Talk:Depopulation conspiracy theory

Source
If anyone knows the actual source of the term, that would be great. All my searches were simply awash in conspiracy sites, none of them sourced of course. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

As for the negative effects you seem fail to understand the current shift to robotics, when it comes to mundane works currently made by human workers. Please reconsider this when editing your article. -J.D.

The problem with this article
This article is hardly convincing: most of the arguments are one-sided, without any sort of counter-arguments or commentary introduced by the "conspiracy" side, and it also assumes that the power dynamics and class-relationships in our existing capitalist society will carry over into a potentially depopulated/post-capitalist future.

For instance, if the article is to be believed, then fewer people left after depopulation is supposedly undesirable because it will "strengthen the hand of those remaining" due to there being a smaller workforce. Realistically, however, an increase in automation and AI technology (combined with the reduced material needs of a vastly reduced population) would mean that the idea of a human "workforce" would itself become obsolete, as would any class-based socioeconomic distinctions that currently exist as inextricable features of the capitalist system. The problem with the "anti-conspiracy" argument, then, is that it presupposes a continuation of the class struggle and resulting "friction between labor and management" based off of the ruler/ruled relationship currently in effect today, without any effort to forecast the arguably much different socioeconomic power relationships extant in a largely depopulated post-capitalist system with an overabundance of resources and without need for most (if not all) manual labor. Aristotle made this observation in his Politics, saying "if every instrument could accomplish its own work . . . [then] chief workmen would not want servants, nor masters slaves." Marx obviously made the same observations in his various works. Again, the point is that the entire crux of this article's arguments revolves around faulty assumptions by trying to apply the "logic" of capitalism and its attending systems to a future that may not be beholden to the same "logic," and for that reason the article is deeply suspect
 * I mean, yeah, you can set aside historical precedent and live entirely in hypothetical, but... you know, you'd have to make the case they're actually doing it too, it's not like just the "it wouldn't work out for them" is the only point made in the article. There's the fact that every proposed approach governments are using doesn't actually exist.  ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 20:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, this is a more futuristic conspiracy, at least in my mind; if population control measures aren't being implemented right now, then that is just indicative of a lack of a fall-back source of labor (automation/AI) that has been developed to a sufficient extent. In other words, it is in the interests of the "powers that be" to keep the current systems in place, unsustainable and ruinous as they are (i.e., the public currently serves a vital purpose by trading its labor for inherently worthless fiat currency to support the expansion of industry that drives technological progress). So, the conspiracy (at least in my mind) is that, while some realize the implications of continued technological development and its future impact on capitalism/labor (as is evidenced by public conversations about UBI), there also a small minority that are actively planning/pushing for this future. I would go as far as to say that the major reason mathematics and sciences are being pushed so hard in schools (while the arts suffer from a lack of funding) is that the ones driving this push towards a post-capitalist automated future realize the threats to this plan are mounting as time goes by(destruction of the environment, etc), hence necessitating the current (and timely) deification of science. Of course, once this future has been realized, then the entire "old" system and the billions that depend on it will be little more than scaffolding that has aided in the construction of a new building: once necessary, it now serves no purpose and must be removed, hence the conspiracies surrounding depopulation. Hypothetical, yes, but there are at least some factors (the continued rise of automation and the general long-term unsustainability of our current systems) that are (to me) highly suggestive of such a future.

Reversing the perspective
How many 'ordinary people' think that #the politicians# are useless mouths? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

We don't need a conspiracy
We don't need a conspiracy to depopulate the world. If we do not actively very soon and very fast depopulate the world, in order to prevent our habitat from collapsing entirely, the human race will eventually diminish to the brink off extinction by famish and food-wars alone.
 * No, that's not going to happen. And here's why:
 * You're welcome. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

How to reduce the population

 * Ensure that 'most children that are born' survive (so no need to have more in the hope some survive).
 * Make children go to school rather than to work (so a cost not a benefit).
 * Encourage the construction of 1 and 2 bedroom houses/flats or 'not enough housing (so there is nowhere to put extra children).

What further long term policies (which thus enable the economy to adapt) are there? 31.51.113.22 (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See above video. Overpopulation is a non-issue if we raise the standard of living, which we're doing very successfully. The twelve billionth human being will — according to UN data — never be born on Earth for the entire future of the human species. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many ways of reducing the population whether the choice of individuals or 'action by the government' (child benefit for only the first two 'allowing for multiples' etc). And the populist concept of Malthus is don't outbreed your food supply.
 * Mention of the stone monument constructed 'somewhere in America in the latter part of the 20th century' which appears to promote population limitation would be relevant here. 31.49.51.18 (talk) 22:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean, the incontrovertible proof of the upcoming FEMA death camps? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes - remembered the description but not the name (or would have added it myself).
 * The sheeple's cabal's secret weapon - accessing the mysterious power of the collective wisdom, part of which is encoded in RationalWiki, Wikipedia GANFYD and other sources. Much of the material is denied, subverted, and denounced by Conservapedia and similar theorists to subvert the ordinary sheeple from reaching their full potential. 31.49.115.199 (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't really tell if you just made a joke or not. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yah yah, like Aaron Swartz tried to do. He just forgot the janitor at the library he stole from had to get paid, and the gas and electric bills too out of royalties. So much for genius. nobs 00:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Attempted humour - the conspiracy-mongers claim access to 'secret information' that the sheeple do not have - but the reverse actually applies.
 * There is a case for population limitation at somewhat less than the maximum possible (for all the obvious reasons); but the figures touted are 'probably rather too low' (and could not be achieved in any meaningful timetable without methods that would cause problems). 31.51.113.42 (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

If they are depopulating...
If they are depopulating they are doing a very bloody bad job at it. Whenever my family goes on about this, or I read the news of what we're doing to ourselves, I sometimes kinda wished that there was some sort of depopulation effort...

But of course, there are things going that you don't know about. It's likely experiments have been done on military to see what results they can get over time in decreasing life spans. Military line up and get shots blindly without the right to question or at least at an age, 18 or so, when questions aren't asked. Twenty or thirty years later these soldiers become martyrs in the investigation into population control. It may be to test ways to disable the population or just kill them off at a young age. This type abuse has been done in the past and it is unlikely that those interested in ways to control their own population or those abroad would stop their research. Call the exposure a long term study. Of course, if you believe in benevolent governments, there is nothing to worry about 1.10.157.211 (talk) 13:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone update this with arguments re: automation?
There's a widespread obsession with automation among businesses today. Automation defeats 99% of the arguments against this conspiracy theory, so I think it should be updated to contemporary times.
 * There's not much I see correlating automation and depopulation conspiracy other than wild speculative blog posts. There are some case studies on the future of work (largely using Japan) but that's not the same thing. Businesses embrace automation primarily for cost and efficiency reasons. In practice, automation doesn't completely eliminate people, because shit breaks. What automation means for manufacturing means is that you still need people around to fix the machines -- just fewer people, and usually with a higher level of skillset. This is the typical trend in other areas of life too. Combined with family planning technology and typical higher child rearing costs (eg education costs), this tends to naturally lower birth rates in many countries. Many countries' leaders actually aren't happy about this so it hardly can count as a conspiracy, unless the conspiracy is high-level management types "replacing humans" to lower line-item expenses on their accounting spreadsheets (this is hardly news). If anything, it's the opposite: governments, who as mentioned don't typically like this, have bumbled along pushing actual effective policy to counter this (generally speaking, the solution probably is somewhere along the lines of implementing actual family-friendly business employment policies and reducing the expense of raising a child). The one legitimate government attempt I know of population control is mentioned in this article (China one-child policy) and it is IMHO an unmitigated disaster that's possibly gonna bite them in the ass within a decade. Soundwave106 (talk) 13:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Coronavirus
Has Covid been co-opted into the 'logic'? Anna Livia (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * A year later, COVID-19 vaccines are popularly theorized (by e.g. Agenda 2030 conspiracy believers) to be a way to kill most of the world's population. (Supposedly, we'll all drop dead in a few years or so from the super-toxic nano-materials secretly in the vaccines.) Both this article and that on the COVID-19 vaccine could do with some updating on that. --ApooftGnegiol (talk) 13:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

You argue that depopulation would invoke a global crisis but this misses the point of conspiracy theorists
The conspiracy theory - at least in the variation that reached me - claims that the global elite are neo-Malthusians.

According to this variation of the conspiracy theory the global elites believe that:

A full-blown Malthusian catastrophe is imminent unless world population can be culled. Yes, depopulation schemes are bound to lead to a global crisis but such a crisis is unlikely to be worse than a full-blown Malthusian catastrophe, which basically is the worst of all possible crises, since such a catastrophe spells the end of the entire civilization. Even calamities such as WWII or the black death are not nearly as bad as a Malthusian catastrophe: as bad as WWII was, it ended and when it ended the civilization resumed developing almost from the point before WWII, so - in a historical context - WWII was 'just a hiccup'. A Malthusian catastrophe, on the other hand, completely wipes a civilization and reverts it almost to the point of its beginning. So a Malthusian catastrophe is likely to revert us to bows and arrows. In fact, the next Malthusian catastrophe, unless averted, may be the worst of all Malthusians catastrophes that occurred in the world so far: it is typical for Malthusian catastrophes that tremendous hunger leads to brutal and cruel wars which nowadays will likely mean nuclear warfare and that is likely to spell the end of the whole human race.

On the other hand, a crisis invoked by depopulation schemes will end and will allow the civilization to resume development once it ends. It will be challenging for the global elites to remain in power during such a crisis, but - they believe - due to their vast influences and resources they have accumulated so far they are well protected and, if they play it right, they have good chances to survive the crisis in a good shape - but they would have no such hopes if a full-blown Malthusian catastrophe was to occur.

Your article fails to address this point and, I believe, this is a weakness of your article. Sjhfeke (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

To elaborate: According to NeoMalthusianism the civilization development goes in cycles that last around 1000 years. After the last malthusian catastrophe the civilization starts to grow and, despite difficulties and crises, continues to develop. But during such a cycle the population grows geometrically, while production of food only grows linearly. As long as the civilization is able to produce enough food to sustain its population it will develop and will endure various crises that may strike it. Thus, in time, the population is bound to outgrow the means of production of food. When this happens a Malthusian catastrophe occurs. Tremendous famine is the cause of a domino effect of other catastrophes, such as plagues and wars. These combined calamities further decrease the means of production of food. These calamities will continue until the population is finally reduced to levels low enough that it is sustainable by the (crippled) means of food production. As such, the only thing that really matters is to make certain that the population does not outgrow food production.

Sorry for shitty Paint drawings, but - according to such a 'theory' - things look more or less like this: shitty MSPain plot

The fall of the Roman Empire (and the subsequent reversal of the civilization into barbarity - the civilization had to be rebuilt almost from nothing during middle and modern ages) was the last Malthusian catastrophe. For this reason, since the cycles last around 1000 years, the next Malthusian catastrophe is already overdue. Technological progress managed to stall this catastrophe so far, but - global elites believe - technological progress will only be able to fully free the world of Mathusian cycles if more time is bought, and humanity can only buy more time by radically culling its population.

This - at least - is what global elites believe according to the version of the conspiracy theory that has reached me. Sjhfeke (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The 'fall of the Roman Empire' referred to - in actuality the Western Roman Empire - occurred roughly in the 5th Century AD, with the 'barbarism' that followed being something of a Renaissance perception/construct; in the 14th Century there was the Black Death, followed, a century or so later, by the Age of European Expansion (and parts of the rest of the world developing/stabilising along their own lines), and for the past two centuries there has been the age of globalisation and agricultural-technological development, so the above argument is flawed. (There are probably several more points to be made.) Anna Livia (talk) 13:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Promoting anti-scientific misinformation and false correlations
I was fixing typos, grammar and run-on sentences until I reached the final three paragraphs in the 'Possible origins' section of this article, which devolve into exactly what this article is supposed to be debunking, with several conspiracy theories and blatant misinformation being promoted such as:


 * suggesting that flouridation of drinking water and leaded gasoline were part of a conspiracy to "lower birth rates" by pointing out their detrimental effects but not mentioning the real reasons for leaded gasoline (less engine wear) and flouridation (to prevent dental carries). Re-thinking old policies that cause more harm than good does not make for a conspiracy to 'lower birth rates'.


 * that, "medical research indicates by statistics that a cancer patients longevity is longer without treatment" This is particularly egregious, since we know that plenty of people have died from refusing science-based cancer treatment in favor of 'alternative' treatment or no treatment at all, both of which are promoted by the naturopathic community.


 * Wild (psychic?) speculation that, "the effect of the toxins used during the full life of the baby-boom generation will contribute to rapid health degeneration as they age due to age-related bone degeneration that, by releasing the toxins from bone into blood, will cause a myriad of health conditions that lead to earlier than normal life-spans. "


 * that unnamed medical and pharma companies are, "the richest members of upper-middle class" (sic) even though companies are not people.


 * that unnamed medical and pharma companies went from having a reputation of being "no better than 'snake-oil salesmen' to "the richest members of upper-middle class" (sic). Besides being nothing but weird false conjecture, the sentence claims to compare an old repuation to a new reputation, but the new reputation isn't a resputation at all. The companies can't "go from" a supposed reputation to a position of wealth because these are entirely different things, and besides it suggests that pharma has rehabilitated it's 'snake oil reputation', resulting in great profits which is definitely not the case and presumably not even what the writer intended to say.

There are, of course, no citations in these paragraphs. If there are no objections in one week's time I will delete those three paragraphs. If there are objections, please state your reasons. FairDinkum (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * A newly created user just started blanking the whole thing, so when I saw that in recent, as a kind of kneejerk reaction I undid the edits, but looking to make sure, they were removing mainly these parts, that you pointed out are problematic indeed, and they all seem to originate in this edit from one BoN with no other edits, and it appears it just happens to have not yet been removed. It seems to me the article is indeed better off without it and that it should be removed, but I'll say that here first so people can weigh in and perhaps decide on exactly what to remove, what to keep if anything and how to rewrite what might remain in the section. ConverginglyRational (talk) 11:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That whole unsourced pontificating screed should be deleted. —cosmikdebris talk stalk 17:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Depopulation conspiracy theories as far as I know are generally linked to unified conspiracy theories. While it is plausible that historical pro-eugenics movements could have influenced modern depop conspiracies, I could not find any source linking them, also quite plausibly since I don't think most conspiracy theorists think that deeply. Since that blurb happened to seemingly have water fluoridation woo smack dab in the middle of the screeb (e.g. "fluoridation does alter hormones that control sexual and reproductive function", sure, at very high PPM levels *not* currently used in water treatmenty) that was linked to a shitty eugenics conspiracy argument, plus the leaded gasoline thing had many errors in order to try to prop that as a eugenics conspiracy... yes, I support just deleting it, it seems like hyper-speculative (at best) and woo-ish (at worst) junk. BobJohnson (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2023 (UTC)