Is Global Population Declining?

[basel]

i think you could call this news, although if not, we can move it to the right place. i can't find the link to the page maybe someone could help but i think it's worthy of conversation:

UK Belfast 1951 444,000 1991 295,000 -33.6% -1.017%
UK Birmingham 1951 1,113,000 2001 977,000 -12.2% -0.260%
UK Bristol 1951 444,000 2001 381,000 -14.2% -0.306%
UK Cardiff 1981 282,000 1991 273,000 -3.2% -0.324%
UK Coventry 1981 337,000 2001 301,000 -10.7% -0.563%
UK Edinburgh 1951 475,000 2001 449,000 -5.5% -0.113%
UK Glasgow 1931 1,088,000 2001 579,000 -46.8% -0.897%
UK Leeds 1961 511,000 1991 424,000 -17.0% -0.620%
UK Liverpool 1931 857,000 2001 439,000 -48.8% -0.951%
UK London 1939 8,615,000 2001 7,172,000 -16.7% -0.295%
UK Manchester 1931 766,000 2001 393,000 -48.7% -0.949%
UK Sheffield 1981 558,000 2001 513,000 -8.1% -0.420%
...
US Baltimore 1950 950,000 2000 651,000 -31.5% -0.753%
US Boston 1950 801,000 2000 589,000 -26.5% -0.613%
US Buffalo 1950 580,000 2000 293,000 -49.5% -1.356%
US Chicago 1950 3,621,000 2000 2,896,000 -20.0% -0.446%
US Cincinnati 1950 504,000 2000 331,000 -34.3% -0.837%
US Cleveland 1950 915,000 2000 478,000 -47.8% -1.290%
US Detroit 1950 1,850,000 2000 951,000 -48.6% -1.322%
US Kansas City 1970 507,000 2000 442,000 -12.8% -0.456%
US Milwaukee 1960 741,000 2000 597,000 -19.4% -0.539%
US Minneapolis 1950 522,000 2000 383,000 -26.6% -0.617%
US New Orleans1960 628,000 2000 485,000 -22.8% -0.644%
US Newark 1930 442,000 2000 274,000 -38.0% -0.681%
US Philadelphi 1950 2,072,000 2000 1,518,000 -26.7% -0.620%
US Pittsburgh 1950 677,000 2000 335,000 -50.5% -1.397%
US St. Louis 1950 857,000 2000 348,000 -59.4% -1.786%
US Washington 1950 802,000 2000 572,000 -28.7% -0.674%
http://www.demographia.com/db-intlcityloss.htm

The above chart shows the peak year and population, and the declining conditions in 2000. Current US data is very hard to find, and I suggest that is because they don't want us to realize we are already being phased out.

[reverendjim]

those are cities of two western countries. the more developed a country is the more likely birth rates fall. they dont need 10 kids to to be economic engines for their poor families as they live affluent lives by comparison. thats why the governments in the west want immigration...you cant keep the growth going in a fractional reserve system if the proles ain't having kids. and if growth stops the fractional reserve economy implodes. it doesn't hurt to keep the proles off balance either.

world population is an entirely different story. its growing.

[thegatherer]

No it's not declining worldwide, it's the highest it's ever been at something like 8.5 billion.

Much as I hate devious depopulation agendas etc, I've got to admit that human population cant be allowed grow at the rate it is doing indefinitely without some type of intervention. I'm not sure the exact maths of it but to say the population has grown exponentially since the middle ages wouldn't be far off the truth.

[reverendjim]

Originally Posted by thegatherer

No it's not declining worldwide, it's the highest it's ever been at something like 8.5 billion.

Much as I hate devious depopulation agendas etc, I've got to admit that human population cant be allowed grow at the rate it is doing indefinitely without some type of intervention. I'm not sure the exact maths of it but to say the population has grown exponentially since the middle ages wouldn't be far off the truth.

oh but dont you know? the world can support twice as many people..and it can grow and grow and grow....forever.

a smaller population means the finite stuff lasts longer. there is an end to those materials. the sooner we get people to the astroid belt the better. and thats with controlled population.

i'm all for green tech too. the sooner we stop polluting the better. global warming? so what? building on the shore and in flood plains too is idiocy to start with. but so is poisoning the planet. but its probably too late on that score anyway.

[oz93666]

Originally Posted by basel

The above chart shows the peak year and population, and the declining conditions in 2000. Current US data is very hard to find, and I suggest that is because they don't want us to realize we are already being phased out.

Population decline is the biggest long term threat facing humanity ....

EVERY country that achieves a decent standard of living sees it's population start to nose dive ....women have been brainwashed into believing child birth is painful and dangerous ... and children will restrict their freedom and are a hassle .... they choose to have fluffy surrogates ....



As for us being "phased out" .... the illuminati have no plan to phase us out .. they have purposefully kept most of the world poor so that the population will rise ... then they can convince many that humans are a problem , a 'cancer' and we must be culled .

[thegatherer]

Originally Posted by reverendjim

oh but dont you know? the world can support twice as many people..and it can grow and grow and grow....forever.

a smaller population means the finite stuff lasts longer. there is an end to those materials. the sooner we get people to the astroid belt the better. and thats with controlled population.

i'm all for green tech too. the sooner we stop polluting the better. global warming? so what? building on the shore and in flood plains too is idiocy to start with. but so is poisoning the planet. but its probably too late on that score anyway.

If a few hundred thousand became 8.5 billion in about 1000 years, then what will 8.5 billion become at the same rate of growth in another 1000 years? Wont be nice, and it wont be peace on Earth as people fight for various resources. Will get very ugly in my opinion.

[basel]

Originally Posted by thegatherer

If a few hundred thousand became 8.5 billion in about 1000 years, then what will 8.5 billion become at the same rate of growth in another 1000 years? Wont be nice, and it wont be peace on Earth as people fight for various resources. Will get very ugly in my opinion.

i think the one thing i noticed was that the figures where for the main city's in the uk, you would expect the rural areas to lose people to the citys, due to work and better prospects, how ever that does not seem to be the trend

[basel]

Originally Posted by oz93666

Population decline is the biggest long term threat facing humanity ....

EVERY country that achieves a decent standard of living sees it's population start to nose dive ....women have been brainwashed into believing child birth is painful and dangerous ... and children will restrict their freedom and are a hassle .... they choose to have fluffy surrogates ....

the illuminati have no plan to phase us out .. they have purpAs for us " osefully kept most of the world poor so that the population will rise ... then they can convince many that humans are a problem , a 'cancer' and we must be culled .

Sorry the text at the bottom of my first post came from the website

[derekbuttery]

Georgia Guidestones - AGENDA 21

[basel]

Originally Posted by derekbuttery

Georgia Guidestones - AGENDA 21

Agreed, as they say written in stone

[donjuan]

The massive push to get as many migrants as possible makes me think there is some agenda that requires human souls.

Less people, less animal agriculture, less pollution, less war etc why is this seen as bad.

[basel]

Originally Posted by donjuan

The massive push to get as many migrants as possible makes me think there is some agenda that requires human souls.

Less people, less animal agriculture, less pollution, less war etc why is this seen as bad.

i once read a quote somewhere that said "you could fit all the people in the world in the state of texas and give everyone an acre" over population is a complete myth

[derekbuttery]

Originally Posted by donjuan

The massive push to get as many migrants as possible makes me think there is some agenda that requires human souls.

Less people, less animal agriculture, less pollution, less war etc why is this seen as bad.

more people in less space. super cities. human super centres. massive no go areas for humans. super massive agricultural (natural agriculture, NOT monsanto sponsored crap), areas of free roaming animals, unchecked plant life etc.... agenda 21.

super cities contained and only conjoined by high speed underground tube trains (see elon musk).

it's happening. they are putting the very fear of death into people out here. last years we had fort mcmurray wild fires (even though I still think these were big oil insurance jobs), this year BC is being hit in remote areas. towns being destroyed, folks being forced from their land and into cities. a few more years like this and those small holdings, small towns shall be no more, then land swallowed by the crown corporation (check out how much of canada is owned by the crown corporation). mass migration from areas of mineral value, forcing the peoples into an unwelcoming area, war pretty much ensuring they can and will never return home.


AGENDA 21

[reverendjim]

Originally Posted by thegatherer

If a few hundred thousand became 8.5 billion in about 1000 years, then what will 8.5 billion become at the same rate of growth in another 1000 years? Wont be nice, and it wont be peace on Earth as people fight for various resources. Will get very ugly in my opinion.

it will definitely get very ugly. bet on it.

[derekbuttery]

you humans will be fine. nothing to think about. doing the same job as everyone else on the planet. dressing the same. eating the same soylent green. watching the same propaganda movies, reading the same texts and wondering why WE let this happen. healthy as a butcher's dog as you'll have to walk everywhere... life's peachy in the 30th century...

[polyhedron]

Has anyone actualy made a concerted effort at an independan enquirey into finding out just how many people really do exist? Who and what is one trusting when getting hold of information concerning population statistics? Why do people immediately assume that governments are telling the unadulterated truth when it comes to the matter of a population census??

[derekbuttery]

Originally Posted by polyhedron

Has anyone actualy made a concerted effort at an independan enquirey into finding out just how many people really do exist? Who and what is one trusting when getting hold of information concerning population statistics? Why do people immediately assume that governments are telling the unadulterated truth when it comes to the matter of a population census??

I was thinking / attempting to do the same. BUT all relevant numbers, information etc. are held by govt. (local, state / provincial / federal etc..)

I think they assume that the govt. loves us enough to tell us the truth and keep us safe... however, when you state the contrary it's you that's the fool (well, me anyways!!)



(off topic : but does anyone remember as a kid there was a strange science fact, that during this time (early-80s for arguments sake) the world's population if standing side by side, could easily stand together on the isle of wight?, if the population of china at this time all jumped together they could knock the earth out of it's orbit?, and if the population of india at this time, sprayed a can of hairspray for no more than 10 seconds (at the same time I guess) the earth would plunge into a fireball... )

[motleyhoo]

Don't know about world population, but the naturalized population of industrialized countries has been falling for years. That's what happens when you don't need kids to work in the fields and take care of you when you get old.

It's also one of the reasons for the mass immigration being allowed into these countries. When you build your economy on endless continuous growth you need more and more bodies to borrow money and buy things.

As a consequence, the largest population growth right now is among poor, uneducated peoples.

.

[st jimmy]

I must admit that a World population of 7 billion people makes me terrified…
According to the state media the majority of the world population survives in Asia.

I’m just a simple guy and all of this state propaganda is just way too difficult for me to understand.
Maybe the state media can explain how communist China introduced a strict one-child policy at the end of the 1970s, but the population of China increased with some 40%: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

According to the state media the population of the Philippines has exploded.
A 5 time increase of the population from 1950 to 2012 (from 20 to 100 million) – that’s more than 2.6% per year, more than 30% every 10 years.
If you believe this, you’re the victim of mind control.


Almost as impressive is the official population growth of India from 361 million in 1951 to a whopping 1.327 billion in 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_India


If you want to know what’s happening, take a look at the website of the “philanthropic” organisation Negative Population Growth, that is “helping” us to solve the “devastating effects of overpopulation”: http://www.npg.org/

Negative Population Growth, Inc. (NPG) is a national nonprofit membership organization. It was founded in 1972 to educate the American public and political leaders about the devastating effects of overpopulation on our environment, resources and standard of living. We believe that our nation is already vastly overpopulated in terms of the long-range carrying capacity of its resources and environment.

Originally Posted by motleyhoo

Don't know about world population, but the naturalized population of industrialized countries has been falling for years. That's what happens when you don't need kids to work in the fields and take care of you when you get old.

We in the "civilised" world have the superior vaccines to reduce fertility...

This type of eugenics couldn’t be discovered (especially with the same elite that control big pharma, also controlling education and mainstream media).
And such a strategy would really cut both ways, because the happy couple that would be “helped” by the medical industry with artificial insemination techniques to give them a baby, would stand in awe of big pharma, which would be to blame for their misfortune in the first place…

The GAVI Alliance was founded in 2000 with the help of the Gates Foundation, other donors include: the Rockefeller foundation, UNICEF, World Health Organization (WHO), and World Bank.
GAVI has the goal of vaccinating the entire third World.
Obviously part of the plan is to reduce fertility for depopulation purposes.
The research by Jurriaan Maessen, is an important source for information on anti-fertility vaccines.
There are not only vaccines to reduce fertility, but pregnant women are forced to get vaccinated, which has caused abortions in Thailand and the Philippines: http://www.oldthinkernews.com/2010/0...ion-reduction/


A 2010 study conducted by the Philippine Medical Association (PMA) indicated that Philippine women were “unwittingly vaccinated against their own children”.
By linking hCG with tetanus antigens in a vaccine, researchers fool a woman’s immune system into producing antibodies against hCG, which makes her allergic to her own embryo.
Once her immune system is sufficiently stimulated against hCG, the pregnant woman will spontaneously abort the embryo: https://www.pop.org/bad-blood-in-the-philippines/


The following report shows that influenza vaccination causes abortions in lab animals; Ayoub & Yazbak “Influenza Vaccination During Pregnancy: A Critical Assessment of the Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP)” (2006): http://www.whale.to/vaccine/ayoub.pdf



The 1978 WHO task force “Evaluating the safety and efficacy of placental antigen vaccines for fertility regulation”, shows initiatives to use vaccines for reduced fertility.
It even shows that they already knew then that hCG can cause abortions: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...00215-0170.pdf

Although substantial progress has been made over the last few years in the provision of family planning services to many of the World's populations, there is still an urgent need for a greater variety of safe, effective and acceptable methods of fertility regulation to meet widely differing personal, cultural and service requirements.
Immunization as a prophylactic measure is now so widely accepted that it has been suggested that one method of fertility regulation which might have wide appeal as well as great ease of service delivery would be an anti-fertility vaccine.
(…)
In principle, anti-fertility vaccines may: (a) prevent sperm transport and/or fertilization; (b) prevent or disrupt implantation; and (c) prevent blastocyst development.
(…)
Several potential complications have to be considered upon immunization of humans with immunogenic conjugates of HCG-derived antigens. Some of these hazards are related to potential disruption of the endocrinological balance and maternal-embryonal relationships; others are related to the possible autoimmunity induced with human-derived material as an autoantigen. Consideration of these potential hazards should provide guidelines for design and evaluation of animal and human studies.

[scouse22]

The site linked is hardly professional.

Regarding official stats such as the O.N.S. the dating for cities doesn't go back further than 1971 in which case the UK has grown by nearly 15million hardly in decline.

It is true that western countries (most) birth rates are at a level that should be leading to population decline. Some of the cabal don't like this and thus push the open borders and mass immigration to keep the population growing. This means more money borrowing and increasing prices for necessities (food, housing water etc).

Even 30 years ago you could buy a house on a single persons 1 year salary in the UK, that was bad for control as it effectively free'd people not just financially (allowing them to invest in start up companies or shares) but more importantly from stress. No one who worked full time and lived within their means would struggle back then. Nowadays it takes 2 adults working full time and a good 30-40 years to pay off a house if near minimum wage. When you factor in moderately healthy living even a basic house with bills/work costs/food will set most back 70% of their earnings. I grew up being told you should spend no more than 30% on your home/bills, 20% should go straight into a savings account for your future and the remaining 50% was for leisure/retirement and for practical things such as a car. It is shocking to see that the price most pay for a car now is the same price their parents bought their home for.