Posts Tagged ‘overpopulation’

In defense of the argument our world is not over-populated, sparsely-populated landmasses with mostly wide open spaces must be taken into account. Places where you can drive across hundreds of miles of farmland or virgin landscapes without seeing a town or a village, or even a person in some cases.

Such landmasses include Canada, Brazil, Australia, Mongolia, Scandinavia, Russia, much of central Asia, many parts of the Middle East and large chunks of Africa and South America. Even some rural regions of the two most populated countries on earth – China and India – would fit into this category, not to mention certain states in America such as Alaska, Idaho, Nebraska, Maine, Utah, Arkansas, Wyoming, Texas and Montana – each of which have larger landmasses than many countries.

As reported in the August 2003 edition of International Journal of Wilderness, Conservative International conducted a major assessment into how much global wilderness is left. The conclusion was that the “study found that 46% of the planet qualified as remaining wilderness”.

Say what? If almost half the Earth’s surface – not including oceans – is comprised of untouched wilderness, why are we being told there’s hardly enough land to accommodate everyone?

Another statistic that shatters the overpopulation myth is that the entire world population could fit into the state of Texas. This has been confirmed by various sources.

Even the environmentalist website concurred in a July 27, 2011 article headed At NYC’s Density, the World’s Population Could Live in Texas. The writer states, “If the entire world’s population – 6.9 billion people – lived at the same density level as New York City, we could all fit within the borders of the Lone Star State (Texas).”

It’d be a tight squeeze, but we could all fit within the borders of Texas. Yippie-ki-yay!

In 2010, the website calculated as follows: “Divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft (total landmass of Texas) by 6,908,688,000 people (world’s population in 2010), and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That’s approximately a 33′ x 33′ plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house. An average four person family, every family would have a 66′ x 66′ plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard”.

Nobody is suggesting living conditions in a Texas with 7-plus billion people would be sustainable given land is needed for industrial and commercial premises, farms, orchards, schools and other community facilities. But the Texas statistic does at least prove space is not an issue given Texas is a tiny percentage of the planet’s habitable land.

We address the overpopulation myth in our book THE ORPHAN CONSPIRACIES: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy. Here’s another excerpt:

Another little known fact is that for decades, economists have advised sparsely populated countries they need to increase their population to stimulate their economies. In our native New Zealand, which currently has a population of just under 4.5 million people, this has certainly been the case. Although the pro-active immigration policies of successive governments have been criticized by some, New Zealand’s present strong economy would likely not have been possible without the valuable input of immigrants who boosted the country’s population. At the time of writing, incidentally, New Zealand’s economy is rated one of the most buoyant in the Western world.

New Zealand’s thriving! (Population 4.5 million give or take).

Australia, a continent with only 23 million people, and Russia, which covers one sixth of the world’s total land mass, are other examples of countries which could potentially benefit from increased populations.

In the mid-2000’s the Australian Government, under Prime Minister John Howard, subscribed to the little-known Underpopulation Theory by implementing a child encouragement policy nicknamed the Baby Bonus. This scheme, a brainchild of Australian treasurer Peter Costello, paid Australian citizens lump sums any time they produced newborn babies. Howard and Costello believed increasing the population would help stimulate the nation’s economy and put Australia in good shape for years to come.

Short of a nuclear war or some other cataclysmic event, world population levels are only going to continue to increase. According to some estimates, it will reach 8 billion in about a decade. Rather than worrying about this, humanity needs to focus on social responsibility, fair wealth distribution, equality and universal justice. In other words, the very things that are needed to sustain Mankind alongside food, water, clothes and shelter.

We are not saying we know better than scientists, futurists and economists. However, it’s a fact that 99% of these experts are blissfully unaware of the suppressed science mentioned throughout The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy. Ask most scientists about Nikola Tesla and you’ll be met with a blank stare – or at best a comment like, “Oh yeah, wasn’t he the guy who developed the AC current?”

And yet, the US government has classified more files on Tesla than any other scientist in history.

There is good reason for that and it didn’t happen by accident.

Tesla circa 1890.jpeg

Nikola Tesla…scientist extraordinaire.

When the experts estimate how long the world can sustain life based on current and projected populations, they never take into account the radical technologies that would of course be released if we found ourselves on the brink of extinction.

Technologies like Tesla’s free energy inventions, and his pollutant-free and self-charging transportation inventions that would reduce pollution levels almost overnight.

Most experts never include such technologies in their gloomy forecasts as they simply don’t know about them. Or perhaps some of them have heard about these technologies, rumored or otherwise, but have written them off as fanciful conspiracy theories.

After reading The Orphan Conspiracies, and hopefully absorbing the often contentious, usually little known and sometimes revolutionary material contained within its pages, it should now be blindingly obvious that we, the writers, are diametrically opposed to the diatribes of the elite who consistently imply humans are parasites destroying the Earth.

So go ahead and propagate, and know that your offspring have the potential to assist the planet, not wreck it. In fact, go forth and multiply like rabbits. You have our blessing, but be warned: there’ll be no baby bonus from us!


At least John Lennon agreed with us about the overpopulation myth. Here’s what Lennon said in an interview on The Dick Cavett Show on September 11, 1971:   

“I think we have enough food and money to feed everybody … I don’t believe in overpopulation. I think that’s kind of a myth the government has thrown out to keep your mind off Vietnam, Ireland and all the important subjects.”


Lennon…didn’t believe in the overpopulation theory.

Read more in The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy:

A book that’s for the common people...the 99%.



Contrary to mainstream media reports, it is our firm belief that there is very little true scarcity in the world.

Diamond Mining in Kono

If you take the time to do some digging will soon come to the realization that those running the oil and precious metals industries purposefully foster a belief that there’s a critical shortage of resources in the world; if you can’t spare the time at least take a peek at films like ‘The Formula’ and ‘Blood Diamond’, which are clever dramatizations of the global elite’s devious approach to managing those resources.

Primary image for Blood Diamond

Blood Diamond addresses a real problem.

Creating the illusion of scarcity is intrinsically linked with an excessive desire for profits – a desire that will stop at nothing. Not even the loss of human lives.

Unfortunately, it’s like that with everything in our world at present. We address this particular issue in our book THE ORPHAN CONSPIRACIES: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy.

Here’s an excerpt from the book:

Such illusions are constantly being fed to us as if they are proven facts – the illusion that wars are unavoidable, that there’s not enough wealth to go around, that the Third World cannot organically sustain itself, that terrorists are everywhere…

As we covered in our “The price of a free media” chapter, mainstream media is a big part of this grand deception. This should come as no surprise considering the bulk of the world’s news outlets are owned by only a handful of media tycoons who all belong to secretive, elitist and unaccountable organizations such as the Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations.

It’s becoming obvious to most that mainstream media is nothing but a megaphone for the global elite to present biased news that’s designed to align the masses with their agenda.

The Overpopulation Theory

Take the Overpopulation Theory – a pet hobbyhorse of virtually every powerful individual in the Establishment. The supposed need to depopulate the planet for the good of Mankind is a theory that has been peddled by every elitist from the Rockefellers, to Bill Gates and Ted Turner, to US Presidents like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, to Prince Charles HRH the Prince of Wales and other British Royals. The latter includes the Queen’s husband Prince Philip who once infamously remarked, “If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

Let us also not forget Henry Kissinger’s aforementioned comment in the recently declassified National Security Memorandum 200 document in which he states, “Depopulation should bethe highest priority of US foreign policy towards the Third World,” to secure mineral resources for the US.

The motivations behind depopulation suggestions may actually be a desire to create a modern form of eugenics, albeit masquerading as something more benign. That may sound a rather extreme accusation, but keep in mind it was only a generation or two ago that the global elite were bona fide supporters of draconian eugenics programs.

How many remain adherents of this insidious science, but choose to keep their beliefs to themselves now that eugenics has been universally vilified?

A politically correct version of eugenics

Many independent researchers, ourselves included, believe the proposed global population control measures really are a politically correct version of the once government-sponsored eugenics programs.

In our opinion, racial hatred is the likely impetus behind this new version of eugenics. As Edwin Black reminds us in his book War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race, “Eugenics was” a “pseudoscience,” and “In its extreme, racist form, this meant wiping away all human beings deemed ‘unfit,’ preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype”.

There are clues that would seem to confirm that domination of non-white races remains a part of the agenda. The biggest clues are the countries and peoples that are being singled out for supposedly propagating too fast.

Have you noticed how those powerful figures who promote the “urgent need” for depopulation are almost always, if not always, referring to Third World countries or developing nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America – and not countries like the UK, France, Germany, Russia or the US whose citizens are predominantly Caucasian?

Could it be that Mr. Kissinger is not the only elitist who fears the West will lose its stranglehold on the planet’s resources if certain developing nations grow too big and powerful?

A convenient coincidence

Remember, so-called experts have been suggesting the Earth must depopulate since the early 20th Century, which notably coincides with the exact same period that eugenics programs were first endorsed by governments.

By the 1960’s, when the planet’s total population was 3 billion, the overpopulation theory reached popular consciousness – aided no doubt by those influential figures who regularly trumpeted it in the media. The concept was always presented as if it was an absolute fact: the world could not handle many more people and humanity would soon cease to exist unless depopulation strategies were implemented immediately.

However, the world’s population is now over 7 billion and life goes on. In some respects, life’s a lot more complicated than it was back in the Hippy Era, but nevertheless Mother Earth continues to sustain life and, despite what some may tell us, she shows no immediate sign of exploding, imploding or otherwise wilting.

Earth’s immense problems unediable

None of this counter-argument should be misconstrued as ignoring the Earth’s immense problems. Yes people are dying of malnutrition, thirst and disease; yes nations are fighting over resources; yes there is an ever-widening gap between rich and poor; and yes much of our planet is disgustingly polluted.

However, these problems, or tragedies, need to be assessed in the context of that which is being withheld. For every Yes there’s a No.

No the world’s most advanced technologies have not been released; no there is not fair and proper distribution of wealth and resources; no we haven’t progressed beyond the strong dominating the weak through wars and the like; no the financial system has not been cleansed of corrupt bankers and economic hitmen.

When you balance the No’s against the Yes’s it becomes obvious that if we lived in a fairer world – especially one where there is greater equality and where no technology or information is ever suppressed – the planet could sustain an even bigger population. Perhaps much bigger.

The daily struggle of many for food, water and other basic necessities is more about greed and unfair political and economic systems than population levels.

What if…

For example, if half of Africa’s population was wiped out tomorrow, millions of people would still be left scavenging for bare essentials due to the fact that very little of the continent’s abundant resources (that are mined, drilled or otherwise extracted) remain in Africa for the benefit of Africans. So the problem is one of imperialism, or expansionism, rather than there being too many mouths to feed.

Yoko Ono summarized this issue well during her appearance on The Dick Cavett Show on September 11, 1971, when she said, “I think the problem is not overpopulation, as people believe to be, but it’s more of the balance of things … Like food. Some parts of the world there’s wastage of food, in some parts nobody has food. And that kind of a balance, if that is solved, I don’t think we’d be worried so much about overpopulation.”

The big question is: why is anyone still suggesting depopulation? And why is the media still giving such suggestions airtime?

Unless outlawed eugenics programs are revived or certain elitists get their way with nefarious strategies such as mass sterilizations or forced abortions, depopulation is hardly likely in this day and age. Except of course where it’s an inevitable consequence of wars, genocide or natural disasters.

The sensible solution

It would make more sense to seek solutions for the world’s current and projected populations than trying to take away or limit people’s basic right to procreate. China’s one-child policyaside, procreation is something Man has always done freely and without thought.

Releasing classified or suppressed scientific inventions would likely be a good start. Especially technologies that have the potential to combat the world’s most pressing issues, such as pollution and its effects on climate, whatever those effects may be.

It’s worth noting that throughout history, population growth has usually spurred technological advances. This was true during the Industrial Revolution, the post-WW2 years and the Space Age era; and we are witnessing it again with the explosion of computer and mobile phone technologies, which can barely keep pace with worldwide consumer demands for those products.

We’ve already acknowledged that pollution is an urgent problem. However, a few hundred million less people less – which is all strict population controls could hope to achieve in the near future – wouldn’t decrease pollution levels that much.

And who is to say higher populations won’t actually make it easier to develop pollutant-free and clean energy technologies in the same way they created the necessary demand, infrastructure and labour force to spark other inventions of bygone years? We are not saying higher populations would necessarily achieve this, but at present there has been zero public debate as to the potential benefits of the planet’s increasing numbers of people.

Many cities are undoubtedly overpopulated, but much of this is to do with poor economicmanagement and a lack of environmental and geographic planning. For example, rural-dwellers are often so impoverished they have no choice but to move to cities for work. With a greater and fairer distribution of wealth, governments could provide incentives for citizens to remain in rural areas or relocate to emerging cities or even build new cities.

To be continued…  

Read more in The Orphan Conspiracies: 29 Conspiracy Theories from The Orphan Trilogy:

A book that’s for the common people...the 99%.