The Overpopulation Myth

Let’s assume for a minute that we have made sufficient case to suggest that not only is the whole CV19 narrative a fraud, but that such a fraud is so obviously a fraud, that it would be absurd to suggest there was no agenda behind it – and many people have written about that agenda, not to mention all the leaks by whistleblowers – so in this article I want to address what I think is the most likely of several motivations for that agenda, being the myth of overpopulation of the planet.


There are many ways we can debunk this myth, but let’s first address the way in which it appears to be justified:

  1. by dividing up all resource usage per person, one might falsely come to the conclusion that everyone is responsible for “their share” of total resource usage, and by simply extrapolating the depletion of resources on this basis, without any further analysis, it might appear to the extremely stupid that the problem is indeed over population;
  2. by looking at rates of growth of population with respect to increases in resource usage and depletion, again without any further thought or analysis, this would appear to support 1;
  3. by looking at agricultural production as it stands, once again ignoring all other evidence, it might appear that we cannot possibly feed everyone, once again seeming to support this idiotic narrative of overpopulation.

So no matter where you look, what you find are overly simplistic appraisals of cherry picked information taken out of all context, and used to justify a narrative.

Now no matter your position on this subject, this kind of approach to analysis cannot be justified unless: A – you’re an idiot, or; B – you’re being disingenuous; because these are such obviously flawed positions that it beggars belief anyone could actually think it were true and justifiable. So let’s now pick it all apart with examples.

Resource Production Consumption and Usage:

I have written about this before, but I thought it made sense to put all this in one article, so if you have read this elsewhere, it’s probably stuff you’re familiar with, but let’s repeat it anyway for anyone else who hasn’t read been made aware of it.

US Military Resource Usage:

The US military – which in reality is a conglomerate of many public and private sector entities, including everyone from the Pentagon to Lockheed Martin and many others such as the mercenary contractors – consumes destroys pollutes and wastes as much or more than the bottom 25% of the entire global economy ( all industries and entities of both public and private sectors ).

Now think about that, because this doesn’t include any of the opportunity lost as a consequence of that resource allocation, nor any of the destruction pain suffering and death it causes. That’s a lot of resources, and if those resources were allocated more sensibly, you would immediately solve a signficant proportion of all global problems just by the reallocation itself, without even counting the benefits produced by the new recipients of the reallocation.

Is it in any way justifiable to suggest that everyone needs to pay their share of this nonsense? Should anti-war protestors have to pay “their share”? Of course not, its a rhetorical question, and if the people running the military machine had any sense at all, they’d realise that even they do not really benefit from this, which is a measure of their delusions that they think otherwise ( and I will get onto that later ).

The entirety of the rest of the world’s global military is equal to a little more than that again, and while there may be great differences in the consequences of those other military operations, we can still say the following as self evident:

  1. if it were not for the aggression of the USA and its “allies” ( vassals ), those labelled by the USA as “enemies” wouldn’t need to spend anywhere near as much resources on defence, as the US has over 800 bases around the world, and no one else has anything remotely approaching this figure;
  2. military operations do not create anything whatsoever outside of weaponry and support systems for weaponry, that could not be developed without it if you simply reallocate the research funding, so any claim that we benefit from this extreme military expenditure is also a myth.

There are many inventions which came via military research into civilian usage, but for any such thing, there exists no valid argument to even suggest ( much less prove conclusively ) that we couldn’t have developed these things without the military. What the military does do though, is pollute destroy kill and waste, and it does it at an incredible pace.

I was reading quite recently that the b-52 bomber aircraft uses as much fuel in an hour as many domestic motor vehicles would consume over a period of several years – and when you think about all the resources that went into development prototyping and testing, not to mention the missions they’re sent on and the destruction caused by those missions, this is an almost incalculable amount of waste.

Finally, just remember this: while there are many other things we could say on the military if we took a really deep dive into the subject, this is just a brief summary, barely covering anything, and this is just one of a great many industries. So you should already be able to see that the proposition of over population is utterly fraudulent before it even gets off the ground, but let’s keep going to show how this is supported by every other angle from which we can look at the subject.


There are various types of mining operations worldwide, some more destructive and polluting than others, but the really big factor here is simply the driver of capitalism, wherein any responsibility taken for the ecological damage done, and any attempts to reduce it and repair it, are costs which reduce profit margins, and hence we have an industry driven to do the most harm and take the least responsibility, but this does not need to be the case.

Imagine for a minute if we first got rid of all the waste and inefficiency which I detail in this article, and all the rest of it that I haven’t mentioned. The most obvious impact of this would be that we could fulfil way more needs on less resources than we currently “use”, and it is only because of capitalism and its flaws that we do not do so.

Now imagine that we took more care in the way we conducted mining operations, where instead of mountaintop removal and open cut mines, we might remove trees by digging them out of the soil and keeping them alive, removing the least amount of them required to gain access, and when we finish, having taken equal care with every other part of the operation, those trees are replanted, having been supported the entire time.

Now add to this a policy put in place which places onus of responsibility on manufacturers to show technical ( not economic ) cause for the selection of manufacturing materials – ie: where possible, non-biodegradable and toxic materials must be replaced with biodegradable and non-toxic materials – and in either case, the manufacturer must also show a lifetime management plan for all materials, such that the rate of non-recapture and subsequent recycling, does not allow those materials to build up in the environment faster than they can break down, nor cause ecological harm faster than natures ability to heal and replenish.

With such regulations in place, and with such vastly more efficient usage of resources across the entire economy, and with more care taken as to how mining operations are conducted, there is no reason to assume we could not have a high tech civilisation, it’s just that we would be doing so in a truly ecologically sustainable way.

If you apply the same principles again to the logging industry, and the comments made later in this article about the automotive industry, surely you can see without me needing to spell it out for you, that a vastly greater amount of land remains useful to ecological and agricultural concerns instead of becoming a polluted wasteland.

Manufacturing & Marketing:

In addition to other things mentioned elsewhere in this article, we must acknowledge the fact that under capitalism, it is a requirement that we produce as much stuff as possible, even things we don’t need, which are designed not to last, to break, and to become obsolete, all so that we can keep generating money to support people who want to live in luxury at the expense of others, when none of it is even necessary, because we could easily provide luxury to all as the standard, if we just get rid of all the unnecessary pollution waste and destruction.

Have you ever been to a shopping centre and seen all the junk for sale? Utterly useless products which I cannot imagine anyone ever needing, all designed to fail, and all accompanied by massive marketing campaigns to convince people they need it, and even in the best cases where there exists some need, it is often the case that some other existing product does the exact same job, and all you need to do is go fetch it from the kitchen drawer, and watch a 5 minute video on YouTube to learn that skill.

This is repeated in many suburbs of the same city, sometimes multiple locations in the same suburb, and for every town and city in a great many countries all around the world – countless cases of garbage produced for no valid reason, all to generate money, when we can achieve what we need to achieve with no money at all, but we can only move to this alternative paradigm if the billionaires and corporations are deconstructed. So if we are truly overpopulated with anything, it is overpopulation of the rich and their control structures, without which, there would be luxury for all without exception.

Food Production:

If you have a look at the statistics on what is referred to as productive land for food crops and other agriculture, what you will see is that we use way more than that amount of land for such purposes. Part of this is achieved by the nature of the agriculture itself, particularly the difference between animal agriculture and the farming of plants and fungi; another similar part having to do with the differences between the purpose of the farming, such as those plant crops used for the pharmaceutical industry, chemicals, textiles, and even bio-fuels.

Firstly I should say that while some people may argue “but we need all these other things too”, I will address this in a separate section of this article about inefficiency and waste, but the short version of which is simply that much of this apparent “need” is false need – meaning that: true needs fulfilment is about the support of individuals to feed, clothe, and house themselves, along with additional resources required for education, entertainment, health, and the pursuit of their creative interests. However the vast majority of this production either has nothing to do with such things, or only exists due to the inherently wasteful nature of capitalist economics, and that is what I will cover elsewhere. For now, just understand that yes we do need some of it, but nowhere near as much as you might think.

For the rest of this agriculture, let’s have a look at what is going wrong:

  • meat is an inefficient source of nutrients: you can get far better protein from plant sources, which take far less resources to produce, and which crop a great deal faster than the time taken to mature animals for slaughter;
  • animal agriculture requires vastly more land to be cleared of vegetation for pastures and grazing ( not to mention the cruelty of slaughtering a sentient being ), and which displaces many other species of animals which used to inhabit those ecosystems, along with all the additional species poisoned and shot by farmers ( not all farmers, but certainly a signficant number of them );
  • massive monoculture agribusiness produces reasonably high yields at first, but over time it becomes more and more resource intensive, as the use of chemicals and the destruction of ecology continues to degrade the soil biome, which results in less nutrient dense foods, even where they manage to maintain their crop yields;
  • excessive clearing of forests reduces rainfall, and this in turn has a continuing and widening deleterious effect on any adjacent ecosystems and the farmland those ecosystems were replaced with;
  • pollutants from animal effluent and chemical runoff also has a deleterious impact on the water systems ( rivers, streams, and lakes, as well as the table water under the ground );
  • deforestation in some areas leads to increasing soil salinity, which eventually makes food crops impossible, and even unsuitable for cattle grazing, so these practices are extremely dangerous if you want to feed people;
  • permaculture and other similar natural farming systems have consistently shown they can produce equal or greater crop yields, often from far less resources, and they do so sustainably, in a manner that supports and even improves the soil biome over time.

Now, given all that and countless other points we could make – such as the waste of food ( in some areas, as much as 30% of food is simply thrown out ), and the reasons for growing non-food crops – how could you argue that we can’t feed everyone? Of course we can, but we choose not to because of capitalism, and I will get into this all again in another section.

Improving Soils for Better Agriculture:

In addition to the fact that we use massive monoculture agribusiness systems which tend to deplete the soils over time, we also waste a great deal of land which is perfectly capable of being productive with food, but instead we have built houses on top of it, along with roads, factories, and other things. While it may be considered disadvantageous in the short term to waste those things we have built by tearing them down to return such land to ecosystems and food production, with a change in economic paradigm this does become a viable option over the medium to long term ( however I will cover this in another article about that alternative economic paradigm ).

As you probably already know, one of the things animal agriculture can be good for, is that the poo from animals can fertilise the soil, but native species do this already, so we don’t need massive animal agriculture farms to achieve this, especially not if we simply combine it with human sewage which has been properly composted.

The problem with human sewage though is all the things we put into it, where people are throwing all sorts of chemicals down the drain, many of them based on petrochemicals, not to mention the bleaches in toilet paper, and toilet cleaners, but none of this stuff is actually necessary.

If people were to understand the principles on health which I wrote about in my article on the CV19 and contagion fraud, they could be influenced to stop using those products which pollute this sewage, and they wouldn’t be so afraid of any issues with disease.

I have been to many properties where they use their own sewage as fertiliser, through such things as worm composting toilets and the like. Not one such property has ever had an issue with disease – not a single one, ever, and I cannot even remember a report of one from anywhere else. Now if this narrative on contagion were true, how would this be possible?

Human sewage is a wasted resource, because people are capable of going to the desert, storing large volumes of water underground, using their own sewage to fertilise sandy rocky and other less agriculturally suitable earth, thus building up quite quickly a self sustaining environment capable of adequate food production. Now sure they might have to bring with them some intial stores of food until this composting of sewage builds up enough soil to really grow much, but remember that what is happening as well, is that the biome of that sewage is interacting with the existing soil, and this is a two way street, bringing additional minerals into the composted soil, and putting more organic matter into the existing earth.

Land Usage & Housing:

For those who haven’t read it yet, I will simply copy and paste what I wrote elsewhere about the amount of land we actually have available, but before you read that, also know that in the USA there are something like 5 or 6 vacant houses ( entire houses ) per homeless person, so you could give every single one of them their own house, and then allow an additional number of immigrants to come into the country with a house each too – remembering that some of these will be families and wouldn’t actually need a house each any more than those homeless people would – equal to 4 or 5 times that number of homeless, so when you take into account all the people who would be willing to share a house, it is utterly ridiculous that there’s any homelessness at all.

So far as land usage goes though, we can do even better than this in the long term, and here’s the bit I will copy and paste:

  • take the land surface area of the planet ( approx. 150,000,000 sq. kms. );
  • remove the entirety of Alaska, Antarctica, Iceland, Greenland, and Siberia;
  • remove all additional mountainous areas ( approx. 24% on average );
  • remove half of what remains;
  • declare all the above untouched wilderness;
  • remove half the remaining as public parks, gardens, and other communal infrastructure;
  • then split what remains after that 50/50 between further infrastructure and private homes;
  • which leaves you something like 22 million square kilometres of land ( a little over );
  • this is enough land ( about 0.55 acres each ) for every man woman child and baby of a 10 billion population, all treated as fully grown adults in the prime of their consumption, to have enough land to build a house and feed themselves
  • NOTICE: we did not need to go underground, nor build tree houses, nor forage in the forests, nor touch any of the oceans – so if that’s how much we can do without those things, then how can you argue that we are overpopulated, unless you assume that the destructiveness inefficiency pollution and waste of capitalism is somehow necessary and unavoidable ( which it is not ).

So if you combine this fact with the ability of human beings to bring water and fertiliser to any new area, and to engage in the activities of native flora regeneration, there can be no counter argument that the planet is not overpopulated.

Imagine on top of this is we did forage in the forests, instead of destroying them, and we did forage in the oceans, but we do all these things sustainably. Now imagine adding to that the use of beautiful and comfortable tree houses with beautify views, and add to that the use of underground spaces. You can easily see how we could exceed a population of 10 billion by quite a significant margin, and yet still be conserving far more ecosystems far better than we do it today.

In the next section regarding cars and other motor vechiles, we will see also the wasted land used for roads which are not all necessary, but merely necessary so that capitalism can go around wasting resources – which is not to say we would necessarily get rid of cars and trucks entirely, I am only pointing out how we over use them, and how inefficient they are. Other inventions could easily be used to provide transport over short distances which expends no energy at all, but actually generates electricity, but simply using gravity to transport people and goods from high points to low points, and on top of that there are other systems which could easily combine with cars to allow cars to enter at one point and exit at another point over a long distance, but where the car itself is carried by a far more efficient transport system, allowing you to arrive at the other end with freedom of movement around the local roads until you get to your destination.

The Internal Combustion Engine Motor Vehicle:

The Rocky Mountain Research Institute under Amory Lovins, did a study many years ago on the inefficiency of the standard production model internal combustion engine motor vehicle, in which they discovered that only 0.2% of the available energy ( exergy ) in the fuel, was actually used to move the mass of the driver, while the other 99.8% was used to move the mass of the vehicle itself, plus its fuel supply, plus other losses from heat, vibration, electrical systems etc. So this is an extremely inefficient mode of transportation.

What makes this analysis all the more a stark example of waste and inefficiency, is the fact that this analysis doesn’t include any of the following:

  • the inefficiency and waste involved in the mining required to get the minerals which are then processed to actually make the mining machines and facilities themselves, and to then make the metal smelting and other material processing machines and facilities, and to then make all the car manufacturing machines and facilities, along with all the roads and traffic infrastructure, nor any of the operationg and maintenance of any of it;
  • the inefficiency of the way we drive, what cars we drive ( differences versus that standard production model example ), the reasons we drive, and all the motor sports etc. which serve no great purpose outside of capitalism;
  • the further ecological costs of all the land clearance for roads, and the pollution caused by both driving, and the end of life of cars and all their spare parts ( particularly used tyres ).

Now try to put all that together in your head – if the starting point is an average of only 0.2% of the available energy being used to move the mass of the driver, and many times we shouldn’t be really needing to move the driver at all ( but we do so for reasons of capitalism rather than actual needs fulfilment ), and all the other things mentioned, and probably a great many more that I haven’t mentioned – then it is unlikely we would be getting even 0.002% efficiency, and if the number was as low as 0.000,000,2%, I cannot honestly say I would be surprised.

Health & Medicine:

If you have a read of my pinned post about the fraud of both CV19 and the entire notion of contagion, and you understand how health really works, where it is all about healthy diet, the nutritional density of foods, tissue toxicity, healthy environment, and replacing stress with happiness – added to the fact that people are doing the exact opposite, often without knowing, and then having unnecessary medications to treat symptoms instead of prevention and cure – then it’s hard to argue that this global multitrillion dollar pharmaceutical industry is any less wasteful and harmful than the global military.

If you were to believe in the myth of overpopulation, you might argue this is all necessary to stop our populations spiralling out of control, so let’s now have a look at that.

Why Do Populations Grow:

I had a friend recently tell me about the statistical correlation between food supply via modern agriculture and the expenditure of fuels, versus population growth, where he argued that ( paraphrased ): “we have a growing population because of fossil fuels, and because of the depletion of those fuels, we can no longer feed everyone” – and I know that many people believe this to be true, but again it is a way too simplistic appraisal of the true cause of things.

While it is true that we can make a correlation, as I keep saying, correlation is not causation.

Firstly, as I have already covered, there are far better ways to conduct farming which are less resource intensive, provide equal or greater crop yields, with far better nutritional density, far less deleterious ecological impacts, and which neither consume vast amounts of fossil fuels, nor do they deplete the soil biome and mineralogy – so to argue that fossil fuel consumption is necessary for food production is nonsense. We also covered this by looking at land usage, because if you grow a lot of your own food ( and which is extremely easy to do, taking very little time at all ), then you also do not have anywhere near the same waste and inefficiency of food transportation, even if some of it is still required for remote areas and so on.

Populations grow partly because the food is available for them to grow, but also because of the cultural indoctrination which leads people to have large families, particularly in the form of religious indoctrination. Note the Christian saying: “go forth and multiply” – and so long as you brainwash populations into these ideas, they’re going to think that having a large family is somehow virtuous, and they don’t think about it beyond that.

Another example of where populations grow unnecessarily but through social and political influence, is where those in poorer countries have a high mortality rate, and they have multiple children because they know that not all of them will survive. But this is only the case because those countries are raped of their resources by the interests of mainly foreign capitalist entities, not to mention the warfare and other things they suffer so that those people will not signficantly benefit from their own country’s resources.

So why not just stop brainwashing people, stop robbing countries of their resources, and stop bombing them and installing puppet tyrants which allows those countries to be robbed? Surely if you take away these causes, and people have adequate food and the ability to pursue their interests, they would take after many other intelligent and well educated people around the world, by choosing to either have smaller families, or not breed at all ( which is indeed the trend as education levels increase ).

People have a far greater purpose in life than merely being breeding machines, and if you stop all this brainwashing indoctrination propaganda and slavery, what they will do with their time is pursue their interests, they will feel better about themselves, and they will also seek more loving and genuine partnerships based on more than just breeding and comfort. Wisdom, intelligence, and education, with the ability to pursue ones creative and intellectual interests, unhampered by pointless jobs producing products designed to break and which have no more genuine need than the marketing machinations used to manufacture that need, are the cure to people who have nothing better to do than just breed. But even with all of this stuff that has gone on for such a very long time, you can see from this article that we are still not actually overpopulated excepting with respect to the wastefulness and destructiveness of capitalism.

The point I am trying to make here if you’ve somehow missed it, is that it isn’t a simple matter of food being supplied, which automatically and inevitably leads to extremely high populations and population growth, and is instead many factors combining. But even with such population growth, we cannot actually claim we are over populated as yet, because – as already stated – there is a great deal of resource waste which has nothing to do with population per se, but is simply a consequence of capitalism and its flaws, and we are perfectly capable of changing our agricultural and other systems to a different socio-economic and political paradigm, in which resource usage is maximised for ecological and social benefit, with minimisation of destruction, entropy, inefficiency, pollution, and waste.