Couldn't we shrink the workforce in half but just banning women from working like things were barely 100 years ago?
Without women working to earn an income, they would be forced to be taken care of by the fathers or husbands. This would result in reduced consumption of resources; however, arguably, a lot of people's quality of life would improve.
Right but this sounds like they should want higher pops not lower pops then?
That's why there's so much immigration.
Women working or importing immigrants acheives the same goal: flood the labour market and drive down prices.
I don't think they're trying to kill everyone, they're trying to eliminate free men. Women, as a population, will inevitably give up control and the countries immigrants come from are already largely enslaved (as in the default behaviour is obedience).
The covid scare isn't about killing people (the virus barely does), it's about wealth transfer. Our governments just gave people like Bill Gates trillions of our dollars for snake oil. Snake oil we didn't even need.
They bankrupted our countries, cause inflation, bring in immigrants to keep wages down, and constantly try to pass laws to give themselves tyrannical powers. All the while encouraging our mpst degenerate behaviours until Joe Shmoe starts to think it would be better if we were all dead, and certainly beleives we deserve to be enslaved.
They don't want to kill us; they want to see how cheap we can be kept alive.
Today, the robots would do it better. What did they need you for?
The West gets hit to cause the run off. Or convince me otherwise.
Far more too it, but a much larger agenda to herald in newer technology for further gains and whatever makes them sleep. Any strategy is both competion and gain and containment. It's often that the technology has outdated the demands of its numbers. It doesn't even fully need them to utilise a newer era. Because those numbers are causing higher debt by becoming unmanageable for any advance, greater pushbacks. Until those numbers start to crunch for any technology demanding to become standardised. It therefore requires a reset or a reaction prompting it. How does the competition react, often by causing less numbers, and forcing any gain. Until it is almost at another point where hell, it's the run off of yet another cycle.
Robots are only better when they're cheaper, and they always need someone to troubleshoot issues and do setup.
If you can pay 20 salaries for the price of maintaining a robot for the year, why wouldn't you use humans?
It's not just about robots. It's about an indebted population pushing back on newer advancing technology profiting future gains. How do you force it. Think. And so to cause a successful run off precipating implementation the desired standardisation, it requires an abrupt method. Hence it starts to implode and always has done historically. Today I don't even think the AI causing it cares.
But there are far more aspects to it. What is that complete agenda. It seemingly also wants to reinvent the energy grid, and with it a host of products and services and distribution becoming affected. Where as a direct result will crunch the global population numbers. They just need to add some bellows.