But because the 95% population reduction seems to haunt quite a few people out there, I decided that it deserves a thread on its own. I hope you'll agree.
Just for the sake of whether it is feasible or not, we'll assume that the "Illuminati" exist, are completely void of any conscience & possess limitless funds. We'll also assume that the remainder making up the 350 million are willing to go along with their plan. Although frankly, these issues alone put the whole claim into doubt.
So, let's have a look at this, shall we.
The world population currently stands at around 7 billion (I'll use round numbers throughout to make it easier).
A 95% reduction would equal having to get rid of 6.6 Billion people. That's 6600 million people, just to make it clear.
Now, there's two ways to go about that. Short-term or long-term.
Let's look at short-term first. How to kill 6.6 Billion people? I say with 99.9% certainty it's impossible.
- Any measure involving nuclear weapons on this scale is nonsensical as it would render the whole planet inhabitable for generations & kill off most other animal life as well.
- The same goes for chemical weapons. Imagine the amounts of toxins released in air or water-supplies. What would happen to them? They'd poison the entire ecosystem. Then the logistics.. Preparing this on a global scale simultaneously without anyone noticing? Very unlikely.
- Using a highly virulent designer-virus/disease (With the corresponding vaccine for the Illuminati, of course)? Too risky & very likely still too slow. The chances of either the virus mutating & rendering the vaccine useless, thus threatening the Illuminati with dying from it too or the rest of the world being able to contain it before the virus made it around the globe are very high.
-For those who think AIDS, H1N1 or the like could be candidates, their origins are well documented & it's obvious they're not working . Population growth still largely outstrips related deaths.
- Waiting for an impending cataclysm in 2012 or whenever: That's not planning, that's hoping for a "miracle" doing the work for you.
With regards to the idea that the Illuminati would hide in underground facilities:
- You'd have to assume that they would have to shelter the entire 350 million people they want to save, wouldn't make sense otherwise.
- Weather mountain can shelter "several hundred" people max. But let's be generous, let's assume they built huge facilities that can shelter a thousand people. The Illuminati would have had built 350'000 facilities in the last 60+ years (from when we had the technology to do so) without anyone noticing. You do the maths.
- Sure, they could have built a handful of facilities to house the "Elite". But for the "common foot folk" they would have to use pretty much every pre-existing, and hence, known fallout-shelter & underground facility ever built. Most fallout-shelters these days have not been maintained or been converted for other uses, belonging to private individuals. Build millions of new ones without anyone noticing? Possible, but very unlikely.
- Whatever they would use to kill 6.6 Billion people, they would have to wait in the shelters at least a year for the bodies to decompose. What would happen in the meantime to sensitive installations such as Nuclear reactors, Chemical factories, Oil Refineries, etc.? Who would man them to prevent disasters?
So, to sum it up, a short-term population reduction is completely unrealistic, if not fantastic.
What about a long-term strategy?
- Annual births are currently about 134m per year. Annual deaths are about 56m, but expected to rise to 90m in 2050 (acc. to wiki). So we have an annual global net population growth of about 78m, or a bit over 1%.
- So, alone to offset net population growth, you'd have to kill an additional 78m people a year. That would be a 120% increase in mortality. You need to pause a moment here & try to visualize that number. 78 million people. That's over 200'000 people a day. Do you seriously believe that wouldn't be noticed?
- If you would want to accomplish the 95% reduction in 50 years, you'd have to kill about an additional 1% every year. That's around 140m people a year, every year, for the first 30 years at least just to get to a "decent" downsize. (I'm leaving out exponential decline for simplicity).
- If you'd want to do it in 100 - 150 years, you'd need a negative population growth of about 0.5%, so, kill around 100m people a year. That's always on top of the 'normal' death rate.
- So, even if they would find one or several discrete ways of doing it, alarm bells would go off everywhere as soon as death rates rocket & the global growth rate becomes negative. Government institutions & scientists in every country would immediately start to investigate to find the causes.
- Even a "fast version" of 50 years gives ample time to identify the cause & develop a remedy/vaccine/cure or simply contain it, should it be a virus/disease.
- The same logic applies to covert sterilization attempts, "induced" suicides or drug-use, deaths by pharmaceuticals, etc, etc. This "project" cannot be done by subtle means. The death-rates required to successfully reduce population would just be too high not to be noticed.
- Population reduction by war is also a nonsensical proposition. WWII, the 'deadliest' war in history, caused "only" 60m deaths. You'd need a war over 10 times deadlier, or 10 WWII's , etc.. Who would support such wars until that is achieved? Without completely destroying the planet in the process?
Conclusion: A forced 95% population reduction is utterly unworkable . I for one am not worried. Unless you're telling me that the Illuminati, should they exist, are completely lacking in any practical & mathematical skills whatsoever. I'd seriously doubt that.
I'd like to add a couple of thoughts about the famous or rather infamous quote on the Georgia Guidestone, from which the notion supposedly stems ("Maintain humanity under 500'000'000 in perpetual balance with nature").
If you take the trouble of reading the authors' elaborations on it, which can be found here, there is no mention or indication whatsoever that they intend to achieve this by killing people. They clearly talk about birth control & try to warn people about over-population.
And IMO, they are absolutely right to do so (warning about over-population, I mean) & their observations are very sensible. Anyone who doesn't realize the acuteness of the problem & simply relies on the advancement of technology to make it go away is day-dreaming.
Purely theoretically, in the way they are suggesting it, the 95% population reduction could be achieved, of course. But only in a concerted, global, voluntary effort, involving an enormous amount of common-sense and self-sacrifice from all of humanity. And that's not very likely to happen either.
PS: I'll have to turn off my PC now, there's a massive thunderstorm coming. So, I'm not ignoring any replies...just don't want my machine to get fried...
Edited by Antimony, 03 April 2010 - 08:51 PM.