Isn’t that the goal? And the jabs have & will decrease fertility further. Do we even know what 1 or both parents having been jabbed does to fetuses in utero? Is their fertility compromised even before birth? Given the agenda, probably so.
A simplest answer would be, go watch GATTCA and the Island, and you'll get an idea. We have the cloning tech, we have the synthetic biology, and we have surrogacy and Ivf down, it will become illegal to have children without licenced approval😉
The billionaire will keep pumping the stocks they own just so they can buy more real estate and other real assets. Then all governments will default their debits, and we will be left alone hold uselless stock as our retirements.
Who will buy their products? Or pay for rents, insurance, ect that keeps the vampiric parasites sucking money out of us? Have they really thought this through?
In a world of conflicting claims and argued over evidence forgive an anecdote, but it is a story that is probably heard all too often, it goes like this: "There are too many people in the world, I don't want children, children harm the environment and (most worryingly), I can't be my "true self" if I have children etc. etc."
Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason for these young people to be so dead set against reproduction, perhaps also there is an evolutionary advantage. Perhaps these who intend to be childless are committing genetic suicide, because they realize that they are a genetic dead-end, that terminating billions of years of genetic mutation that created their unique DNA is for the best, perhaps they have intuited that they have nothing to offer and should make way for others.
Or perhaps they are just unwell, in both mind and body as well as spirit.
The Energy Transition Story Has Become Self-Defeating
There is still a widespread belief that it is possible to transition away from fossil fuels, a myth which is contradicted by an ever growing body of evidence. Not that the previous model — based on coal, oil and gas — was even a slight bit more sustainable: we are talking about finite resources after all. However, the “energy transition” was a far more easier sell, than admitting that we have reached the end of growth, and that a long winding road back to a much simpler life is what awaits. Meanwhile, the real crisis (climate change), has proved to be a far more complex topic than what could be “tackled” by turning a few coal fired power plants off, and wishing for the magic unicorn of the Hydrogen economy to materialize… Where did it all go wrong? What kind of transition is possible then?
Let’s start by making a simple statement first: There has been no energy transition ever taking place in human history. Neither in the 19th century, when coal came into the picture, nor in the 20th with the advent of nuclear, or in the 21st, for that matter, with the widespread adoption of wind and solar. As the term implies, it would’ve required us to abandon a viable energy source in favour of another, ramping down the old one in advantage of the new. That would’ve meant leaving vast reserves of the old energy source out there, untapped. That has never happened, and never will, for a simple reason: the Maximum Power Principle.
The MPP posits that complex systems (like the human economy) tend to evolve in ways that maximize their power intake or energy throughput. Which means, that as long as there is a viable energy source out there, we will not stop using it: It has to run out first, or become otherwise unavailable for us. (And as the history of climate conferences show, that pretty much seems to be the case with fossil fuels.) In a nutshell: no, there is no such thing as an “energy transition” — only addition to the existing mix.
The second thing which needs to be stated here, is that energy efficiency is not a solution for two reasons. First, it too violates the Maximum Power Principle — and thus puts the entity reducing its overall energy intake into a major disadvantage; effectively allowing other entities to outcompete it. Since we are living in a competitive environment, where the weak gets eaten/occupied/robbed/colonized/etc. this cannot allowed to happen. As a result energy saved by efficiency measures will always be used up in other ways (usually by increasing economic output). And while we could debate how this is a bad thing from a moral standpoint, this is the world we live in. Just take a look at the chart below:
The other reason, why energy efficiency cannot possibly save the day (not even in a benign, cooperative environment) is the Jevons-paradox, put forward by an English economist William Stanley Jevons in 1865. The phenomenon named after him occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource (like coal) is used, but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand. Likewise, if you were to give up coal use in favour of “renewables” all it would achieve is to make coal much cheaper elsewhere, and thereby drive up its use. The same goes for gasoline (vs electric cars) or any other form of energy saving. Unless an energy source gets physically banned worldwide, or becomes less available due to depletion, its consumption cannot be expected to fall — no matter how detrimental its use proves to be on the long run.
Now, with these two factors in mind take a look at the first chart above. Have you noticed the plateauing (or the taper off) of fossil fuels: first coal, then oil, and as of late: natural gas?
Was there any ban on their use globally? No?
THE PUNCHLINE!!!!
Then why did they stopped growing? Due to the energy transition — which never was — or perhaps because of energy efficiency measures [sic]? Or maybe, because we have arrived at hard limits to their extraction? Take a minute to ponder on that.
What fascinates me about this article is not so much the substance-matter, but that this substance matter exists.
What is fascinating is that there are large office blocks full of people doing these “studies”.
Offices are constructed/rented. People are employed. Equipment is provided.
The bureaucracy behind these “studies” is awesome – in a negative way, I would say.
What if, none of this existed?
What if, there were no international bureaucracies and “think tanks”? And their "output" never existed?
If no one ever compiled this data or wrote these reports, would it matter?
Do these calculations and compilations actually change anything?
If they change nothing, then do they mean anything?
Reminds me of the old ditty about the tree falling in a forest … the thought experiment was later adapted for quantum mechanics, but the original came from Bishop George Berkley who used the allegory to try and argue God must exist according to his philosophical concept “to be, is to be perceived”. It is perhaps best put in a limerick by Monsignor Ronald Knox – published 100 years ago in 1924:
Whilst you mention China, India is well worth looking at as well. Even though the population is ALLEDGY increasing, the number of "sterilised" women (especially women) is increasing exponentially from all sorts of jabs; past and present...
AS predicted by Limits to growth...we are in involuntary degrowth territory
And Hans Rosling, though this is a little sooner than he forecast.
Isn’t that the goal? And the jabs have & will decrease fertility further. Do we even know what 1 or both parents having been jabbed does to fetuses in utero? Is their fertility compromised even before birth? Given the agenda, probably so.
But who will pay the taxes and supply the “vampires “ if so many die off? What’s the actual end game plan?
A simplest answer would be, go watch GATTCA and the Island, and you'll get an idea. We have the cloning tech, we have the synthetic biology, and we have surrogacy and Ivf down, it will become illegal to have children without licenced approval😉
The billionaire will keep pumping the stocks they own just so they can buy more real estate and other real assets. Then all governments will default their debits, and we will be left alone hold uselless stock as our retirements.
We will work for food for them till we die.
Who will buy their products? Or pay for rents, insurance, ect that keeps the vampiric parasites sucking money out of us? Have they really thought this through?
In a world of conflicting claims and argued over evidence forgive an anecdote, but it is a story that is probably heard all too often, it goes like this: "There are too many people in the world, I don't want children, children harm the environment and (most worryingly), I can't be my "true self" if I have children etc. etc."
Perhaps there is an evolutionary reason for these young people to be so dead set against reproduction, perhaps also there is an evolutionary advantage. Perhaps these who intend to be childless are committing genetic suicide, because they realize that they are a genetic dead-end, that terminating billions of years of genetic mutation that created their unique DNA is for the best, perhaps they have intuited that they have nothing to offer and should make way for others.
Or perhaps they are just unwell, in both mind and body as well as spirit.
The Energy Transition Story Has Become Self-Defeating
There is still a widespread belief that it is possible to transition away from fossil fuels, a myth which is contradicted by an ever growing body of evidence. Not that the previous model — based on coal, oil and gas — was even a slight bit more sustainable: we are talking about finite resources after all. However, the “energy transition” was a far more easier sell, than admitting that we have reached the end of growth, and that a long winding road back to a much simpler life is what awaits. Meanwhile, the real crisis (climate change), has proved to be a far more complex topic than what could be “tackled” by turning a few coal fired power plants off, and wishing for the magic unicorn of the Hydrogen economy to materialize… Where did it all go wrong? What kind of transition is possible then?
Let’s start by making a simple statement first: There has been no energy transition ever taking place in human history. Neither in the 19th century, when coal came into the picture, nor in the 20th with the advent of nuclear, or in the 21st, for that matter, with the widespread adoption of wind and solar. As the term implies, it would’ve required us to abandon a viable energy source in favour of another, ramping down the old one in advantage of the new. That would’ve meant leaving vast reserves of the old energy source out there, untapped. That has never happened, and never will, for a simple reason: the Maximum Power Principle.
The MPP posits that complex systems (like the human economy) tend to evolve in ways that maximize their power intake or energy throughput. Which means, that as long as there is a viable energy source out there, we will not stop using it: It has to run out first, or become otherwise unavailable for us. (And as the history of climate conferences show, that pretty much seems to be the case with fossil fuels.) In a nutshell: no, there is no such thing as an “energy transition” — only addition to the existing mix.
https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F4e0fd934-8772-472d-9206-607d609fc960_1000x685.png
The second thing which needs to be stated here, is that energy efficiency is not a solution for two reasons. First, it too violates the Maximum Power Principle — and thus puts the entity reducing its overall energy intake into a major disadvantage; effectively allowing other entities to outcompete it. Since we are living in a competitive environment, where the weak gets eaten/occupied/robbed/colonized/etc. this cannot allowed to happen. As a result energy saved by efficiency measures will always be used up in other ways (usually by increasing economic output). And while we could debate how this is a bad thing from a moral standpoint, this is the world we live in. Just take a look at the chart below:
The other reason, why energy efficiency cannot possibly save the day (not even in a benign, cooperative environment) is the Jevons-paradox, put forward by an English economist William Stanley Jevons in 1865. The phenomenon named after him occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource (like coal) is used, but the falling cost of use induces increases in demand. Likewise, if you were to give up coal use in favour of “renewables” all it would achieve is to make coal much cheaper elsewhere, and thereby drive up its use. The same goes for gasoline (vs electric cars) or any other form of energy saving. Unless an energy source gets physically banned worldwide, or becomes less available due to depletion, its consumption cannot be expected to fall — no matter how detrimental its use proves to be on the long run.
Now, with these two factors in mind take a look at the first chart above. Have you noticed the plateauing (or the taper off) of fossil fuels: first coal, then oil, and as of late: natural gas?
Was there any ban on their use globally? No?
THE PUNCHLINE!!!!
Then why did they stopped growing? Due to the energy transition — which never was — or perhaps because of energy efficiency measures [sic]? Or maybe, because we have arrived at hard limits to their extraction? Take a minute to ponder on that.
More https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/the-energy-transition-story-has-become
Decreasing fertility rates, abortions, deaths due to the jabs, and war - All a part of the plan to get rid of us peons!
Deagel has predicted a marked decrease in populations by 2025 especially in the U.S.. ( See my Image For The Day - https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/2024/05/01/84401/ ) or my Substack ( https://watchman2016.substack.com/p/image-for-the-day-from-httpsnothingnewunderthesu-6d4 )
All fits in with the UN's 2030 Agenda.
Linking as usual @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
This was the plan all along.
What fascinates me about this article is not so much the substance-matter, but that this substance matter exists.
What is fascinating is that there are large office blocks full of people doing these “studies”.
Offices are constructed/rented. People are employed. Equipment is provided.
The bureaucracy behind these “studies” is awesome – in a negative way, I would say.
What if, none of this existed?
What if, there were no international bureaucracies and “think tanks”? And their "output" never existed?
If no one ever compiled this data or wrote these reports, would it matter?
Do these calculations and compilations actually change anything?
If they change nothing, then do they mean anything?
Reminds me of the old ditty about the tree falling in a forest … the thought experiment was later adapted for quantum mechanics, but the original came from Bishop George Berkley who used the allegory to try and argue God must exist according to his philosophical concept “to be, is to be perceived”. It is perhaps best put in a limerick by Monsignor Ronald Knox – published 100 years ago in 1924:
There was a young man who said "God
Must find it exceedingly odd
To think that the tree
Should continue to be
When there's no one about in the quad."
Reply:
"Dear Sir: Your astonishment's odd;
I am always about in the quad.
And that's why the tree
Will continue to be
Since observed by, Yours faithfully, God."
Whilst you mention China, India is well worth looking at as well. Even though the population is ALLEDGY increasing, the number of "sterilised" women (especially women) is increasing exponentially from all sorts of jabs; past and present...
Birth rates of India = https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/IND/india/fertility-rate
1.7 for the next 70 years? So they say Indian population is destined to disappear?
Thanks (I think !) ... bet you all the Country folk are hit the hardest.
I never understood China and their 1 child policy, yet the population continued to grow !.
We will either make it as a species…
… or we won’t…
BREAKING: The Telegraph - Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths as Experts call for more research into side effects and possible links to mortality rates in preparation for Nuremberg 2.0 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/04/covid-vaccines-may-have-helped-fuel-rise-in-excess-deaths/
2M views this afternoon on Twitter under the search "Nuremberg 2.0" https://x.com/draseemmalhotra/status/1797922073798717524
BREAKING: Electroporation of mRNA by Injection can now cause Remote Paralysis or Death and Drug Delivery, Remotely Using An Electric Field of Energy, Frequency & Vibration! Ted Kazynski's The Perfect Bomb, Unabomber aka "Telomere Terminator", Bio-Specific Weapons & Darth Vader's Choke! https://nurembergtrials.net/nuremberg-trials-2-0/f/electroporation-of-mrna-by-injection-can-cause-remote-paralysis
These studies from the U.N. are propaganda for nations to support opening their borders up further immigration. Gotta get taxpayers some way?
.
The Vaccinated Are Already Programmed.
Based On What They Did To Themselves.
What’s A Couple Chips ?
.
TheyLied. Join the campaign to Take Action and Raise Public Awareness at
www.TheyLied.ca
.
Video
https://theylied.substack.com/p/theylied-time-for-action-and-raising
.
Raise Public Awareness
https://theylied.ca/SpreadTheWord.shtml
.
Take Action
https://theylied.ca/TakeAction.shtml
.