Overpopulation (and Religion)

نوشتع شده توسط Player 999, 30.07.2019 at 21:22

نوشتع شده توسط DeepFriedUnicorn, 30.07.2019 at 10:18

Religion is losing its influence on how society runs and no major wars will happen anytime soon(Just proxy wars) we'll be soon on Mars, or the moon with private companies having more influence in space than our own governments, most likely. (If not, 100% the colonial wars will happen again. Probably even Portugal and Spain might be leading the way again. Who knows.)

For overpopulation, that would be up the India, China and some countries in Africa to fix. The west seems okay I think. We'll also will be living in our 100s soon too, so maybe the west might have a elderly population problem rather than a young population problem?

Surprisingly a good point, I didn't know you talked sense xD. Jk, but yes you are correct. China however is already facing a demographic crisis due to its 1 child policy; fertility rates are already as low as Europe's and China's population will experience a constant decline after 2029. India will expand from its current 1.38 billion to around 1.65 billion in 2060 and then slowly decline, but the extremely low fossil fuel emission per capita there should negate the high population. There's also many sustainable energy efforts being done over there, and emissions are a mere fraction of Chinese emissions (though that is due to being a less developed economy). Africa on the other hand will have a huge population explosion, though will also remain relatively environmentally friendly due to its undeveloped economy and low emissions per capita (at least unless it catches up with the west).

Africa had a mere 55 million people in 1600 AD, and 1.3 billion in 2018, but is estimated to have a population of 4-4.5 billion by the year 2100 AD bc people are banging like rabbits over there. That will be a massive population explosion and will have global socio-political ramnifications. By 2040-2050 or so, when Africa is as developed as USA/Europe/Japan today, we will see massive emissions from there (2.5 billion estimated population by 2050). India and China will also pollute a lot, but not as much as Africa.

Lmao, where do you think Africa will keep those 4.5 billion people ?

Gg no re

Someone needs to slow down...

نوشتع شده توسط Tiger, 31.08.2019 at 07:31

Lmao, where do you think Africa will keep those 4.5 billion people ?

Gg no re

Do you know how big Africa is and how much fertile land it has? Look at the Gall-Peters projection, not the fake Mercator Projection. Africa has 3 times the land area as Europe. If Africa can feed 4.5 billion people, then it can easily "keep" those 4.5 billion people.

Please use your brain before you make a post xD

نوشتع شده توسط Player 999, 31.08.2019 at 17:26

نوشتع شده توسط Tiger, 31.08.2019 at 07:31

Lmao, where do you think Africa will keep those 4.5 billion people ?

Gg no re

Do you know how big Africa is and how much fertile land it has? Look at the Gall-Peters projection, not the fake Mercator Projection. Africa has 3 times the land area as Europe. If Africa can feed 4.5 billion people, then it can easily "keep" those 4.5 billion people.

Please use your brain before you make a post xD

Bosnia can feed 12 million people, it had 4.5 million people in 1991. Today it has 2.9 million.

Please use your brain and figure out this isn't 1540 that only important thing is if you can feed or if you can not feed your population

نوشتع شده توسط Tiger, 01.09.2019 at 10:18

Bosnia can feed 12 million people, it had 4.5 million people in 1991. Today it has 2.9 million.

Please use your brain and figure out this isn't 1540 that only important thing is if you can feed or if you can not feed your population

How is Bosnia relevant at all to the topic? You asked "where will Africa keep its population hehe" and the answer is Africa, because it has the resources to support such a population.

Please use your brain lmao

"Overpopulation" isn't a problem, Bosnia is irrelevant to any conversation, and it seems you're all incapable of doing research before posting on this bastion of intellectual thought. There are two conflicting perspectives I have; for one, I think we tend to seriously overestimate the human capacity for reason; and secondly, I think we tend to seriously underestimate the human capacity for innovation. Most people are unreasonable, endangered little guppies, but there are some people who are capable of forwarding new innovations. Global warming is not a problem, "overpopulation" is not a problem, and there are no "existential" threats to mankind. The Luddites of the 19th century are comparable to the sexual little cupcakes we see at most college campuses.

If you do any research—if you apply any logic—you'd realize that the human population will cap at around 10 to 13 billion because the rates of death and birth will start to cancel each other out. If new innovations arise that permits a higher capacity, then the cap will rise accordingly, but there will be a point at which any further innovations in agriculture will be negated and there will be a stationary population. In other words, no matter what we do, there will be a cap; linear projections can be seriously misleading, especially as it applies to the supposed issue of overpopulation.

نوشتع شده توسط Tribune Aquila, 01.09.2019 at 20:00

"Overpopulation" isn't a problem, Bosnia is irrelevant to any conversation, and it seems you're all incapable of doing research before posting on this bastion of intellectual thought. There are two conflicting perspectives I have; for one, I think we tend to seriously overestimate the human capacity for reason; and secondly, I think we tend to seriously underestimate the human capacity for innovation. Most people are unreasonable, endangered little guppies, but there are some people who are capable of forwarding new innovations. Global warming is not a problem, "overpopulation" is not a problem, and there are no "existential" threats to mankind. The Luddites of the 19th century are comparable to the sexual little cupcakes we see at most college campuses.

If you do any research—if you apply any logic—you'd realize that the human population will cap at around 10 to 13 billion because the rates of death and birth will start to cancel each other out. If new innovations arise that permits a higher capacity, then the cap will rise accordingly, but there will be a point at which any further innovations in agriculture will be negated and there will be a stationary population. In other words, no matter what we do, there will be a cap; linear projections can be seriously misleading, especially as it applies to the supposed issue of overpopulation.

100% agree. Population has been estimated to max at around 11 billion by 2100 or so. Of course, if Africa manages to really push for female education/rights/contraceptives and gets those three fulfilled earlier than expected, then the African population might not even rise to 4.5 billion at all. So perhaps the human population may cap at 10 billion instead of 11 billion or so.

However, global warming/climate change is still an issue. Even if we were to stop all greenhouse gas emissions today, the earth would still experience an (albeit mild) form of further warming. At the current rate of global emissions today, though, we are fucked if we don't do anything to reduce them. The ice caps are melting and will continue to melt. A lot of coastal areas around the world will be underwater by 2050/2100, which will lead to over a billion people being displaced. There aren't really any visible solutions right now for global warming/climate change except for reducing emissions. Though some legitimate solutions may come in the future, what if there really are no good solutions for fixing the issue? Better to take precautions now instead of suffering later.

نوشتع شده توسط Player 999, 01.09.2019 at 20:55

However, global warming/climate change is still an issue. Even if we were to stop all greenhouse gas emissions today, the earth would still experience an (albeit mild) form of further warming. At the current rate of global emissions today, though, we are fucked if we don't do anything to reduce them. The ice caps are melting and will continue to melt. A lot of coastal areas around the world will be underwater by 2050/2100, which will lead to over a billion people being displaced. There aren't really any visible solutions right now for global warming/climate change except for reducing emissions. Though some legitimate solutions may come in the future, what if there really are no good solutions for fixing the issue? Better to take precautions now instead of suffering later.

Here are the facts:
1. Global warming exists mostly because of human activity.
2. There's nothing we will do to stop it.
3. We will adapt.

There will be a point of inflection in which global temperatures will rise dramatically, unlike anything we've previously seen. This will probably occur in the latter half of the 21st century, probably around 2070. There's nothing we will do to stop it, so forget about it, stop talking about it, end of discussion. I'm not even kidding. Once we reach this point of inflection, we will reach a solution. We can build sea walls like they've done in the Netherlands, or we can pour various compounds into Earth's atmosphere. I'm not remotely concerned. Obviously wildlife will suffer, so the animal activists will probably go ballistic, but fuck them, ok?

نوشتع شده توسط Tribune Aquila, 01.09.2019 at 21:42

Here are the facts:
1. Global warming exists mostly because of human activity.
2. There's nothing we will do to stop it.
3. We will adapt.

There will be a point of inflection in which global temperatures will rise dramatically, unlike anything we've previously seen. This will probably occur in the latter half of the 21st century, probably around 2070. There's nothing we will do to stop it, so forget about it, stop talking about it, end of discussion. I'm not even kidding. Once we reach this point of inflection, we will reach a solution. We can build sea walls like they've done in the Netherlands, or we can pour various compounds into Earth's atmosphere. I'm not remotely concerned. Obviously wildlife will suffer, so the animal activists will probably go ballistic, but fuck them, ok?

Do you understand how much of the world will be underwater by 2050/2100 if we don't take action to stop it? This isn't alarmism. Billions of people across the world will be forced to relocate into scarce land, with many major cities underwater.

Defeatism isn't quite the right stance to take, on any issue. Why not simply try to fix the issue, or at least try to alleviate it?

This is one thing that I never understand about the conservative party, at least in recent years. Do they care so little about humanity's future that they won't even try to stop an issue that will cause the deaths of millions? Even if the conservative party will do nothing, at least step aside and let people educated in climate science do something to fix the issue.

نوشتع شده توسط Player 999, 01.09.2019 at 21:58

Do you understand how much of the world will be underwater by 2050/2100 if we don't take action to stop it? This isn't alarmism. Billions of people across the world will be forced to relocate into scarce land, with many major cities underwater.

Defeatism isn't quite the right stance to take, on any issue. Why not simply try to fix the issue, or at least try to alleviate it?

This is one thing that I never understand about the conservative party, at least in recent years. Do they care so little about humanity's future that they won't even try to stop an issue that will cause the deaths of millions? Even if the conservative party will do nothing, at least step aside and let people educated in climate science do something to fix the issue.

"Do nothing." Ahaha. President Hoover was called the "do nothing" president, do you remember that? And guess what happened after that? The Great Depression was extended and exasperated by our do-all, be-all president, FDR. And guess what happaned after that? Hundreds of government programs, commissions, agencies, you name it, were created to perpetually solve the problems of the 1930s. We aren't living in the 1930s, folks.

Look, I agree with the sentiment. I'd love to hug trees and cows all day but, unfortunately, I have better things to do. Conservatives want to conserve what is good. The environment is good, but what is better? The human capacity for innovation. What do you mean, "step aside and let people educated in climate science do something to fix the issue"? That is precisely what I'd love to do! That is precisely what should be done. We need people to innovate, we need people to innovate where and when markets will sustain it, where demand isn't artificial, where the demand is real. Yes, fix the issue, scientists. I love things when they're innovated. I'm all for this.

Free markets is what I advocate for, I didn't mean to sound like I would impose indecision and inaction. If the people's demand for something is optimal, the product will be produced. If the people demand reduced emissions, the markets will follow suite. No force, no coercion, just let nature take its course.

نوشتع شده توسط Player 999, 01.09.2019 at 16:39

نوشتع شده توسط Tiger, 01.09.2019 at 10:18

Bosnia can feed 12 million people, it had 4.5 million people in 1991. Today it has 2.9 million.

Please use your brain and figure out this isn't 1540 that only important thing is if you can feed or if you can not feed your population

How is Bosnia relevant at all to the topic? You asked "where will Africa keep its population hehe" and the answer is Africa, because it has the resources to support such a population.

Please use your brain lmao

نوشتع شده توسط Player 999, 31.08.2019 at 17:26

Do you know how big Africa is and how much fertile land it has? Look at the Gall-Peters projection, not the fake Mercator Projection. Africa has 3 times the land area as Europe. If Africa can feed 4.5 billion people, then it can easily "keep" those 4.5 billion people.

Please use your brain before you make a post xD

You truly are retarded and arguing with you is pointless

نوشتع شده توسط Full House, 02.09.2019 at 11:26

Overpopulation sucks if we could reduce earths population to 5 billion:

- I could get some free stuff,
- own more land
- life quality (health) would increase

Space and hygiene is not a problem if people are smart and organize themselves: When Chinese migrate West to trade, they rent and live 20-30 in the same house, without a problem, at the same time Westerners complain about space and buy 200-500m^2 homes, spending 200k-500k dollars/euros.

Same goes for health, just because some parts of the world are more sick than the other, doesn't mean 2 billion people should die. It means they should be taught how to clean their living space.

As i said in my first post: if there are only 100 idiots on this planet, and no one else, they would still ruin it. If you have 50 billion smart and organized people, they would maintain the planet properly. Number is not the issue here.
If you don't believe me, think about Big Brother reality, create 2 houses next to each other, then put 2 idiots in one house, and 50 academics and intelligentia in the other, then let's spectate through cameras how they live 3 months and evaluate their behaviour.

Now i give you serious answer kermit the frog.
What needs 1 person?
1 room with normal size : 1 bed, 1 table, 1 chair, 1 toilet and 1 internet (last 1 is maybe not necessary).
I am willing to share garden, TV, kitchen, living room and i would share all other materialistic stuff I own, no problem.
Private bathroom? Fuck it let´s live the roman lifestyle bro.
How can this work ? When ppl have enough respect and manners.
If someone can not do that he is indeed wasting ressources. But anything less than this? We can live but this life would not be adequate.

the above is bedsit world & its a shit place to live because there're always egos who believe themselves to be above the mundane acts of shared responsibility

نوشتع شده توسط Full House, 02.09.2019 at 15:01

Now i give you serious answer kermit the frog.
What needs 1 person?
1 room with normal size : 1 bed, 1 table, 1 chair, 1 toilet and 1 internet (last 1 is maybe not necessary).
I am willing to share garden, TV, kitchen, living room and i would share all other materialistic stuff I own, no problem.
Private bathroom? Fuck it let´s live the roman lifestyle bro.
How can this work ? When ppl have enough respect and manners.
If someone can not do that he is indeed wasting ressources. But anything less than this? We can live but this life would not be adequate.

No need to share. You don't have to literally compare Real World with Big Brother Reality Show (though it is a close example). IRL you don't have to share a toilet, garden or resources. Continue to do business as a capitalist, but don't pollute, don't wage wars, don't blow the prices out of proportion when you get a government contract, don't use courts to steal old and valuable properties, don't damage nature to maximize profits or show everyone else how successful you are.

Use your money to buy 200m^2, but don't build it in the middle of the forest, use suburbs. Use money to buy car or cars, but don't park in public property. Just behave normal and more than 10 billion of us can 'share' this planet.

"normal" is relative to cultural upbringing & aspirations.

نوشتع شده توسط Tiger, 02.09.2019 at 09:02

You truly are retarded and arguing with you is pointless

You can't think of any counterargument so you simply call me "retarded". Please finish high school and then start arguing. I don't think your teachers taught you how to make an argument.

نوشتع شده توسط Tribune Aquila, 01.09.2019 at 22:08

"Do nothing." Ahaha. President Hoover was called the "do nothing" president, do you remember that? And guess what happened after that? The Great Depression was extended and exasperated by our do-all, be-all president, FDR. And guess what happaned after that? Hundreds of government programs, commissions, agencies, you name it, were created to perpetually solve the problems of the 1930s. We aren't living in the 1930s, folks.

Look, I agree with the sentiment. I'd love to hug trees and cows all day but, unfortunately, I have better things to do. Conservatives want to conserve what is good. The environment is good, but what is better? The human capacity for innovation. What do you mean, "step aside and let people educated in climate science do something to fix the issue"? That is precisely what I'd love to do! That is precisely what should be done. We need people to innovate, we need people to innovate where and when markets will sustain it, where demand isn't artificial, where the demand is real. Yes, fix the issue, scientists. I love things when they're innovated. I'm all for this.

Free markets is what I advocate for, I didn't mean to sound like I would impose indecision and inaction. If the people's demand for something is optimal, the product will be produced. If the people demand reduced emissions, the markets will follow suite. No force, no coercion, just let nature take its course.

The 1930s is irrelevant to this discussion. How is climate change and the Great Depression analogous? You're making a false analogy there.

Why can't we have both the environment and innovation? Innovation isn't magic. Do you think people will come up with a magic solution to suddenly remove greenhouse emissions from the atmosphere? Possibly, but if people can't, then it's better to simply start now. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Free markets are good, yes. But there are serious externalities here. Half the population is too stupid to realize that the climate (and by extension, humanity) is getting seriously hurt by the amount of emissions that are occuring. And historically, what evidence is there that people have been able to make all the reforms they want simply via the free market? There will always be freeloaders who will continue to pollute unless the government takes actions and passes regulations against that.

نوشتع شده توسط Player 999, 02.09.2019 at 17:32

نوشتع شده توسط Tribune Aquila, 01.09.2019 at 22:08

"Do nothing." Ahaha. President Hoover was called the "do nothing" president, do you remember that? And guess what happened after that? The Great Depression was extended and exasperated by our do-all, be-all president, FDR. And guess what happaned after that? Hundreds of government programs, commissions, agencies, you name it, were created to perpetually solve the problems of the 1930s. We aren't living in the 1930s, folks.

Look, I agree with the sentiment. I'd love to hug trees and cows all day but, unfortunately, I have better things to do. Conservatives want to conserve what is good. The environment is good, but what is better? The human capacity for innovation. What do you mean, "step aside and let people educated in climate science do something to fix the issue"? That is precisely what I'd love to do! That is precisely what should be done. We need people to innovate, we need people to innovate where and when markets will sustain it, where demand isn't artificial, where the demand is real. Yes, fix the issue, scientists. I love things when they're innovated. I'm all for this.

Free markets is what I advocate for, I didn't mean to sound like I would impose indecision and inaction. If the people's demand for something is optimal, the product will be produced. If the people demand reduced emissions, the markets will follow suite. No force, no coercion, just let nature take its course.

The 1930s is irrelevant to this discussion. How is climate change and the Great Depression analogous? You're making a false analogy there.

Why can't we have both the environment and innovation? Innovation isn't magic. Do you think people will come up with a magic solution to suddenly remove greenhouse emissions from the atmosphere? Possibly, but if people can't, then it's better to simply start now. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Free markets are good, yes. But there are serious externalities here. Half the population is too stupid to realize that the climate (and by extension, humanity) is getting seriously hurt by the amount of emissions that are occuring. And historically, what evidence is there that people have been able to make all the reforms they want simply via the free market? There will always be freeloaders who will continue to pollute unless the government takes actions and passes regulations against that.

It's kind of like you're a second baseman and a ball goes your way, it goes right over your head and you're looking straight up in the sky to see where the ball went. Your entire team is staring at you, but you ignore them and pretend like you really think the ball is still in the sky. I'd just quit if I were you, it's probably your best bet at this point. Retire.

نوشتع شده توسط Tribune Aquila, 02.09.2019 at 17:50

It's kind of like you're a second baseman and a ball goes your way, it goes right over your head and you're looking straight up in the sky to see where the ball went. Your entire team is staring at you, but you ignore them and pretend like you really think the ball is still in the sky. I'd just quit if I were you, it's probably your best bet at this point. Retire.

You've got no argument so you're giving me a false analogy. I could easily compare the current conservative viewpoint on climate change as that of an ostrich with its head in the sand, freely polluting while hoping future generations will fix the issue.

Conservatives can ignore the evidence of scientists all they want, and pretend that the "free market" doesn't have externalities, but that doesn't change the fact that the solution to a problem is to fix it, not ignore it. I agree with your points on plenty of things, but climate change isn't one of them.

نوشتع شده توسط Brsjak, 31.08.2019 at 16:20

Someone needs to slow down...

Bring condoms to africa

نوشتع شده توسط BannedFor1Year, 02.09.2019 at 23:20

نوشتع شده توسط Brsjak, 31.08.2019 at 16:20

Someone needs to slow down...

Bring condoms to africa

or just import soy products

نوشتع شده توسط Player 999, 02.09.2019 at 17:27

نوشتع شده توسط Tiger, 02.09.2019 at 09:02

You truly are retarded and arguing with you is pointless

You can't think of any counterargument so you simply call me "retarded". Please finish high school and then start arguing. I don't think your teachers taught you how to make an argument.

I could, but it's pointless, cause you don't understand what you wanted to say 2 posts above, let alone what other people wanted to say, so no I have no intention to argue with a hamster

نوشتع شده توسط Player 999, 02.09.2019 at 18:11

Conservatives can ignore the evidence of scientists all they want, and pretend that the "free market" doesn't have externalities,

Little off topic here, but what's up with with this 'conservatives = free market & less taxes' argument? I am not attacking, just asking, because i hear it alot and not understand.

I know you talk in the context of climate change, but i hear it alot in debate about economics. Isn't it supposed that conservatives are pro-higher taxes and more regulations, versus liberals who support less taxes and less regulations (in the context of free market).

نوشتع شده توسط Tiger, 03.09.2019 at 12:20

I could, but it's pointless, cause you don't understand what you wanted to say 2 posts above, let alone what other people wanted to say, so no I have no intention to argue with a hamster

"I have no argument so I'll call you a hamster" what a genius you are

نوشتع شده توسط Skanderbeg, 03.09.2019 at 14:49

Little off topic here, but what's up with with this 'conservatives = free market & less taxes' argument? I am not attacking, just asking, because i hear it alot and not understand.

I know you talk in the context of climate change, but i hear it alot in debate about economics. Isn't it supposed that conservatives are pro-higher taxes and more regulations, versus liberals who support less taxes and less regulations (in the context of free market).

In the US, conservatives are usually pro-free market (which is good of course) and in favor of low taxes, but some conservative politicians are ignoring the impact of climate change, which will be harmful to both the environment and to human beings.

In other countries, it might be different; I guess in Russia the old system was communism, so it would make sense conservatives in Russia may be more in favor of Communism than liberals.

نوشتع شده توسط Op Zitadelle Unl, 07.09.2019 at 14:52

There's a good chance my grandparents owned your grandparents as slaves. Show some respect to your would-be owners, you genetically inferior creature.

You don't even know my race or ethnicity though xD. I feel sorry for your parents that they raised such a disgusting human being. You're not even good at trolling.

نوشتع شده توسط Op Zitadelle Unl, 07.09.2019 at 13:11

People don't get one simple concept: if you import everyone from rwanda, you will not get a country with the power and economy of Germany. You will just get another shitty economy and environment like rwanda(can be replaced with any other shitty african tribe )

It took 10 years for (West)Germany after WW2 to create the largest european economy [wirtschaftswunder], and they used 'gasterbeiters' - guest workers, and i repeat 'guest'. Most guest workers where white europeans, working in Germany, and then going back home. Today Germany is giving citizenship left and right free of charge, not gonna even mention welfare benefits.

"Actual rapists are bad obviously. But accusing every refugee of being a rapist, when the vast majority are innocent of that, is a racist tactic"

Not so much "racist" as ignorant prejudise !

نوشتع شده توسط FierceKnight, 04.10.2019 at 18:47

No one is accusing them all. For every 99 rapefugees, there may be one who does not rape
He's still not entitled to any benefits.
And if he doesnt, he doesnt follow his quran properly, which openly states you should rape nonbelievers
I think we can see now who's the ignorant one, dumbfuck.

99% are rapists? Not even worth arguing with an obvious troll such as you. And I bet you'll now instantly start launching into a personal attack because you can't handle being wrong