Aware
21st November 2013, 14:33
I was thinking, since the populations of the industrialized world get older, since there are both more people living longer (given there is still a big inequality, at least in the United States) and fewer people being born (moreso in white Europe/North America and Japan), there are of course fewer younger people relative to old people.
No matter the moaning of the economists or whatever person's ass they have their hand up, in the end, they benefit from an old population, long lived population, that, in conjunction with technology, can continue to "be useful" to the parasites for maybe 2 generations or more. A young population (generally, people 30 or under) is unstable, because we are new, we are curious, we're the constant element of randomness that they can never escape.
The elites at this point benefit from population growth in the undeveloped and developing worlds, and the importation of cheap labor from these countries, only. They do not benefit from the growth of the "native" populations. In the end, once the capitalist cycles pass over the entire planet, then the final goal would be to have a sustainable pool of labor. The elites at this point are a minuscule number compared to our billions, so if they decided to stop this insane pretension, they probably only need a tiny fraction of people to, essentially, serve them, perhaps a few millions. Due to longevity, they can control reproduction and time the cycle so there are never too many young people at once time.
With an old population, could the proletariat ever break their bonds? After 40, 50, 60, 70? 80? years of laboring for the parasites, being brainwashed, after years of deterioration, could that population really mount a rebellion? Could the young, who would number a pathetic amount at any given time, in any given place? It'd be like eternal slavery.
What do y'all think? It really seems like that's what "they're" doing.
No matter the moaning of the economists or whatever person's ass they have their hand up, in the end, they benefit from an old population, long lived population, that, in conjunction with technology, can continue to "be useful" to the parasites for maybe 2 generations or more. A young population (generally, people 30 or under) is unstable, because we are new, we are curious, we're the constant element of randomness that they can never escape.
The elites at this point benefit from population growth in the undeveloped and developing worlds, and the importation of cheap labor from these countries, only. They do not benefit from the growth of the "native" populations. In the end, once the capitalist cycles pass over the entire planet, then the final goal would be to have a sustainable pool of labor. The elites at this point are a minuscule number compared to our billions, so if they decided to stop this insane pretension, they probably only need a tiny fraction of people to, essentially, serve them, perhaps a few millions. Due to longevity, they can control reproduction and time the cycle so there are never too many young people at once time.
With an old population, could the proletariat ever break their bonds? After 40, 50, 60, 70? 80? years of laboring for the parasites, being brainwashed, after years of deterioration, could that population really mount a rebellion? Could the young, who would number a pathetic amount at any given time, in any given place? It'd be like eternal slavery.
What do y'all think? It really seems like that's what "they're" doing.