/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12726315
We should have no humans

>>12726315
We should only have super humans

>>12726315
You should be a body without organs.

>>12726315
I agree, but conservatives will accuse you of depopulation for some NWO or satanic agenda, and leftists will call you a Nazi and a fascist.

We should unironically encourage depopulation through voluntary means. Pay retards and third worlders to get sterilized at puberty or as soon as they turn 18 or something.

>>12726315
Remove the Eastern Hemisphere

>>12726860
True. It's not good, but it's better than the clusterfuck towards which we're currently accelerating.

>>12726315
Agreed

solution: just kill you're selves lole

>>12726886
Idk Europe and Australia are generally fine. Fuck China, India, all of Africa.

>>12726860
simply gas the 3rd world. (and china)

>>12726315
yep. It contributes to global warming, spread of disease, antibiotic resistance etc. The whol ide of carbon footprint and all that shit would be unnecesseary if there wre less of us. instead of reduiceing carbon footprint, maybe we should reduice the world population and deurbanise. Move back into vilages, spread out but thinner. Urbanisation is bat for community and mental health. This could be done without violence. just institute a one child policy throughout the world, and tax having aditional children. then, when you reach desired population density, change to a tow child polisy.

>>12726315
agreed

No, we should have at least trillion people.

>>12726315
>>12726860
>>12726886
>>12726912
>>12726917
>>12726940
>>12728237

It's not true that we should have less humans. We actually need more humans. The distinction is whether the human is productive or not. More productive humans = good. What is "productive" can be debated, but the threshold is surprisingly low. Unproductive humans are a drag, sure, but its only a problem when the ratio of productive to unproductive becomes too low does civilization/society suffer.

>>12728344
yeah? then answer this, what would an ideal "productive" human do for something as basic as food and its replenishment

>>12726315
We should only have white humans

>>12728159
>global warming
Fake
>spread of disease
By polluting the environment sure, but germ theory is wrong
>antibiotic resistance
Just stop feeding every living organisms with antibiotics then

There is nothing to do, earth just get purged once in awhile.

>>12726860
>depopulation for some NWO or satanic agenda
why do you say that like it's not true

>>12728371
Go to a grocer and pay a smaller and smaller percentage of his time/$ to obtain it from people who make a living from economizing food production and distribution. In other words, obtaining food becomes less and less of a chore/cost for the average person b/c specialist food producers/distributers have gotten better and better at what they do. Human pop. going up and up, hunger keeps going down.

>>12728409
well, im not discussing sociology and shit here? i was asking more in the terms of, where the fuck is the food actually coming from? considering the rate at which humans are currently growing? do you not feel like we are bound to hit a limit on energy consumption?

>>12728497
>?

>>12728497
>where the fuck is the food actually coming from? considering the rate at which humans are currently growing?

The more I've thought about it, the more amazing I think it is. How many of us actually know a farmer? Very few I'd guess. How many of us could have our bellies full in less than an hour, for an hour's worth of wage in the area in which we live? Most all of us? At least all of us with the means to read this? So the answer is, the food is coming from professional food producers (farmers) via professional food distributors (stores/trucking). And they've gotten so good at it that its not only not a big problem today, but its less of issue today, worldwide, than any point in human history. Re: food, civilizational advancement s outpacing the rate in which humans are growing.

>do you not feel like we are bound to hit a limit on energy consumption?

There has to be limits on all of it, energy, ability to produce food, you name it. But the evidence suggests we not only haven't hit the limit, we might not even be close. Again, humanity's hunger problem is diminishing, not increasing, despite population increasing not just now, but throughout history.

>>12728594
this helps in clearing up your point for me, even though its still feels like a wishywashy response. So, from what Ive understood so far what youre suggesting is we develop a fully optimized civilization, full of productive "humans" , where everyone gets fed and has a role, and keep on functioning like that until we hit the limit? that would surely make a case for allowing us to keep expanding and increasing the human population. however, i have some more questions, considering youve not been bullshitting this whole time.

what does it mean for an individual human being in this scenario? i havent dug much deep into it myself, but I dont think such a society is compatible with the human body(?)

what is coordinating all of this? are we simply relying on the productivity of masses of individuals and assume they know what to do?

what the hell is the end goal here? Are we talking only blowing the balloon until it pops?

>>12728378
excluding jews

>>12728378
agreed
>t. brown

>>12726315
you can get the process started by committing suicide

>>12728859
People with enough intelligence to realize that high population is a problem aren't the ones who need to go.

>>12728859
thats a great quote! i guess thats goodbye anon

>>12728825
>what does it mean for an individual human being in this scenario?

Well one thing I think it means is that we all have more available time to do things other than feed ourselves. From building wealth to buy a home, to binge-watching crappy tv.

>I dont think such a society is compatible with the human body(?)

If you are saying idle hands are the devil's playthings, you may have me stumped for a good response. I may have to return to my initial productive vs. unproductive people thought. Productive people with free time = good, unproductive people with free time = bad maybe?

>what is coordinating all of this? are we simply relying on the productivity of masses of individuals and assume they know what to do?

I may be naïve to think its not being coordinated much at all, certainly not in the past. Capitalism/free markets + time seems to me to be the formula for technological breakthrough and societal advancement. Individual incentivized humans spot needs and attempt to fill them before most of us know the need exists.

>what the hell is the end goal here? Are we talking only blowing the balloon until it pops?

The meaning of life - the greatest question of all. I've been thinking civilizationally, and I am one of those fools believes in humanity and am rooting for us now and in the future - and I see so many reasons to be optimistic in 2021. But the meaning of life for an individual? Well, if all civilizational advancement does is give you more free time to answer that question, that alone may be worth it.

I like your balloon blowing metaphor.

>>12728878
Where on earth is high population a problem? What problems is it causing? Starvation? War? Famine?

>>12729032
एक बार तो आके देखिये हमारे देश में

>>12726315
citation needed
>>12728878
misanthropy isn't a sign of intelligence, its a sign of social issues.

>>12729011
i see. thats really a great motivation to work with, anon, especially since we dont see many idealists or optimists here.
You have some fair points too, feeding a huge civilization might not be as big of a problem as I had thought earlier

>>12729133
>>12729064

>>12729155
India is a shithole because its a poor ex-colony, not because it has a lot of people

>>12729177
>implying the high number of people arent a burden on the already poor economy

>>12726315
>We should have less humans
Taxonomy has a trivial solution to your problem. Just classify some groups of humans as non-humans.

>>12726315
Why don't you kill yourself then? Genuine question.

>>12729231
Because op killing themselves isn't going to stop pajeet from shitting out 13 kids he can't support

>>12729148
I've enjoyed thinking about this with you too. I would be even more optimistic if I just heard more optimistic people myself. I'm wondering if people might be preprogammed to fixate on doomsday scenarios, even when seeing contrary evidence right in front of our faces. The Covid pandemic has me thinking about that daily, actually.

>>12729225
DA JOOOOOS

>>12729269
Sure, why not. You have to start somewhere.

>>12726315
Mother of all moggings

>>12728386
You sound like an edgy teen with a bit of an ego problem.
Germ theory is wrong... What does that even mean? I can literally plate bacteria, isolate a strain, put it under my microscope at 100x with an oil immersion objective slap on a gram stain and look at it. I could then take the bacteria, and inject it into a host. The host would then get sick, and depending on species of bacteria, die. Its pretty easy to replicate and prove germ theory.

>>12726315
>The virgin faint square skeleton vs the chad fluorescent ellipse network

>>12729409
>What does that even mean?
Miasma theory is far superior. Shit smells bad. Therefore, it is bad. Eat shit and prove me wrong.

>>12728497
no, current modeling shows human population topping out at 10 or so billion. We are no longer in the exponential growth phase. There is actually a lot of theory on how population growth can be exponential but advancments in agricultural productivity are usually linear growth. When the exponent overtakes the agricultural growth line, some kind of war or conflct happens, or starvation occures.

>>12729435
Okay, im sure this is bait. No human on earth is this retarded.

>>12729478
Not an argument. Eat shit or shut up.

>>12728344
more production isnt useful when the sea levels are rising, there are global pandemics, and resources are depleted

>>12729462
there should be a better solution than killing each other in millions

>>12728395
You should really investigate what happens to elites following massive population and societal collapse
>hint: it's not good for them

>>12729409
>inject it into a host. The host would then get sick
No.

Everyone should be euthanized at age 80. There is very little quality of life to be had beyond this age and the elderly are an enormous drain on public funds, that money could be better utilised in optimising functional aspects of society and produce a net positive return on investment.
The reduced welfare burden would allow for countries to more easily maintain sustainable birth rates without relying on immigration, preventing brain drain in developing countries and reducing the downward pressure on wages in the West

>>12729524
The elites dont learn.

>>12728344
Are you aware that most productive people do not produce most of their lives? Production is done by males aged 20 to 60, half their lives are either retired or in school. You going to kill unproductive babies? How about housewives? Do you think working males will keep working if you kill their retired parents?
Folks, this is the classical midwit "dumbass with power" thinking so typical of isolated royals. Its all shitty incoherent plans

>>12726315
Fewer

if you can't run a 5k in under 25 minutes you get shot

problem solved

>>12729478
lol yeah theres many that are as retarded if not worse, hence this thread

If every human was smart and didn't have their head up their ass, we wouldn't have a population issue

Kill sub 100 IQ people until 150 IQ becomes 100 IQ.

>>12729661
And keep shooting?

>>12729462
>When the exponent overtakes the agricultural growth line, some kind of war or conflct happens, or starvation occures.

Overall population has increased very steadily throughout history, with even World Wars and pandemics barely causing blips in the rise.

>>12729514
Obviously, i was just mentioning the research, and also, that we currently arent headed in that direction, because human population growth isnt exponential right now. What is currently happening to the human population is "filling in". consecutive young generations arent larger but the older generations are significantly lower. As time passes, the older age groups are filling in to resemble the rest of the age groups.

>>12729531
But i have seen this be done. I have grown and observed bacteria, and i have observed bacteria makeing host cells sick. I have measured the toxic compound produiced by certaine bacteria as a byproduct of there biology, using a spectophotometer, and have seen this toxins effect on healthy cells.
As to the quote, current models of bacteriology and virology don't predict the death of everyone, so i don't know what hes on about.

>>12729658
But this doesent make sense. I get conspiracy theoryes or science denialismm about abstract thing, or things that are hard to observe. but this is almost like saying "i dont believe horses exist, nor do they take any part in the shortening nor eating any grass". You can literally observe the thing. How can someone deny what they can see? All you need is to look closley. Does this dude also deny ants?
People cant be this dumb. Hes just doing it for the attention.

>>12729503
>more production isnt useful when the sea levels are rising, there are global pandemics, and resources are depleted

I think the facts are is that the opposite is true - more production, i.e. more people producing are what is defeating this pandemic so quickly. Sure I'm projecting the efficacy of the quickly developed vaccines, but even if they disappoint, productive people will quickly learn from mistakes and correct them.

Our warmed planet is much more hospitable to humanity than ice ages. The problem of global warming will be solved by adapting to the new challenges. The new climate challenges are coming so very slowly - technology will keep humanity thriving even on a warming planet if allowed to and not fucked up by pols.

Here's the biggest secret of all: people aren't depleting resources, they are *creating* resources. And the more valuable the resource is, the better we get at saving it, mining it, duplicating it, recycling it, etc. - but whatever *it* is, its not being depleted.

>>12729223
no because more people means more economic production, it evens out look at china, they have a lot of people and they are doing very well

>>12729574
I guess its fun while it lasts though.

>>12729545
One of the problems here is, if this philosophy had been adapted just a few decades ago, the euthanizing age would have been 65.

>>12729609
I'm not suggesting killing anybody, including unproductive people. As I said, while we can debate what a 'productive' person is, I'm in favor of a very low threshold. Motherhood is productive. Babies are future producers. The truly unproductive are a cost to society that I think modern civilization is willing to pay for. I think societies that let the ratio get out of whack don't have much of a future.

>>12729781
If you inject toxic substances into a healthy body it might get sick, but bacterias aren't contagious.

>>12729781
You could also grow humans in a petri dish and they would produce toxins.

>>12729804
>>12729806
bro more economic production isnt going to save the world from global warming, rising antibiotic resistance and urban stress

>>12729920
>>12729932
WHAT???? Mother fucker. Sneez on a peri dish. See what grows out. At which point do you think the following is incorrect:
1: The bacterium staphylococcus aureus lives in your lungs.
2: it causes pneumonia.
3:you cough
4:cough droplets carry staphylococcus aureus
5:someone else breathes in droplet containing staphylococcus aureus
6: staphylococcus aureus multiplies in new host.
7: new host now has pneumonia.

>>12730035
>bro more economic production isnt going to save the world from global warming, rising antibiotic resistance and urban stress

Not economic production per se - but technological production. Engineers, biochemists. Highly specialized human beings working on specific problems I think are exactly who will resolve at least the first two problems (if allowed to by pols, the only people who can fuck things up). It doesn't take a lot of looking at even recent human history to identify seemingly devastating problems get solved, almost always without a headline.

>>12730116
I think at this point it takes a literal psychopath to be even slightly optimistic about the future of humanity on it's current trajectory.

>>12729804
>Here's the biggest secret of all: people aren't depleting resources
how in the fuck does someone get this delusional?? im in awe

>>12730129
Nah - you're just bombarded by negative messages. A lot of generations in last 100 years have had it way worse.

>>12726315
We should have fewer humans

>>12730136
What resource have we lost? Is gone from depletion? Scientists have been warning of overpopulation for decades - what resource has been lost so far? I'm open to hearing another pov.

>>12730204
disagree. fewer humans = less specialists = less able to work way out of problems = more fragile before whims of nature.

>>12730208
>I'm open to hearing another pov.

ya sure you are

meanwhile a layer rich in nutrients is building up on the abyssal plain

>>12726315
Seethe, reptilian.

>>12729831
65 year olds have always been productive members of society lmao, both in terms of working and as grandparents. The number of people in their sixties who are borderline vegetative or require constant medical care is insignificantly small. They are free to enjoy their retirement and are not a major drain on society

>>12726315

No, we should have way more humans, but spread over millions of star systems.

>>12730739
/thread

>>12726315
>We should have less orcs and skaven

Fixed it for you

>>12730739
Agreed. Also the Earth can comfortably support trillions of people with fusion power while conserving nature too, overpopulation is a meme.

>>12730245

The world can't even manage to run out of diamonds. See https://knoema.com/infographics/mxygtx/is-the-world-running-out-of-diamonds

And even if production of new diamonds got too low in the future, (1) recycling old diamonds would become a much bigger thing ; (2) mining diamonds from space would become a thing; (3) the value of alternate gemstones would blow up and become a thing; (4) the production of man-made diamonds would be incentivized to improve and become a thing.

This is all assuming we even still treasure diamonds in the future. Even in 2021, many centuries after this ultra-rare natural resource became valuable to mankind, diamonds are more available then ever. I bet they are cheaper now too.

>>12730220
How the fuck do you use it then immediately go back to using the wrong word?

We dont need fewer people we need smaller people, specifically smaller males.

>>12726315
>less humans
Starting from lesser (You)'s

>>12732818
?

>>12732830
Read the thread a few times until your pattern recognition kicks in. Use the post I responded to before for context.

>>12732742
Madness. The population density should be no higher than 1 person per square km of inhabitable land.

>>12732836
It? wrong word? Is this my ex? I can't read your mind either.

>>12732850
based on what? Some of the densest population-places on earth are also some of the most desirable (think property values in certain big western cities).

>>12726860
I have yet to hear a compelling argument against this

>>12726315
No, the lack of humans limits progress, if anything.

>>12726886
remove Africa and the whole Middle East

>>12728296
yeah because economic growth is infinite!
an american dude told me that last week

>>12733406
That depends on whether universe is infinite.

>>12733418
the universe is mostly void and/or inaccessible at the moment

>>12733406
Mankind's growth potential is practically infinite.

>>12733064
>humans define progress
>humans define drive for human defined progress
>we need more humans for this

Its all so selfish

>>12726315
yea we should reduce human genetic diversity by removing as many non-attractive genomes from the gene pool

>>12733841
Selflessness a shit.

>>12733955
Cope.

>>12733964
Seething.

>>12733828
>Mankind's growth potential is practically infinite.
no you stupid nigger

>>12733971
>muh return to monke

>>12733977
what

>>12726860
kek that's what's happening now only it's the first world sterilizing their selves and letting the third world reproduce for them. There are people literally chopping their dicks off right now and they actually pay for it instead of getting paid so the West is way ahead of you for population control.

In Israel secular Jews have fertility barely above replacement, but orthodox Jews have 8 children on average. Since many orthodox Jews later become secular, the number of secular Jews grows relatively quickly too.

>>12733970
From time to time yes

>>12733841

>Its all so selfish

You root against humanity? That's a big club, and you are a member. You hate yourself? Seek therapy, and avoid negative messages and people.

>>12733971
Dude. Checkmate, I guess. Well played.

>>12734365
You are a stupid person and I will let you keep being stupid, goodluck

>>12734384
No YOU.

>>12732864
>>12732808
>let them eat diamonds
Jesus fuck some people are stooooopid
unbelievable

>>12728344
>We actually need more humans.
Truly awe inspiring the absolute bullshit some people are willing convince themselves of. If humanity is a living entity, then you're the out of control tumor growth that's killing it. Consume more, you bloated fuck.

>>12726315

There is absolutely NO REASON to have more than 5 billion human squatters on this planet.

The only reason we have this runaway situation is due to the constant need to expand consumption to feed capitalism so that a handful of people at the top could distance themselves from the rest.

20,000 humans in an isolated mountain range unknown to most other species on the planet is the ONLY acceptable amount of humans

>>12728159
>f there wre less of us. instead of reduiceing carbon footprint, maybe we should reduice the world population and deurbanise

This.

The current environmentalist argument is a fraudulent one because it cowardly avoids third world/developing overpopulation problem and Asian industrialization generating the largest emissions.

>>12728497
>where the fuck is the food actually coming from?

Mechanized cereal grain and artificial fertilizer production ALL powered by fossil fuels.

It's a pretty amusing situation.

>>12726315
WRONG.
We need to fill the solar system with humans.

The problem is that we are still overpopulating this rock when we have the technology to start colonizing Mercury, Mars and probably Venus (upper atmosphere) TODAY.

Less gibs, more space funding.
Instead of having a mass of NEETs and rapefugees living on gibs offer the poor the chance of wealth through settling the frontier, like in the 1800s.

Mercury is the best spot for a Human colony, it can be done with modern technology and we could be doing it RIGHT NOW

https://einstein-schrodinger.com/mercury_colony.html

>have entire planet to ourselves
>can't populate it to fullest potential because we haven't unlocked the bonus area yet

>>12735518
Just imagine... underground Mercury colonies located on the planet's Southern Pole, where temperatures are at a comfy -60° C. Huge deposits of pure water ice. The strongest solar output in the Sol system providing limitless solar energy. Mining would be the most profitable activity followed by farming. Farmers taking advantage of the best nutrient-rich soil in the Solar System outside of Earth.

A network of maglev trains linking the different colonies, with domes filled with rich gardens, lakes and forests to provide leisure areas and a connection to a more Earthly lifestyle.

In orbit, satellites providing a permanent link to Earth and research stations advacing knowledge on solar sails. The entire planet as a permanent solar slingshot transit outpost, opening up faster travel to Venus, Mars as well as the outer solar system.

Why are our leaders so shortsighted bros?
Fuck Mars with its anemic soil and poor sunlight output. Mercury is the future. A successful colony on Mercury would open up the rest of the solar system.

>>12735427
More humans is great and consuming is great. You may starve and die though.

>>12735411
>>12735427
>>12735476

You are not only stupid, but willfully blind in addition to being stupid. Its a neurosis. Try getting back on your meds.

>>12736005

You have no credible argument for more than 5 billion squatters on this planet.

>>12735427

Humanity is thriving, anon. Any bloat is a reflection on how good we have it. Some people use their excess resources to consume to their personal detriment. Some use their excess resources to be stupid on the internet. Luckily, these are exceptions to those who use their excess resources to be productive.

>>12736020
5 billion and humanity is doing better than it did ant 4 million. Or 3 million, Much much better than at 2 million.

>>12735482
They would eventually die if they didn't branch out. That's why they would branch out beforehand.

>>12735513
Its a great situation. World is so well fed very few places on earth have to devote more than a trivial amount of time/$ to eat. Now have time/$ to devote to solving other problems - like developing energy source alternates to fossil fuels.

>>12736005
>>12736024
>>12736030
>>12736037
>>12736053
meanwhile, in reality, a mineral and nutrient rich layer essential to all life is building up on the abyssal plain.
but its cool, i don't expect you to let any troublesome little matters like reality, or science, interfere with your delusional fantasy/consume fest.

>>12729503
>sea levels rising
florida is gonna be underwater by 2020!

>>12726315
I don't know what the optimal amount is, but the quality of life is too low for too many at the moment. So I'd say there are too many in that regard, but a large part of scarcity is planned and fake, or greed and hoarding, also.

3rd world and China breeding like rats isn't helping.

>>12728859
only a single kill? low productivity

>>12730055
Then we would all get pneumonia as staphylococcus bacterias are litterally everywhere. Your theory doesn't make sense at all.

>>12735598
futurist bro i feel you, i wish people saw the future of our species with bigger more autistic timescales

>>12729636
I like this, but can we give out IQ tests before the shooting commences as bonus round?

>>12729636
lol just because you recently broke your personal record doesn't mean everyone else who doesn't give a fuck about running gets shot.

>>12726315
Not an issue if we can shift our best and brightest away from min maxing corpo profits and playing war into terraforming other rocks.Our priorities are retarded. Either that or we figure out which group of people we're sick off the most and make some sporting event out of the culling. My money's on the whites being the first to go.

>>12732823
This. DOTR for hulkoids when?

>>12736628
>the abyssal plain
I finally understand the confusion. You are accidently in the wrong thread. Here you go!

>>>/tg/77658330

>>12736743
Quality of life, by all measures, is better now than ever, almost anywhere you look on Earth.

>>12738622
More children are dying of starvation now that at any other time in human history.

>>12738622
>by all measures
but not this (>>12738633) measure

Why do you people always lie?

>>12738612
>abyssal plain
google it you stupid fuck. its a real thing, and it covers over half the earth's surface.
god you're a moron. no wonder you don't think overpopulation is an issue

>>12728159
Really irks me when people talk about getting rid of kids. They aren’t the problem. It’s selfish boomers not dying in a punctual fashion, and now we’ve locked down society to allow them to contribute to fester on this planet. Get rid of these useless eaters, kids aren’t the problem in the 21st cent.

>>12726315
agreed. it's a solution to many of the problems we are facing as a species. unchecked growth is cancer.

i think the best solution would be to incentivize woman to have at most 2 children. this would cause the population to decrease over time, as not everyone will reproduce. of course there will be times when twins etc. are born, but that's statistically insignificant and shouldn't be penalized.

>>12738633
Doubt it, looks like in early 2000s there was more hunger.

>>12726315
Then please go kill yourself please. You posthuman scum. Leave earth for actualized chads

>>12726315
Agreed. Start with yourself.

>>12728159
this is just a /pol/ proxy board at this point isn't it

>>12739505
i don't completely agree with the post you quoted, but i agree with it more than not. i don't understand why many peoples' knee-jerk reaction to population control makes them think of /pol/ ideologies; most of the time people take that as you wanting to kill people which is absurd

>>12729231
And waste all those resources to grow him into a productive adult.

>>12739560
Genocide definition includes destroying the ability to procreate.

>>12739791
did i say anything about genocide or sterilization?

The more humans the better.

>>12738633
>>12738653
>More children are dying of starvation now that at any other time in human history.


That is patently false. I can't wait to hear your source for that information.

>>12739902
He probably meant absolute values.

>>12738757

When did overpopulation become an issue? A certain year of tipping point? A certain number of humans in the population? How exactly is this overpopulation you speak of hurting mankind?

>>12739284

What problem 'we are facing as a species' is 'too many humans' causing?

>>12739404
The only hunger epidemics that happen in modern times are caused by political situations, not by lack of food or ability to deliver it.

>>12739920
Maybe, but I still don't know of anywhere on earth right now that children are dying of starvation UNLESS its b/c of politics.

>>12739958
>UNLESS its b/c of politics.
Why wouldn't it count?

>>12739935
pollution
resource depletion
climate change
habitat destruction (earth's diverse biology is one of our greatest resources; see medicine)

to name a few

>>12739942
>ability to deliver it
hunger is largely a logistics problem at this point. but the point still stands that there are too many mouths to feed

>>12739979
Because most of this thread has been people suggesting we can't feed the growing human population. I argue we can, but sometimes a political leader doesn't allow it, i.e. likes his populace weak from hunger. (this may describe modern N. Korea). But that's not a resource issue.

>>12739982
Greater social tension and resource wars as well.

>>12739982

>pollution
I see pollution as a problem in emerging societies, but greatly improved over the last several decades in emerged nations (like USA, which had acid rain, smokestacks with low emission control in the 70's). USA got richer and cleaned itself up. Pretty sure that's the story of western Europe too, at least.

>resource depletion
I can't think of a single resource that all this supposed overpopulation has depleted. We aren't even low on oil yet, much less at risk of depletion.

>climate change
I think that may be what's actually driving the doomsayers today. All I observe is that warmer climates are generally more hospitable to humans than colder ones.

>habitat destruction
Like pollution. habitat destruction (like deforestation) has slowed on many places and been reversed in others.

It appears to me, when it comes to the environment, that poor emerging nations use it up voraciously, but wealthy emerged nations when they become wealthy enough value it, stop destroying it, and even move to preserve and strengthen it.

I think everyone values their environment. Nations just have to get wealthy enough to eat regularly w/o tearing it down. Once they get there, they don't need to anymore and they preserve it for its own sake.

Which is why the go-back-to-a-simpler-time crowd would actually be bad for the environment. This group:
>>12735482
for example, would have to ravage their environment to have any chance of making it.

>>12739995
>there are too many mouths to feed

But they are getting fed now better than in the past, even as human population is at an all-time high. I don't know of a starving populace anywhere. What indicates we have too many mouths to feed? When did this happen? I think its a seminal problem that mankind solves better and better with more people.

>>12740113
>>12740122
you're basically a cabal of stark raving mad feudal gangster lords

>>12740157
>stark raving mad feudal gangster lords

Weren't those more common in the past? You know, when the earth had fewer people?

>>12740186
apparently not

>>12740186
history repeats

>>12740113
you spent a lot of time typing up a bunch of nonsense

>>12728344
retard
3 billion max
it was enough to get us to the moon

>>12726397
Lets start wit u then

>>12726315
To this day, NO ONE has refuted David Benatar

>>12740439
This David Benatar sound like a good human.
i bet he ingest carbon and breath nitrogen even more than most of us humans, haha

>>12726860
Just force 1 child per couple that way no one feels like he's being denied parenthood and statistically pop goes down anyway

>>12740809
that's a stupid idea because this will happen

>>12741887
jfc i was having breakfast asshole

>>12741887
she had to take a number 3

>>12741887
This is in reverse right I refuse to believe even the chinks are that inhumane

>>12742296
Any country with abortion is as inhumane.

Just don't let developing nations emerge, then.

>>12735476
You just know

>>12742605
They have every right to do so internally.
Prime directive

>>12742296
it is in reverse but somebody put the baby in the toilet beforehand

>>12740228
3 billion? Based on what? You rolled d6 and added a billion, didn't you?

>>12742256
no one appreciates my next level super sophisticated dead baby joke :(

>>12739471
>>12739439
I find it funny that even though the hive of humanity is in a position of power it still spergs at those that insult the hive

>>12742296
Huh.
I thought "why would he handle the baby so carefully at the start if he was to dump it", and just left it at weird bugman mentality.

I stand humbled, to not even have considered it was reversed.
I am chong ching sorry, chong chang ching.

>>12740224
Still waiting to hear about any resource that's been used up by our 'overpopulation'.

>>12739982
>(earth's diverse biology is one of our greatest resources; see medicine

It's not a resource until its discovered though. Once discovered, that plant will be saved and cultivated. Until then, its just a weed in a jungle that isn't helping anybody. Need people to discover it, ID it, cultivate it, etc.

>>12735598
Mars is the stepping stone to Mercury; stay hopeful, anon.

>>12739935
>What problem 'we are facing as a species' is 'too many humans' causing?

Literally every social pathology and conflict on this planet RIGHT NOW is traced back to overpopulation.

Syria civil war - jobless and increasingly water-deprived Sunni farmers turning to armed terrorism and banditry.

India - their squalor comes down to their inability to take control of reproductive rates and direct their society.

Amazon deforestation? Expanding cattle and crop farming to feed the world and get rich. etc etc.

>>12744101
>no humans at all
>no problems with humans
Genius!

>>12742756
>Based on what?
so two lines was too much to read huh

>>12744105
The proof that the Earth is overpopulated right here.
We would need 1.9 planets Earth just to get everyone to the living standard of Nepal.

>>12744163
That's... not a proof?

>>12744176
It's a study on the ecological footprint of each country. If anything, it underestimates it, since it doesn't take factors like soil erosion into account.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712

So even if the entire developed world could somehow manage to lower its ecological footprint to that of Nepal without wrecking the economy, it still wouldn't be enough. If the entire world had the ecological footprint of Nepal or Costa Rica we would still need more than one planet Earth. This, of course, with present population numbers. Population keeps skyrocketing, we probably added at least 100 million people since that study was conducted.

So yeah, overpopulation is the big elephant in the room that won't be addressed because of political correctness and lack of coordination among countries.

We should be both enforcing parenting licenses on a worldwide scale and promoting space colonization.

>>12744182
* Ecological footprint per capita, of course

>>12744182
>won't be addressed because
the fix is slow & painful

To reduce overpopulation you have to do what was done in the 1st world
- women get political rights (voting, standing as a candidate)
- women get economic rights (divorce, inheritance)
- women get judicial rights (equal to men as witnesses etc.)
...and the Big One
- functioning pension system (so children aren't the only insurance for old age)

It's the only way that has worked, in all of human history.

>>12744600
Women being considered people is unnatural and Evil, as evidenced by all entities having adopted it having collapsed soon after.
Pensions is also deeply Evil for both its pyramid scheme nature, and imposing rent-seeking on humans instead of keeping it on jews.

>>12735553
we just gotta melt it. Other bonus areas are Siberia and Greenland. Double bonus is, by the time we have melted all of these locations through global warming, everyone in Africa dies of heatstroke and reduces the population, increasing Inhabitable land : people ratio

>>12744055
>used up
depletion

desirable land
aquifers
fish
easy to get at resources
etc.

are just some examples that took 5 seconds to come up with

>>12744067
>i'm first going to study the ecology and biology of this jungle before i slash and burn it to grow a single cultivar of banana for as far as the eye can see

>>12726315

Racist against POC much?

>>12732742
>>12732850

unironically switch humans from beef/pig/chicken/fish consumption to plant consumption. you'll free up shit loads of land and water.

>>12744806
OP wasn't making a /pol/ argument. it's a valid point of discussion for adults

>>12744811
i want to be able to eat meat.
that's more important than having 40 billion people living elbow to elbow
why the fuck would you want even more people on the planet. what possible benefit is there?

>>12744813

You should be fired from your job.

>>12744818

it would be better for the planet overall if we ditch meat.

>>12744600
>women get
oh ok
so the solution to the problems caused by population growth is:
economic/population growth
gotcha, thx

>>12744823
it'd be better for the planet if we could control our growth in an intelligent way. it comes down to I(mpact) = P(opulation) * A(ffluence) * T(echnology)
instead of trading away the ability to do things, just reduce the population to a level that doesn't stress the planet out

>>12726756

Based and D&G pilled

>>12744831
retard
lrn2read

>>12744614
ISIS is over, you can stop now.

>>12745329
ISIS was a jewish operation.