/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11166677
Overpopulation is one of those problems that fixes itself and leaves the genepool healthier as a result

>>11166692
based

>>11166692
The idea is to avoid suffering on a mass scale. Being weak doesn't mean you deserve to suffer, despite what that roastie bitch "nature" thinks. She is literally the biggest slut of all time, and you would base your ethics on her processes. Cuck.

>>11166737
>ethics
cuck

>>11166677
>onions
found the newfag

>>11166677
>overpopulation
No such thing for humans. You are swallowing propaganda.

>>11166677
>jews
>onions
Everybody knows only chinks, japs, gooks, and norks like onions. Go back to /pol/ with your misinformed racism.

>>11166677
>overpopulation

When will this meme die? It is not funny, it never will be.

>>11166677
Yes, there is.

Overpopulation is only problem for non-whites.

>>11166677
Overpopulation is not a problem and doesn’t exist. Birthrates are declining in 100% of countries.

>overpopulation doesn't exist
Look at modern cities retards. No human should have to live like that.

>>11166692
At the expense of the planet though

>>11167654
The world is already overpopulated, and has been for quite some time

>>11167725
>modern cities

Even literal third world cities have way better standard of living than any city before the 20th century.

>>11167735
If so then why are standard of living improving everywhere?

>>11167733
Fuck the planet lol

>>11167735
>The world is already overpopulated

No it isn’t lol.

>>11167748
Yes, it is.

>>11167725
Modern cities are AWESOME

>>11167739
An unsustainable standard of living.

>>11167753
Prove it.

>>11167758
Climate change
Ecological collapse

>>11167760
>Climate change

Would happen regardless of our population as long as we use fossil fuels, so non-point.

> Ecological collapse

The replacement of pointless nature with human-engineered ecosystems like crop fields and urban sprawl is a good thing. Hopefully one day in the far future, the last hectare of wild forest will be destroyed.

>>11167769
>Would happen regardless of our population as long as we use fossil fuels, so non-point.
Imagine being this stupid

>>11166677
Fuck off, go back to /pol/

>>11167774
>Imagine being this stupid

Imagine being this stupid. CO2 levels started rising in the 1800’s.

>>11167776
And?

>>11167757
Yes but it is more a problem of how we use our ressources than the number of people that use it.

You really cannot blame africa for this one, or any third world country.

>>11167779
Not really, how we use resources wouldn't be a problem if there were much less people.

>>11167777
So climate change would have happened even if our population was two billion or less. If we’re burning fossil fuels, CO2 will be released, so earth would warm.

>>11167783
But not much CO2, not enough to put us in our current predicament.

>>11167784
Our current predicament would just be kicked down the road a century or three.

>>11166754
Karma will get you sooner or later.

>>11167786
Were not talking about populations in 300 years though are we? Were talking about overpopulation now, which it is, because we are in this predicament. You admit this.

>>11166677
nuke india, this will also solve people getting spam phone calls by "greg" from windows tech support and "david" from duct cleaning services

>>11167782
>how we use resources wouldn't be a problem if there were much less people.

How we use our ressources would still be a problem even if there were less people and our usage was shittier, wich I bet it would.
Today a minority of people are responsible for most of humanity's greenhouse emissions.

s o y actually raises T levels slightly because phytoestrogens block normal estrogens.

>>11167741
when did your mom change her name to the planet?

>>11167791
that's so false it's not even funny. if you want to look at long term effects of onions you just need to the population of eastern Asia, what else would explain Asians being the most feminine race, by far.

>>11167796
not onions, soi, onions actually do raise testosterone.. which is I guess why theres the 4chan meme

>>11167788
>Were not talking about populations in 300 years though are we?

We’re talking about climate change. You never specified when. Since climate change would occur regardless of the human population size, it’s a non-comparison.

>Were talking about overpopulation now, which it is, because we are in this predicament. You admit this.

And? What’s your point? Are you hoping that the extra two hundred years would be enough time for scientists to pull fusion reactors out of their assholes?

>>11167796
>if you want to look at long term effects of onions you just need to the population of eastern Asia, what else would explain Asians being the most feminine race, by far.

/pol/ “science” at its finest.

>>11167790
Lol how would usage be the same If less people exist? You dumb

>>11167799
You're pretty dumb, were obviously talking about overpopulation.

>>11167805
Overpopulation doesn’t exist, because we haven’t surpassed the carrying capacity of Earth, so why talk about it when it’s not real?

>>11167803
we know it mimics estrogen, Asians are the most feminine race I don't think anyone could debate that? If it's phytoestrogens were going to increase testosterone, why are Asians so fucking feminine?

>>11167809
>we know it mimics estrogen

There are spiders that mimic ants but that doesn’t mean they’re the same thing or function in the same way in any way at all.

> Asians are the most feminine race

Prove it
Find a study documenting the degree of “””femininity”””, however you measure that, possessed by various samples of asian people in and outside of Asia, ideally including adopted ones in America or something.

>>11167811
>doesn't think Asians are the most feminine race
are you autistic? or do you have some sort of face blindness or just incapable of distinguishing female traits from masculine ones? does your girlfriend have a penis?

>>11167796

thats called genetics, little to nothing to do with their diet. its already been proven that men on plant based diets (non junk food vegan) have 13% higher free testosterone levels.

>>11167803

/pol/ has been swarmed with zero carber and ketotard faggots in the last few years. its hilarious because these retards are lowering their T levels and giving themselves atherosclerosis and will end up with type 2 diabetes and erectile dysfunction by their 40s, earlier if they are extreme enough to eliminate all carbs from their diet and go all out on animal products that like retard shawn baker.

>>11167809

again you're an ignorant /pol/tard lol. phytoestrogens do not behave the same way as normal estorgens. in reality its the estrogens you get from meat that feminize you and cows milk literally lowers T levels in men.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19496976

RESULTS:
After the intake of cow milk, serum estrone (E1) and progesterone concentrations significantly increased, and serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone significantly decreased in men. Urine concentrations of E1, estradiol, estriol and pregnanediol significantly increased in all adults and children. In four out of five women, ovulation occurred during the milk intake, and the timing of ovulation was similar among the three menstrual cycles.

CONCLUSIONS:
The present data on men and children indicate that estrogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed, followed by a decrease in testosterone secretion. Sexual maturation of prepubertal children could be affected by the ordinary intake of cow milk.

>>11167813
>are you autistic? or do you have some sort of face blindness or just incapable of distinguishing female traits from masculine ones?

That’s a lot of refusing to cite studies asians are the “most feminine race”.
Curious.

>>11167808
The point is we are going to run out of resources
Do you only count it as overpopulation when the last grain of rice has been digested or the last tree has been cut down?
Also specify what you mean by 'carrying capacity' of Earth, the amount of space here?

>>11167817

yes its true that asians have lower testosterone than other ethnic groups but it has nothing to do with their diets and the degree to which their T levels are lower would have no noticeable effect. androgen sensitivity is usually more important than serum and free testosterone levels anyway.

but again...phytoestrogens dont act the same way as normal estrogens do, they usually raise T levels by around 3% because they block normal estrogens. the estrogen you get from beef is what you should be worried about but of course /pol/tards are all contrarians and now that more and more evidence (thats existed for over 50 years) is surfacing that humans thrive on plant based diets, they have to go and say the opposite because they think its a conspiracy to make men "weaker" when in reality men on plant based diets have higher T levels and far, far less rates of erectile dysfunction (because their arteries stay healthy).

>>11167817
It's not a outlandish statement, anyone with two working eyes, an understanding of what typical males are supposed to look like and a lack of some sort of mental disorder would have no qualms with my statement. Also blacks and whites are the most masculine races

>>11167823

kek, ketotards and zero-carb sub humans are making themselves into feminine little bitches.

https://academic.oup.com/annonc/article/20/9/1610/218592

no wonder shawn baker (pure carnivore dieter) had the T levels of a 90 year old woman and full blown type 2 diabetes.

>>11167818
>The point is we are going to run out of resources

Which ones, and how do you know?

> Do you only count it as overpopulation when the last grain of rice has been digested or the last tree has been cut down?

Overpopulation occurs when the population of an organism in an ecosystem exceeds the total population of that organism the ecosystem can support.
We can just grow more rice. We can just grow more trees.

> Also specify what you mean by 'carrying capacity' of Earth, the amount of space here?

Are you seriously talking about overpopulation without knowing what it actually means?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity

>>11167824

okay buddy keep ignoring all the evidence that animal products lower T levels in men

>>11167825
>>11167823
>>11167816

how many times does it have to be repeated to you /pol/tards? phytoestrogens do not have the same effect as regular estrogens (like the ones that accumulate in your body from dairy and meat consumption.

WHY IS THIS ON /SCI/

>>11167827
>>11167825
>>11167824
>>11167823
>>11167816
>>11167809
>>11167803
>>11167791
>>11167796

/pol/, ketoers, zero-carbers and carnitards completely and utterly BTFO

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2374537/pdf/83-6691152a.pdf

>>11167816
That's not that surprising considering the average Western diet is shit, notably in the US and the amounts of supplements vegetarians take. Also I'd say it's healthier to cut out vegetables entirely and be carbon, my great aunt lived to be 92 not eating vegetables her entire life and my great grandmother 97. Also at the retirement home that I volunteer at there's two men in their 90s that are probably the healthiest there and they refuse to eat any veggies
Honestly I don't care to argue with you vegetarian cucks though. If you want to harm your brain and self eating your diet I'm not going to stop you, but you and anyone else trying to convince others of your self harm religion should be slaughtered in droves and maybe even used for food.

>>11167826
You are the one who doesn't know what overpopulation means. If species are going extinct because of use of resources by humans, then we are obviously overpopulated.

>>11167833
>carbon
carno, phone autocorrected.

>>11167834
>You are the one who doesn't know what overpopulation means

Wrong.
Overpopulation is defined as occuring when an organism’s population exceeds the capacity of its ecosystem to support said population.
This is what everyone defines it as in biology. I’m sorry that definition conflicts with your ideologically driven bias.

> If species are going extinct because of use of resources by humans, then we are obviously overpopulated.

Nope. A population is not defined as overpopulated just because it’s growth causes the extinction of other species in any scientific field by any scientist.

>>11167833
>Oh yeah well I have unverifiable personal anecdotes that might as well have been made up because I’m an anon on 4Chan

Science board isn’t for you.

>>11167836
Nobody cares about your definition, retard, were simply describing the situation that humans are now in. Fucking autist lmao

>>11167836
Actually when species make other species extinct they are said to be overpopulated. Because those other species comprise their ecosystem. You are wrong

>>11167838
>Nobody cares about your definition, retard

It’s the only definition overpopulation has scientifically. You’re getting upset because this definition conflicts with your preconceived ideological bias.

> were simply describing the situation that humans are now in

But we’re not in that situation, because we’re not overpopulated, because we haven’t exceeded the carrying capacity of earth.
:)

>>11167839
> Actually when species make other species extinct they are said to be overpopulated

Nope. They are only overpopulated when they exceed their ecosystem’s carrying capacity.

> Because those other species comprise their ecosystem.

Doesn’t matter as long as the ecosystem continues to have sufficient carrying capacity to sustain the population.

You are wrong.

>>11166677
>implying people won't evolve genetic resistance to onions

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

>>11167840
Nobody is talking about the scientific definition of overpopulation, dumb dumb. That's completely irrelevant to this discussion. Maybe you should define the carrying capacity of the earth.

>>11167837
I've posted dozens of studies in the past refuting the claims of the soi-enfused manlets claiming meat causes inflammation and such, I agree that it is entirely anecdotal, any study of diet is going to be anecdotal though since we don't close people into laboratories and monitor everything they intake. 92 and 97 aren't extraordinary for my family or anything either, but neither of them had any neurological problems which is the important point, most women in my family end up living to at least their late 80s but often have some sort of health condition by the time they're getting to their 90s, these two didn't, life long aversion to vegetables isn't going to harm you the way an aversion to meat is so long as you're true to it because if you eat any vegetables your body will get less efficient at intaking the vitamins from meat, a daily vitamin wouldn't hurt either and is a far cry from the amount of pills that f̶a̶g̶g̶o̶t̶s̶ vegans take. I'd rather not get Alzheimer's at a young age, let alone at all, but I understand some people don't care about their brains, you do you anon.

>>11167841
Define the carrying capacity

>>11167843
>Nobody is talking about the scientific definition of overpopulation, dumb dumb. That's completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Sorry, but this is the science board.
If you don’t like scientific terminology, you can play in the kiddie pool in /ptg/.

> Maybe you should define the carrying capacity of the earth.

The carrying capacity of a biological species in an environment is the maximum population size the environment can sustain indefinitely.

Fun note. If we define overpopulation as “makes other species go extinct by exploiting resources”, humans became overpopulated in the Stone Age, which means overpopulation has no practical significance whatsoever.

Since you agree that overpopulation doesn’t matter as I demonstrated above, will you concede defeat?

>>11167844
>No studies
>More anecdotes

Yawn.
You sure you wouldn’t prefer to shitpost on /b/?

>>11167848
>we define overpopulation as “makes other species go extinct by exploiting resources”, humans became overpopulated in the Stone Age, which means overpopulation has no practical significance whatsoever.

Humans did become overpopulated in the stone Age, but we don't live in the stone Age do we?

>>11167853
>Humans did become overpopulated in the stone Age, but we don't live in the stone Age do we?

Doesn’t matter, since overpopulation is irrelevant if we define it only as “makes other species go extinct through resource exploitation”. This often happens in the modern day because we’re clearing land so we can settle our own domesticated species like cows, chickens, sheep, wheat, barley, beans, potatoes, etc, so the carrying capacity of Earth actually goes UP when we wipe out some irrelevant creature like a strain of blue snails that lived in some small forest.

>>11167858
You haven't explained why that definition would make it irrelevant.
>Carrying capacity goes up
You still haven't defined earth's carrying capacity

>>11167858
Nobody cares about carrying capacity, they care about quality of life.

>>11167871
>You haven't explained why that definition would make it irrelevant.

Simply making a species go extinct doesn’t mean we are affected negatively in any way.

> You still haven't defined earth's carrying capacity

Estimates vary widely, but 10 billion is the median. It’s not a set number because various factors like technology affect what it is. It’s extremely low for hunter-gatherers but the highest it’s ever been for modern civilization thanks to the green revolution.

>>11167873
Those go hand in hand, so you’re gonna have to pay attention to carrying capacity whether you like it or not.

>>11167833
>hat's not that surprising considering the average Western diet is shit,

Because its heavy on dairy and meat, both of which are shit for human health.

>and the amounts of supplements vegetarians take.

really? what supplements do we take? the only supplement a vegan would need to take is B12 but its irrelevant because 40% of meat eaters are already deficient in B12. B12 is made by bacteria, not animals.

>Also I'd say it's healthier to cut out vegetables entirely and be carbon,

lolwut

the rest of your post isn't even worth responding to, you're a retard...stay on /pol/.

>>11167849
>didn't read what I said
How about posting a diet study that isn't a collection of anecdotal reports.
Also try and find a vegan diet study who's conclusions aren't found in a carno diet study, minus all the studies that have shown the neurodegenerative effects of a vegan diet, there won't be overlap there.

>>11167880
We are affected negatively of course, because people simply enjoy the diversity of life. They LIKE the irrelevant blue snail, AND the forest it's in.
>Estimates vary widely
Of course they do, because nobody agrees what it is. In other words, there is no definition. It's an open topic. And I am now arguing that we have gone past it.

>>11167882
Yeah, of course, as you approach and go past the carrying capacity quality of life decreases, as we are now seeing.

>>11167889
> We are affected negatively of course, because people simply enjoy the diversity of life

I don’t give a shit about it, and most people don’t either. They might say “oh that’s so sad” on a Facebook petition and that’s about it.

> They LIKE the irrelevant blue snail, AND the forest it's in.

We have zoos so people can gawk at animals, and many zoos have reptile/bug houses which contain fascinating little creatures like tarantulas, snakes, and even snails. I have snails in my aquarium because they’re fun to gawk at, and they lay a bunch of eggs, too.

>And I am now arguing that we have gone past it.

Okay, that’s nice. Prove we have gone past it.

>>11167891
>as you approach and go past the carrying capacity quality of life decreases, as we are now seeing.

Lie. HDI is climbing almost everywhere except for some countries wracked by internal conflicts.

>>11167886

>carno diet study

there are none lol. all we know is that for the last 50 years, over and over again its been proven that a whole foods plant based diet is the only diet that actually reverses heart disease and type 2 diabetes.

also humans are absolutely not physiologically omnivorous.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/

>>11167893
You think people don't care about it, but maybe you'll question yourself when you get lined up against a wall and shot

>>11167885
>because its heavy on dairy and meat, both of which are shit for human health.
kek, no it's because it's high in processed shit and sugar
>the only supplement a vegan would need to take is B12 but its irrelevant because 40% of meat eaters are already deficient in B12. B12 is made by bacteria, not animals.
>meat eaters
The only ones that wouldn't get enough B12 are not eating enough meat, or are eating "meat", there's more omega 3, iron to name a couple big ones, but then there's fat and all the amino acids that are necessary for brain health
>>11167885
>Also I'd say it's healthier to cut out vegetables entirely and be carno
Every vegan I've met looks like a bug eyed malnourished mess, where every carnivore I've met was in their 90s and doing better than others in their 60s
I'm by no means advocating a carnivore diet, but if it were one or the other I'd pick carno since my brain is the most valuable thing I own.

>>11167896
>also humans are absolutely not physiologically omnivorous.
so, we're carnivores then?

Also of course there's fucking studies, you think no one has studied the inuit?

>>11167895
>HDI=quality of life
Lol

>>11167893
t. Chink

>>11167897
>I have no argument but I do have empty eco-terrorist threats

Thousands of species go extinct every year and there’s nothing you can do about it. Lol

>>11167904
It's not a threat, it's your future

>>11167901

show me the studies then lol. and no, we are herbivores (or frugivores depending how technical you wanna be). read through the study i linked, humans have nothing in common with carnivores and omnivores. you've got to be a complete retard to think we are natural meat eaters.

>>11167898

blah blah more anecdotal evidence or made up BS. post an actual study you /pol/cuck. i noticed you completely ignored all the links/studies i posted earlier.

>>11167901

ah yes the inuit who had atherosclerosis by age 30 LMAO

>>11167893
>Climate change
>Ecological collapse

>>11167906
>Everyone I don't like is a nazi
I've posted literally 100s in the past that you idiots conveniently ignore. Since they will once again be lost on you I'd rather point out you're a retard if you think we didn't evolve eating meat

>>11167905
>I have no argument but I do have empty eco-terrorist threats

Thousands of species go extinct every year and there’s nothing you can do about it. Lol

>>11167914
It's not a threat, it's your future

>>11167910
Actually they have below averag incidence of that, the only ones that have succumb to that or anything similar are the ones that adopted a more Western diet, this is all easy to find out if you care to use your deteriorating brain

>>11167916
By Western in that instance I mean integrating greens into their diets

>>11167912
>Climate change

Problem is solveable by moving away from fossil fuels, which would actually raise carrying capacity.

>Ecological collapse

Doesn’t even matter. Fuck blue snails.

>>11167918
It does matter, because without the environment you have no food.

>>11167915
>It’s not an empty threat if I say it isn’t

Cope harder, tree hugger. Even if humans vanished today, it would take Mother Nature millions of years to recover from the ravaging the massive, throbbing cock of humanity gave her gaping cunt. Mmm mmm mmm resource exploitation never felt so good.

>>11167921
It's not a threat, it's your future.

>>11167919
>because without the environment you have no food.

Uh..........no.
That’d only be true if we were hunter gatherers. We are not. We have agriculture. We grow our own shit independent of the natural environment, crowding it out and ideally obliterating it.

>>11167922
No amount of coping will undestroy nature, I’m sorry to say. If you like LARPing so much, go live in the woods.

>>11167924
The natural environment includes soil, water, temperature, disease, beneficial organisms, and a reservoir for untapped opportunity. Your edgy 15 year old attitude isn't going to save you from drought

>>11167926
It's not a threat, it's your future

>>11167929
Ecological collapse=/=environmental collapse

>>11167933
Cope harder. Lol

>>11167922
You're next in line for humanity's giant throbbing member as anon so eloquently put it

>>11167940
Of course it does, retardo

>>11167896
>humans are absolutely not physiologically omnivorous.
Of course we are omnivorous.

"An omnivore is an animal that has the ability to eat and survive on both plant and animal matter. Obtaining energy and nutrients from plant and animal matter, omnivores digest carbohydrates, protein, fat, and fiber, and metabolize the nutrients and energy of the sources absorbed"

Why is this even a thing? Dosen't matter if we looked like horses, if we can digest plant and animal matter, you are per definition an omnivore. Just like the pig might look like a herbivore, it is in fact an omnivore.

Early humans were scavengers. And used their intellect to crack open bones and eat the marrow inside. And fruits and nuts also. But the bone marrow was key, as they were the only one capable of obtaining that energy source (It contains more calories than chocolate). And some think it's a major reason for why humans evolved to become hyper intelligent,

>>11167944
It's not a threat, it's your future

>>11167787
Karma makes no sense whatsoever. There are tons of people who end up doing bad things but still don’t get punished for it, whilst the ones that do were a coincidence

>>11167945
No it doesn’t, silly. Ecological collapse doesn’t mean that resources relevant to use like water are impacted. In fact, it often hampers our access to various resources when we purposefully avoid destroying environments.

>>11167953
Go shoot another sparrow, Mao

>>11167953
>Water quality isn't affected by sediment runoff

>>11167880
"A 2001 UN report said that two-thirds of the estimates fall in the range of 4 billion to 16 billion with unspecified standard errors, with a median of about 10 billion."

You say yourself that it's only a median but still act like this IS the limit, no questions asked.
Clearly shows this is unlikely and it is very likely we may have gone past it.
I think we are or have reached the limit by the amount of damage we regularly do to the environment just by existing, if there's enough of us to be destroying the home we live on and that there a loads of us dying from hunger (you can't just 'build more farms') and disease it's a very valid opinion to say we have gone past the limit.
Again, you seem to be running with a mindset that till the earth literally implodes on itself from the amount of humans then it isn't overpopulation.

Be a bit more humble with your opinions as none of us know for definite if it is or has not.
This is science and we need to look into it more, not just agree with the first suggestion we hear and run with it.

>>11167970
Sediment runoff can be controlled by humans, and we filter water anyway.

>>11167950
Being left gaping by humanity's cock? Thanks anon that's hot, made me climax

>>11167990
>Clearly shows this is unlikely and it is very likely we may have gone past it.

By this standard, it’s very likely it’s higher than ten billion.

> there a loads of us dying from hunger

We produce enough food to feed over ten billion people already. They just can’t afford to buy it, and moving food around is logistically problematic.

> (you can't just 'build more farms'

You literally can.

>>11167948
Wouldn't bother, these guys are literally retarded and ignore anything poinient every time. Now I just masturbate while calling them retards while they squirm and whine and make up bullshit and just trickle out points that destroy their worldview which they never respond to, really makes my day.

>>11167995
>Ad hominem
>No studies
>Not even anecdotes

Nasty

>>11167994
You literally can't, having large efficient farmland is much more complicated than chucking a couple of seeds on a patch of dirt and expecting them to grow.