The Origin of the Depopulation Obsession: How a Flawed 1972 Model Shaped Globalist Agendas

[the_arcane_archivist]

What connects AI predictive models, COVID, vaccines, peak oil, Klaus Schwab, Călin Georgescu (the banned wannabe Romanian president), and the depopulation obsession? The answer lies in the Club of Rome model from over 50 years ago.

The Club of Rome's Limits to Growth was more than just a scientific study—it became dogma. Its flawed computer model, predicting inevitable collapse due to overpopulation and resource depletion, shaped decades of globalist policy. The obsession with this simulation led to extreme ideologies: depopulation fears, forced sustainability agendas, and centralized control mechanisms.

The same players who once pushed Malthusian catastrophism are now promoting AI as the ultimate tool for "managing" humanity.

Russia's Alternative Approach

Russia rejected the Limits to Growth hysteria early on. Their updated 2023 report demonstrates a different perspective:

• They consider technological innovation as a counterbalance to scarcity
• They view geopolitical instability as a disruptor (not just a symptom), making it a key variable in their model

Reconsidering the Limits to Growth
(Report to the Russian Association of the Club of Rome)

Fifty years after the famous Limits to Growth report (1972), this study re-examines and updates predictions about global development, using more sophisticated models and an integrated approach that combines world systems analysis, advanced mathematical methods, and historical-evolutionary perspectives.

Key Differences from the Original 1972 Model:

Advanced Mathematical Modeling:

Unlike the basic differential equations and negative feedback loops of the 1970s, the 2023 report employs complex nonlinear models, predictive algorithms, and multi-scenario simulations.

It includes specialized subsystems (economic, demographic, ecological, technological), each with its own variables and dynamics.

Expanded Set of Variables:

The original model focused on population, pollution, natural resources, industrial output, and food. The new version incorporates:

• Technological innovation
• Global inequality
• Migration dynamics
• Geopolitical instability
• Integrated climate change (not just generic pollution)
• Institutional response capacity

Reassessment of Population Growth:

The 1972 model treated population growth as an inevitable destabilizing factor leading to collapse.

The new report contextualizes it—accounting for demographic transitions, aging populations in developed nations, and declining fertility rates in many regions.

It proposes a dynamic model where population is not just a "resource drain" but also a driver of innovation and adaptability.

Source: Reconsidering the Limits to Growth

What's fascinating is that this flawed 1972 model is the root of globalists' obsession with depopulation. The new model shows that this strategy is, in fact, misguided.

It's clear that China has also realized this.

---

Also, Dmitry Orlov considered this in his blog post (behind paywall): https://boosty.to/cluborlov/posts/24fcc941-ce45-4084-b41b-f23f79f7991f

I based my post on the book he linked in the post.

Just a small excerpt so that it isn't a rights issue:

Instead of the 50% drop in world industrial production from its peak at the turn of the century, what we are seeing is a 68.03% increase. But it is rather localized:

• China's industrial output increased by 832.66% so far this century
• Russia's by a mere 103.97%
• India's by a somewhat healthier 204.36%

These are the leaders; now for the laggards:

• US grew by a mere 11.15% so far this century
• The self-appointed "developed nations" by a mere 16.61% total — a miserable performance for three decades' worth of effort.

Comments

[the_arcane_archivist]

More about and from the book:

https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Reconsidering_the_Limits_to_Growth_in_2023?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Pages with the modeling available from the book:

https://books.google.ro/books?id=cDfZEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA62&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=1#v=onepage&q&f=false


The Abstract:

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-34999-7_23

While I don't share the techno-optimis, I think some countries will indeed fare better in the future decline