Are There Too Many Humans On The Planet NOW?

There so many ‘consequences’ to that question that absolutely no one in the Elite wants to talk about it openly. The ‘Elite’, by the way, is that group of enormously wealthy or influential, or both, people whose wealth or influence can shape the human population. These people use Slaves like Cameron etc to do their will.

There is no doubt. Anyone with any sense whatsoever would see that the EU COULD become a ‘United States of Europe’ – in due course. It cannot be forced.

I vaguely suspect that the problems of the EU at the moment, and the reason for Brexit, is that our Parliament did not block EU Treaties. What we must understand is that these Treaties are NOT the products of Parliament. They are products of the Civil Service in the sense of POLITICISED Civil Servants. The Civil Service is supposed to be apolitical, but we have seen persons like Andrew Black, an Australian, misdirecting a Minister. We have seen it, but no one, especially ‘The Opposition’ in Parliament, gives a shit.

Is the UK over-populated? Is Siberia over-populated? Is the USA over-populated? Are the UN, the WHO, Tobacco Control and the EU Government over-populated?

What has Cameron to say about the vast sums of taxpayers money being wasted on the upkeep of these organisations which are intent upon depriving people of their freedom?

===

The cheapness of food and fuel and, perhaps, housing has enabled ‘services’ to become a big part of human life. For example, I could teach you to play the piano and you could teach me to play the violin. Neither of those ‘services’ would put food on the table. To put food on the table, somehow food producers would have to become involved in that ‘economy’. Food producers would have to want to learn to play the violin and the piano so that mutual benefits could be obtained.

The macro economy is not dependent upon the Bank of England. That is a huge mistake and always has been. The Macro Economy depends, and always has depended, upon the activities and transactions of individuals.

===

The human population of the world (or the population of any species) must have a limit,  and consumption of resources must also have a limit. What really, really annoy me is that these sensible ideas have been translated into prohibition of enjoyable substances and activities. Un-enjoyable  activities, like bashing your knee joints by running on hard pavements, are extolled, whilst sitting languidly on the couch is condemned.

===

Our salvation is clear. There is no other way. We must ‘educate’ politicians. Academics have had their day. Real scientists and real statisticians must be given the opportunity to get involved without the possibility of loss of their jobs.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Are There Too Many Humans On The Planet NOW?”

  1. garyk30 Says:

    The human population of the world (or the population of any species) must have a limit, and consumption of resources must also have a limit.

    Seems to me that would only be true if there were a limit to the advances that can be made in technology and science.

    The smothering effect of govt regulations seems to be the biggest factor in the limits of resources.

    • junican Says:

      Gary, I am speaking in absolute terms. Logic must prevail. If the human population continues to increase exponentially, then there will come a point where one population must exterminate another to survive. It may be local or general, but that would have to be so. Doom-mongers may exaggerate by saying that that situation will arrive next year. We know that it will not, but it will, eventually, unless the population becomes stabilised at some level.
      But that idea is only important if it is talked about. What annoys me is the secret discussions which produce anti-smokers with the ultimate goal of reducing the use of land to grow tobacco plants. That is, the whole anti-smoker agenda is driven by the use of land to grow tobacco plants, and has little or nothing to do with health.

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: