| Author | Message | ||
    Reen71b Member Post Number: 14 Registered: 09-2020 |
As has been discussed over and over (and needs continuous focus on), I decided to search on Amazon books to see if there were any books written on overpopulation. To my surprise, there are several. There's one in particular called The Coming Plague that was written in 1994. This book has 81% high reviews. In fact, most of these books written on the topic of overpopulation have high reviews. Maybe more people care than we actually realize. Maybe not enough. Maybe it's the powers that be that are blocking the pathways to us fixing the problem. I don't know. I'm going to add some of these to my 'books to read' list. I'm curious as to what's stopping people, who actually want to do something, from making a change. Maureen | ||
Phi_spiral Member Post Number: 121 Registered: 04-2020 |
Maureen: "I'm curious as to what's stopping people, who actually want to do something, from making a change." Hello Maureen. Billionaire Bill Gates has a new book out about 'overpopulation' but he just doesn't know it! It's titled,"How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need". Here is an excerpt from the book: "To sum up: We need to accomplish something gigantic we have never done before, much faster than we have ever done anything similar. To do it we need lots of breakthroughs in science and engineering. A consensus needs to be built that doesn't yet exist. We need to build and create public policies to push a transition that would not happen otherwise." The real "disaster" is that people will pay $16 US for a book with the wrong solution and doesn't address the root cause - overpopulation. Whereas, Billy (Meier) provides the real solution - a cap of three children per household, and explains succinctly the intertwined dynamics, all for FREE in his booklet, Umweltzerstörung als Folge der Überbevölkerung (Environmental Destruction As A Result of Overpopulation). https://shop.figu.org/schriften/gratisschriften/umweltzerstörung-als-folge-der-überbevölkerung Bill Gates is right about one thing, though, Maureen, and more to the point of your wonderment, - a consensus needs to be built that doesn't yet exist and as long as the intelligentsia of society continue to misdirect people into thinking that "future breakthroughs" in technology will save the day or the various "gods-of-the-last-minute" will come through for us, then the correct consensus will never be built and channeled into the correct public policies. Climate change is a real and viable threat to people that can be seen and experienced first hand and in some cases, traumatized by. But paradoxically, "overpopulation" - the cause of climate change - is not. If you really want someone to wake up and smell the overpopulation apocalypse have them read an Elizabeth Kolbert book, such as Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change. Regards Bob | ||
Reen71b Member Post Number: 16 Registered: 09-2020 |
@Phi_spiral I agree with you. I also think there's a huge distraction with things that cause immediate pleasure ie. technological toys, entertainment, vacations, etc. and people have just decided that they're going to die anyway so who cares? There's a lack of caring about the future. I don't think we're going to get to a point of a consensus anytime soon because people are too caught up in themselves to see the bigger picture. If we're going to get the population under control, we have to start thinking outside of ourselves in a logical manner. I know that it's what got me to where I am today. You can't interalize everything. There's a whole world out there with a plethora of different views and life experiences. If we could all just focus on self responsibility and seeing the bigger picture, we would be on to something. No one is going to listen to getting the population under control if they don't think it directly affects them. The 'all about me' attitude stops the buck right there. So, how do we go about changing this attitude? Maureen | ||
Phi_spiral Member Post Number: 122 Registered: 04-2020 |
Maureen: "No one is going to listen to getting the population under control if they don't think it directly affects them. So, how do we go about changing this attitude?" That's a tough question. I doubt that dialogue (overpopulation) will get much traction in the atmosphere of a world pandemic and millions of people are dying. A large swath of our society are not even willing to make short-term sacrifices for their own benefit in wearing a mask. So helping to save a planet of the future that they will not live to see is just not on their bucket list. And as far as forming a consensus; this country (USA) is so fractionated now, we were just a baby's breath away from civil war; and we may still be. But be of good cheer, there are indeed like-minded individuals who are concerned, like you, Maureen, about what can be done to make a difference. Such a group who simply called themselves - "A SMALL GROUP OF AMERICANS WHO SEEK THE AGE OF REASON" sponsored the construction and erection of 5 granite slabs that are over 19' high containing inscriptions including 10 guidelines or principles with the first 2 dealing directly with overpopulation and number 10, dealing indirectly: 1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. 2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity. 3. Unite humanity with a living new language. 4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason. 5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. 6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. 7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials. 8. Balance personal rights with social duties. 9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite. 10. Be not a cancer on the Earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature. The value of 500 million used for the world population is particularly noteworthy because it corresponds to the value used in the spiritual teaching; respectively, the teaching of creation-energy. The 500 million figure is used in Arahat Athersata as an estimate, with the more exact figure of 529 million given by the Plejaren in the contact notes and based on adequate arable land statistics figured for exact size of the Earth, breaking down to 12 people living per square kilometer. Arahat Athersata was first published back in 1975 and the Georgia Guidestones, as they have come to be called, were erected in 1980. The Georgia Guidestones - Before and After graffiti vandalism   BTW, when Billy was asked to comment about the Georgia Guidestones the response was: There are some links with/to the spirit teaching /spiritual teachings; however, Billy did not do research about those stones. As a sad testament to the consciousness of our society, the stones have been misunderstood by so many in religious and conspiracy groups; such that, there is now a stigma attached to the concept of preventing overpopulation, as you can see in the pictures on the right and on various conspiracy sites on the internet. So all of this is what we are up against. Regards Bob} | ||
Reen71b Member Post Number: 17 Registered: 09-2020 |
I've never heard about the Georgia Guidestones. Despite the vandalism by an obvious sick religious mentality, it does show that there are people out there who think independently and logically. I think a lot are afraid to speak up openly. Myself included. I live in a very religious and politically motivated state. Not to mention I work in a job where I have to watch what I say. I stay in my line of work because I help people. So, until I can offically retire from my line of work, I need to be careful and protect myself. I really wish I could be open without fear of reprocussions with my employment. But, I most definitely support anything along the guidelines of the teachings and the truth. I didn't search this long for the truth to just abandon it. I don't care how many lifetimes it takes for the world to wake up. I am right with everyone for the long haul. Maureen | ||
Zafenatpaneach New member Post Number: 2 Registered: 04-2021 |
Dear FIGU readers, How do we understand the Birth Stop regimen as elucidated by Arahat Athersata, the High Council, the Plejaren, & Billy? Specifically, is it 7 years no births, 7 years controlled births, repeat, or, 7 years no births, 1 year controlled births, repeat? Thank you. Admittedly, I have been under the impression that the idea is 7 years / 1 year, but in explaining that concept to people, even I silently chafe against that timetable, since a pregnancy would take 3/4 of that time, plus the time it would take to successfully conceive, and then, today in reading the Contact notes chronologically, I see Billy & Quetzal say, in Contact 166 of March 11 1982, something which leads me to believe the depopulation model follows a 7 year / 7 year cycle: Quetzal: 46. Everything has its charms. Billy: You're telling me; the world and the whole Universe are simply fantastic, and it is worthwhile to live and enjoy every second. Quetzal: 47. That is a word that the Earth human beings should remember. Billy: You’re asking for a lot there, just as if you’d require that the human beings of Earth should stop their population explosion. Even lust, greed, obsession, and irrationality are too greatly and deeply rooted in human beings for words of reason to be able to resolve this. That's why the problems also don’t become smaller, even though new solutions are always sought and found, whether it concerns the area of rising crime, the threat of war, and the wars and revolutions, or whether it concerns famine, the energy problem, diseases, and so on and so forth. If all of us would think logically and rationally about all this, then we would all know damn well that none of these problems of the Earth human beings can be satisfactorily resolved or corrected because all solutions are only self-deceptive solutions, for every solution to a problem only solves it momentarily – for a period of several months at the most. Thus, all solutions toward resolving the problems are only apparent solutions that represent a catastrophic self-deception, for in truth, the problems don't become solved at all. Any self-deceptive solution of the human beings of Earth, namely whether it concerns the construction of a new nuclear power plant or the new surveying of oil sources or grain productions, etc., only leads to the fact that earthly humanity always continues to rise sharply, by what means the solution becomes self-deception, for through this, the apparently solved problem inflates to a new farce. Thus, if the human being of Earth truly wants to solve his already catastrophically degenerated problems of hunger, energy shortage, illnesses, criminal activity, and wars and revolutions, etc., then for this, there is only one way which exhibits no mercy, namely an absolute, legally arranged birth stop across the whole world. At the same time, this birth stop would have to be controlled in such a way that for the preservation of humanity and new blood, a certain number of descendants may only be generated every seven years, and then again, seven years of the birth stop would have to be the rule. This would then have to be carried out until Earth humanity would be reduced to an acceptable and natural measure, through the naturally occurring deaths of the excess population. There is simply no other way to solve the problem because every other way violates the natural laws and, therefore, represents a self-deception. Quetzal: 48. Of clearer correctness, you could not have explained these matters. 49. Indeed, all problems of the Earth human beings can only be solved in this way. 50. Obviously, you have made profound thoughts about this, through which you've encountered the seven-year cycle, as we have also acquired this as a true solution, and even the High Council and Arahat Athersata have only found this advice for the Earth human beings as the true solution to the problem. If all that you have said were followed by the human beings of this world, as well as all that you have taught since your youth, then the Earth would be a paradise and the whole populations of all countries would be a humanity of true peace, whose reputation in this respect would spread honourably throughout the universe. -Bermunda to Billy, Contact 705 (14 March 2018) line 34. | ||
Rob_stewart Member Post Number: 8 Registered: 03-2021 |
I read it as seven years off and seven years controlled. It doesn't seem unreasonable as there is adequate time to plan a birth even two in a lifetime. The trouble we face is the unplanned nature of our population. Life immediately becomes more valuable and each cycle builds towards this. In the 7/7 cycle the seven years planning births is at least as important as the seven year stopped. Interpretating a one year controlled birth, immediately feels repressive. If a woman approached an age where a suitable partner etc. Its a bit harsh to force this into what conceivably would be two or three years in her lifetime. It would also likely lead to resentment towards children and create a large spike in births. So if facilities for children are required the one year nature makes them seem less worthwhile: at least to those not involved. Conversely while all are subject to seven years stop. The seven years of controlled births is a balanced amount of time. Facilities hospitals, schools or child provisions can be thought about for the whole cycle. Prospective parents can work with community to keep it lively. It may be certain communities may invite parents towards them where housing etc was more available. Importantly happy parents and children becomes a central theme for communities. Just my reading and thinking on it. The current conveyer belt of sink/swim/wheat/chaff is flat out barbaric. It is designed to be unfair this unfairness promotes selfishness. While I don't doubt a 7/7 cycle would get complaints it seems fair. Salome | ||
Reen71b Member Post Number: 18 Registered: 09-2020 |
@Rob_stewart "Interpretating a one year controlled birth, immediately feels repressive." That goes along with what I asked in my previous post 16. Changing of attitude. The attitudes change when we stop denying the truth. When one knows and accepts the truth, one becomes less selfish and doesn't worry about feeling repressive when the bigger issue is saving this planet and the living beings on it. Maureen | ||
Rob_stewart Member Post Number: 9 Registered: 03-2021 |
Hi Maureen, it is only my understanding of the writings. However there should be a deliberate intention to reduce population collectively. It needs to be something that corresponds to the nature of things. The nature of things is not unfair although it demands responsibility which is what we lack. For a one year controlled birth window - how do you deal with a miscarriage or a failure in this window. What happens when the population becomes threatened by the short window. The important aspect of a longer window of births is the controlled nature of this or the responsibility. Currently on Earth we possibly would abuse a seven year window, selfishly. However for the majority there is not a desperate need to reproduce. It seems reasonable to plan our population in this window collectively. This also gives purpose to the seven years stop where we are actively helping parents to give their child the best start. Collectively we establish a great environment for children to develop in. I do not see a scenario in a one year window where people behave rationally even with the truth to guide them. I also understand those irrational feelings that would occur, telling a couple at 28 it is now unlikely they can have children as they missed the window. An avalanche of children produced in case there are failures, resources limited towards this, as it was a mistake. Or resources not used as the window was less of a success, with plans to double down in seven years. So when I say repressive I am meaning repressive of nature not of selfishness. This is fundamentally why a one year start seems unlikely. For it to be a cycle it must have a certain balance. How people collectively act in responsible ways in the seven year window is where the truth and teachings shine. Is the relationship I am in a life relationship. Is my position one of stability. Is my own development complete enough to value another life's development. Where would a child fit in the community. Who can provide guidance. The logical preparedness has some time to establish itself. It may also transpire that a seven to fourteen year wait is appropriate. However the pressure is reduced somewhat as at least half of a persons lifetime can result in procreation. The real challenge to society is the errant births. In the stop period or even an uncontrolled birth in the open period; what are the abortion rules and what would the consequences be? The key to saving the planet is in agreeing a fair set of rules applied to all. This is true of all matters. I would be wary of something that has an inherent unfairness to it even when the greater good is the reason. I might be incorrect as I can understand the Plejaren could look ahead and do live longer. However the impression I get from the contacts, that the Plejaren consider things more fully and allow the nature of things to unfold. The single year doesn't fit as well with this as it would seem forced. I would also expect that a single year might have a more auspicious timing, so would it move. Then the cycle of seven wouldn't be. Again I might be wrong and there might be something more definitive. However I don't see many objections to something that offers such an obvious benefit - seven years of stability to plan - seven years to enact the plan - cycle. Salome | ||
Reen71b Member Post Number: 19 Registered: 09-2020 |
@Rob_stewart That is all well and good. But, until people start taking self responsibility, the likelihood of any attempt at lowering the population to a reasonable number for this planet, is slim. People are going to continue to be selfish and do as they please because the attitude of "No one is going to tell me how to live." is going to rule over any logic. Maureen | ||
Patm Member Post Number: 871 Registered: 07-2006 |
The detail regarding Birth-stop is not focused on just the 7 year/1 year cycle but also on the fitness/readiness of the parents in question. The following possibility (regarding Required Measures of World-wide Form) is outlined on the FIGU Switzerland website at: German original: https://www.figu.org/ch/ueberbevoelkerung/kampf-der-ueberbevoelkerung/erforderliche-massnahmen English translation: https://creationaltruth.org/FIGU/Overpopulation/Fight-of-the-Overpopulation/Required-measures-of-world-wide-form#Required-Measures-579 Required Measures of World-wide Form Erforderliche Massnahmen weltweiter Form One possibility among many! Eine Möglichkeit unter vielen! (possess only unconcernedness for small bush-indigenous-people, who since time-immemorial perform their own strict birth-control-measures) (besitzen nur Ungültigkeit für kleine Busch-Naturvölker, die seit alters her eigene harte Geburtenregelungsmassnahmen durchführen) Permitted marriageable age: Erlaubtes Heiratsalter: female: 25 years weiblich: 25 Jahre male: 30 years männlich: 30 Jahre Descendant Procreation Age: Nachkommenszeugungs-Alter: female: 28 years weiblich: 28 Jahre male: 33 years männlich: 33 Jahre Descendant Procreation requirements: NachkommenszeugungsVoraussetzungen: 1. existing marriage of at least 3 years. 1. bestehende Ehe von mindestens 3 Jahren. 2. Make cognizable a harmonious and healthy marriage. 2. Nachweis einer harmonischen und gesunden Ehe. 3. Make cognizable an irreproachable life-conduct of the marriage partners. 3. Nachweis eines einwandfreien Lebenswandels der Ehepartner. 4. Make cognizable child education capability. 4. Nachweis der Kinder-Erziehungsfähigkeit. 5. Make cognizable health: No inheritable and infectious diseases, no drug-, medicine- or alcohol-addiction, etc. 5. Gesundheitsnachweis: Keine vererbbaren und ansteckenden Krankheiten, keine Drogen-, Medikamente- oder Alkoholsucht usw. 6. No membership to extremist and anarchist groups. 6. Keine Angehörigkeit zu extremistischen und staatsfeindlichen Gruppen. Maximum Descendant number: Maximale Nachkommenszahl: 3 descendants per marriage 3 Nachkommen pro Ehe Stop in births interval: Geburtenstopp-Intervall: 7 years complete stop in births worldwide 7 Jahre völliger Geburtenstopp weltweit 1 year procreation permission in accordance with permission submission 1 Jahr Zeugungserlaubnis gemäss Erlaubnisvorlagen 7 years complete stop in births worldwide 7 Jahre völliger Geburtenstopp weltweit 1 year procreation permission in accordance with permission submission; viably thus will last, until the reduction of terrestrial humanity has obtained the normal conditions 1 Jahr Zeugungserlaubnis gemäss Erlaubnisvorlagen; durchführbar so lange, bis die Reduzierung der irdischen Menschheit den Normalstand erlangt hat Thereafterwards: Permission submissions for marriage and for procreation of descendants remain in power, therewith however precipitates the seven-yearly cycle of the stop in births. Danach: Erlaubnisvorlagen zur Ehe und zur Zeugung von Nachkommen bleiben in Kraft, wobei jedoch der Siebenjahreszyklus des Geburtenstopps ausfällt. Furthermore remains to exist: Weiter bestehen bleibt: 3 descendants per marriage (or 3 foster- i.e. adoptive-children) 3 Nachkommen pro Ehe (oder 3 Pflege- respektive Adoptivkinder) Punitive measures with offenses: Strafmassnahmen bei Zuwiderhandlungen: 1. Fine at a value of 10 annual salaries of both fallible ones. 1. Geldstrafe in Höhe von 10 Jahres-Gehältern beider Fehlbaren. 2. Sterilization of both fallible ones. 2. Sterilisierung beider Fehlbaren. 3. Castration of the fallible ones with rape and physical and psychical Gewalt, etc. as well as their lifelong and gender separate exclusion from the society. 3. Kastrierung der Fehlbaren bei Notzucht und Vergewaltigung usw. sowie deren lebenslänglicher und geschlechtlich getrennter Ausschluss aus der Gesellschaft. 4. State extraction and education of all children of the fallible ones = foster-/adoptive-parents. 4. Staatliche Entziehung und Erziehung aller Kinder der Fehlbaren = Pflege-/Adoptiveltern. ------ translator notes regarding castration: from Talmud Jmmanuel, Chapter 12 (explanation): A woman is separated from men (Entmannung) and a man is separated from women (Entweibung) does not mean how that is by today's sense understood as a castration, etc., but rather at the time of the old prophets from the Nokodemion-lineage was thus solely and alone a segregation from society in a banishment-based kind and wise meaning, therewith this could be for a determined shorter or longer time or under certain circumstances could be lifelong. Entmannung und Entweibung bedeutet nicht, wie das nach heutigem Sinn verstanden wird, eine Kastration usw., sondern zur Zeit der wahren alten Propheten aus der Nokodemion-Linie war damit einzig und allein eine Aussonderung aus der Gesellschaft in verbannungsmässiger Art und Weise gemeint, wobei diese für eine bestimmte kürzere oder längere Zeit oder unter Umständen lebenslang sein konnte. Hope this helps PatM | ||
Jacob Member Post Number: 33 Registered: 07-2019 |
The seven-year cycle as proposed means exactly seven years of no offspring whatsoever, then just one year when it’s allowed, followed by seven years of no births. It’s the only humane and logical way. It would be impossible to conceive more children in one year, than in seven years of people dying (natural) deaths. The laws of nature are (relatively) perfectly logical, they are forces of nature, the creation-universal consciousness, with the roots in the law of cause and effect. OUR cause (as human beings). We have caused this mess, not the universal-consciousness creation / nature. The laws of nature do not care (if they even could) about human feelings of being ‘repressed’ or ‘maltreated’, if we do not reduce the overpopulation, the earth human population will wipe itself out, not because it was caused by nature, but by ourselves. It’s even a law of the universal-consciousness creation that evolution must go on, even when it means that a human race destroys itself and its own planet. If that would happen, the spiritforms would wander out and find another human life supporting planet and incarnate there. In order to survive, the earth human has no choice, he will have to follow logic and apply the seven-year birth stop, there is no alternative that would be also humane. A seven year birth stop followed by a seven year period where its allowed to conceive would be totally illogical, even if the Earth population would reduce, it would go so slowly that the impact on the climate because of the surplus of humans would be devastating. The laws of nature are logical, they function according to logic, and only logical use of the natural laws can prevent disaster. We need to stop complaining, stop whining and do what is needed to save the planet and our future survival (as a good friend of mine always says). Maybe a very crude and blunt example: A sympathetic person who picks up a pistol and shoots himself in the head, will most likely die from the gunshot wound, the laws of nature, cause and effect will not make an exception because its a nice guy, they can’t, they are forces. Same principle applies to the Earth human population, no amount of denying, complaining, ignoring, whining will change the law of cause and effect. We have no choice whatsoever. We can also see it with the current corona pandemic, we do not do what is logical and we pay the price. A last point that I will make: The law of cause and effect is merciless on the willfully stupid, they will eradicate themselves, with absolute precision, and that will go on so long until logic sets in with the surviving people. “The unexamined life is not worth living.” - Socrates “Our life is what our thoughts make it.” - Marcus Aurelius Salome, Jacob | ||
Reen71b Member Post Number: 20 Registered: 09-2020 |
@Patm Thank you for posting that. It puts it in a more detailed perspective. Maureen | ||
Rob_stewart Member Post Number: 10 Registered: 03-2021 |
Thanks for the post. Apologies for causing offence. I am in no way whinging or making excuses. The important part of population control is the control. Returning land back to a more natural use and preventing illogical objections, would be the reasoning. A not inconsiderable peice of work and no less important. An instant population of 500 million would still have a world where over 90% has been abused by our expansion. In our current state of evolution such planning is beyond national government in one year, even with the stop of seven. Where a local community has a good chance of managing the shared resources and with thought the national or world government could support this. In that context a longer window makes sense - not to push the boundaries but simply to process in a logical way, so for each year one seventh of the balance required, probably lower to account for errant births in the stop. Thought and planning at an individual level. However I also surmised that errant births would be aborted before they were life. A draconian measure itself and probably against nature but again something an individual can act on. From these guidelines I suspect there would initially be more foster children. I am reading that correctly- not abortion? I also expect a large number would be subject to the punishment, again in this context not a bad thing. So one year is almost too much, such is the selfish tendency of this world. A hard road that would lead to a significant reduction in very few generations. A road we have chosen through lack of thought and selfish action. I would note that these are emergency measures. So be careful of creating dogma around this - both the wrong 7/7 or the correct 7/1 - as yet I have not found an indication of the cycle referred to in any sphere of research - interested if anyone has i did look. That Billy and the Plejaren understand it i have no doubts. I can also have no doubts on the guidelines. So many thanks for providing clarity. I am learning all the time so sincere thanks for the responses. Also again an apology for offensive remarks on nature but I often find it balanced. So it was my misunderstanding. Salome | ||
Reen71b Member Post Number: 21 Registered: 09-2020 |
@Rob_stewart You weren't offensive in any way. It's good to have these discussions. And naturally, we are going to question the advice that Billy and the plejaren give us. As we should! It's actually a good thing. It makes us think for ourselves and it helps in our evolution. Maureen | ||
Msmichelle Member Post Number: 804 Registered: 02-2010 |
I'm thankful we "know" the truth about overpopulation. I agree eradication, elimination via climate destruction, war, chaos, etc will be a part of our history for quite some time. We have the books, contact reports, etc. therefore, our future personalities will at least have the "truth" at their fingertips. MsMichelle (sending peace and love to all) | ||
Zafenatpaneach New member Post Number: 3 Registered: 04-2021 |
Thank you for your input all. Before reading these postings, I found Christian Frehner's 2008 article "population growth without end? no more taboo!" from Special Bulletin 41. He writes, "The desire for a baby will be declared as fulfilled if the infant survives and does not die in a natural way within six months after birth. (On this occasion it should be mentioned that it is beneficial for the wife to observe a three-year regeneration period between the births.) If – in the most “favourable” case – a married couple has seven full years at their disposal to procreate children, much stress is omitted, which will have a positive influence on the ability to conceive and generally will improve the quality of life." Clearly, FIGU understands there is a "most favourable" way to enact the birth ban. If ever a worldwide birth ban comes to fruition, wouldn't we agree it would be due to Billy's writings & FIGU's efforts? Perhaps we would also agree that Earth could sooner achieve this birth ban if FIGU organizes its proposal around that "most favourable" way. If any serious progress is made in a worldwide birth ban, perhaps we would agree that the 'least painful' solution would be the first to gain ground. The tightening of the birth-period seems like a viable option only after a 7 year / 7 year timetable is already established. If all that you have said were followed by the human beings of this world, as well as all that you have taught since your youth, then the Earth would be a paradise and the whole populations of all countries would be a humanity of true peace, whose reputation in this respect would spread honourably throughout the universe. -Bermunda to Billy, Contact 705 (14 March 2018) line 34. | ||
Jacob Member Post Number: 34 Registered: 07-2019 |
Nope. The seven year / seven year timetable won’t work. It’s a compromise solution for a dire situation which won’t allow any compromise. The seven / one / seven … year timetable is the only humane option. It’s not the most favorable way, it’s the only humane way. The other options are: pandemics, world war 4, asteroid impact, extreme climate change and resulting famine, genocide on a mass scale by certain organizations. Largest parts of the earth population is so divided, so cult-religiously confused and egotistical that even a near useless seven / seven timetable won’t be followed, let alone come to any result. Based on earth human data, the ratio between births and deaths is 2,38 births to 1 death. This means that after seven years of birth stop, the ‘loss’ would be more than made up for in the following seven years when its allowed, the growth of the population would slow down, but nevertheless still grow. If there are 105.000.000 deaths in 7 years there would be 249.900.000 births in 7 years. Even when this is followed by another 105.000.000 deaths, and 0 births, it would not be enough. In a timeframe of 14 years, 210.000.000 people would have died, but 249.000.000 would have been born. One does not have to be a math genius to conclude that the world population would grow with 39.000.000 people, who would also procreate later on in their lives provided that they survive until adulthood, etc. Ergo: population growth. This would not be the case with a seven year birth stop, followed by one year of allowed procreation. It’s not possible to compensate in one year of procreation the loss by natural death in seven years. Any ratio higher than 7 to 1 (for example 5 to 1) would be insufficient, the population would decrease too slowly and the Earth and climate would be damaged beyond repair. “The unexamined life is not worth living.” - Socrates “Our life is what our thoughts make it.” - Marcus Aurelius Salome, Jacob | ||
Phi_spiral Member Post Number: 124 Registered: 04-2020 |
Zafenatpaneach: "If ever a worldwide birth ban comes to fruition, wouldn't we agree it would be due to Billy's writings & FIGU's efforts?" In the prophecy and prediction section of Aus den Tiefen des Weltenraums, Billy writes that in the far future, after many years of calling for it by those who are responsible, Earth people will finally instigate the worldwide seven-year birth stop protocol, not only to address the ever-burgeoning overpopulation problem; which becomes even more exacerbated by the extension in human lifespan, which by then will be about 400 years on average; but, to also completely eradicate all vestiges of all negative Sirian manipulated genes from the gene pool, once and for all. This will go in affect on Earth and in all its' colonies on other planets and even space stations. Only those who have already had their genes “corrected” will be allowed to procreate and unauthorized births will be classified as a high crime punishable by the death of the guilty. Its’ overall control and administrative will be carried out by the Sirians, by which time, Earth-man has re-connected with. So the mere fact that it's a seven-year cycle is evidentiary of the influence of Billy's writings and FIGU's efforts along with the reference that it comes on the heels of many years of efforts by "responsible ones". The seeds of those efforts start now in our generation and along those lines, FIGU has requested that we circulate the spirit symbol for overpopulation, shown below, on the internet through social media. And if you find yourself in a discussion about overpopulation and you want to increase the chance of effectiveness, here's a tip - try the advice of 17th century philosopher Blaise Pascal: To Tell Someone They’re Wrong, First Tell Them They’re Right. "When we wish to correct with advantage, and to show another that he/(she) errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not mistaken, and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are always true.” Pascal added: "People are generally better persuaded by the reasons which they have themselves discovered than by those which have come into the mind of others.“ Put simply, Pascal suggests that before disagreeing with someone, first point out the ways in which they’re right. And to effectively persuade someone to change their mind, lead them to discover a counter-point of their own accord. Arthur Markman, psychology professor at The University of Texas at Austin, says both these points hold true. “One of the first things you have to do to give someone permission to change their mind is to lower their defenses and prevent them from digging their heels in to the position they already staked out,” he says.“If I immediately start to tell you all the ways in which you’re wrong, there’s no incentive for you to co-operate. But if I start by saying, ‘Ah yeah, you made a couple of really good points here, I think these are important issues,’ now you’re giving the other party a reason to want to co-operate as part of the exchange. And that gives you a chance to give voice your own concerns about their position in a way that allows co-operation.”  Regards Bob | ||
Zafenatpaneach New member Post Number: 4 Registered: 04-2021 |
I am grateful for the facts and figures. Interestingly, a 7 year / 7 year ban may not create a decline in population, due to overpopulation's severity, but it would make overpopulation an unavoidable reality, by virtue of the birth-ban's inconvenience, for all people ignoring overpopulation. FIGU's great wisdom is currently all bark & no bite: perhaps the only way to transition into 'biting,' is by easing people into it. I am imagining as a parallel, boiling frogs by slowly raising the temperature, rather than dumping the frogs into a boiling pot. What I mean by that is ... (would one call this a parabolic birth-stop?) 7 year birth-ban 7 year restricted births followed by 7 year birth-ban 6 year restricted births followed by 7 year birth-ban 5 year restricted births 7 year birth-ban 4 year restricted births 7 year birth-ban 3 year restricted births 7 year birth-ban 2 year restricted births 7 year birth ban 1 year restricted births The benefit of any birth-ban, at all, is that crisis-intervention becomes the new norm, for all people, even if that crisis-intervention is, at first, too mild. Perhaps this is the way to ease people into accepting a crisis-intervention for a crisis they have yet to accept! If all that you have said were followed by the human beings of this world, as well as all that you have taught since your youth, then the Earth would be a paradise and the whole populations of all countries would be a humanity of true peace, whose reputation in this respect would spread honourably throughout the universe. -Bermunda to Billy, Contact 705 (14 March 2018) line 34. | ||
Zafenatpaneach Member Post Number: 5 Registered: 04-2021 |
Thanks Phi_spiral, I wish to acknowledge that I wrote my post, just before yours was posted for reading. Can't wait for Aus den Tiefen des Weltenraums' English translation. If all that you have said were followed by the human beings of this world, as well as all that you have taught since your youth, then the Earth would be a paradise and the whole populations of all countries would be a humanity of true peace, whose reputation in this respect would spread honourably throughout the universe. -Bermunda to Billy, Contact 705 (14 March 2018) line 34. | ||
Rob_stewart Member Post Number: 11 Registered: 03-2021 |
Thanks all for the posts. I wonder if we could agree that the first step is accurate data to make logical obversations and plans from? While I am impressed with Jacobs calculations. I am aware that these figures often come from departments underfunded and ignored. For any plan to be successful a survey starts the process. Also i would add that Jacob is correct that if we had the data an immediate stop for a prolonged period is the only conclusion and the data we have now strongly suggests this. We do need to get everyone to this point collectively. So a survey of population. This has two advantages first its a measurable achievable action. Secondly it does not start with the solution, overpopulation. Part of the reason overpopulation is thorny is there are extreme views by wealthy. They have concluded that the masses are ignorant and cannot act in their own best interests. There is truth in the statement although not the whole truth. However from this these groups often conclude war/plague is a good thing. I am not sure how many in the forum have encountered this group but they are excessively materialistic and selfish. Their worldview is bent entirely towards themselves and this is provably correct to them by their wealth. However that this group laments the overpopulation helps to start the conversation. They ultimately don't help as they expect to control lesser beings. Back to the rational- a global survey of population is difficult because the figure keeps changing. Looking at covid data shows how hard it is even to establish deaths - not something that should be hard. So during the survey a global birth stop is logical. I expect an effective survey would take 3 years. The first year deals with those that didn't get the memo. It would be a logical time to introduce penalties. The second year gives the first accurate number which we then adjust for deaths and check against the third year. This period also allows a real discussion on child poverty, child opportunity etc. In fact in my head, our maternity staff would lead the research. While services are improved. As a result of this natural break. I expect the guidelines issued in this thread would match quite closely best advice produced by our freed up staff. Steps after this.. I unfortunately don't have much confidence in our government systems. However logically they should conclude less people equals a better world. Given the petition on theyflyblog.com - is a petition to the UN for a global survey of population possibly something to start the conversation? There needs to be a connection for everyone. A theoretical problem is not personal. This leads to awareness, data, and possibly some logical conclusions. Salome | ||
Jacob Member Post Number: 35 Registered: 07-2019 |
The future is truly grim. 1. Myself and others have calculated on basis of Plejaren information that the current growth of the Earth human populous would reach cataclysmic levels in about 100 - 120 years from now. 2. The Earth human civilization will survive, so an atmospheric collapse will never occur. 3. In order to prevent an atmospheric collapse, the Earth human population needs to stay under the limit where atmospheric collapse occurs, however this will not happen in the next 100 years by means of the only humane way, the seven year birth cycle as proposed by the Plejaren and Billy. This will happen according to Phi_spiral post 124 when the Sirians and Earth humans have formed an alliance and work together. 4. First contact with extraterrestrial humans will happen in about 200 - 300 years from now, and the contact with the Sirians maybe later. 5. According to the Plejaren, the bulk of the Earth humans are currently so cult-religiously insane, materialistic and warped in their thinking, that the overwhelming part of the earth human populous will not respond to logic and reason. 6. This means that the Earth human population will be reduced by means of disaster, pandemics, war, climate change of all sorts. Starting right now, with the corona-pandemic, but will exponential increase in severity in the near future 2030 and upwards. We reap what we sow, it have become inevitable. “The unexamined life is not worth living.” - Socrates “Our life is what our thoughts make it.” - Marcus Aurelius Salome, Jacob |
