Saying the quiet part out loud: billionaires don't want the little people around, they want us to quietly go away and stop existing on their dime (because obviously all the dimes belong to the deserving poor, er, billionaires).
This is eliminationist rhetoric, aimed at you (and me).
#Project2025 calls for a 25%-40% reduction to the #US #population over the next 4 years.
That's why we are seeing the idiocy we are seeing right now.
#Trump is actually trying to kill us.
@Bandersnatch @cstross Do you have a source for this '25%-40%' reduction? I've never seen this in any of their writings.
To the best of my knowledge they want women to make more babies, which is the traditional conservative view to the best of my knowledge.
(Whereas a reduction in the world population would be a good thing for the planet)
Not when it's done via epidemic & starvation.
I'll have to find the video I watched again, it referred the page number, but I can't remember it off the top of my head.
@Bandersnatch @cstross Obviously, yeah, natural population decline due to people having fewer children is where things should be and what most of us mean when we speak of depopulating the planet.
Thanks, I'm curious, it's been a while since I read it and large swaths I only read diagonally so you may be right, just haven't seen it referenced before.
@Schouten_B @Bandersnatch Natural population de-growth due to demographic transition is incompatible with capitalism—it's inherently deflationary and reduces demand for housing (which props up a huge amount of the constantly inflating credit bubble underlying post-1950 economic "growth").
@cstross @Bandersnatch Not entirely true. Should the 'AI replaces humans' prediction be true population de-growth could be perfectly compatible with global product expansion. Several European countries have gone through decade long periods where population stability was accompanied with GDP growth.
The idea that you need population growth for GDP growth is kind of an old school economic thing that hasn't really held up the last 50 years.
@Schouten_B @Bandersnatch Well yes, but now you're positing "and then a miracle happens" (long term growth decoupled from population because something something magic artificial intelligence).
@cstross @Bandersnatch It's not a discrete event though right? We already see this in terms of mass production robots and all such things. They have drastically reduced the amount of human resources required to achieve a certain product. That process will probably continue more gradually rather than with the type of discrete singularity that some of the AI bulls seem to suggest. But the timeline of that process I think is very hard to predict.
@Schouten_B @Bandersnatch They want THEIR women to make more babies (that is, the women they own at chattel): the poor [implied: brown] people can starve to death or die of climate change. The unspoken agenda is white supremacism.
@cstross @Bandersnatch Sure. A 25-45% population reduction would not be compatible with that agenda though.
@Schouten_B @Bandersnatch @cstross
They want more *white* women to make more white babies. It's a minor, but important distinction.
@bruce @Bandersnatch @cstross Totally fair. I believe SCOTUS called it 'the domestic supply of infants'.
@Schouten_B @bruce @Bandersnatch That's a real neat euphemism for "farming white babies".
@cstross @bruce @Bandersnatch I was sort of being misleading. ACB quoted that term. But is is an -actual term- that was used.
@Schouten_B @Bandersnatch @cstross
They want white babies, not just babies. They can eliminate every one else and just have white babies.......
@Bandersnatch @cstross inside and outside the USA
