Are There Limits to Growth? – Questions For Corbett #077

by | Aug 21, 2021 | Questions For Corbett | 146 comments

Be afraid! Be very afraid! A “startling” “new” “scientific” report that “totally confirms” all of The Club of Rome’s fearmongering over The Limits to Growth! . . . But does it really confirm what it’s reported to confirm? And what are the limits to growth, anyway? Join James for the longest and most in-depth edition of Questions For Corbett yet as he does a deeeeeeep dive on The Club of Rome’s infamous reports, its celebrated “vindication,” the truth about overpopulation, and the future of life on earth.

Watch on Archive / / Odysee / YouTube or Download the mp4


MIT Predicted in 1972 That Society Will Collapse This Century. New Research Shows We’re on Schedule.

The Limits to Growth

Meet the WEF

The Club of Rome on The Limits to Growth

Computer predicts the end of civilisation (ABC 1973 report)

Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World 

Models of Doom: A Critique of the Limits to Growth

Thinking about the future: a critique of The limits to growth;

A response to Sussex

The Global 2000 Report to President

The Resourceful Earth : A Response to Global 2000

Revisiting the Limits to Growth: Could The Club of Rome Have Been Correct After All?

Limits to Growth, The 30-Year Update

A comparison of The Limits to Growth with 30 years of reality

Computation and the Human Predicament: The Limits to Growth and the limits to computer modeling

Remember MIT’s ‘Club of Rome’ Report

Clubs of Doom and the Limits to Models

Societal Collapse ‘On Schedule’ According To 1972 MIT Study (video report on new study)

Update to limits to growth: Comparing the World3 model with empirical data by Gaya Herrington

New Confirmation that Climate Models Overstate Atmospheric Warming

Yep, it’s bleak, says expert who tested 1970s end-of-the-world prediction

Ehrlich: Earth will be doomed by 1980! (in 1970)

Just 96 months to save world, says Prince Charles (in 2011)

World has three years left to stop dangerous climate change, warn experts (in June 2017)

UN Warning: Just 3 YEARS Left to Save the Earth!

Short Version of the Limits to Growth (executive summary)

An Essay on the Principle of Population” (1798)

How & Why Big Oil Conquered the World

Meet Paul Ehrlich, Pseudoscience Charlatan

The Last Word on Overpopulation

This Is What A Demographic Crunch Looks Like

The Underpopulation Crisis

Long Slide Looms for World Population, With Sweeping Ramifications

Episode 406 – Trust the Science!

Shanna Swan: ‘Most couples may have to use assisted reproduction by 2045’

PRC Forum: Julian Simon (S1031) – Full Video

The Bet of the Century: Simon vs. Ehrlich

The Ultimate Resource

Pandora and Hope

The Ultimate Resource 2

Richard Werner Interview – Covid Measures and the Central Controls over the Economy

Prince Philip on what should be done about “overpopulation”

David Rockefeller UN 1994-09-14

Does saving more lives lead to overpopulation? (Gates)


  1. Thank you, wonderful report! I am looking forward to the forthcoming videos!

    This Limit to Growth is a complete BS! I will debunk it in one sentence without the need to study the mathematical model behind their program. You can not predict the technological inventions that will happen in the future, but these future technological inventions will have far more impact on the statistical model than any those resource variables of theirs or the assigned coefficients. So that’s it. That program can’t predict even the current situation in the present second, as one can’t input the correct data representing the current state of the world, just to begin with. So I see no point in trying even to construct any simulation for this kind of problem. However, this whole thing just looks pretty much like the case of a bad student in school, who wants to complete the exam, while he knows nothing. So he glances over to the guy next to him and he notices what the solution is, but he can see only the number that is representing the solution. So, he will start writing the derivation of the problem by some utterly nonsense hocus pocus BS right until he gets that very same solution number.

    So whoever is behind this false scientific attempt for Limit to Growth must be some kind of psychopath if he thinks that a scientific model will give him justification for his evil agenda. Well, we see where it is going. It looks very much like Eugenics where they want to reduce the population so they will have the complete Earth for their family and descendants only.

    But on second thought I don’t think that they are worried about the actual overpopulation as in the sense of growth. It smells rather like the limit of growth of their money wallet. Surely that will not grow that much if they destroy the economy under false flag events. Nor will it grow at such a high speed, if they steal everything from the people and then suddenly they realize they have to give something back to the world. They definitely must have some sort of massive money-sucking diabolical machine which devours every piece of resource out from the world like a leech that can’t stop. So, as the current economic system was proven to be a failure, the solution is not in killing of the population for preserving their money pot, but the solution should come in the form of addressing the real root of the issue, which is most probably the underlying greed. Until that is not addressed, no other system can be sustained on a long enough timeframe before its becomes corrupted.

    There are many solutions, one example for the resource problem could be mining the meteors. Those are rich in resources. I have already suggested this 21 years ago… However, Pentagon rather spent trillions and trillions on Afganistan doing nothing and stealing again.

    On final note I would like to recommend you a video which is quite interesting:

    • “We’re in a Collision Course for Disaster and Tragedy!”

      Emblematic propaganda piece you linked at the bottom of your comment, Joseph.

      It’s Ehrlich’s Population Bomb revamped for Millenials. Unsurprisingly he
      and his bogus bomb come back to haunt us several times during this strident pamphlet.

      In addition to reinforcing all the usual unsubstantiated claims surrounding both overpopulation and so-called man-made climate change the agenda behind the characteristic guilt-tripping and fear-mongering that ooze and drip from this doc is evident from the title:

      Endgame 2050: Meat Your Future.

      The shrill and peremptory messages of “stop eating meat” and “stop having children OR ELSE” are repeated ad nauseum in the politically correct guise of smilingly earnest passive-aggressive messaging, emotionally reinforced by horrifying images of agonizing and murdered animals with smooth insinuations advocating population control measures. Abandoning the overtly coercive;

      Good population policies and programs respect what people want and they are about giving women and men what they want and not telling people what to do…”

      culminating with the punchline announcement by Ms Ochea, the messenger of good population practices, having chosen to have her tubes tied. (which for some reason reminds me of Angelina Joli having had her breasts removed to avoid getting cancer…)

      The following quote by IPCC lead author Stephan Schneider came rushing to mind as I sat through the emphatic moralizing and doomsday scenarios presented by our charming narratrice:

      “to capture the public’s imagination… of course, entails getting loads of media coverage.

      So we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements…

      Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective, and being honest.”

      Yes, the phenomenal quantities of plastic being dumped into the environment should be addressed, as should the abject cruelty of industrial animal farming.

      But manufacturing myths about methane bubbles as time bombs for catastrophic climate feedback loops (debunked by Tony Heller among others) or wildly wielding the misleading but duly terrifying term “Ocean acidification” (debunked by Don Easterbrook and Jim Steele among others), besides being mendacious, manipulative and insulting, ultimately plays so perfectly into the hands of the very Elite of Great Resetters described by Mr. Corbett in this most recent podcast, that I have to wonder who exactly Ms Ochoa is and who funded her film. Indeed, it comes across as the full-length version of that “We The People for the UN Global Goals” clip.

      As a side remark, the years seen in the title and year of release, namely 2050 and 2020, evoke 2030, that magic year of the post-Agenda 21 Sustainability agenda.

      And finally, to finish on another titular note, I suppose I’m not the only one who lifted an eyebrow at the name Gaya Herrington for an ambassador of Rockefeller-style Gaya worship propaganda? Not to mention her Pocohontas-Mayan Princess beauty vaguely reminiscent of Green Deal goddess AOC’s…

      • “Emblematic propaganda piece you linked at the bottom of your comment, Joseph.”

        Thank you very much for pointing this out! Also, I am sorry for recommending it 🙂

        I have watched that video before I have found and seen the first video from Corbett Report, namely the How big oil conquered the world which led me to become a subscribed member. Since then I did not watch it again, but as I watched this Limit to Growth report it came to mind immediately, so I took it into my note.

        Which, if I think into it is interesting, because those depictions must have worked quite well as propaganda if it made me to save it into one of my video lists…

        Anyway, thanks for pointing it out!

        • Joseph,
          I’m glad you are here at Corbett Report.

  2. this degrowth nonsense is actually pretty big in Germany as Wachstumskritik (critics of growth) – and all over the place people love to ponder about it. with that I mean, not only mainstream scientists but altmedia-people also think, yeah it is important to think (seriously) about that (No, I don’t want to think any further about another ridiculous ideological nonsense by anointed people)

    albeit it is just another große Umkehrung (great reversal)
    purpose of economy is create more (more physically or better in quality) useful stuff with less resources or in short growth
    now they want degrowth

    • *critique not critics of growth

    • Morgenthau plan 3.0 make them want to never reproduce again, germans ending themselfs,
      but i sure cant argue i am part of the problem, 49 never married no children, my whole life wasted and im german.

  3. depends what you mean by scarcity
    so far we cannot escape two points about scarcity: time and
    where there is one body there cannot be any other

    • Time does not exist. There is only the present moment. What we refer to as time is actually spatial placement of planets relative to each other.

      • You fail to understand, at surprise of absolutely nobody.

        The idea of time is instituted so that people lose present moment awareness. Instead of living in the the only time that counts, that is now the present, they obsess over the past or the future.

        The past is easily changed for these people because it exists only as a record that can be adjusted.

        They accept and ignore the present because of a false belief in a better future.

        Time is a form of mind control for people who don’t understand anything. It’s insiduosly simple and omnipresent.

        • How do you count years?

          I’m going to follow the lead others smarter than I have put forward and leave you with that rhetorical question.

        • you can’t speak of the present then.
          if you really wish to speak of time not existing, then you have to say something like
          To Be.

          Nothing about a moment.
          People fail to (fully aware, consciously) be.
          (Being instead of striving.)

          present needs past and future
          you cannot make a point without a background
          same you cannot have a moment or the present without a background of past and future

        • Mielia, the only moment is now. The present moment awareness means to be present in the now, to be aware that we are living NOW. The way our perception of time is tied to material celestial objects that are moving cyclically creates the impression that we are in a loop (swimming in circles, as stated elsewhere in the comments) and are basically pacified as we believe that nothing changes and that we are stuck in a loop.

          I’m not saying people should not be striving nor take notice and lessons from events that have transpired, but much of the past today is brought on through official records presented by people who like to have authority as either experts or gubment representatives. People sacrifice a whole lot of what can be only experienced right now for a false promise of a future benefit.

          There is a good reason why week days are named after celestial objects of the Solar system:
          Monday (lat. lunae) – Moon
          Tuesday (lat. martis) – Mars
          Wednesday (lat. mercurii) – Mercury
          Thursday (lat. iovis) – Jupiter
          Friday (ital. veneris) – Venus
          Saturday (lat. saturni) – Saturn
          Sunday (lat. solis) – Sun

          What about Hours? In latin it is horis, and that’s rather close to Horus. A wikipedia quote:

          Since Horus was said to be the sky, he was considered to also contain the Sun and Moon. It became said that the Sun was his right eye and the Moon his left, and that they traversed the sky when he, a falcon, flew across it.

          By no means I’m an expert in astrology nor do I aspire to become one. But there are so many coincidences here that it strikes me none of this is a coincidence. It is not time that makes these objects move and determine their trajectory, but the natural law. They are guided and bound by the eternal rules put forward by the force of creation.

          The way we are trained to think about time is inline with many of the gotchas of our system of indoctrination. The outcome based “education” is a perfect example. We know that at a certain point, when the planets have rotated around a specific number of times, we’ll get our “graduation”. And at that point, as instructed, we have come to the end goal of our journey, by virtue of going through a maze like rats. We did not make sure that the travel was worth it as, in the end, only grades count. I can not speak for others, but in my case this last statement was reiterated quite often.

          Time is a fabrication of the mind given to us by the same people who built the system into which we were birthed.

    • my comment regarded the time people have. your time on a day is not infinite, your life neither.

      that’s why I said, depends on what you/people mean by scarcity

      of course there is plenty of food and starvation pretty much needs to be manufactured by and large

  4. by the way
    (father of Boris Johnson, pm UK)

    The Green Revolution
    The Population Problem
    Pollution Control Policy of the EEC
    World Population and the United Nations

    ah and personally I disagree with ‘we have underpopulation’ too.
    I totally disregard the notion that we can say this or that is the appropriate human population for the entire earth.

    It has always be something – related to.
    And as there are a million things related to with various population densities on earth there cannot be one number for all this combined imho.
    You can only say something useful about something very specific. (E.g. limits of persons in a certain lift.)
    But talking about a grand narrative of under/over population to me is hubris.

    • ah and personally I disagree with ‘we have underpopulation’ too…talking about a grand narrative of under/over population to me is hubris.

      Not sure what you mean… ?

      Do you mean that there is no dangerously diminished population size that Elites can obtain in their deliberate campaign to forcibly reduce the number of people on Earth? (combined with an engineered drastic decline in fertility)

      You mean, world population numbers can reach no “dangerously few” people level? There is no bottom limit that would put the perpetuation of the human species in peril?

      • Hubris I find to state ANY number as THE number of people the whole earth should have.
        This is all dependent on an uncountable number of factors.
        Of course that does not mean I’d like all of humanity dying out or sterilisation or slaugther being applied.

        “the elites” in “their campaign”
        elites in different regions on different levels think and act differently, chemicals brought out, resilience to them, food and water consumed counteracting can be or are all different depending on region,
        mind control campaigns are applied and work out differently too

        I wouldn’t accept China (or India) made a good decision to attempt to enclose their numbers at 1 billion either

        this is all some hyper-rational technical nonsense totally excluding everything about life (meaning, heart, living, connection, decisions) to attempt to say: This is the number of people that should live or be allowed to live.

        • Ah. You don’t believe in anyone stipulating ideal population numbers.

          But it seems to me that the only folks trying to stipulate numbers are the promoters of the Overpopulation fear campaign;

          I haven’t heard the people warning about the dangers of under-population, aka a demographic winter, saying ‘we must quick start having lots more babies, we must have many more people on the planet!’

          Have you? Even the Julian Simons defending the power of human ingenuity don’t seem to be advocating for accelerating population growth.

          The ones I’ve heard warning about a demographic winter are doing so in protest of all the overt and covert means employed by the (various) elites of deliberately reducing the population including massive environmental or demographic propaganda, ubiquitous endocrine disruptors and various other sterilizing chemicals and the oopsy! more or less deliberate side effects of mass vaccination campaigns.

          When you say “ah and personally I disagree with ‘we have underpopulation’ too…

          it sounds like either you don’t agree that under-population could be a potential problem for the perpetuation of the human species,

          or you don’t agree that it’s necessary to speak about it or warn of the dangers.

          But, if now I understand you correctly, it seems we would agree that the ideal situation would be that each person be able to decide for him/herself if, when and how many children they want to raise without the (various) elites legally, physically and/or psychologically forcing their (various) agendas on them.

          • it seems we would agree that the ideal situation would be that each person be able to decide for him/herself if, when and how many children they want to raise without the (various) elites legally, physically and/or psychologically forcing their (various) agendas on them.

            yes of course
            and by and large I am also fine with the rest of your comment.
            I just attempt to refuse to take part in the discussion of ‘there is overpopulation’ with ‘no, there is underpopulation’. I cannot accept some premises in the first statement but answering with the second signals I do.

            you could also say, I want to escape the framing (or overtone window, although it is probably not the proper term here)

  5. I’ve noted on here, as an aside before:
    You’ve pointed out (in partial jest, I do believe) “Everything I Know About Conspiracies I Learned From The Beatles”  I’d have to say (partially in jest), that – Everything I Know About Conspiracies I Learned From “King Of The Hill”…
    There are some very pertinent examples for THIS particular presentation including in particular, S01 E02, when character Dale Gribble asserts that the public school’s sex-ed. program for middle-schoolers is “the same ol Club of Rome zero-population bull-dink that the U.N.’s been tryin’ for years.”
    Another one that came to mind watching this is KOTH S05 E17 when he yells in favor of an environmental campaign (for purely ulterior reasons) “Earth First!”
    Finally, in S13 E02, Dale starts selling “carbon offsets,” (justifying it by saying something like ‘who knows how much carbon one tree off-sets’ & pointing out examples of failed past predictions). His side-scheme threatens to get Hank & the propane company in trouble.. except when Hank tries to confess about the trick in front of a large crowd of ‘environmentalists’ (who think they can pollute & pay and that makes it ok) NOBODY understands it, and NOBODY even cares, THE ENTIRE (pre-existing) tree-hugging crowd just cheers in ignorance!

    On a real-life related note, Truthstream Media did some work covered this topic from a different angle in Feb 2020: “A Stunning Admission on the So-Called Population Crisis”

  6. It’s just like breastmilk… and love!
    The more you give, the more you make, naturally.

  7. Oops, you completely ignored the energyproblem.
    In The Netherlands we first used up wood and peat as fuel…. all of it in the 17th and 18th century
    After that we used coal in the 19th century and first half of the 20th century.
    In the second half of the 20th century we used oil and natural gas.
    And now the oil and gas are all but gone. You can burn it only once.

    Now in the 21th century we have no fuel left in the Netherlands. We import nearly all of the fuels we use: coal, wood, oil and gas all come from abroad.
    The only energy we produce in the Netherlands comes from solar panels and windmills. Which is not enough to power 8 million cars, trains, planes and heat all our houses in wintertime.

    Let me hear your thoughts on our future energy supply.
    Do you think oilfields will magically fill up again… in a couple of years?
    Do you think the Groningen-gasfield is inexhaustible?

    • The energy situation was not ignored. The shortage leads to innovation which ultimately finds solutions. The pattern has repeated itself countless times over the years.
      I don’t know what the solution will be for The Netherlands but there will be one. Or more likely many.
      I don’t know how long before the solution comes, but it will come.

      There are all sorts of ways to produce energy. Many of them are impractical as long as there are easier and cheaper ways. But when those easier ways become too difficult or expensive, the impetus will be there to come up with alternatives.

      Heat from compost. Tidal generators. Thorium reactors. Heck, even nuclear if you’re not NewZealand. Lots of possibilities and probably plenty more that haven’t been thought of yet.

    • Obviously you have not considered Julian Simon’s work. I recommend strongly you look at the “science” that was put forth in his book The Ultimate Resource.

      According to R. Buckminster Fuller, the more we make technological progress and imitate the built in economic genius of nature, the more we are able to do with less resources. Economic genius and ingenuity is built within the species. Nature keeps on echoing this timeless truth that the more we invent and discover, the more we are able to accomplish with less resources. More with less, more with less.

      Limiting the growth of the “ultimate resource” which is people is putting a damper on this relationship. But…the ruling oligarchy does not have your best interest in mind, and has been put forward time and time again they are the ones pushing this propaganda.

    • Really?

      You mean “non-renewable” energy problem.

      However, let’s say Cold Fusion was finally implemented, or heck, traditional Fusion. That would “solve the energy problem” because that IS an infinite resource.

      And, if we limit more people with the creativity, brains, and talent to come together to solve the energy problem, then it would never be solved if you ‘limit the human population’.

      Such lack of imagination and pessimism is “the problem” sir.

      • @Ethan Hunter

        It is also worth considering that we could scale up fusion (cold or hot) and get access to unlimited clean energy, only to use it to destroy what is left of the natural world in the name of “progress” and turn the whole planet into one big Ecumenopolis.

        Thus, we face not only a challenge of how to power our technology in a clean way, but also the more underlying and fundamental challenge of educating the human beings that are deciding what to do with that technology to value the sacredness and intrinsic value of wilderness places and intact ecosystems.

    • LFTR is the way nuclear reactors should have been built from the get go. They would introduce a near infinite source of cheap, reliable and clean electricity, sparking a major shift on geopolitics, a new industrial revolution and a massive increase of living standard for billions of people that would then lead into a massive reduction of slavery. However, the people are simply too ignorant and are not nearly ready for it.

    • I think you mean stop polluting and destroying natural habitats. I agree with that part of “environmentalism” to not pollute and be respectful of other animals who live in the environment. I think some humans have the belief that they are the only ones who matter and that their convenience is the only thing that matters. Well, there are other living things that share the earth and those other life forms matter too.

      Who wants to live in a world without other animals and trees? I don’t. That would be awful.

      • @cu.h.j

        Thanks for speaking up for the trees and wild animals we share this world with and thank you for helping people to differentiate between the impacts of human population increase vs the increase of destructive industries that destroy wilderness places. The two are not intrinsically linked and it is important to understand that.

        Have you read a book called “To Speak for the Trees” by Diana Beresford-Kroeger?

    • Hans,
      I follow the energy markets and commodities.
      Energy sources and minerals are essentially infinite.
      They can always be obtained.
      In my opinion, technocratic policy makers often upset the natural rhythm of the economy.

      I think Corbett explains it very well in 5 minutes.
      Economics in One Image

      When a person looks at the very long term graphs of commodities, many commodities are currently, relatively underpriced next to the value of the dollar (which has much less buying power than it had 20 years ago.) <– Each commodity has graphs
      NOTE: Scroll to the bottom for EU Carbon Permits of which prices are up 65% for 2021 alone. But look at the price in 2017-2018 on the graph. This is the big scam…the big money maker for the elite.

      In my opinion, Europe has gone insane with this “sustainable” narrative trying to suddenly switch everything to only wind and solar.
      It will be an expensive winter for Europe. Asia also. Japan is nuts trying to suddenly shift.
      Unfortunately, it is the common person who becomes victim of the policy makers when they pay the utlity bills.
      I follow Natural Gas or Propane or LNG (Liquid Natural Gas).
      SUB-THREAD on Power Outages & Prices

      Do you think the Groningen-gasfield is inexhaustible?
      Certainly, eventually, other viable energy resources will be explored and implemented, especially as geologists forecast depletion of Groningen.
      From Wikipedia
      The Groningen gas field is a giant natural gas field located near Slochteren in Groningen province in the northeastern part of the Netherlands. Discovered in 1959, it is the largest natural gas field in Europe and the tenth-largest in the world.

      They have been pumping oil out of Oklahoma for many decades now. Since my family hails from Oklahoma, my brother who follows commodities and I were amazed that currently Oklahoma ranks #4 in U.S. oil production. We had the previous impression that Oklahoma oil was essentially pumped dry, and that only gas wells were the mainstay.

      • It is not a ploy to get the money but what money stands for. Belief in the authority of money makes it the life blood of our reality. So when they drain money, they suck out the immaginary life force.

      • “Energy sources and minerals are essentially infinite.”

        Do you want to say they are infinite? Why then essentially?

        Essentially infinite I understand us huge, but limited, so infinite is deceiving.

        • Its like the allegory of the guy who argued about God’s authority by asking the question:
          “Who created God?”.

          Does it matter?

          • Oh for heaven’s sake. Listen to yourself! You don’t believe in a soul. You don’t believe in the afterlife. You certainly don’t believe in God. You crave oblivion and worship carnality. And you are worried about who created the God you deny? Really?
            You’re drunk right?

        • That mankind is limited by a fixed numbered quantity of natural resources is a canard in my opinion.
          I have faith in the resourcefulness of mankind when left to be creatively free.

          Humans have always found more efficacious means of utilizing the planet and what it has to offer.
          Virtually, there is no set quantified limited amount of minerals or food resources on this planet which limit the natural creativeness of man.

          • “Humans have always found….”

            In a comment below I’ve pointed out that’s bad argument. Also, Simon’s approach to the topic represent for me unacceptable level of hubris. With less hubris and more humbleness many of our problems would be gone.
            Certainly I don’t think the potential lack of some resources in the future will result in demise of humanity, but more that it might be huge problem, obstacle.

            Whole debate is not well framed. Known enormous variation in abundance of various resources is not addressed. Topics that people more or less rightfully associate with the theme like consumerism, extreme wastefulness of our system should have been included, otherwise we have two camps talking beside each other.

            “That mankind is limited by a fixed numbered quantity of natural resources….”

            Limited… lets make thought experiment.
            Do you think 100 trillion people would be possible to feed??
            Thanks god we don’t have similar problem.

          • @HRS

            “there is no set quantified limited amount of minerals or food resources on this planet which limit the natural creativeness of man.”

            Agreed, and this is especially so when we align our food production systems with (and build them in a way that emualtes) the dynamics of a functioning mature ecosystem.

            I have no doubt if we started planting food forests in every town and adapting them to become optimized for the climate and local species.. that the Earth could support 20 billion humans and a diverse array of intact ecosystems filled with myriad non-human beings.

    • Thanx Dogstar. We don’t have electric trucks and airplanes, because batteries cannot rival the energy-density of liquid fuels like diesel and jetfuel.
      The amount of liquid fuel that can be produced limits the amount of goods mankind can ship around the globe. That’s all. The amount of world trade and transport is limited.

      • Hans say:
        “The amount of liquid fuel that can be produced limits the amount of goods mankind can ship around the globe. That’s all. The amount of world trade and transport is limited.”

        To me, that doesn’t add up.
        In my opinion, world trade and transport is NOT limited (except by decree).
        Commerce could be so much more! And exciting! With people actively participating in a myriad of ways.

        Petrochemicals are not a limiting factor. Governments and Elite Players are the limiting factor.

  8. Thank you so much for this epic journey! I deeply appreciate your time in creating this mountain of material for us to consider. And love your levity in the midst of a tough topic. Laughed right out loud, delighted, at your analogizing the lust some have for toxic ideas with the lust some have for mind-altering drugs. Hahaha!

  9. “We are left better off if the problem had never arisen in the first place. That’s what’s extraordinary. That we’re left better off than if the problem had never arisen. And what this means is that we need our problems. In some fundamental way we need bigger and better problems.”

    I like to see this idea in the context of the problems that psychopathic parasites in positions of power create for free humanity. Like the problems we face today with the pandemic crisis and the other looming problems with “solutions” to the Great Reset they will attack us with. Without these problems, we would not evolve and grow. We need these psychopaths in a sense, to help us develop and grow into a better and more free society.

    • That thought occurred to me as well but I couldn’t figure out how to formulate it. So thanks.
      Perhaps the “shortage” of freedom will lead to an abundance if we can resist the tyranny long enough.

      • Steve,
        I think that is a possibility.

    • scpat says:
      “In some fundamental way we need bigger and better problems.”

      You really hit on something with “problems”.
      I’ve noticed that we as humans “like” to have problems.
      It is observable.
      On one day, a person has his attention stuck on a problem, a situation. By the end of the week, that problem has faded away.
      But wait…another mind consuming problem emerges.
      Big or small, problems tend to come and go in the mind.

      • Yep. Maybe if we study our own minds/thoughts more we would come to a better understanding of our problems.

  10. RE: “Are There Limits to Growth? – Questions For Corbett”

    I am so glad that Corbett walked us through this episode revolving around the postulata of population problematique.
    I needed this walk thru.
    Reading a book like “The Limits to Growth” is not on my “fun to do” list.

    However, I track.
    Corbett does an excellent job of laying it all out in an organized fashion.
    I grasp the concepts, including an ‘unlimited’ abundance of physical resources.
    I very much look forward to the other follow-ups which Corbett will be doing.

    In my mind’s eye, there is no doubt that the “Powers That Should Not Be” are full throttle on a Eugenics agenda control of the population.
    “Eugenics” – that word is almost politically incorrect to say in mixed social company. It is as if using the word automatically categorizes a person as a “conspiracy theorist”.

    During the very early 1970’s, there were two “predictive” media narratives which stuck in my mind.
    “The Coming Ice Age”
    “Japan’s rapid population growth will become a disaster.” I remember talking to my friend Billy about Japan. Where will they live when they run out of room on that island?

  11. Wow that was heavy duty and jam packed full of information. I haven’t missed an offering of yours starting early last year. What I noticed most was instead of the objective persona you normally project (which don’t get me wrong is a good thing), your passion came through in spades on this topic. I sincerely Hope it ignites passion in those who’ve listened to it and you continue to let it sneak out more often. As a fellow Canadian in Saskatchewan Regina actually but from Saskatoon I recommend your work foremost in my networking because networking in my own way is important to me on the bizarreness of what’s unfolding in this totally f’d world. And your objectivity and transparency is fundamentally important now more than ever while the links in your show notes are still reasonably accessible. And you’re a fellow Canadian I love that and trying to capture the Canadian patriotism in those I pass the credibility of your work on to. But please don’t try to suppress your passion going forward. It’s a human thing as are you, me too still?

  12. Wow that was heavy duty and jam packed full of information. I haven’t missed an offering of yours starting early last year. What I noticed most was instead of the objective persona you normally project (which don’t get me wrong is a good thing), your passion came through in spades on this topic. I sincerely Hope it ignites passion in those who’ve listened to it and you continue to let it sneak out more often. As a fellow Canadian in Saskatchewan Regina actually but from Saskatoon I recommend your work foremost in my networking because networking in my own way is important to me on the bizarreness of what’s unfolding in this totally f’d world. And your objectivity and transparency is fundamentally important now more than ever while the links in your show notes are still reasonably accessible. And you’re a fellow Canadian I love that and trying to capture the Canadian patriotism in those I pass the credibility of your work on to. But please don’t try to suppress your passion going forward. It’s a human thing as are you, me too still?

    • Interesting site. I had a hard time reading it because it kept reloading every few seconds.
      I will be looking forward to when they are willing to tell us who the scientists are who performed the tests.

  13. Hear, Hear!

    In a just world, James Corbett would be celebrated on an honest, mainstream media.

  14. More good news and limits to growth!:

    A New Contraception Method Uses Antibodies to Neutralize Sperm

    By Mary Moore | Published on August 16, 2021
    Reviewed By Gilmore Health | On: August 16, 2021

    In some infertile women, some antibodies are directed against the sperm in a way that incapacitates it. Mimicking this condition may lead to a new form of non-hormonal contraception.

    The cause of infertility could be reproduced to prevent pregnancy in nonsterile women

    Read Also: Declining Sperm Count in Western Men Does Not Necessarily Mean a Decline in Fertility (hmmm, sounds familiar… and (cough) very philosophical)

    Researchers in the US have used one form of infertility as the basis for a new, non-hormonal method of contraception. This is because some women have antibodies that detect and neutralize spermatozoa. Their immune system is directed against these foreign cells, making it impossible to have a baby without medical help. In fact, knowing how to reproduce this type of infertility could lead to the development of an alternative to current contraceptives that women use…

    …A nonhormonal alternative
    So far, these researchers have not studied the effectiveness of this contraceptive in women. However, when injected directly into the sheep’s vagina, these antibodies significantly restricted sperm movement: up to 99.9%. And this with only 33 μg of the product.

    Read Also: A New Cause of Male Infertility Found: Spermatozoa Swimming in Circles (considering the behavior of a lot of people in my entourage, I think of these dizzy spermatozoa actually make it to the egg)

    Of course, the authors point out that it is first necessary to test its effectiveness and tolerability in women, but this trial on sheep offers great hopes that a product will be developed in the near future.

      • Coming soon! To a junior high school near you!

      • This was a play of words banking on the reported sheep testing.

        • Ah! Gotcha! Missed yer wild and woolly “sheeple people” word play! Ovine humour! Man! Ewes bad!

    • Swimming in Circles had me grinning.

  15. People usually don’t see the cause and effect when they are spaced out too far apart. The glooming demographic crunch is one such hard to notice event that’s just around the corner and is going to result in very unhealthy demographics. Something that is going to take decades, if not centuries, to overturn. And that is assuming people understand what is going on, something they absolutely do not.

    For the population to STAGNATE, every woman needs to birth two children minimum, one to replace herself and another to replace one male. The actual number needs to account for some disease and premature death so it is set to something like 2.1, meaning every 10 women will need to birth one extra child.

    The current birthrate in US, according to the world bank, was 1.73 in 2018. In Japan it was 1.43. Just try to put these numbers in proper perspective and realize how far off they are from the required stagnation rate of 2.1. Still, the overpopulation myth is hyped up day in day out, the program is running in full swing in unthinking people’s brains.

    This thing is going to end like a driver who is driving really fast into a really sharp turn that’s ending in a ravine on the other end.

    There is a very good reason to entice people to live in large cities. You guessed it: keeping the overpopulation myth alive and fresh in the mind.

    This reminds me of a video I have seen where the author claims forests do not exist. Who would believe such a thing? Someone who has lived for their entire life in a large city is a prime candidate.

    Not only is the population concentrated in coastal areas, but evergrowing swaths of land are being sequestered by gubment to compound to this effect.

    To understand the real measure of overpopulation, calculate what would be the average distance between two individuals if you would cram all the world’s population into one geographical area like Texas. Texas is a rather large area, but it’s just a small part of inhabitable land on our kind host.

    • The current birthrate in US, according to the world bank, was 1.73 in 2018.
      In Japan it was 1.43.
      Just try to put these numbers in proper perspective and realize how far off they are from the required stagnation rate of 2.1.

  16. Regarding oil, there are some who will claim that oil consumption tantamounts to a ritual of sacrifice, where the population at large will expend their mother’s blood while comletely unknowingly, and in a fervently ignorant fashion, taking part in the sacrifical rite.

    This is very much similar to the blood rites in which trillions of animals are dispatched every year. You may not believe in blood rituals, but I assure you there people high up in the pyramid who do and they enjoy the unfathomable power bestowed upon them by the unthinking masses who are tacitly giving their consent.

  17. indeed, extraordinary work, James. It’s a shame I discovered the only in the course of the plandemic in Spring of 2020. Now from my exile in the South Caucasus I try to miss no episode and to catch up on the excellent documentaries

  18. Totalitarian Control – Mass Depopulation

    This video has some good clips. I liked it. It is related to the Saturday August 21st protests in Australia.
    Summing it all up in 8m – Doctors and Whistle blowers unite! MUST SEE

  19. Eugenics Agenda

    Dr Sean Brooks at SW Ohio School Board Meeting:
    “Getting the Vaccine Will Cause your Death”

    I really like seeing this.
    Slap a hardcore scary narrative right back in their faces.
    Give the pro-vaccine people nightmares.
    Make them worry.
    THE STORY – That’s how we win.

  20. Excellent presentation of model-science, which in this case reminds on orbs, beans or whatever fortune tellers used in the past. Now they use language of new religion, scientism. I have no remarks on first part, but I have huge objections to the second part.

    I don’t get it, why is necessary for debunking of “limits narrative” to take the opposite position, “no limits narrative”,
    that is just less wrong (ok, the former one is evil too).

    For me it’s inconceivable how one cannot see that this world is big, plentiful, but at the end finite. This is a damn fact. Sure, people found substitutes probably for everything until now. Tar sands might replace oil, but that is extremely dirty. Rio Tinto, many times reopened mines and method of leaching was mentioned…cyanide is used. But if you need cobalt for some product and there is none, you won’t have a product( 🙁 cobalt-coated drill-bits); yeah, vegans then eat B12 supplements.

    Today planned obsolescence is a norm, necessary for a beast that needs growth. Absurd. Next one is gone for now with bio-security, cheap airlines. Before many adolescents from western Europe were coming to Zagreb for a weekend partying, paying for a ticket less than a round of drinks. Absurd.

    One growth problem that hasn’t been addressed at all, is a necessary growth of bankster-capitalist system. Fractional reserve banking must have growth, otherwise its ponzi-schemeness shows up to quickly. This is unspoken growth problem “elites” have to solve very soon (remember repo crisis), because uncontrolled implosion is possible and that is certainly not their preferred way. Climate madness and CBDC are a solution, ‘rona madness is training. Werner said interesting thing: with CBDC there will be no banks, no interests, no need for growth–>>no growth.
    So, banksters problem is solved, while some kind of reformed capitalism (stakeholder, what a bs obfuscation) is still in play. I haven’t heard any proposals what to do with a notion of profit (they don’t talk about it at all), namely, my conjecture is that profit is similar in effect as interests, so growth is needed.

    I won’t read J. Simon for sure. In this short expose he committed three major mistakes.
    Argument, it is been so and so in the past, therefore it will be the same in the future, shows he is not aware of Problem of Induction. It might be, we can hope, but there is no guarantee, or an extreme example: sun has risen for the millennia, but that doesn’t mean it will rise tomorrow.
    On the other hand, Julian is no stranger to philosophy and he wrote: “Is there a sound in the forest when a tree falls but there is no one nearby to hear it!” (1:18:24). Well, from the context how this saying was (ab)used, I can’t value him as a thinker.
    Prices are very deceiving measure for scarceness. Prices are so manipulated one has to be very cautious and he isn’t.

    Werner: “There is no growth.” (1:28:15)

    • Look, I know that I’m not as smart as you all but it seems like you’re jumping to the conclusion that Corbett is endorsing a position rather than countering it.
      I took from this episode a crap load of good information. It prompted me to think differently about some things.
      But I will still compost my waste and leave the earth that I have control over healthier than I found it.
      I’m not sure what you are upset about.

      • Thanks for your comments. I know that I write like a high school dropout. (For good reason) and I appreciate the tolerance I usually receive here.

        I completely understand how you feel about the pollution and disregard people have had for the environment. Its inexcusable. But I believe that our planet can heal from it.
        What I am most concerned about currently is that there won’t be the freedom to experience our world for the future generations.

        I also get defensive when because of my rather extreme environmentalism I am assumed to be a left wing whacko. Or because I am vegan that I harbor animosity towards people who are humane meat eaters.
        Its so easy to box people into very limiting descriptions.

        I am a free market capitalist as far as I understand it. But I don’t think that we have anything of the sort today. The global economic system is corrupt. Again, I’m not smart enough to tell you how. But I am convinced that the problems the world faces today are unnecessary and are created and perpetuated to enrich entities that are enriched enough already. Add illegitimate authoritarian government and this is the result.

        I am optimistic in that I believe that if we can change the way we do things by promoting freedom and personal responsibility that we will eventually change ourselves. We will grow better and more aware generation by generation.
        If we live that long.

      • Steve Smith,

        I’m not that smart. It’s just some decades on my back, interest in acquiring knowledge of all sorts and ….philosopher by nature I say to my friends.
        I have a feeling James is endorsing Simon, I reject some of his ideas.
        Me upset, that’s to strong. It’s very important topic, Limiters ideas must be debunked, I’m not satisfied how this has been done.

    • LFTR. Probably as close as we can get to near infinite, very clean, very cheap energy without fiture technology.

      It is estimated that there is sufficent thorium on this planet for 10.000 years of world wide heawy LFTR use.

      The price of said electricity would ve comparable to gas powered electric plants, so relatively inexpensive. With adoption it would probably go very low.

      LFTR is a lot easier to implement than LWR as it is inherently safe (the process shuts itself down in case of emergency insted of going ballistic).

      Fuel usage is better by a factor of 500.
      The really bad byproducts compared to enriched uranium fuels is lesser by a factor of 10.000. The really problematic aspect of LFTR is the Flouride acid.

      It’s questionable if we would have enough of it to put in the water supply. But I’m sure we could find poisons just as efficient.

      LFTR is not future tech, first LFTR was up an running (I think, but certainly decades ago) in the 60es. Its installation can be so compact that LFTR is considered as a gret solution for mobile applications.

      Our current energy paradigm is not such because of technical solutions or lack thereof, but it is limited by a number of societal issues and geopolitical considerations.

      In other words, we won’t get access to nearly infinite, very cheap and very clean energy until we abolish slavery once and for all on the entire planet all at once.

      With the current poisonous mindset many exhibit, I’m quite certain if LFTR was starting to be wildly adopted and getting ready to bring immense prosperity all over this planet, you would have dozens of death cults popping all over the globe.

    • DogStar

      “……the environmental damage that humans allegedly cause. – Allegedly? – Can we not even agree that humans must shoulder the blame..”

      I’m totally with Werner on this point. I don’t feel any responsibility for poisoning of the planet. I’m not behind glyphosates of this world and the same goes for majority of mankind. I’m not deciding how things are done. We have to put a finger to decision makers, blame mf at the top.
      This sick idea embraced by huge majority might well come from mf Club of Rome.

      “In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself

      Not that this blather is just a deadly poison, it’s also patently wrong. One day humanity will be the salvation, but not until it will deal with bad self-esteem that is a result of such a poisonous ideas.

    • @DogStar

      “well, show me the cold fusion!”

      I can do that but as I said in a comment above, even if we got that tech out of the hands of Murder Inc (the energy cartels and their hit men) having it scaled up and widely available that would not necessarily prevent humans from using that clean energy tech to decimate all the forests in order to build more cities.


      Cold Fusion and Beyond (with Dr. Eugene Mallove)

      (no I do not advocate depopulation agendas)

  21. Well said. His work is really very valuable. But the big search machines aren’t objective, their algorithms don’t like his work.

  22. As I started to watch the videos of the Corbett Report I noticed some suspicious patterns in the events and started to connect the dots. I am not saying that my suspicions are right, but I think they should deserve an investigation. Please, point out if there are some errors in my assumptions.

    I have discovered James’s How big oil conquered the world report and I was shocked by the facts! It was not what I was being told and taught in the school system of Europe. So, what I learned from the video is how Rockefeller conquered and then dominated the US, which was mostly achieved by cheating as he himself said, that competition is sin and must be eliminated. His success story spread quickly and it was copied elsewhere in the world. Rothschild started to do the same “business” practice in Ukraine and some parts of Europe. There were other parties as well, as the Shell from Netherlands and England. As it turns out from the documentary, these big businesses were competing against each other but soon they realized that destroying each other is a difficult task, so they rather stopped fighting and started to merge. As time has passed I reckon most of them just realized that the easiest thing to do is if they all join forces and go against the world as a big cartel. I don’t want to mention the first two world wars, but I start to realize that everything the public was told about those events were mere lies. Then came the first meeting in 1954 where they started to collaborate secretly and created the IMF and World Bank. What was very suspicious is (if I did not misunderstand it), they agreed on dismantling the BIS bank at the earliest possible time. Well, I guess BIS did not like that idea and started to act on his behalf secretly to counteract that.

    I guess most of these elites were followers of the principles of Eugenics, which says there are 3 kinds of people. The ubermensch – they regarded themselves as gods and that they must rule over others by birthright, the mensch – the ordinary people who must be exploited, and the untermensch – the lowest living things that must be eliminated. So, I am not surprised if the school system was designed by them in a way, which will hide the facts from the people so they will be kept in a big alternative reality by mass hypnosis. If the teachers were kept in dark as well, it was not that hard task, but as first they had to wait one generation to raise up plenty of children, who were taught in an isolated false reality, who they eventually become the teachers of the following generation, as we can see from this point, their master plan starts to become self-sustainable, as the people who were kept in dark are teaching the future generations who will be kept in dark as well.

    [SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words or less. Longer comments can be split into multiple posts. -JC]

    • Thank you for the note, I will split my comment into more pieces. So here goes the second part:

      They started a massive surveillance system and wanted to pick out as early as possible those, who will recognize that there is something fishy about their system. But, as it was a massive surveillance system they were always one step ahead. They have set the checkboard, the players on it, and they could move every piece of the chessplayers on it by constantly feeding the smaller players certain information, so the pieces on the board will move into positions they want them to be in. I guess, the center of the surveillance system was in the hands of the founders. I guess they can be the: Rockefeller dynasty, Rothschild dynasty, Shell dynasty, Bilderberg group, Club of Rome, Vatican, RIIA, CFR and probably some more. As we know from the Eugenics, they like to make lists. Lists of people whom they deem unfit for life and who can be easily exploited. People can be put on this list I guess, as early as 4th or 5th grade of primary school, when they measure certain properties (physical or mental or so). Once someone is on the list will be under 24/7 surveillance. I highly suspect that there are far too many people all over the world, who were put onto this program.

      If we know, that they want to eliminate the competition, so the easiest way is not to allow them to begin in the first place. So, these listed people will be misled and misdirected into such positions, that they will not be able to start to live their own life. All their decisions will be influenced and eventually blocked completely. Everything they discover and invent will be secretly stolen by the central surveillance system and will be sold probably to the highest bidder. Who can be for example Soros.

      Let’s not forget the underlying banking cartel behind these controlling rulers, where they put in all the stolen money. This can be what they refer to as the thing which must “grow”. I suspect that members of the secret banking cartel can be found in Israel, in Switzerland, US and definitely under the reach of BIS, though there must be more to it. By following the news lately, Blackrock, JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs are highly suspicious. All of them must have some devilish plan. I wonder where their ultimate headquarter could be, where they are doing some satanic rituals. Could it be in the US in some deserted areas like Utah, or in Switzerland under the mountains or perhaps in Italy under an Illuminati-funded “tunnel”? Or what if the old particle accelerator in Switzerland was decommissioned because they needed a secret unreachable facility to store their secret documents?

      • I am sure the very top of their pyramid is hiding in some sort of secret basement who is afraid of being seen because he knows if a living thing sees him then that moment can be relived in memory by going back in time so his identity will be revealed. Anyway, they must have some sort of secret devilish hidden agenda. And the best thing to achieve that agenda is if it is broken down into smaller pieces, what are carried out by a different group of people so the master plan can not be found out / recognized. I suspect all the universities are in a way or other part of the grand scheme, as the most intelligent researchers usually work there. After the different parts of the researches are finished all the work is funneled to the central secret system, where it is assembled.

        I guess, this is what could happen to the mRNA vaccines as well. Probably even the Moderna CEO is kept in dark about the real purpose of the vaccines. But I am sure, the western made vaccines are not good for humanity, because if it would be, then they should not need to use persuasion, lies, coercion, pressure, bullying, deplatforming, threatenings, punishments, and all sorts of criminal activities to force it upon the population. They have breached even the Nuremberg code. Everybody, who is advocating for the vaccines should be confronted by the facts and reality of the side effects of the vaccines. If they still advocate for the vaccines, I say, that should be highly suspicious.

        The situation is even more dangerous than we think. As I have read, recently Tesla announced he will manufacture human-looking robots. We also know Boston dynamics (and others) are manufacturing robots as well. What if all these good willing people are led onto directions by carrots and sticks by certain hidden players so these organizations will develop the toys without any suspicion. Then, when the inventions are done, they just steal it and use it for their nefarious agenda? I just wonder WHAT IF? What if all my assumptions are correct and the worst is yet to come?

        I also wonder why is it no coincidence that the cartel took away the power from the central banks of every state in Europe in 1992 and just later they suddenly announced the Euro, where all the power went to the ECB? Why 1992? There must be more to it…

        Please, point out all the false assumptions and I apologize if I misunderstood some facts from the videos I watched.

        • Joseph,
          Like you, I really get a lot out of Corbett’s documentaries and episodes. There are many which I revisit, and glean out parts which I missed on the first go around.
          And like you, I keep evolving my understandings.
          We are all on an adventurous journey.

  23. James, climate change may or my not exist but pollution sure does. Stop pumping toxic chemicals on our water, air and earth. If our activities are not responsible for climate change they are responsible for the quality of life on earth, particularly for those in areas where pollution is constant and unregulated. Lives are shortened and health is badly affected seriously. People in those areas are mostly poor so what does that matter? Does it? Let’s talk about pollution, whether it has to do with climate change or not, Who is in favor of pollution in your neighborhood? Not me.

    • “Let’s talk about pollution, whether it has to do with climate change or not, Who is in favor of pollution in your neighborhood?”

      I think if you just type “pollution” into the search bar above you’ll see Mr. Corbett has covered the topic quite extensively, addressing subjects ranging from Monsanto and Bayer to GMOs to Christine Todd Whitman and her pronouncements on air quality at ground zero to endocrine disruptors to glyphosate to the Environmental Movement itself etc etc etc…

    • Look at the extreme environmental damage done to the rain forests in Ecuador by Texaco Chevron, apparently on purpose,leaving behind more toxic oil waste than the Exxon Valdez? Generations of indigenous people were poisoned and killed by the devastating byproducts of oil production and still are being injured and killed by corporate negligence. Their way of life was destroyed. Texaco Chevron would rather spend millions of dollars fighting the lawsuit than cleaning up their devastating mess. Yes there are plenty of natural resources on this earth for the humans living on earth, but at what cost? Responsible drilling and mining has to be part of the deal.

    • cjon,
      When you read/listen to “Are There Limits to Growth?”, James Corbett shows that the Globalists are defining pollution as solely carbon, that is CO2.

    • When looking for a scapegoat for the pollution and devastation that has undeniably been wrought in many places and many ways on this planet, blame the consumers.
      But if you’re looking for a true culprit, the responsibility lies with government and it’s corporate cronies.

      If there is a problem with “growth”. If there is a problem with a “pandemic”. If there is a problem with unendingly war and strife. You don’t have to look very hard to find out who to blame.
      Its always those who have the monopoly on violence and those with the money who control them.

      Do you blame the lazy dickhead that is programmed to believe that he simply must purchase a gallon of poison, with a convenient attached sprayer, to kill the dandelion that dares take root between the driveway and sidewalk. Or perhaps the blame lies with the giant hardware corporation that still stocks the crap that Monsanto/Bayer has already lost court cases about. With huge settlements.
      And maybe blame the local municipality that still buys and uses it on “public” land.

      Does it make sense to blame people who were conditioned, programmed and brainwashed to fear when told to, to hate when told to, to buy when told to, for succumbing to their programming? Programming that I feel very fortunate to have escaped.

      My point is that you can name the issue or problem and the culprit is always, always going to be government, authoritarianism, power tripping elite rich psychopaths. Petty tyrants and pettier bureaucrats….
      But I repeat myself.

      We who have awakened are somewhere along a curve of awareness. Many people are so far down the rabbit hole that they spot propaganda before its issued. Some are still being surprised by the revelations daily.
      Strangely, some are seemingly awakening while still clinging to the statism straw. They don’t understand that statism is ultimately the cause of all the evil.

      The scenes keep changing but the actors never do.

      With my dying breath I will repeat it.
      The state is the enemy!

      • The majority of blame is always with those taking the action. Ignorance does not exculpate.

        • You can beat the dog to death but the trainer is the one who should be blamed for the bite.

          • The dog is not a concious being and can therefore not be held to the same standard as humans. Granted, most humans are not very concious themselves, but they have all the required equipment at theit disposal. Ignorance does not exonerate.

            • Well I won’t argue about the consciousness of dogs. Above my understanding.
              But how about children. When does a human child achieve consciousness? When do they become responsible? When is ignorance no longer an excuse?
              And what of those people who, as you concede “are not very conscious themselves”. Or said differently, are overgrown children.
              Are they not deserving of some understanding for having been the victim of a state that dumbed them down and repressed their critical thinking skills and poisoned their minds and bodies their whole lives making them believe that allopathic medicine was their only hope?

              I just can’t help being extremely grateful for having escaped that trap to the extent that I have and I can’t help feeling sympathy for those who haven’t experienced that moment of awakening yet.

              • You ought differentiate between ignorance and nescience.

                Children can be considered nescient because of their lacking cognitive abilities as well as lack of knowledge and experience. A part of adults with cognitive impairment can be placed in this group as well. To be nescient means not to know because the knowledge is not present or could not be processed.

                To be ignorant is a completely different animal and this is where the majority of population are today. It meas to willfully ignore all the information that is contradictory to what one believes to be true. These people do not test other people’s ideas, they do not even try to mull things over and are simply complying.

                Delineating precisely somewhere along the lines of development between a child and an adult is not only impossible (as it differs wildly from one situation to another) but is also immaterial for this discussion. I’ll start worrying about children going around threatening via various means to penetrate people with a range of medical devices when I see it happening.

                We need not worry about children doing so because there are plenty of adults doing it, very eagerly. They are either doing it directly or supporting (usually proudly) those who do it. They are all over the place and a vast majority of them can be considered completely ignorant simply because they follow orders without processing them through their own morality compass.

                Even if it is a lawful and moral order, one is still acting ammorally if they follow orders others bark at them. And it will be always invariably valid that those who do the deed hold more culpability than those issuing orders or merely influencing the order followers.

                Order followers are the ultimate scourge of this planet and the baton that makes slavery a thousands of years honored tradition.

              • “ To be ignorant is a completely different animal and this is where the majority of population are today. It meas to willfully ignore all the information that is contradictory to what one believes to be true. These people do not test other people’s ideas, they do not even try to mull things over and are simply complying.”

                I guess I just see a difference between ignorance and willful ignorance.

  24. If the club of Rome is evil, why would Vandana shiva be a member?

    • and the inverse: if Vandana Shiva is “good”, then why would she be a member of the Club of Rome?

      Recently on these boards I’ve labelled this question “the Shiva Syndrome” (originally I’d proposed “the Shiva Paradox” but I thought “Syndrome” was more in tune with the times and click-baity)

    • The second week of August 2021, James Corbett mentioned Sharon Lerner who has written about some toxic environmental substances, but also has some pro-vaccine views.

      NoSoapRadio pointed out some examples of a cast of well known characters who have “the Shiva Syndrome”.
      Here is the mid-part of that discussion.

      “…that’s kinda what gatekeepers and limited hangout agents do:
      they tell all on a major emotions-soaked subject that can’t be hidden, since many others are already reporting or already have reported on it; using it to win people’s powerful hero-worship gratitude,
      so as to fatally mislead them on other crucial issues… even life or death ones such as the covid jab…
      …unfortunately, it seems so many have trouble distinguishing the baby from the bath water.”

      • “inversely”,
        vandana could be keeping an eye on them? so which one is it?

        • So the Club of Rome was founded by Malthusian industrialists (if that’s not an oxymoron) whose forebearers and obvious ideological leanings support the even more paradoxical notion that competition is a sin.

          They have committed to print their project of finding a common enemy behind which humanity could unite and decided it would be humanity itself. And they seem to have the means of enforcing this campaign.

          So questions remain.

          Why would the Club of Rome accept Vandana Shiva, an ardent enemy of (fellow member?) Bill Gates with whom they seem otherwise fairly cooperative, into their fold?

          If they are or were both members as alleged by various websites (though neither appears on the members lists of the official Club of Rome website), what does that say about all their media-hyped antagonism?


          Is Vandana Shiva keeping an eye on the Club of Rome

          or is she keeping an eye on The Greater Reset crowd comprised of all our alternative heroes who together are all Broze, all a Winner in a Cristian Webb of Powers to Foster a Gamble in Wildcraft and where the Stone Sayer Mayweather what the Crowe in the Bush must So/Below the Brooks and Koire…for Liberti…

          Is Ms Shiva getting an insider view of the Club of Rome so as to better infuse it with honesty and compassion?

          Has she gained a position of influence in the the Greater Reset movement to better infuse it with Malthusian sustainability?

          Keep your friends close and your enemies closer?

          Perhaps Ms Shiva is right and David Rockefeller wasn’t such a bad guy after all and pulling the strings of so-called governments from behind the scenes is good and necessary.

          At any rate, she certainly seems to have a panoramic view of the future from at least two sides of the playing field. Are they opposing sides?

          Shiva, god of creative destruction, the great Destroyer, the Great Resetter, the Greater Resetter, the god of “building back better”?.

          Think I’ll go back to the “Shiva Paradox” epithet

          and go have a swim now…

  25. “perhaps resources are no more limited than peoples liberty to excersize their imaginations”

    Being a builder of houses and boats Ive been fairly high up or in and around on the food chain of material consumption. Ive also lived and traveled around in many countries, so feel like I have a bit of perspective on the general impact of people on the environment. The average Human behavior around use of material and energy is in general disgustingly wasteful; I bet just cleaning up that mindset would solve most of the issues around environmental degradation/abuse, and material availability. But its arrogant to not acknowledge that the industrial use of flora and fauna and minerals has no limits, just use your imagination and the extinctions and damage to water which is to aggress all life,,will be limitless.. NO. we live on a spaceship, she’s a garden, and thats the reason any of you reading these words exist at all. we are part and parcel, we are the garden, and its looking like we may witness the great plowing under. True large scale predictions being blamed on Carbon may be a cloak hiding a dagger, or maybe its a sideways way of saying time to get off the clock & dollar. Its a manic messy affair, all of these billions trying to emulate kings and queens or the vassels of,,

    • I am glad you made this point. Listening to James, and skimming through the comments, it is so damn human-focused. Oh right, no need to worry, there’s always more resources. Really? More snow leopards? More black rhino? More tigers, elephants, whales, wolves …. ? Just a bunch of humans on a depleted, saddened, filthy, oily, foggy, noisy, stinking, choking Earth? That is not how it was meant to be. We are fellow-citizens, fellow-inhabitants of this Pearl of Great Price. The global ‘elites’ don’t give a damn either. Prince Philip wanted fewer humans just so he could shoot more big game more easily. But some of us do care. We do want to live in balance, and respectfully, with all our non-human compatriots.
      I’m not sure that was your point, but I feel it needs to be said – so I said it! 🙂

      • @sgvegan

        Thank you for speaking up for the snow leopards, black rhino, tigers, elephants, whales and wolves. I honor and respect your compassion and your choosing to see our fellow non-human beings on this Earth as being worthy of our respect and reverence (especially in a comment thread that is often dominated by quite anthropocentric worldviews).

    • This discussion reminds me of a question in the climate change debate.

      People almost always say something along the lines of “Well, so what if it’s the Rockefellers leading the transition to renewable energies to stop climate change? If it helps us all to be more responsible?”

      and my answer to that is

      “If averred crooks, liars, polluters and murderers are leading your movement, there’s a good chance it won’t turn out the way you want it to”.

      That’s the point in this “limits to growth” discussion.

      As long as the people who created the conditions for the offensive growth that’s killing the snow tigers and polluting the water

      are the ones managing “the limits to growth”

      you can be sure that your dictated efforts in curbing growth will not serve the purposes you hoped for. They will simply be used as still another means of enslaving humanity.

      When ingenious humanity is free to address the real problems, real pollution, making a genuine effort to eradicate famine in so-called 3rd world countries instead of pillaging them and engineering the famine, instead of incriminating CO2,

      then humanity will have the opportunity to act responsibly.

      But if the famine and pollution engineers are managing the clean up efforts

      humans will continue to be accomplices to their own demise and that of the other species on the planet.

      If humanity ever gets its shot at managing its fate

      we might discover that Julian Simon was right and there really are no limits to growth.

  26. RE: Are There Limits to Growth? – Questions For Corbett #077

    Judging from the comments, it seems that there are confusions relating to some points made in this QFC. Here are two points of confusion.

    the size of the Pie as ordained by “experts”.

    • @HRS


      I also think that people are mistakenly intrinsically connecting population growth to industrial growth, but those two things need not be connected.

      High population densities can be supported without decimating forests to create concrete jungles (this has been historically proven) it just requires actually learning to engage with the ecosystems we depend on to breath and eat, and giving back to them through how we grow our food (rather than being lazy and hoping some farmer “out there” somewhere is gonna do the right thing for us).

      Cities, in their current modern format, are inherently ecologically devastating and degenerative to our sources of clean water, oxygen, soil and natural beauty, however, we do not have to live in big New York city style, cities, we can redesign them to honor nature rather than pillaging her.

  27. Exponential Growth was also used to fabricate postive PCR cases. I have attempted to show/prove this in my last post on

    Exponential growth is simply a mathematical algorithm. No need to hate it.

    There is a lot to hate in the way it is being used to manipulate our minds and behavior. Exponential growth in mathematics does not transfer cleanly to biological systems.

  28. James does not mention Lyndon LaRouche, who wrote “There Are No Limits to Growth” , but he should read him if he has not. What LaRouche says, in a nutshell, is that scientific progress discovers and creates new resources, and this is the only escape from the Malthusian trap of overpopulation and exhaustion of resources. Man can develop new resources such as atomic power. Fusion power can become a source of unlimited, cheap, non-polluting energy. Oceans can be desalinated, and water can be distributed though large water projects such as NAWAPA. From the LaRouche standpoint, the Western US is underpopulated, and we need to bring water to the whole Western US through such a project. This would replenish all the aquifers and green the whole west, creating vast new agricultural lands and also benefitting wildlife, which are also limited by the amount of water available in desert areas. This development would increase the human as well as animal and plant population of the west, because water is life. All this is perfectly feasible technologically, but requires a leadership not controlled by special interests that really represents the economic interest of the people, and can instill in the people a sense of national mission (as there was under FDR) to build these large projects.

  29. This was an outstanding presentation. Thank you JC for all that you do. I noticed when you were scrolling through the YT comments that the recommended videos on the right were a 90% match with videos that I keep getting recommended by YT, some of which I have seen as well. Did anybody else experience this?

    • Hi Cambodia!
      I’ve noticed the same as you on YouTube from time to time.
      Lately, they try to sway me towards “tidbit topics.”

      Are you currently in Cambodia?

          • Ha!…You can’t make this stuff up…or you can.
            Go figure…the “marketing’s positioning”, a concept held in the mind.

            Positioning refers to the place that a brand occupies in the minds of the customers and how it is distinguished from the products of the competitors and different from the concept of brand awareness.

  30. James, Another stellar presentation! There is so much I could say, but I’ll be brief (sort of).

    I greatly appreciate your pointing to our essential need to re-examine all our biases over & over again. I try to do this now, after noticing that I kept running into my own blind spots – how do I know what is true if I don’t look closely and dig? As a scientist, I know this is also an essential aspect of science. It is painful to hear “science” being skewered, often by people who don’t understand even basic scientific principles. I am so grateful for my years spent in graduate school & medical research, because they demonstrated to me the challenges and rewards of being vigilant at every step in the scientific process – including public health work, believe it or not. If we stop questioning, we lose it all. Dare I say, “true” scientists understand that failing to deeply examine their assumptions, the quality of their data, all the METHODS they apply, the analyses they use, and the conclusions they come to leads to what statisticians politely call “spurious” results (i.e., bogus, bogus, bogus – think the scare-tactic corona death “model” from Imperial College in early 2020). Critics of science seldom evaluate scientific activities based upon how carefully and appropriately the methods and analyses were done, even though these aspects largely define scientific quality and integrity. I have been dismissed by so many non-scientists recently who have zero knowledge of or experience in scientific research. So, I deeply appreciate your articulating these basic yet crucial issues, in this episode as well as prior episodes.

    I also appreciate your understanding of how people (scientists and non-scientists alike) become captured by the organizations for which they work. I have found that oftentimes people fail to question what they’re doing & why as well as what their employers are doing & why. Part of that scenario includes employees trying to ignore their sometimes small inner voices of integrity which say “something is wrong here.” I have faced this scenario multiple times; hence my experience working in different environments. I have worked as a scientist in public health departments, private so-called “independent” research organizations (that were completely captured by their corporate clients, as I discovered) as well as medical schools (where basic science research was first slashed during the Reagan era). Most of the scientists I worked with were dedicated and intended to be of service, including those at the CDC, EPA, ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, a sister organization of the CDC), and NIH. The problems usually stemmed from those at the “top,” who either weren’t scientists at all (e.g., marketers, business people, bureaucrats, political appointees), or who had some science credential but little actual understanding of science, or, yes, the occasional scientist who had abandoned his integrity. This seems to be the situation in most employment situations now, regardless of the sector. It is the people at the “top” of organizations who benefit most from selling out, not those who actually do the work they were hired to do and who care about the results.

    [SNIP – Please keep comments to 500 words or less. Longer comments can be split into multiple posts. -JC]

    • Just saw your note above about limiting length. Shall I cut it down?

    • I’ll keep my Part 2 short; thanks for the tip, James.

      The current global turmoil is the challenge of our lifetimes, pushing us to ask some difficult questions, many of which you, James, address in Solutions Watch. But, I still see much division around me. I see people dividing themselves by the usual left/right, liberal/conservative, etc., as though we can afford to waste our energy fighting each other. I’m left with one big question: How can we finally unite, harness our collective power and put an end their violent agendas? We have to do that before we can move toward the next step in our Evolution intact, as fully human beings.

      Thank you, James, for pushing and pulling us along this path to freedom. You are making a real difference.

  31. I read Schwabb’s book titled “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”. He seems to insist on the goal being more empathy from humans and developing spirituality- through epigenetics. Now, whether that is true or not is not what I want to point out here. We all know why this may not be the case – it could be just a sheer power trip, right? It very well could be.

    But what if becoming less materialistic, greedy, narcissistic and toxic really is the goal of all of this? Then, the real question is: why the hell are they using such evil measures to impose this on all of us like this? Couldn’t they just use the same, already well-oiled machine that made society what it is today and create a more psychologically and spiritually friendly world? Positive propaganda is a thing, right?

    As much as many of you hate where this is all going, I am sure you can understand what my point is. I want a much more empathic world, but not one where murdering as many people as possible through disease, famine and war, plus through forced sterilization by using dangerous toxins, is the method to achieve that goal. The ends do not justify the means. Maybe encouraging a different path towards this goal would help things change for the better – for real.

    • You mean Schwabb’s WEF that is promoting “You’ll own nothing, have no privacy, and be happy”? What the WEF means is that they will steal all of the resources and property and rent them to a subservient slave class who by sufficient propaganda and marketing will actually “love their servitude”.

      I don’t care what Schwabb says and how much he might say he wants spiritual enlightenment and less suffering and whatever else he might say, when the WEF says “you’ll own nothing and have no privacy” I take that to mean they want to steal my property and put me in prison. No, I don’t care how many gadgets I get to have or convenience or fun drugs, I want my own property and freedom. I am not a slave and Schwabb and these other wealthy “elites” have no right to do what they are doing. They might think they do, but this agenda is pure evil, even if they don’t know it. This agenda with the Covid scam and the Great Reset is demonic and I pray every day (though I am not very religious) that God will help us defeat this agenda and show the people running it that they are wrong to do this to us.

      I want this to stop. I just want to live my life in peace and freedom to travel and work and go out and have fun without subjecting myself to toxic chemicals and masks and destructive propaganda. They have no right to do what they are doing to the human population and on some level they know this and if any of them had a conscience, would stop immediately.

    • Thanks anniees.
      I haven’t read the book, so I’m glad that you relayed the concept of “empathy” that Schwab mentioned.

      It reminds me of the “empathy” that the new Left want no one in the world to ever, ever catch the Covid, even if we have to lockdown the world forever.

    • I can definitely see epigenetics as a eugenics front. Epigenetics being a genetic ‘credit score’ so to speak. I like to point to someone like and his statistical analysis in determining who is likely to die early based on their lifestyle choices (Epigenetics). Not sure if it’s a coincidence he’s from Frankfurt Germany and a connection to , but epigenetics could be easily spun as an up and coming shadow ‘social credit score’. The public epigenetic science is still in its infancy though from what I understand.

  32. I always imagined how having a philosophical debate and doing blow in a Yakuza dive bar in a seedy part of Japan with James might feel but the 9 minute 50 second mark really brought it home. I really shouldn’t have been in mid-sip of my local craft ale whilst watching that one 😀

    • What is James’ argument about limitlessness of growth, along with such towering intellects, Werner and Simon?

      That technology, innovation and imagination will stay ahead of the curve and fix it all up?

      Talk about leaning on techno solutions to solve techno problems.

      Technocrats in disguise? Ha ha! No, not you, James, just Werner and Simon, the Chi-town cigar chewin’ chump.

      Near limitless gas and oil? No problem. Just frack the shit out of the earth, drill sideways, drill deeper, open up new oil fields, etc., etc. No fucking problem, boys.

      Depletion of world-wide fisheries? No problem. Just use your imagination and conjure back healthy stocks.

      Hell, what you do find on your plate these days you have to weigh against consuming too much mercury.

      Clean water? Simon. Werner. James? Please help me out here.

      Oh, and water, period….

      I don’t know, man, like a few skeptics on this thread have opined, I found this rehashing terribly jaundiced.

      In fact, I was wondering if any actual, serious problems humanity faces in today’s world would actually be broached in what I already assumed would be, in essence, James’ anti-eugenics rant.

      • “ Hell, what you do find on your plate these days you have to weigh against consuming too much mercury.

        Clean water? Simon. Werner. James? Please help me out here.”

        I can’t speak for James or anybody else. So my response to your concerns is “personal responsibility”.

        One of the very first things I did when my eyes began opening to deception that I had been living under most of my life was to make sure that I would never have to rely on someone else to provide me with healthy clean water. Pretty easy to do here in Florida.
        I also set about to become less dependent on others for food. I’m getting there.
        There are lots of things that individuals can do.
        I don’t hold out much hope that the state and it’s corrupt bed partners will be the ones to solve the problems that they created.

        I can’t know for certain that I wouldn’t become corrupted if I suddenly acquired the means to develop some world changing technology that would benefit mankind. But I don’t think I would.
        I hope that there might be some individuals who do have the means and also the morals to create wonderful things to improve life of all sorts on this planet once we get rid of those who maintain the monopoly on violence.
        But then I have been accused of being a tad idealistic.

        • You mean it will be the individual’s responsibility to find some decent, untainted fish, or get some well water (that is, if there is any water in the well)that’s not polluted? Or from the river, stream, lake and aquifer? Etcetera, etcetera. Ah, for the billions of urban people in the cities?

          And, wonderful to get rid of those who maintain the status quo on violence.

          Sure thing, Steve.

          Walden Pond here we come!

          Don the straw hat!

          • You don’t have to be facetious. I don’t think I said anything to warrant that.

            Are you hoping that the state will solve these problems? Are you expecting that the billions in the cities will be taken care of by the state?
            Are you hoping that we can take the screwed up society that we have today and fix it with more of what got us here?

            I am not suggesting that by taking responsibility for one’s own needs to the greatest extent possible is going to solve the world’s problems.
            I am suggesting that taking responsibility for one’s own needs and doing one’s best to find alternatives to the system might be the best way to solve some of our individual problems. And by doing so can provide an example for others. And perhaps someday influence society for the better.

            But so long as people only respond to ideas with ridicule and scorn rather than curiosity. I suppose trying to solve individual problems by striving for self sufficiency is pretty pointless.

            What are your ideas?

            • Some of the ideas you put forward here seem to in conflict with what you were eppressing elsewhere when it came to ignorance and wilful ignornce. Wilful being a superflous adjective.

              Personal responsibility for one’s actions is paramount. This one change in the mindset would immediately eradicate order following and would have an infathomable effect on final abolition of slavery by eliminating the root cause.

              • I agree with you but for willfulness being superfluous.

                How can someone change until they know that there are good reasons to and learn how to go about it?

                If someone is trained to distrust and fear information that doesn’t come from “acceptable and approved sources,how will they learn?

                If learned helplessness is instilled in someone, how do they break out of that?
                In my opinion, only with the help of others.
                If that help is rejected then I guess thats when the willfulness starts.

              • How do they know there is information to be had if they just blindly accept whatever they are given? This is unnatural behavior and people can feel it.

            • Steve Smith:

              I’m sorry I offended you. I didn’t mean to do that, I was just joking around.

              You framed your response around personal responsibility, which is a very worthy topic in its own right, but has absolutely nothing to do with the present podcast discussing limits to growth. Discussion of personal responsibility seems more fitting for one of James’ Solutions Watch podcasts wherein he talks about what one can do to help themselves on an individual and/or collective level. Which is commendable.

              However, in this “Are there Limits to Growth” podcast, with its familiar anti-eugenics consternation, James’ seems to be arguing the feasibility of interminable human population growth vis-à-vis interminable industrialization, highlighted with the 1988 interview of Julian Simon, together with the touting of Simon’s book ~ The Ultimate Resource, which touts the advantages of ever increasing extraction from Mother Earth of Her resources by ever increasingly advanced and sophisticated methods.

              It certainly sounds endless, doesn’t it?

              But, what I found disturbing and jaundiced about this soliloquial monologue was the absence of any discussion about the adverse effects of such exponential industrial extraction and manufacturing, let alone the deleterious nature of its product advancement.

              Forget about copper. Who needs copper? We’ve got laser and satellite communications systems now, right?


              Yeah, right.

              But, one of the big elephants in the room, the advent of which has been so advantageous for exponential growth to date, and is now so utterly ubiquitous that it very well might be the one agent, in all its numerous molecular forms, that ironically will be the self-limiting factor for humanity’s growth and, for that matter, species extinction in general, is plastic. It’s in our food supply, it’s in our bodies.

              Industrial chemicals and plastic. It’s not working out as well as may have been thought back in 1988.

              Plastic’s deleterious effects can be observed abjectly in marine life, which in turn effects our life. It’s easy enough to google. It’s easy enough to google the depletion of fisheries.

              And what about the prospect of ever increasing demand for the sea’s bounty with ever decreasing availability?

              • How would Julian Simon address that issue? Or, would he be even interested in the issue of marine health? It seems people like him are already extolling methods to further exploit the ocean bottom to extract more minerals out of the earth, with probably little or no regard for whatever negative effects to marine life such scaring of the ocean bottom would do to further diminish returns.

                Julian Simon to me represents myopic vision and narrow thinking. And using his materiel a’plenty! narrative to support the thesis that there’s nothing consequential about exponential population growth along with its corollary, exponential industrial growth, without any discussion about what the downside is now and in the future, I find very wanting.

                Those are my thoughts.

              • “ Discussion of personal responsibility seems more fitting for one of James’ Solutions Watch podcasts”

                You’re right of course. I just take any opportunity to promote my agenda. 🙂

                “ Plastic’s deleterious effects can be observed abjectly in marine life, which in turn effects our life.”

                I can’t disagree with that. I work on the water and have done extensive sailing. The crap is everywhere.

              • This is an excellent observation about the fact that expanding industrialization and extraction of resources may be harmful in addition to unethical if they are harming the habitat of other creatures who also have the right to exist. Does an expanding human population necessitate the depletion of resources and mean that other species will die off?

                I would love to hear this topic explored with more rigorous analysis. I would hate for the world to become a huge city with nothing but humans and domestic animals. I had always believed that in a natural environment population size reach an equilibrium with the the ability of the environment to sustain it. But exploring this phenomenon in the context modern medicine and longer life spans would be interesting.

                Thank you for sharing your well articulated points.

  33. I absolutely LOVE LOVE LOVE this episode!!

    Thank you SOOOOO much for it!!!

    I read that Vice MIT “study” update and I knew it was another load of narrative BS and I’m so grateful that you’ve picked it apart so well!

    The best part is of course the last part where you explain how using more of a resource makes it being more abundant!!!!

    LOVE IT!!

  34. Thank you James and your team. A big cloud of doom has lifted from me. As you pointed out we have all been made belief that we must end humankind to save the planet. I have grown up with the belief that having (too many) children is wrong, even when the state said we need the children to pay for our pensions. This new way of looking at things, I call it my epiphany, makes a lot of sense and frees us from the shackles of being doomed. Let’s be ingenious, inventive, creative and celebrate achievements that have benefitted us. All of course while including mother earth on whom we depend. We can choose a path that respects the natural world and move forward more gentle and conscientious.

  35. Oh James, when you popped up from the table with “white powder” on your nose after listening to that junk propaganda and mocked them mercilessly, I nearly urinated in my pants laughing!

    Thanks so much for the best laugh I’ve had all week and please try and do that more often. With all the bad news we could all use a bit of levity.

  36. After being a member here for years I still don’t know the official place to submit a “Question for Corbett”. 🙂

    OK Japan is the elephant in the room now w.r.t. its record-setting 5th wave of cases (5 times greater in number than previous waves and almost off the chart), combined with its 46% fully ‘vaxxed’ population.

    James maybe you could give us an inside view as to how the Japanese feel about this?

    Are they taking it all in stride?
    Are they a little concerned?
    Are you seeing any noticeable changes in day-to-day life?

    • Questions For Corbett

      Corbett does eyeball the Corbett Report comment section.
      So Fawlty Towers, I am guessing that James might view your question(s) above.

      I am sure that a person can ask him a question via the “Contact” tab on the website’s top menu.
      Things have changed in recent years. Corbett used to have a variety of ways to ask him questions, including voice message. I am not sure if those applications still apply.
      By going back some years to previous QFC (Questions For Corbett), a person can see various examples of contacting James for a question.

      There had been a previous protocol for asking a “Question For Corbett”.
      It involved leaving a question in the last known episode of QFC and would apply to a future QFC if James picks that topic.

      Everyone should keep in mind that James gets a lot of traffic.

  37. I got an “AW ShucKs” error message with the below Error ID when I tried to view the above episode #077. I tried reloading it and I keep getting the same massage.
    Error ID: 6a3fd6148b494bff8c96bf2660d81c3f

    None of the Show Note links work either.
    This appears to be censorship like I have never seen before.

  38. Hi everyone, first comment on this site. Loving your work James, an overwhelming amount of material on many topics of great interest. You’ve done such a good job cataloging and organizing the information.

    • Lane,
      Welcome! from all of us here on the comment threads. We Corbett Commenters like seeing new commenters.

      I completely agree…Corbett puts out “an overwhelming amount of material on many topics of great interest.”

  39. Are there limits to growth?

    What kind of growth?

    The growth of human populations?

    Well, that is not set in stone. Depending on how we are growing our food and treating the forests and oceans we need to breath, we could maybe reach 20 billion or something and still have a world worth giving to future generations.

    However, if you are talking about the growth of cities (in their current format) and the technological/resource extraction infrastructures that maintain our modern way of living with obscene excess, comfort and waste.. Yes there is certainly a limit.

    If you ask me, considering that primary forests produce much of the oxygen we breath, they stabilize precipitation patterns and mitigate the harm of flooding events via holding soil together with roots, while also encouraging water to penetrate into the soil, then propagating natural precipitation patterns (through evapotranspiration and rain drop nucleation via releasing pollen) any conventional agricultural or other industrial resource extraction operation that is involved with chopping those primary forests down, is unacceptable, irrational, and in essence represents a sort of suicidal operation where we are destroying the very fabric of the ecosystems we depend on to survive.

    If you ask someone like this lady ( ) about clearcutting primary forests, she will tell you “It pays for education and universal ‘free’ health care.” So, to her, there is no limit to the growth of the logging industry, and chopping down the oldest most biodiverse forests is a good idea.

    In response to the question about “limits to growth” I have a few of my own questions for anyone reading this.

    How much damage done to the environment/remaining intact ecosystems (in the name of living a life of comfort and propping up our top heavy technologically dependent civilization and technological addictions) is too much?

    Is there no limit to how much is too much (if that damage is required in order to continue to allow us to live the way we do now, in perpetuity)?

    Is there is a limit, how do we define it, and how should we strive to live in a way that respects that boundary?

  40. a fun (and illuminating) thought I just came across in a youtube interview when they were discussing

    “oh no, we have 8 billion people on Earth, that’s terrible! or is it terrible?”

    “what if our so called population problem, is actually a population asset for the Earth?”

Submit a Comment


Become a Corbett Report member