WW3 solution for environmental problems?

>>1846324
t. Pentti Linkola

>>1846324
>WW3
>reduce the strain on our ecosystems

No, moreover

>overpopulation is the problem

No

>>1846324

I still don't understand after trying to help others how theres a degree of "you need to keep helping me" regardless of how much a country/organization/individul goes out of the way.

I'm probabaly a bit wrong or bad for saying that but logically there are people who exist solely on the use of good will and dare I say abuse of others good will. Now, is it immoral to say no more? As someone who cares but also does understand you can only carry so much weight before collapsing yourself. Some bleeding heart might call me evil for saying that but simply put I can only do so much if not everything for someone before impacting my own life negatively

>>1846494

To answer the question no because morally we've created this system where those people exist already. If we were so smart the answer would be invent or create an abolishment or enhancement and succeed or survive onward because of it.

I probably expect too much out of it because I'm not in a position of survival currently

>>1846494
>>1846526

In an ideal society we would improve a lot faster. I witnessed contless of instances where our system desparately prevents progress.

Our system is just an projection of our greedy, lazy, malevolent nature. And important positions attract these people like shit attracts flies.

And dont get me even started on foreign politics.

>>1846363
I love how you decided not to elaborate. It makes you seem above us all. Thanks for dropping the answers though <3

Cue the shills saying we aren't overpopulated

Its not a question of carrying capacity

>>1846324
I suppose once the nuclear winter was over and most if not all the population is dead than things could improve

Instead of war the US Government could use its war funding to help educate and feed other countries.

War NEVER works, and with all of our knowledge on history and science, people are stupid enough to believe that by imperializing their nation that it will last forever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Y2PKiWMRs

>>1846324
>Does war work as a population control?
It doesn't seem to. Are you talking about military deaths, or total civilian deaths?

WWII being a classic example, with about 8.7million military Russians dead killed, and maybe 20 million total total.

Even with all 60 million killed counting everybody, it's barely a drop in the bucket, given global population.

The Black Death was significantly more impactive, and killed as much as 50% of Europe, at a time when global populations were way lower.

I would say disease, famines (whether from policy or blight), and maybe industrial genocide are more effective at really controlling populations.

File: 1427747881254.jpg (291KB, 959x960px)

291KB, 959x960px

>The Gates foundation for instance designs rice that gives people cancer

>>1846324
It may be an okay form of population control, but the risk that WWIII could involve nukes would have really bad implications for the environment.

File: 1251999400645.jpg (30KB, 400x363px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 400x363px

>>1847742
Feeding and medicating the third world even more would have the opposite effect. The negroid breeding strategy differs from ours. Read about r/K-selection.
I believe the UN is trying to educate third world women as a measure to reduce birthrates. But education, bumping their standard of living or running contraceptive campaigns to marginally affect the birthrates of undesirables is far too ineffectual and the earth would be a landfill hotter than Venus before significant reduction had been achieved.

As someone said, casualties of war have so far not been high enough to make a difference either. Along with physically putting people into ovens or the like it's also much too cumbersome and would pollute and consume huge amounts of resources in itself. It would also render the survivors mentally and emotionally scarred for life.

We don't want to ruin all the infrastructure or kick up enough dust for a nuclear winter so we can't nuke excessively.

Disease can usually be combatted by modern medicine and would kill indiscriminately which could be very dysgenic although I suspect the first world would do much better than the third in a full-on Ebola scenario or whatever. Still, it's not one to count on.

That leaves us with bioweapons. As an evil racist kkk nazi white supremacist, I'd favor something genotype-specific and airborne that couple wipe out Africa, South America, the middle east and large chunks of Asia. We'd also need to clear out the swarthy scum from these places who now call Europe, the US and Oceania home. The amount of melanin in one's skin is roughly proportional to one's level of undesirability as I'm sure we all know deep down.

I wonder what genocide on this scale would do to the mentality of the survivors though. Would we see white guilt amped up to eleven? Would the remaining asians feel threatened and plan something similar against whitey?

Exterminatitonism is interesting.

>>1847784
We need a second black death to usher in an age of prosperity

Any recommendations?