I suppose that most readers know about the UN drive for ‘a sustainable future’, or something like that. The picture is described as ‘Agenda 21’. I have read, here and there, about ‘Agenda 21’, but not the actual source, as far as I can recall.

I don’t know if ‘Sustainability’ was an original objective when the UN was created. It may have been that the original founders were only interested in stopping the devastating world wars, especially in view of atomic weapons. But it is possible that there was more to it right from the beginning. It may be that the original purpose of the ‘League of Nations’ (which preceded the UN) was founded after WW1 to stop another such devastating war. It failed, but it laid the foundations for a big get together of nation states. Also, we know that the idea of ‘The United States of Europe’ was already in the mind’s eye of influential thinkers before WW2 erupted. WW2 just made that idea even more attractive.

How far back does the plan for ‘sustainability’ go? Did it start with Malthus, who, around 1800, wrote a thesis that population would outstrip the food supply? The ideas of Malthus are certainly a good starting point. His ideas were shown to be wrong in the eventuality at that time, since food supplies increased and increased. But I guess that it is quite possible that, eventually, the human population of the world will outstrip supplies, which might not be just food. It must be true that there must come a point, if humans continue to have too many babies, that the world will be over-populated. You might think of a bacterium multiplying inside your body. Left unchecked, it would consume your body, but it would kill you before it finished consuming you. Ebola is a case in point.

So what is the conclusion? It MUST be that the increase in the human population of the world must be stopped at some point before it consumes the world. That MUST be the primary objective.

But that objective is unrealisable at the moment. It is simply not possible to control the baby supply at this time. The best that can be done is to discourage sexual activity. The possibility of contracting AIDS is current. A decade or so ago, it was ‘sexually transmitted diseases’ in general, but that has not worked very well. But, even those frighteners have not been enough, although they might have had some effect. But, at the moment, population control is too hard.

Therefore, ‘Sustainability’ must only address those areas where it is possible to ‘make a big difference’.


Suppose that we look at the area of land which is used to grow tobacco plants. Only tonight, I read that millions of hectares of land are used to grow tobacco plants. Suppose that the ultimate aim of the people who devised the FCTC Treaty were not really interested in stopping smoking, but were interested in stopping the use of land for tobacco plantations? That is not such a wild idea as you might imagine. I cannot remember who it was, but a top man in the UN said that the ending of jobs in tobacco plantations in Africa would not be a problem because that land would be used for growing other products and that new jobs would replace tobacco plantation jobs.

So, it is quite possible that the FCTC is intended to release land from use as tobacco plantations. Health is just an excuse to release land for ‘sustainable’ purposes.

And what about Global Warming?

GW is full of contradictions. An off-shore wind farm is about as inefficient as you can imagine. Massive resources are used, both in materials and energy, to make a big wind turbine and plant it in the sea. Thus, the carbon cost NOW are enormous, and the possibility of savings in carbon costs IN THE FUTURE are ephemeral.

But the idea of Global Warming is a useful weapon in the armoury of ‘Sustainability’. It isn’t that GW is real or important. That does not matter. What matters, from a ‘sustainability’ point of view, is that oil and coal will eventually run out. What then will happen to the massively increased human population? Reliance on coal and oil is ‘a bad thing’ from a ‘Sustainability’ point of view.

So we see a short term massive attack on the ‘unproductive’ use of land for growing tobacco plants. Is it any wonder that the UN (WHO division) is ideologically against ecigs? They still require nicotine, which is most easily obtained from tobacco plants. Ecigs encourage the continuation of the use of land for the growing of tobacco plants, rather than food.

I’m getting tired and there are many other things. For example, in the healthy, wealthy West, people are consuming too much food and getting very fat. Those people are upsetting ‘Sustainability’ in that they are consuming stuff which should really be going to starving people in the third world.


We talk about tobacco control being something like an octopus with tentacles stretching to and invading every institution. That did not happen by accident. Global Warming is similar. It has invaded our Universities. That did not happen by accident.


But there is something really, really wrong with ‘Sustainability’. That is, the reasonable ‘human right’ to be self-sufficient as far as possible. You do not have to buy clothes – you can make them yourself if you wish to spend the time doing so. You can buy grapes and make your own wine, and you can buy hops etc and make your own beer. But if you create a still and make spirits, you are at risk from the law. These things are minor inconveniences. The really important thing is ‘Sustainability’.

But the idea of ‘Sustainability’ is faulty in that it assumes that there will be no scientific advances. For example, suppose that every house had its own atomic reactor to produce electricity in the quantities needed by a person or household? There is nothing outrageous about that idea. Suppose that a way was found to store electric power in small, light batteries? And suppose that these power supplies were perfectly safe? The innovations of which I speak are just around the corner.


But none of these things address the population problem directly, and the UN and WHO avoid the idea of direct ‘population control’ – for the time being.

But be in no doubt. Population Control is behind everything that the UN Elite does. Neither Obama nor Cameron nor Putin, etc,  know what is going on long-term.


What can be done?

When Saddam Hussain took control of Iraq, he permitted the Ruler to flee. He was not so generous with the the Ruler’s acolytes. He had them dragged outside and shot in the head.

That is not a solution which I would want to see.

I would want to see ‘population control’ brought out into the open. For ‘population control’ is at the root of everything.



4 Responses to “Sustainability”

  1. Radical Rodent Says:

    One of the best forms of population control would be to help increase prosperity. This is what happened in Europe, when the those suffering the poverty of the Victorian era had 6, 7, 8 or more children; the same “class” 100 years later had families of 4 or fewer children. It is already happening in India, and other nations that are becoming wealthy.

    • garyk30 Says:

      Increased prosperity brings about lower infant mortality rates and you may end up with just as many people, in the long run, and they will live longer. 😦

      • smokingscot Says:

        Nope, I agree with the free thinking rodent.

        That’s why Singapore, Italy, Germany and Japan have declining populations.

        And China’s growth was only possible by imposing the one child policy. They’ve very reluctantly accepted they need to hike the birth rate now, but less than 20% of those eligible to have a second rug-rat have elected to do so.

        I find the Chinese phenomenon fascinating. Seems the primary reason given is sprogs simply cost too much. Not just to feed clothe and educate, but also because the mother does not have the protections on offer in the EU of paid maternity leave and a guarantee of re-employment. In fact in many cases, get knocked up twice and you’re fired.

  2. junican Says:

    There is nothing wrong with your thoughts, chaps. But my point was that actual population control is not possible for the UN to ‘deliver’ at this time. Therefore, it must emphasis ‘consumption’ for the time being. Thus, the use of vast areas of arable land for tobacco growing is anathema. That idea underpins the drive against tobacco – tobacco is unnecessary.
    Climate Control would really like to stop the use of motor vehicles, but that is impossible, and so it vilifies red meat, and thus cows, which is more amenable to control. It also vilifies fat people because fatties breath more rapidly. Sugar is vilified because of the vast acreage used to produce sugar. It is not sustainable.
    You could go deeper and deeper into ‘sustainability’ – fish supplies, for example. Catch quotas do not increase the amount of fish in the sea; they merely limit catches.
    There is a huge Catch 22. Greater prosperity increases consumption by individuals, even though it might reduce the production of babies.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: