Let's analyze the LOGIC of the death trap system based on the information available...
(I'm not a native english speaker, but I'll try my best to phrase everything correctly.)
So, to use logic correctly, we must know that every deduction is based on assumptions. Assumption A leads to deduction B and so on. So what are the assumptions at the foundation of the death trap concept?
1. An Is-Be can't be *killed*.
2. An Is-Be can be *controlled* through that system.
3. The control of an Is-Be yields a *profit* of some sort to the operator of the system.
If one of these assumptions is false, the whole concept doesn't work anymore. Any questions about HOW it works are not important at this point - I will cover them later.
The terms within the * are the fundamental concepts we must look deeper into in order to be able to understand what is really going on. Let's see:
*Killing* is the action of doing harm to another being with the result of death. In order to understand death, we must understand that death fundamentally is the idea of "not being able to return" (imprisonment) in conjunction with "no contact" (isolation). Killing therefore means to cut off a being from everything else. But: Is that even possible? Everything in the universe is connected (yes, this is another assumption), so "an Is-Be can't be killed" is just another way of saying that there are no isolated systems within the universe (or even multiverse), therefore *killing* would be an invalid concept.
*Control* is the ability to suppress or manipulate the expression of free will. If we assume that an Is-Be can't be killed, then controlling it is the "next best choice" in order to cut it off. This can be done by imprisoning it through brute force, but that approach is really expensive and exhausting. The more "elegant" way of cutting a being off would be to eliminate its need for contact. Control only is a valid concept if there's a way to somehow eliminate (or redirect) needs. This can be done, but also leads to the assumption that the effect is not lasting, otherwise the operators of the death traps would not be concerned to lose the prisoners.
*Profit* is the difference between revenue and effort. In order to have a positive profit, the revenue must be valued higher than the effort put into it. In other words: Whatever the profit is, creating and maintaining a death trap system for billions of people must be "worth it". So the question arises: How?
For a better understanding, let's dive into the motivation behind the "wish to kill", meaning the need to cut off an Is-Be from everything else. Where does this wish come from? How does cutting off billions of souls yield a profit for someone? And what exactly can that profit be?
Harvey told us that they need so many people for "manual labor" (sort of) in order to achieve something big. But what could that be? How is it done? What is the big goal?
We must assume that whatever it is, having a big population on a prison planet like Earth helps to get there (or at least seems to help), otherwise it wouldn't be done this way. So, what's the goal then? In order to understand that, we must look at the conditions:
Imagine two buckets. Bucket A is full of pebbels in all shapes and colors. Bucket B is empty. Now imagine the effort to put all the blue pebbles into bucket B. That's the goal, in a metaphorical sense. But there's a problem: The blue pebbles in bucket B don't stay this way. Some of them become another color again. So you put these ones back into bucket A. Now another problem arises: The pebbels in bucket A develop the wish to have contact to the ones in bucket B, as it is not a normal state in nature to have totally isolated systems at all.
If you understand that picture, you understand the principle of what is going on. Bucket A must be contained and cut off from bucket B. The goal is to keep bucket B "clean". That's all.
While this explains what's going on principally, it does not explain the motivation for having a bucket B in the first place and why the effort of "seperating the pebbles" is believed to be "worth it". Well, this is not so easy to explain. Please have a look at this excerpt from Mark Passio's presentation "Fake-Ass Christians", starting at 2:23:16, titled "Our Rulers Worldview":
Bucket B is the "kingdom" of the ones rebelling against God. It's not important wether you believe in God or not. Important is the fact that this believe system and therefore the rebellion exists. Seperating the pebbels is the act of rebelling against the natural order of things.
So the next questions arise: Why does that rebellion start in the first place? What went wrong so that someone is so frustrated that he puts a lot of effort into building death traps for billions? And are we speaking of "Lucifer" himself?
I'll leave you there for now...