United States Steve Bannon Claims Elite's Want to Limit Population to 500 Million, Replace Homo Sapiens With Cyborgs

[Bassoe]

Err...these people are feckless Neo-Liberals, not Bond Villains. "GDP line go up" is the limit of their ambitions.

They've got more money than they could spend in a thousand lifetimes and own the politicians who can offer bailouts if they want even more, money's just a tool for control.

 

[Bassoe]

...even if you feel that way there are literally an entire solar system worth of resources ready to be used...

Yes, but the leaders of the status quo absolutely won't allow said resources to be used since they realize the implications of space colonies, specifically, the creation of rivals with local manufacturing and resource extraction which would be next exporters to earth making them immune to economic sanctions and with defensive MAD deterrent (if you can build a rocket to move large masses around in space, you can build city-busting KKVs) against regime change.

What the left's base want is an idealized world and what those in power want is a dystopian idealize world with themselves in charge and I or anybody else could have told you that yesterday.

Mockingly reposting Grey Rook's thoughts on the matter from Spacebattles...

Nah. The favourite pastime of reactionaries is to project their own failures and desires onto their enemies. They think that their enemies want to kill off large portions of humanity, because the reactionaries want to kill off (and/or enslave) large portions of humanity. It's the same thing with how they keep claiming that their enemies are secretly in control of everything and have it out for them personally - it's because they want to hold absolute power over everyone and everything so that they can vent their grudges on those they hate. Once you realise that most of the things they say about their opponents/victims is stuff that they are doing themselves or want to do, their behaviour makes a lot more sense.

From a practical viewpoint, I see exactly what Bannon's getting at. The status quo have made it absolutely clear they want even more stringent control over society and to not have to offer the traditional bribe of "obey us and we'll give you a decent quality of life" since they don't have the resources to provide it and can't get them without creating competitors.


This leaves them two options, use transhumanism and economics to make people who literally can't revolt* or strike or automating everything so strikes are irreverent as the value of human labor was already nonexistent and revolts, such as the one comprising the 99% of humanity who aren't idle rich robotics company executives and who therefore are economically redundant can be crushed by mindlessly loyal killbots.

* If you don't have cybernetic implants, you're unemployable. The bare minimum standards for employment have been raised by competition with the superhuman capabilities of cyborgs. However, if you do have cybernetic implants, they've got all the spyware, planned obsolesce and remote overrides/killswitches you'd expect from Big Tech so you can be turned off with the touch of a button if you revolt and will die of organ failure/ketracel white withdrawal if you go on strike and can't afford regular maintenance.

 

[TriforcedLink]

The elite might say or even tell themselves that its about saving the environment, but ultimately its about centralizing their control over humanity so that they will never have to worry about the plebeians getting sick of their shit and killing them for being fucking incompetent.

Their odds are low in succeeding but I say that more out of sincere belief that they are just as retarded as the common man they swindle, rather then any faith in normie intelligence. The biggest black pill I've been force fed the past few years is realizing that the average person around me are little better than sheep. Humanity's nature as a tribalistic murder ape does leave me with some hope that a dystopian 1984-lite society will not come into pass because humans cannot resist backstabbing and bickering with each other enough for it to solidify for long.

 

[LordsFire]

Snip.

You are showing that you have d not understand how these technologies work.

1. Large-scale space mining and colonization is decades to centuries away. Until we can defeat the tyranny of the rocket equation, it simply is not economical to try to do bulk industry in space. If tomorrow we get some quantum-leap forward like a form of anti-grav tech that's reasonably cheap to build, that timetable could move up, but nothing less is going to accelerate it like that.

2. Automation cannot obsolete human labor. Not 'will have a hard time,' it can not. It can make specific kinds of human labor obsolete, as has already been demonstrated, but there are some things it simply cannot do, and even more it cannot do in a cost-effective way. Over time, gradually more and more things will become cost-effective, but as has been demonstrated over the last ~250 years, more work will always be found.

3. Large-scale use of cybernetics are still decades to centuries out, if they ever see mass-implementation at all. Simply put, the problem of man-machine interface still has not been solved. There's prototypes, there's experiments, and it's looking like it probably will be solved, but people have been expecting that to be available 'next decade' for forty years or more. We might see limited use next decade, and bulk use the decade after that, but that's optimism.

4. Cybernetic 'augmentation' is science fiction. In fiction, 'man+machine=stronger' is a very interesting and useful theme. In real life, the human body is an incredibly sophisticated, capable, strong, resilient, self-repairing, cheaply-fueled, machine the likes of which no human engineer has even come close to matching. Machines built for specialized purposes can be much better than a human at fulfilling that function, but adding the design requirement 'must be integrated into the human body' puts a massive set of constraints and contradicting designs imperative into the project. Conversely, an external machine is much easier and cheaper to design, build, operate, and maintain. Plus you don't need to rebuild from just about scratch if the person the cybernetic is integrated into dies.

Cybernetics, realistically, will be inferior replacements for damaged or destroyed body parts. If we get extremely well-developed mind-machine interface, we might see things like mental internet-browsing and similar, but that's a different branch.


I don't disagree that there are people who'd like to see such things happen, and exert such control over society. There is no shortage of such would-be tyrants, but we're decades or centuries from that kind of cyberpunk stuff.

I write sci-fi, and I've done quite a bit of research into what the actual practicalities of these things are, and how that contrasts with science fiction.

 

[Yinko]

Ugh the world as it is, is not over populated.

Seriously the carrying capacity of just earth is fucking insane especially with ever increasing technology, and even if you feel that way there are literally an entire solar system worth of resources ready to be used. I do think the very rich probably think that way its completely stupid and amoral but quite a few of them probably do think that.

In terms of food? More or less, for now, except that essential mineral fertilizers are running out and without them our production rate will go back to what it was a century ago, I think it's potassium that is the biggest concern but I might be mistaken on that. A lot of good farm land that relies on well water is running out as well, all over the world.

If you increase that to look at the patterns of consumption, it would take several Earth's (a very vague measure since this only counts the surface accessible minerals) to make everyone as affluent as we expect the first world to be, in terms of things like housing, cars, computers, etc. Producing materials like these also leads to green house gases, so if they want to have their modern luxuries while also caring about the environment then the easiest solution is to decrease the demand by decreasing the number of consumers.

You mention asteroid mining, but there's no real guarantee that that will take off, especially since the ticking clock is counting down to practical negligible senescence. Which is probably a look sooner than most people think, since it was already 5-10 years out before Jeff Bezos publicly invested a massive fortune into it. Once that comes on line, it's going to be a lot harder to deal with population, and I imagine that people will eventually wise up to manipulations, if they live a few centuries and have seen it all before.

Sounds like the Georgia Guidestones

And, mysteriously, no one knows who paid for those...

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I don't disagree that there are people who'd like to see such things happen, and exert such control over society. There is no shortage of such would-be tyrants, but we're decades or centuries from that kind of cyberpunk stuff.

I write sci-fi, and I've done quite a bit of research into what the actual practicalities of these things are, and how that contrasts with science fiction.

I'd also argue that whilst these people do exist, I'm not sure if they're in the driving seat at the moment (if ever). I think most Neo-Libs (the people actually in charge and the philosophy of government in the 21st century) would hear some of the stuff that comes out Bill Gate's mouth and think "huh...that's a bit weird."

A little off topic, but what sci-fi have you written? I'm always on the look out for half decent science fiction, given the genre is practically in its death throws at the moment (thanks, proggies!).

 

[LordsFire]

In terms of food? More or less, for now, except that essential mineral fertilizers are running out and without them our production rate will go back to what it was a century ago, I think it's potassium that is the biggest concern but I might be mistaken on that. A lot of good farm land that relies on well water is running out as well, all over the world.

If you increase that to look at the patterns of consumption, it would take several Earth's (a very vague measure since this only counts the surface accessible minerals) to make everyone as affluent as we expect the first world to be, in terms of things like housing, cars, computers, etc. Producing materials like these also leads to green house gases, so if they want to have their modern luxuries while also caring about the environment then the easiest solution is to decrease the demand by decreasing the number of consumers.

You mention asteroid mining, but there's no real guarantee that that will take off, especially since the ticking clock is counting down to practical negligible senescence. Which is probably a look sooner than most people think, since it was already 5-10 years out before Jeff Bezos publicly invested a massive fortune into it. Once that comes on line, it's going to be a lot harder to deal with population, and I imagine that people will eventually wise up to manipulations, if they live a few centuries and have seen it all before.

On each of these points, you've read too much into the alarmist's propaganda.

While there are developing issues with depletion of aquifers and potential issues with fertilizer shortfall, these are not the existential threats that some people would make them out to be. What may happen is that it becomes substantially more expensive to grow crops and raise livestock. This is potentially a major problem, but it's not an existential threat.

If, for example, it becomes necessary to handle all future crop-growing inside of enormous greenhouses? We can do that. It'd be worlds more expensive, especially if they need to be closed systems for water usage, but it can absolutely be done. Starvation isn't the issue; spending a lot more on food, and a lot less on luxuries, would be.

Further, 'levels of consumption' is another canard that alarmists like to take advantage of, and produce 'scientific' papers that are just another iteration of malthusian prophesies, like how the 'population bomb' was going to cause mass starvation by the early 90's.

More practically, it's not just what is being produced, but how it is being produced. As industrial technology has improved, it's become more efficient, and recycling technology develops further and further. We're a long, long way from turning the world into a desolate industrial wasteland; the only part of the world in any serious danger of becoming that right now is China; other parts have some issues, and some of those issues are serious, but for the most part the 'first world' has learned how to do industrial things without causing too much environmental harm.

There are things that need to be dealt with, but thinking that we're on the verge of disaster...

Well, it's been fashionable among the leftist social elite for decades. And their predictions have been wrong every time as well.

 

[Terthna]

In terms of food? More or less, for now, except that essential mineral fertilizers are running out and without them our production rate will go back to what it was a century ago, I think it's potassium that is the biggest concern but I might be mistaken on that. A lot of good farm land that relies on well water is running out as well, all over the world.

If you increase that to look at the patterns of consumption, it would take several Earth's (a very vague measure since this only counts the surface accessible minerals) to make everyone as affluent as we expect the first world to be, in terms of things like housing, cars, computers, etc. Producing materials like these also leads to green house gases, so if they want to have their modern luxuries while also caring about the environment then the easiest solution is to decrease the demand by decreasing the number of consumers.

You mention asteroid mining, but there's no real guarantee that that will take off, especially since the ticking clock is counting down to practical negligible senescence. Which is probably a look sooner than most people think, since it was already 5-10 years out before Jeff Bezos publicly invested a massive fortune into it. Once that comes on line, it's going to be a lot harder to deal with population, and I imagine that people will eventually wise up to manipulations, if they live a few centuries and have seen it all before.


And, mysteriously, no one knows who paid for those...

Part of the problem is that we've mostly stopped rotating crops to replenish the nutrients in the soil; instead, we just plant corn over and over again, because that's what the government pays people to grow. If we stopped doing that, they're be a lot less need for so much fertilizer.

 

[LordsFire]

Part of the problem is that we've mostly stopped rotating crops to replenish the nutrients in the soil; instead, we just plant corn over and over again, because that's what the government pays people to grow. If we stopped doing that, they're be a lot less need for so much fertilizer.

That is one of the problems I've read a bit about.

Yet another example of how government interference in things is about 95% guaranteed to both make them worse, and be almost impossible to reverse.

 

[ShieldWife]

Reducing the world population to 500 million people who have high standards of living, cybernetics, and environmental sustainability is an idea that triggers certain kinds of conservatives and it’s what they think leftist elites want.

Some probably like the idea of that sort of thing, but I honestly don’t think that the goal of the leftist elites is as noble or idealistic (flawed though it be be) as the low population techno-utopia that some conservatives fear.

 

[Bacle]

Reducing the world population to 500 million people who have high standards of living, cybernetics, and environmental sustainability is an idea that triggers certain kinds of conservatives and it’s what they think leftist elites want.

Some probably like the idea of that sort of thing, but I honestly don’t think that the goal of the leftist elites is as noble or idealistic (flawed though it be be) as the low population techno-utopia that some conservatives fear.

You forgot the lure of digital immortality, and many, many powerful people have done horrible things to their nations while in search of immortality.

The other parts of the situation are 'nice to have', but digital immortality is something a lot of tech elite, and their financiers, are interested in.

 

[ShieldWife]

You forgot the lure of digital immortality, and many, many powerful people have done horrible things to their nations while in search of immortality.

The other parts of the situation are 'nice to have', but digital immortality is something a lot of tech elite, and their financiers, are interested in.

Well, digital immortality is certainly appealing, assuming it was workable. Sounds pretty nice to me honestly. But the question is, where would the malicious world dominating depopulating conspiracy theory come in? If some scientist said they were working on downloading brains to computers, I wouldn’t think anything was nefarious about it, and I don’t think that you need a world dominating conspiracy to develop that, even if you’re doing it secretly.

 

[Bacle]

Well, digital immortality is certainly appealing, assuming it was workable. Sounds pretty nice to me honestly. But the question is, where would the malicious world dominating depopulating conspiracy theory come in? If some scientist said they were working on downloading brains to computers, I wouldn’t think anything was nefarious about it, and I don’t think that you need a world dominating conspiracy to develop that, even if you’re doing it secretly.

The hardware needed for brain uploading is not cheap, easy, or simple to create or perfect, but at this stage it is closer to an engineering and logistical challenge, than needing massive tech breakthroughs.

So in order to secure the logistics to get to digital immortality while the tech bros are still alive, there need there to be a lot fewer plebs around to compete for them, in their minds. This is where climate change/deep ecology factors in to thier thinking as well.

Also the idea of building in dependency to the cyborg equipment, and using that to enslave the plebs like Jem'Hadar and thier ketracel white requirement to just live, is not something that can be discounted. The Wu Flu vax is probably also a test run for how far the elite can push something like that.

Digital immortality also does not mean being invunerable; it just means that instead of meatbag issues, you get software and hacking issues ala Ghost in the Shell.

I guess they could try for something like a self-aware holocron as an alternate route, but that probably is less...fun, than having cyborg bodies to do things with.

 

[LordsFire]

The hardware needed for brain uploading is not cheap, easy, or simple to create or perfect, but at this stage it is closer to an engineering and logistical challenge, than needing massive tech breakthroughs.

...Since when?

Last I checked, they knew what parts of the brain do what, but there was no way to try to read information out of any of it.

 

[ShieldWife]

I think that were really really far from brain uploads, especially if we’re talking about being able to continue a person’s consciously and thinking capability. It’s not a matter of resources, reducing the population by 90% wouldn’t help move them towards brain uploads which, lets be serious, won’t happen within the life of anybody alive now.

 

[Jormungandr]

Collectively, this sounds like a batshit insane conspiracy theory which, frankly, gives ammo to the people who believe our site is nothing more than an "alt-right nut chamber". People agreeing with it doesn't help things. sigh

However, individually? I could absolutely see these elements advocating for lesser population, more control, and more authoritarianism (with the rich being the CCP on steroids). These individual elements aren't conspiracy theories but pretty much common sense/obvious cues.

 

[ShieldWife]

Honestly, I haven’t seen much effort by leftist elites to reduce the population of the world. They still want to pay people on welfare to have babies.

 

[Bigking321]

They still want to pay people on welfare to have babies.

They are the biggest advocates of abortion.

Planned parenthood was explicitly founded on eugenics and culling minority populations.

 

[LordsFire]

Honestly, I haven’t seen much effort by leftist elites to reduce the population of the world. They still want to pay people on welfare to have babies.

Have you forgotten about the pushing of abortion?

 

[Terthna]

I think that were really really far from brain uploads, especially if we’re talking about being able to continue a person’s consciously and thinking capability. It’s not a matter of resources, reducing the population by 90% wouldn’t help move them towards brain uploads which, lets be serious, won’t happen within the life of anybody alive now.

I think we're much closer to biological immortality; or at least extending life far enough to last until the next breakthrough, over and over again.