/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12391466

Overpopulation is a meme in the first place

>>12391481
Are you retarded or just pretending to be?

>>12391481
>it's perfectly normal to have 1000000 people per square meter

>>12391491
>earth landmass is 7600 square meters
We don't have an overpopulation problem we have a distribution of resources problem.

>>12391495
>Distribution
No idiot. You don't realize that for every human, they need a fuck ton of space to feed them and get the resources they use on a daily basis.
You distribute resources in different ways all you want, there is a very obvious limit.

>>12391495
>distribution of resources
Is there a finite amount of resources on the planet?

>>12391495
So unless you have a good way to improve distribution we do have an over population problem.

>>12391496
The US has a 40% obesity rate and wastes 30-40% of their food you think they need to do all that? Clearly there's a limit but it's nowhere near 7.6 billion.

>>12391509
Actually it is since we are already destroying resources faster than they can replenish. Having some people eat less wont solve that.

>>12391509
What about 11 billion ?

if you want to make sacrifice like that, then i think you should offer yourself as the first to go

>>12391488
it's an abstract concept
any metric you use is going to have a foundation of belief or guessing

>>12391466
Yes.

Biofag here. Overpopulation is an issue but it's not one you can realistically solve.
Telling people to wear condoms only means the people that wear condoms don't reproduce while the ones that don't multiply. It's why college educated people aren't leaving descendants while hicks, muslims, Mexicans, ect are since they don't give a shit.
The UN's population projections are always fucking wrong because they don't take this into account. We literally either need to figure out new ways to sustainably harvest more and more resources or we need to start expanding off of earth ASAP.
I seriously think we are living in the golden age. Once humans start to reach K, living will become just about survival as you have to compete with 20 billion other people.

The problem is not over population it’s over consumption

>>12391531
From over population

>>12391531
both are the problems but when you have not many people they can consume a lot
and restricting consumption is worse than restricting reproduction imo

>>12391513
Maybe...and think about this slowly...use less resources...in developed nations that waste near the majority of everything they produce...and provide infrastructure aid to countries with large unused and malnourished populations...so they don't starve or have to emigrate from a nation destabilized by poverty and resource wars?

Most of the resources in developed countries were/are taken by the impoverished countries articles like these point to and cry "overpopulation!" anyways. If you want people to be on the chopping block, US/Russia/UK/China would have to be the first to go, but clearly nobody is advocating for that now are they?

>>12391526
>hicks, muslims, Mexicans, ect are
lol no, birthrates are collapsing literally everywhere

>>12391526
Just engineer an infertility virus and infect the world, nothing can go wrong.

>>12391519
This. If overpopulation is such a problem countries that use the most resources per capita ought to sterilize their population first

>>12391549
I see no problem here nobody on this board would ever know they've been infected

daily reminder that nature is too powerful to control and will self-regulate the population.
also COVID has a good chance to kill almost all people over 65 years old within next 10 years directly or, which will be the main cause, indirectly.
We already know people recovering from COVID can have plenty of long-lasting problems. Moreover, COVID is going to be seasonal and vaccine won't protect you for more than one year. Unless you are almost completely immune, COVID will suck the juices out of you. And that's what may happen in case of older people.

no

>>12391526
just kill nigs lmao

>>12391466
Earth is projected to reach peak population in the latter half of this century.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/07/200715150444.htm
As an exercise just google countries/continents fertility rate: (bf => babies per female)
>China: 1.68 bf
>USA: 1.77 bf
>Japan: 1.43 bf
>Russia: 1.76 bf
>India: 2.24 bf and rapidly declining
>Germany: 1.57 bf - They did the math and decided to mass-import people to be able to sustain the consumption of their older generations
>Europe as a whole: 1.59 bf
>South America: ~2 bf and will likely peek in the year 2058
>Australia: 1.76 bf
The biggest culprits (that I could be bothered finding):
>Middle East and North Africa: ~3-5 bf
>Sub-Saharan Africa: ~5 bf
>^Both rapidly declining

We've managed somehow to educate the people of Earth on a massive scale and it's paying off. The population decline will come with it's own set of problems of course - but there are plenty of reasons to be optimistic.

Offer UBI to third worlders to volunteer for sterilization.

$10,000 uSD a year till your 60. To remove your self from the gene pool for good.

>>12391576
This precise understanding of overpopulation as an issue is racist and that is precisely the reason it wouldn't even solve the imaginary issue. Why sterilize a population consuming an order of magnitude less resources? Why not sterilize white western society that, per capita, contributes to land usage and global warming by several order of magnitude?

>>12391537

Get this in your thick skull.

Overpopulation... means exactly... a mismatch...between resources....and people. That's all there is to it. Don't throw in 'coulda/shoulda/wouldas' to deflect from reality. Even if your supposed resource problem was corrected then we would still be on the path to overpopulation as there are limited/finite resources on the planet anyway. We should not be trying to reach max capacity in anyway at all which is plain retarded and does not improve the lot for the majority.

>>12391589

>why not sterilise the part of society which is most productive, most ingenuitive, is leading and making all the necessary advances for technology, science, arts etc.

Think about what you just advocated.

>>12391466
It's about psychology. Some people can't feel safe in empty spaces and others can't feel safe with people around.
Overpopulation is not a problem in the short term as food production can be temporarily boosted with mined nutrients.
Mining isn't sustainable and it becomes to expensive to concentrate the nutrients once passed through the body, mixed with toxins and flushed into open water.

We are setting us up for greater and greater mass extinction every time we boost population density.

>>12391589
>Why not sterilize white western society
Because it's already effectively sterilized, we're below replacement level worldwide.

>>12391573
>rapidly declining
Not rapidly enough for Africa not to reach 4 billion people.

>>12391573
>They did the math and decided
Also I think you mean (((They))). Germans were not asked about replacing themselves.

>>12391481
This
Reminder that
>The entire human population could fit into texas with a density of NY
>We already produce enough food to feed 2x the global population
>A small fraction (13-17%) of currently used agriculture land could support the entire global population if it was converted to more modern infrastructure
>Population growth rate in every western country (when you factor out immigration) is negative
>The single most important contributor to overpopulation is ironically enough female education
>India/Africa are slowly becoming modernized = More women being educated = Less kids
Theoretically the limit on human population is easily in the hundreds of billions with more advanced/efficient technology. Infact under population is already an issue that's why Europeans countries are in competition for """""""refugees"""" and why there are more adult diapers sold than child diapers in japan.

>>12391589
The developed world is already below replacement.

Cutting developing world birthrate. means less labor available. So they are worth more and it encourages automation. This along with the UBI cash injections. Gets development accelerated. In a couple decades it will no longer be necessary to offer the ubi. They stay in their countries and consume more western goods and services.

I stead of waiting a century and losing the West to immigration. It's better for the environment.

>>12391612
gonna need a source on the agriculture claims

>>12391481
>>12391612
This is bloated CONSUUUUUUUMER growth monger cultist cope.

>>12391612
The human population should be much lower than current. So modern cleaner technology and lower consumption allows environmental recovery.

>>12391632
I bet that instead of a brain your skull just houses 1 big ass neuron huh

>>12391610
>Germans were not asked about replacing themselves
Nobody asked for multiculturalism. It's literally scientifically shown to be bad for societies.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-diversity-create-distrust/
The most cited research on the subject had such damning results that the author was already backpedaling in his papers' conclusion about how these challenges would later be overcome when the actual benefits of multiculturalism would come into fruition.

>>12391633
You can convert to cleaner tech without reducing the population of people with no resource footprint in the first place. I don't see how X implies Y here.

>>12391634
Go consuuuuume another BMW to not only deplete non-renewable resources but also to keep the price of commodities high you fat retarded fuck.

>>12391639
Their standard of living isn't going to be a mud hut and 2 goats forever. They're going to hit a growing higher population and high standars of living era. Like the west did from 1950 to 1980.

>>12391573
>Don't worry about anything, we got everything undercontrol, ignore science and basic logic and lemme just take a few more bites. nothing to see here folks. not least of which the mass extinctions and strip mines.
>NOM NOM NOM NOM NOM

>>12391645
So if highly inefficient and unsustainable developed societies are the problem then you would agree that we fix that where it exists first?

>>12391612
>If agriculture was converted to more modern infrastructure
Sure but is that a future worth having?

>>12391648
You will never be a real woman.

>>12391645
>They're going to hit a growing higher population and high standars of living era

Oh that's perfect. Can't you just smell that "economic growth" (a.k.a. the exponentially increasing consumption of energy and resources)

>>12391651
It would actually probably mean a lot less meat since animal agriculture disproportionately uses up land and water (any way you slice it: by volume, calories, mouths fed, etc). You would probably only be able to eat meat for a religiously event and I'd be for it.

>>12391657
No to this thread when the west does it it's economic group but when the third world does it it's energy and resource consumption

>>12391629
source: some study I read a few months ago
cannot be assed too look it up but it involved turning the land into vertical indoor farms and updating the farming technology to a modern standard

>>12391633
Why should the population be lower if we can support it? The resources a human actually needs compared to the available resources of our solar system let alone galaxy are, for all intensive purposes, infinite. The issue is our systems are grossly inefficient and like you're saying cause environmental damage because of that inefficiency.

>>12391664
economic growth is economic growth no matter where it happens. economic growth = increasing consumption of energy and resources by humans. this is accomplished almost entirely through population growth.

>>12391651
>>12391659
Eating less meat is ideal for longevity health, ideally only 1-2 of your meals per week should contain a large amount of protein.
Also Lab growing meat is already reaching competitive pricing. From 280k per burger patty to about $10.
>Lab grown tuna without mercury soon

>>12391659
You need saturated fat and cholesterol in your diet. They're especially needed to allow your body to absorb fat-soluble vitamins, and to produce many of the hormones in the body. Excluding meat from your diet is also bad for your mental health.

>>12391690
>longevity
Yes I'm thinking of taking up Sinclair's diet

>>12391659
You need saturated fat and cholesterol in your diet. They're especially needed to allow your body to absorb fat-soluble vitamins, and to produce many of the hormones in the body. Excluding meat from your diet is also bad for your mental health.

https://youtu.be/sxZsQKj_DHM

>>12391495
People always naturally discover new resources to use for new technologies and more efficient ways of doing things.

https://youtu.be/1xO723gH7Go

>>12391697
The idea that everyone needs almost no meat is ridiculous. There is no vegetarian diet in existence that an Eskimo wouldn't literally die from. Those people have been living solely on meat for thousands of years. Meat is in their DNA.

Maybe we should be talking about how reducing meat consumption is racist.

>>12391495
>>12391496
>>12391504
>>12391507
People always naturally discover new resources to use for new technologies and more efficient ways of doing things.

https://youtu.be/1xO723gH7Go

>>12391704
You literally *believe* in infinite resources because
>b-b-but muh Good Book of Ecomomics says muh necessity drives innovation
I didn't hit your youtube vid because you're spouting fuckwit market worshipper cultist devotee drivel. Go CONSUUUME another lifted hick truck you fucking retarded embarrassment.

>>12391667
>The resources a human actually needs compared to the available resources of our solar system let alone galaxy are, for all intensive purposes, infinite.
I'm guessing you wanted to say the inverse of that sentence.
Either way it is false.
- Human needs are not infinite.
- The available resources of the galaxy may be enormous, but they are out of reach, so, for all intent and purposes, our direct environment provides finite resources.

>The issue is our systems are grossly inefficient and like you're saying cause environmental damage because of that inefficiency.
So let's fix that before bringing more people into this world.
If we physically and societally can't fix our processes, then we'll be glad we limited population, and if we do fix them then we'd have the choice to have more people.

>>12391714
>devotee
I just google image'd that.
hilarious

>>12391701
>. Meat is in their DNA.
prove

>>12391725
>prove
no. obviously they'd simply shrivel up and die like some stupid lady's vegetarian chihuahua

>>12391549
They already tried this anon, it didn't work. Second time's the charm maybe?

>BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK BARK

>>12391714
Farming equipment and construction equipment are becoming more and more efficient and cheaper every year. We will eventually have computers making sure all work is done as efficiently as possible.

>>12391738
Why do you think that is relevant, and why are you assuming that I don't know that.

>>12391548
Except in Africa.

>>12391481
Overpopulation is when there are more common people than those who are in charge need/are willing to tolerate.

>>12391526
First intelligent response in this knuckle dragging thread

>>12391554
No.
You literally need to be genetically predisposed and have high cd4/cd8 expression to have the worst symptoms.

>>12391594
Carrying capacity solves itself in nature.

>>12391738
>Dude, technology will solve this, trust me bro.

>>12391701
Eskimos lived in a region where they almost exclusivity ate meat, but what of tribes that lived regions where meat was very scarce. Do you think they just died because they couldn't eat meat? Obviously not, they found ways to supplement their diet and live off only eating meat on rare occasions. We can do the same until lab grown meat technology advances.

>>12391716
>- Human needs are not infinite.
What I am implying is that the energy it takes to maintain a human body for an perceivably infinite amount of time, lets say 100billion years, is really nothing in the grand scheme of things.
> - The available resources of the galaxy may be enormous, but they are out of reach, so, for all intent and purposes, our direct environment provides finite resources
Half of the world was out of reach to civilized society 500 years ago. 100 years ago the skies and the power of the atom were out of reach. These resources will only be out of our reach for a short time, don't underestimate the power of the exponential growth our species is going through.

>So let's fix that before bringing more people into this world.
1. It's already being fixed. Many western governments are starting to crack down and the rest of the world will follow.
2. Waste production isn't the issue, it's proper storage and containment efficiency.
>If we physically and societally can't fix our processes, then we'll be glad we limited population, and if we do fix them then we'd have the choice to have more people.
>>If we can't fix X issue in a socially based manner we'll fix it in a socially based manner

>>12391466
No, global population should lose a digit. So many problems would be solved then.
The populations msot deserving of a cull are those who fuck all day and let their kids starve.

If I were in charge of saving Africa I would kill off all the adults, then raise the children with proper education, wiping out their shitty culture where everyone is a fucking irresponsible narcissist asshole who only cares about themselves.
If more people took care of their responsibilities and acted like decent human beings trying to better their country, it wouldn't be such a shithole.
It wasn't long ago Europe was a shithole with poor farmers, many things can be achieved if people work together instead of just fucking like rabbits.

>>12391761

>>12391704
>People always naturally discover new resources to use for new technologies and more efficient ways of doing things.
>always

You mean *thusfar*. That will end. At some point there is simply not going to be a more efficient way of doing things, or a new technology that accomplishes same. Physics poses hard limits.

>>12391645
>They're going to hit a growing higher population and high standars of living era.
How will they hit these "high standards", via magic? Then you can assume that the whole Earth will turn into a paradise via magic.

>>12391772
>I show that crop yields growth is slowing down despite higher investments
>b-but it's growing though

>>12391766
>Ray Kurzweil said that we will colonize the galaxy and become a type IV Kardashev scale civilization therefore it must be true

>>12391519
But when others die instead, it's doubly beneficial for you.

>>12391791

>>12391766
>Half of the world was out of reach to civilized society 500 years ago. 100 years ago the skies and the power of the atom were out of reach.
You have yet to prove that humans can overcome the gargantuesque emptiness of space.
The fact that we did populate the whole planet does not constitute a proof of that.

>don't underestimate the power of the exponential growth our species is going through.
No phenomena in nature is truly exponential.

Your whole reasoning is that humanity will solve problems it's having now with technology from the future, without knowing when and how.
Given the fact that we could just stop birthing more and more people into this world before actually getting the technology to support more people makes your plan irresponsible.
>just jump into the pit bro, there could be a mattress at the bottom

>>12391804
>Given the fact that we could just stop birthing more and more people into this world
So "we" did.

>>12391800
So... what was the impact? The start of exponential Internet-fueled growth or basically a stagnation with smartphones?

>>12391537
Why would the countries with the most powerful military go first? Who will make them go?

>>12391808
>So "we" did.
Wrong again, CONSUUUUUMER.
Why do you people always lie?

>>12391839
What a cute tantrum, but reality supports me.
>CONSUUUUUMER
Nothing bad with that, people are born to CONSUUUUME. But you may starve instead.

then why have they been dumping food into africa for half a century?

>>12391804
>You have yet to prove that humans can overcome the gargantuesque emptiness of space.
Nothing in the Laws of physics says it cannot be done.
>No phenomena in nature is truly exponential.
It's true nothing is truly exponential, but there's no indicators that our current rate of progress will do anything but increase.
>Your whole reasoning is that humanity will solve problems it's having now with technology from the future, without knowing when and how.
>before actually getting the technology to support more people makes
We HAVE the technology to support our current and predicted population cap. This isn't some futuristic thinking, it's grounded in current scientific knowledge. We already jumped into the pit in the 1900s, hit the bottom and climbed out.
As per >>12391573
>world population will likely peak in 2064 at around 9.7 billion
>we produce enough food to feed about 12.5 billion people
Also fun fact if death due to aging was cured and you factor out immigration almost every European country would see a gradual population decline.

>>12391651
Pigs are monogastrics, surely we can just eat the grain instead?

>>12391845
On entire economic system is based on growth and ((they)) needed to keep that growth up when western countries started having declining birth rates. The solution? Provide food to the middle east/africa so they can keep shitting out kids, slightly destabilize the region with some bullshit war and let the mass immigration start. ((They)) don't give a shit about pushing some imigration race-mixing agenda to eliminate the white race, it's literally all about keeping profits on the rise.

>>12391777
This. Most of what's goes on in these threads is real and pretend retards both projecting the same delusion that technology can reverse entropy. Never mind the softer trade-offs to what's worth the trouble to develop and maintain for any purpose.

>>12391848
>Nothing in the Laws of physics says it cannot be done.
And? Nothing in the Laws of physics says there's no pink elephant in my backyard.
Just because physics allow certain things to exist doesn't mean those things exist.

>It's true nothing is truly exponential, but there's no indicators that our current rate of progress will do anything but increase.
Is that proof that it will continue to increase?
Same logical fallacy as in the previous point.

>We HAVE the technology to support our current and predicted population cap.
Having the technology is not sufficient.
Logistic has to be taken into account.
800 millions of people in the world don't have enough to eat to sustain themselves, so we obviously don't have the required logistic.
It is thus irresponsible to continue bringing people on Earth we can't feed.

>>12391855
>surely we can just eat the grain instead?
Pigs are more nutritious than the grain by itself.

>>12391844
The reality is that just about everyone would be made sick by the kinds of things you and your gangster buddies are willing to do to "get ahead". The only thing you have going for you is your ability to slink around undetected.

>overpopulation
Irrelevant because all population growth over the next 60 years will be wiped out by famine once the Middle East and Africa (North & 90% of Sub-Saharan) enter effectively permanent drought or simply become uninhabitable

>>12391884
The reality is that
>So "we" did.
That's all, your tantrum seems to be about your unrelated fantasies.

>>12391901
>>So "we" did.
and in the mean time you're perfectly willing to continue raking in the profits from this phenomena (population growth). Lie to yourself all you want, you're not fooling anyone.

>>12391900
This. What's the point of discussing the population growth of the dirt poor parts of the world? If it will suddenly rapidly decline, the rest of the world will not even notice.

>>12391873
This.

>>12391906
>and in the mean time
Irrelevant, I just point to you the obvious fact that the population growth in the developed world stopped.
>to continue raking in the profits
Of course I will rake in any profit if I can, that's just rational (unless this profit exists only in your imagination)

>>12391908
Western banking and development corporations need this population growth for their profits (in the west).

Without population growth there is no need for new houses, roads, or infrastructure or the construction companies that build it (or the banks that finance it). Simple.

When over population be a real problem then the population control must be a equally applied, consensual, non punitive and voluntary process based on people's consciousness of the problem.

>>12391912
Then why don't you go to where the population growth is and rake in the profits there, instead of moving the population growth to where there is none?

>>12391915
No, the amount of African villagers has literally no influence on new houses or new roads in the West.

>>12391922
Because I like it here of course. You seem to be the proponent of slowing the population growth, so you must like my surroundings. Oh, I also can't "rake the profit" if that profit exists only in your imagination.

>>12391908
>the rest of the world will not even notice
Well, not in this case. Many millions will flee into Europe, Central Asia, Russia, and down into Southern Africa. I don't think they'll survive either just because of the sheer numbers. And it can't really be stopped without literal mass murder via WMDs. I don't think any of the big powers except maybe China or India have the stomach for that.

>>12391927
What magical land do you live in where the population is not growing?

>>12391931
>Many millions will flee into Europe, Central Asia, Russia, and down into Southern Africa.
You have the border guards for that and numbers are irrelevant.
>And it can't really be stopped without literal mass murder via WMDs.
WMDs are not necessary. Mass murder is perfectly possible, but also isn't necessary. Just stopping the migration and letting them die in their own lands is enough.

>>12391551
Except those countries are also producing the food and technology that other countries are dependant on. Africa is a net food importer. Brazil will probably need to destroy the Amazon in order to feed billions of Africans.

>>12391932
See >>12391573

>>12391573
that pic is defeatist

>>12391882
>Just because physics allow certain things to exist doesn't mean those things exist.
People said the same about flight, about putting a man on moon, about self driving cars, ect. Look where we are now compared to even just 20 years ago, harvesting resources from space and living in it won't be a problem.
>Is that proof that it will continue to increase?
The fact that it isn't slowing down and the current scientific consensuses is that it's increasing rather than decreasing.

>Having the technology is not sufficient.
>Logistic has to be taken into account.
Oh, but we do have those and could easily end world hunger. It's corrupt political systems, mostly in Africa that prevent the aid reaching those who need it.
>800 millions of people in the world don't have enough to eat to sustain themselves
800 million number is largely exaggerated by """fundraiser"" organizations and isn't just "people on Earth we can't feed". I'd be technically included in it as I'm on a calorie restricted diet and eat less than 1800 calories a day.
>It is thus irresponsible to continue bringing people on Earth we can't feed.
The only place it's irresponsible is in backwater mud huts without proper supply infrastructure, not the civilized world. Which could probably be fixed in a few week if every person who thought "black lives matter" actually cared about black lives.

>>12391937
birth rate is not population. in fact hardly any countries in the world have decreasing population.
keep obfuscating and lying. it shows the kind of person you are.

>>12391942
>about putting a man on moon
Happened 50 years ago, wasn't surpassed since then (in fact was never even repeated in the last decades). A good example to show that science peaked decades ago and now is in decline.

>>12391945
Congrats on having your arguments destroyed. But your manner of discussion is somewhat amusing
>population growth is bad!
>actually countries with no population growth are bad and rapidly growing countries are good, move to them!
>no, actually there are no countries without population growth!

>>12391946
>show that science peaked decades
not so much science but the sweet spot between science advances and declining cheap widely available natural resources.

that was the sweet spot. now we have better tech, but the resources aren't there anymore.

>>12391942
>Look where we are now compared to even just 20 years ago
In a deep stagnation with smartphones?
> harvesting resources from space and living in it won't be a problem.
Not even a non-sequitur, just pure nonsense.

>>12391949
you are a moron. get the fuck away from me.

>>12391935
It'll be at least 100 million people. Probably a few times that. Bio weapons are the least shocking class that would even stand a chance at that scale. Most of the capable states will (rightly) refuse and just accept the collapse. This could all be avoided with proper preparation today but it's not happening

>>12391946
Yeah, now a days people run for productivity whereas research takes time

>>12391956
What will they do, build human pyramids? The whole billion of Africans may try to move at once, that will just require more guns. Of course after the first clashes the attempts will magically stop - no one wants to be shot.

>>12391953
That was quite a pathetic end of your ramblings. Still you are free to move to Central African Republic if that's your ideal.

>>12391772
Thirdies can still dump more fertilizer and irrigation water on their crops, but in the developed world, crop yield growth has slowed to a standstill. >>12391761

>>12391966
But your graph shows that they are continuing to grow.

>>12391950
>the resources aren't there anymore.
the resources are there (albeit supply is reduced) but the additional demands of >2x the number of people these days makes it a lot more difficult to pull off things like moon missions.
i guess we have psychos like musk still lol

>>12391960
You're misunderstanding. They also have militaries. It'll be a death struggle for land, worse than just war. People will choose to fight instead of starve.

>>12391962
And you are free to stop moving the central african republic here
of course that would affect profits so i don't think you will stop

>>12391976
maybe not
logistics are hard, especially when you're starving

>>12391817
>stagnation with smartphones?
You got it.

>>12391976
Who they, African countries? Surely the glorious African military will completely destroy the European militaries, just like they did countless times before. They will also quickly advance technologically, train their soldiers and make the national unity because they will want to raid some first world countries.

>>12391946
It was a great feat that hasn't been rivaled, but to say that science peaked is misguided. Look at the technology used in the mission compared to what we have today, the processing power of a largely available smartphone is 100,000x what they had back then.

>>12391951
>In a deep stagnation with smartphones?
They're not in a deep stagnation, but I could see why you think that way due to the slower rate of progress in computing power. However if you actually look more into the current and next-gen phones you'll see manufactures are shifting away from increasing power, and why would they do you really need a faster phone? To making phones more efficient, you'd prefer a phone that lasted 2-4x as long over one 2-4x faster than the current gen, right? It's just a change in direction, not stagnation.
> harvesting resources from space and living in it won't be a problem.
>Not even a non-sequitur, just pure nonsense.
Nonsense? There are people investing billions into space exploration and asteroid mining, perhaps it's nonsense if you're living 100 years ago, the future is now old man.

>>12391977
That's hardly related to any profits (but if it is causing profits for me, then of course I will support it. It's just that it is mostly irrelevant for me).

>>12391873
The Kalergi plan exists, they clearly saw both as goals that complimented each other.

>>12391986
>Look at the technology used in the mission compared to what we have today, the processing power of a largely available smartphone is 100,000x what they had back then.
Even better. If you can do something with some megaflops and is unable to repeat that with teraflops, then either the rest of your technology fell into a huge decay, or computing power is simply useless for the real world tasks.

>>12391960
there is a quantity of human that no border security, that current industrial nations have capacity to build, can guard against.
you'd have to build a colossal, Maginot-line type fortress system with meters-high walls, bunkers, barbed wire and artillery support all the way to stand a chance. Maybe by then we will have advanced drone tech/battlefield bio weapons that would simplify such an operation but i wouldn't count on it. You would also have to either replace the soldiers manning the guns with emotionless cyborgs, or indoctrinate them so much a top SS officer would call them a loony.

The thing about people is a lot of them fit in a small space, and they don't care about getting shot when the alternative is starving to death. Unity isn't really an issue because a starving mob listens to whoever claims will get them fed. Through natural selection they would eventually learn to coordinate waves (the ones who don't die), and then any given point of the system would have to be able to resist mass assault by millions, if not tens of millions. Some fortress some where is going to break and then the whole thing is pointless. Walls aren't built to last forever, they are a bet that you have more resources to outlast the guy on the other side.

And this isn't even mentioning the political disaster that such an undertaking would be in most rational, non-far right nations

>>12391979
>>12391985
You aren't considering all the factors. Yes they will lose, but that doesn't stop desperate people. It will start before they're all actually starving. Internally rations will be directed to militaries which will cause insurrection and the initial migrations. The wave moving North will be a combination of military conflict and tens to hundreds of millions of refugees over a period of years.

>>12391994
how far you can walk without food?
you're over thinking this.

>>12391986
>They're not in a deep stagnation, but I could see why you think that way due to the slower rate of progress in computing power.
No, the economy is in the deep stagnation and better computing power does not help at all. So that fax machines claim turned out to be true after all. Of course computing power is stopping to grow too. But you actually agree with that with your
>and why would they do you really need a faster phone

> There are people investing billions into space exploration and asteroid mining, perhaps it's nonsense if you're living 100 years ago, the future is now old man.
As we see from the moon example, the future happened 50 years ago. Since then it's decay back into the past. Not that space mining will become any more profitable even with technologies 100 times better than ours. Even the Antarctic and the oceans are hardly explored now, and they are infinitely more easy to use than space.

>>12391996
nah. they'll be too busy fighting eachother for bread crumbs for any real organization. same as us.

>>12391998
the average human can live a month with no food.
thats a long time, anon. thats not counting cannibalism.

>>12391996
>that doesn't stop desperate people
Stop from what, from being mowed down if they are annoying enough and from being quickly forced back in the realistic scenario?
>Internally rations will be directed to militaries which will cause insurrection and the initial migrations.
So militaries with some rations will do nothing, but starving civilians will suddenly defeat the European military with their numbers?
>a combination of military conflict
The military will be defeated in a day (of course no sane commander will even start battling Europe)
>tens to hundreds of millions of refugees
You don't even need to defeat them, just kick them back.

>>12391994
>there is a quantity of human that no border security, that current industrial nations have capacity to build, can guard against.
>you'd have to build a colossal, Maginot-line type fortress system with meters-high walls, bunkers, barbed wire and artillery support all the way to stand a chance.
You need maginot line when you are fighting against the army with same technological developments. You need almost nothing against the undeveloped army or unarmed civilians.
>You would also have to either replace the soldiers manning the guns with emotionless cyborgs, or indoctrinate them so much a top SS officer would call them a loony.
Here is a short story I really like: http://livros01.livrosgratis.com.br/ln000421.pdf If you will have some time, you should read it, it will show you what European Civilization is really about.
>The thing about people is a lot of them fit in a small space, and they don't care about getting shot when the alternative is starving to death.
Then they will try to eat their neighbour, that at least has some chance of success.
>And this isn't even mentioning the political disaster that such an undertaking would be in most rational, non-far right nations
Anon, it takes one decree, and every nation will do things beyond any "far-rightness". Say to control the epidemics, why not.

>>12392003
>Not that space mining will become any more profitable even with technologies 100 times better than ours
I suggest looking up how hard platinum group elements and rare earth elements are to mine here vs. harvest in space, you'd be quite supersized how much easier it is to harvest from space. There are two money related reasons why it hasn't been done yet, 1. Demand for the materials which in recent years has skyrocketed 2. Cost to send things into space which was $100,000/kg 40 years ago and as of 2020 is $950/kg with projections to further decrease to $10-100 by 2040.

>>12391526
>I seriously think we are living in the golden age. Once humans start to reach K, living will become just about survival as you have to compete with 20 billion other people.
Pretty much the world of The Expense:
You are either one of the top 1% (through talent, luck or most likely nepotism) or living on 'environmental toxins everywhere, but at least I'm not dead' wellfare.

>>12392051
>Cost to send things into space which was $100,000/kg 40 years ago and as of 2020 is $950/kg
So why not launch humans to the moon again? Surely with 100 times lower costs and million times better computing it will be a pocket change compared to the 60-70s project? It will also be a good test before your asteroid mining stuff.

>>12392057
1% is actually a very optimistic outlook. 0.01% is more realistic.

>>12391701
This needs research, it takes a long time for a population physiology to change to suit a new diet.
And even if their body changes to be more adapted to meat, it doesn't necessarily mean that their afinities to vegetables decrease.
But as I said this needs research.

>if a century ago we had just started flying planes and now we have the technology to reach the moon it means that in a century from now we will be colonizing other star systems and building a space empire like in my favourite movies

>also my dog pooped once the day before yesterday, twice yesterday and four times today, therefore if this trend continues in a few years the majority of the mass of the milky way will be made of my dog's poop

>>12392073
Nasa plans to go back by 2024, ESA by 2030.

>>12392137
They "plan" to do it every decade.

>>12391548
Not in Sub-Saharan Africa. Every program that has been implemented there to lower birthrates has failed once the NGO running it left. So yes, we can control birth rates in Africa but only if we are willing to babysit them for eternity. Every village needs its own NGO, every neighborhood in every city needs its own NGO. This is the only way they don't reproduce out of control. Education, access to birth control, food, medicine, reproductive rights for women, etc. all fail if the NGO pushing them does not remain. That's not a sustainable model.

>>12392122
Applies to the
>African population doubled in 30 years
>therefore it will be 10 billions in the next 100 years!
too.

>>12391466
It's a problem that racists tend to be particularly obsessed with, because when you're a socioeconomic factors denier, you can make it look like a problem with brown people when it's actually just a consequence of rapidly increasing standards of living.

Birth rates globally are dropping. Wealth correlates to low birth rates. Overpopulation solves itself.

>>12392152
True, but demographic projections into the future are surely more grounded in reality than technological advancement prediction, wich is just guessing.

>>12392215
The ones that are grounded in reality don't pretend that the world's population will follow a naive exponential distribution forever, because demographers aren't fucking retarded.

>>12392149
just leave it to nature and let disease, famine and war handle the problem
just shit the borders so they can't use migration to bleed out

>>12392220
I agree on that desu, but even according to the more optimistic projections, global population will peak in the 2060s and we will be at ~8.8b by 2100.
And it's not just about food. The rate at wich the Earth's resources are being exploited is not sustainable. Saying that "big brained scientist" will come up with practical solutions to every problem we are and are going to face is just wishful thinking.

Birth rates are going down globally.

>>12391777
when that limit is hit is it not unreasonable to suggest humanity will be too advanced to still be stuck on this fucking rock?

Fertility rate in Subsaharan Africa was 6.8 in 1980, now it is 4.7 and is rapidly falling. It is following the rest of the world.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.DYN.TFRT.IN?locations=ZG

>Send food to Africa
>More children in Africa
>Send more food to Africa
>More children in Africa
>Send medicine to Africa
>More children need more food and medicine in Africa
>Keep doing that for some years
>....
>Omg guys its overpopulation time, you better stop making babies, now we accept lgbtqweqwtopopaiowrwqet+. (At the same time) Guys you have to accept refugees because we have low birth rate, like cmon economy and shit!

How well do these population studies map onto Richard Sibly's curve of population against growth rate?
https://de.catbox.moe/5ojyg4.pdf

>>12392149
>Every program that has been implemented there to lower birthrates has failed once the NGO running it left. So yes, we can control birth rates in Africa but only if we are willing to babysit them for eternity
Rates are declining in Africa overall. Also the reason some NGO's fail is because a lot of them genuinely are retarded as fuck. By retarded I mean have NO IDEA how shit works because they are all staffed by expats who are way overpaid for their work.

>>12392422
most NGOs are glorified money laundering enterprises

>>12391496
you dumb urban nigger, nigger in skin and nigger in mentality. people can live with a house and backyard farm, normal people can

>>12391701
Eskimo's with their native diet have a ton of heart issues. They only ate meat because they were forced to.

>>12391639
New "cleaner" ways of doing thins don't make us consooome less. We consoome more every year resulting in co2 footprint similar to old tech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

>>12391697
>You need saturated fat and cholesterol in your diet.
and that exists in non-meat foods you retard. What the fuck you think is in Olive Oil?

>>12392428
What the fuck are you even trying to say?

honestly algae is the source of most aquatic omega 3 fatty acids so why don't we grow them?

This thread could be cut short. Its racist to ask non-whites to stop breeding despite being the overwhelming majority, but it aint racist to make whites do it despite being a global minority.

>>12391633
>Lowering science and industrial ouput
Low IQ answer

>>12392527
>science and industrial output
>average IQ around 82 and falling

>>12391481
Objectively wrong. Look up "Earth overshoot day", a direct consequence of overpopulation.

>>12391466
>talks about overpopulation
>shows a gathering of white people
nigga please

>>12391509
>The earth can possibly support a much larger population than we have today
Sure, it probably can. But should it? Should we as humans allow our population to grow to that level? I'd argue life for most people would be much more comfortable if we cut the earth's population in half from what it is today. There wouldn't be a need for tiny apartments crammed into huge metropolitan centres, we could afford to have more space. We could preserve more of Earth's natural beauty, and make use of its resources in a much more sustainable way. Not to mention there would be less traffic on the roads, which in many places were built decades ago before population levels got so high. Any depopulation efforts should be focused in the places whose population has the worst impact on the planet, and have the highest population densities. There's no point in reducing the population in some rural place where each family has acres of land.

>>12392527
Increase in niggers and muzzies =/= increase in scientists and innovators.

let's say we get 20 years of sustained global cooling in line with a reduction in solar irradiance What would be the population and social implications?

>>12391938
No, this one >>12391848 is

>>12392651
You have it backwards. People in dense cities generally have the highest quality of life and most resources available. People in rural areas are often poorer and have lower quality of life.

Overpopulation is all about access to resources and ability to utilize resources. Not about physical space.

A dense but relatively wealthy city is not overpopulated. A poor rural area is often still overpopulated.

>>12392651
imagine the amount of scientific and technological progress we would have with 100 billion humans on the planet (as long as they are high IQ whites and asians that is)

we absolutely should strive to increase population

>>12391956
It can easily be stopped due to europes geography alone. But if we lack the will to do it then we deserve to perish. I personally hope it happens because removing at least few hundreds of million third worlders would solve most of serious issues

>>12392572
>Implying IQ is not distributed as a bell curve

>>12392749
Proportion of innovators-to-population being lower doesn't mean it's zero anon.

pic related is one of the people on that Twitter thread arguing that even the concept of overpopulation is racist

>>12392836
no it means more people are wasted on intermediate tasks and bureaucracy .
take a look at smart faction theory and the proportion of the population able to get technical qualifications.

>>12391481
>Overpopulation is a meme in the first place
>ignoring soil erosion, half the world’s population will live in water-stressed regions by 2050, technology stagnation, Fusion is still 30 years away, air, water and land pollution etc
Everything is fine bro

What is the solution? do we just put half of the world into chains and work them to death? that didn't work out so well for americans, their black populations went from only five hundred thousand black imported slaves to the current eighteen million...

>>12391994
Millions of starving civilians arent a threat to anyone but themselves. When famines never started wars with other countries, because unsuprisingly you cant fight on empty stomach

>>12392861
We let a moderately deadly virus ravage the human population to eliminate minorities, the weak and immunocompromised. Hypothetically we can let the virus rage until about half of humanity is gone, just make it so your body only produces antibodies against it for 3 months or so, then draw out the pandemic for 5 years.

>are there too many people?
no
>do we have access to too many luxuries?
yes

>>12391537
That’s not how it works. Africa isn’t starving because other countries are eating, Africa is starving because they are reaching K for their specific population. Sending them food only results in a population more likely to crash since they continue to need more outside food.

>>12391466
the more people the fewer resources per capita. so yes there is a overpopulation problem. sure we can squeeze billion of people on the surface of the earth but the quality of life will be shit. also lets be realistic we're not becoming spacefaring any time soon.

>>12393035
so you want to live like a dirt peasant just so there are more people to suffer with you?

>>12391612
It’s not about where to put people but how much space it takes to feed them. Your retarded communist idea would only mean dependent countries continue to explode as their population is artificially pushed above K and would forever need more and more hand outs or face complete collapse

>>12391612
the fewer people, the more resources per capita. also we're entering into an age of near to full automation. we want populations to stop growing. you think unemployment is bad now, just wait.

>>12392429
source?

>>12392165
lol ya be concerned about malthusian collapse is racist... right...
and it's "socioeconomic factors" that are responsible for poverty in ethnically homogenous places like india, china, zimbabwe, tajikistan, etc. etc. etc. etc. the list goes on and on
has it ever occurred to you that you might be the racist here? seems like you have a problem with white people. or maybe its just that whites aren't reproducing fast enough to give you the "growth" you need for your corporate ROI? is that why you hate white people?

>>12391481
Here's your Amazon rainforest, bro.

>>12391548
Only for a portion of the population and only in certain populations. Birthrate only declines temporarily as a population deals with the change. So yes, some populations are declining but only a part of the population that will be replaced by the portions that aren't declining.
France is the perfect example of this. It was one of the first nations to show birth rate decline but once it adapted to it it then became one of the fastest growing European countries.

>>12393035
Giving up luxaries wouldn't make 3rd world countries and better off you idiot. If anything they would be worse off because we would stop buying from them.

>>12392837
Disgusting.
Also
>SCIENCE IS RACIST, FACTS ARE RACIST
Yep, let's just allow mass starvation. Those starving Africans will be happy we weren't racist

>>12393097
What is "K"?

>>12393267
>then became one of the fastest growing European countries.
What percentage muslim births?

>>12393296
Carrying capacity.

>>12393277
they don't care, they were always starving.

>>12393312
No they are on the whole not starving right now otherwise population wouldn't be expending. On the other hand if their population has to decrease by the billions if at some point they are overpopulated and we can't feed them anymore, then they will starve. By the billions. Asians or Indians might too, if we believe climate change predictions. The more population density the bigger the starving that is simple math.

>>12393367
Once they start starving rampant disease will quickly follow
war begets famine which begets pestilence which begets death

>>12391526
>Overpopulation is an issue but it's not one you can realistically solve.

>Save 122m lives in third world shit holes
>In 2018, the fertility rate in Sub-Saharan Africa amounted to 4.69 children per woman.

The Gates Foundation alone will have increased the human population by about a billion people in 2 to 3 generations. It baffles me how he thinks that saving Africa and other third world shit holes is going to make the world a better place and not just hasten it's destruction through environmental destruction.

>>12391481
you must be one of those retarded americans who still believes in libertarianism

>>12391495
you are a complete retard, we live on a finite planet with finite technology

>>12391612
>The entire human population could fit into texas with a density of NY
lmao this is blatantly false, where do you grow food for all these people?
Why are there so many retards on this board lately? Was it the election? Some plebbit purge? Or what?

>>12391800
>jew shilling against freedom of speech and white made technology
I see nothing new here

>>12391481
fpbp, keep up the good fight anon

>>12393451
New York population density
>27,000 people per square mile
Texas size
>170 million acres
Earth's population
>7.4 billion
Are you too dumb to do some basic math?

>>12393480
7,400,000,000 people
/
27,000 people/square mile
= ~274,000 square miles
*
640 acres/square mile
= ~175 million acres

>>12391704
>>12391714
>>12391777
Yes, in fact we have means to extracting energy which are much more efficient than burning hydrocarbons, but the technology was never allowed to develop due to heavy regulations and entrenched interests being opposed. I am of course talking about nuclear power, specifically the more advanced generations of it.

>>12391466
Imagine if everyone lived like the slightly above average middle class white man who for some reason only wants 1 or 2 kids at most but perfers not having kids at all and does it only because the wife wanted it.

>>12393604
can't find the full scene anywhere so this will have to do while I can't find a few seconds between the two
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWWAC5ZMKeM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifgHHhw_6g8

>>12391466
Racism is literally the belief that some races are superior than others. Belief in stopping overpopulation is only racist if there is it coincides with the belief that some races reproducing is somehow superior to other races reproducing.

Note the colloquial use of racism is actually more akin to genocidal xenophobia and virtually nobody uses the word 'racism' correctly, so nobody is going to accept this answer.

>>12393824
>I'm a colloquial racist.

>>12393835
Im a colloquial sheep fucker

>>12393843

>>12393824
>Racism is literally the belief that some races are superior than others
no that's racial superiority
racism is more of an ethnocentric self defence
all humans have evolved to be ethnocentric as a survival strategy and those who are ethnocentric are still alive today.

>>12393850
> racism ►
>
> n.
> The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

>>12393885
>The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
But this is just the truth though?
Everyone sane sees their own race as superior.

>>12393905
Exactly my opinion as well. The example I always give:
>i think i'm superior to my dog, but I also love my dog unconditionally
The same analogy could be used for kids

>>12391612
Imagine NY but the size of Texas. Jesus fucking Christ. Just imagine that. If you're not having a panic attack and vomiting then you're not imagining hard enough.
We have enough food to feed everyone but not the ability to distribute it, and that food production is propped up by the use of fertilizer which is both hazardous to the environment and was produced from fossil fuels.
Population growth is softly trending down but the pop will stabilize at ten billion or more. We are already struggling with what we have. The enormous population has made reducing fossil fuel usage extremely difficult. It's filled the ocean with plastic and mercury. It's littered every decent part of the world with refuse. It's destroyed uncountable species. It's created an enormous lower class of idiots who are totally unnecessary to society and live only to consume.
Humanity has been an absolute scourge on the planet, to both current and future inhabitants. Ignoring the problem is fucking everyone over in 100+ years.

>>12393948
why did the welfare policy take off that literally pays or feeds useless eaters enabling them to breed?

>>12393824
from my observation most ppl seem use racism as a way of signaling that they don't like something politically. as evidenced from the op.

Calling it just a distribution of resources problem is wrong. Human carrying capacity unlike animals is determined by our standard of living, we could physically support a much larger population but living conditions would be hell. On top of this, redistributing resources doesn't mean anything unless you drop aggregate global consumption along with it. Most countries have a dropping fertility as they develop so focus on that, cut entitlements so old people quit straining welfare, and promote replacement level birth rates.

>>12394048
yeah, one of the causes of the european industrial revolution was the plagues that decimated the populations so hard it completely upended normal social order, skeletal analysis showed that in the decades after the plagues the people were generally talller and healthier because they had more food and resources.

>>12393163
Are you genuinely retarded?
Poverty -is- a socioeconomic factor.

>>12391526
Fertility is crashing world wide, the last big umpfh will likely be from Africa, and it will get us to 10b, then it will stabilize there and begin receding from 2100 onward

>>12394164
Why is always the most bloated of the bloated CONSUUUUUUMERS that keep saying that?
What a mysterious phenomena. LOL

>>12391704
Ultimate consoomer cope. Enjoy peak everything retard, after the collapse youll be first on the dinner list for my cannibal neo-nazi gang

>>12392165
They're poor because they're stupid.

>>12394164
Re-read the post. Population decline is only temporary as those who have more kids outnumber those that have little kids. Literally never has there been an example of the human population going down for a long period of time.

>>12392165
>when it's actually just a consequence of rapidly increasing standards of living.
This. Everyone needs to live like shit so a few more third worlders can be shat out.

>>12394461
even Pol Pot only managed a temporary drop.

>>12393961
Humans are empathetic, which is beautiful. They're also selfish and irrational about it though. Other animals are sterilized and culled when their expansion is dangerous or leads to a lower average quality of life, but humans won't even do as much as sterilize themselves in order to ensure a more prosperous future. Instead, they pump resources into ensuring as many other humans can reproduce and succeed in life, even if barely. Even if that life is in squalor; a stressful, barely sustained existence.
Cursed species, truly.

>>12394465
Looks like elites will apply something better than Pol Pot then. Like Jim Jones, but on a larger scale.

Reminder that if we don't consider liberal arts degrees a secondary education, leftists are the least educated group on the planet.

>>12394472
there's a book called "farmers for 40 centuries" about how the chibese sustained their agriculture of 4,000 years.
https://cdn.permaculturenews.org/files/farmers_of_forty_centuries.pdf

>>12394059
Yeah but you cant compare that with current situation where increasingly smaller younger part of society has to take care for increasingly larger older part of society. Unless you euthanize everyone 65+, the living standard will decrease

>>12393422
Actually, saving lives can reduce population in the long run.
The more desperate people get to survive, the more chaos they cause.
More chaos means worse living conditions and education.
Worse living conditions and education means more babymaking.

What's most important is making sure women are well educated and can have a respectable career. This utterly destroys birthrates, as it moves babymaking way down the priority list for women.
An increase in the status of women resulted in China going from being desperate to slow down birthrates to now looking like it'll peak in the near future.
Meanwhile in extremely misogynistic India, when I was young books said they had 300 million less people than China (they were outdated by a few years I guess) but in a few years they'll be the most populous country.

>>12391466
>Is it racist to stop overpopulation?
Do you want to do it by unilaterally sterilizing primarily non-white people? Then it's racist as fuck and you should get pic related.

If on the other hand you want to do it by promoting a program of mandatory sex education that includes thorough coverage of birth control methods, coupled with easy access to birth control methods, all with a focus on 'every child a wanted child' and being responsible, thoughtful parents that only have children when they're capable of providing for them properly and with the thought in mind that the environment can only support so many living creatures alive at the same time? Then you have my blessing.

>>12394682
Again with the development leads to lower population growth?
The whole point of having lower population growth is to have less impact on the environment, and development is literally the opposite of that.

>>12391509
And then you'd only be increasing the cap a little bit, for a little while.
The cap is going to be famine, wars, diseases, or a low birth rate. Can't do shit about that, so choose wisely.

>>12394699
Whites arent causing overpopulation because they are merely sustaining their levels.

Literally all measures to stop overpopulation must focus on darkies, as a mathematical fact.

>>12391551
Yeah, let's incentivize poverty, fucking retard

>>12394705
>because they are merely sustaining their levels.
not even

>>12394700
They'll develop regardless, unless they're war-torn.
What's important is getting them to develop quickly.
Developing quickly means less reliance on outdated, environmentally destructed technologies (such as coal power plants), and less population impacting the environment.
India is once again an example of what not to do. Developed enough to be very efficient at fucking up the environment, with a rapidly increasing population to do it.

The problem is actually bees. Unless governments worldwide begin to promote beekeeping and give huge payouts as well as tax breaks to commercial apiaries then the 2/3rds of the food supply that relies on pollination will collapse. For example in Australia we have only 100 businesses that have over 2000 queens but to pollinate just the almonds during season we need 300k queens which equals around 70% of all commercial hives in the entire country, some must go without. This is such a concern that the USA and China are investing billions, soon to be trillions combined, into bee research. In the last 10 years the US Department of Ag has funded thousands of these studies, if they think they can increase crop yields by 1% they will write a blank cheque. Most of what cattle and sheep eat also requires pollination. Going vegan doesnt help because that also requires pollination. Changing climate and increasing tempatures which will change and increase the population and habitual zones of certain insects and pests leading farmers to use pesticides and insecticides that kill bees preventing pollination and reducing crop yields also wont help. And of course the biodiversity loss of flying insects bees included which has been occuring for over 30 years certainly isnt helping.

They thought they figured it out. They created "self pollinating" crops, but these still require pollination, just 20% less hives on average and the yields are smaller because more pollination = more seeds = bigger crops. Most people have never seen a blue berry or a cherry the size of a golf ball, that's because you cant afford it.

>tl;dr
No it isnt racist it's a genuine concern and unless you actually want to eat insects while the millionaires of the world eat all the crops you should start caring about it.

>>12394727
>Developed enough to be very efficient at fucking up the environment
Development = fucking up the environment. Development and maintaining a developed society requires resources (non-renewable resources) and getting resources requires fucking up the environment, and the larger the population the more of an impact there is. "Educated" third worlders like yourself seem to be by far the most brainwashed.

>>12394738
bee populations have been falling for a very long time and agricultural outputs are higher then ever

>>12394743
they are lots of resources left, who cares if you have to bulldoze a few trees, we aren't running out of raw materials or energy anytime soon, which is all we really need

>>12391466
This >>12391481. Overpopulation is a myth.

Why the world population won’t exceed 11 billion
https://youtu.be/2LyzBoHo5EI

>>12394803
we have an under population problem

>>12394803
>>12394816
Holy fuck how do people like you even exist? lol do you live under a rock or what?

>>12394699
>sterilizing primarily non-white people
Yeah that's what happens when most of the population is non-white. Minority is a local phenomenon.
Education is a meme. Just develop a sterilization drug for men already. Tell them they can take it and never get a bitch pregnant. 8/10 men will take it.

>>12391704
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O8rro_7Ijw

>>12394835

He's right people in developed countries don't have enough kids, you need 2.33 children per woman to sustain a population. Develop countries only take in immigrants to keep their population stable.

India and China only have high populations because those countries land sustains it and have a lot of resources. Those countries will peak eventually.

Once more countries become developed we'll have a under population problem.

Overpopulation is a meme, the earth population is only going up fast because development causes that in non developed countries.

If anything humans have a consumption problem. No one should be obese. Americans eat and consume too much for example. I'm not saying we should go communist, but no one should be able to be obese and society has to look down on over consumption.

Real problem is not overpopulation, but certain groups breeding to fast while others not enough. Mainly because K selectionists decided to subsidize r selection. Actually that isnt really big issue since you need certain level of intelligence to run functioning post-industrial society, which means there will be correction soon enough

>>12394918
>any little reason for more of the same
>muh consumerism
You people are so confused. Endless contradictions and rationalizations... like drug addicts basically

>>12394933

how is overpopulation an issue for resources but not over consumption. Over a third of Americans are obese and significant percent of food is wasted. Why even complain about over population if you guys can't even watch what you eat?

>>12391981
Poor people are clearly living much higher standards of life today than they have in the past. If you can produce food more cheaply, you can outdo your competition, and poor people don't have to pay as much. This results in innovation in agriculture. If you can produce housing more cheaply, poor people don't have to pay as much, and you can outdo your competition. This results in innovation in construction. Wealth really does trickle down.

>>12392404
This.

>>12394868
It's important to remember that humans are so intelligent in the first place because we evolved to be the ultimate predators. Predatory animals are almost always more intelligent. We evolved not only to hunt other animals, but to hunt other groups of humans.

>>12391598
And you will get nowhere convincing the Africans and others in countries of those type to have less kids unless you meet them halfway with their issues.

Its not that they all want to have shit tons of kids. But religion, lack of birth control, need for kids to tend land, etc makes a need. Otherwise less kids greatly benefits them because it stops land and other inheritance disputes. Something child control organizations try to educate the populations too as part of the benefit.

>>12391526
I’m ready to do my part to kill 8.5 billion people in Minecraft. Problem is.... are you courageous enough to do likewise?....

>>12395059
Sir, there is a cursor on top of your icon

>>12391612
>It's not a problem as long as we all live like bugs

>>12393480
nothing that you said relates to agricultural production requirements and the space for processing infrastructure, or the biome differences in production, nigger
now kindly kys and go back to McDonald's

>>12391466
Fuck off and go back to /pol/

>>12395241
this, I'm starting to think that there are literal globohomo bugman shills on this board

>>12395263
stop with this "go back to /pol/" meme, tranny, it's always you

>>12391466
Overpopulation is only a problem because of western consoomerism.

>>12395269
Then go back to /pol/ and fuck off

>>12391573
>>Middle East and North Africa: ~3-5 bf
Isn't it just Syria, Yemen and Iraq that have high birth rates?

>>12395278
The defense of science from dangerous ideologies can also be discussed on /sci/, so stfu

>>12391612
But we don't live in megacity texas, we live in a web of cities that slowly encroaches on every next field and forest until everything is just a huge sprawl with a few trees here and there. Not to mention the amount of effort it would take the human race to organize into a single city, and the population would have doubled by the time we are in the city, which means we need to build the city bigger. The single city would also be filled with hundreds of different ethnicities all mixed together, destroying any shred of traditional folk culture. Such a ridiculous example. I hope if you favor this world you at least support eugenics?

>>12391589
So westerners can lebrensraum the entire planet

>>12391466
Yes

>>12391481
>>12391481
Based, we have underpopulation, no joke

>>12391701
Eskimos were eating very high nutritious value seafoods raised on sea algae not grain fed pork, totally different substances
the lipid profiles alone are completely different

>>12395273
Western consoomerism is a problem for thirdworlders, not for westerners.

>>12394816
Underpopulation is when you don't have enough people for some task. It's opposite now: most people are useless for any practical tasks.

>>12395375
Have a (you).

>>12395459
I think he's just trolling.

>>12391549
t. Mr Rabbit

>>12391466
>overpopulation
falling for jewish tricks I see

Anyone thinking high populations are a good thing are bootlickers, whether they realize it or not. When there were just a handful of people on earth they would have had almost unlimited freedoms, but also more likely to have a short life because of no safety net in tech and society.

Where we're headed is the complete opposite. All land is enclosed. You rent everything and own nothing. Anything you produce is for others and you see only a fixed subset of the benefit, which you just spend to maintain your rentals of basic needs.

Welcome to a boot stamping on your face forever, Winston.

Given this, is no wonder captured masculine hubris dreams of a new agree of space colonization. This fantasy and the one where most of earth population gets wiped out both have the same underlying appeal - the return of a frontier offering promise and freedom.

>>12396279
You are correct in your assertion that reaching overpopulation would be bad.

The reason why concerns about overpopulation are often dismissed as being a racist talking point, however, have to do with how alarmist attitudes around third-world populatin growth are growing increasingly detached from reality. Birth rates are shrinking globally, and only spike in areas that are starting industrialisation. If developing nations are allowed to just develop, the issue WILL go away. Knowing this, it's hard to justify the alarmist around third world population growth without it being motivated by a different agenda, like not really wanting third worlders to get rich.

>>12396300
Fair point. I'm not convinced however that the biosphere supports any more nations going through industrialization. They can't be raised up to the current standard of developed nations living without tanking everything for everyone.

I'm a proponents of achieving greater global equality via downscaling within developed nations, but I also don't think there's a realistic path to it outside of some kind of compelling event or situation.

All of this position stems from the same point you made - those with current advantage in the world will not voluntarily relinquish what they have or allow it to be eroded by others catching up.

So guarantees an eventual crash.

>>12396300
That's retarded. Some times they do have a racist agenda, like when they bring up Africa when we talk about solutions to climate change, but it is not the norm. Overpopulation is a massive problem to these countries that suffer from it, no matter how you slice it. Especially from an environmental standpoint (outside of climate change which is causes by rich countries). In order to feed a growing a growing population, and especially if they want meat or fish, you will need to mechanize agriculture, cut down forests, overfish the ocean even more. It will happen in their own countries in the best of case. In which case you can say goodbye to elephants And it will not be the fault of capitalism as leftist like to say. Any economic system would have needed to exterminate wildlife to replace it by agricultural fields, this is a basic law of nature. It hapoened in europe where we used to have lions and now have none. It will happen in Africa. And that is the good case. In the bad case, the most likely, Africa will become dependant on food import. In that case environmental destruction will most likely happen in brazil. The moment other countries stop feeding them mass starvation will follow.

>>12394993
Smart would be recognizing overpopulation as a problem and changing our behavior to curb it, not relying on blind faith that we can science our way out of the problem with technology that doesn't yet exist.
It doesn't mean we have to start genociding people either. A global 3 child policy would halt and likely reverse population growth while still allowing people to have plenty of their own children to continue their genetic line.

>>12396373
>A global 3 child policy
That will never happen, and I'll tell you why. Construction and banking corporations (plus spinoff extraction and equipment manufacturers, which together make up more than 50% of the global economy) rely on continual population growth. If you think about it, debts created by the fractional reserve banking system depend on it. That's why I do not believe the projections of population leveling off (after just a few more decades). Choke on that blackpill.

>>12396479
Feels like construction corps have stopped existing because we have a huge housing crisis.

Environmentalists were right

>>12391526
let’s nuke China, India, and Africa. Problem solved.

>>12391466
absolutely not. but everyone for some reason assumes you want to cull half the human race in a day.

personally, i feel women should try to limit themselves to 2 children (i'm a third turd). if that were the case, population would naturally go down. the key is not to eviscerate people for failing this guideline, otherwise you get china 2.0

it's important to recognize the components of I(mpact) = P(opulation) * A(ffluence) * T(echnology)
if you want to live like a king without killing the planet, reducing population is the only way to go.

>>12397383
Based 3rd turd

>>12391481
Yes but so is scarcity as a measure of value and yet here we are.
Memes, all of it...

>>12397383
>if you want to live like a king without killing the planet, reducing population is the only way to go.
Or just be more efficient and reduce waste.

>>12398134
Not sure many kings throughout history cared about sorting their recycling into different bins.

>>12396351
>Overpopulation is a massive problem to these countries that suffer from it, no matter how you slice it.
They don't suffer from overpopulation though. Just lack of development and ability to make the most out of their resources on top of foreign intervention. Africa is is NOT a monolith and fuckton of areas are very sparse and are completely habitable.

>In order to feed a growing a growing population, and especially if they want meat or fish, you will need to mechanize agriculture, cut down forests, overfish the ocean even more.
Overfish? Non-Africans are literally stealing fish from African fishing boats on top of the crap ton of illegal fishing going on that is hurting stocks. The real problem are nations illegally overfishing in African waters.

>In order to feed a growing a growing population, and especially if they want meat or fish, you will need to mechanize agriculture, cut down forests, overfish the ocean even more.
No it isn't, supporting farming doesn't mean you ahve to shit on wildlife. In fact foreign "environmentalism" in Africa is basically Eco-colonialism because Green NGO's fund merc to harass/attack/kill natives off their land or support governments kicking people off land. On top of that the parks,safaris and areas they control actually aren't even focusing on preserving wildlife of all types, just turning it into a tourist place to generate money off of overall and the often manipulate the wildlife habitation and range to do so.

>It hapoened in europe where we used to have lions and now have none. It will happen in Africa.
Because they (lions) were used for arena entertainment and hunted enmasse. Every continent is different.

>And that is the good case. In the bad case, the most likely, Africa will become dependant on food import.
Nigga nearly every country is dependent on it. Most of th oens who do say they are indpendant are bullshitting themselves because the minute all outside food ets cut off the viable diet choices drop like a rock and prices sky-rocket because their farming was only viable with imports and mass subsidies of costly farms

>>12398138
and that was then this is now.

I care more about quality of life than the environment.

>>12391509
you the sort of cunt who would be happy when every street is perfectly straight and everyone trims their lawn edge,

>>12391466
>Twitter nobody: Wypipo need to stop having kids for the climate!
>Racism Watchdog:...

>>12396479
Construction corporations will be switched off in one day, like air travel and various entertainment today.

>>12391612
>why there are more adult diapers sold than child diapers in japan.
It's because Japan has more elderly population than young population. Doesn't mean that it is undesirable for them or means "underpopulation"

>mentioning japan as example

yeah I'm sure not having sex, working 12 hours a day and living in a 4x4 single room is how humans were meant to live

>we produce so much food bro

industrialized, GMO, pesticide, xenoestrogen-filled empty calories food. There isn't enough real food in the world for everyone.

>>12398134
Even if you will eat 10% of the trash you usually throw away, it will not significantly change things.

The entire black Africa area produces like 1/3 of the co2 of the USA.

>>12391466
Leftists will really complain about high housing costs and then say that you're a white supremacist if you want lower housing costs. They'll pretend to be environmentalists and then complain when anybody wants to fix the environment.
>>12391495
>dude just go live in the desert or even in Antarctica!
k.
To say nothing of the fact that we're running out of freshwater and causing a ton of harmful pollution which apparently the left wants more of now.

>>12399094
Blacks are not bad for the environment. There's nothing wrong with Black man and white women having children

>>12398881
the big kicker is freshwater access
it's liquid gold

>>12398174
development = environmental destruction
you can do all the mental gymnastics you want but there's no way around that basic fact.

impact = population * affluence * technology

In this day in age, you'd either have to be living under a rock, a real moron, or be a genuine psychopath to say something like that. so which one are you?