Talk:Depopulation conspiracy theory/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 9 October 2024. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

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 ^{— Unsigned, by: 50.37.112.197 / talk / contribs}

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. ^{— Unsigned, by: 82.170.222.56 / 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

• 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)