I used to believe the following tenets of the Club of Rome. I did so for about four years (from the age of 22 to 26) until I woke up from ecodoomism. It is apparent that millions have been sucked into this cult and have never found a way out. Yet. Indeed, eco-doomism is the world’s leading cause of depression, suicide, sexual ambiguity, non-replacement and cultural anomie. It is immediately the cause of policies designed to immiserate the population (viz. Dutch government putting farms out of business to control world atmospheric nitrogen levels).
Here are the doctrines of the Club of Rome, circa 1972. Look familiar?
“The Limits to Growth” contains six main messages:
- Firstly, that the environmental impact of human society had become heavier between 1900 and 1972 due to both an increase in the number of humans and the amount of resources consumed and pollution generated per person per year.
- That our planet is physically limited, and that humanity cannot continue to use more physical resources and generate more emissions than nature is capable of supplying in a sustainable manner. In addition, it will not be possible to rely on technology alone to solve the problem as this would only delay reaching the carrying capacity of the planet by a few years.
- The authors cautioned that it is possible, and even likely, that the human ecological footprint will overshoot the carrying capacity of the planet, further explaining that this would likely occur due to significant delays in global decision making while growth continued, bringing the human footprint into unsustainable territory.
- Once humanity has entered this unsustainable territory, we will have to move back into sustainable territory, either through “managed decline” of activity, or we will be forced to move back through “collapse” caused by the brutal inherent processes of nature or the market.
- The fifth message is one of hope. The authors state that: “The challenge of overshoot from decision delay is real, but easily solvable if human society decided to “act”, meaning that forward looking policy could prevent humanity from overshooting the aforementioned planetary limits.
- Lastly, the authors advocated for an early start – in 1972 that was 1975 – to achieve a smooth transition to a sustainable world without needing to pass through the overshoot and contraction phases.
The World Economic Forum and Klaus Schwab have followed as night follows day. They key assumptions are that the current population/ resource consumption mix is unsustainable, and the second is that a process of managed decline can smooth the transition to sustainability. I am about to say something at once paradoxical and true:
Humans have more to fear from the managers of population reduction than we do of civilizational collapse.
Because the population reduction is being planned by people who think they are doing good and the old adage of C. S. Lewis applies, that the robber barons might have their greed satiated, and stop, but the person who tortures for you own good does so with a clean conscience and will not stop. Hence Stalin. Hence Klaus Schwab, and his minions and acolytes.
Collapses are random and bring their own correctives. They are chaotic. If the Roman Empire has to fall, it is better that it occur without central planning, administered by mad tyrants. I realize this is offensive to those who believe that civilizational change can be planned, but it cannot.
The assumption that needs to be challenged the most is that collapse is somehow inevitable because we have gone beyond limits set by Gaia, that this unsustainability is somehow new, and that we can plan our way out of it.
We went beyond the limits set by Gaia since we domesticated animals, invented agriculture and mined metals. I would not wish to say there are no limits, but I would say that the collective intelligence of mankind has continually found solutions to the problems we have ourselves created. We went into the realm of the “unsustainable” tens of thousands of years ago. We are still in “unsustainablity”. There is no stable state.
The Club of Rome published its manifesto in 1972. It had a tremendous negative effect over time. It resuscitated the idea of a centrally planned economy when the central conceit of Marxism had collapsed: that a planned economy could prevail over the chaotic forces of the market, or of nature.
The close relationship between the idea of sustainability and the tyranny of all-wise central planners needs to be made clear.
The population bomb is diffusing itself anyway…
Regarding solutions that appear without planning, population growth is collapsing through the very process of wealth generation that has come from burning fossil fuels. Women reach a level of prosperity where their kids will survive until adulthood, and – bingo! – they produce at most two children. It is enough to make the most hardened eco-doomist pause and reconsider.
See Bricker and Ibbetson’s Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline, or more brutal yet, try David Goldman’s (known as Spengler) How Civilizations Die.
Bombthrower.com continues to blow up the clown world, disrupt MSM agitprop and trigger the fact checkers. Join the Bombthrower Mafia today and get a free copy of the Crypto Capitalist Manifesto, or join our Telegram.
See also Mathew Ehret's essay
Or this interview linked on his newsletter/substack email@example.com
Manipulating Statistics and the Lie of the Club of Rome
what you are all missing is that the club of rome was right on themoney. peak oil happened as scheduled, and most simply missed it. here is the absolute proof:
Did you know that Club of Rome member Liz Mohn owns over one third of US book publishing. A Club of Rome member directly controls one third of US book publishing companies. It's amazing. She is a German lady and she owns Penguin and Random House.
TPTB will always tell you what they are doing, it's their one concession for the evil that they are animating.
The problem is when things get really crazy (like they are now) their revelations are sound insane (they are) that anyone who doesn't have context for the announcement will ignore it due to a combination of intellectual laziness and normalcy bias.
The personal investment is just too high for most of us. First there is the tedious task of trying to get up to speed with the current state of economics, geopolitics, and a million practical concerns. Not to mention gathering sufficient information to understand the implications of the announcement can be a monumental task which needs to be balanced so you don't burn yourself up hating and worrying.
Then there is the even more difficult measure of deciding how to act/react. Ever hear of "fear paralysis"?
The things that are being proposed are too terrible to imagine. The West are being forcibly deindustrialized, this means millions will die terrible deaths as TPTB callously cut us off from our resources. That thought alone is enough for most people to simply let the news go in one ear, and out the other…
We went into the realm of the “unsustainable” tens of thousands of years ago. We are still in “unsustainablity”. There is no stable state.
Sounds like an ingrained affirmative response to this little gem:
"…And God blessed them and said to them, Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it [using all its vast resources in the service of God and man]; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and over every living creature that moves upon the earth…"
"Humans have more to fear from the managers of population reduction…"
Wait a moment right there.
Just after making a fair explanation of the contents of the "Limits to growth" book, you go ahead and say it's about managing population reduction. It isn't. It really is about attempting to prevent a catastrophic population reduction, and having instead something like a population levelling. Among other things. Population levelling is just one of the long-term goals, the main one is sustainable use of resources.
And in any case, people have been managing population levels for longer than a century, since they started accepting that having smaller families was a good trade-off, if it meant increasing the chances of a good future for their children.
So, why do all the conspiracy people keep going on about population reduction?
Oh, I know. The one thing that "Limits to growth" didn't talk about at all. Nukes. Yeah, those can cause some population reduction, if enough of them are thrown around.
Why are you blaming nukes on a book that didn't even talk about them?
Oh, I know. Greenpeace. They hate nukes, don't they? And they used to love "Limits to growth", at least on their early days.
Why are you having a go at Greenpeace for wanting nice things?
Oh, I know. They're way too nice. Eco-terrorism has never been a thing, not even mild green violence has ever been a thing. So they're clearly losers. They give, give, give and never take anything for themselves. You can blame them of anything and they turn the other cheek. They're saints. In other words, they make good martyrs. Killing them would never do, but discrediting them is dead easy because they're too nice.
I could go on. But I'm not particularly going to bother. You are clearly using software to write your stuff, like so many people on the Internet these days. And you think that your software is going to get you wherever you want to go.
Your software isn't working. And not just because it's got to the point that some of the stuff is so noticeably artificial. That's the least of your problem. Your problem is just, your software isn't working. You aren't getting what you want. I can tell. And you know how I can tell?
Just look at the world. Does it look to you like a world that is working?
What if the Club of Rome was exactly right and the current management has led us off a cliff?
Bankers are Count Dooku, AI is Anakin
Has the "Kill him, kill him now" order been given?
If the Emperor held an AI technological cage match between Agustin Carstens, “With CBDCs, The Central Bank Will Have Absolute Control“ and his team vs Elon Musk, details his vision for a twitter payments system, and his team, who would you bet on?
Those who perpetrate these kinds of affronts against life appear to explore all possibilities and carefully plan their strategies. And it appears that nobody on this internet does anything remotely similar? The rigged political and legal systems have failed spectacularly to do what should have been done on or before February 2020. Edward Snowden discussed this fear of open discussions. Are people simply afraid to engage in this kind of thing? Rene Descartes, in the 1600s, might have succeeded in getting concepts published that usually resulted in the authors being burned at the stake. It can be done now, but how? My goal is to try to find people on this internet who will actually dialogue about root cause analysis of these issues and an entire range of solutions.
Below is one of a large range of discussion possibilities.
In the words of Warren Buffet himself…
“Thereʼs class warfare, all right, but itʼs my class, the rich class, thatʼs making war, and weʼre winning.”
― Warren Buffett "
When do we stop only documenting these crimes and relying on failure prone rigged things like the legal and political system to really solve things? When do we actually start discussing what is going on and how to solve it?
The article on the club of Rome at 50 is excellent – may we reproduce a part of it in our ~UK print newspaper The Light please? https://thelightpaper.co.uk/
If so, what by line and web link would your prefer?
Have you heard of Druthers in Canada? Independent print truth paper as well – they'd likely love your stuff, and print around 200k-300k copies every month.
Happy New Year,
Darren & Team.
Checking with the author, I’m sure he’ll be thrilled.
]they key assumptions-[ ?
the key ?