Agreed on the virtue signalling - it's been pitiful to watch environmentalists go from radical posturing and grand demands to uncritical cheerleaders at the first sop the govt gives them. XR is the latest iteration of this, so quick to claim victory after the govt declare a 'climate emergency', but what did it actually result in? Promises, pledges, watered down compromises, ie: f* all. But the bright greens still cling to the 'net zero' greenwashing bs, and even defend it against attacks from the right, presumably because they think it's better than nothing. But it isn't, it's worse than nothing because it gives the impression of progress being made when all that's happening is off-setting, the same carbon trading ponzi scheme, manipulated statistics and a few trees planted that won't get watered or weeded. XR used to know this, hence why their first action was against Greenpeace:

'"[We are] working on building a rebellion against our broken democracy which is complicit in the ecological crisis we are facing and which is now a real emergency," Agger said. He added, "[The crisis is] a systemic problem rather than something which can be treated through changes in individual consumption."

So, where does Greenpeace fit into this? According to Agger, "NGOs like Greenpeace are part of the problem... since their messaging is a lot more narrow and doesn't tell the truth of the extent of the upcoming ecological crisis. We need a rebellion to tackle the problem we find ourselves in and Greenpeace, with their connections, could have a critical impact on the success of the uprising if they would choose to support it." ' - https://www.commondreams.org/views/2018/10/19/climate-activists-occupy-greenpeace-uk-headquarters-wait-cant-be-right

But they've been well and truly NGOised, with the suspicion being that their announcement last year that they would 'quit' disruptive actions in favour of:

'building collective power, strengthening in number and thriving through bridge-building [...] committed to including everyone in this work and leaving no one behind, because everyone has a role to play [...] we prioritise attendance over arrest and relationships over roadblocks, as we stand together and become impossible to ignore' - https://extinctionrebellion.uk/2022/12/31/we-quit/

blah blah blah... was done in order to secure a smorgasbord of liberal NGO support: https://extinctionrebellion.uk/the-big-one/supporters/

So they're incompetent, and too ready to compromise for the sake of comfort and numbers, playing the same game that all the other bought off, middle class careerist environmental groups ended up playing. But does that make them, or the other bright greens, in favour of mass death, albeit as an 'unspoken but actually preferred solution' as you say? I'm sure they would deny it and point towards xyz constructive solutions they propose (down to citizens assemblies as far as XR are concerned), but then you've got to look at their actual behaviour and the role they slot into within the context of late-stage capitalism and it doesn't look so pretty.

For me it boils down to whether you're trying to preserve the system or whether you're trying to undermine, dismantle and ultimately bring it down. There are plenty of horrors that could be unleashed on the world by trying to keep capitalism in the conditions it's used to, whether that's by doubling down on fossil fuels or pushing for a WW2-level mobilisation for renewables (sic). Greenies could play a useful idiot role in the second scenario - really, they already are. But is that actually beneficial if it merely postpones an inevitable collapse, in fact making it worse when it eventually does come? Most of the 'depopulation' conspiracy theorising comes from the right, who come down in favour of continued fossil fuel use because they (correctly) view it as the essential lifeblood of capitalism, and besides all that climate change stuff is just a socialist conspiracy to take away our money.

Anyway, the bottom line IMO is that here's no getting away from the fact that bringing humanity back within ecological limits will require a huge reduction in population as well as (more importantly) a massive reduction in levels of resource consumption. The current 8bn population is a product of the fossil fuel age and the haber bosch process of essentially turning natural gas into digestible calories. The real question is how that decline happens, and how fast. If all that happens is that the death rate slightly exceeds the birth rate then we might not even notice it and the process could take a number of centuries. On the other hand, if the system continues to eat away at the ecological base (and the skill base of people to survive without it), depleting planetary resources without putting any effort into transitioning to more viable social & economic models, then one day it will hit a hard limit it can't push through and it could all come crashing down overnight, like the reindeer on St Matthew's Island:


https://web.archive.org/web/20110709032911/http://dieoff.org/page80.htm

Somehow I don't see even the most sociopathic elites being in favour of that scenario, not least because the collapse of the system will also collapse their wealth.

So paradoxically, attempts to preserve the system of growth-dependent capitalism/industrialism will lead to the worst depopulation outcome. No conspiracy required, it merely depends on everybody with a stake in the status quo to continue investing in it, no matter the cost.

Sorry if that's a bit rambly...

cheers,
I