I see it Brave New World and Fahrenheit 451 as precursors to 1984. Drug the masses, lull them into idiocy, then assert the right of overwhelming force when they are to stupid to think for themselves or have no drive to do so. My reading of 1984 seems to imply the first two books already happened. 1984 talks about the average person, the proles, as being so obsessed with their beer and distractions that they willingly allowed themselves to be dominated. They in fact wanted it.
Precursors? Perhaps, if I read you correctly that you mean they are the bait to the trap and 1984 is what you get after you are rendered powerless to do anything against more bald-faced tyranny as we see in 1984. To my thinking, the question may turn on knowing the true intentions of those cultivating the long-term power scheme, assuming such a "conspiracy" is indeed afoot, which by all appearances it is. If the ultimate goal is to gain effective control over the entire global human population yet allow the general status quo of human life to continue, then I would have to disagree because the hegemony is then largely benign. But what if, as the documents and comments of so many governments, NGOs, and the various personalities indicate that there is a sincere belief not only in the severely overpopulated condition of the planet, but in the unquestionable need to reduce that population by large proportions, but as quickly as possible.
I have read calls for population reductions that have implied time frames that were uncomfortably short. Most people perhaps do not notice just how little time a century is where such goals are concerned, but when one applies an adept analysis to the question, the scary truth becomes quite apparent. One can, in fact, apply the precise same formulas used in financial analysis to get a general idea of what is needed to go from population X to population X' where X >> X', over a time interval T. The formulae are simple and easy to use. Once can use either a present value formula that works "backwards" or a future value calculation using a negative interest figure. The latter is simpler. The formula for future value is: FV=PV(1+ r)^n where PV = the present value (current population), r = the rate of yearly population diminution, and n = the number of years in which to reach the goal. Open Excel and plop these in somewhere:
A B C D
A FV PV Rate (r) Term (n)
B =B7*((1+C2)^D2) [Current population] [rate of decline] [# years to achieve goal ]
If we use the example suggested by the Georgia Guide Stones of 500 millions and give a full century to achieve the goal, which according to many prognosticators is way overly generous and optimistic, to get from today's approximately 7 billions the population would have to IMMEDIATELY begin dropping by a shade over 2.6% every year for the coming century. The enormity of such a task is somewhat difficult to put into words, barring a global cataclysmic event such as a meteor strike. Consider the nature of human beings, which in the respect of the drive to reproduce is very similar to most other life on the planet. The bottom line is that people are NOT going to simply stop the trend of exponentially increasing their numbers and adopt an instant linear decrease of 2.6%. It has never been and shall never be because to do this is NOT HUMAN. If this be the case, then the ONLY way to achieve the goal is through murder, whether through the violence of war (generally a big time loser in the longer term) or through catastrophe. Waiting around for a comet to hit the earth is and iffy-at-best path to the goal. Therefore, other means such as disease and the poisoning of the food chain in order, perhaps, to render the larger population sterile appear to be the only alternatives remaining that are viable from both the technical and political perspectives. If a new disease arises and begins killing off huge masses of humanity, barring very direct evidence that the circumstance arose as the result of direct and intentional human action by "government", humans stand even odds of banding together to find a cure and in the final days, to huddle and shiver in dimly lit corners as they wait to die "together". This is, IMO, to be the path of choice. Sudden globally reaching sterility would have too much the scent of human contrivance upon it and would therefore result in strong action taken against an ostensibly identifiable enemy.
That aside, as one brings better sophistication to the analysis including adding a deceleration curve from positive growth to negative (slowing the ship before heading in reverse), we see that things only get worse. Far worse in fact. For example, if we grossly oversimplify by saying it will take 20 years to stop growth and bring it BACK DOWN to today's 7 billions, leaving only 80 years to get to 500 millions, the population would have to shrink an average of 3.35% per year. Again, this may not sound like much, but it is in fact a STAGGERING rate of decline that cannot be met without "assistance", so far as I can see.
Add to all of this the as-yet unconsidered and often perhaps unpredicted, unpredictable, and unintended consequences of such sharp declines in population and what emerges may rightfully be termed "nightmarish".
If those who believe we are "over populated" are correct, humanity is screwed no matter how you slice the future. If they are wrong but so-called government
acts on a sincere belief that they are correct, no holds barred, we are equally hosed, likely in more ways than methinks some are giving thought to. When one thinks about it, the only real bright spot here lies in the event that the prognosticators are utterly wrong and government and other organizations take to precipitous action to the contrary. Given the official rhetoric of organizations such as the U.N. on the question, one is at best left with a large corpus of very uncomfortable questions regarding paths going forward. Given the record of human governance in the twentieth century alone, does anyone in their right mind have any basis for warm and fuzzy feelings here?
Are we having fun yet? Well,
are we?
