Pandemic 2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
CANON_Grow said:
Reducing population GROWTH.

"Gates was talking about reducing the rate of population growth, not the population, by 10 or 15%.

In past interviews, Gates has argued that improving vaccines and health care can paradoxically slow the rate of population growth in poor countries, because it lowers the child mortality rate."

apnews.com

Bill Gates never said ‘3 billion people need to die’

CLAIM: Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates wants to eliminate at least 3 billion people in the world, starting in Africa, in a plot involving vaccines...
apnews.com apnews.com
Click to expand...
What you quoted was one person's opinion. Let's post what Bill Gates did say, and let the people decide if Gates seems interested in population reduction or not.

"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent".

-Bill Gates, 2010
 
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Population is a problem solving itself with female emancipation, minimal living standards and the rule of law. Developed nations have a serious demographic shortfall in population and must import people, Japan will be in trouble and China is having problems raising it's birthrates now. It might be a rough century, but eventually the human global population will shrink, one way or another...

As for Bill Gates, he was referring to a general global issue in general terms not advocating eugenic solutions. His vaccine program could defeat malaria that kills many children in poor countries every year. He is also trying to figure out what to do with human shit, before we are buried in it I suppose. Elon whines about over population too, but I get a different vibe from him and no solutions to help the poor. If Elon could solve world hunger for 6 billion, Gates and Warren Buffet would have paid for it with pocket change.
Click to expand...
Starting to hear about this more but I don't understand/can't grasp why it is such an issue? With the advancement of robotics and the automation of jobs, would population reduction not be beneficial during a period of reduced employment? I think it's an issue with defining growth in the way we traditionally have. Why can't we redefine what growth actually means? If we get farming and energy to be more automated, which is already happening, why not focus on growth of innovation, automate more of the medical field with AI reading medical imaging and robots performing more surgeries?
 
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
PJ Diaz said:
What you quoted was one person's opinion. Let's post what Bill Gates did say, and let the people decide if Gates seems interested in population reduction or not.

"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent".

-Bill Gates, 2010
Click to expand...
Don't leave out:

"Amazingly, as children survive, parents feel like they’ll have enough kids to support them in their old age, so they choose to have less children,” Gates said in a 2012 interview."
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
CANON_Grow said:
Don't leave out:

"Amazingly, as children survive, parents feel like they’ll have enough kids to support them in their old age, so they choose to have less children,” Gates said in a 2012 interview."
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's an interesting theory, albeit a flawed one.

Bill Gates sure does love Depo-Provera though.
 
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
CANON_Grow said:
Starting to hear about this more but I don't understand/can't grasp why it is such an issue? With the advancement of robotics and the automation of jobs, would population reduction not be beneficial during a period of reduced employment? I think it's an issue with defining growth in the way we traditionally have. Why can't we redefine what growth actually means? If we get farming and energy to be more automated, which is already happening, why not focus on growth of innovation, automate more of the medical field with AI reading medical imaging and robots performing more surgeries?
Click to expand...
There are issues with the capitalist ethos and the way the current economic system is structured, capitalism needs growth, not just for workers, but for consumers too. Technology has always led to social and economic change and all are happening at an increasing rate. I don't view a decreased human population as an issue over time since I will be dead, but I will say this, we need fewer people to produce more every year and are on the cusp of major technological changes. The batteries developed for EVs could power humanoid robots in 20 years and AI could help move things along much faster too. People will either live lives of increasing leisure and wealth, or be seen as useless mouths to feed by an elite in a dystopian future.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
CANON_Grow said:
Flawed or not, it supports that Bill Gates was speaking about reducing population growth, not just reducing the population.
Click to expand...
I agree with your assessment that he also wants to also reduce population growth, and not just the population. However a statement made in 2012 does not support the reasoning of a statement which was made two years prior.
 
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
PJ Diaz said:
I agree with your assessment that he also wants to also reduce population growth, and not just the population. However a statement made in 2012 does not support the reasoning of a statement which was made two years prior.
Click to expand...
It's a cherry picked 22 seconds of the 27 minute TED talk:
4:17
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3."

He is still referencing an increase in the population.
www.ted.com

Innovating to zero!

At TED2010, Bill Gates unveils his vision for the world's energy future, describing the need for "miracles" to avoid planetary catastrophe and explaining why he's backing a dramatically different type of nuclear reactor. The necessary goal? Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050.
www.ted.com www.ted.com
 
Last edited:
CANON_Grow

CANON_Grow

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
People will either live lives of increasing leisure and wealth, or be seen as useless mouths to feed by an elite in a dystopian future.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it will be increased leisure and wealth, but it won't be useless mouths to feed by an elite. No empire can be sustained if the people don't believe in it. Going to have to give this further thought.
 
PJ Diaz

PJ Diaz

Well-Known Member
CANON_Grow said:
It's a cherry picked 22 seconds of the 27 minute TED talk:
4:17
"The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's headed up to about nine billion. Now, if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by, perhaps, 10 or 15 percent. But there, we see an increase of about 1.3."

He is still referencing and increase in the population.
www.ted.com

Innovating to zero!

At TED2010, Bill Gates unveils his vision for the world's energy future, describing the need for "miracles" to avoid planetary catastrophe and explaining why he's backing a dramatically different type of nuclear reactor. The necessary goal? Zero carbon emissions globally by 2050.
www.ted.com www.ted.com
Click to expand...
I already agreed with you that he wants to reduce both population and also population growth. The thing is reducing population growth is the first step in population reduction. He has been very actively concerned in this arena for quite some time. Maybe even for longer than he's been flying to Epstein Island.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top