Bill Gates insane speech

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Please guys, *sigh* just don't feed it.

 

[BmanMcfly]

The man makes a 27 minute speech on reducing the carbon our energy sources put out, and you're focusing on the 30 seconds he spent mentioning population. It's not healthy behavior.

More precisely he spent the first 5 minutes explaining to these youth how CO2 is killing the environment, and it's the fault of too many people using too many services that create too much CO2.... and unless ONE OF THOSE gets reduced to near 0 then bad things will happen. That was the INTRODUCTION of his speech about nuclear innovations, and 'green energy'.

That ALSO goes without mentioning that I linked to an article where Bill Gates was involved in a group of like minded billionaires to create a global push to 'curb overpopulation'. That's obviously irrellevent when he was named as a participant, along with Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and a few others.

Also, I would wager that this presentation was performed only after a multimillion dollar script writing / marketing team pieced everything together to create that binary message. One of those messages, if you consider Gates efforts as philanthropic can easily be lost leaving only the pro-nuclear speech.

Worse, you're misunderstanding what he means by a slower birth rate. See my previous post on the effects of industrialization and stabilizing a country on that country's rate of birth.

Yes, and he IS talking about efforts like this; also, through 'vaccines, health care and family planning'.

Family planning is a key one in here, because it not only encompasses what you are talking about, but also of contraceptives and abortions. If he's of similar opinion to Ted Turner, then you could also include instituting one child policies world wide. Think about it : If overpopulation is such a BIG concern, then clearly you, as someone with global clout and philanthropic aims (save the human race) would be interested in taking advantage of the full spectrum of options to slow down the rate of reproduction.

You might also want to note that the one child policy was proposed in Copenhagen as well.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Please guys, *sigh* just don't feed it.

Wow... just cause you got sick of me backing up everything you claimed didn't exist, only for you to get confused and tell me that the information doesn't prove something that has nothing to do with the point I was backing up, does not make me a troll.

The fact of the matter is that I've backed up my position with 4 or 5 mainstream sources that I was simply parroting. Then you come here just claiming I'm a troll because you keep changing the goal posts once any reasonable burden of proof has been met, so you can avoid seeing that I'm not just talking about of my arse like you were hoping.

 

[Deuce]

Wow... just cause you got sick of me backing up everything you claimed didn't exist, only for you to get confused and tell me that the information doesn't prove something that has nothing to do with the point I was backing up, does not make me a troll.

The fact of the matter is that I've backed up my position with 4 or 5 mainstream sources that I was simply parroting. Then you come here just claiming I'm a troll because you keep changing the goal posts once any reasonable burden of proof has been met, so you can avoid seeing that I'm not just talking about of my arse like you were hoping.

Look, Bill Gates doesn't want to kill anybody. You're a lunatic if you think so. You didn't watch the entire presentation did you? He's advocating different power sources. Period.

Some people are just so goddamned dense.

 

[Kali]

All that money done made him crazy

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Look, Bill Gates doesn't want to kill anybody. You're a lunatic if you think so. You didn't watch the entire presentation did you? He's advocating different power sources. Period.

Some people are just so goddamned dense.

Moderator's Warning:

Stop the personal attacks.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Look, Bill Gates doesn't want to kill anybody.

No of course not... he just aims to solve the problem of over-population.

You're a lunatic if you think so. You didn't watch the entire presentation did you? He's advocating different power sources. Period.

Some people are just so goddamned dense.

Fine, I'm a dense lunatic, but Bill gates has a desire to 'curb overpopulation'... I think with the links that I've sourced ALONE I've made that point. I held back on sourcing because I knew people would rather just say that the whole speech was about nuclear energy, and call me 'dense' or 'crazy' or whatever instead of reading those sources and finding out 'oh hey... Bill Gates really does want to reduce the population.'

SO, when he makes a 5 minute introduction of his speech as an argument for population reduction, 'which wouldn't be necessary if we invest in :' and then goes into the last 20 minutes that's all about nuclear energy. It's still hidden right there in plain sight that the pretext for his speech was that there's too many people and it will cause bad things... "scientists don't know how bad but they know it will be bad" and "as long as there is CO2 the temperatures will increase"

 

[dontworrybehappy]

All that money done made him crazy

Maybe so but even Gates doesn't want to kill off part of his customer base.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Maybe so but even Gates doesn't want to kill off part of his customer base.

*sarcasm* He probably just wants to kill off linux users and people using unregistered versions of windows.

 

[Deuce]

*sarcasm* He probably just wants to kill off linux users and people using unregistered versions of windows.

Microsoft's board of directors, maybe. Bill seems like a pretty relaxed guy, it probably doesn't bother him personally. He doesn't even really work for Microsoft anymore.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Microsoft's board of directors, maybe. Bill seems like a pretty relaxed guy, it probably doesn't bother him personally. He doesn't even really work for Microsoft anymore.

Ya that's true... was just being tongue and cheek.

Look, I'm sure Bill gates talking about population reduction is a legitimate humanitarian viewpoint... However, if you tie in the machiavellian 'ends justify the means' outlook, then if it does come down to it, and reducing population numbers turns INTO a forced issue, then killing off / letting large groups of the population die in the name of saving the earth for the survivors... wouldn't that still be a 'humanitarian' effort?

Also, I understand that much of this speech is about nuclear energy, and not about culling the population. However, with Gates' other ties, you can't simply ignore his statements about over-population as 'just jokes'.

 

[Areopagitican]

Pretending, for a second, that Bill Gates was speaking critically and not doing the usual pseudo-environmental "I'm rich but I care!" routine. Then, yes, he was definitely arguing for some life-ending, radical, options. If he really believed the Earth was dying, or wounded, or hurting or whatever diction he used anyone would, of course, believe in drastic measures. However, I think Gates is like most environmentalists in the sense he doesn't actually realize the sound he creates, by vibrating organs in his upper chest, has meaning. It's just the usual amorphous nonsense. Nothing to get worked up about. He makes it seem like a big deal, and because it’s such a big deal, everyone should go out and buy new computers which use 10% less power.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Pretending, for a second, that Bill Gates was speaking critically and not doing the usual pseudo-environmental "I'm rich but I care!" routine. Then, yes, he was definitely arguing for some life-ending, radical, options. If he really believed the Earth was dying, or wounded, or hurting or whatever diction he used anyone would, of course, believe in drastic measures. However, I think Gates is like most environmentalists in the sense he doesn't actually realize the sound he creates, by vibrating organs in his upper chest, has meaning. It's just the usual amorphous nonsense. Nothing to get worked up about. He makes it seem like a big deal, and because it’s such a big deal, everyone should go out and buy new computers which use 10% less power.

I agree with this in the context of this thread and the other links that have been provided.... by going on that alone, it makes sense. Even going as far as saying that he meant for a gradual solutions to over-population. Either that or he's simply not considering the implications of what can be drawn when a person alludes to saying 'overpopulation is a drastic problem that needs drastic solutions'.

However, in terms of that agenda, this speech is only a small part of the story. I'm actually being very careful about how I'm approaching this topic, because it does draw so close to 'conspiracy theory' zone.

 

[Deuce]

Pretending, for a second, that Bill Gates was speaking critically and not doing the usual pseudo-environmental "I'm rich but I care!" routine. Then, yes, he was definitely arguing for some life-ending, radical, options. If he really believed the Earth was dying, or wounded, or hurting or whatever diction he used anyone would, of course, believe in drastic measures. However, I think Gates is like most environmentalists in the sense he doesn't actually realize the sound he creates, by vibrating organs in his upper chest, has meaning. It's just the usual amorphous nonsense. Nothing to get worked up about. He makes it seem like a big deal, and because it’s such a big deal, everyone should go out and buy new computers which use 10% less power.

No he wasn't arguing for "life-ending" options. We've addressed this repeatedly. You're wrong.

 

[BmanMcfly]

No he wasn't arguing for "life-ending" options. We've addressed this repeatedly. You're wrong.

In a sense you're right... he's just building an argument to show overpopulation as an 'environmental concern', the methods to stablize or reduce population growth (family planning is intricately tied to contraceptives and abortions, and to a lesser extent Chinese style one child policies). As a pretext for investing in innovations in clean energy... as an alternative to population reduction efforts.

You are right about developped nations having lower population growth, but what you didn't address the issue of 'what happens if the measures to bring about these energy innovations are deemed too little too late?'

At that point the clear answer will be forceful depopulation efforts, afterall, it wouldn't be a BAD thing if the intent was to solve environmental concerns.

 

[Deuce]

So it's not Bill Gates who wants to kill people, it's some theoretical people in the future when the earth is hypothetically above it's population limit. Got it.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Wow... just cause you got sick of me backing up everything you claimed didn't exist, only for you to get confused and tell me that the information doesn't prove something that has nothing to do with the point I was backing up, does not make me a troll.

The fact of the matter is that I've backed up my position with 4 or 5 mainstream sources that I was simply parroting. Then you come here just claiming I'm a troll because you keep changing the goal posts once any reasonable burden of proof has been met, so you can avoid seeing that I'm not just talking about of my arse like you were hoping.

BM you're a smart guy, but your arguments on this stuff always just consist of a bunch of random events and tying them together with no evidence. When I respond that there is nothing connecting these events, you just say something about seeing the forest trhough the trees. Although you do nothing to prove where the metaphorical trees are.

 

[Andalublue]

Bill Gates on energy: Innovating to zero! | Video on TED.com

I just got shown this speech of Bill Gates, if it was any other source but straight from his own mouth I'd put this in conspiracy zone... but I'm pretty sure that he's calling for 10-15% human population reduction... or more.

Let's start with a couple highlights
- CO2 -> temperature increase -> negative effects (pretty much a direct quote as to his understanding of the intricacies of the environment)

- There is just 'small uncertainties' in how much the temperature will be on any given day based on the co2 concentration.

- "We have no idea how bad the effects will be but scientists say that it will be very bad." - Orwellian double-speech / crimestop

- Innovating to 0 (co2) : "Untill we get to near 0 CO2 the temperature is going to go UP."

- Average north american produces 20 tonnes of CO2, in poorer countries it's less then 1 tonne (produces through exhalation).

- First graph shows that Co2 did not exist prior to 1855.


HERE is where it starts to get sick :

- CO2 = P * S * E * C : That is CO2 (which MUST be "near 0") = PEOPLE * Services /(per) person * energy / service * Co2 / energy. Look closely at this equation... Gates even says it himself "In order for CO2 to get close to zero something in this equation is going to have to drop close to 0.

He could be talking about zeroing out S, E, or C... but he is NOT... Because as long as people are around they will be paying for services that use energy and produce co2... PEOPLE in his equation is THE ONLY factor that can be reduced close to 0 and be workable in the real world.

- "The world population is around 6.8 billion people going up to 9 billion(????), now if we do a REALLY GREAT JOB with vaccines, health care, and reproductive health services, we could LOWER that by around 10 or 15 percent."

The rest of this speech is talking about energy innovation... but he later says that by 2020 we should have a 20% co2 reduction increasing to 80% by 2050. I guess we better hope that there's some intense 'green energy' implementation, or eventually it'll be the people who are going to have to go.



Anyway... I'd make a longer commentary, but it's getting late over here.

Perhaps you were banking on people not watching all 27 minutes of his speech. He didn't suggest ANY reduction of the overall population. He didn't even hint at it. He was discussing technological solutions to future energy demands. Demands that are inevitable and not potentially reductible by reducing population.

I didn't understand all the science of what he was suggesting. His oration was not 100% intelligible to those not steeped in nuclear physics... that's a criticism if the speech was intended to enthuse the lay-person. But at no point did he allude or suggest what you are suggesting he suggested.

Perhaps you didn't understand it either. You're forgiven that. You're not forgiven claiming fascistic sentiments from someone without any rational basis.

 

[Andalublue]

In a sense you're right... he's just building an argument to show overpopulation as an 'environmental concern', the methods to stablize or reduce population growth (family planning is intricately tied to contraceptives and abortions, and to a lesser extent Chinese style one child policies). As a pretext for investing in innovations in clean energy... as an alternative to population reduction efforts.

You are right about developped nations having lower population growth, but what you didn't address the issue of 'what happens if the measures to bring about these energy innovations are deemed too little too late?'

At that point the clear answer will be forceful depopulation efforts, afterall, it wouldn't be a BAD thing if the intent was to solve environmental concerns.

You seem to be the one suggesting "foreceful depopulation efforts". He never even alluded to it, still less suggested such measures. Your straw horse is made of such weak material you can't even recognise it as a horse.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Perhaps you were banking on people not watching all 27 minutes of his speech. He didn't suggest ANY reduction of the overall population. He didn't even hint at it. He was discussing technological solutions to future energy demands. Demands that are inevitable and not potentially reductible by reducing population.

I didn't understand all the science of what he was suggesting. His oration was not 100% intelligible to those not steeped in nuclear physics... that's a criticism if the speech was intended to enthuse the lay-person. But at no point did he allude or suggest what you are suggesting he suggested.

Perhaps you didn't understand it either. You're forgiven that. You're not forgiven claiming fascistic sentiments from someone without any rational basis.

'Rational basis'?? Let's see : Gates' father was deeply involved with 'planned parenthood' the organization that's the largest organization in the world that aborts babies. Then, 6 months ago, he goes to a meeting with Ted Turner, who can be quoted as saying 'there's too many people doing too much stuff and it's ruining the planet' and 'I think we should follow UN recommendations on population reduction' (he was referring to the 1996 UN biological diversity study...), and other like minded billionaires in a "bid to curb overpopulation"

The point is : whether it's humanitarian or not... this is NOT baseless.

Also, I DO understand that the brunt of the speech was about nuclear energy and the innovations in that area.

Like I said several times, there HAD to have been a TEAM of marketing experts and speech writers that scripted and designed this presentation to provide specifically those dual messages.

You seem to be the one suggesting "foreceful depopulation efforts". He never even alluded to it, still less suggested such measures. Your straw horse is made of such weak material you can't even recognise it as a horse.

If you don't think it was alluded, you don't understand the marketing aspect of that speech.

Now, whether it's through humanitarian or forceful efforts, most of the people are trying to deny that there's even an intention to curb overpopulation. Which it's being sold as an 'environmental concern'.

I expected a level of denial, as is typical with topics that aren't generally accepted in the MSM... but the message of 'people are bad and killing the planet' IS MADE, then offset and legitimized by placing it in the context of showing the importance of investment in energy innovations.

 

[BmanMcfly]

BM you're a smart guy, but your arguments on this stuff always just consist of a bunch of random events and tying them together with no evidence. When I respond that there is nothing connecting these events, you just say something about seeing the forest trhough the trees. Although you do nothing to prove where the metaphorical trees are.

The evidence : MSM articles.
The connection : Bill Gates from 6 months ago, and when he gave the speech (I limited this because as has been shown by responses, the sources were not even read)
The topic : 'curbing overpopulation'

'Random events' involving the same people, covering the same topic is NOT random events, it's a TREND.

I could link to you 1000's of mainstream media articles, government documents, white papers, PDF files, scientific papers, etc... ALL saying the EXACT same thing, and I would STILL be seeing the same accusation, lack of evidence.... . I've been on this site long enough to know the ways people will deny the existance of uncomfortable topics.

You see a bunch of 'random events', but you fail to see the links that tie them together.

 

[Deuce]

The evidence : MSM articles.
The connection : Bill Gates from 6 months ago, and when he gave the speech (I limited this because as has been shown by responses, the sources were not even read)
The topic : 'curbing overpopulation'

'Random events' involving the same people, covering the same topic is NOT random events, it's a TREND.

I could link to you 1000's of mainstream media articles, government documents, white papers, PDF files, scientific papers, etc... ALL saying the EXACT same thing, and I would STILL be seeing the same accusation, lack of evidence.... . I've been on this site long enough to know the ways people will deny the existance of uncomfortable topics.

You see a bunch of 'random events', but you fail to see the links that tie them together.

Can we get a mod to move this thread to the conspiracy forum yet?

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

The evidence : MSM articles.
The connection : Bill Gates from 6 months ago, and when he gave the speech (I limited this because as has been shown by responses, the sources were not even read)
The topic : 'curbing overpopulation'

'Random events' involving the same people, covering the same topic is NOT random events, it's a TREND.

I could link to you 1000's of mainstream media articles, government documents, white papers, PDF files, scientific papers, etc... ALL saying the EXACT same thing, and I would STILL be seeing the same accusation, lack of evidence.... . I've been on this site long enough to know the ways people will deny the existance of uncomfortable topics.

You see a bunch of 'random events', but you fail to see the links that tie them together.

Yes he gave the speech about lowering birth rates. There are a lot of ways that you can do that effectively without killing people and forced abortions. Look at programs in Southern India, Kenya, Iran, and other places around the world.

 

[BmanMcfly]

Yes he gave the speech about lowering birth rates. There are a lot of ways that you can do that effectively without killing people and forced abortions. Look at programs in Southern India, Kenya, Iran, and other places around the world.

I'm not disputing that...

I'm saying : "Gates and other like-minded billionaires have met to find ways to curb overpopulation around the world." and Gates has placed 'overpopulation' as a 'global warming concern', and he made that point as a pre-text for investment in energy innovations. That much we shouldn't be disputing.

The measure to humanely reduce birthrates, and lower population density is all good and fine...

So, now I'll ask the question : Would initiating a 'one child policy' world-wide, like China proposed in Copenhagen, also be a 'humane' way to tackle 'overpopulation'?

By what measure is the world over-populated? What is the 'ideal' world population?

If you look at the people that joined Gates in that meeting of billionaires I sourced, namely, Ted Turner, that number is around 2 Billion or less.

This isn't the full interview, which I couldn't find anymore but :
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSlB1nW4S54"]YouTube- Ted Turner; Global Warming Will Create Cannibals[/ame]

Can we get a mod to move this thread to the conspiracy forum yet?

Ya... Bill Gates giving a speech is a conspiracy theory... Bill Gates with other billionaires meeting behind closed doors to discuss 'curbing overpopulation' is a 'conspiracy theory'... well, if the intent is nefarious, it is a conspiracy... but it's not a theory, it's factual and verifiable.