A manmade virus.
A killer vaccine.
Massive increases (increases so large, it is statistically impossible for them to be random) in…
miscarriages
fertility problems
cancers
numerous other health conditions
heart attacks and deaths in children and young adults of child-bearing age
destruction of food production facilities (fires, explosions, fields of dead cattle, etc.)
all-cause mortality
Everyone who is not living in the Matrix is aware of these occurrences and the associated data. Statisticians have figured out that the amount of time it would take for these increases to happen randomly is longer than the universe has existed. There is a cause—something that did not exist before, but does exist now.
That cause is not covid (these occurrences are outside the scope of the direct covid death toll). That cause is also not “climate change”—a suggestion that would be hysterically funny if it weren’t for the fact that some people actually believe it (and still take themselves seriously).
The notion that whatever is being done is being done intentionally to reduce the number of humans on the planet is now being openly and broadly discussed in social media and elsewhere. There is obviously no direct proof of this—no hot-mic recording of Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates discussing how the depopulation agenda is proceeding. Yet the lack of direct proof does not make the speculation irrational for two reasons:
These events are not random. They have a cause. There is no indication of any change outside human agency (something in nature, for example) that has caused any of this. All signs point to intentional actions by humans: something initiated by some number of humans is causing lots of other humans to die from a variety of causes. (In the case of the threats to fertility and food supply, the killing is slow-motion or indirect.) So, either
a. killing lots of people is the goal, or
b. killing lots of people is a secondary outcome of whatever they are up to.
It is certainly not unreasonable for people to at least consider the possibility that the result (inordinate numbers of people dying, and many more at risk of dying) of the thing that is happening is, in fact, the intent of the thing that is happening. This may be right and it may be wrong, but the speculation itself is in no way unreasonable.1Reinforcing this speculation are two things:
a. We live in an era that is increasingly dominated by a global ideology. On the ground level (that is, below the level of whatever machinations may be taking place in the shadows at the very highest levels), this is fundamentally a leftist ideology. One of the main tenets of this ideology is the notion that there are too many people. Even before (the demonstrably unscientific cult of) “climate change” came along, the left generally held that humans pose a threat to the environment. Now, everything we do— the way we live, the very breath we exhale—are an existential ‘threat’ to the planet.
Would it really be that much of a surprise if—after a half-century of this rhetoric being pounded into our heads, day in and day out—some government officials, globalist control freaks, and ideologically driven billionaires might have taken it to heart……and decided to do something about it?
b. While there is no smoking-gun proof, there certainly have been hints—little things that government officials, globalist control freaks, and ideologically driven billionaires have said that contribute to the impression that they might actually take steps to “cull the human herd.” (Not them and their friends, of course—just the rest of us useless eaters.)
In the absence of direct proof, I will have to remain agnostic on the subject of whether an actual depopulation agenda is being implemented. The best I can say for now is that people are dying, and weird attacks are occurring, at statistically non-random rates, and one way or another, this phenomenon almost certainly has a human cause.
However, that does not stop me from a thought experiment:
Let us presume, for the sake of this discussion, that such an agenda is being deployed. Such a thing would be evil, and also colossally incorrect (humans do not pose a significant risk to “the climate,” nor are we at any risk of overpopulation—indeed, we are about to experience demographic decline, though that is a subject for another time). But there is plenty of precedent for evil, ignorance, and stupidity in human history, so let’s go with it.
My working thesis right now is that depopulating the planet (some ideologues have suggested that a population of 500 million is the right number) would bring about a technological and cultural dark ages. The reason is simple: we would not have enough geniuses.
Roughly speaking, fewer than 0.1% of humans have an IQ above 145. That is a tiny fraction. Most of the advances that benefit the human species—medicine, science, technology, creative endeavors, etc.—come from this tiny fraction. Not all, but most. Yet not all geniuses provide such advances:
Many of the people over 145 IQ simply don’t have much energy—they’re smart, but they lack the motivation to put in the work to do big things.
Of the ones who have motivation, some will do something cool, but not necessarily something that has a lasting benefit to the whole of the human race.
Of those who set out to do something of lasting benefit, some will simply not make the right connections—funding, partners, etc.—that enable them to pursue their vision.
Of those who make the right connections, not all will succeed. Even geniuses head off on the wrong track, or miss some important aspect of the very complex endeavor they are attempting. For every victory, there are a thousand setbacks.
And then there is the luck factor: that happy accident that leads to the eureka! moment…
Or the bizarre combinations of traits—genius mixed with motivation and sprinkled with the courage and disagreeableness to see one’s crazy vision through to the end.
Or perhaps an ineffable combination of nature and nurture—maybe even things that would be considered bad—creates a unique form of genius. Think Beethoven’s abusive father or Elon Musk’s Asperger’s.
Obviously I am not supporting parental abuse. I am merely pointing out that…
It takes a lot of people, in a lot of circumstances, and a lot of unlikely combinations, before we are all graced with that tiny number of truly beneficial inventions, advances, and creative works.
Prior to about 1800, the whole of humanity had lived on the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $3 a day. The classical-liberal revolution created circumstances—in freedom, rights, and political equality—that allowed people from all classes (rather than just the upper classes) to begin contributing to human progress. The results were enormous and nearly instantaneous: a 3,000% increase in wealth, standards of living through the roof, and the entire species on a rocket ride we’re still on. The reason was innovation.
But, for the reasons cited above, innovation requires an unlikely combination of traits: genius + motivation + choice + connections + luck + that one-out-of-a-thousand success. Throw in some happy accidents, courage, disagreeableness, and any number of ineffable combinations of nature and nurture.
It takes a huge population of potential contributors to get those tiny number who actually succeed at doing something really big. That is why the Great Enrichment happened after 1800: we welcomed the contributions of an ever-growing number, and population growth continued to grow the number of potential contributors.
Kill off 95% of us—as more than one radical environmentalist has asserted “must happen” to “save the planet”—and you kill off what you need in order to get innovation and creativity: NUMBERS. Most of us will never do anything really really big. We need large numbers of us in order for those rare individuals to exist and succeed.
We don’t know for sure if a depopulation agenda is underway, but we do know that there are many ideologues who believe that the human population must be reduced drastically. Setting aside all the false premises upon which such a belief is based, it is certainly a testament to the evil that people can contemplate in service of a goal that they believe is good. None of them (to my knowledge) have committed suicide to do their part, but they nonetheless harbor the monstrous belief that a large swath of us need to be wiped out.
For this reason, it seems unlikely that we can appeal to them on moral grounds, so how about we appeal to their self interest?
If you kill off large numbers of us, we can tell them, you are killing the future. You are laying the groundwork for the next dark age.
They probably won’t hear us through the din of their virtue-signaling, ‘climate-change’ paranoia, and bloodthirsty do-goodery, but hey—it’s worth a try.
Wikimedia: “A Peasant Holding a Glass,” Teniers/public domain
The only people who are absolutely certain that this speculation is unreasonable are either a) completely ignorant of what has actually been going on (a common affliction) or b) have an unwarranted level of trust in government leaders and powerful people with ideological agendas, one that requires willful blindness to the record of human history (also a common affliction).
In support of the article, but from another angle, influenced by my experience in engineering --
One might think we need more academically brilliant straight-A students -- genius mathematicians and physicists for example. In college and grad school 50+ years ago, I was surrounded by those straight-A students -- folks we called "grinds". They were truly brilliant.
But most lacked something -- an imagination, an entrepreneurial spirit, and a joy of life. Some were professional students - their goal in life was not to create a great new product or service -- it was to get that next research grant with a generous stipend.
As one author put it (can't remember who), "Good thinkers are rare. Good doers are rarer. But the rarest of all is a great thinker-doer -- a person like an Elon Musk. Cutting our population robs us of those great thinker-doers!