“LIMITS TO GROWTH” GENUINE WARNING OR “SCIENTIFIC” JUSTIFICATION OF THE NWO AGENDA
I will always remember my excitment and fascination when as a a high school pupil accidentally found and read a book that my uncle – a 50 years old architect had to learn by heart, completing his (late) postgradute studis , in a socialist country where we lived.
The title of the book was “ LIMITS TO GROWTH”.
This book , published in 1972, was based on the report that study group of brilliant mathematic,economic and computer experts at Massachusetts Institute of Technology made for the “infamous” globalistic group -Club of Rome with main aim to examine what would happen if -the world economy continued to progress and people continued to exploit such a high amount of resources and polute the environment- what will happen if developing and undeveloped countries become developed and those that are developed continue to develop their industrial capacities – will we all die due to the global polution,warming and lack of food .
In a sentence , they studied what would be long-term causes and consequences of growth in population, industrial capital, food production, resource consumption, and pollution.
And they concluded that the physical limits to human use of materials and energy were somewhere decades ahead.
For them the old economic maxim "Grow or die could very well be "grow and die."
(in 1992 the similar group of researchers published an update book - Beyond the Limits: Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future - The authors use updated computer models to present a comprehensive overview of what's happening to the major systems on planet Earth and to explore different scenarios of the future)
The memebers of the study group have been : Dr. D. L. Meadows (USA), Dr. A. Anderson (USA) Dr. J. Anderson(USA) , Dr. I. Bayar (Turkey), Dr. W. Behrens (USA), Dr. F.Hakimzadeh (Iran), Dr. S. Harbordt (Germany), J.Machen (USA), Dr. D. H. Meadows (USA), P. Milling(Germany), Dr. N. Murthy (India), R. Naill (USA), Dr. J. Randers (Norway), S. Shantzis (USA), J. Seeger (USA),M. Williams (USA) and Dr. E. Zahn (Germany).
At that time I did not know that acctually “LIMITS TO GROWTH” might been mathematical/computer-modeled elaboration and justification for the creation of NWO.
To be honest I thought that it was “genuine scientific effort “ to indicate and warn on the possibility of the future global populational,economical , climate and ecological catastrophe if WE ALL and world elite,particulary do not take “proper measures” to stop expansion of world economy and prevent devastating consequences of such unlimited growth and polution.
Was it ? I ask you all to discuss this issue on this forum because this study, although pretty old , might give us many clues and answers.
So I ask you TWO MAIN QUESTIONS:
IS THE INHIBITION OF THE EXORBITANT GROWTH OF THE WORLD ECONOMY REALLY NECESSARY FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THIS PLANET as the creators of NWO claim,in this publication, and finally convinced world elite?
And, to the contrary,
IS THE CURRENT UNLIMITED ECONOMICAL GROWTH AND ITS CONSEQUENCES SUCH AS ULIMITED GLOBAL POLUTION, CLIMATE CHANGES, CONSUMPTION OF RESOURCES ... etc . SUSTAINABLE?
At that time , and even today, many intellectuals and analysts claimed that this book was ”predection what will happen”- scenario of the great economic crisis in the 1990s.
Since this did not happen critics triumphed and relaxed .But governments acquired polices in accordance with this “warning”.
HOWEVER THE AIM OF THIS STUDY WAS NOT TO PREDICT, in my opinion, IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO PROVE “SCIENTIFICALLY” THAT THE NEW WORLD ORDER MUST BE CREATED IN ORDER TO AVOID FUTURE “SELF-DISTRACTION” OF THE WORLD.
THIS WAS AN OPEN MANIFEST WHAT MUST BE TACLED OR CREATED BY THE NEW WORLD ORDER IN THE FUTURE .
THIS STUDY WAS NOT AIMED TO THE PUBLIC BUT TO THE CREATORS OF THE GLOBAL POLITICS AND ECONOMY.
As I indicated the study "LIMITS TO GROWTH" was commissioned by THE CLUB OF ROME – group of scientists, economists, managers, diplomates, and politicians from round the world and irronically financed by the “Volkswagen” .
Many researchers claim THE CLUB OF ROME is a Masonic,globalistic organization.
The Club was founded by the late Dr. Aurelio Peccei, an Italian businessman from Rome. In 1965, doctor Peccei gave a speech on the dramatic changes taking place in the world, especially relating to science and technology. The speech attracted considerable attention.
Members of the Club of Rome, at the time of publishing this study have been,among others Alexender King (a British scientist, who had been a scientific adviser to the British Government, and who was then at the Paris-based Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development),Saburo Okita (head of the Japan economic research center ), Eduard Pestel (professor at the Technical University in Hannover), Carroll Wilson (professor at MIT), etc.
These NWO “ intellectuals” according to their own statements did not think that “either the market or technology could function as a way of solving environmental problems”, enraging,in this way both capitalistic and socialistic governments ( remember that this period, 1950s and 1960s had been a period of immense economic growth in both the Western and Communist worlds, both of which had a very low rate of unemployment).
THE CLUB OF ROME swooped down on, at that time, popular belief in the Western world that another 1930s-type Depression could be avoided as a result of government intervention in the economy and criticized the prevailing notion how “Western formula for economic growth could be applied throughout the Third World.
Peccei and King,as well as others from THE CLUB OF ROME warned on the “ devastating environmental consequences” of economic growth and found irrational both capitalists and communists views on environmental crisis and their overall belief that growth was good and that the environmental consequences could be solved by administrative, legal and technological measures.
For Peccei, capitalists have wrong idea that the market would solve any environmental problem (for example, if resources were used too rapidly, then prices would go up and so usage would be forced down) just like communists who thought that technology could solve all problems (it is funny that Peccei although businessman did not consider himself to be capitalist).
In 1991, The Club of Rome published The First Global Revolution, which argued that the
“globe was undergoing its first simultaneous revolution. However this time, technological change takes place suddenly and simultaneously, with even less scope for preparation and safety measures .As a result, many Third World countries undergone trumendous economic development - but at great environmental cost”.
To the contrary one of the prominent (current ) members of The Club of Rome Keith Suter “concerned for the Third World countries” concluded:
...as First World countries have got richer, so they have got meaner, with the result that foreign aid is now the lowest since records began three decades ago.
The Club has argued that humankind needs to re-evaluate its exploitative attitude towards humans and the earth itself. The failure to give more foreign aid is indicative of the increased selfishness of rich countries. Meanwhile, the world's richest 20 per cent of the population consume 86 per cent of its goods and services, over half its energy and nearly half its meat and fish. There is little indication that most of the world's richest people are willing to heed the warning from "Limits to Growth", they are too busy making the most of today.
Therefore, the reluctance to give foreign aid and help the Third World is in itself a reflection of the prevailing economic mindset: making a virtue out of selfishness. There is no doubt that the market system is the best way to create wealth (by encouraging everyone to look out for their own best interests). But the market system was not designed to share wealth or protect the environment - as even The Economist magazine is having to admit. So, as it stands, the market system enriches the wealthy, impoverishes the poor, and endangers the planet“
(end of the quatation).
More about “LIMITS TO GROWTH”
This study looked at five factors affecting human society: industrialization, population, food production, natural resources, and pollution.
The main aim of the study was to underline “ the consequences of ultimately limited resources being consumed at an exponential rate”.
The study's first, much discussed conclusion was that if (then) present growth trends continued, the limits to growth on this earth will be reached in the middle of the Twenty-first Century, followed by a dramatic, uncontrollable collapse of population, food production, and all the other significant measures of a society's welfare.
There are some basic conclusions of the book:
1. If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next 100 years. The most probable result will be a sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity.
2. It is possible to alter these growth trends and to establish a condition of ecological and economic stability that is sustainable far into the future. The state of global equilibrium could be designed so that the basic material needs of each person on earth are satisfied and each person has an equal opportunity to realize his or her individual human potential.
3. If the world's people decide to strive for this second outcome rather than the first, the sooner they begin working to attain it, the greater will be their chances of success. (Meadows et al., 1972).
The essence of the warning from the “ LIMITS TO GROWTH” APPERENTLY is valid (for example we are all aware of the weather-related disasters).
Although the study on which was based THE book “LIMITS OF GROWTH” had many obvious limitations caused by the use of computer modelling it was considered to be “highly scientifically sophisticated”.
This was the first time that computer modelling had been used for such a project. The success of such modelling depends on both the quality of data and the capabilities of the computer. In 1970, methods of data collection were poor. Many countries, for example, did not have proper statistical data on the size of their populations, numbers of unemployed people etc.
At that time , the quality of the model used was limited by the available computer technology and could only use a low number of equations in its construction.
One of the critics of “LIMITS TO GROWTH”, when “figured out” that the prediction of the possible did not realize trimphud and concluded stupidly the following :
“ Today fertility rates in most industrialized countries are below replacement level. The birthrate is lower today in every developing country than it was when Limits to Growth was published”
He does not understand that all these “wonderful events” acctually are in accordance with hidden agenda of those that distributed “LIMITS TO GROWTH” .
In the end I will cite what authors of this study wrote in their new book “Beyond the Limits” :
“ It is even possible, we concluded, to eliminate poverty while accommodating the population growth already implicit in present population age structures - but not if population growth goes on indefinitely, not if it goes on for long, and not without rapid improvements in the efficiency of material and energy use and in the equity of material and energy distribution.
As far as we can tell from the global data, from the World3 model, and from all we have learned in the past twenty years, the three conclusions we drew in The Limits to Growth are still valid, but they need to be strengthened. Now we would write them this way:
1. Human use of many essential resources and generation of many kinds of pollutants have already surpassed rates that are physically sustainable. Without significant reductions in material and energy flows, there will be in the coming decades an uncontrolled decline in per capita food output, energy use, and industrial production.
2. This decline is not inevitable. To avoid it two changes are necessary. The first is a comprehensive revision of policies and practices that perpetuate growth in material consumption and in population. The second is a rapid, drastic increase in the efficiency with which materials and energy are used.
3. A sustainable society is still technically and economically possible. It could be much more desirable than a society that tries to solve its problems by constant expansion. The transition to a sustainable society requires a careful balance between long-term and short-term goals and an emphasis on sufficiency, equity, and quality of life rather than on quantity of output. It requires more than productivity and more than technology; it also requires maturity, compassion, and wisdom.
The ideas of limits, sustainability, sufficiency, equity, and efficiency are not barriers, not obstacles, not threats. They are guides to a new world. Sustainability, not better weapons or struggles for power or material accumulation, is the ultimate challenge to the energy and creativity of the human race.
We think the human race is up to the challenge. We think that a better world is possible, and that the acceptance of physical limits is the first step toward getting there ” (end of the quatation).
In conclusion , some old questions remain open and some new appear –
I invite you all to try to give the answer
- is the study” LIMITS TO GROWTH” genuine warning to all who believe in unlimited capitalism or NWO agenda backed by “scientific proofs” ?!