World Economic Forum Megathread (The Great Reset)

[SuperDeeDuper]

Rate me optimistic to the roof, but am i the only one who is not that worried? I mean, i am already in my 30s and i heard this kind of rhetoric many times and many panicked about the soon to come New World Order. And the more i heard about it, the more i feel like that it's just another nothing burger.

People overestimate the intelligence of these super elites like they are geniuses like Lex Luthor, but i think this will be forgotten soon too.

the Great Reset is just a rebranding of a bunch of Malthusian doomsday environmentalist fearmongering to be used as a pretext for expanding the power of international corporate interests.

See how easy that was? Just a few leaps of logic, and I can make a rather innocuous political view—wanting to choose one’s own healthcare plan—seem utterly unconscionable and intrinsically tied to racism

"racism" is hardly even a real thing, rather, it is a political weapon that can be redefined as needed, like "terrorism."

 

[Drain Todger]

the Great Reset is just a rebranding of a bunch of Malthusian doomsday environmentalist fearmongering to be used as a pretext for expanding the power of international corporate interests.

Are the Malthusian doomers wrong, though? People keep arguing that our agriculture system is on the verge of complete and total collapse:

Mass starvation is humanity’s fate if we keep flogging the land to death | George Monbiot

The Earth cannot accommodate our need and greed for food. We must change our diet before it’s too late, writes Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

The shift in diets would be impossible to sustain even if there were no growth in the human population. But the greater the number of people, the greater the hunger meat eating will cause. From a baseline of 2010, the UN expects meat consumption to rise by 70% by 2030 (this is three times the rate of human population growth). Partly as a result, the global demand for crops could double (from the 2005 baseline) by 2050. The land required to grow them does not exist.

When I say this keeps me up at night, I mean it. I am plagued by visions of starving people seeking to escape from grey wastes, being beaten back by armed police. I see the last rich ecosystems snuffed out, the last of the global megafauna – lions, elephants, whales and tuna – vanishing. And when I wake, I cannot assure myself that it was just a nightmare.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...mental-impact-james-cameron-suzy-amis-cameron
Other people have different dreams: the fantasy of a feeding frenzy that need never end, the fairytale of reconciling continued economic growth with a living world. If humankind spirals into societal collapse, these dreams will be the cause.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/26/us-farming-agriculture-food-supply-danger

California’s agricultural sector has flourished from decades of easy access to water in one of the globe’s biggest swaths of Mediterranean climate. The Sierra Nevada, the spine of mountains that runs along California’s eastern flank, captures an annual cache of snow that, when it melts, cascades into a network of government-built dams, canals and aqueducts that deliver irrigation water to farmers in the adjoining Central Valley. In light-snow years, farmers could tap aquifers that had built up over millennia to offset the shortfall.

But the Sierra snowpack has shown an overall declining trend for decades – most dramatically during the great California drought of 2012-2016 – and it will dwindle further over the next several decades as the climate warms, a growing body of research suggests. A 2018 paper by Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory researchers articulates the alarming consensus: a “future of consistent low-to-no snowpack” for the Sierra Nevada, the irrigation jewel of our vegetable patch.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...y-to-saving-the-uss-endangered-grasslands-aoe
Even as snowmelt gushing from the mountains dwindles, the Central Valley farming behemoth gets ever more ravenous for irrigation water, switching from annual crops that can be fallowed in dry years to almond and pistachio groves, which require huge upfront investments and need to be watered every year. As a result, farm operations are increasingly resorting to tapping the water beneath them. Between 2002 and 2017, a period including two massive droughts, farmers siphoned enough water from the valley’s aquifers to fill Louisiana’s Lake Pontchartrain three times.

As the water vanishes, the ground settles and sinks in uneven and unpredictable ways, a phenomenon known as subsidence. By 2017, large sections of the Central Valley were sinking by as much as 2ft a year. In addition to damaging roads, bridges, houses, sewage pipes and pretty much all built infrastructure, subsidence snarls up the canals that carry snowmelt from the Sierra Nevada. Thus we have a vicious circle: reduced snowmelt means less water flowing through government-run irrigation channels, which pushes farmers to pump more water from underground, causing more subsidence that damages those channels and reduces their flow capacity, pushing farmers to accelerate the cycle by pumping more water from underground.

Farmers are facing a phosphorus crisis. The solution starts with soil.

Overuse of fertilizer has led to phosphorus shortages and water pollution. But farms might not need so much to grow healthy crops.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Nearly all of the phosphorus that farmers use today—and that we consume in the food we eat—is mined from a few sources of phosphate rock, mainly in the United States, China, and Morocco. By some estimates, those could run out in as little as 50 to 100 years. Geologists know of other deposits, but they are harder to access and contain less phosphorus. Thus, the price will likely rise, making it harder for growers to afford fertilizer and for people to afford food.

Here and at other experimental sites in England, Sylvester-Bradley and his colleagues have taken a first commonsense step toward addressing the problem: They stopped adding phosphorus fertilizer to half the barley field to see how the plants would fare. Eight years later, they have only just started to observe the first effects on crop size and yield. The plants have survived on the excess nutrients in the soil—so-called legacy phosphorus—which some say represents a key piece of the phosphorus puzzle.

Researchers have calculated that, in countries like the United Kingdom and the United States, there is already billions of dollars’ worth of fertilizer in the ground that could help offset demand for mined phosphorus. Using it up would also curb phosphorus runoff.

If we take what scientists and TED Talk goons are saying at face value, then what they're essentially asserting is that mass starvation entailing billions of deaths is something that may happen within 50 to 100 years, with huge destabilizing effects on the ability of the Elite and their puppet politicians to maintain control.

When I realized this, several years ago, my first thought was, "Oh my god, they're going to kill us!" because that was the first, unthinkable solution that popped into my head; a massive culling of the human herd by various means, stretched over a certain length of time to conceal the impact from the populace and forestall the inevitable unrest that would occur if they acted too hastily.

 

[SuperDeeDuper]

Are the Malthusian doomers wrong, though? People keep arguing that our agriculture system is on the verge of complete and total collapse:

If we take what scientists and TED Talk goons are saying at face value, then what they're essentially asserting is that mass starvation entailing billions of deaths is something that may happen within 50 to 100 years, with huge destabilizing effects on the ability of the Elite and their puppet politicians to maintain control.

When I realized this, several years ago, my first thought was, "Oh my god, they're going to kill us!" because that was the first, unthinkable solution that popped into my head; a massive culling of the human herd by various means, stretched over a certain length of time to conceal the impact from the populace and forestall the inevitable unrest that would occur if they acted too hastily.

there is definitely serious damage being done to the environment, for sure, but this has a lot more to do with how our society is organized than it does with the amount of people there are. without modern technology, an individual person's environmental impact would be far lower. the WEF/UN people constantly misdirect from this because their game plan is for everything to remain based on modern technology, while also maintaining profits and control for the current ruling class, so what has to give in that equation is your and my standard of living. this is where "live in the pod, eat the bugs, own nothing, be happy" comes in. they want to restructure society so that they don't have to give up their tech infrastructure or make any less money, so you will live like a serf.

i would rather destroy the technology than eat the bugs.

 

[Syntaxion]

there is definitely serious damage being done to the environment, for sure, but this has a lot more to do with how our society is organized than it does with the amount of people there are. without modern technology, an individual person's environmental impact would be far lower. the WEF/UN people constantly misdirect from this because their game plan is for everything to remain based on modern technology, while also maintaining profits and control for the current ruling class, so what has to give in that equation is your and my standard of living. this is where "live in the pod, eat the bugs, own nothing, be happy" comes in. they want to restructure society so that they don't have to give up their tech infrastructure or make any less money, so you will live like a serf.

i would rather destroy the technology than eat the bugs.

No way would this planet support almost 10 bilion people without modern technology though

Without modern medicine, post-ww2 farming and electricity, the population would collapse extremely fast. And since society is so technology dependent right now, it would probably collapse extremely hard.

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

My question is why would you ever want to have that many people running around, fucking everything up? Like, is that really super necessary? I read somewhere that you could house the entire world's population inside of the state of Texas, but does anyone think about the implications of that, living asses-to-elbows in an endless urban sprawl the size of the Lone Star State? Fuuuuuck that, man. How about quality over quantity?

 

[George Floyd Sneed]

At this point, almost all population growth comes from the shittiest parts of the world. Some dumbasses say that the carbon footprint is small for them but that all goes out the window when they’re encouraged to live in the west.

So assuming this is all a real thing, and assuming there will be a further push to get rural people into the cities how would they even do that? Many rural people own everything they have outright, will absolutely refuse to move, don't care about services being far away, and some of them will even shoot you if you make an attempt to forcibly move them.

How does one solve the "rural problem" in a great reset scenario? Or are rural populations mostly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things?

They generally accept that things won’t be 100% successful and there’s propaganda value in having a tangible enemy around they can vilify to tighten things further.

They also know time is on their side. A lot of baby boomers are getting reverse mortgages or selling their homes outright to the highest bidder. Then banks will make lending harder to people and local and state governments will make it more challenging to build a house because of restorative justice where suburbs and rural areas are now evil because whites decided they had enough of blacks. With all that factored in, they can achieve about 90% of their goal in a couple decades, which will be good enough for them. They know the remaining 10% will come to them eventually. Time is on their side.

Start making profits for farmers go down to the point where they can't afford to continue running their farms, then when they put them up for sale a massive agricultural company will buy it. Eventually all small farmers will be outcompeted by the companies and most rural towns will be dead since they only exist to supply goods and services to farms anyway. You'll end with pure industrialised farmland occasionally broken up with small homesteads for workers who are owned by the companies.

This is very much the case now. Many rural towns are nearly emptied out. Many rural farming counties have seen steady population declines since the 1950s. Some of the “larger” towns are now getting an influx of section 8 housing. Towns with 2,500 now are full of graffiti that just didn’t exist even ten years ago. Not to powerlevel too much but the hometown where one of my parents grew up, population of only 500, started importing Chicago negroes thanks to HUD. Naturally, crime has shot up and anyone who can leave is.

 

[Shadfan666xxx000]

My question is why would you ever want to have that many people running around, fucking everything up? Like, is that really super necessary? I read somewhere that you could house the entire world's population inside of the state of Texas, but does anyone think about the implications of that, living asses-to-elbows in an endless urban sprawl the size of the Lone Star State? Fuuuuuck that, man. How about quality over quantity?

Because there's massive amounts of talent and opportunity to cultivate from those people. Even if they don't do much, a person who's willing to work hard and help their community deserves a chance in life and shouldn't starve to death if we can avoid it. Especially since it's honestly not really any of their fault when we're genuinely not cultivating peoples talent like we used to. Education has become an overbureaucratized nightmare.

 

[Dom Cruise]

My question is why would you ever want to have that many people running around, fucking everything up? Like, is that really super necessary? I read somewhere that you could house the entire world's population inside of the state of Texas, but does anyone think about the implications of that, living asses-to-elbows in an endless urban sprawl the size of the Lone Star State? Fuuuuuck that, man. How about quality over quantity?

Correction, the Earth's population could live in a city the size of Texas, which is pretty damn big for a city.

 

[Billy Beer]

Tablets, smart phones, always-online devices, Internet of Things, Smart Devices like TV's, Cars, Washing machines, Crypto Mining rigs, webcams, work from home kits and even blu-tooth speakers, catalysed by consumerism, is why the environment is bolloxed.

All of the electricity to charge and operate those unnecessary devices, all of the plastic, glass, metal and raw materials going in to creating those devices, the yearly upgrades and rehashes of those products and the logistics of shipping them all over the globe, is something we could do away with tomorrow, and see a drastic improvement in the environment.

This will never happen though because that would stop the siphoning of money and control from the plebs. Keep the population glued to a screen, focused on which product is better than its competitors and have them locked in an eternal internet argument of Trump/COVID/Console wars/Sports rivalries, and the those at the top will hold on to power with no risks of an uprising.

 

[SuperDeeDuper]

No way would this planet support almost 10 bilion people without modern technology though

Without modern medicine, post-ww2 farming and electricity, the population would collapse extremely fast. And since society is so technology dependent right now, it would probably collapse extremely hard.

this may be true now, but the size of the population is still basically a red herring, for it never would have grown so large in the first place without the technology and without the "infinite growth" economic model.

the larger scale and more complex the technological supply chain gets, the more its need for resources accelerates.

the yearly upgrades and rehashes of those products and the logistics of shipping them all over the globe

planned obsolescence is a huge part of the problem. they could easily produce more durable products that would last for a long time, but then they wouldn't be able to sell you a new one in two years. so they build them to break.

My question is why would you ever want to have that many people running around, fucking everything up? Like, is that really super necessary? I read somewhere that you could house the entire world's population inside of the state of Texas, but does anyone think about the implications of that, living asses-to-elbows in an endless urban sprawl the size of the Lone Star State? Fuuuuuck that, man. How about quality over quantity?

this is yet another BS idea "they" (the Agenda 21/2030/Great Resetters) love to push. their vision of the world is an infinitely expanding number of consumers, infinitely consuming and infinite amount of product. they will destroy your quality of life to make that happen, because more = better.

utilitarianism really is just quantity over quality in ideology form. they like to frame this in terms of "growing the pie," while completely ignoring entropy and scarcity.

A Selfish Argument for Making the World a Better Place – Egoistic Altruism

Why should you care about the well-being of people half a globe away?OUR CHANNELS▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀German Channel: https://kgs.link/youtubeDE Spanish...

youtu.be

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

Because there's massive amounts of talent and opportunity to cultivate from those people. Even if they don't do much, a person who's willing to work hard and help their community deserves a chance in life and shouldn't starve to death if we can avoid it. Especially since it's honestly not really any of their fault when we're genuinely not cultivating peoples talent like we used to. Education has become an overbureaucratized nightmare.

I'm of the school of thought that the quality (and individual value) of humanity drops as the quantity of the population goes up. 7 billion eaters, and somehow none of them have really improved the world beyond the tech we got out of Operation Paperclip. Funny that.

Too much humanity ruins the specialness of it. Besides, they're breathing my air.

 

[Billy Beer]

planned obsolescence is a huge part of the problem. they could easily produce more durable products that would last for a long time, but then they wouldn't be able to sell you a new one in two years. so they build them to break.

My man. Planned obsolescence is a huge problem. Especially when companies needlessly bloat their software so that old models no longer function, instead of stopping updates at X year, so that the hardware and software still works, but with less shiny shiny.

That and things being so complicated that it's not worth fixing and quicker to bin it and buy a new one. A basic bitch washing machine is a piece of cake to fix. These smart fang-dangled pieces of chinese shit are a lot more difficult to fix and a lot, lot, LOT less durable. Companies seem to spunk their budget on smart devices, while cheaping out on basic materials, or downgrading from metal to hard plastic etc.

I'm of the school of thought that the quality (and individual value) of humanity drops as the quantity of the population goes up. 7 billion eaters, and somehow none of them have really improved the world beyond the tech we got out of Operation Paperclip. Funny that.

Too much humanity ruins the specialness of it. Besides, they're breathing my air.

I agree with this. What was the last invention that wasn't just convenience or an update to current tech; phones, telegram, letters, teletext.

 

[SuperDeeDuper]

I'm of the school of thought that the quality (and individual value) of humanity drops as the quantity of the population goes up. 7 billion eaters, and somehow none of them have really improved the world beyond the tech we got out of Operation Paperclip. Funny that.

@HymanHive
there is actually evidence to support this idea.

https://archive.ph/kqcaH

https://web.archive.org/web/2021081...u/sites/g/files/sbiybj4746/f/aer.20180338.pdf

 

[ReturnedHermit]

I'm of the school of thought that the quality (and individual value) of humanity drops as the quantity of the population goes up. 7 billion eaters, and somehow none of them have really improved the world beyond the tech we got out of Operation Paperclip. Funny that.

Too much humanity ruins the specialness of it. Besides, they're breathing my air.

I'd say that just proves that Americans with unlimited resources, talent, and military power are capable of far less than we would expect from the world's leading empire. The internet, phones, and computers are our biggest contribution to humanity, yet they barely break even when it comes to time wasted vs productivity added. Almost as though a primitive, backward culture, one incapable of planning ahead was put in charge of implementing a project that could transform our lives for the better, but failed because maximizing profits is more important.

 

[ArnoldPalmer]

I'd say that just proves that Americans with unlimited resources, talent, and military power are capable of far less than we would expect from the world's leading empire.

Need is the impetus for true technological advancement, and instant access entertainment eliminated need for anyone with a job. Why aspire to anything when you can just watch The Eric Andre Show and eat your corn syrup?

 

[ReturnedHermit]

Need is the impetus for true technological advancement, and instant access entertainment eliminated need for anyone with a job. Why aspire to anything when you can just watch The Eric Andre Show and eat your corn syrup?

Sure, but human history has been about setting an artificially high standard for what a "need" actually is for at least a few thousand years. The success of a civilization is reliant on the ability of leadership to create and instill needs that inspire passion. Maybe we're getting harder to fool. On the other hand we have so many needs marketed that no one even wants that I an inclined toward the opposite.
This little chat does have me wondering if the Buddhists had it right. Their thing seems like more work than most people are willing or able to do, though. Instead of negating desire, we can shortcut the process and simply negate the people that give us desires, right?

 

[Tree]

This seems relevant here too.

Breaking911 (@Breaking911)

Canadian PM Justin Trudeau: “What we learned from this COVID crisis, we will be applying to the climate crisis, to the housing crisis, to reconciliation, to making sure everyone has good jobs... ”

nitter.kavin.rocks

No way would this planet support almost 10 bilion people without modern technology though

Without modern medicine, post-ww2 farming and electricity, the population would collapse extremely fast. And since society is so technology dependent right now, it would probably collapse extremely hard.

So be it. It was our tolerance of evil which got us here; the struggle of surviving a crash in order to get rid of it is deserved.

 

[Niggernerd]

If i own nothing technically i own something. its called nothing. sorry globohomo but your logic just got btfo'd by facts and logic.

 

[Irrational Exuberance]

If i own nothing technically i own something. its called nothing. sorry globohomo but your logic just got btfo'd by facts and logic.

If you own nothing, the only thing you will own is the few cubic centimeters inside your skull.

 

[Kyria the Great]

The only thing that people like this should own is several rounds inside their dome for attempting to doom humanity to poverity and servitude.