, to amass greater wealth more quickly and accrue it to the fewest of us.
Wait! There are. Let's get rid of the drains on the economies of the world -- the unwashed. Let's bioengineer their demise. Let's speculate on crops and commodities and drive people to riot across nations, and to kill one another. We're doing that now. We just have to do it better, faster.
If we get rid of those savages in the rain forests. we can extract the oil and minerals while we destroy the environment. Whoever came up with the concept of 'externalities' really did us a disservice. They focused people against us. How wrong-minded can one be?
Lloyd Blankfein had it right. Buy an SEC employee to 'approve' commodities for speculation. We drive the prices for wheat and other food through the roof. Who'll take note?
Let's buy us a Congress. Who'll catch on? And they would not have, if the bottom had not fallen out. But, hey!, We made a killing on that, too.
A world with a third fewer people is much more manageable, anyway. Remember white collar layoffs? Now that was efficient. We get rid of the bottom 15% of the low performers, the overwork the hell out of the rest. We can do better later -- by cutting another 15% and call them low performers, too. It's great for our bonuses and stock options.
Later
No comments:
Post a Comment