More space thoughts (sorry I just can't wrap my head around something being so large lol)
The estimates given for the distance across the Milky Way vary from 100,000 to 200,000 all the way to 2 million light years (way to go science you have my unwavering devotion /sarc)
But let's just take the 100,000 ly.
The middle star in the belt of Orion is estimated to be the furthest in the group at 1360 ly away.
If the Federation spans an area as vast as the distance between us and it, assuming the middle star is what we're talking here, then at about half that distance (680ly) and extending beyond the belt star of Orion for another 680ly would encompass the space of the Federation? Am I correct on that understanding so far?
Then what about the other 98,640 ly that make up the Milky Way, is there really nothing much going on out there? I know they said the "most heavily populated" but that leaves a whole lot of space left in our galaxy in comparison to the size of the Federation zone.
More space thoughts (sorry I just can't wrap my head around something being so large lol)
The estimates given for the distance across the Milky Way vary from 100,000 to 200,000 all the way to 2 million light years (way to go science you have my unwavering devotion /sarc)
But let's just take the 100,000 ly.
The middle star in the belt of Orion is estimated to be the furthest in the group at 1360 ly away.
If the Federation spans an area as vast as the distance between us and it, assuming the middle star is what we're talking here, then at about half that distance (680ly) and extending beyond the belt star of Orion for another 680ly would encompass the space of the Federation? Am I correct on that understanding so far?
Then what about the other 98,640 ly that make up the Milky Way, is there really nothing much going on out there? I know they said the "most heavily populated" but that leaves a whole lot of space left in our galaxy in comparison to the size of the Federation zone.
Well, Pearce, that is a good question. So, the Cs described the population status of the Orion Federation, but as you said, what else is there beyond this region? More Federations?
On another note, when I read the section about the Orion Federation I was horrified by the fact that the Reptilians are owned by the Orion STS as slaves and even as pets. Pets, for goodness sake! Not that it is worse than being slaves, but I was not expecting anything like that. Then again, aren't the Reptilians STS trying to own humans? Am I understanding this correctly? Does the cycle repeat? Notice the word "cycle."
Good to hear you read The Wave and Secret History! I'm one of the lucky ones - I get to read all this stuff in English, my native language. Thanks for this discussion, it's given some things to think about and reflect on.
The information given by the C's can be tricky. What is meant by 'ascent'? And are we talking about that 90% of the global population, 7.8 billion? Or are we talking about 90% of the people who survive all of the coming cataclysms? Are we are talking about ascent to 4D? If so, are we talking about 4D STO - or 4D STS? Both? Either way, I think 90% of 7.8 billion ascending to 4D is way too high. If we are talking about an 'ascent' to 5D, then that's another story entirely. Can you quote the specific session?
Ah, I see what you're getting at. What I was confused about was the mention of a 25-year timeframe. So you were writing about how it took 25 years for the truth of the Jesus-Caesar connection to be discovered by the forum, with hints from the C's. Is that correct?
And I'm asking questions in turn because I was very confused about your question, which I find very vague, quoted below:
So it appears that the main question you're asking is focused on verifying the applicability of Fomenko's algorithm. Is that correct? You mentioned the '25 years from Jesus to Jesinavara to Caesar' as a way of talking about the 'slow revelation' process of the C's.
I don't know anything about Fomenko - does he have only one algorithm? If not, which one are you talking about? Could you describe it? How does it apply here? Does it have to do with time and the revelation of the truth? What does it have to do with Ark's question?
A key part of the Work here is to develop the inner capacity to receive feedback, in particular criticism and direct questions. When you put in the effort to express yourself with care, then you will be more likely to receive coherent answers, and a constructive dialogue results. But the clarity of the signal that you emit effects the clarity of the signal that you receive.
You mentioned in your first post that you're new to the forum. For me, a key part of the Work here has been a process of learning to communicate effectively. How to make myself understood? Am I providing proper context? Am I assuming people will understand when I mention something obscure? Can I provide a quote or reference? Am I asking a good question? Can I answer it myself, or do I just want someone else to answer it for me? What research or 'heavy lifting' have I done? The way I see it is that Laura and crew, through their years of research, earned the right to ask - can I assume that I have that same right? If not, how might I go about earning it?
The C's are very good teachers. Though they have given us a huge amount of information, perhaps the important information focused on how to learn. Learning for ourselves seats the Knowledge at a deeper level.
Learning how to learn is predicated on learning how to ask. Case in point, there were a few questions asked by forum members during this session that were not formulated very well, which was commented upon. We're all still learning how to ask good questions, and doing our best to help each other in that process - often with objective feedback, criticism, and disagreement. This can be uncomfortable - but it is a necessary process of 'the heating of the crucible'. True enlightenment is not all 'roses, roses'. It's more like turning up the heat to burn away all the dross, lies, parasites and programs melded in our being. One can't learn how to learn without fire.
And on that note, the C's have encouraged us all to do more research. I'm thinking that we would do well to consider that this includes 'inner research', specifically learning how to truly learn, and learning how to truly ask. As @thorbiorn quoted above:
Maybe it's out of the thread but it's important in this time I think. Can someone say something about Cobra and "Divine Intervention Activation" ?
What is credibility of this "person" and "stuff" ? I was searching the Forum threads and I found nothing about this announced event (21.12.2021) and its meaning. Is it really what Cobra said or is it a disinformation - or worse - "they" want to use mental energy to do something "not pleasant" ?
I have not read it deeper... but the red lights light up at the very beginning. Generally speaking, when it comes to assigning specific events to specific dates, it comes from lack of understanding of a reality that is non-linear and cyclical, based on the information, where the future and the past may be "the same."
Such predictions make no sense, unless you assume that some cosmic races, including those of higher densities, are waiting for the human calendar to appear on the 21st or some other date and then they do something. Rather you don't expect something like this...
Also, when it comes to some kind of cosmic interventions, it's not like that. Our existence is relatively level and balanced, so that in the cosmic drama we face various challenges and, on the other hand, have a chance for act and develop. Of course, sometimes some people don't have that choice, although this is a different matter, some people just have karmic burdens.
As for some "cosmic interventions" what we can expect are 4D STO actions, on an individual level as well as on a global level. Remember from previous transcripts how the election of Trump as president was discussed? There was talk at the time that there was a struggle that the election of the people to elect their president would be respected and, among other things, that efforts were being made by those at a higher STO Density level.
So any "cosmic interventions," if they take place, on our planet, then we must take into account that their source will be forces at higher levels of STO Densities and their purpose will be to stabilize our development and free choice against STS abuse, rather than some physical and open intervention. On the contrary to this, some constans should be maintained so that people can take these different lessons, both painful (karmic) and coming from free choice for learning and development, without open interventions in it.
In conclusion, in my opinion, whoever stands behind "New Cobra" simply has homework to do, because his thinking shows the signs of programming that he has not given up and his expectations of reality are deceptive or maybe it's just deliberate disinformation...
Just reminded of this line from this session when reading this brief "Truth Press" article
(Mrs. Peel) How much longer before, or will they declare Joe Biden incapable of holding the office?
“Are you satisfied with her work on this issue [of voting rights]? And can you guarantee, do you commit that she will be your running mate in 2024 provided that you run again?” NBC News reporter Kristen Welker asked Biden.
“Yes and yes,” Biden replied.
“Do you care to expand?” Welker asked.
“No, there’s no need to. I mean, she’s going to be my running mate, number one. And number two, I did put her in charge. I think she’s doing a good job,” Biden said.
In December, Biden said in an interview with ABC News anchor David Muir that he’d run again if he’s in “good health.”
“If I’m in the health I’m in now — I’m in good health — then, in fact, I would run again,” Biden said. “I’m a great respecter of fate. Fate has intervened in my life many, many times.”
On another note, when I read the section about the Orion Federation I was horrified by the fact that the Reptilians are owned by the Orion STS as slaves and even as pets. Pets, for goodness sake! Not that it is worse than being slaves, but I was not expecting anything like that. Then again, aren't the Reptilians STS trying to own humans? Am I understanding this correctly? Does the cycle repeat? Notice the word "cycle."
I can't stop visualising an Orion sts family sitting together on their settee watching their version of tv, stroking and cuddling their pet 7 foot tall reptilian straddling in a prone position across their laps. Giving his belly a tickle now and then, while he Makes a breathing noise like Darth Vader.
I can't stop visualising an Orion sts family sitting together on their settee watching their version of tv, stroking and cuddling their pet 7 foot tall reptilian straddling in a prone position across their laps. Giving his belly a tickle now and then, while he Makes a breathing noise like Darth Vader.
Earth and humans: carrying capacity, transcript excerpts related to the environment, and research on how many people can live on the Earth
This post presents views on the subject of carrying capacity, related to humans living on planet Earth. The Cs said in this session, that the Earth was overpopulated, but not by how much, or what methods or approach is most valid when calculating the carrying capacity, or whether there for instance are individual concerns, as not all people are equal, even biologically. Although the world as a whole is overpopulated, there may be areas that are not. And if the Earth is overpopulated, it could be overpopulated by a number, but it could also be overpopulated considering how the people interact with the Earth, or how they lead their lives in a moral and ethical sense. Here, I will focus mainly on the definition and figures for thecarrying capacity. Inserted are passages from the sessions related to the environment, including the excerpts in this session, that relate to the discussion of overpopulation.
Personally, I think there have been many good reasons to work for less pollution, cleaner food and a clean environment, but it is problematic when such endeavors are taken over by totalitarians who use lies to take power and wish to force their own views on others, or use their power to institute laws to force dirty productions to other countries from where the products are then imported.
Carrying capacity is the number of organisms that an ecosystem can sustainably support. An ecosystem’s carrying capacity for a particular species may be influenced by many factors, such as the ability to regenerate the food, water, atmosphere, or other necessities that populations need to survive.
Since its inception, the United Nations Environment Programme (UN ENVIRONMENT) has had a special relationship with civil society in tackling environmental issues. The Stockholm Conference on Human Environment, which led to the creation of UN ENVIRONMENT in 1972, owed much to the enthusiasm, dedication and commitment of civil society. Many multilateral environmental agreements - Basel Convention, Montreal Protocol, Biodiversity and Climate Change Conventions, among others, were developed thanks to the lobbying efforts of civil society.
Agenda 21 is mentioned in the continuation of the text. The above "civil society" may be NGOs like this British organization, Population Matters, (see their patrons here.). There was mention of Stockholm, the capital of Sweden, which is a main sponsor of the World Environment Day.
The UNEP has Funding and Partnerships but the its Environment Fund is said to be the main sponsor. Several small European countries are major donors, and most are members of NATO.
and its Global Environmental Alert Service (GEAS), which has the motto, "Taking the pulse of the planet; connecting science with policy", published in 2012 a "Thematic Focus: Environmental Governance, Resource Efficiency" with the title: "One Planet, How Many People? A Review of Earth’s Carrying Capacity A discussion paper for the year of RIO+20". Here one finds an illustration showing estimates for the size of the human population over the last 12,000 years.
In the document, there is mention of the Stockholm Resilience Center, that claims there are some areas that they think are critical. Here is an image, with the areas of their concerrn:
Most out of balance, they think, are biodiversity, the nitrogen cycle and then climate change. In many countries there have been political initiatives to minimize what they consider as the human impact on the environment.
Some excerpts from the Cs about the environment, and overpopulation
Before presenting studies and numbers relating to the carrying capacity, below are a few excerpt from the Cs relating to the environment. The first can serve as an introduction:
February 23, 2002 Ark, Laura, Barry T, Rick O, VG, Jeannine & M N**** Q: (L) Hello. A: Yes. Hello. Q: (L) And who do we have with us this evening? A: Fiilia. Q: (L) And where do you transmit through? A: Yes. Cassiopaea. Q: (L) They're not use to having so many people. Alright who...
The sentence is bolded in the posted transcript. If dead coral can be revived, then what are the limits? At least the question like biodiversity and ocean acidification should have solutions as well. Going back into the history of the world, we could argue that intelligence and design expresses itself in the universe, but that is not a view held by materialists.
In the very first session, the Cs mentioned the topic of new life on the planet.
July 16, 1994 [1] "Frank", "Candy" and Laura Q: Hello. A: Hello. Q: Do you have any messages for us? A: Keep doing what comes naturally. Q. (L) In what respect? A: Study. Q: (L) What is your name? A: Mucpeor.[2] Q: (L) Are you an alien from another planet? A: Alien from your perspective, yes...
November 26, 1994 Frank and Laura, Terry and Jan Q: Hello. A: Thank you for altering the board. {We had installed more punctuation marks} We worked on your psyches to get you to do that. Q: (L) Well, you didn't have to work on our psyches to get us to do it. It makes things faster for us...
Q: (T) So we are but one battle in the universe in an overall, ongoing struggle?
A: Yes. Balance is natural. Remember, it's all just lessons in the grand cycle.
Q: (L) I am really curious... when you guys and the Lizzies "go to it", what do you do? I mean, you obviously don't shoot guns at each other and you don't have tanks...
A: Too complicated for you to possibly understand because you are not at 4th level yet.
Q: (J) When you are fighting, is it any way at all possible for us to detect the battle?
A: First: We don't "fight." Second, yes; it's nature as in meteorology and earth changes.
Q: (T) Your form of confrontation takes the form of physical changes in the atmosphere and environment of the planet?
A: And in space.
Q: (T) But that is how we detect it? The more activity, the more conflict is going on?
A: Remember, we are the light. They are the dark. We are both high level thought forms reflected at all levels of reality.
Q: (T) So, what we perceive, then, is what comes through to third density which is not what we would perceive if we were looking at it from 4th or 5th or 6th.
March 18, 1995 Frank, Laura, Terry and Jan, Brad, Sue Q: (T) Good Evening. A: Hello. Q: Who do we have with us this evening? A: Usurro. Q: And, where are you from? A: Cassiopaea. Yes. Q: (L) Have you been listening to our discussion? A: Of course. Q: (L) And, do you have any...
cassiopaea.org
In one session, there was a discussion of the ozone layer. This small snip, indicates that many factors are at work, and that to atribute imbalances primarily to human causes is misleading. While changes appearing in our third density may have third density explanations, changes occur in fact accross densities and realities.
A: Okay, here we go: Oncoming wave is a transformation from third density to fourth density so, events happening due to the approach of the wave are causing changes across densities and realities! In third density, you will notice changes that will have third density explanations, but they are a manifestation of the approach; you see them as third density because that is your current point of reference! Remember that all reflects in and cross all density levels but also there is a merging upon arrival of the wave, it is realm border crossing!!!!!!
The following resonates with the earlier excerpt about the revival of the dead corals to be fully within the capability of the universe. What we perceive as environmental damages caused by humans, are easily repaired. We are also taught in school to believe that we are alone in the universe, and that we are the sole caretakers of the planet at the top of the food chain, but that is not so.
May 4, 1996 Frank, Tom H, Tom K, Laura Q: (L) Hello. A: Hello. Q: (L) And who do we have with us this evening? A: Lorra. Q: (L) And where do you transmit from? A: Cassiopaea. Q: (L) One of the things we talked about the last time Tom was here was about the underground bases and...
Q: (L) What have we been doing? Is it part of the plan for us to destroy the planet, destroy the ozone layer, pollute the seas and so forth to make it more habitable for them?
A: Those things are inconsequential and easily repaired.
Q: (TK) With their technology, they can fix all of that. (L) This is really horrible, you know! To think of all this... (TK) Apparently, from what I am understanding, they can't just come in and wipe us out and replace us, because the 'rules' won't allow it.
A: Yet the natural cycles within the framework of the natural order of things will allow all these things to fall into place.
Q: (L) Is there some law within the realm of these beings, sort of like the law of gravity, that prevents them from just coming in and taking over?
A: No.
Q: (TK) I don't think it is like the law of gravity...
A: What "law" is there that inhibits you from manipulating 2nd density beings at will?!?
Q: (L) Well, I don't go out and deliberately hurt or manipulate anything or anybody. (TK) Of course, in our handling of these 'critters,' we are conserving them in some ways so that we will have an ongoing food supply... I think there are rules to the game. It's like a chess game. They can't just come in and change things, it has to progress in some way. But, there are loopholes and they can sneak in and manipulate and get away with some things... (TH) Then, there aren't rules - there are just guidelines.
A: Two important points there: 1) When we said "you," we meant 3rd density collectively. 2) You missed our statement about the natural cycle and order of things almost completely. We suggest you reread and ponder... Also, what if your race is manipulated to destroy yourselves, or, just hang around until the next natural cataclysm?
While traditional environmentalism is typically concerned with physical ecosystems, the perspective of the Cs takes a broader. To a question about the essential thing to know about Paleochistianity, the Cs say that people need to know about pathology and that knowledge about detoxing mind, body and environment can lead to abundant health for all.
Session Date: May 30th 2009 Laura, Ark, G***, Scottie, C**, A***, Joe, A*** {The choral music of Thomas Tallis plays in the background} (Ark) It's stuck! (L) It's not stuck. It's just waiting. {Nothing happens for a minute} (L) Maybe they don't like the music. {Music is turned off} A...
Q: (L) How many questions do you have left Joe? (J) Given the end of the world scenario, all my other questions pale into insignificance. (laughter) (L) What questions do you have? (Ark) They would not fit this session. (L) They belong to a different sessions with Joe's questions? (laughter) (L) Okay. What is the most essential thing for us to know about Paleochristianity, about what people need to know?
A: People need to know about pathology as you call it. In former times it was often referred to as demonic possession. In some cases, they were right.
Q: (L) But clearly not in all cases, and that needs to made absolutely clear because there are some people who are just sick.
A: Yes. Hyperdimensional influences are often the cause of pathology. This can be due to influences at this level of reality including dietary and nurture.
Q: (L) Okay, what else?
A: Just as detoxing the body can lead to abundant health, so can detoxing the mind and environment lead to abundant life and happiness for all. But as was the "fall", it must be a group decision and the differences and pathological blocks to objective understanding must be removed.
Q: (L) In other words, there's no hope for our planet or our species if normal human beings do not come together and get over these varied pathological belief systems and religions and "your truth" and "my truth" and all that sort of thing?
A: Yes. All of that was created and spread by pathological types under the influence of their hyperdimensional masters for the purpose of turning this planet into a "hell on earth" with them as the masters. They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. What is needed is for many people to begin to make direct connections with their higher centers. This has been done via the "work" up to now, but there are other methods to accelerate the process and obtain the needed assistance.
Many environmentalist have an image of the physical laws governing the Earth as being stable, with only gradual changes, but from the perspective of the Cs, it is more dynamic with the Earth environment being influenced by "travels of the solar system through space".
I'm a little late getting this one up. There was some discussion in QFS about how best to edit it since we want to protect certain individuals, but also want to ensure that information that is useful to others is made available. There is also a bit in this session that is a little embarrassing...
Q: (L) Okay, enough on that. Next? (A**) I was gonna ask about Chaco Canyon. What was it built for?
A: Gathering place for those of unusual abilities.
Q: (A***) Did anybody actually live there?
A: More like a "conference center."
Q: (A**) So what happened to the people that used it?
A: Change of cosmic environment followed by earthly difficulties such as famine, climate etc.
Q: (J) What kind of things did those people with unusual abilities do when they gathered together?
A: Well, levitate, for one; direct manifestation for another; and "travel".
Q: (Allen) So, could they travel from one spot on the planet to another?
A: Yes.
Q: (A*l) Could they teleport?
A: Yes.
Q: (J) Teleport... These weren't your average human beings then. (laughter)
A: No not exactly, but it wasn't the same environment you currently enjoy either.
Q: (A**) Where did these people come from?
A: Remnant Atlanteans. Descendants for the word sticklers.
Q: (L) I think that's because once, somebody made a big deal out of them saying "remnants of Atlantis" and they meant descendants. (A*l) Do they mean that if our environment wasn't so polluted that we could have super powers? (L) They said "cosmic environment".
A: Gravity is different now.
Q: (A*l) What happened to gravity? How'd it change?
A: Travels of the solar system through space. You are heading for another such changes soon.
Session Date: March 21st 2020 Laura, Andromeda, and Artemis at the board Pierre, Joe, Chu, Ark, PoB, Scottie, Gaby, Niall, The Lunar Module, Noko the Wonderdog, Princess Leia, Pikabu zee Cat Q: (L) Today is March the 21st, 2020. (Andromeda) 3-2-1! (L) [Review of those present] Alright, so I...
Q: (Pierre) I have a question about viruses. Most of those mass extinctions happen because of cometary bombardments. The same cometary bombardments that end life, I think maybe they introduce new life through the viruses they carry. If you study mass extinctions, right after you have a boom of life…. dinosaurs disappeared, and then BOOM! Are viruses from comets the main driver of evolution?
Q: (Joe) What is driving global governments to officially pursue a transformation to green energy, dropping fossil fuels, and investing in renewables?
A: Destruction of lives.
Q: (L) You know, that's interesting... I was reading something on the forum today. It was on that thread of alternative 3, for anybody who has read it. Oh no, no no! It was that video, "The Dinosaur". And the Dinosaur said, "Evil governments are investing in fossil fuels". And then it turns around and says, "you need green, sustainable blah blah blah". And it just occurred to me it would take a long period of time to get other forms of energy going. But fossil fuels are the most efficient thing right now, to help in poverty stricken countries. By forcing them to wait on alternative green sources of energy, you're just extending their dying time! So, it's a complete contradiction.
(Joe) Well, not only that, windmills, wind turbines and solar power, they can't replace the world's energy needs. They simply can't. And no government can possibly be sincere in their belief that they can. So that's why I'm asking the question. Do they really believe it?
(L) No, I think it's...
(Niall) They don't, so the follow-up question is, are governments consciously trying to destroy lives?
A: Yes.
Q: (Niall) Crikey!
(L) Yeah, I think they are becoming quite conscious at this point.
(Niall) It's funny, because Bill Gates came out today and said, "In the short term, we need to keep nuclear power going, because the backlash from the public during this transition to renewables is strong".
(Joe) They're going to destroy the global economy. You can't transition in the period of time they're talking about.
(Niall) But at least he was astute enough to say it.
(Laura) If they were really going to transition, they should have started back in the 70s when people started talking about this sort of thing.
(Joe) Do you know the UK had an energy shortage this year? Do you know why?
(Laura) Why?
(Joe) Because they didn't get any, or very little power from the windmills because this year the wind didn't blow strong enough. That's the energy they're investing in. They're going to fuel the world with windmills. That suggests they are kind of on board with a population reduction idea, this big "conspiracy theory" of depopulation... that governments are on board with that, and that they're saying, "OK, let's basically switch over to this crazy new energy source that will only be able to sustain a limited amount of people on the planet, and the rest of them will die.
(Andromeda) Yeah, in the beginning we could have thought that maybe it was greed, that they were trying to make money, but at this point it's so obvious that that is not going to work.
(Joe) You can try to make money with a little bit here and there... But it's not even going to work. 60 percent of China's energy comes from coal right now. Do you think they're ever going to be able to build enough windmills that will actually work... with volcanoes going off, and reduced sunlight and that kind of stuff... it's just not possible.
(Niall) Are China and Russia on board with this?
(Joe) They are, officially.
A: Not deeply.
Q: (Laura) I notice China and Russia aren't going to this Climate conference...
(Joe) ...in Scotland.
(L) So they're giving it a pass, so maybe they are starting to feel comfortable with giving a pass to other things, I don't know. Okay, next question.
(Joe) About 10 years ago, at around the time of the global banking crisis/crash, some time after that, in 2010 maybe... For some reason we were asking, thinking that the economy was going to implode, or something... And we asked that question, and it was right at this time of the year. "Are they going to crash the economy soon?" And the C's said, "They might wait till after Christmas". And of course, nothing happened in the 10 years since then. So I was just wondering if that idea of "after Christmas" applies to...
(Andromeda) ...this Christmas? [laughter].
A: Possible.
Q: (Scottie) Just wait 10 years and we'll find out.
[...]
(Abats) What about the famous April Drop Dead date?
A: Coming!
[...]
Q: (nicklebleu and his wife): It has been said that wind has decreased in recent times. Is that true?
A: In some places. Has increased in others. Also it is more compacted.
Q: (Laura) Well, I would imagine that if the climate is changing, you know, moving towards an Ice Age, or whatever it has to go through in order to get there, it's going to change. Climate change in the past, as they've been able to determine by retrospective studies... Places that formerly had rain, no longer have rain, and places that didn't have rain start getting rain. And I guess, places that didn't have wind start getting wind, and places that used to have wind don't get wind... So it's all about the changes going on.
(Joe) Which is useless for windmills.
(Andromeda) Pretty much, yeah.
(Laura) Yeah, they're basing a lot of their so-called "green" activities on situations that existed in the past, and that are no longer going to be existing.
(Madara Horseman) Speaking about energy news, we are bombarded with nuclear fusion. Are the different countries really looking for a solution there, or are they mostly hyping and diverting money? Are we close to nuclear fusion in a practical sense, or...?
(Laura) Hmm, that's not a well formed question. It's hard to break that down. Okay, let me see. Nuclear fusion: Are different countries really looking for a solution, or are they mostly hyping and diverting?
A: Both.
Q: (Laura) Are we close to nuclear fusion in a practical sense?
A: Could be.
Q: (Laura) Could be - if they really put their minds to it. [...]
[...]
(MK Scarlett) In 1972, the Club of Rome wrote a book known as Report Meadows that was about green development and sustainable future, but it was all about depopulation. See the article: What is the “Global Public-Private Partnership”?
(Joe) So, on that other point, Laura, overt governments that are pushing this green agenda, are they aware that the agenda is population reduction? Is that it, they don't have any other rationale for it? Do they have any other reason for it, or is it just the destructive principle, and they want to kill people?
A: They are operating on the premise that there is a real threat to the planet and that the cause is overpopulation.
Q: (L) Well, I would say that overpopulation only threatens the population, not the planet. The planet can and will recover, but it's like any of the population studies: when there are too many rabbits...
(Andromeda) Disease comes along.
(L) Foxes come along to eat them.
(Joe) Maybe they think that overpopulation is a threat to society in the sense that it's unsustainable in the long term. If you don't do anything about it, people will die because there's not enough...
(L) I don't think they're worried about people dying.
(Niall) It's a threat to psychopathic rule.
(L) Yeah. Oh boy... We're in a helluva mess, people.
(Pierre) By enforcing those measures aimed at reducing population, they create oppression that triggers natural catastrophes before their plan is put in place.
(L) So you're saying that by...
(Pierre) Depopulation agenda entails a lot of lies. By those lies aiming to reduce population, they actually induce cosmically this population reduction.
(L) Yeah. Well, the thing is that then they've lost control of the narrative and they've lost control of who gets depopulated and who doesn't. They bring the very thing that they wished on other people on themselves. I mean, the C's did say it was a triple-bad day for John D. Rockefeller and his type.
(Pierre) Economically, biologically, socially, and also FRV. But is it true what we say? That they precipitate the cosmic reaction for manufacturing human suffering. Is it true?
(L) Yeah.
(Pierre) Okay.
(L) Okay...
[...]
(Alejo) Is overpopulation a myth, or are we really overpopulated?
A: Overpopulated.
Q: (Alejo) By trying to depopulate, they'll generate the chaos that will cause catastrophe... is what Pierre is saying?
If one takes the threads and post on the forum, as well as articles on SOTT to offer additional commentary, then there are many, even if some are only on the periphery of the topic:
Threads, and posts with topics connected to carrying capacity
Below are links to other threads that tie in with the discussion of the carrying capacity and related politics
Leaving the section with quotes, thread links and SOTT articles. I return to the United Nation Environment Programme and their paper
The numbers for the carrying capacity
In the publication from UNEP that carried the figure of the historical developement of the world population, they summarize the results regarding the range of the carrying capacity
A study looking at 94 different estimates of the upper bounds of Earth’s population found estimates ranging from a low of 500 000 000 to a high of 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 (11).
There is something wrong about the above number, 1 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 .It is 10^21 while a trillion in the current English-American way is only 1 000 billions or 10^12. In the references, it says:
11. Cohen, J. E. (1995a). Population growth and earth’s human carrying capacity. Science, 269(5222), 341-346. doi: 10.1126/science.7618100
See this link to the article by Cohen, [stored at Rockefeller University, New York], where a diagram shows the results of various studies. The maximum is around, 1000 billion people, or more than 100 times more than we are now.
In the illustration above, the old studies from the seventeenth and eighteenths century give numbers, six to 15 billions, that have been suggested later too. However in modern time, the numbers appear to have topped around 1970. Why is there such a range? From less than a billion to a 1000 billions?
Studies of the carrying capacity use different methods and reach different results
A short review paper by Gigi Richards, Human Carrying Capacity of Earth from 2002 shows the basis and assumptions behind the estimates to differ, as one can read in the to right columns where one finds terms like ecological footprint, energy, food, a combination of factors, and the productivity of photosynthectic plants.
The selection of the above studies has a median low of 2 billion and a median high of 5 billion, much less than we are now. For a recent study that gives somewhat similar numbers, see What is the optimal, sustainable population size of Humans?
Is the carrying capacity in the hundreds and thousands of millions, or much less?
If some people, as in the studies above, spend time arguing whether sustainability could be upheld with this or that number of billions, some think it is much less. The following is from two articles by a Canadian, Bodhi Paul Chefurka.
Overshoot
In Carrying Capacity, Overshoot and Sustainability there is an argument for staying at the carrying capacity, and it involves the concept of overshoot. This mirror link still has the image illustrating the point:
Following the explanation in the above illustration, if the carrying capacity is 3 billion and there are 8 billion people, then the overshoot is 5 billion. An overshoot will degrade the carrying capacity, meaning few people can live there after a period of overshoot, (assuming everything else, like technology and health of the people are equal). While the above may be true, I would argue that there are cycles in nature. Some years, for instance, there are many snow owls and lemmings. In other years, there are few mice, and few owls. The carrying capacity may recover with time, just as land that has been exhausted after a few years in a slash-and-burn agricultural cycle can regain its ability to give good crop yields when the soil is allowed to rest and regenerate.
In the article, there are a few assessments The ecological footprint assessment: 4 billion
The concept of the Ecological Footprint was developed in 1992 by William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel at the University of British Columbia in Canada.
The ecological footprint is a measure of human demand on the Earth’s ecosystems. It is a standardized measure of demand for natural capital that may be contrasted with the planet’s ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area necessary to supply the resources a human population consumes, and to assimilate associated waste. As it is usually published, the value is an estimate of how many planet Earths it would take to support humanity with everyone following their current lifestyle.
It has a number of fairly glaring flaws that cause it to be hyper-optimistic. The “ecological footprint” is basically for renewable resources only. It includes a theoretical but underestimated factor for non-renewable resources. It does not take into account the unfolding effects of climate change, ocean acidification or biodiversity loss (i.e. species extinctions). It is intuitively clear that no number of “extra planets” would compensate for such degradation.
The author assumes the problems are all caused by human activity, without factoring in influences from the surrounding cosmos.
Still, the estimate as of the end of 2012 is that our overall ecological footprint is about “1.7 planets”. In other words, there is at least 1.7 times too much human activity for the long-term health of this single, lonely planet. To put it yet another way, we are 70% into overshoot.
It would probably be fair to say that by this accounting method the sustainable population would be (7 / 1.7) or about four billion people at our current average level of affluence. As you will see, other assessments make this estimate seem like a happy fantasy.
This analysis makes it tempting to conclude that a sustainable population might look similar to the situation in 1800, before the Green Revolution, and before the global adoption of fossil fuels: about 1 billion people living on about 5% of today’s global average energy consumption, all of it derived from renewable energy flows.
"The population density assessment": 20-50 million people
There are about 150 million square kilometers, or 60 million square miles of land on Planet Earth. However, two thirds of that area is covered by snow, mountains or deserts, or has little or no topsoil. This leaves about 50 million square kilometers (20 million square miles) that is habitable by humans without high levels of technology.
A typical population density for a non-energy-assisted society of hunter-forager-gardeners is between 1 person per square mile and 1 person per square kilometer. Because humans living this way had settled the entire planet by the time agriculture was invented 10,000 years ago, this number pegs a reasonable upper boundary for a sustainable world population in the range of 20 to 50 million people.
I settled on the average of these two numbers, 35 million people. That was because it matches known hunter-forager population densities, and because those densities were maintained with virtually zero population growth (less than 0.01% per year)during the 67,000 years from the time of the Toba super-volcano eruption in 75,000 BC until 8,000 BC (Agriculture Day on Planet Earth).
This number tells us that if we want to keep the average level of per-capita consumption we enjoy in today’s world, we would enter an overshoot situation above a global population of about 1.75 million people. By this measure our current population of 7 billion is about 4,000 times too big and active for long-term sustainability. In other words, by this measure we are we are now 400,000% into overshoot.
Using the same technique we can calculate that achieving a sustainable population with an American lifestyle (TF = 78) would permit a world population of only 650,000 people – clearly not enough to sustain a modern global civilization.
For the sake of comparison, it is estimated that the historical world population just after the dawn of agriculture in 8,000 BC was about five million, and in Year 1 was about 200 million. We crossed the upper threshold of planetary sustainability in about 2000 BC, and have been in deepening overshoot for the last 4,000 years.
"The ecological assessment":
The ecological footprint assessment, se above, and the ecological assessment coming next are not the same and do not reach the same results.
As a species, human beings share much in common with other large mammals. We breathe, eat, move around to find food and mates, socialize, reproduce and die like all other mammalian species. Our intellect and culture, those qualities that make us uniquely human, are recent additions to our essential primate nature, at least in evolutionary terms.
Consequently it makes sense to compare our species’ performance to that of other, similar species – species that we know for sure are sustainable. I was fortunate to find the work of American marine biologist Dr. Charles W. Fowler, who has a deep interest in sustainability and the ecological conundrum posed by human beings. The following three assessments are drawn from Dr. Fowler’s work.
The ecological assessment, 2003: Fowler and Hobbs conclude 35 million people is the limit.
In 2003, Dr. Fowler and Larry Hobbs co-wrote a paper titled, “Is humanity sustainable?” that was published by the Royal Society. In it, they compared a variety of ecological measures across 31 species including humans. The measures included biomass consumption, energy consumption, CO2 production, geographical range size, and population size.
It should come as no great surprise that in most of the comparisons humans had far greater impact than other species, even to a 99% confidence level. When it came to population size, Fowler and Hobbs found that there are over two orders of magnitude more humans than one would expect based on a comparison to other species – 190 times more, in fact. Similarly, our CO2 emissions outdid other species by a factor of 215.
Based on this research, Dr. Fowler concluded that there are about 200 times too many humans on the planet. This brings up an estimate for a sustainable population of 35 million people.
This is the same as the upper bound established above by examining hunter-gatherer population densities. The similarity of the results is not too surprising, since the hunter-gatherers of 50,000 years ago were about as close to “naked apes” as humans have been in recent history.
The ecological assessment, 2008: For maximizing biodiversity, there is space for 10 million people:
In 2008, five years after the publication cited above, Dr. Fowler wrote another paper entitled “Maximizing biodiversity, information and sustainability.” In this paper he examined the sustainability question from the point of view of maximizing biodiversity. In other words, what is the largest human population that would not reduce planetary biodiversity?
This is, of course, a very stringent test, and one that we probably failed early in our history by extirpating mega-fauna in the wake of our migrations across a number of continents.
In this paper, Dr. Fowler compared 96 different species, and again analyzed them in terms of population, CO2 emissions and consumption patterns.
This time, when the strict test of biodiversity retention was applied, the results were truly shocking, even to me. According to this measure, humans have overpopulated the Earth by almost 700 times. In order to preserve maximum biodiversity on Earth,the human population may be no more than 10 million people – each with the consumption of a Paleolithic hunter-forager.
The ecological assessment, 2009: Sorry, it is only 7 million!
After this article was initially written, Dr. Fowler forwarded me a copy of an appendix to his 2009 book, “Systemic Management: Sustainable Human Interactions with Ecosystems and the Biosphere”, published by Oxford University Press. In it he describes yet one more technique for comparing humans with other mammalian species, this time in terms of observed population densities, total population sizes and ranges.
After carefully comparing us to various species of both herbivores and carnivores of similar body size, he draws this devastating conclusion: the human population is about 1000 times larger than expected. This is in line with the second assessment above, though about 50% more pessimistic. It puts a sustainable human population at about 7 million.
Still another way of looking at it: the thermodynamic footprint
In the Thermodynamic Footprint (mirrored here) by Bodhi Paul Chefurka, one finds:
In 1975 the Canadian ecologist and population activist Dr. Jack Vallentyne introduced to the world a concept he called the "Demotechnic Index". It is the ratio of the amount of all technological energy a person uses in a day (energy from oil, gas, coal, hydro and nuclear power) over the average amount of energy they get in a day from the food they eat.
This article examines the state of the world in terms of that index, which I have taken the liberty of renaming the Thermodynamic Footprint or TF. I did that to make the term a little more accessible, and also in the spirit of the times - many of the people who read this will already be familiar with concepts like the Carbon Footprint and the Ecological Footprint.
The TF is intended to measure the impact we are having on the planet as the result of our use of technological energy. It also allows us to measure the change in our impact over time.
The Thermodynamic Footprint is the ratio of all the energy a person normally uses in a period of time, over the amount of energy they generate within their bodies from food. The "energy we normally use" includes fossil fuels and non-fuel generated electricity from hydro, nuclear and renewable sources such as wind and solar power. It includes both our own direct energy use and our individual share of all the energy society uses to create and maintain the world we live in.
The result is a number, expressed in units I call Human Equivalents or HE. The number describes how many times a person's environmental impact is multiplied by their technological energy consumption. If someone used no additional energy beyond the food they ate, their TF value would be 1 HE. If their TF is 2 HE, it means they have twice the impact on their environment as someone who used no additional energy. Someone with a TF of 10 HE has the same impact as ten people without energy assistance.
The average TF of an American is about 79 HE. An average European has a TF of about 36 HE, and an average Indian is just under 6 HE. China has an average TF about equal to the world average today, at about 20 HE.
Here's a side note for other Canadians. Our country has the seventh highest TF in the world, the highest TF of any modern industrialized nation, at 103.
Here is one diagram:
Above we have that in 1800 each human used about 1 HE and therefore the red and the blue curve overlap. Today the average expenditure is at or above 20 HE and this number multiplied by the number of people then gives about 140 billion HE.
I don't know how many people the Earth can really carry, but the above studies show that there are very many ways of looking at the problem.
When depopulation science and policy become too much and lead people to look for truth
Chefurka, the author of the two last articles, became distressed by his findings and became interested in Buddhist philosophy, because, as one can see in this FB post:
One of the problems with collapsology is that it tends to cause despair in its practitioners.
Earlier, I discovered while wrting a post that some of the founders of the German Green Party, like Petra Kelly and Herbert Rusche were also inspired by Buddhism. There is even a PhD about Buddhist Philosophy and the Ideals of Environmentalism. However, as the recent protests in mostly Buddhist Sri Lanka have shown, green policies and Buddhists are not always compatible.
The protests in Sri Lanka, may be an early example of what to expect more of in the future:
Session Date: May 9th 2020 Laura, Andromeda, and Artemis at the board Pierre, Joe, Chu, Ark, PoB, Scottie, Gaby, Niall, The Lunar Module, Noko the Wonderdog, Princess Leia Q: (L) This is May the 9th 2020. [Review of those present] So, who do we have with us this evening? A: Oleakmaea of...
Q: (Ark) I have a question. I have a certain vision and I would like to know if this is my wishful thinking, or a good thing that I have envisioned. My vision is the following: As a response to pollution and industrialization and so on, we have this emergence of the "Green Parties". Now, my vision is thatthere will be very soon the beginning of a social movement like Green Peace but AGAINST all these lies. This will explode. People will go into parties fighting against these lies, okay? And it will lead even to social unrest and I see it not in the distant future. Now, is it my wishful thinking, or something like this is going to happen?
@thorbiorn
I've noticed over months on end that you have made a habit out of posting these kind of overviews in an ever growing number of threads and I've been plagued with a slowly but surely growing urge -and now a pressing need- to deeply thank you for your efforts and your time in doing so. All the posts I've seen were very informative and a truly time saving contribution in whatever context they were posted. I know from personal experience how difficult and time consuming it is to gather such information and present it in a clear format that really helps others to expand their knowledge base if they are so inclined. Keep it up, please...
So in short:
One note on the first graph of historical human population estimates: I’m thinking that if you go back to the Atlantean pre flood era, the global population would have been similar or at least somewhere approaching (5-8 billion?) what we have now. Obviously that is a wild guess but, the idea that this is the first time the population has gotten this high by orders of magnitude over anything previous is a low probability, imo.
One note on the first graph of historical human population estimates: I’m thinking that if you go back to the Atlantean pre flood era, the global population would have been similar or at least somewhere approaching (5-8 billion?) what we have now. Obviously that is a wild guess but, the idea that this is the first time the population has gotten this high by orders of magnitude over anything previous is a low probability, imo.
Has anybody heard about something called the "RotoVerter" ? Supposedly being a free energy technology.
I stumbled upon it in this interview of this person, specialized in permaculture (french).
From 57'30'', he starts referencing ultra alternative technologies, notably the RotoVerter, which his brother and him used at the time of this video.
He explains that everything is findable on the internet, that it is a dangerous technology based on resonance. They would have a performance return multipied x10 ("with 1000W he takes back 10000").
Well now, I'm clearly not an expert yet concerning the subject, I'm still very curious about it though.
I've been surprised not to find this name coming up in the forum's search bar.
I know about this excerpt from Adventures with Cassiopaea HERE
"We come back to the fact that someone wrote some letters to Morris Jessup about his book on UFOs, including specific mention (in the very first paragraph), of a particular paper of Albert Einstein, which, as it happens, is the wrong paper to follow, and as soon as Dr. Jessup was discovered to have been "mysteriously killed," the story was off and running! And all the researchers have been mis-led ever since, following the wrong paper. And it's all about "free energy," so to say. This should give everyone pause when they read the claims of the many purveyors of New Age Free Energy devices. If you really discover it, you're dead."
But still, he clearly means that they use it. He implies as well the fact that there are resonance issues, creating time- space breaches, portals, making it a dangerous technology not to disclose too much.
He doesn't explain more than that.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
