“If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels” -Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh
A meme which runs through the minds of men and women, just as popular as household celebrities like Brad Pitt and Madonna, maintains that overpopulation and wear on the earth will from here-on-out turn to a wasteland the teeming rain forests and athirst deserts and render all life on earth at odds with survival itself.
Paul Ehrlich, according to The Guardian, is “the world’s most renowned population analyst.” In an interview with the publication, Ehrlich recently championed a mass reduction in how many humans live on earth. He also then called for the egalitarian society of Communist cultures, saying natural resources should be redistributed from rich to the poor.
The linguistic niche of the environmental movement, in my opinion, is one of the best modern examples of the use of news-speak. The desires of so many of the movements leaders and followers not only come across as reasonable, considering the filth of the modern city in which 90% of men and women on the planet now reside (a trend of the last century in particular), but also oftentimes the environmentalist’s views comes across as humane.
But be not misled by the throes of seductive language, for a phrase can read a million ways. The solutions of many environmentalist leaders, such as Ehrlich, arise from a small-minded school of population analysts, who call repeatedly for “humane” forced sterilization through the manipulation of food and water via the addition of drugs. The 2005 story of a KFC chicken meal poisoning and brain damaging a young Australian girl is one example of such techniques.
Ehrlich descends upon us peasants of the world from the hallowed halls of elite American academia. As a professor of population studies at Stanford University in California and author of the best-selling book Population Bomb in 1968, Ehrlich takes the case for depopulation further than many other subscribers of his line of thinking.
Ehrlich says that the optimum population of Earth, “enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone,” was 1.5 to 2 billion people as opposed to the 7 billion alive today.
“How many you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage.”
“The question is: can you go over the top without a disaster, like a worldwide plague or a nuclear war between India and Pakistan? If we go on at the pace we are there’s going to be various forms of disaster. Some maybe slow motion disasters like people getting more and more hungry, or catastrophic disasters because the more people you have the greater the chance of some weird virus transferring from animal to human populations, there could be a vast die-off.”
In the spirit of incrementalism, Ehrlich’s thinking, once considered alarmist, has moved increasingly to the forefront of biological thinking. “We have 1 billion people hungry now and we are going to add 2.5 billion. They are going to have to be fed on more marginal land, from water that is purified more or transported further, we’re going to have disproportionate impacts on how we feed people from the population increase itself,” he said.
So many individuals who come across information like what Ehrlich has brought to the table focus on the core issues brought up, but not the solutions proposed. Are there too many people? Can we sustain life on earth at current levels? Basically missing the entire point, they do not separate from the issues the solutions proposed, for if they did they would see that many powerful individuals are calling for forced population reduction: a de facto eugenics model for the planet.
Listen here to Bill Gates suggesting some methods:
My focus here, however, turns away from the population issues and solutions trumpeted for an analysis on the future of the silver investor in such circumstances. Although I was expecting to draw a different conclusion, it is my opinion through my brisk research that the single-most threat to the value of silver in terms of mediums of exchange is command-and-control management of the society and culture in a world that has gone through a terrible command-and-control population reduction. And so, top-down controlling patterns by tyrants is a larger threat to the poor man’s gold than would be the fundamental economics of the silver market in a world dramatically depopulated.
Bix Weir has done work submitting that the amount of silver is actually less than that of gold. Check out his interview with SGT here:
Currently there are approximately 630 million ounces of silver mined out of the ground each year. That means, for each of the 7 billion individuals alive on the planet today, there are approximately 0.09 ounces of silver mined for each individual. Many of the market’s fundamentals point to the diverse uses for the metal and its relative rareness as a reason for its collectively perceived value among men and women over time.
Now, let’s assume that, if there were Ehrlich’s suggested 1.5 billion people alive, production levels would stay the same, made robust by the rolling out of robotics into the industrial sphere. This would therefore mean that 0.42 ounces of silver would be mined for each individual – that’s almost half an ounce of silver.
That’s almost 5 times the amount of silver for each person. But, nonetheless, not even half-an-ounce of silver per individual on the planet is that much! This suggests that the silver is so rare that, in drastically changed global scenarios, its perceived value would remain relatively high, separate of the market manipulation in its paper price.
Now, let’s take this thought experiment a bit further, and assume that all investment demand has been stripped from the marketplace due to government policies and police state techniques.
Based on a chart of silver demand gathered by The Silver Institute, current investment demand for silver is approximately 100 million ounces of silver out of what they conjecture is about 700 million ounces mined. That’s 16% of demand taken out of the market by government regulations, which really is not that much as the numbers above suggest in regards to silver’s rareness.
Still, considering all the uses of silver, that still suggests a minute amount of silver per individual on the planet, even considering that 16% freed up by the outlaw of silver investment.
And so, in conclusion, it appears that regulation by governments outlawing investment in real money represent the truest threat to the monetary freedom on the planet. The world’s ways could apparently be changed in very dramatic ways, and silver would still be rare.
Where’s its devaluation comes into play is strictly in the sphere of cultural totalitarianism and all that comes with it. The trading of silver could be outlawed, leaving all those with silver dependent upon an illegal black market. Silver could be nationalized, virtually resulting in the same as an outlaw. The markets could run perpetually remain an illusion conjured by a ruling class, thus resulting in the misrepresentation in the price of silver in the collective minds of men and women.
Even if the depopulation program of elitist extremists is executed over the next century, the rareness of silver will remain. All of the new customs and traditions of a so changed society, however, will in every-way undermine the ability of the poor to use alternative money’s to the mainstream, of which silver is perhaps the historically most significant.
No comments:
Post a Comment