Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > General Conspiracy Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-25-2004, 12:59 PM
Institute Institute is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 52
Default “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” ?!

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-25-2004, 02:35 PM
john john is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 99
Default Re: LIMITS TO GROWTH GENUINE WARNING OR SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE NWO AGENDA

It is of course a nonsense to continue pillaging the limited natural resources as does the current ultra-liberal logic of "evergrowing" consumerism. The "solution" of the international elite controlled think thanks (like the Club de Rome)is:

1/ Reduce the world`s population.
2/ Reduce the non-renewable resources/energy consumation.

In fact this international elite is itself the problem since owning the corporations and the banking system which is propagating the culture of hyper-consumation.

Since the sixties, independent specialists have well demonstrated that this planet could easily feed a population of seven billion people or even more. One of the main problem is that the giant corporations have destroyed the agricultural independency of the so-called Third-World countries. Of course, those people who produced their own food before but lost their fields (see the Brazilian or the Indian cases) to became unemployed or employed at misery salaries cannot buy the food produced by the corporations. This doesn`t mean the planet couldn`t feed them but that the ultra-liberal system of the monopolist corporations destroys the independent small farmers who could compete with their products on the local urban market-places while in the same time these corporations refuse to feed those who can`t pay in cash.

The New World Order is tailored to the giant corporations. Their only logic is money-making. Thus, they need to consume all the natural resources they can find. When an NGO like the Club de Rome, more or less indirectly financed by those who own the giant corporations, says "reduce the consumation of the non-renewable resources", this means prevent the non-industrialised societies to develop since most of the natural resources are on their territories. Logically, these resources would be used by the locals to develop their own industry instead of leaving the international giant corporations pillaging these resources. That`s why the corporations need to corrupt the governments of these countries and, if this isn`t enough, destroy them.

The only solution for the planet is to get rid of the dictatorship of the man-eater corporations and international bankers and apply the solidarity/sharing/compassion values given us since thousand years by people as Moses (3.500 years) Jesus (2.000 years) or Mahomet (1.400 years), among others less known.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-25-2004, 05:19 PM
marypopinz marypopinz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 710
Default Re: LIMITS TO GROWTH GENUINE WARNING OR SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE NWO AGENDA

What an excellant read for a beautiful Christmas day.

XXX
__________________
[size=medium]Freelance brain owner[/size] R U Darwin\'s monkey?[size=medium] HumanKIND = God\'s creation[/size]
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-25-2004, 06:17 PM
Institute Institute is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 52
Default Re: LIMITS TO GROWTH GENUINE WARNING OR SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE NWO AGENDA

oh, I have noticed that I forget to add the third possible (totally opposit) option and dilemma:
" is it likely that distributers of the "LIMITS TO GROWTH"- in fact, are creating actively "future catastrophe" stimulating global pollution, consumption of unrenewable resources?!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-25-2004, 06:32 PM
sablefish sablefish is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 290
Default Re: LIMITS TO GROWTH GENUINE WARNING OR SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE NWO AGENDA

john.. I like what you do.. Keep up the good works...(same to you institute)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-25-2004, 08:52 PM
freeman freeman is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 914
Default Re: LIMITS TO GROWTH GENUINE WARNING OR SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE NWO AGENDA

Quote:
- is the study” LIMITS TO GROWTH” genuine warning to all who believe in unlimited capitalism or NWO agenda backed by “scientific proofs” ?!
I have often puzzled over this same dilemma in my own mind.
But here is an everyday example that may shed some light on the subject:
Every week I am required to separate my trash and place "recyclables" in a separate bin. This, of course, is because of a law enacted in reaction to environmental concerns.
Yet for the past decade, my waste hauler has refused to recycle the materials, claiming the market prices are too low; therefore, it all gets dumped into the same landfill, and I am just performing a meaningless ritual under penalty of law. This situation is the same in most areas of my home state and many other places around the country from what I have learned.
Now, if the NWO really was serious about all of this population control and environmental conservation rhetoric that they disseminate through their respective think tanks, would they permit these kinds of glaring hypocrisies to occur? What about our auto industry, cranking out 8 MPG SUVs?; or the woeful lack of research and development in alternative energy sources despite a quarter century of recurrent "energy crises"?
Certainly the empirical evidence tends to convey the notion that the ruling elites do not take their own "doomsday" studies seriously -- or at least not constructively. The current pseudo war on terrorism appears to be a thinly veiled sham for seizing control of a monopoly of the world's energy reserves. The Illuminati may still believe some of these grim prophecies (even after the worst scenarios have yet to materialize), but so far their only reponse is to try to hoard even more of the world's limited resources to themselves.
Of course, these studies do make useful fodder to feed the sheeple when they question why personal wealth, standards of living, etc. are dropping from generation to generation even as technology and automation continually advance. "We're running out of everything," our leaders tell us, "because the world is overcrowded with non-essential consumers." Through these ploys and artifices, their best eugenics arguments are made for them by the intelligentsia.
Since the aforementioned forces control and contaminate the data and statistical bases, we may never really know just how true or false the conclusions reached by these studies may actually be. Still, it is interesting to pick out incongruous situations like the birth rate crisis in Italy, where the government is desperately imploring people to reproduce at a higher rate:

European birth rate crisis

Do you suppose it is just a coincidence that the major problem created by zero population growth is the inability of countries to finance their social welfare programs, because a smaller number of younger taxpayers will be paying into the system?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-26-2004, 12:09 PM
eddie eddie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 60
Default Re: LIMITS TO GROWTH GENUINE WARNING OR SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE NWO AGENDA

i have always wondered what the world would be like if usery was illegal.to me it's all about control.debt is a way of control.it's a tool.
in another x years you can rent your house from the nwo.no more private property.just look at the farmers around the world.more and more debt,and at the end they end up selling to the goverment.land is what they are after.just like the roman catholic church in the past.
the elite think that they are right with their plans and have the right to use whatever it needs to complete these plans.it's a bit like killing one to save the others.they really believe this.
they use the good arguments{like population control}and combine them with their own ideas{control}
just thinking about italy,population contol?yes.control by the rc church?mmmm,yes
if you don't agree with the nwo they will trace you down and you will disappear overnight.imho this is already happening
keep them poor,dumb,and occupied. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-27-2004, 08:01 PM
Pliny Pliny is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7
Default Re: LIMITS TO GROWTH GENUINE WARNING OR SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE NWO AGENDA

In my view, Limits to Growth is not a call for vigilance in our growth and use of world resources. It is a justification to craft the world structure according to the desires of a few men.

Rampant consumerism and exponential growth are ills of the current economic/tax structure created by the same men that would create the limits of growth.

Nonetheless it is an interesting discussion and I enjoyed the input of the contributors to this thread.

Just a few points of correction John. Keynes was never the defender of the self-regulatory economy rather his theories were based upon interventionism to regulate the economy and are employed by most governments of today with a central bank. Also David Rockefeller was JDs grandson. The son of John Jr. I liked your quote from Rockefeller which put him squarely in the camp of communism. His octupus trusts and foundations in society that are involved in its engineering are a web that rival the wonders of the world.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-28-2004, 05:15 AM
Institute Institute is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 52
Default Re: LIMITS TO GROWTH GENUINE WARNING OR SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE NWO AGENDA

I just want to add something about Keynes.

For example, In my opinion (of course I could be wrong) Keynesian system is inherently incapable of allocating available liquid funds among firms and activities in the society according to considerations of efficiency, productivity and growth.

Just consider this -as far as I know according to the Keynesian theory every businessman would estimate the marginal efficiency of investment MEI ( while the interest rate is determined by money demand and supply) and if
(MEI) is equal or greater than interest it will be rewarding to borrow and finance the investment project. Otherwise the project will not be undertaken.
Accordingly, available money for lending will be allocated efficiently among firms and activities.

In my opinion this Keynesian theory is wrong and we see it in practice.
Let’s say for sake of simplicity that interest measures accurately the opportunity cost of money available for lending in the credit market, and that a uniform interest rate is applied by banks (lenders) in all cases of borrowing. Hence investment projects for which (MEI) below interest will be excluded.

On the other hand all projects fulfilling the condition MEI greater then intererst will find excess to loanable funds without any preference given by banks (lenders) to projects with relatively higher (MEI).

Therefore in a Keynesian free market economy we can not claim that loanable funds would be optimally or best allocated in this way.
(theoretically speaking only interest-free financial institutions that would aim at maximizing their “interest free” revenues would give preference to projects with higher (MEI) over other projects with relatively lower MEI).

Investors with projects satisfying the (MEI) condition and seeking interest-based finance are not treated equally by banks (lenders),in a free market economy as we have simply assumed.
Large corporations are given priority and better borrowing terms, irrespective of how funds will be used by them. In fact banks (lenders) are concerned, above anything else, with borrowers solvency. Hence, preferential treatments and financing priorities are set by banks on credit-worthiness basis. Consequently small enterprises are either neglected or given least attention by bankers, even if their investment projects are expecting highest returns.
The problem of small enterprises is quite serious in the developing world..

"Surveys indicate that less than I% of small firms in developing countries obtain credit at controlled rates from financial institutions; the remainder rely on the informal sector. The combined net effect is to raise their capital costs and reduce their ability to compete against large firms", according to W.B (I987). In fact failure of small businesses to obtain finance from banks have forced them quite frequently, in the absence of equity finance, to borrow from money lenders in the informal market at very high rates of interest. So they have jumped from the frying pan to the fire.

A study concerning the informal credit market in Peru mentioned that interest rate in that market was as high as 800% - I000% per annum sometimes in the mid 1980s. Todaro, M., states that "commercial banking system of many LDCs restricts its activities almost exclusively to rationing scarce loan able funds to "credit-worthy" medium-and large-scale enterprises in the modern manufacturing sector. Small farmers and indigenous small scale entrepreneurs and traders in both the formal and informal manufacturing and service sectors must normally seek finance elsewhere sometimes from family members and relatives, but more typically from local moneylenders and loan sharks who charge exorbitant rates of interest.
And so on, and so on.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-28-2004, 06:44 AM
john john is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 99
Default Re: LIMITS TO GROWTH GENUINE WARNING OR SCIENTIFIC JUSTIFICATION OF THE NWO AGENDA

Keynes isn`t so easy to understand. He says that economy is self-regulatory but he says not that it should be 100% independent from the citizen`s control (the state-control). This is not the theory of the "hidden hand" proned by Adam Smith.

The intervention of the state is necessary at the level of the Central Bank. We see today how a privte owned Central Bank system is social destructive. See my posts on this topic.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are there limits to freedom of expression?* SeC Opinions 1 01-17-2006 06:51 PM
The Scientific Dictatorship/Depopulation Agenda neenafoof The effects of the NWO 0 11-20-2005 03:11 AM
Carl Jung. New Age Subversive Or Genuine Truth Seeker? truebeliever Other NWO topics 11 09-26-2005 09:53 AM
What is the big deal about 'growth'? jason_ou812 General Conspiracy Discussion 6 09-23-2005 05:14 AM
Khezran “Jews” (not ancient Hebrews) " Aryan supremacy" and "master-race casteism" Institute Opinions 27 12-31-2004 04:56 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.