RationalWiki's 2018 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff — we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2018.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3630Goal: $5000

Talk:Depopulation conspiracy theory

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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.

Reversing the perspective[edit]

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

We don't need a conspiracy[edit]

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. — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

No, that's not going to happen. And here's why:
You're welcome. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

How to reduce the population[edit]

  • 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? (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. (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. (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). (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)