WHY DOES EVERYONE KEEP IGNORING THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE COMING

>>8893901
The root cause is carbonated fountain drinks.

>>8893901
population is stable in america
we are powerless where it counts
however, the root cause of global warming, from an american perspective, is the way we produce our food.
and noone wants to change that.

>>8893901
The people who know this aren't responsible for the problem. It's the third-world shitholes and developing ex-shitholes that just keep plopping out kids.

imagine finding a way to annihilate everyone in the middle east and in Asia, except for south koreans and japan

that day would be so beautiful, getting rid of billions of useless shit-tarded piggots
there would still be a lot of brainlets in the West but that's ok, their level would be manageable, but having billions of street-shitting monkeys polluting half of the planet is too much

>>8893901
>IGNORING

No-one is "ignoring" it, idiot, it's very well understood that rising populations drives rising pollution. The question is, what can be done about it? And the answer, at least for liberal western democracies, is "absolutely nothing". No electorate would tolerate any kind of "one child policy", it would be political suicide even to mention it.

The Club of Rome didn't ignore it

That's why they unleashed the dumbing-down media and internet upon us to stop us from reproducing

It's massively effective

>>8893957
Fertility rates were dropping before the Club of Rome.

>>8893938
>except for s k and jap
china is becoming like them

its a giant country, so it will always have a huge population of poor

but it is outpacing us already in some ways

>>8893901
Birthrates are falling, dumbass

>>8893901

Because bankers run the world and they maintain their power by collecting compound interest on their investments, i.e. "economic growth".

such as construction of the oil wells, mines, dams, farms and logging of forests that facilitate population growth.

>>8894000
Only in the developed world. But that's why they're importing immigrants by the busload

>>8894008
They don't want to irreversibly destroy the planet, do they? Somehow, I don't think anyone wants that, no matter how power-hungry, money-grubbing or evil.

>>8894016
They don't think they're destroying the planet. they think they're doing "gods work". they think they're gods gift to the planet and people, and thats why they get to "live the good life" while they consume copious amounts of resources

No amount of proof will convince them or the people that work for them otherwise

cognitive dissonance/psychopathy

>>8894016
They're all psychopaths. Psychoapths only care about what happens to them while they're alive.

>>8893901
>He fell for the overpopulation meme.

>>8894029
>malthus was le dum XD

>>8894035
Nice argument kido.

But the reality is that in every modern country the birth rates are below replacement level.

>>8893901
Exactly. Why the fuck does everyone keep ignoring it?

WHITE PEOPLE, YOU HAVE TO STOP REPRODUCING NOW.

>>8894049
>>8894029

see:

>>8894010

>>8894049
Modern countries are too large. All countires are too large. It will be painful, but we have to downsize. Then we can worry about ferrility.

>>8893938
>The piggot guy is a racist

Fuck. I thought you were just some underage or maybe autistic guy who just want to laugh. But now I see you are the latest model of the /pol/tard.

>>8894067
fertility

WYTE PIPO WONT BE SLAVE FOR YOU ANYMORE, EH?

YOU CANT FORCE THEM TO BE ANYMORE, EH?

YOU GOTTA GET YOUR SLAVES FROM ELSEWHERE NOW, EH?

>>8894064
You kinda have to, just look at Japan their economy is gonna suffer if they don't find a solution.
Immigrant groups their birth rates also drop after 1st gen.

shit countries that improve also see a decline in birth rates.


GMOs could really be the solution to all the world's famines, droughts, ect.. All the world's food problems and maybe even global warming. Giving "superfoods" a whole new meaning.
To bad European socialist are blocking it and so are the religious beliefs in the anglosphere..

>>8894081

holy fuck...

humans are literally too dumb to survive.

i gotta get off this site. its depressing. how stupid these people are.

>>8893901
Well truthfully even though industrial civilisation will make the planet uninhabitable for human life before destroying itself, other organisms will surely survive.

>>8894081
>muh gmos
>muh thorium
>muh asteroid mining
>overpopulation is a myth
>nom nom nom

its really really sad.

>>8894093
Nice strawman, who said anything about thorium or asteroid mining?

File: nomnom.jpg (36KB, 600x389px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x389px

>>8894081

@8894108
Ok you're clearly not interested in debate, you haven't presented a single argument. I'm no longer giving you (you)'s

File: feelings.png (165KB, 473x345px) Image search: [Google]

165KB, 473x345px

>>8894114
my feelings, they hurt

>>8894114
>I am no longer giving you (you)'s

What the fuck is up with this meme? Do you think that (you)'s are some kind of currency or something? Do you think you are giving him pleasure by doing that? You are retarded.

The only pleasure I get from getting a (you) is from the fact that someone replied to me, and therefore I can now reply back. I am, in a sense, being urged to continue talking.

So you have to punish by NOT responding at all, but if you say
>@8894108
You are literally still responding to him. And therefore he is given the pleasure of being urged to talk more, which is exactly what he did here >>8894130

You are fucking retarded.

>>8894150
Holy fuck.

We got a genius here. He's gonna solve the world's problems.

Thank god. Just in time.

>>8894029
>"Industrialized societies are sustainable"

shiggy

>>8893914
>population is stable in america

hell no, it's ballooning like the 3rd world country it is

>>8893901
China doesn't give two fucks anon. They want to beat India in the population game and therefore ended their one child policy.

>>8893901
>OVERPOPULATION

Doesn't exist. Everyone can fit inside of Texas and still have the same population density of NYC.

>>8894068
do you really have to be from /pol/ to be disgusted of short, brown people who shit in the street in the 21st century? It's common sense. Those people shit on the street, memes aside, that's fucking disgusting and subhuman. You don't know how they live? Their conditions are pure trash, there are billions and billions of these people and all they do is provide cheap manual labor for the west. When robots become more advanced we won't need these shitty humans.

How can you respect and even want to protect brainlets that are so primitive that they shit on the street and have no notion of basic hygiene?

>Only 12 percent of menstruating women use sanitary pads in India.
>According to UNICEF, 75 percent of girls in India do not know what material to use to absorb the flow during their menstrual cycle.

there are billions of people on this planet walking around with crusty, dried-out shit and blood on their asses and you're expecting me to respect them and even want to prolong their lives if I have a choice?

>Using a toilet is something most people take for granted - but about 1.1 billion people around the world defecate in the open because they do not have access to proper sanitation. Now a scheme in India is aiming to instil better toilet habits in children by "paying them to poo".

>"During the routine summer village visits," Rastogi writes, "the toilet was the khet, the fields. One carried a tumbler of water [to wash]. Somehow it felt good, the wide open spaces, the twilight, and the feeling of having left the stuff far away from your house. Covered in mud or sometimes just left to dry. The scorching sun saw to that. And by the next day it was manure."
>t, Dipali Rastogi, an Indian official

>>8894523

The footprint of resources used would be much larger than just where the humans physically live you fucking imbecile. Just because you squeeze everyone into Texas doesn't mean everything they need is contained within Texas. You still have to farm most of the arable land of the Earth,etc, to support them.

Overpopulation IS a problem. Christ, you are so dumb perhaps you should consider asking your mother for a post-partum abortion.

>>8894523
>OINK OINK OINK everyone can fit inside of Texas OINK OINK *proceeds to eat some grain*
>OINK *shits out a big oily pig turd*
>*shakes its tail* OINK
I bet we can fit 50-100 people in a tiny college dorm. And? Does it matter?

You fail to realize that humans don't need just living space, they also waste space with farms, stores, hospitals, shit like churches, mosques, football stadiums, parks, etc. For fuck's sake. You're probably a student, right? Or you go to work, or maybe you're a neet. Have you seen how fucking huge an University campus is? have you ever went to a supermarket? Have you ever stepped outside, you fucking retarded pig? oink oink

Your argument is wrong, in the sense that you missed a few hundred thousands variables that greatly increase the surface area a human needs on this earth in order to thrive and become a fully developed and well-adjusted individual that contributes to society.

>>8894654
this

You're a fucking piggot if you think having billions of useless shit-tarded pseudo-humans shitting everywhere is sustainable and in any way good

>>8894666
kys weirdo

>>8894523
>population density
Thats not what overpopulation means. It's not x amount of humans fit on the earth. But how many you can feed bevore the earths food capacitys are at their end.

>>8894669
>oink
kys, we need your bacon, pig

>>8894523
I wonder why there are millions on this planet who struggle to find potable water. I wonder why there are so many countries in which it's almost impossible to have access to information or education. I wonder why so many people are homeless and are starving.

I mean, we can fit all of them in Texas. Putting them all in vans and sending them to Texas would clearly solve all problems, right? Holy shit, it was so simple. Fucking brainlets, why didn't anyone think of this? Cut the Gordian knot and shit, you dumb bitches.

>>8894244
No, it's not. There's literally statistics on this. We straight up count everyone in the country. This isn't up for debate.

>>8894523
This.

There's plenty of food, resources, and water for 100 times the amount of population there is on Earth right now. Literally 800 billion people or more.

File: 1491685151271.gif (1MB, 280x140px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 280x140px

>>8894688
>>8894666
>>8894672
No one gives a shit about those people in order to give them anything and they do not help themselves. There's plenty of everything, but no one wants to do the logistics or they want handouts that no one is giving them.

You have a child's view of the world.

>there's not enough _____

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_scarcity

>>8894708
>There's plenty of everything, but no one wants to do the logistics or they want handouts that no one is giving them.
You wrote it down yourself and you still don't get it.
You have a child's view of the world if you think you can eliminate human greed and make everyone altruistic. You don't live in an ideal world, mr. Autismo. The world is as it is, and humans will always try to maximize personal success before they start to help others.

Why, exactly, should someone help those useless humans when it's much better to just be successful and live a happy life? Where's the incentive? Why should I help a brownskin when I have to study or get a job?

File: 1392168631777.gif (3MB, 480x320px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x320px

>>8894712
Oh wow, the lack of sources in that article is hilarious. The only actually relevant source is worldsocialism.org. Everything else are tangent sources, most of which are about intellectual properties.

>>8894708
>>8894712

Why do we still have wars? Wars are bad for everyone, right? Wow, artificial wars! fuck artificial wars!

Why does the USA spend hundreds of billions on its millitary budget every year? whhyyyyyyyyyyyy? artificial wars! artificial scarcity! logistics! everyone can live happy togetheeeer let's have fun let's dance together

weeee! weeeeeee!

*runs in circles like a retard on LSD*

>>8894708
Your oinkery will echo throughout eternity, piggot.

>>8894708
>No one gives a shit about those people in order to give them anything and they do not help themselves. There's plenty of everything, but no one wants to do the logistics or they want handouts that no one is giving them.
1. Go to Syria
2. Try to give money and food to a random local faggot
3. Guy takes your gift, beats you, pisses on you, then beheads you alive, burns your body and puts your head on a pike
4. Somehow this will encourage everyone else on this planet to stop fighting and try to help ISIS, poo-in-loos, africans, etc.

Humans are ungrateful. Humans are violent. Humans are competitive.

This is why this autistic altruism doesn't work and does not happen in real life, you putrid child.
You got o a lion with an apple in your hand, trying to feed it to the lion, you get killed you stupid fuck.
You let go of your weapons and go to an ISIS fighter, try to shake hands and he fucking stabs you in the gut with a bayonet.
You're in a fight with someone, you put your hand down, you stand still, you get punched, the guy punches you, you lose.
You have some resources, guy #2 comes to you, asks you for everything you have, you refuse, you get killed.

That's why wars happen, that's why altruism isn't practiced by everyone on this planet for everyone else. That's why you're permanently retarded and gay.

>>8893901
What is the cause of overpopulation?

>>8893938
Such piggot oinkery

>>8893912
That is a nice colloquial way to put it.
Excess use and waste
Greedy companies
Unhealthy habits of people
Attention grabbing advertisements everywhere


Soda really is the epitome of selfish insatiablity

>>8894734
A sudden rise of living standards. Reduction of infant and young child mortality led to an explosive population growth.

>>8894743
And what is the cause of stable or decreasing population in developed countries?

>>8894751
Emancipation of women, family planning, abortions, contraceptions and higher levels of education.

>>8894757
Why not try this then?

>>8894757
Also I think you forgot pensions.

>>8894763
Mostly religious, cultural and ideological obstacles in second and third world countries. Though feminist movements and rising levels of education are already being established around the world as an ongoing process. It is believed by many that the problem would take care of itself if per capita wealth in developing nations would rise. The people could afford contraception and higher education for their children.

>>8894770
You are right. Pensions shifted the burden of the elderly from the family to the state, eliminating the incentive to create large family clans. I think they were established rather early in Europe though, preempting the issues we were talking about. But I am no expert on this by any means.

File: Usa_Venezuela_Ukraine-400x288.jpg (36KB, 400x288px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x288px

>>8894785
>It is believed by many that the problem would take care of itself if per capita wealth in developing nations would rise.
Wouldn't it be economy of neocolonialism that shits in their bowl of rice? Capitalism the root of 90% of evil around right now?

Money ultimately represents human labor. More human labor is required to pay the ever increasing debts all western nations face since they were tricked to go onto fiat currency. Israel profits in the end while the rest of the world suffers.

>>8894832
Well now we go into opinion territory.

Neocolonialism and the proxy wars certainly reversed the progress of several developing nations and facilitated a lot of the aforementioned religious and ideological opposition to the measures that would control population growth. If this was the intended outcome or not is a different question and could fill another thread or two.

Blaming capitalism as a concept for this is probably unfair. The greed of global capitalism is the driving force of neocolonialism but at the same time local capitalism is the driving force of growing wealth and education in developing nations. Again a topic that could fill a book.

>>8894183
They are, collapsing ecosystems will just drive them spacebound when its the last possible resort.

File: slide_17.jpg (98KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 960x720px

>>8893901
There is no overpopulation problem.
As living standards rise, population growth slows down.

Check this map... world living standards (Human Development Index) compared with Population Growth rates.

File: Figure5.png (557KB, 960x1140px) Image search: [Google]

557KB, 960x1140px

>>8894884
And these are the UN projections for the future.

World population will probably level off around 10 billion in 2050.

>>8894884
>As living standards rise, population growth slows down.
The question is: Will it slow fast enough to prevent global conflict and permanent damage to the ecosystem.

>>8894892
That depends on other factors like technological improvements, environmental policies and so on.

Technically the Earth could carry 10 billion people. Not much more than that though.

More rights for women, and better educational and work opportunities for women are the solution to overpopulation. Nations that give women the power to control their own lives tend to have lower population growth. It turns out that, when given the choice, women tend to have fewer kids.

File: 1453506233487.gif (3MB, 451x250px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 451x250px

>>8894856
Money means nothing. Most of human labor is useless anyway and just sustains the system that requires work-earn-buy cycle. Natural resources which include clean water and air are things of real value and we are running out of those. In the end noone profits.

>>8894857
> If this was the intended outcome or not
It does not matter.

>local capitalism is the driving force of growing wealth and education in developing nations
Christian missions and schools are capitalism?
Leninists, apart of killing thousands, turned illiterate country into soon-to-be a spacefaring nation.
If it was left only to capitalist ideas, entire Africa would be a continent of slaves. We still have some empathy, humanist ideas, so not everything goes. But it's not driven by capitalism, rather against it.

>>8894892
>permanent damage to the ecosystem
You're late. Remind me, how many species go extinct each year?

>>8893901
>a contradiction between use value and exchange value exists under capitalism
>t-the real problem is we have too many laborers available to do socially necessary labor, which marginally diminishes with increasing population!

>>8894927
>It does not matter.
Why are you pragmatic about this but not about socialism? It always had disastrous outcomes as well despite being based on good intentions. I think intentions matter.

>If it was left only to capitalist ideas, entire Africa would be a continent of slaves. We still have some empathy, humanist ideas, so not everything goes. But it's not driven by capitalism, rather against it.
Pure unchecked capitalism is not practiced anywhere on earth, and nobody is arguing for it besides of a very few Anarcho-Capitalists in the US libertarian movement, so it is a somewhat silly thing to bring up. Capitalist nations keep growing stronger while alternative systems collapse. Even China adopted State Capitalism, a system displaying the worst traits of capitalism and failed socialism.

>>8893914
>and noone wants to change that

Big agric is in charge and the masses are powerless to stop them.

>>8894647
Pooinloos are tall

File: 1.jpg (33KB, 381x442px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 381x442px

>>8894963
>Why are you pragmatic about this but not about socialism?
Who says I'm not?
There is a great danger of communism going totalitarian instead "power to the people". Then again what political system and what ideology is not prone to this?
>It always had disastrous outcomes
Kibutzes of Israeli for one example.
Why not try socialism in a western culture once?

File: happy merchant.webm (687KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

687KB, 480x360px

>>8893901
>OVERPOPULATION

Yes, goy, there's too many people in the world. Don't breed, goy.....don't breed.

>>8894733
Uh, all of that is literally what I already said but with way way more words. Did you misquote?

>>8895006
Kibutzes are still part of a superordinated capitalist state.

>Why not try socialism in a western culture once?
East-Germany comes to mind. And the bad track record of socialism should be argument enough against a 'just trying it out for a bit and see what happens' approach for a pragmatist.

As a side note, some neo-marxists and transhumanists think technological advancements will transform late capitalism into socialism naturally anyway.

>>8893901
thats what you think, but the government is finding ways to poison us to reduce the population. for instance every day things.

>>8894063
are you serious, black people shit out more kids than white people

File: 2017-05-08 22.32.02.png (174KB, 826x680px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 826x680px

>>8895006
It scares me that there are people on a supposedly "informed" board such as this one that think like you.

Socialism has failed wherever it has been tried. It will always fail, because planned economies remove the profit motive from the equation, and this goes against human nature itself. If it does not matter how much you produce because there is a hard cap on what you can earn from it, then there is no incentive to produce beyond a certain point.

In addition, allocation of resources becomes innefficient without a market system to give out price signals - the end result is always the same: shortages, economic stagnation, poverty.

Planned economies have been tried in Western countries: East Germany was the richest half of Germany when the Soviets took over, most of Eastern Europe was ahead of Southern Europe when communism was implemented, even Cuba was the third richest Latin American country in GDP per capita and living conditions, after Argentina and Uruguay, and ahead of Spain, when Castro took over.

You are just redefining what it means to be "Western". These countries became poor because of communism then you refuse to class them as Western because they are poorer. It is all so very convenient.

You are probably the kind of moron that then has the gall to argue "Economics is not a rea science" in this board, when you clearly have no grasp of it.

Marxism is to Economics what Creationism is to Biology.

Neck yourself.

File: consumption-inequality-2005-pie.png (15KB, 500x365px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x365px

Not overpopulation, overconsumption. We first worlders basically produce no value in comparison the the rest of the world yet we consume the most. Literally just kill off the US and Europe and you've temporarily saved the planet.
>lives in the US
>gulps

>>8895113
Only food consumption is really relevant there, consumption of products is actually a good thing because it grows the economies of the exporting nation.

File: going_to_die_indiana_jones.gif (489KB, 500x173px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 500x173px

>>8895050
>Kibutzes are still part of a superordinated capitalist state.
Did kibutzes had a "disastrous outcome"?
That was the only point of mentioning them.

>>8895050
>>8895092
>East-Germany
A strain of stalinist disease. Subordinated state.

>just trying it out for a bit and see what happens
Social-democratic scandinavian countires.
USA was developing the fastest when the tax for the rich was 94%.

>>8895092
Why all the hate? If you keep it cool, your points may even look somewhat reasonable in a debate.

>allocation of resources becomes innefficient without a market system
Market system will destroy the environment and we are going to die. EFFICIENT death trap. Also: shortages, economic stagnation, poverty.

>>8893901
It's political suicide to advocate for population control when most people are so stupid they believe it's good to have 12 fucking kids.

File: 1160362219218.jpg (46KB, 600x790px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 600x790px

>>8895144
Protecting the environment has nothing to do with having a market system or not.
Two completely unrelated matters.

We don't allow people to hire hitmen to take down their enemies either, that doesn't mean we don't have a market system anyway.

>>8895144
>Did kibutzes had a "disastrous outcome"?
>That was the only point of mentioning them.
No, but it is pointless to take them as an example when they couldn't exist without the capitalist overhead.

>Social-democratic scandinavian countires.
Those are capitalist nations. Adding social programs to capitalism doesn't make it socialism.

>USA was developing the fastest when the tax for the rich was 94%.
This would be meaningless in socialism and that happened in a capitalist state, so I am not sure why bring that even up (even if that 90% tax thing wouldn't be somewhat of a myth, link related).
https://mises.org/library/good-ol-days-when-tax-rates-were-90-percent

File: 1492813049825.png (298KB, 729x443px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 729x443px

>>8895153
Can you explain further how is capitalism NOT responsible for upcoming environmental collapse?

File: 2017-05-08 23.22.18.png (314KB, 1016x561px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 1016x561px

>>8895179
Because the Soviet Union polluted as much as capitalist countries do, so it must be unrelated to the economic system in place, instead it has to do with environmental regulations or lack of thereof.

>>8895176
>they couldn't exist without the capitalist overhead
Can you prove it? Actually because of capitalism they were subsequently transformed into market companies.

>Adding social programs to capitalism doesn't make it socialism.
I'd say it's a gradient. You'd probably agree, that
scandinavian countries are closer to communism than USA. Even in USA the "free" market is somewhat controlled. So I could argue that is not a real capitalism.

>This would be meaningless in socialism
Why?

Market based capitalism is simply the best way we have of producing a prosperous society given imperfect agents. It breaks down at certain points of market failure where centralized coordination becomes the better strategy.

Centralized coordination of all aspects of production is not yet more efficient than market based capitalism, nor will it ever eliminate the imperfections in agents like greed or the desire for freely pursuing their own lives.

>>8895197
Pic unrelated? Because it disproves what you try to say...

>>8895197
>instead it has to do with environmental regulations or lack of thereof.
So central planning.

>1974
>Soviet Union
Dictator is a former ironworks worker, expecting environmental awerness.

>>8895241
Regulations do not mean central planning. Please open a dictionary.

>>8895231
Russia at the time was the biggest polluter per capita on Earth despite having a GDP per capita lower than any Western country.

Learn2interpret maps pls

>>8895210
>Can you prove it? Actually because of capitalism they were subsequently transformed into market companies.
They require the state to provide military protection and distribute resources to them to stay competitive on a free market, i.e. they can't self-sustain.

>I'd say it's a gradient. You'd probably agree, that scandinavian countries are closer to communism than USA.
You could say they are hybrid models, but all of the aspects that make socialism socialism are missing. Private property exists and the state doesn't have a monopoly on the means of production or distribution of goods. Wider framed definitions are failing as well, there isn't a one-party system and there is basically no direct democracy or commune based local governments.

All of the checkmates for capitalism are checked on the other hand. They have an economic and political system in which their trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. Competition is also ingrained in many of the social services, with private corporations being allowed to compete with the state provided services.

>Even in USA the "free" market is somewhat controlled. So I could argue that is not a real capitalism.
There are several forms of capitalism. You could argue laissez faire capitalism is the most ideological 'pure' one I guess.

>>8895268
>Regulations do not mean central planning
Stahp and think. I'm not talking about USSR tier micromanagement. Regulating free market is planning on central level.

>>8895280
>They require the state to provide military protection and distribute resources to them to stay competitive on a free market, i.e. they can't self-sustain.
So much wrong I'm to lazy to respond.

>Wider framed definitions are failing as well, there isn't a one-party system and there is basically no direct democracy or commune based local governments.
>Wider framed definitions


>trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit
>private corporations being allowed to compete with the state provided services
>state provided services

It's a gradient, let's leave it at that.
Yes - Scandinavia is still capitalist.

>>8895329
>state provided services
Not sure why think that is a gotcha. States provide services, that's what they do.

>wider framed definition
I used that for the lack of a better term, you got what I meant. No common attributes associated with socialist states apply, not even the ones that aren't part of the commonly used definitions.

File: 1489498850451.jpg (41KB, 400x330px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x330px

>>8895345
Not gonna agree, but it's just semantics. Unimportant playing with definitions.

The important point would be - from where we are today, the general direction to making world a better place to live would be socialism with somewhat free market based around coops.

I'm out for today.

>>8894251
they ended their one child policy because the chinks would toss out females in favor of males, because they are more favorable in their culture. Furthermore, they need a large population to support the older generation, much like the problem the upcoming gens will face in America, but much worse. It was not to compete with india.

>>8894692
sure looks stable /s

http://www.census-charts.com/Population/images/pop-us-1790-2000-stacked.png

File: 581238main_USA_Antarctica_size-orig_full[1].jpg (384KB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 3840x2160px

Two reminders

Environmental collapse would only catastrophically affect brown peope

AND

Antarctica is a whole continent

>>8895456
and the northern latitudes, though it would have benefits for them
>it warms up
>the harsh climate is moderated somewhat
>it's now easier to pollute even more
>we pollute more
>climate change accelerates
>gets bad enough it's directly bad for everyone
>muh white countries
and the first stage of warming is still going to have negative effects for everyone: biodiversity loss, international issues etc.

>>8895463
As population declines the environment will equalize. India and Pakistan can nuke each other all they want I don't give a fuck. Biodiversity can also suck a dick. Cry me a river for all the exotic plankton.

>>8893975
>outpacing us
Name 1 thing besides growth.

>>8895473
even from a purely utilitarian standpoint biodiversity is important (to an extent)
we don't absolutely need to save the dodo bird but ecosystems provide services for us, for example wetlands help prevent floods and clean pollutants but we like to drain them for farmland or to build on
also sometimes we harvet directly from the environment (fishing, lumber)
I guess we should just get used to mining and manufacturing everything we need and just cope with climate change

>>8895487
You can already buy plastic lumber at Lowe's.

>>8895463
Unironic question: Why is biodiversity loss considered a bad thing? If your species can't adapt to minor changes in climate and habitat, your species a shit and deserves to go extinct. Those who survive are better adapted. There's no WAY climate change will eradicate ALL life on Earth. So who cares if Alligators suddenly only get female babies because the temperature of their eggs is too high in the nest and go extinct? Some other species will eventually take their place in the food chain.

1. concentrate the entire population of Earth in one place (a megacity of sorts)
2. figure out how to use plentiful raw materials to manufacture everything necessary (kind of like alchemy)
3. provide everything necessary to everyone while keeping our footprint below the carrying capacity of Earth

This future may be an inevitability.

>>8895511
1. figure out a way to move the Earth a little bit farther from the sun to reduce temperatures to counter climate change
2. use magic to create unlimited food and water
3. hollow out the earth and live inside it

It should work, let's get on it. Assuming magic is real, of course.

>>8895508
the problem is it's not minor, this kind of warming is major
rapid change and species going extinct is normal but this is a particularly large extinction event
also the entire ecosystem works together and we depend on it for some things so preserving biodiversity to an extent is in our best interests unless we plan to shift our ways

>>8895518
I can count all the fauna I give a fuck about on my fingers and all the flora on my toes assuming we count yeast as fauna. How much gut flora do we need? Meh, I'm sure the climate in my intestines won't change.

>>8895527
more wetlands have been conserved by the duck hunting industry than all environmental movements combined
so different species are important to different people
i guess detritus feeders and the species necessary for agriculture are the only absolutely necessary species

By overpopulation I think you mean resource depletion. We have plenty space.

The "root cause" of the imminent ecological collapse is that we are living in a biodiversity bubble that has passed its due date by approximately 150,000 years. At this time, life is more diverse than at ANY other point in Earth's history.

Ultimately, we're just another ace in a pyramid of cards.

>>8895555
you just wasted your quads, dude...

>>8895555
citation needed quads
the Cretaceous was pretty lush ircc

>>8893901
Because it's authoritarian hierarchal social structures.
>Overpopulation
Such a "dad that just watched idiocarchy" raisin fore those problems
But yeah everything is all fucked up

>>8894647
Bit that doesnt include middle easterners

>>8895557
>>8895559
I shouldn't HAVE to cite it. It literally should be common knowledge.

Just google "mass extinction graph" or some shit. You'll find what you're looking for pretty quickly.

File: cauc_mena3.gif (55KB, 1330x582px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 1330x582px

>>8894647
>indians are poor hurrr

Indians are the same race as you. Whether you like it or not you also depend on them because they can just
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfate_aerosols_(geoengineering)

>>8894688
A good percentage of the population of this planet is too stupid for the basics. Here's a hint - they don't live in East or North Asia, Europe or most of the Americas.
I mean Jesus fucking christ 1/5th of the population of the earth still lives like fucking hunter/gatherers and scavengers and are seemingly incapable of farming despite conditions being fucking ripe for simple agricultutal development.

It's better to tackle the problem head on than to mask your intent with the notion of overpopulation.
And that problem is that there are human sub-species that are markedly inferior to the more successful ones.

>>8895572
>mass extinction
>most biodiverse period in Earth history
I'm not understanding you

File: StfTr06.jpg (68KB, 418x352px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 418x352px

>>8895092
>muh huemen neture
Human nature guarantees communism would work because humans naturally cooperate for the sake of their own self interest, and the collective interest of the working class, the majority (third world countries nowadays) is to improve their own livelihood, and the way to do that is to redistribute the wealth of the bourgeoisie and seize their means of production, the purpose of the vanguard party is to guide them towards that.
>price signal stuff
That's the point of a command economy dipshit, to increase the price and quantities of commodities, luxury or otherwise, through central planning and state led production of those commodities and then exporting those or profiting off of them in the internal consumer market of a country to afford to allocate resources to state led production of industry or necessities. Value isn't the same as price, price is subjective and can be manipulated for the sake of profit (which would be most easy in command economy), the value of something, the benefit it provides, remains unchanged. You make it seem like shortages in command economy were due to mismanagement, they were deliberete. Stalin knew that if he didn't industrialize Russia quickly, they would have been crushed by outside forces and he was frightentingly correct when you consider Axis aggression against the USSR, so they focused an immense deal on industrialization and neglected other areas of development, thus leading to shortages (although life improved during the post war era due to this rapid growth thanks to command economy). You could have had it Bukharin's way and developed the country slowly which would have greatly reduced shortage, but they would have been crushed by the Axis. (want to keep going but word limits are a fucc)

>>8895547
Yes imagine how great life on earth would be if we invested all the resources we put into maintaining infrastructure, into breeding as many people as possible.

What a wonderful future.

>>8895590
... is the correlation not obvious?

Mass extinctions are measures of sudden and drastic loss in biodiversity. Googling a graph represting these events inherently requires a graph of biodiversity across Earth's history.

They're intrinsically related topics.

>>8895605
>Economic
Ya fucked up

>>8895603
I don't need to google shit I pay good money to go to school to learn this

you claimed we're living in the most biodiverse era in human history and that might be true but do you have a citation?

File: angel-in-hell-1-810x538.jpg (87KB, 810x538px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 810x538px

>>8895131
I understand the thought process but the exporting nations (usually third world) have to exploit their workers harshly to increase profit like they do. Maximization of profit and maximization of social welfare are different things. Plus the consumption of products only speeds up resource depletion, bringing us back to square one.

>>8895609
>human history
Earth history*

>>8895609
>human history
Earth's history. Big difference.

>but do you have a citation
Millions. Pick one.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mass+extinction+graph

>>8895618
none of those graphs prove right now is the most biodiverse era at all

>>8895633
Then you're a moron.

>>8895591
*commodities that are in demand, luxury or otherwise...

File: figure-47-01-04.jpg (158KB, 800x492px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 800x492px

>>8895637
ok then explain to me how this one (first result) demonstrates that were living in the most biodiverse time

File: IMG_2286.jpg (213KB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 750x1334px

>>8893949
I was on your side when I opened the thread but I realized there are in fact, things we can do about it. (Hold on, I'm not suggesting genocide)

When women get access to education and birth control, birth rates go down. The solution is to provide these sorts of things to women in third world countries.

>>8895646
it doesn't, and there's really no way to compare historical time with deep time. but we do know that since history began, and probably before written history, humans have been causing the extinction of many species; it is reasonable to say that biodiversity was higher in say the early holocene than it is now. obviously we havent even quantified the whole biodiversity of the current time, and since the fossil record is incomplete by nature we can never quantify diversity fully in deep time. we are in a biodiversity crisis, though, even if it's just beginning and hard to tell.

>>8893901
Yeah, let's depopulate the countries that cause the most emissions! I.e. "civilized" western countries

Is that what you're trying to say?

>>8893949
Wealthy people in general want to have less kids. This isn't a non-negotiable issue.

>>8893901
developed countries cause economic depression , create most of the pollution, profit off third world countries.

when they start losing their influence and economic powers shift blame to immigrants and third world residents.

Check yoself before you wreck yoself

>>8893901
>actually trying to compare the climate change effects of a couple of extra people fucking around in mud huts to the effects of mass factory production for useless shit pounded out by the millions of tons that exist to be used once and thrown into the ocean
>ignoring that this incredibly wasteful cycle of manufacture-sell-use-dispose is also extremely profitable
>ignoring that the race to produce profit leads to ever greater expansion of products
I want you all to start watching the show Hoarders. Now, I want you to start calculating the carbon costs it took, from gathering raw materials, transport, refining, transport, manufacture, transport, stocking, transport, use, transport, waste, for each and every one of those useless pieces of trash in these people's houses. Start looking up pictures of garbage patches in the ocean, overfull landfills, the endless tons of worthless crap that gets thrown out, and start seriously calculating the carbon costs all that shit cost over its lifetime.

Then I want you to start looking up the energy costs of what it takes to set up modern society. Literally, how much energy does it take to melt so much iron for industrial capital, for logistics, for steel to make buildings, for everything

Every piece of meat off a farm you've ever eaten had a considerable carbon cost, both from biological from the animal itself, from the costs of running farm equipment, from the costs of mining the endless tons of raw ingredients for fertilizer.

Start looking around your room, home, whatever, start looking at the costs in carbon for all this.

I want you to realize that each and every pound of this was made because it was profitable to burn a few pounds more carbon to make all this stuff. It's going to continue to be profitable until we have burned every last thing that there is to burn, and then when we have made the last spot on earth an uninhabitable hell, the last person alive will get to say, "at least we made some great profits"

>>8895799

ya, and first world nations impact would be decreasing we weren't importing millions to maintain "economic/population growth"

I don't blame immigrants. I blame the people bringing them in.

If you can't understand how more people use more resources, then maybe you should wreck yourself.

>>8893901
>OVERPOPULATION

Not where I live. People have survived her from the fish in the sea and potatoes on land for thousands of years.
Plenty of clean fresh water, and protected by mountains.

File: Institutions Matter Real Per Capita GDP in North and South Korea.jpg (73KB, 553x405px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 553x405px

>>8895591
>Chart
Fails to show what happened to the Soviet economy after the 1970s. When GDP per capita growth became flat for two decades. Nice try.

>Human nature guarantees communism would work because humans naturally cooperate for the sake of their own self interest
Haha oh wow
No. You sound like you are 12 years old you naive fuck. Human beings cooperate when they have something tangible to gain personally, most don't give a flying fuck about the nation or the species. Remove profit incentives and people will work less, which is exactly what happened in the USSR.

>and the way to do that is to redistribute the wealth of the bourgeoisie and seize their means of production, the purpose of the vanguard party is to guide them towards that.
Has never worked in the entirety of Human history. Venezuela has "seized the wealth of the burgeoise" and now the country is literally starving to death, the average person in Venezuela has lost 20 pounds in the last year due to food shortages. Little kids and babies have died of hunger.

>That's the point of a command economy dipshit
Doesn't seem like it, considering it DOES NOT WORK, dipshit. Feel free to point out a single functioning, wealthy communist country people want to immigrate to.

>Value isn't the same as price, price is subjective and can be manipulated for the sake of profit (which would be most easy in command economy)
Bwhahahahaha
Open an economic textbook you stupid fuck. Price controls have existed since the Roman Era and they have never worked. They lead to shortages precisely because you cannot force prices down by law, it leads to what we call "repressed inflation" and scarcity.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edict_on_Maximum_Prices

File: konata_wall___test_v101_by_xnekomatax-d4nji3y.png (267KB, 1032x774px) Image search: [Google]

267KB, 1032x774px

>>8895591
PART 2:
>the value of something, the benefit it provides, remains unchanged.
Wow you couldn't be more wrong.
It is literally the other way around.

Value is subjective depending on the person, price is the only objective measure of it, and it changes according to the variation of supply and demand, tastes and preferences, population growth, the price of complementary goods, the price of substitutive goods, technological factors, and the expected price of the good in the future.

This is Microeconomics 101.
You pretend to be able to dictate to the rest of us how to live when you don't know this? GTFO

>You make it seem like shortages in command economy were due to mismanagement, they were deliberete. There were shortages throughout the Soviet period because shortages are the consequence of price controls ever since Roman times.

https://www.amazon.com/Forty-Centuries-Wage-Price-Controls/dp/1610161408

And yes, the Holodomor was a deliberate famine.

>>8895996
>* price is the only objective measure of it, and it changes according to the variation of supply and demand, which in turn depends on tastes and preferences, population growth, the price of complementary goods, the price of substitutive goods, technological factors, and the expected price of the good in the future
Fixed a small part

Oh I see, the problem isn't climate change - it's india.

Woah this thread went to shit

File: happy.jpg (661KB, 958x775px) Image search: [Google]

661KB, 958x775px

>>8893901
>OVERPOPULATION

lol no such thing, kid. you just got tricked into sucking jewcock that is all.

File: cry laughing.gif (269KB, 274x162px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 274x162px

>>8896048
>op shitposts lies, myths, misconceptions, and Jewish social propaganda on a science and math board
>expecting non-shit

This is literally just like flatearth posting.

>>8896156
I hope you realize having another 4 billion brown people in the world is objectively bad, /pol/

>>8896152
The joke is that Israel is very vulnerable to the negative consequences of population growth, being in the desert and having very little land area to begin with.

>>8895268
Look at the map again. It clearly states that the US had emissions of 2560+ M, while the soviet states combined only had around 1800 M or thereabouts.

This is despite the fact that the USSR had a population of 270 Million, compared to USAs 225 Million, which means the per-capita emission was even more in favor of the soviet union.

>>8894954
Spoken like a cuck

All non whites should be exterminated

>>8895073
But why us and not foriegners?

Why dosent america just unleash a lab made super virus to BTFO china, india, and Africa.

>>8895518
What's so bad about large extinction events? We've had plenty of those before, and while the ecosystem certainly changed, life as a whole prevailed and will continue to do so. Even if it doesn't -- so what?
People like you make me sick, preaching change and "moving forward" in order to... preserve what has been for millennia and keep the status quo.
>the entire ecosystem works together
And it will continue to do so, just in a different way.
>we depend on it for some things
Examples?
I'm not trying to start shit, just trying to either get you to consider a different POV, and to understand yours.

>>8896473
>unleash lab made super virus to BTFO India and China
>whoops where are those nukes coming from all of a sudden

>>8893901
You must be jesting, my dear sir. The true cause of of the ecological collapse is the cheapness of coal and the shewdness of foreign governments.

>>8894000
how are you going to have a welfare to pay for the old then or should we just let them die?

>>8896482
How would they know?

>>8896555
Because people start dying from infectuous, previously unseen diseases by the millions? Because intelligence services are a thing?

I'm glad /pol/ has revealed global warming denial is actually motivated by a racial agenda.

>>8893901
overpopulation is a control scheme, there is no such thing

File: C2QBgEtWQAYPkqx.jpg (78KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 1200x1200px

>>8896527
The productivity is increasing due to technological development. The requirement to work as much as we do is based on inequal redistribution of wealth. There will be no problem to pay pensions after we KILL THE RICH. We'd need to kill just 8 people to save half of planet. Not even a trolley problem.

>>8896723
Whatcha gonna do, Robin? Seize their entire fortunes and redistribute it equitably? I hope you're laughing because that's a joke. Two years tops before #9-#16 amass just as much and fuck only knows where they would take it from and how much pain it would cause as it got sucked all the way from the roots back up to the top.

>>8897885
>fuck only knows where they would take it from and how much pain it would cause as it got sucked all the way from the roots back up to the top.
People would buy food and other goods?

Capitalism needs some time to work it's way to monopolies. Like different strains of bacteria in a petri dish. So it would thake a little longer than 2 years. But you're right there is also need for a systemic change. 100% income tax over 20 times the minimum wage would be a good start.

inb4: No it would not kill the incentive to do anything. Do you have any proof for that?
94% tax rescued USA from great depression.

File: race-social-construct.png (527KB, 864x510px) Image search: [Google]

527KB, 864x510px

>>8893901
Because unlike you OP they are not rassists.

>>8894000
>>8895653
>these

Fifty years ago, people were having five children per woman, now it's just over two. People die less in infancy and live longer.
But population is levelling out, it will peak at 11bn then fall.
Birth rates are falling in all but sub saharan countries, population is falling in most developed countries (which FYI is bad for economic growth and thus bad for aid/trade with the third world, limiting their development
and birth control abilities).

When women have control of their fertility, they overwhelmingly choose to have two children. People on either side of the bell curve maintain the average and shouldn't feel guilty for not wanting children/ wanting many.

If you're in a first or second world country, you should have as many children as you like, and donate to third world charities. That's the best you can do.

>>8898437
>Too many people for all the resources
>Let us consume more resources and we'll stop making more people

Impeccable logic

>>8898441
Here's your (You)

>>8898447
I know it's easy to get worried about resources and resort to 'we have to stop breeding!' logic, but that's really not the answer. Perhaps I should have added that reducing carbon emissions by eating less meat/dairy and using less fuel is necessary, but I thought it went without saying.

Try watching 'Don't Panic' by Hans Rosling.

>>8898451
I know I'm wasting my time now, but you are a totally brainwashed idiot/total moron.

The banks love you.

Did it ever occur to you that their whole plan might consist of, "hey, no worries, we got this, the population is gonna level off in 50 years after we're all dead, just carry on as usual."

It's a fucking excuse, you idiot

Meanwhile CO2 rises at 3ppm per year now.

And on the whole eating meat/dairy front. It doesn't matter. The carbon is coming out of the ground and going into the atmosphere. How it is used is irrelevant.

>>8898458
>thinks that banks control society and brainwash us
>believes cutting consumption has no effect on levels of CO2

Good thing you got that tin foil hat anon

>>8898462
Quick!

Tell me what fractional reserve banking is.

>>8898462
You don't know fuck all about anything.

Not banking.

Not economics.

Not science.

Not anything

And you gobble up all the nonsense the rich feeds you, like a good little worker/consumer.

>>8898462
Fuck if I care if your descendants are cannibals...

Fucking retarded fucking consumers.

>>8898464
*googles fractional reserve banking*
>Fractional-reserve banking is the practice whereby a bank accepts deposits, makes loans or investments, and holds reserves equal to a fraction of its deposit liabilities.

Oh wow, you the fuck would've guessed banks couldn't give you the trillions of dollars worth of money in fucking notes?
It's 2017, money is just digits on a screen man, it doesn't mean it's not real.

I admit I don't know everything about society/wealth/the environment- which is precisely why I look to learn new things and have my views nuanced. I used to think the simple 'hurr durr people need to stop breeding', but read a couple of books and a few articles presenting different views and now have a better informed viewpoint. Why not try the same?

>>8898462
The fact is its going to take BOTH

Less consumption of resources

AND

Fewer people

The fact that the banks are only pushing for the former and not both - while they continue to consume like nobodies business - shows that they are not taking it seriously.

And they derive their wealth (means to consume all the resources) from population growth.

>>8898467
You're in an echo chamber of disaster thinking and conspiracy theories. Try to be more open minded.

>>8898478
I agree that it will take both of those. I just disagree about the system for achieving that.
Get birth control out there and let women make up their own damned minds. Population will fall eventually- and the additional strain on the planet for the time when it continues to rise is unavoidable.

>>8898473
>>Fractional-reserve banking is the practice whereby a bank accepts deposits, makes loans or investments, and holds reserves equal to a fraction of its deposit liabilities.

Good. And do they charge interest on those loans??

Yes, they do. Compound interest. That's exponential growth. That's inflation.

That's why they ABSOLUTLELY REQUIRE population/economic growth (consumption of natural resources/pollution) for their profits.

They may say it will cease in 50 years, but you and I will not be around to see that. ANd the people running the same banks in 50 years will DO ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING IN THEIR POWER TO MAINTAIN GROWTH.

It's an outright lie.

>>8898487
I think I for one will be around to see that in fifty years, I'm only 29.

Explain this to me then (genuinely open to having my mind changed if you can provide good answers):
1. by what system do banks effect birth rates?
2. if high birth rates are desirable for banks, why do most of their profits come from countries with falling birth rates (often falling population) and little economic growth is nurtured in countries with the most rapidly growing populations?
3. why have birth rates been falling over the last fifty years, in tandem with increasing net global economic output and growth?

>>8898491
ya 79 would be good to live to.

1. They loan money to businesses to develop natural resources, which are then literally converted into more humans. more logging, dams (for energy), oil wells, farms, all enable more humans to exist.
2. birth rates are falling, but the difference is being more than made up for by immigration into the west
3. you would say birth rates have decreased because people are educated now. I disagree. I think birth rates are falling because natural ecological limits are being pushed up against. the land can only support so many people. the city's population density can only get so high before people start becoming unhappy (forcing more people into the area forces more development which alleviates the effects a little but not enough)

please, convince me otherwise.

>>8898496

we'll probably have logan's run style euthanasia regimes by then!

1. but anon, as places become more developed, birth rates fall. Investing in developing the natural resources of a country is a fairly sure-fire way to reduce birth rates by giving more economic growth, social development- leading to use of birth control and more agency for women
2. I'm not sure I understand- I get the logic looking at, say, US or UK- both having increasing populations due to migration and increasing wealth. But their populations increase at a far lesser rate than, say, Sudan or Zimbabwe. And yet have much faster and stronger economic growth. Furthermore, countries like Japan with falling pop and birth rate have had strong gdp growth over the last fifty years.
3. If this were true, then why are birth rates so high in places with frequent droughts and famines? Their local ecological limits are often reached, and mortality rates are high. The strongest correlation with falling birth rate is income per capita rising.

Please do tell me if any of this is wrong

>>8898491
>(often falling population)
name one country in the world with a falling population

the banking system is not capable of existing without growth

That's the black pill.

Humans are in deep fucking shit. Seriously. And it doesn't help when only 0.0001% of the people in the world even understand how th

e banking system works.

(35 btw.... hate this site gotta get off it, depressing)

>>8898507
I agree education helps reduce birth rates. but its not just women who are uneducated. its literally everyone.

point 2 is totally incorrect. african population is booming and gdp growth is too. japan economic growth is weak.

point 3 I don't totally understand why birth rates are so high in those place, despite pushing ecological limits. i would think infant mortality is also high. I think it must be related to high youth mortality rates, and low standard of living. Population there will probably drop, as oil becomes less available in the future.

I just dont see how giving the people in the 3rd world the resources and energy required to live a 1st world standard of living will save the world because if they all had that, pollution and global emissions would probably go up by 10x before birthrates actually dropped, and that's simply way too much. the planet couldn't handle it.

>>8898512
Japan, Bulgaria, CR, Russia until a couple of years ago w/ emigration shifts.

Not sure I'm totally convinced by the connection between banks and population but wouldn't be averse to learning more. Any book/ article recommendations?

(yeah ikr, about to become a mother [may be a little biased re population growth!]- how the fuck am I still in shit flinging fights with teenagers on a cambodian basket weaving forum?)

>>8898521
I didn't mean to imply it's just women (sorry probs worded poorly) but economic growth does have a particular effect of ending up with women marrying later and having more power over their fertility. It helps that development is negatively correlated with religion too.

I suppose that's fair re Japan. Their dependence ratio is just mental with them all living forever, eh.
But in Africa many countries' birth rates are beginning to fall- just not sub saharan africa. Their gdp per capita isn't rising there.

I think you're coming at it with the assumptions of Thomas Malthus (more money= affording more children) which while logical is empirically not true.

I think Karan Singh's infamous quote 'development is the best contraception' rings true.

I'm willing to concede the relationship between population and wealth isn't always so linear, and agency isn't always totally with the individuals. Not yet convinced re banks but willing to read more.

File: albino_afghan.jpg (278KB, 1247x820px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1247x820px

>>8898429

>>8895653
I was thinking about this the other day

But in places like India and China they're willing to dump LIVE baby girls into rivers because they want boys. Imagine the gender imbalance the would result from introducing widespread/accessible birth control

(but hey perhaps that would further control the population growth?)

>>8898553
I think you're confusing birth control, with which women have agency over family size, with population control measures, in which the state dictates it.

The former is an excellent way to reduce population growth and improve quality of life for women and children.

The latter is an excellent way to increase infanticide and create an unsustainable dependency ratio.

>>8898544
>Thomas Malthus
He'll be right sooner or later.

Congrats on being pregnant, btw!

(What are you doing on this site if you're pregnant?? Seems like a bad idea but I don't know anything about pregnancy...)

>>8898557
Thank you! :)
Yeah it's a pretty dumb use of time but better than mumsnet at least!
I'd actually love to see a 4chan pregnancy/childrearing board it would be hilarious although it would probably just become a creepy pregnancy fetish breeding ground (pardon the pun)

>>8898556
I was reading an article on the BBC a while back talking about foeticide in India. It said a considerably greater number of boys were born compared to girls, especially in the Northern states. The article was mainly about the negative affects on the mothers though

I don't really know what I'm talking about though, it was just a thought I had the other day

>>8898563
>thread about overpopulation
>'I'm having a baby!! XD XD'

kys

>>8898563
>a creepy pregnancy fetish breeding ground

lol

all the best to you and your baby, good night

>>8898569
kek

>>8898569
Women are such attention whores she needs to signal she is a pregnant female even on a fucking thread about overpopulation

>>8893928
But those also don't contribute nearly as much to carbon emissions like we do. How long do you think did your apples drive around the country in a truck until they got to you? Or your clothing? Or basically everything you use on a daily basis. People in thirdworld shit-holes can't afford that.

>>8893949
>And the answer, at least for liberal western democracies, is "absolutely nothing". No electorate would tolerate any kind of "one child policy", it would be political suicide even to mention it.
Doing absolutely nothing would already be a start. The population in developed countries would be in the middle of leveling out, if we would just let it happen, naturally.
Right now, though, immigration is being promoted for the mid-term goal of remaining economically competitive. This has the effect that people in developing countries have even more children. I mean, do you really think all the European descendants living in the Americas would be in Europe today if they never emigrated? I think not.

>>8894064
>>8894010
The birthrates in underdeveloped countries are declining as well, as they develop. We have reached peak child already.
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/66971-peak-child-and-peak-population/

File: 7oFVDa2.png (239KB, 529x251px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 529x251px

>all these idiots ITT that don't realize a higher world population means a smaller slice of the world's wealth for them self
>all these idiots who don't understand population inertia
>all these idiots who understand how horrible the entirety of east and south Asia actually is vis a vis population and living standards and how quickly Africa's population is booming
>all these morons who seriously think Sweden tier fertility rates and standards of living are just a generation or two away and all those third worlders will just stop magically popping out kids because they went from living on $1/day to $5/day
wew

>>8898718
>average fertility per woman earning $2 a day: 9
>average fertility per woman earning $11 a day: 2

Source: Hans Rosling.

Birth rate has already dropped to just about 2 per woman from 5 half a century ago.

>all these idiots ITT who don't realise the problem is already half way to resolved

>>8893928
My third world shit hole country has already stopped having kids. We have a pretty old population already having an almost inversed pyramid

>>8898770
we already would need 2.5 earths RIGHT NOW if everyone wants first world living standards.
Prognoses say that the number of humans will double once more before it stagnates.

>>8895224
Lmao, market anarchism and other forms of liberterian socialism are way better than capitalism.
Capitalism doesn't mean markets, it means capital is privatized, it means those who own means of production can profit from the labour of others, and exclusively exploit land you never set foot on. Capitalism has an incredibly centralized power structure where agency is a privilege of the elite. Any kind of liberterian socialism is much more decentralized than capitalism. free markets can actually exist in socialism, capitalism requires authority(state/private) to maintain its ridiculous power structure.
>eliminate imperfections like greed.
Greed can be disenfranchised.
>freely pursuing their own lifes
Capitalism does that, I see people desperately working jobs they hate to pay rent, mortgage and taxes so they can be allowed to live on the planet they live on. Coal miners begging to work. Agency and creative interaction with the world is a luxury of the elite and the proletariat is kept uninformed and alienated from the institutions of agents.

File: image.jpg (60KB, 853x543px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 853x543px

>>8895179
Explain why you think markets are a defining and exclusive feature of capitalism

File: 6467467.jpg (550KB, 1180x842px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 1180x842px

>>8894000
>be retarded african couple with no money, HIV, ebola, no house, no food
>spawn 15 kids in the span of a year

>Birthrates are falling

>>8898968
>be smart white couple with a shitload of money, a house, and food
>spawn one child over the course of forty years

>white pride worldwide
step your game up cletus

>>8898792
Yeah, we all need to consume less and stop driving/flying all the time. No debate there.
>prognoses say that the number of humans will double
Those are the most extreme estimates. Lowest say c. 9.8 bn maximum, medium say around 11 bn peak.
Look at the UN figures, they're the most reliable. They predict 9,5bn by 2050 and 10.9bn by 2100