Bill Gates wants 1 Billion dead.

I do note a very 19th century flavour of distaste for genetic engineering, if you could allow the anachronism. Where some breeds are not "genetically pure" and such. Also, peoples understanding of evolution seems to be along the lines of Lamarckism rather than Neo-Darwinian evolution, which again would be of a 19th century mind.

Strange.

The Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, said March 4 the Vatican has never pronounced an official position supporting or opposing genetically modified foods.

However, the paper said it was not a coincidence that in 2009 the use of genetically modified food crops grew by 13 percent in developing countries and that GM crops covered almost half of the world's total arable land and yet "the number of hungry people in the world has for the first time reached 1 billion people.

http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12046-vatican-official-cautions-against-gmos

Well there is a great mechanism for population control. It's called economic growth.

enno99 wrote: »

I apologise
Your 100% right about using the vatican as any type of source
But if the statistic is correct then its not working why persue it
if we dont know what future damage it will cause

As for Bill Gates I think he wants a billion dead peaseants regardless of race or creed

Ok, but could:

However, the paper said it was not a coincidence that in 2009 the use of genetically modified food crops grew by 13 percent in developing countries and that GM crops covered almost half of the world's total arable land and yet "the number of hungry people in the world has for the first time reached 1 billion people.

this be a case of the GM food supply not keeping pace with population growth in these regions? Africa seems to be a classic case of a Malthusian Trap, if you ask me. I am talking about locally produced food, here. Excl imports.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

forgive my ignorance
left school at 15 and only test i ever passed was a driving one
The charts seem to be what you say

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55570.shtml

how can this be right

enno99 wrote: »

forgive my ignorance
left school at 15 and only test i ever passed was a driving one
The charts seem to be what you say

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_55570.shtml

how can this be right

There is a saying I like: 'Intelligence is awareness of ignorance'

Anyway, I don't know much about the behaviour of Monsanto or other corporations, though sadly, the behaviour of many foreign companies in these regions has been... less than exemplary.

To explain the Malthusian Trap you need only remember the case of the (Irish) Great Famine. Ireland's population grew faster than it's food production could handle, and it reached it a critical point which it teetered on for many decades (this wasn't the first famine), until it popped when the blight attacked and potato crops failed. Since 40% of the population consumed around 80% of their calorie intake via potatoes, this led to the most deadly famine the world had ever seen.

Anyway, the important point is that unless food production outpaces population growth, famine and stagnation are inevitable. There are two ways that you can avoid this.

1) Decrease population growth. This can be done through sexual education, womens rights, economic growth, etc. However, when infant mortality rates (percentage of children who die before 5 years) are high, people will have lots of children as a buffer to this ratio. Spreading your bets, if you will. These families will need children to tend to the farm when the are older, and to look after them, so they are a wise investment. At this moment, infant mortality rates are high in Africa and all poor countries, so that means beyond a certain level of educating people you will still have population growth that is too high.

2) Increase food production. Easier said than done. People on this thread pointed out that growing crops in this region is easy and therefore GM crops are not required. That simply flies in the face of geography. Below is a Koppen-Geiger classification map. It basically takes the world and divides it up based on local climate. Simply put, the areas shaded in all kinds of green are great for growing high-carb cereals and root vegetables, the darker the green, the better. Dark purple isn't so bad, either. Shades of yellow and red are ****. Simple as. Looking at that, you can see where the rich regions lie, and where the poor do. Just by the lay of the land. Being able to feed yourself is vital. Or at least until you are rich enough to import it, like Japan. The problem is that as soon as African countries begin to grow, their population does too, and bang, the Malthusian Trap kicks in, via famine or however. I guess this is why some people are saying that GM is worth it. If you could create cereals (cereals are really high carb/energy) that can successfully grow in the yellow/red regions, then that is number 2 sorted.

Thank you Flamed for your explanation of the Malthusian Trap

Would Millet not be a good place to start it can be grown in these enviornments
And extensive research into its Cancer curing / prevention properties
This would benefit all mankind and turn around these economies
So healthier and wealthier no need to reproduce

http://chetday.com/millet.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_millet

So would it be fair to say that Mr Gates being the humanitarian he professes to be
Would explore these avenues

Before he starts injecting the population with vaccines laced with mercury /squalene and
god knows what other sh*t and messing around with toxic waste.

Seeing his affiliation with Rockefeller/ Mosanto/planned parenthood (founded by Margaret Sanger) which his father served on the board. One wonders if he has a whole other adgenda

http://www.humanlifereview.com/2004_fall/eugenics.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_H._Gates,_Sr.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3167.cfm

http://www.mathaba.net/0_index.shtml?x=623019

Oracle wrote: »

Gates is pushing vaccines big time, through both the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and GAVI.

And your point is what exactly?

Ban vaccination of children against Measles, Polio, Tetnaus, Diptheria, Whooping Cough?

And what exactly are peoples issues with the "Planned Parenthood foundation" Have we a few pro lifers in the woodwork?

+1 for the Jared Diamond reference.

thecommander wrote: »

If you wanted to eliminate numbers of people wouldnt it be easier not to vaccinate them and let them die of the disease?

Well, the bigger numbers you create, the greater you get to cull?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Not if the vaccine also makes them infertile.

Thats what I can't understand about Gates' speech. He wants to vaccinate everyone yet lower global populations.

Perhaps I am mistaken?...Could someone explain this contradiction to me?

People have explained the relationship between improved healthcare and reduced birth rates at least twice in this thread already.

1) Decrease population growth. This can be done through sexual education, womens rights, economic growth, etc. However, when infant mortality rates (percentage of children who die before 5 years) are high, people will have lots of children as a buffer to this ratio. Spreading your bets, if you will. These families will need children to tend to the farm when the are older, and to look after them, so they are a wise investment. At this moment, infant mortality rates are high in Africa and all poor countries, so that means beyond a certain level of educating people you will still have population growth that is too high.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance, but how is (for example) having 10 children (with 5 infant mortalities) vs having 5 children with no infant mortalities any different?

It's 5 years where some woman isn't pregnant for starters. part from all the really obvious differences. :rolleyes:

mysterious wrote: »

I dont take vaccinations or antibiotics and I'm ok. Malaria is part of nature totally different to this agenda.

The governments are not trying to protect, they are protecting their interests. They have no problem keeping some people alive as long as they become totally Dependant on the government for everything to survive.

BTW there are natural remedies to cure from Malaria. For every posion created in nature there is a cure. Total common sense like... (shakes head)

Do you not get involuntary inoculated as a child?

What's the problem with malaria vaccinations if it's a part of nature?

How is the belief that there is a natural cure for every poisonous substance common sense?

Oracle wrote: »

It's a pity there's so much flaming and trolling on the Conspiracy Theories forum. I don't notice it as much on other Boards.ie forums.

Ridiculous claims tend to provoke mockery. Rest assured, all troll posts real and perceived are being dutifully reported.

Oracle wrote: »

I have no doubt there are people operating here who's sole purpose is to disrupt, discredit, and encourage disengagment with the issues and the forum.

This isn't the place for conspiracy theories.

enno99 wrote: »

... show me your company and Ill tell you what you are

Quaint, so you're a Right Wing Christian Pro lifer then?

"Let us look forward to the day when Planned Parenthood clinics are made into holocaust museums" says another of Sangers detractors.

It's not all that uncommon for the Pro Lifers to use that ploy to discredit Sanger, it can be found all over the net. Rebecca Messall is a pro life activist, she also states that the contraceptive pill helps to spread AIDS. It's the usual far right pro life jab to compare family planning to eugenics. I think you really do give Messall too much credance.

Taken in the context of the time it Sanger isn't all that bad actually. Shocking by todays standards, but don't forget Fascism and Communisim were still untried and valid idelogies then. She did however oppose the Nazi's in 1933 when she wrote:

"All the news from Germany is sad & horrible, and to me more dangerous than any other war going on any where because it has so many good people who applaud the atrocities & claim its right. The sudden antagonism in Germany against the Jews & the vitriolic hatred of them is spreading underground here & is far more dangerous than the aggressive policy of the Japanese in Manchuria.."

She joined the American Council Against Nazi Propaganda and "gave money, my name and any influence I had with writers and others, to combat Hitler's rise to power in Germany."

In 1933 the Nazis burned Sanger's books along with those of Ellis, Freud, German sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, and others.

Eugenics 100 years ago was a fashionable science, Darwins evolution gone wild. At the time though people thought every social problem was genetic.

Sanger did seek to discourage the reproduction of persons who were, in the terms of her day, "unfit" or "feebleminded," those, it was believed, who would pass on mental disease or serious physical defect. And she did advocate sterilization in cases where the subject was unable to use birth control. This was a popular position espoused by many progressive medical leaders, scientists and health reformers of the day – those groups who Sanger hoped to win over to the birth control fight.

To use the political and social mores of nearly 100 years ago is sterile in this debate and serves only to back up the extremist sites you choose to quote from.

Regarding the LEARN website quote, I'm lead to believe it's a purposeful misquote by the loons again.