Home // Health Ranger

Anthropological shocker: The most intelligent human cultures are most likely to destroy themselves with ecological collapse that leads to famine and death

10/12/2019 // Mike Adams // Views

Tags: agriculture, badclimate, badpollution, Collapse, ecological, Ecology, environ, farming, food, food supply, harvest, sustainability

A surprising contradiction emerges when you study "survival of the fittest" phenomena across planet Earth. Those human cultures which have the highest intelligence are also the most likely to destroy themselves with ecological destruction. This isn't about the so-called "climate change" hoax, but rather about the direct destruction of the ecosystems that provide sustainable food supplies to the world. If you destroy the ecosystem and can't grow enough food to feed your population, your society collapses.

As I explain in this science video below, the tilt of Earth's rotational axis relative to its orbital plane around the sun has created harsh winters for those human cultures located far from the equator. This has resulted in those cultures becoming good planners and survivalists, otherwise they would not survive the long winters during which food production ceases.

Simultaneously, human cultures which are located nearer the equator tend to be poor planners, resulting in "Third World" societies living in near-collapse conditions, with a shocking lack of basic planning skills as any visitor to India can observe with India's traffic nightmare.

Yet, those cultures located near the equator have an important advantage: Because they don't need to rely on long-term planning for food production, they tend to produce food using short-term thinking, which tends to minimize the large-scale environmental destruction that now characterizes First World nations where high IQ populations are able to engineer nuclear power plants, GMOs, agricultural pesticides, geoengineering, fluoridated water and other disastrous poisons that now threaten the entire biosphere. Put simply, this means that Third World, low-tech, localized agricultural production is far less destructive to the biosphere than large-scale, highly mechanized agricultural production which tends to go hand in hand with extreme ecological destruction.

As a clear example of all this, consider the aggressive pushing the SCoPEx project, funded by Bill Gates (and many others) and engineered by Harvard scientists. The purpose of this project is to pollute the stratosphere and block sunlight, depriving all food crops of the energy they need to produce food. If deployed on a large enough scale -- which is the plan -- SCoPEx will result in global famine and mass death, which is of course the entire purpose of the project, as Bill Gates believes depopulation is the way to "save" humanity. In contrast to SCoPEx, third world nations simply don't have to technology to engineer a system that can pollute the entire planet and block the sun, collapsing human civilization everywhere around the planet. It takes a psychopathic tech billionaire with the help of the arrogant academic elite to pull that off.

First world populations are in denial about their destruction of the planet, often blaming "climate change" instead of their own mad science experiments that threaten everything

While it's true that the average Canadian, for example, has a far higher IQ than the average African, individuals in Africa would typically cause far less ecological harm on a per capita basis than the average Canadian, who is probably living in total denial about the ecological footprint of their high-energy lifestyle (high energy meaning high energy consumption per capita for food, heating, transportation, etc.). Remember, when it comes to food, local is green. Decentralized, local food is sustainable, but highly centralized, corporate-run monoculture is highly destructive to ecological sustainability.

A more ecologically sustainable culture is, in essence, a low-tech culture that relies on the abundance of nature -- rather than dominating nature -- to provide for routine food needs. And there's nothing more low-tech than growing food in your own home garden, which is also one of the things that makes it such an important practice. Nobody needs their tomato plants to talk to an online cloud and be part of some extraneous technology cloud. Sometimes what humanity needs is so simple that it almost escapes notice: Simple people putting their hands in the dirt and growing nutritious food without the use of synthetic toxins, GMOs or highly mechanized, automated systems.

Naturally, there are striking exceptions to observation such as Brazilian farmers clear-cutting rainforests to grow soybeans, thereby demonstrating that many developing nations are also engaged in highly destructive ecological practices, but that particular scenario is driven largely by first world demand for soybeans, not local Brazilian demand. Thus, countries like the USA and Canada are "exporting" ecological destruction to developing nations like Brazil, where economic incentives result in organized, mechanized ecological destruction to meet the high consumer demands of First World consumers such as Americans and Canadians.

Watch my video to learn more, if you dare. And remember that everything I say is completely banned on YouTube, Vimeo, Facebook, Google and Twitter. Why? Because they don't want you to learn how to think for yourself:

https://www.brighteon.com/c17de291-efce-45cd-9005-74af775e72b3

Read more stories about the coming global food collapse at FoodCollapse.com.

 

---

---