Overpopulation

>>9122048
Overpopulation is being solved as we speak.

Europe, Japan, Australia, North America all have little or even negative growth.

Side effect: we are going extinct.

>>9122055
you're naming a relatively small subset of the world population, poor countries have really high birth rates

>>9122059
I thought those were minorities...
/Sarcasm

I agree with you.

delet welfare and the problem will solve itself

>>9122048
Overpopulation is not a problem at all. The lack of resources are. Nature gave birth to us, but didn't provide us with an infinite garden of shit to fuck up with no consequences to our race. This is obviously God's or the universe's fault, and since we have no free will we shall meet our end exactly as it will be, in just the right time, and with no exceptions.

>>9122048
Take a road trip to anywhere. You'll find that most of the world is filled with absolutely nothing. Not human settlements, not farmland, not forest, not animal habitat. Just. Nothing.

You only think overpopulation is a problem because you live in the middle of overcrowded city filled with people that can't imagine another way of life.

>>9122102
you know fuck all about ecology and the environment don't you

>>9122108
See? This supposed overpopulation problem is really a self-inflicted problem of mistaken priorities.

Whether you like it or not, grasslands are both ecologically and anthropologically unproductive. You've fallen for the people are bad, self-extinction meme.

>>9122059
https://youtu.be/ezVk1ahRF78?t=10m

>>9122116
i don't think you understand the problem of over population.
The very point of the fact that many areas are unproductive is exactly why overpopulation is a problem. we don't have enough land that can produce food for many more people. at best, sub-Saharan Afrcia can be more properly utilized and we can feed another billion or so people, but beyond that there are problems since we cant convert arid land to fertile land without some exorbitant sum of capital and time.

>>9122088
>at all.
bullshit

>>9122122
It's not even arid land. We just have so god damn much of it that nobody has bothered trying to use it all. That's why overpopulation is such a joke. I don't have the link, but there was a study a while back estimating that the earth could support 80 billion people with current technology.

Thinking about the issue for a while, I reached the following conclusion:

Earth's ecologic systems means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

We should devote more money and time into researching closed-loop ecosystems.

We already have the building blocks, keeping things alive shouldn't be a big problem.

Who cares if earths biodiversity dies, we only need a few hundred species counting animals, insects, plants, bacteria et cetera..

As benefit, we would be half way into colonizing other planets/living on large ships.
We would still need to mimic earths physical conditions.

>>9122132
look on google earth, majority of the land is already used for farming already, especially in western nations, china, india etc. Look at satellite images of deforestation images of brazil where entire forests have been cleared for farmland. not only have they disturbed carbon cycle balances, they are running out of usable farmland to feed their population.
i dont think you realize this, but yo can just put farmland on everything that is green, that is how the ecosystem works. without forests, we would have no paper, we wouldn't have soil nutrient cycling and no water filtration.
you need to ick up actual textbooks on the matter, and not jut make shit up in your head.
80 billion isnt even a reasonable sum, it is the most b8 shit i have ever seen

>>9122143
>Who cares if earths biodiversity dies
Biologists care, probably. Or maybe they want less biodiversity so their job becomes easier?

>>9122158
kek

>>9122143
you will screw up too many food webs if you start taking out low order consumers. the larger creatures would not have enough of a variety of food to sustain themselves.
counting the bacteria that due important nutrient recycling, you already have hundreds. both in, and out of your body.
to add to that, we need lot of crops and foods, which, in order to be productive need nearby land such as forests to be a harbor for the bacteria that do nutrient cycling in the soil. in addition to that, we have worms and other insects which improve soil quality.
within supporting forests alone, you have lots of species of fauna and flora which are part of nutrient cycling, such as birds in the phosphorus cycle, which need smallr birds and stuff to feed off.
hopefully you get the point and realize that we cant just remove random species without everything collapsing.

File: T H I C C.jpg (129KB, 1137x1369px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1137x1369px

>>9122048
>He fell for the overpopulation meme

What the 19th and 20th century scientists failed to predict is that once a certain standard of living is achieved the birth rate falls below replacement rate.

>>9122172
>assuming africa will achieve that standard of living

now it is you who is memeing

>>9122189

Then they'll just keep starving.

>>9122055
>North America
>little or even negative growth
https://www.census.gov/popclock/

>>9122194

And the first world will keep sending "aid" which will support this clearly unsustainable growth.

>>9122162
>hopefully you get the point and realize that we cant just remove random species without everything collapsing.
It either can be done, of we are doomed to die in this blue dot.

We do to know all the details, including the mineral cycles and such, but I it doesn't seem impossible.

>>9122211
>we are doomed to die in this blue dot.
If you've got the money you can also die in the dark emptiness called space.

>>9122215
I believe we can do better.
Earth is not special.

I believe we can live a lifetime in space by controlling the conditions.

>Nuclear power as source of heat and energy.
>Tightly controlled mineral/gas cycles (reusing excrement, etc)
>Simulated gravity
>Simulated atmosphere
>Controlled "Biosphere" inside the habitat

et cetera

>>9122210
The aid is insignificant.

The only thing that will actually help is economic development and infrastructure.
All the aid we've send is meaningless compared to what the chinese are doing.

The aid isn't really aid in the first place, it's just to pay off our guilty about the past. If we wanted to help Afrika we would've taken a more direct approach.

Major advances in self-replication technology is the solution to the resource scarcity problem, and will happen in this century.

>>9122219
Even if it were possible, what's the point?
Not only does it require a stupid amount of funds, but what's the difference in dying in this blue dot and dying in some red dot?
I don't think overpopulation will become such a big issue that we'll have to move planets any time soon. Maybe eventually a war will break out and we will send people to space for safety while whoever the participants of the war are blow up earth. As it stands now though, we don't NEED to go to space.

>>9122234
>As it stands now though, we don't NEED to go to space.

>asteroid hits the Earth
>goodbye humanity

And yes, I realize we have seed vaults and whatnot, but we're still keeping all of our eggs in one basket.

>>9122246
At least we would know way ahead of time if an asteroid big enough to wipe out all of humanity was heading our way.
What are we gonna do about it? ehh.. I'll let the professionals handle that one.

The two biggest populations, China and India, are slowing in their growth. China's one-child policy led to a whole generation where men outnumber women by 6 to 5. The population replacement rate needs to be ~2.1 for exact population stability - China's is 1.4 (only slightly better than Japan's 1.26). Meanwhile Indian replacement rates are falling across the board - states like Maharashtra and Kerala, each with tens of millions of residents, are somewhere between 1.6-1.8. Africa is going to be the next demographic bomb, as the population (average replacement rate of 5+) is going to boom with better healthcare.

>>9122088
>what is intensive economic growth

>>9122251

I wouldn't be too sure about that.
What if said asteroid is in a really whacky orbit outside the main orbital plane of the solar system?
I'm not sure how good our tracking of that kind of objects is.

Anyway I guess the best approach would be to send up the biggest open cycle nuclear thruster we can manage to build and try to push the asteroid away when it's still far.

Open cycle uranium rockets aren't researched because of their environmental impact, but that would go out of the window in that situation. They have the potential to give incredible thrust even compared to thermal nuclear rockets which are just starting to be researched seriously.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aBOhC1c6m8

>>9122048
>green(((berg)))
>stop populating the world, goy

this is bad and you should feel bad

File: You+need+to+go+back+to+reddit+and+circle+jerk+_1465c3320759b1cb9cbbce1e79436f0b.jpg (174KB, 712x1024px) Image search: [Google]

174KB, 712x1024px

>>9122063
>/Sarcasm

File: 1418200617945.jpg (41KB, 360x270px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 360x270px

>>9122048
>Overpopulation
We have a simple solution for that.
War.

Seriously.
Let people kill one another and problem solved.

Why is this so hard?

>>9122290

War is messy and causes even more environmental damage than overpopulation.

>>9122274
That might work depending on the size of the asteroid, but what if it's fucking massive?

>>9122294
Man kind does not exist to preserve the environment.

Literwlly just have a mass genocide of all niggers and everything will be okay again

>>9122317
not if white people genocide themselves first (then the east asians will do it)

>>9122317
Forgot to mention liberals as well

>>9122073
>africa
>welfare

>>9122059
they also have really high mortality rates, and the mortality rates are growing faster than the birthrate. Sit back, enjoy the show, because everyone is gonna die.

>>9122048
>>9122055
There is no overpopulation problem. You are deluded if you think there is.

>>9122290
If you look at the population charts even WW2 isn't even a small dent. The most bloody and costly war in human history didn't affect the overall population numbers.

>>9122373
That's very solid argumentation right there. I guess you are study at an liberal arts college, right?

>>9122048
Counter mandatory watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

It's fine, unstoppable socioeconomic trends are in the process of bringing birth rates down and by the end of the century people will wonder why anyone was worried in the first place, and there's nothing you or anyone in this thread can do to meaningfully help or impede this.

>>9122290
War causes massive population growth, see Afghanistan and the Congo. Prosperity (and education of women and their inclusion into the workforce) is the only thing that can bring down birth rates.

File: IMG_6444.jpg (92KB, 478x810px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 478x810px

But if we stop breeding then won't all the people left mostly be the Africans who keep breeding and didn't get the overpopulation memo

(oh wait never mind they'll just starve anyway I forgot)

File: 1481066830185.jpg (202KB, 550x1600px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 550x1600px

Stop sending food and medicines to Africa

Let the low IQ niggers starve. Darwin wins.

>>9122048
No, here's a mandatory watch:
https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348

Close the borders and build the wall. Problem solved.

Also, nuke the indians and chinese

>>9122479

Look at the aid that is being sent.
If you saw the numbers, you would know the aid is insignificant.

>>9122048
https://youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348


Overpopulation presented in a way even morons can understand.
/thread

File: IMG_0081.jpg (924KB, 4999x3488px) Image search: [Google]

924KB, 4999x3488px

>>9122048
The problem is not overpopulation it's the way we live. The global market economy has created a synthetic ecology that treats the living world that we depend on as an externality. Capitalism and its sociopathic values that allow for usury, and the privatization of land and labor make the problem of negative externalities in market economics much worse. Neoliberalism and corporate-state command economies make it worse still.
It's easy to scapegoat such complex, systemic problems on an easily identifiable correlation such as overpopulation. The truth is we are overpopulated because the global consumer culture is throughly detached from its place in the living world.
Truth is we would not even be overpopulated if we lived in the real world.
The solution? Anarchy, and deep ecology. We need to live in a world where you can only receive ends from your own work or mutual aid, and the living world we live in is allowed to live. We can still have markets, we just need to manage externalities before they become externalities, using the science of ecology to manage our resource allocation. I'm not claiming I actually know all the answers, I'm claiming that they exist, and I'm claiming I know the problem.

Nature likes to balance itself, soon enough we will reach an equilibrium where children are too expensive for the average person to raise and nobody wants to bother with sex when their "deepthroat special edition loli 3000" is just so much easier. Also the more africans there are the more africans there are killing each other.

Systems like to ballance themselves, its why capitalism works so well.

>>9122748
>long defunct and retarded interpretation of ecosystem dynamics that applies the notion of thermodynamic equilibrium to open, complex adaptive, living systems
>is why capitalism works
KEK, fucking brainlets
Have an example that hopefully will shed some light on the way things actually work.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534703003197

File: IMG_0026.jpg (53KB, 645x968px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 645x968px

>>9122748
>capitalism works

>>9122088
>Overpopulation is not a problem at all. The lack of resources are.

>I don't know the definitions of words :)

>>9122731
>capitalism neoliberalism usury consumerism memes
Nice memes, the real cause is human nature and your pet ideology won't do shit.

Overpopulation means less resources per person and poorer more desperate people who are less likely to put aside wealth in favor of preserving the environment and conserving resources, so it absolutely is a problem.

>>9122048
I am in favoutr of Evil;how do I honestly contribute to over-population?
donate to vaccine campaigns? Boycott c*ndoms? Rally for GMO's which have proved to solve famine?

>>9122059
>give free food and medication to populations that don't work
>they continue to grow and not work and the situation gets worse
the obvious solution is to stop aid.

>>9122825
>>9122825
> Nice memes the real cause is human nature
Wew lad, you really went all out on this argument.

Capitalism means less resources per person and poorer more desperate people who are less likely to put aside wealth in favor of preserving the environment and conserving resources, so it absolutely is a problem.

>poorer more desperate people
Seems like a problem exclusive to capitalism.

>>9122618
If that is true then simply don't let them immigrate and let their problem remain their own.

I hate cities

>the virgin Capitalist
>exploits others and the environment for their own well being
>preachs doctrines of economics without any cultural or ecological context
>Hates government intervention, but unironically supports the enforcement of property rights
>Preaches social Darwinism, but has probably never exercised in their life
>Preaches the impracticalities of raising a family, yet unironically believes in importing economic migrants
>probably a member of AIPAC

>could oil be discovered to be more than all known oil reserves
>it actually happens like 4 times
AND

>oil demand nearly stable
When does he talk about carrying capacity? Or the mouse experiment.

>>9122881
>capitalist
>exploitation
not an intelligent opinion

>>9122884
>capitalism
>capitalize
Huh? Do you even now what capital is?

>>9122886
wealth, both material and immaterial
aka personal property

File: 3ae.jpg (28KB, 544x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 544x400px

>UN comes up with a babby making system
>something along the lines of "don't fucking make babies unless we allow you to"
>mere mortal men are not allowed to make babbies anymore
>gifted people with perfect genes, high IQ and such are allowed to breed
>rich people can buy permission to make a baby
>normal people can buy tickets for the babby lottery
>if you win you can have a baby
>more money for the government too
>population kept in order and becoming higher quality
It's the perfect system.

>>9122890
No, capital is wealth arbitrarily valued based on utility to the evaluator(capitalization)
Aka privatitised property. Capital can be someone else's labor, land you never touch, a fish swimming in the ocean or any number of things.

>>9122901
>capital is wealth arbitrarily valued based on utility to the evaluator
is it evaluated arbitrarily or based on utility?
it can't be both. also, why did you limit it to one evaluator? there is more than one way to seek employment, or wages for your skills in the world. you can even work for yourself.
hell, you could even grow your own food to survive if you live in a free place without intrusive property taxes.
"privatized property," "personal property"
in a capitalist system, these are the same things. only when you include the precious State is property not "personal"
capital is never someone else's labor. everyone is free to seek work somewhere else, unless they are bound like a slave to their employer by the strong arm of the law.
>land you never touch
nothing wrong with this if you can prove ownership
>fish swimming in the ocean
you can't prove ownership of this. not without the strong arm of the law arbitrarily deciding to enforce it

>>9122900
>t. Larry Niven

Except no reason to assume a benevolent UN.

>>9122088
We obviously do have the ressources, because otherwise there would be no population growth.

Overpopulation is only a problem if you want to form modern, education-based societies, because for that we don't have enough ressources.

>>9122904
>is it valued arbitrarily or based on utility
>it can't be both
Lol you don't know what arbitrary means.
Hint: "utility to the evaluator"
>wages for your skills in the world.
Yeah there sure is a myriad of ways for you to let other make money off of your work.
>you can even work for yourself
Sure, after you can buy land and pay property taxes and buy supplies from corporations. If you can't even live on this planet for free because people are allowed to own land they don't live on. You aren't free.
>you could even grow your own food to survive if you live in a free place without intrusive property taxes.
So your choices are to become capital or be put in excile?
>in a capitalist system, these are the same things.
That's the problem. People are allowed to personally own property they never even set foot on, this is theft to all who are deprived.
>state
Fuck states
>nothing wrong with this if you can prove ownership
t morally inept scumbag.
There is nothing wrong with owning something you do not touch while other people live with nothing? Fuck you!
>capital is never someone else's labor.
Then what is a wage?
>everyone is free to seek work somewhere else
>you are free to work a wage for whoever you want?
Not being able to eat or have a home if you don't work for someone else?
>the strong arm of the law
>strong arm of the law arbitrarily deciding to enforce it
Capitalism wouldn't exist without the strong arm of the law enforcing it you fucking retard. Nobody would consent to going hungry and homeless while working for an absentee owner without the state enforcing private property.

>1 hour 6 minutes
>USA is the overpopulation problem, 5 billion Africa and 3 billion India aren't the problem
>2 billion South America is isn't the problem
>its those 400k 52% white Americans that are the problem
And here comes the marxist justifications for turning the world to shit

>>9122930
I'm no Marxist but do you have any idea how the global economy works? No, you don't. All the wealth is funneled to the rulers, western and East Asian economies make all the decisions.

>>9122934
If your goal is to turn the entire world into USA you promote standard of living in other countries you don't promote population.

If your goal is to turn the entire world into Africa you replace the population by importing economic migrants from Africa.

If you disagree you are making a moral judgement that sub-Saharan Africa is superior to Western society.

>>9122904
>why did you limit it to one evaluator?
Because one person or entity pays for it and sets the value.
Sure the more wealth they have the more autonomy the seller has in the price they get paid. This is the case for large corporations selling products to consumers, this is not the case for the vast majority of people who sell themselves to produce for large consumers.

>>9122943
>large consumers
*corporations

>>9122937
This is one of the most irrational and fallacious arguments I've ever seen. I'm being generous in calling it an argument.
>if you goal is
The only goal in the global economy is to accumulate wealth. Fuck your ridiculous strawmen, gb2/b/

File: 1488396976700.jpg (67KB, 680x1020px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 680x1020px

I think the rise of artificial intelligence and general purpose humanoid robots will coincide with the collapse of the human population due to the elimination of almost all employment opportunities for humans.

The rich, who own the machines, will use the military to suppress the masses of unemployed starving people until the poor die off.

Then the 1% left alive will restore the ecosystems of the planet and periodically cull wild populations of humans to prevent their numbers from threatening the environment.

Meanwhile space exploration takes off in high gear and super advanced technologically marvelous fully automated cities and systems of production/distribution cater to every wish of those in power.

but first all the poor have to die. Their is too many of them. We are past the earths carrying capacity for humans.

>>9122959
>importing economic migrants who will live on welfare improves the economy
https://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/01/25/bernanke-tells-people-stop-saving-and-start-spending/#d1bbbea3546c

>not realizing that Federal Reserve Monetary policy's goal was to impoverish the middle class
Little baby libertarian thinks globalists are capitalist. At some point you'll need to consider your own interests.

>>9122976
>1%
way less than that

>>9122979
>>importing economic migrants who will live on welfare improves the economy
I've never said this. People should be allowed to go wherever they want for liberties sake, the reason why neoliberal want economic migrants is to pay the working class less. I think wages are slavery to begin with.
>not realizing that Federal Reserve Monetary policy's goal was to impoverish the middle class
No, it's to allow the rich to make money from impoverishing the middle class.
>Little baby libertarian thinks globalists are capitalist.
"Globalists" (neoliberals) are capitalists, and I'm a libertarian socialist.

>>9123001
>libertarian socialist.
b8

>>9123008
>b8
Under aged b&
You are probably so indoctrinated you think that is a misnomer. If you knew anything you would know that libertarian was coined by anarchists(socialists) for PR purposes, and that libertarian capitalism was invented in America during the 80s and is completely at odds with actual libertarianism.

>>9122923
>Lol you don't know what arbitrary means.
>Hint: "utility to the evaluator"
so they determine a range of how much they're willing to pay for labor depending on how much wealth they can extract from your work given how much people are willing to pay for your contribution to the creation of consumer goods?
that doesn't sound arbitrary at all.
negotiate your own wages.
>Yeah there sure is a myriad of ways for you to let other make money off of your work.
there are. your ignorance is not an argument
>So your choices are to become capital or be put in excile?
another nonargument. you pay for social conveniences and city living in more ways than one. choosing to go without those to save money is a choice anyone is willing to make. just because some options aren't available, that doesn't mean freedom doesn't exist.
if you disagree, you're free to kill yourself and prove me wrong from the afterlife
>That's the problem. People are allowed to personally own property they never even set foot on, this is theft to all who are deprived.
owning something is not theft just because someone else could imagine a scenario in which they could use it more
>t morally inept scumbag.
>There is nothing wrong with owning something you do not touch while other people live with nothing? Fuck you!
not an argument, buddy. give me an empircal way to determine who "needs" something more than someone else given the infinite complexity of human life and living standards
>Then what is a wage?
a wage is how much you're willing to sell your labor for. selling labor and skills is no different from selling objects and property. just because you can't see it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. else the whole world would vanish when a man goes blind
>Not being able to eat or have a home if you don't work for someone else?
you are free within the confines of human existance. again, kill yourself and prove me wrong from the grave
>Capitalism wouldn't exist
LMAO. you're completely delusional

>>9122048
I mean the UN could require all countries to kill off 15% of Thier population (probably worth ugenix in mind) and make 50% of the female babies born in the next 50 years infertile.

There problem solved

>>9123051
>that doesn't sound arbitrary at all.
Again
Lol you don't understand what arbitrary means
>negotiate your own wages
>just hold out on feeding yourself and providing for your family and sleep in the gutter until a better offer comes along
>there are. your ignorance is not an argument
Are you implying I don't know that? The problem is the "other people making money of your work" part.
>just because some options aren't available, that doesn't mean freedom doesn't exist
it exists for the rich. I really hope you experience utter poverty one day.
>owning something is not theft just because someone else could imagine a scenario in which they could use it more
Like I said, you are morally inept. This is because you are stupid.
>who "needs" something more than someone else given
Nobody "needs" land they never set foot on. From each according to his ability, to each according to their need. A homeless person needs an acre of land to live on much more than the land Barron who is allowed(with state protection) to own thousands of acres he doesn't even live on.
>a wage is how much you're willing to sell your labor for. selling labor and skills is no different from selling objects and property.
Back to my point, I'm glad that you agree with me that other people's labor is capital.
>you are free within the confines of human existance. again, kill yourself and prove me wrong from the grave
>lmao your delusional
Disappointing from someone so fond of saying "that's not an argument"
Fuck off retard.

>>9123067
>you don't understand what arbitrary means
I just defined how the wages were determined by market principles
>just hold out on feeding yourself
fantasy scenario. go to a charity if you're too inept/unlucky to feed yourself
>other people making money off your work is a problem
people working together is a problem?
there is more to value creation than just creating something that people can eat or wear
>exists for the rich
no it doesn't. it exists for everyone besides the most absurdly destitute and crippled, who in turn get free things through charity
>you are morally inept. This is because you are stupid.
you are deluded because you are closed minded in your religion of ideology
>need
don't care
>From each according to his ability, to each according to their need
communism has never worked no matter how many times it's been tried.
communism is the ideological equivalent of shooting yourself in the head. only a megalomaniac could convince themselves/other that it's a good idea.
everyone else knows exactly what's going to happen when they give it a shot

you exist in a fantasy world of someone else's creation.
think about your cult's dogma before posting anymore

>>9123001
> I think wages are slavery to begin with.

this is the single dumbest thing anyone ever thought of. Socialists are so fucking retarded and anti-freedom, that they have to redefine the concept of slavery to such as degree that having to work, having needs at all, is slavery, you're a slave of your biological necessities, wow, very insightful.

>>9123076
>I just defined how the wages were determined by market principles
Exactly
That's is arbitrary, you are also drawing a false equivalence between the agency of those paying the wage and those who are paid.
>fantasy scenario
You trolling? Hundreds of millions if not billions of people go hungry every day
>people working together is a problem
No people working for an hourly wage for someone else is a problem. Wage labor is far off from workers self management and syndicalism.
>no it doesn't. it exists for everyone besides the most absurdly destitute and crippled, who in turn get free things through charity
You are very detached from reality. Give up all your personal possessions, sever all family ties, and burn your credentials before moving to a new city to understand.
>communism
Wew lad
I'm a left wing market anarchist that favors revolutionary syndicalism, workers self management, mutual aid, and the scientific management of externalities you idiot. Who said anything about communism? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

>fantasy world of someone else's creation
No u
You aren't worth my time.

>>9123001
>I think wages are slavery to begin with.

Jesus christ I don't know who's more retarded.
The borderline fucking commie, or the one who calls himself a libertarian and has a fucking problem with two people entering into a VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.

>>9123081
It's sensu libre you mong.
The idea that wage labor is a form of protracted slavery was even a popular idea in Lincolns Republican Party.
It's economically forced labor. When people have no right to means of production without paying for them, they have no means of economics self-determination and are forced to work a wage or live in abject poverty.

>>9123096
>VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT
>volunteer or sleep outside and live off of spare change.
Lots of choices

>>9123102
The only places where people don't have to work to survive, are places that nobody wants to live.

>>9123106
You should have to work to survive unless you are disabled.
The problem is having to work for someone else in order to survive.

>>9123090
that slogan you used was coined and popularized by Karl Marx, the founder of marxist communism. don't play dumber than you are

>>9123114
>that slogan you used was coined and popularized by Karl Marx, the founder of marxist communism.
And? Nothing about it implies communism, only socialism.

>>9123115
"Socialism is a necessary step to Communism." - Marx
take your fantasy delusions to Venezuela, Chile, Cuba or Brazil where they will be appreciated

>>9123135
Socialism is a thing in its own right
>Venezuela, chile,Cuba or Brazil
I'm an anarchist you utter moron

>>9123150
excile [sic] yourself

>>9123152
I don't know why I waste my time trying to reason with the indoctrinated masses.

>>9123156
if you can't convince even a member of the masses to join your religion, it's probably because it's retarded and no sane person would want to touch it.
"everyone else" isn't the problem here, bud. it's you

>>9123159
Then why can't you make a reasoned, factual argument? All you do is ad hom, it's pathetic. You obviously do not understand what you are talking about.

>>9123164
i did make argument. you just ignored them and focused on me making fun of you for being a silly person

>>9123167
Point them out then. Enlighten me.
It seems like you are just stating complete misconceptions and insulting me once I correct you.

>>9123156
If you can't convince indoctrinated masses, how are you going to maintain the proposed anarchist utopia? Anarchism is only for a select few? Members of the party? It's starting to sound like you'll need an authority to maintain.

>>9123169
pretty much everything you just said "no" to was an argument you ignored.
i'm not going to type them out again

>>9123170
It's based around voluntary participation. Everyone gets anarchism more or less at an innate level, it's just been throughly repressed through negative propaganda. The only real obstacles are authority preventing its organization and ignorance.
Plenty of people can be convinced and are, the state is doing most of the subversion for us at this point. Anarchism is currently experiencing a massive resurgence right now. I heard an actual anarchist ideologue talk for an hour on NPR yesterday, that's something I never in a million years would have thought possible.

>>9123176
>what is copy and paste
Just pick the best example you have

>>9123186
>can't even bother to scroll up
you can't even bother to articulate an argument not based in dogma
what did i expect?

>>9123181
When people start voluntarily organizing hierarchical corporations? When people voluntarily loan capital in exchange for interest for their own delayed consumption? What happens?

>>9123187
If I knew what you are talking about I wouldn't be asking you to point it out to me, now would I?
>not based in dogma
The dogma of what?

>>9123188
Hierarchal corporations
An end of which there are no means to accomplish in anarchy. This requires private property, capital, and state protection.
>capital
Doesn't exist in anarchy

>>9123191
here's an example of dogma for you:
>Everyone gets anarchism more or less at an innate level, it's just been throughly repressed through negative propaganda.
what evidence do you have to suggest this?
what societies can you name that function through anarchy, and not natural hierarchies?
how about social environments? political ones? academic ones? anything at all that suggests people -western or not- naturally organize themselves according to anarchy.
what examples do you have of organized "negative propaganda" against anarchy?
what examples at all do you have?
why are these "propaganda" and not naturally occurring social phenomena?

back up your belief system with reason and evidence, not just "i want to believe"

i'm going to a grad student social now. have something prepared in the next 2 hours

>>9123102
That's just the way it work, buddy. Either you provide for yourself, or you die.
If you don't want to participate go live innawoods off squirrels and shit.

>>9123110

And if you're working for the state you're working for no one, right?
Because the state isn't controlled by anyone.
There's absolutely nobody that takes control of it.
Nope, never happens

>wants the state to regulate all jobs
>calls self libertarian

Just call yourself a communist and be done with it.

>>9123150
>I'm an anarchist you utter moron

And again you're an anarchist, but you want the state to get involved and stop someone from setting up an enterprise and hiring people.

Some fucking anarchist you are.

>>9123098
it's a stupid idea no matter how old.

>When people have no right to means of production without paying for them
>they have no means of economics self-determination

you said yourself they have the means and it's paying up. It's foolish either way to think the only way to be "free" is to own your own enterprise. Some CEOs are slaves according to you.

>>9122208
Accounted for byimmigration by butthirt friend

>>9123098

>Buy tomatoes
>Sell tomatoes at higher price in different place at a markup

There, you have a "means of production" now.
If you don't want to work for other people, come up with something that you can do on your own.

>>9122048
>overpopulation

No such thing. There is rampant over use of some things, but that's really not a thing either. People are so retarded when it comes to stuff like this.

The problem with eugenics is how to define who is 'fit' and who is not.

>>9123198
>what evidence do you have to suggest this?
People tend to think that saturated social classes based on wealth are unfair. Everyone is a hyperbole, buts it's reasonable to assume the people will agree to the rational argument that they should be the sole benefactor of their own labor, that other people have no right to tell them what to do, and that you should only be allowed to claim ownership of property that you personally interact with. While people may or may not get it innately everyone is capable of being subverted if it follows in their own self-interests.
>anarchy, and not natural hierarchies?
It makes sense to assume that a social hierarchy must first be constructed from social interaction, it's the chicken and the egg. The egg comes first if you believe in evolution.
Yours is an argument from ignorance. Wether or not people construct hierarchies naturally has nothing to do with proving the ubiquity of their existence.
Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence. Please come back with a valid argument.

>>9123200
>wants the state to regulate all jobs
Where are you getting this misconception from? What have I said that implies that is what I want? I am an anarchist.
>>9123201
>the state to get involved
Nigga what? I want people to be the sole benefactor of their own labor, and the abolition of capital and the private ownership of the means of production.
People don't need to be paid a wage if they can work for free.
get the fuck out of here with that nonsense

>>9123202
You are confused. The problem is people making a profit from work they did not do at the exspense of the laborer.
Many small businesses owners are just the same as their employees, the more wealth you have the more autonomy you have.

>>9123239
>and that you should only be allowed to claim ownership of property that you personally interact with

Why?
If I produce X amount of wealth by doing something, and I want to use a Y < X amount in order to buy a property that I end up never using, why should this be prohibited to me?
Why are you trying to restrict my freedom to use the fruits of my labor however damn well I please?

I bought some land that I hardly ever use. I go there once every two months, if that.
Because of this, in your warped perception of the world I'm an ebil gabidalisd who's exploiting someone.
No I'm not, that's land that nobody fucking wants because it's hilly, far from any big city, tends to get cut off from the main road by snow in winter, etc.
And even if it wasn't, if someone really wanted to use it all they'd have to do is offer me enough money for me to decide that it's not worth keeping.

The only possible exception I could make to this is if there is a housing shortage - which ideally, cannot happen. Because our birth rate is significantly below replacement rate.
If it happens it's because some faggots (not very much unlike you) decided to let in a bunch poor uneducated immigrants from other countries, because we simultaneously need to reduce our population to save muh planet, but we need muh babies for muh economy.

>>9123247
>I am an anarchist.

No, you aren't.
You cannot force anyone out of anything if you don't have an armed force to stop them.
You cannot abolish capital and private ownership of anything, unless you have a military force to stop people from stashing their wealth away and to whatever the fuck they want with it.

You might not call it a state. You may call it a "collective", a "society", but what you're describing is, in fact and undeniably, and extremely authoritarian state that sets out to regulate people's lives down to any last detail.

>>9123253
that is not a "problem" at all, their high rewards come with all the related high effort and risks of running a business. If people couldn't heap those rewards, they would try much less and you wouldn't have anything close to the levels of wealth, welfare and productivity reached thanks to modern capitalism.

>>9123268

This is what somehow communists don't get.
If I can make bread and get the same ROI that I do by researching extremely complicated and possibly not working technologies, I'm gonna go for the bread because I'm not stupid.

Imagine if James Watt never set out to invent the steam engine because it was risky, required lots of material, and he knew even if it worked he would make just as much as the baker next door.

>>9123257
>why should this be prohibited to me?
Because you are depriving others of the liberty to live on the planet free of charge.
>why are you restricting my freedom to restrict the freedom of others?
The idea that you can own and profit from land while others go homeless is absurd. I own a fair amount of land in south east Missouri that I keep for wildlife, as wildlife has a right to live freely aswell.
I think it absurd that I have to buy land to make that possible. What you are doing to your land is not wrong, the system that allows it to be owned in the first place is wrong. Developing the land for profit at the exspense of the world around you would be wrong.
>If it happens it's because some faggots (not very much unlike you) decided to let in a bunch poor uneducated immigrants from other countries, because we simultaneously need to reduce our population to save muh planet, but we need muh babies for muh economy.
Curb stomp bait. I'd steal your front door if I had the chance.

File: 1501669862049.jpg (853KB, 766x3231px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 766x3231px

>>9122777
Checked

>>9123262
>You cannot uphold capital and private ownership of anything, unless you have a military force to stop people from stealing their wealth back and to whatever the fuck they want with it.
Explain how poor people are going to pick oranges all day for someone else when they could own the land themselves? If there was no state or police force to uphold the law wealth would redistribute itself. And as I said I am in favor of revolutionary syndicalism to seize the means of production, not violent revolution. Nobody would allow the rich to make money off of their work without a state or private police force to enforce the unequal distribution of wealth.

>>9123279

>Because you are depriving others of the liberty to live on the planet free of charge.
They can go do so on someone else's land.
I entered into an agreement with the state (that you like so much, even if you deny it) where I paid X amount of money and I gain exclusive use of that land.

>The idea that you can own and profit from land while others go homeless is absurd.
Why? It's not my fault if X guy is homeless. If you desire to help him and give him a place to live in free of charge, THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM ALLOWS YOU TO.
Start a charity, get enough people who agree with you, buy some land and rent it free of charge / sell it for 1$ to the homeless.
See? That's how freedom works.

> I own a fair amount of land in south east Missouri that I keep for wildlife, as wildlife has a right to live freely aswell.
And I agree with this, which is why I have absolutely nothing against reservations/national parks/etc. In fact, I've been offered a significant amount of money by a lumber company to allow them to clearcut my forest, but I refused.

>Developing the land for profit at the exspense of the world around you would be wrong.
It's not done at the expense of anyone, if you do it responsibly.


>Curb stomp bait.
Ah, the ever present tolerant left. When you can't win an argument, just resort to violence or threats of violence. Works every time.
Except when your interlocutor is anonymous and lives on the other side of the planet, faggot.

>I'd steal your front door if I had the chance.
I had no doubts you would have done that, considering you've been spewing AnCom propaganda for the last few posts.

>>9123210
>Buy tomatoes
>There, you have a "means of production"
There, you have no concept of production.

>>9123288
First, that the "wealth should be equally distributed" is all but an unsupported assumption from you. Why should a college student nobody deserve the same wealth as a 50yo who worked his ass off for 30 years? Second, if "there was no state or police force to uphold the law" there would be gangs to uphold their own much more brutal and arbitrary rules, there's no society without state and hierarchy, period.

>>9123268
>if they couldn't heap those rewards then they would try much less?
Why? Didn't the Soviet Union kinda provide evidence against this? I'm no stalinist but people are creative, cooperative, and seek better things for themselves reguardless of their economic system. Capitalism gave us microwave dinners and sweatshops. Science is what has been turning the wheels of progress.
>productivity
Why? I think people would be much more productive if they were the sole benefactors of their own labor? Nothing harms productivity like a command economy by either a state or corporation.
>welfare
unnecessary in anarchy. See mutual aid.

>>9123288
>when they could own the land themselves

Because they couldn't. The rich guy would pay someone to swiftly dispose of your hypothetical poor guy.

>If there was no state or police force to uphold the law wealth would redistribute itself.
You're assuming I'm just gonna stand by and let you "redistribute" (i.e. STEAL) my wealth.

>And as I said I am in favor of revolutionary syndicalism to seize the means of production, not violent revolution.

A theft is a theft is a theft.
It doesn't matter if you come in at night and steal my TV, or hold me at gunpoint and steal it. You've stolen it either way.

>private police force
See, we're getting there.

You can't in fact enforce your "anarchy" without a state, because people would VOLUNTARILY ASSOCIATE and defend each other's wealth.

>>9123316
welfare means well-being, standard of living, pal, welfare meaning government handouts was just a politically correct strategy from the Dems.

>>9123206
pop-growth by immigration is pop-growth,
my illiterate newfriend

>>9123316
>the sole benefactors of their own labor?

You keep repeating that sentence, but you don't even know what it means.
You want to "redistribute" my wealth away, wealth which I've accumulated with years of work. So where are the fruits of my labor going then? Certainly not to me.

>>9123305
>I entered into an agreement with the state (that you like so much, even if you deny it) where I paid X amount of money and I gain exclusive use of that land
That's the bad part anon
>if you desire to help him
I don't want to give him welfare I want to give him the means to help himself. Are you a sociopath?
>See? That's how freedom works
Not IRL
>And I agree with this
Then why are you okay denying people the same natural rights as animals?
>I refused
Good job
>It's not done at the expense of anyone, if you do it responsibly
Too bad that isn't how it is done most of the time. You can make a profit buying land and dozing it into lots to sell, that's how it is done, I see it everyday.
>When you can't win an argument
What argument?
Talk shit get hit, do whatever you want just don't be a dick.
>I had no doubts you would have done that, considering you've been spewing AnCom propaganda for the last few posts.
You're damn right. Actually I would hypothetically usually only do things like that to vacation homes.
And I'm not an ancom I'm just an anarchist, I believe in markets with preemptively managed externalities

>>9123318
>the rich guy would pay some guy to dispose of poor guy
Which is exactly why capital and private property cannot exist without authority to uphold them and have no place in anarchy

>>9123324
It means if you work, nobody makes money off of your work except you

>That's the bad part anon
Why? Society is fine with it, I'm fine with it. Both parties benefit.

>I don't want to give him welfare I want to give him the means to help himself. Are you a sociopath?
No, you're trying to help himself to MY means. That's THEFT.
If you want to help him, you help him with YOUR resources and the resources of whoever you manage to get on your side.

>Not IRL
Yes, IRL.
There's nothing stopping you from setting up a charity right now. Of course you won't do that because you're lazy and you just like to think of yourself as a philantropist without actually wanting to put in any effort.

>You can make a profit buying land and dozing it into lots to sell, that's how it is done, I see it everyday.
He's fine with it, society is fine with it, no harm done.
Do you think harm was, in fact, done? Gather enough people and protest in front of the town hall.
If it doesn't work, do some campaigning and next time elect someone more aligned with your world views.

>Talk shit get hit, do whatever you want just don't be a dick.
>if you're against unregulated immigration you're talking shit and you deserve to get hit
I'm tired of you faggots trying to police my thoughts. Everyone is. Fuck off with this shit. You're lucky you never tried it IRL.

>I would hypothetically usually only do things like that to vacation homes.
Which is MY vacation home that i bought with MY money derived from MY labor, so you're STEALING the fruits of my labor.

>>9123330
>And I'm not an ancom I'm just an anarchist

No you aren't, you want to seize the property of other people and "redistribute" it to the working class. That's textbook fucking communism.

>>9123349
I'm running out of time so here hopefully this will answer more than one misconception
>No you aren't, you want to seize the property of other people and "redistribute" it to the working class. That's textbook fucking communism.
No it's textbook anarchism, refer to one of the very anarchist texts, by a mutualist very much like myself, not a communist
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

>>9123343

Which is not what you're saying, because you want to STEAL the land that I bought with that money.
That's no fucking different from STEALING the money itself.

>>9123336
Are you seriously this fucking stupid?
Let's say you achieve your AnCom fantasy.

Everyone is given a small piece of land and a house.
Me, X guy and Y guy are pretty fucking good at farming, so we decide to get together and pool our resources and in the end we make 500kg of produce.

A guy sucks balls and only manages 200kg, so he thinks it's only fair that he should "redistribute" some of our wealth to himself.
Let's say he wants to "redistribute" 200 of our 1500kg, because then everyone has 400 and "it's only fair".

B guy also sucks at farming, but he's ex-military and he's fucking good at spotting thieves and such. Also, he doesn't have any use for his land and has two strong arms to help with other things.
So he comes forward with a proposal. He wants to join our group. He wouldn''t do any actual farming, but with his help and his land me, X and Y know we can grow 1800kg of produce. You will now notice that 1800/4 makes 450, so we accept B's proposal and he's put on guard duty.

He sees A attempting to steal our produce and beats the shit out of him, if he doesn't outright kill him - after all, there's no police to stop him.
Scale this up enough and you get corporations and private armies.

You cannot stop this from happening unless you have a strong central government to come fuck B's shit up, but then it's not anarchy anymore.

>>9123336
anarchy has no place in the civilized world, so

>>9123365

I made an error, A's redistribution would be 225kg and yeld 425kg per person. Doesn't change anything, but here you go.

>>9123366

Exactly.
You either end up back where you started with a central government, or with roving bands of post apocalyptic bandits and a clusterfuck of warring factions.
Which eventually ally, merge and morph and end up becoming city states, then provinces and eventually kingdoms.

Anarchy cannot exist. Not for any length of time.
The only type of anarchism that isn't completely retarded is AnCap, but even that would eventually end up with monolithic corporations resembling states. They'd just have another name.

>>9122048
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TqKQ94DtS54
Overpopulation is outright not a thing
the earth could easily sustain trillions
it's all a matter of efficiently using the colossal amount of land area the earth has, as well as the fact that we can and do build things more than 1 floor high

>>9123365
>stealing money
Oh noes!!!
You should be mad at the corporations, bankers and state that profit off of your hard work through usury.
If you live on and interact with land it is yours and no one else. If you don't live on and interact with land it is not yours. Some land should not belong to anyone, some land should belong to multiple people.
>A guy sucks balls and only manages 200kg, so he thinks it's only fair that he should "redistribute" some of our wealth to himself.
Too bad, he should suck less.
>Let's say he wants to "redistribute" 200 of our 1500kg, because then everyone has 400 and "it's only fair".
Everyone laughs at him for being a whiny bitch.
>Scale this up enough and you get corporations and private armies.
Just private armies actually, that's a commune. there is nothing wrong with defending land you live and work on or voluntary economics. If you went and stole the land from the guy who sucks balls, then forced him to work it to pay rent, then you would be capitalists and met with a lynch mob.

>>9123375

Isaac Arthur is one of my favorite youtubers.Too bad I don't have nearly enough time to watch all of his stuff.

>Why aren't we building a fucking mass driver RIGHT NOW ffs

>>9123377
mass drivers a shit in atmospheres
Launch loop is better and more functional

>>9123376
>bankers and state that profit off of your hard work through usury.

And this is where you show off your complete disregard for Personal Finance 101.
Guess what, I have a mortgage on my house, and guess what, it costs me A LOT less than renting a house of comparable size from someone else. Like, "half" level less.

So... I entered into a VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT with the bank... and we both benefit from it.
Why are you so much against this?

>Too bad, he should suck less.
>Everyone laughs at him for being a whiny bitch.
Which is what I should then say to your hypothethical homeless guy you want to redistribute my land to.
Too bad; he should suck less. Get some fucking land of his own and stop biching.
Witch is what I do actually, but that's beside the point.

>there is nothing wrong with defending land you live and work on or voluntary economics.
Are you fucking kidding me? You were just trying to steal my fucking land two posts ago because I don't deserve it.

> If you went and stole the land from the guy who sucks balls, then forced him to work it to pay rent, then you would be capitalists

No, if we did that we'd be doing a robbery.
As capitalists, we would walk up to A, and offer him 300kg of produce for 15 years in exchange for exclusive rights to his land. He would accept, because that would be more than he would be ever able to produce, and with no sweat attached. Then he can go work for C, who discovered Jade on his property and is making jewels from it, and make some more money from that.

Repeat this enough times, and you get right back to the present situation.

All of this was completely voluntary, so if you support voluntary economics you cannot be against this.

>>9123377
>Lisp Arthur
if you can get past the speech impediment its just a popsci magazine with very little practicality to the theory.

>>9123376
>>9123365
Actually not even private armies. That would mean you are paying the soldiers, it would be more like a communal militia or a neighborhood watch.
Only in capitalism does private ownership of means of production exists.
>Anarchy cannot exist. Not for any length of time.
Explain anarchist Catalonia which did not only exist, but flourished until it was arbitrarily destroyed by both Franconist Spain, and the bolsheviks.
The truth is anarchism can exist, has successfully existed on a large scale in the past, and exists in every corner of the globe today. The problem is you are incapable of thinking outside of the terms set by the system you live in, clearly evidenced in your inability to understand how a world without private property and capital functions. Pick up a book for fucks sake, the sad part is you have displayed some anarchist tendencies in this conversation.

>>9123405
>popsci
there's that buzzword again
a shame nobody that uses it even knows what it means

>>9123397
Get this, what if, you could like, own a house without paying for it?
Crazy right?

>>9123410

Who builds the house and how is he paid?
Why do you deserve a house without having put any fucking effort into acquiring it?

>>9123406
>the sad part is you have displayed some anarchist tendencies in this conversation.

Yes, I tend towards AnCap. I already know that, but I'm sadly aware that it wouldn't be feasible.

>>9123421
There are many options, you can pay someone else to do so(not the bank) (assuming a market economy with a labor based theory of value(not capitalism), you can build it yourself, or you and your friends can build it.
This is how it has worked for the vast majority of human history and how it still works for communities that live outside the global consumer economy to this day.
The point isn't how build the house, the point is the land that it sits on is not viewed as capital that can be bought and sold. Because land is not capital, its fucking land. Do you charge birds rent?

File: 34d6530da2941b9c7cf39281cc13382a08501aa6_hq.gif (578KB, 500x275px) Image search: [Google]

578KB, 500x275px

>>9122048
With a GPA below 3 in any major It's hard to get a job even in MacDonalds or StarBucks nowadays.

File: lagos.jpg (125KB, 1060x454px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1060x454px

>>9122346
>and the mortality rates are growing faster than the birthrate.


Nope.

Charity and more easily available vaccines are prolonging lives. People aren't dying, but are getting poorer.

>>9123428

>you can pay someone else to do so
Right, buy a new house, which is immensely more expensive because all the raw materials and labor has to be put in it from scratch. Right on.

>assuming a market economy with a labor based theory of value
So instead of paying upfront you pay later. Big difference.

>you can build it yourself, or you and your friends can build it.

How are we gonna eat while we do that, and how are we gonna acquire the necessary materials? Assuming we don't have a infinite amount of land to strip mine.

>Because land is not capital, its fucking land.
Which somehow gives you the freedom to take it from me.

>Do you charge birds rent?

Are birds people? Are they gonna complain if I decide to do some landscaping? Are they gonna build a massive fucking brick structure in the middle of a spot I wanted free of massive brick structures?
Can I knock said house over and have no one complain?

>>9123406
>Pick up a book
>doesn't suggest any book

Stay classy, /sci/.

>>9123439
No it's much cheaper because you only pay the builder, no mark ups from the bank, realtors, state or seller.
>So instead of paying upfront you pay later. Big difference.
Get your head out of your ass, that has nothing to do with LBV and is literally what a mortgage is but without the added cost of interest.
>How are we gonna eat while we do that, and how are we gonna acquire the necessary materials?
The same way that has been done for all of human history, agriculture, the land, your fellow human beings, it's not like this is a primitive homesteading situation, there is still modern technology.
>Which somehow gives you the freedom to take it from me.
I don't want to take anything from you you FFS, I already said if you live on land it's yours.
>Are they gonna build a massive fucking brick structure in the middle of a spot I wanted free of massive brick structures?
Can I knock said house over and have no one complain?
Now you know how I feel when Yankees come down and buy up the forest I grew up in to build their fucking vacation homes. How the Native Americans feel.
Nobody would be living where you live unless you want them to, you thick motherfucker. How is it so hard for you to get the difference between personal and private property?

>>9123484
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/pierre-joseph-proudhon-what-is-property-an-inquiry-into-the-principle-of-right-and-of-governmen

File: World-Population-Growth-1750-2100.png (236KB, 3000x2100px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 3000x2100px

>>9122048
>>9122421
This stopped being a discussion on high a long time ago. Africa is industrializing, and the industrialized world re-stabilizes at a heightened population due to the availability of food, health care, and a position in the economy. Growth continues, but the rate of growth has been decreasing for over 40 years.

>>9122102

10% of the planets land surface alone is used for farming.

>>9122048
>Mandatory watch:

Of course it's mandatory. Re-education programs are always mandatory.

But for those that want a real education on human population growth, watch this instead.

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

>>9123507
>http://www.curiousmeerkat.co.uk/questions/much-land-earth-inhabited/

Yeah, good thing the rest of it is insignificant compared to the amount used for farming. You picked literally the largest use of land by orders of magnitude. 10% is about how much humans use in total.

>>9123518
Actually allot more land is domesticated
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GB003153/abstract
https://favaretoufabc.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/2015-steffen-et-al-the-great-acceleration-1.pdf
Convenient graph
>>9122731

File: Rome.jpg (96KB, 631x517px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 631x517px

who else /hype/ for 2030?

>>9123543
As a biologist I know it means that everything I love will be gone
Can't say I'm not used to it by now:

>>9123239
>unfair
don't care. whatever arbitrary sample you chose and their subjective interpretation of "fairness" is not an empirical, repeatable or valuable metric.
>that they should be the sole benefactor of their own labor
are you going to insist now that family structures are oppressive and exploitative, because children are the beneficiaries of their parents' labour?
get out of here
>evidence of absence is not absence of evidence
so you don't have any evidence, or reason for that matter. good to know.

>>9123582
>don't care. whatever arbitrary sample you chose and their subjective interpretation of "fairness" is not an empirical, repeatable or valuable metric.
Moral relativism is cancer.
>using empiricism to detirmine morality
Also, some having opportunities and liberty at the exspense of others is unfair.
>are you going to insist now that family structures are oppressive and exploitative, because children are the beneficiaries of their parents' labour?
get out of here
Parents are obliged to work for their children by their nature.
>so you don't have any evidence, or reason for that matter. good to know.
No I was pointing out your fallacious argument. As explained in the points you conveniently ignored.

>>9123597
>moral relativism is cancer
then why did you rely on it?
>Also, some having opportunities and liberty at the exspense of others is unfair.
life is unfair, bud. get over it. how are you going to fix the fairness dilemma over how people vary in:
height
weight
muscle mass
hormone balance
attractiveness
intelligence
vitamin D production
UV resistance
myopia v good vision
color blindness
elderly status v youth
or any of the other things that put someone above someone else based entirely on attributes they can't control
>parents are obliged to work for their children by their nature
so natural order is good now? i thought it was unfair
>as explained in the points you conveniently ignored.
did it not occur to you that "naturally" forming hierarchies could influence reproductive habits to select for people who succeed more in those hierarchies?
that behavior is certainly witnessed in chimpanzees and other apes, who have no dynamic culture or societies to speak of. they still form natural hierarchies
as with every other social animal.
do you think all these animals are intelligent enough to develop a culture based on the perpetuation of their hierarchies?
I don't think you do.
that's the answer to your "chicken and egg" ""problem.""
it doesn't matter which came first. the existence of hierarchies ensures their memetic and genetic existence in the future. you cannot remove this behavior from humans (or any other social animal) without changing their nature (genes)

>>9123621
>then why did you rely on it?
Implying
>list of biological conditions
Wtf does this have to do with capital and private property?
>so natural order is good now?
Capital isnt natural private property certainly isn't natural, these are synthetic constructs
>id it not occur to you that "naturally" forming hierarchies could influence reproductive habits to select for people who succeed more in those hierarchies?
Are you trying to imply the inherent inequality in capitalist economies is a result of biological determinism?
Wtf lol. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

>>9123645
>Wtf does this have to do with capital and private property?
you're argument that "capital and private property are bad" came from your assertion that people having opportunities at the expense of others is bad.
people having opportunities at the expense of others is a completely natural phenomenon.
an attractive model will have more wealth and opportunities than an unattractive 99 times out of 100.
>Are you trying to imply the inherent inequality in capitalist economies is a result of biological determinism?
>Wtf lol. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
that's because you don't think. hierarchies are a biological construct and people organize themselves into hierarchies of competence, where those who can get the most work done earn the most wealth.
they - in turn - can choose to use that wealth to purchase land as an investment. that land purchase is no more an infringement on other people's "opportunities" than is this person's natural ability to get more work and more valuable work done.

spend more time thinking, and less time posting

>>9123499
>a discussion on high
If by "on high" you mean among the ruling class,
then it was never a "discussion".
>the rate of growth has been decreasing for over 40 years
The rate of resource depletion and degradation has been increasing far longer than 40 years.
https://source.wustl.edu/2008/10/population-growth-drives-depletion-of-natural-resources/

>>9123654
I don't think you understand what "at the exspense of others" means. It means profiting of of their work while doing nothing, making money off of land worked by someone else, owning land you do not occupy while others go homeless.
This has nothing to do with any 'natural' unfairness.
>those who can get the most work done earn the most wealth.
This is objectively untrue, they wealthy do not have to work at all if they don't want to, if they do work it's working to make money off of other people working.
>is no more an infringement on other people's "opportunities" than is this person's natural ability to get more work and more valuable work done
Is this bait?
I don't care it's retarded and I will no longer have any part in it.

>>9122132
Division of labor and trade are why people don't spread out over all that land. All the excess productivity you get from specialization would get erased by transportation cost. That and it still does not address the problem of exponential growth.

>>9123708
>This is objectively untrue, they wealthy do not have to work at all if they don't want to, if they do work it's working to make money off of other people working.

Ah-ha, this is where your Marxism is showing. Intellectual work is still work and is much more important than dumb physical labor.
That includes deciding what the best allocation of capital (and so indirectly, labor) is.
Imagine an ancom medieval city where no walls were constructed because all the communal workers decided it wasn't worth it, versus an ancap one where the land lord (which you hate so much for getting to his position) paid some people to build them.
Which one do you think has the best shot at surviving an outside attack?

Now substitute technological research for the wall et voilà. That's how the rich make money ""without working"".

>I don't think you understand what "at the exspense of others" means. It means profiting of of their work while doing nothing, making money off of land worked by someone else, owning land you do not occupy while others go homeless.

You're too far fucking gone to realize that this is a direct result of people trading with each other, and you cannot avoid it unless you physically stop them with force, even though I provided you a complete example with X,Y,A and B's story.
Get your head out of your ass and try to think for yourself instead of just regurgitating the propaganda you've been fed, for god's sake.

Your idylliac society only fucking works if everyone is a subsistence farmer and has no aspiration to ever be anything more.

>>9122048
>Overpopulation
>Let's discuss the root evil of our modern society.
you can start the depopulation by killing yourself

>>9122618

>help 1,000,000 who would otherwise starve have 5,000,000 kids

That's very significant and you know it.

>>9124098

Especially if you then go on to help those 5,000,000 not starve, and in turn they go on to have another 25,000,000 kids.

>>9122210
Aid actually hinders their growth and ultimately keeps them in poverty, which shortens the human life span.

When companies in the developed world sell their surpluses to aid organizations that ship it to Africa for free, Africans obviously dont want to buy those goods from local businesses cause they can get them for free from the aid orgs. If we cut aid, they'd start employing themselves, earning an income and probably having more kids.

>>9123824
They only places that are experiencing exponential growth is the turd of Africa and minorities in Europe and the USA.

>>9124024
>Ah-ha, this is where your Marxism is showing.
You just don't know what you are talking about.
>intellectual work
Their is nothing intellectual about manipulating money, the only requirement is having money, which is gotten from others hard work. Fuck off with your cuck mentality.
>imagine a straw man
No
>Now substitute technological research for the wall et voilà. That's how the rich make money ""without working"".

No it's a result of capital. I'm a left wing market anarchist you moron. The only reason you believe people would not work is because you lack the ability to imagine it. Technological advancement has nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with science, don't be an idiot.
>You're too far fucking gone to realize that this is a direct result of people trading with each other, and you cannot avoid it unless you physically stop them with force
This is not true, it's means and ends. You can't accumulate I'll gotten wealth without capital, you can privatize property without a state or private army to do so. You can't hire a private army without capital and absentee ownership.
>with X,Y,A and B's story.
I told you why that was a genuinely retarded thought experiment already, the conclusions you reached did not logically follow.
>Your idylliac society only fucking works if everyone is a subsistence farmer and has no aspiration to ever be anything more.
not worth my time. Sorry for not keeping my word.

>>9122055
>Europe, Japan, Australia, North America
Australia and North America have vastly different situations and decent growth.

>>9122048
Overpopulation is not an issue at all, capitalism and consumerism are.

>>9123365
>Everyone is given a small piece of land and a house.

The dream stops there because the state managed the whole redistribution process.

>>9122048
>root evil
No, it's a step or two up from the root problem, which I believe is psychopathy and/or jews.

What would happen if the whole world stopped having children for 25 years?

the tragedy of the commons

>>9122645
>>9122528
Just because it is aimed at brainlets like yourselves doesn't mean it is correct.

>>9122547
The type of weapons the United States would use would basically create enough particulate matter to kill everyone if they nuked two countries