Overpopulation

[Axel the Possum No.3588104]

Six billion is too many, /sci/.

We've hit a wall where the need for people and the amount of people are incredibly out of sync. I'm not saying that we are running out of resources or people are getting dumber or what-not, those are other stories.

I'm talking about the fact that, as our society advances, the need for people decreases. One factory floor that used to employ a hundred people working to make a car now employs four; two mechanics, a programmer, and a superfluous manager. Farms can now grow food so cheaply that government subsidies are the only thing that keeps it worth doing at this pace (look how much money is spent on farming subsidies), at least in the developed world.

As the number of people increases, the number of jobs doesn't increase commensurately. Eventually, the number of people who are burdens on society (not by choice but by simple accident of being unneeded or lacking increasingly fewer opportunities) will grow and grow until you have situations like the riots in the UK.

Is there an ethical solution to this problem? How do we deal with a world where we're increasingly obsolete?

[JamesBond !!JAU/DZkp95n No.3588110]

Now that Global warming has failed as an issue, the left is trying to make overpopulation a new one.

[Anonymous No.3588114]

Yeah, tax every child. China does it, and it's pretty effective.

[Anonymous No.3588122]

>>3588110
>implying it failed as an issue

[Anonymous No.3588135]

We are not over populated, we just need more service jobs.

[Anonymous No.3588146]

>>3588104

As far as farming goes, its the fault of the farmers for investing in more land instead of building up and growing their vegetables hydroponically inside skyscrapers.

that would fix the slow yield.

As far as the global population goes, that has been a known issue for years, and happens to be a bigger issue among the right and not the left contrary to bonds post.

Also, the amount of people alive today is 6,956,378,744

We are almost at 7 Billion!

I say we need to herp the derp up and build even more sea cities as weve seen mentioned before.

We should also terraform the moon and mars. or something.

Popular belief is that there willl be a intentional WWIII held. To kill off the majority of the no-hopers...

[Anonymous No.3588154]

You realize that the point of having people is not to make stuff,obviously, you could not be so socially retarded and still speak a human language

[Anonymous No.3588160]

Overpopulation? No problem.

[osthoro No.3588161]

What OP does not realize is that soevreign was only the first of the reapers. They will activate one day to cleanse the galaxy. Therefore, the need for more people is always infinite.

[Anonymous No.3588172]

>>3588146
Dude... No WWIII needed, taxation on the children is the way to go.

[Axel the Possum No.3588182]

>>3588154

I'm all for people living as happy a life as they can. However, if they're not producing SOMEHOW, they're a drain on society. Now, this is okay, to an extent; children, after all, are drains, as are the elderly and disabled (to varying degrees). I'm not about to say kill them all.

I'm talking about what happens when you have millions of able-bodied people who have literally nothing to do. When competition is so fierce for even menial things, the ability for these people to support themselves is compromised.

I want people to be able to support themselves; to be able to find gainful employment and produce for the society they live in. The problem is, when you have close to seven billion people... Well, what can you do?

[Anonymous No.3588188]

>>3588172

that would only encourage people to not reproduce...

Doesnt solve the problem immdeiately. infact itll only make matters worse. Now you have a population of almost 7 billion that are pissed!

[Anonymous No.3588193]

Nature will correct our mistake.

[Anonymous No.3588203]

>>3588182
>However, if they're not producing SOMEHOW, they're a drain on society

Why does that matter, if they're not needed to produce anything?

>I'm talking about what happens when you have millions of able-bodied people who have literally nothing to do.

There is always something to do. There is not always something that you need to do.

>When competition is so fierce for even menial things, the ability for these people to support themselves is compromised.

This is a problem with the economic model.

>want people to be able to support themselves; to be able to find gainful employment and produce for the society they live in. The problem is, when you have close to seven billion people... Well, what can you do?

Change the economic model.

[Anonymous No.3588211]

>>3588188
No, it will just stop people to have a lot of children! Maybe don't tax the first two kids or something... Also when I say "tax the kids", I don't mean take money away from them (because they have none legally) but from parents that have too many kids.

[Anonymous No.3588212]

>>3588146
>>3588182

>implying there is a finite amount jobs
>implying innovation isn't as exponential or more exponential than the population growth
>implying the rationing effect of prices will not cause people to decrease consumption or the amount of children
>implying most of the growth isn't in the 3rd world


I always keep seeing economics in meh tier or shit tier in Major threads, yet we always have to explain why it won't be a problem. Instead, you guys derping about it, suggesting things like sterilization or genocide. This is why I can't let you run Congress. They may be corrupt idiots sometimes, but they don't pull this crap.

[Anonymous No.3588216]

>>3588193
how exactly?

[Anonymous No.3588221]

Services will need to increase then op. This is partly why fields like IT are booming.

[Anonymous No.3588229]

What are the parameters for your definition of 'ethical' behaviour? For example, if you take the most pessimistic view of human nature, even a war may be not completely unethical. Just a bunch of hedonistic greedy fucks killing other hedonistic greedy fucks. No one would have the moral high ground there.
Inb4: Some people don't have the means so they are innocent... Just because 'some' people don't have as many guns or fancy war machines doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't fuck others over if they had the opportunity.

[Anonymous No.3588234]

>>3588193
That's a stupid thing to say. We are the nature, everything is natural.

[Anonymous No.3588238]

You're talking about capitalism and its view of workers as an enemy of profit because they are expected to be paid for their work.

[Anonymous No.3588244]

>>3588234

Hi Sade!

[Anonymous No.3588247]

If you think people are only born to fill cubicles you're kind of a dumbass and not likely a part of society, rather you're a parasite upon it.

[Anonymous No.3588307]

>>3588212
>(you guys are genocidal maniacs) This is why I can't let you run Congress. They may be corrupt idiots sometimes, but they don't pull this crap.

actually, they do.
all the time.

remember the south american children syphilis infections?

those who run the governments of the world, especially those who run the US, are the sickest fucks ever to walk the earth.

you think /sci/ is a bunch of eugennacists, "you aint seen nothin yet"

[Anonymous No.3588314]

>>3588244
That Sade guys seems interesting. Reading about him now.

[Anonymous No.3588317]

We need more pointless jobs. Getting people doing stuff, even it's it's little more than community improvement for minimum wage, is better than nothing. As long as the money the government spends on wages ends up going into the pockets of it's citizens, it's not lost money.

I can almost understand how the people who rioted feel. I've spent the past year looking for a job. The job papers are depressingly slim and only contain offers for people who have 5+ years of experience in the industry. Unemployment here's just getting worse as well, so it's only going to get harder and harder to find a job.

[Anonymous No.3588329]

The only reason farms are subsidized is to keep prices in the store unrealistically low. Also to mention that non-GM farms are not subsidized.

[Anonymous No.3588348]

>>3588307

This is true. Although it would be interesting to see who could do it better if /sci/ got the chance. Interesting, not good.

>>3588314

Same here. His books are meh, but his life and philosophy is interesting.

[Anonymous No.3588356]

Let me fix this... 7 Billion.

And NO. 7 billion isn't too many, but it's also not too few. We have the ability to feed, clothe, and supply every single human being with all of their necessities and raise their standard of living above any rich person of today.. Of course society doesn't work this way.

Even without the changes necessary for what i mentioned, we can still feed, clothe and support 7 billion.

<3 Technology.

[Anonymous No.3588384]

ITT: Malthusians who haven't read any economic science published after the marginal revolution.

[Anonymous No.3588456]

Set up smaller businesses that are less productive than large ones, but more efficient and capable of producing higher quality products on a pore personal basis. The increased productivity of automation makes productivity via mass production redundant, allowing the reemergence of the artisan. Efforts such as the Open Source Ecology project are working towards allowing micro-economies to exist alongside the global economy.

[Anonymous No.3588484]

>>3588104
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OVERPOPULATION.
It is a myth and was created by a christian no less.

This has never been proven scientifically. All you have is pop science and poleticians trying to convince you to be pro abortion or have less childeren so that they, the elites, can keep control of everything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBS6f-JVvTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM

[Anonymous No.3588498]

>>3588317As long as the money the government spends on wages ends up going into the pockets of it's citizens, it's not lost money.

Too bad government jobs are being cut into oblivion like all the rest, even though we need things like drivers licenses I guess we're not going to get them.

[Anonymous No.3589008]

>>3588484
God damn, that video doesn't even do exponential growth right. Listen, populations grow exponentially. You can't possibly expect growth indefinitely. Eventually every available spot on the earth would be taken up.

If you're going to post youtube videos, watch this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

This uses very simple math and very real world cases to show that overpopulation is a great problem. Not grasping ideas of of thin air or making them up, disguising a lack of facts with admittedly good animation.

[Anonymous No.3589020]

Don't worry OP, we need 32 billion people to start colonizing, that's when you have to start worrying.
But no problem, because there will be other planets where we can transport all the population.

[Anonymous No.3589035]

To any of the teenage Malthusians ITT:

Total fertility rate is declining worldwide as countries modernize. Some countries are already in population decline. With current projections we're set to peak at a population of 9-10 billion and go into decline shortly after 2050, no wars or starvation required.

http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300final.pdf
http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

[Anonymous No.3589043]

>>3589008
>Listen, populations grow exponentially. You can't possibly expect growth indefinitely. Eventually every available spot on the earth would be taken up.
See
>>3589035

[Anonymous No.3589048]

>>3589035
Backup on the total fertility rate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

You can see where the remaining growth will be. (Protip: Not in the first-world countries).

[Anonymous No.3589050]

stop paying people to have babies ftw

[Anonymous No.3589052]

>>3589035
Predictions of dropping fertility rates assumes continued industrialization of third world countries. Hopefully this happens and hopefully the population will start to shrink after that. However, if a global economic crisis occurs, exponential growth will kick back in and we'll have a LOT more than just 9 billion.

Most of the world's problems can be traced to lack of resources. While technology may help with this problem, it still remains a problem. Slightly outpacing what the current world can carry with current technology is not a bad thing. However, it quickly becomes bad when resource scarcity causes war, famine, conflict, etc. This is already occurring in many parts of the world.

Overpopulation doesn't become a problem at a specific global population. It's a local, time-varying value which right now we've WAY overstepped.

[Anonymous No.3589058]

>>3589052
I fully agree. However, the problem would be contained in those countries which fail to modernize. There won't be any starvation in current first-world countries.

>Overpopulation doesn't become a problem at a specific global population. It's a local, time-varying value which right now we've WAY overstepped.
It will go back down naturally if we don't fuck it up. This is the best way to achieve a stable optimum.

[Anonymous No.3589061]

>>3589052
>>3589058
Also, watch that Hans Rosling video. The rate and universality of the world's modernization is astonishing. People in the "first world" generally have a view of the "third world" that is 50 years out of date.

[Anonymous No.3589069]

>>3589061
Did you know that Singapore has an infant mortality rate that is a THIRD of the rate in the US?

[Anonivixen No.3589073]

Don't like overpopulation?

Don't rape women, give them an education instead.

I was watching a documentary on PBS, and apparently the more education women get, the less kids they have, statistically speaking.

[Anonymous No.3589077]

>>3589073
>I was watching a documentary on PBS, and apparently the more education women get, the less kids they have, statistically speaking.
It's one of the very strong factors.

Check out the Hans Rosling video, it's relevant.
>>3589035

[Anonymous No.3589094]

A good ol' war will thin us out.

[Anonymous No.3589106]

OP obviously trolling

US Farmers haven't seen subsidies for years due to high and increasing demand on crops. And, guess why such increase in demand? ... That's right, high population.

Having 4 people build a car means car are cheaper in price. Has OP ever calculated how much first Model T ford cost with respect to average US income? Oh, that's right, he's a faggot troll.

[Anonymous No.3589110]

>>3589052
I very much agree.
Just because we can use technology to keep ourselves from dying out doesn't mean that we should be stop there.
On the whole, supporting more people by means of technology means that those people will be less ahppy - more cramped, less work (because of automation and a lack of corresponding welfare), less resources to go around.
if technology can make things great for 7 billion, it can make things even better for 2 billion.
Much, much better infact.

[Anonymous No.3589120]

Our planet can't support 6 billion people because there are 300million Americans living like kings while the rest of the world gets shit

[Anonymous No.3589125]

>>3589120
>Our planet can't support 6 billion people because there are 300million Americans living like kings while the rest of the world gets shit
That's changing.
>>3589035

But I agree that the US standard of living will probably go down a little as peak oil hits.

[Anonymous No.3589146]

Wtf, does /sci/ read anything other than foxnews?

The logic behind fertility decrease in more modernized countries is just fail. Just look at Russia, they're in negative population growth area, and by that logic, they must be fucking super humans by now.

[Anonymous No.3589222]

You make robots do the work, and the rest of us can just relax and enjoy the fruits of their labor.

[Anonymous No.3589241]

According to jewpedia, first Ford Model T was selling for $850 while it's competition $2000-3000

> http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_05/zurbuchen120405.html
This lists 2 sources where they identify average wage in 1900 around 0.22$/hr = $2 a day or $40/mo.

Current average salary in US - 3,000/mo

So, Model T would have a price tag of 63k which is the price of a fucking BMW right now, not some cheap-ass Pinto.

And that's given the 1900's price of steel/petroleum/etc that was way bellow what it currently is due to all the technological demand.

[Anonymous No.3589273]

Reverse "baby bonus" payments. Tax breaks for the childless rather than paying women to pump out spawn.

Free state education and healthcare only for firstborns (or first two maybe).

Legalise abortion and have world class facilities to perform them in (not back alleys with coat hangers)

Bring contraception back into the limelight

Remove demonisation of homosexual men and women so less are inclined to marry and have children in opposite-sex marriages

Reduced cost (stamp duty, etc) of living in rural areas to combat urban sprawl and overly dense cities.

Greater incentives for primary producers.

I'm sure there are more

[Anonymous No.3589277]

This is what they said when farming first started becoming efficient and all the people had to move I to the cities because they couldn't make any money

>this triggered the industrial revolution

Luddites gonna ludd

Look, service sector is already 70% in lots of developed countries. People like dealing with other people so all buisness are obliged to have a human deal with their customers. There will always be uses for people, but yea, less demand will cause the price of labor to go down which will piss off all of the rich haters. Worst case scenario is a socialist revolution. But as long as science is still able to progress a little socialism won't kill us. It will just make our society less efficient/livable.

[Anonymous No.3589284]

Much more daunting is the fact that the Flynn affect had run it's course in first world countries, and the average iq is dropping by 1.38 points every year. This truly spells disaster

[Anonymous No.3589298]

>>3589284
>Much more daunting is the fact that the Flynn affect had run it's course in first world countries, and the average iq is dropping by 1.38 points every year. This truly spells disaster
You read that wrong. I've seen the source.

GLOBALLY the average trends down in YOUNG people as the vast majority of them are now coming from undeveloped countries.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=5794948
>Demographic trends in today's world are dominated by large fertility differentials between nations, with ‘less developed’ nations having higher fertility than the more advanced nations. The present study investigates whether these fertility differences are related primarily to indicators of economic development, the intellectual level of the population, or political modernity in the form of liberal democracy. Results obtained with multiple regression, path models and latent variable models are compared. Both log-transformed GDP and measures of intelligence independently reduce fertility across all methods, whereas the effects of liberal democracy are weak and inconsistent. At present rates of fertility and mortality and in the absence of changes within countries, the average IQ of the young world population would decline by 1.34 points per decade and the average per capita income would decline by 0.79% per year.

[Anonymous No.3589301]

>>3589284

1) IQ test is a very controversial way to test intelligence.
2) It is logical that as population increases, the specific knowledge to have high ranking IQ score get diluted as more people become experts in their domain and not IQ testing.

[Anonymous No.3589304]

I wish I understood economics enough to know why technology that can reduce the amount people need to work is a *bad* thing for the economy so we make bullshit middle management jobs for everyone, and why we should just accept that rather than doing something.

[Anonymous No.3589322]

As technology advances we need less people.

Now these people don't have jobs.

Now they find they can only rely on themselves.

Now they begin the work of breeding more family to rely on and support them, a technique all the richest families on earth have used for ages to amass wealth.

If we could connect all current human family wealth together there may be no need for extreme amounts of humans.

[Anonymous No.3589348]

>2011
>still believing in overpopulation

[Anonymous No.3589354]

>>3589301

Iq is not something you study for or specialize in. The test is made to measure general intelligence. If it actually does that is immaterial. We know for a fact that there is a strong correlation with iq test score and being a successful person in any field that requires the use of cognitive ability.

Most of the people that find IQ to be controversial received a medicre score.

[Anonivixen No.3589368]

>>3589241
That's not entirely fair, because our budget distribution is completely different from what it was, so it's not really apples to apples. Think about the money we spend that we didn't before on taxes and entertainment.

[Anonymous No.3589393]

>>3589354
>Most of the people that find IQ to be controversial received a medicre score.
And people who score well believe it's a great measure of personal worth.

This has nothing to do with validity.

[Anonymous No.3589410]

>>3589393

Yes that is just my personal experience. The important part was in the first bit. Whatever IQ measures, if not general intelligence, is highly relevant and very important.

[Anonivixen No.3589413]

In b4 Brave New World test tube bred class system...

[Anonymous No.3589415]

>>3589368

Taxation was brutal back then for people rich enough to buy cars while now they pay much less than the poor or middle class.

[Anonymous No.3589425]

>>3589410
Agreed.

The real problem is that people believe IQ is innate (all genetics, no environment).

We don't have any way to directly measure genetic potential for intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3589457]

>>3589415

Wtf are you talking about nigga. Government spending as a percentage of GDP was around 10% before WW2. Nobody had a big tax burden compared to today.

[Anonymous No.3589482]

>>3589425

It is mostly genetic. This has been heavily researched and we know for a fact that intelligence is between 50-90 percent heritable. So yes it is mostly genetic. The other two factors are developmental stimulation and nutrition. (not education)

[Anonymous No.3589500]

>>3589482
There's a problem. You didn't even tell me what environmental differences you're comparing against.

You can't say "50-90% heritable" without assuming a spread of environmental factors as well. It's all about the comparing the impact of the variation in genetics and the variation in environment.

[Anonymous No.3589568]

>>3589500
>>3589500

Yea I mean that's what all of the studies aim to do and these are the numbers we get.

When twins are raised apart in different socioeconomic, and cultural regions/families they almost always have about the same score.

[Anonymous No.3589589]

>>3589568
>When twins are raised apart in different socioeconomic, and cultural regions/families they almost always have about the same score.
I doubt they were really different.

You see, the difference in their environment didn't span the type of difference between here and Pakistan.

[Anonymous No.3589660]

>>3589043
OH BOY JUUST WHAT WE NEED 3 BILLION MORE NIGGERS AND LESS WHITES

[Anonymous No.3589678]

>>3589660
Don't worry, they'll all be in Africa.

[Anonymous No.3589721]

Solution: Kill all the non-whites, people on welfare, retarded, criminals, obese, degenerate etc.

[Anonymous No.3589770]

>>3589008
I prefer this youtube video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo

[Anonymous No.3589800]

>>3589770
Yeah, this just ignore the real trends though. Total fertility rate really is decreasing, and is already below replacement in some places. He denies that we're heading toward population contraction because "fucking won't go out of style". Really?

He's got a point about the environmental impact of just having more people, but I wish he weren't making counterfactual claims as well.

[Anonymous No.3589804]

monkey slaves

[Anonymous No.3589882]

we're not overpopulated! if we all just chip in and stop all our wasteful consumption we all be... ah fuck it, we're not going to do that. yes, we are fucking overpopulated

however I don't get OPs argument about overpopulation due to obsoletion. Isn't that a proportions thing? If we 50% of people aren't needed, then if you get rid of that 50% only 50% of the remaining are needed because now they don't have to sustain the other 50% and so on.

WW3 it is then.

[SomeStupidFag !!jgMdkqLZWtJ No.3589964]

[Anonymous No.3589976]

i was thinking about a service in parts of africa that would offer a substantial amount of money to anyone willing to castrate themselves, chemically of course. something irreversible.

[Anonymous No.3590037]

>>3589721

If we kill all criminals, bums, etc. You would be in prison instead.

The prisons and charity will still exist for the low 10% of the population. Society morals will go up on average which will result classifying you, a bloodthirsty savage who just wants to kill people, as someone who should be locked up for life.

[Anonymous No.3590045]

God, Waterson is such a great artisit.

look at the HNNNGGGGGGGNNNGGGG face in panel 4

[Anonymous No.3590062]

>>3589882
>implying there is a finite number of jobs
Sure is luddite argument against Industrial Revolution.

>Implying the new technology won't result in us consuming less resources per unit.

[Anonymous No.3590065]

I'm just laying this card on the table.

Not saying whether I'm opening up the possibility or making comparisons, it's there, come to peace with it.

[Anonymous No.3590069]

>>3588104
The problem is not population the problem is what is expected of people. There are many ways to solve too few jobs for too many people.

For instance if you have 100 people who work 8 hours a day (800 manhours) and then you find you only need 600 manhours you should shorten the work day to 6 hours.

However instead we've taken the path of just kicking people out to the streets so that no one's quality of life improves as direct result of the cause of needing less labor. (75 workers working just as hard as ever, and 25 people who are quickly going into poverty if they don't find another job)

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3590093]

>>3590069

> if everyone is poor, then the world is perfect

Democrats actually believe this.

[Anonymous No.3590099]

>>3590093

define being rich for an individual, then define being rich for a culture.

[Liberty !!nQrIRh+JHbs No.3590109]

>>3590099

Working eight hours consensually while other get laid off because of a lack of demand.

Working consensually.

[Anonymous No.3590118]

>>3588104
>Overpopulation
>I'm not saying that we are running out of resources
>Is there an ethical solution to this problem?

Yes, there is, house and feed them all, and give them some money.

Of course that's impossible to be accepted unconditionally because there are jobs out there people do that drain them, so seeing someone else get shit for free while they 'have to work' to feed someone pisses them off.

Which should be addressed by either giving them raises, but even then they'd complain.

But hey, money is debt and most work is slavery, and employers try to pay as little as possible for as much return as possible.

So people who had a nice job once, and lost it for some reason are forced to talk any other job if they want to keep their old lifestyle.
This makes people bitter, especially if the former job was something they liked.
Now in this situation they have to do something they maybe do not like as much ,but have to do it, or else they suffer life degradation.

But still, just house and feed the unneeded, it's the best solution, and I don't think many of those unneeded people care if people who work have giant riches, as long as the jobless are able to live normal lives.

I know I would. If you work and (in a society where work is prestigious and only done when needed.) and the government grants would include golden bathtubs and jewel encrusted flying cars.

I wouldn't mind as long as I am healthy, well fed and have a roof over my head.

[Anonymous No.3590122]

>>3590118
talk = take

[Anonymous No.3590133]

>>3590109
>2011
>Atheist
>Believe in libertarianism

I hope you guys...I HOPE

[Anonymous No.3590142]

>>3588216
global warming, lack of food, disease...homeostasis shall come

[Anonymous No.3590156]

>>3588329
amerifag here.
aren't farm subsidies almost non-existant? thought that was mostly in the 60's and phased out. i do intend on finding out about this.

[Anonymous No.3590161]

>>3589277
>People like dealing with other people
That generation will be dieing off in the near future. In the future you will place your order on your cellphone before you ever get to a restaurant and it'll be ready when you get there.

Here's another, answering systems will be indistinguishable from your average phone monkey in a decade or two with the advances of natural language software.

[Anonymous No.3590176]

I really don't think overpopulation is a big deal. But any excuse to sterilize the inferior among us is good enough for me. Fucking dumbasses submitting to your instincts to reproduce. We need eugenics NOW before we revert back to homo erectus

[Anonymous No.3590183]

>>3589721
i would support this.
however we would have to kill a fucking lot of white privileged ass hats who would fight for the minority.

[Anonymous No.3590190]

>>3590156

Bro. Farmers are like Americas sweethearts. They get all kinds of special treatment and subsidies.

[SomeStupidFag !!jgMdkqLZWtJ No.3590200]

[Anonymous No.3590205]

>>3590190
And they're mostly not farmers, but corporations like cargill, monsanto and others.

>yfw you realize farm subsidies are just corporate hand outs.

[SomeStupidFag !!jgMdkqLZWtJ No.3590206]

[SomeStupidFag !!jgMdkqLZWtJ No.3590208]

[Anonymous No.3590212]

>>3588135
LEGALIZE PROSTITUTION AND CP, THEN PEOPLE WILL BE USED BETTER

is that what you're saying?

[Anonymous No.3590221]

So how should we handle this situation? Introduce population control measures or just roll some dice, the number you get is the number of people who you have to kill.

[Anonymous No.3590232]

>>3590205

I don't care if it's just "hard working folks" or "big evil corporations" it's bullshit either way.

>yfw we can't have coke made with real sugar because corn subsidies and sugar tariffs

I fucking hate politics. It blows my mind that there isn't complete and absolute uproar over this blatant corruption.

[Anonymous No.3590229]

>>3590156
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_States

Still in effect according to wikipedia

[Anonymous No.3590241]

>>3590190
>>3590205
hrmm..well farm subsidies do appear rather out there. just according to the first site that seems to have data (i def do not know if its any good)
over past 15 years, about 260billion total. not really all that much compared to other dumb things we do. but i do not see why it would be needed..

[Anonymous No.3590243]

>>3590229
http://farm.ewg.org/region.php?fips=00000&progcode=total

i was asking about it, doing little bit of reading.

[Anonymous No.3590261]

>>3590241
>but i do not see why it would be needed..

It's to prevent people from underbidding each other into oblivion such that they or retailers can't make a significant profit per sale.

Moral of the story, food is very cheap with our level of technology. Too cheap for some...

[Anonymous No.3590268]

>>3590232
Well it makes a difference because it's easier for corporations to lobby government than it is for hard working individuals to vote in helpful electorates.

So yes, there is a difference.

[Anonymous No.3590281]

>>3590241

260 billion is huge. I'm pretty sure it could balance all of the states budgets easy

[Anonymous No.3590295]

>>3590268

Yea but lots of farmers means lots of votes to influence policy. It's corrupt bullshit either way.

[Anonymous No.3590308]

We don't OP. We are slowly but surely moving towards a post-scarcity world. This is unavoidable, but if we make the transition carefully, it'll be incredible.

Instead of hoping for all that transhumanist garbage, inserting your mind into internet and whatnot, THIS is what people should be hoping for.

[Anonymous No.3590312]

>>3590295
But farmers don't all perceive a collective benefit, so some of them vote for ron paul.

A corporation on the other hand will see, and so will their employees, so you've got 2 vs 1

[Anonymous No.3590329]

>>3590308
The two are not inherently unrelated, a trans-human with their mind uploaded to a data system or even a robotic body would use far less resources than a biological human

[Anonymous No.3591061]

>>yfw there is enough food/money to ensure that literally every person on Earth could live a decent life with all their fundamental needs taken care of
>>yfw the main reason this doesn't happen can be summed up as "rich people are selfish"
>>yfw future generations will view the concept of poverty as a sad chapter in human history

[tinycat !!qoWPGZQ4oQc No.3591068]

>>3588104
Kill the global elite who are too greedy to let go of their money based power and move to a moneyless society where robots and nanotechnology support people and everyone is free to peruse whatever interests they have. All discoveries are openly shared, not locked away in some copyright and never developed because some committee doesn't think it will return enough money.

Watch in amazement as all our problems get solved because people have nothing better to do than sit around all day and think about how to make things even better.

[Anonymous No.3591091]

I say we start a cult, based on the Wild Hunt. We will become the predators, and we will kill as many non-members as we can. No rules for the kills, just kills. Poison, traps, mind-fucking til suicide, or outright shooting/stabbing. Then, if they kill us, they will have proved they deserve to live. And if we kill hundreds or thousands, we will have proven that the human race has allowed the weak to prosper.

[Anonymous No.3591110]

>>3591091
ability to protect yourself from murder isn't what i would consider to be the most worthy trait of protection

killing should be selective, perhaps only probabilitistically so, so as either to protect the good, or take down what makes us to destructive in the first place.

however, a bunch of rogue killers won't have much effect, except perhaps in causing carnage from the retaliation

[Anonymous No.3591173]

op
As the human population expands exponentially, so too does our technology.
People = cores
More cores more ability to process information.

One day we will face an extinction event, unless we build the population to a level where we can expand into space your way of life as you think it will end. People like Dr Who simply do not exist, to understand complex systems you need a massive workforce each specializing in their area of expertise.

The Riots are a failure of government in fiscal policy, lend the money create the companies and make jobs.

The failure of multiculturalism is poor leadership, you have many different races each indoctrinated by different government models. Each government model of indoctrination creates its own direction. Put multiple cultures together and each group goes in a different direction. You need very strong leadership to steer multiple cultures in one direction.

Your leader is a man who wears a bra

[Anonymous No.3591185]

You idiots, the birth rate in industrialized nations is usually under 3, sometimes below the replacement level.

The 'overpopulation crisis' is soley due to the lag time between the drop in the third worlds' death rate from improved medicine, and the drop in the birth rate through sex ed and the fact that children in advanced nations are more a cost than a source of income.

[Anonymous No.3591202]

If we were to say....wipe Africa clean of people (lets face it, they suck). The developed nations could then build new cities, industries and all kinds of work for the millions of unemployed.

Learning from our constant mistakes, a literal brand new city could be a utopia

>implying

[Anonymous No.3591207]

>>3591185
except that's a wrong reasoning. the third world countries get the technology (from us) to lower the death rate, but they didn't earn it themselves (by changing their society to (post)industrial, and thereby lowering the number of births). and because we're supporting them, they won't change either way.

on the plus side, once the economy finally goes down completely we won't have a penny to spare to them, and tens, if not hundreds of millions will starve as africa returns to the population size it can actually manage

[Anonymous No.3591218]

>>3589008

Thanks bro love that vid

Captcha: dedywo growth

[Anonymous No.3591363]

>>3590069
most employers would lay off the 2 workers to avoid paying 8 wages as opposed to 6 ones though. doesn't that make sense? if they kept all 8, but reduced their hours, they'd have to reduce their salaries too, which is a bit harder. not a lot harder, but in the case of a small business, effort that's easily saved by taking the easy option.
>>3591202
who'd inhabit these cities? take a look at this.
>http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=31
even south america's birth rate is fairly low at this point. it would take centuries (assuming that birth rate continued to stay positive in the 1st world) to repopulate Africa.

[Anonymous No.3591378]

>ethical solution to this problem?

Start with yourself faggot


And the "problem" is high unemployment, which is a problem that he had all the time throughout our history, form Roman times, all the way to modern times. New jobs are continually being created, actually now faster than any time in history.
You could use your "superior" intellect to come up with a new, useful way people could use their abilities thats benefitial to society.

[Anonymous No.3591732]

>>3591173

But the problem is that the only population group growing is African. They are intellectually so inferior that VERY few, I'm talking maybe one or two out of a billion, can help advance humanity. If we took the population of Africa and turned them into Jews, raising the average IQ more than two standard deviations, humanity would flourish in ways unimaginable.

[Anonymous No.3591768]

>>3588135

Service jobs are shit, we need much large percentage of the global population capable of utilizing resources efficiently. We need to phase the Walmarts of the world out by being more capable on average. People should be building their own houses and farms and schools maintaining their own roads etc. Brand names need to go, we should break everything down into standardized components and let people create their own products, this will greatly increase innovation and equate quality of life with effort instead of wealth.

[Anonymous No.3591787]

>>3589106

Wrong, our capacity to produce food far outstrips the actual need. Subsidies are frequently given to farmers to stop them from growing food. And its been like that for a while now. The apparent scarcity has more to do with with the fact that there is a commodities market, speculation, and regulation of production than the fact that anything is actually scarce. People starve more because they can't afford food, and Nations starve because the people are so poor no one thinks it would be profitable to setup reliable channels of food distribution within large sections of the country

[Anonymous No.3591790]

>>3591768

Not sure if trolling...

If not, you're an idiot. The entire concept would completely fail if you attempted it today. Could you seriously imagine people in New York City all owning family operated farms? No, because they simply don't have the land for all those people. Then factor in how some areas (the south) are more fit for growing food than areas like the north.

Then you get into the issue of things like breadbaskets where one or two countries factory farm the fuck out of one or two substances like wheat or corn thus providing the world with a ton of their product.

>Innovation
On what? You have an entire nation of farmers. Anyone who doesn't live in an area like Florida is going to have to work their ass off not to starve to death during the winter.

[Anonymous No.3591794]

>>3591218
Too bad it's simplistic bullshit. The growth constant is going down, and will switch over to global population contraction shortly after 2050. Some first-world countries are already at this stage.

>>3589035
>>3589048

[Anonymous No.3591795]

>>3591790
I think with his comment about everyone being farmers, he was also implying there'd be a lower population.

Farming is kind of shit, though. Everyone should have to forage and cannibalize.. that would get the population under control pretty quick.

[Anonymous No.3591800]

>>3591790

Obviously I don't mean everyone owns farms, but every city should have considerable property designated for farming. You don't need land to grow a lot of crops anymore btw. We should have started growing vertically a long time ago. And I didn't just talk about farmers. We should be building our own computers and means of transportation. If everyone who owned a computer built the first one they got I can promise you we'd be a lot more intelligent population.

[Anonymous No.3591803]

Resource based economy.

Look up the 'Venus Project'

/thread

[Anonymous No.3591805]

>>3591800
>We should be building our own computers and means of transportation. If everyone who owned a computer built the first one they got I can promise you we'd be a lot more intelligent population.
Holy fucking shit. You're talking about wiping out specialization entirely.

Well, at least I know your bullshit will never have an impact on the world, so I don't really care too much.

[Anonymous No.3591807]

>>3591803
IT BEGINS

[Anonymous No.3591812]

>>3591790

Did you even read the post

>People should be building their own houses >and farms and schools maintaining their own >roads etc. Brand names need to go, we should >break everything down into standardized >components and let people create their own >products,

[Anonymous No.3591819]

>CTRL+F "space"
>only 1 result

/sci/, I am disappoint.

[Anonymous No.3591831]

>>3591800

Then what is your issue with entire countries generating more food than they can consume and selling it to the rest?

Factory farming is going to be superior in terms of production than localized farming any time of day.

>>3591812

Yes, and my point was that the entire nation trying to feeding itself broken down by individuals or families would be such an issue that you'd have an entire states of nothing but farmers.

[Anonymous No.3591833]

Wait, what, there's someone ITT arguing that everyone should be subsistence farmers? LOL

That's the exact situation that produces population explosion. What a stupid suggestion.

[Anonymous No.3591835]

>>3591805
At some point in your life you'll need to start making a distinction between genuine concerns and hypchondria induced brain seizures, aka your ideas.

Pre-built computers and their manufacturing is not a specialization. It's a simplified, pick and stick operation making absurd amounts of money off ignorant people.

And besides, how will specialization end when bogus businesses like this go bust? There's still the manufacturing and creation of computer parts and software, not to mention shipping, processing, administering, managing and dick-sucking (your specialty).

[Anonymous No.3591845]

>>3591835
You so mad.

If everyone has to to everything themselves (you're talking about MAKING your own CARS and COMPUTERS for crying out loud), then there is no specialization.

[Anonymous No.3591859]

Specialization isn't going anywhere bro, it would just prevent specialization from turning into stagnation.

Preferred methods and components would be known and available, but they wouldn't be required. Your first computer would in all likely-hood be specialized with the exception that you built it, your second or third one would probably be built with a specific purpose in mind.

Specialization is necessary, but it also has its setbacks. Companies that are not so much corporations anymore as they are institutions are a testament to this. We've watched all the innovation get sucked out of the biggest corporations because they are no longer interested in creating revolutionary products in order to capture market share they are interested in pumping a steady supply of mildly updated products out to their firmly established market share.

[Anonymous No.3591861]

>>3591835

Yea this basically

[Anonymous No.3591865]

>>3591861
HAHAHA
The most obvious samefag I've seen in a long, long time.

There's nothing special about that post that merits additional approval. UNLESS...

[Anonymous No.3591869]

>>3591831
>>3591831

My problem with factory farming is that is creates the effect of apparent scarcity, because factory farmed food is very price oriented. You localize food production efficiently and people won't go hungry because we're burning rice to float the price in order to prevent a market collapse.

[Anonymous No.3591872]

>>3591865

I was agreeing with this "Pre-built computers and their manufacturing is not a specialization. It's a simplified, pick and stick operation"

because I wrote this
"Specialization isn't going anywhere bro, it would just prevent specialization from turning into stagnation"

We were essentially saying the same thing he was just more direct about it. What passes for specialization in established industries is actually not a desirable quality.

Not same fag at all

[Anonymous No.3591878]

>>3591872
Ah, apologies then.

But economies of scale are what has given the modern era such a high standard of living. Throwing that out in favor of something so very inefficient is incredibly misguided.

[Anonymous No.3591881]

>>3591768

Tololol

Walmart IS the most efficient. If you broke down walmart and allowed people to come into the market, they would eventually just "re-innovate" walmart all over again.

[Anonymous No.3591890]

>>3591831

Growing shit is not difficult, using conventional outdated methods it is, but you can fill a 4 story building with a lot of food now a days for relatively little effort

[Anonymous No.3591960]

>>3591878

My point is that our current system doesn't make for efficient human beings, and in the long run innovation is more efficient than any given system.

Also keep in mind current systems that we deem "efficient" are profit driven systems and efficiency for a company is paying as little as possible. Throw the cost of fuel and time to replenish forests, and the effect of plastics on the environment, and you start to see that just because something is cheap doesn't mean it is efficient.

>2011
>Still measuring cost in terms of currency only

[Anonymous No.3591966]

>>3591960
Ah, this schpiel.

The entirety of your crticism hinges on externalized costs. I fully agree that we can't allow externalized costs and simultaneously use internal cost as a measure of efficiency or benefit.

But if you DO internalize all the costs? The cheapest way is the best, period. If it's super-cheap to grow rice in a huge farm in one place and ship it around, THAT IS WHAT WE SHOULD DO.

[Anonymous No.3591968]

>mfw we're going to reach 7 billion in my birth month (october)
feels bad man

[Anonymous No.3591976]

>>3591968
We're slowing down. We're going to peak around 9-10 billion and go into decline shortly after 2050.


And the remaining growth isn't in your country anyway. Really, check the total fertility rate in your country and compare it with places in Africa.

[Anonymous No.3591978]

>>3591976
I mean I know that, but still

[Anonymous No.3591987]

>>3589008
What is this... No, no you have not understood or even watched the videos mankind is NOT NOT NOT NOT breeding exponentially.
Also, we do not yet properly use our food growing regions, which lay in the developed world, and even the developing world is plagued by lack of proper managment.

[Anonymous No.3591989]

>>3591978
Yeah, peak oil is going to make this a rough ride. Otherwise I wouldn't be worried.

[Anonymous No.3592031]

>>3591966

Ok then what do you have to say about an economic system where the price of food is artificially inflated by practices of all world governments intentionally. Food should be a lot cheaper than it is, but we are purposely preventing that from occurring. The people who produce food could afford to sell it for significantly less, but all sorts of incentives, subsidiaries, practices are put in place to keep food prices as high as they are. We don't even stop short of destroying food.

[Anonymous No.3592043]

>>3592031
I agree. We should drop all protectionist trade barriers about food, with any other country that is willing to do the same. (Not with countries that won't, or you're allowing yourself to be exploited).

Subsidies and tariffs skew the costs of food production and make the global system inefficient.

[Anonymous No.3592049]

>>3591966

Also its not cheap to do it that way, it just allows for the extraction of profit. Being able to pull millions of dollars out of an operation doesn't make it efficient or cheap.

[Anonymous No.3592072]

>>3589008
This is NOTHING this video is literally NOTHING.

I know how goddamn exponential growth works because i studied it in microbiology. However, has THIS man accounted for all the growth factors? No. This man knows nothing of biology.

Allso, he has a very long way of reaching a simple point: he is wrong.

He's actually fucking quoting presidents!? This man is not a biologist and nothing he says is right.

Its just fearmongering.

If the number of skilled workers increases with the 7% growth it is reasonable to assume that some of these will go on to be gallbladder surgions, meaining that the reason for the price increase: supply and demand, doesnt make sence. Also, why would you expect gallbladder surgery to become more expencive with the improvment of treatments? It should become less expencive and more common. What this man is acutally predicting is the recession of december 2007: interest rates and increasing national debt due to government borrowing, which is concealed by the dollar being the world reserve currency.

[Anonymous No.3592087]

>>3592049
>Also its not cheap to do it that way, it just allows for the extraction of profit. Being able to pull millions of dollars out of an operation doesn't make it efficient or cheap.
Bullshit, unless you're talking about monopolies. The whole point of competition is that the man with the most efficient method of meeting public needs can have the lowest prices, and thus increase market share while still making the same profits per sale.

Why is Wal-Mart so cheap, and thus so dominant? Because it is efficient.

[Anonymous No.3592118]

I hear that we'll reach 7 billion people by October 31st.

How do we deal?

[Anonymous No.3592122]

>>3592118
First-world countries will deal just fine. The growth is almost all happening in the currently developing countries.

[Anonymous No.3592123]

Don't worry OP, we have the moon.

[Anonymous No.3592125]

>>3588146
>As far as farming goes, its the fault of the farmers for investing in more land instead of building up and growing their vegetables hydroponically inside skyscrapers.
Best idea in my opinion.

It could create more jobs as well, because we could use older skyscrapers as the farms and hire people to fix them up/keep them from falling apart.

[Anonymous No.3592130]

>>3592123
Should we put a big sign on the moon that says "Dead nigger storage"?

[Anonymous No.3592132]

I am doing my part to stop overpopulation by being a virgin

[Anonymous No.3592134]

>>3592087

If you are talking about walmart you are talking about monopolies. Wal-mart frequently tooks losses on products just to drive compettition out of business and still does. At lot of wal-marts success is brute force in terms of capital as opposed to efficiency. They would take losses on products for years and just make it all back when they finally killed the competitor and captured like 90% of his market share.

[Anonymous No.3592136]

>>3592125
This is inefficient, unless we are actually running out of farmable land. So, it might work in countries that actually don't have much space.

[Anonymous No.3592156]

>>3592134
This would be true if Wal-Mart were only cheap in new locations, and very expensive in established locations with little competition.

This isn't the case.

However, I do agree that competing with Wal-Mart is difficult, and there probably ARE some anti-competitive practices at play. But there are places that do compete nonetheless.

I fully support the idea that we need competition for markets to be effective, but while I think the demonization of Wal-Mart is based on real grievances, I also think it is exaggerated.

[Anonymous No.3592159]

>>3592136
we are running out of farmable soil.

[Anonymous No.3592173]

>>3592159
In some places more than others. At some point, this is all about making sure we internalize the costs of land use appropriately.

[Anonymous No.3592190]

Warhammer 40k makes pretty good use of their massive populations.

[Anonymous No.3592198]

If there is a big drop in the birth rate (maybe caused by policies suggested in this thread), in 40 years time you are gonna have a hell of a lot of elderly people and no producers.

[Anonymous No.3592209]

>>3592173
Thats not gonna happen easily.

[Anonymous No.3592220]

>>3592209
I wish I knew a better way than bureaucratic management, but it's worked well in practice for managing fisheries.

[Anonymous No.3592265]

>>3592198
Isn't that what Japan is facing right now?

[Anonymous No.3592277]

>Go to space
>Become Imperium of Man
>Use extra people to wage war on shit
>Control entire Milky Way

Fixed your problem

[Anonymous No.3592288]

>>3589273
>Free state education and healthcare only for firstborns (or first two maybe).

Only part I don't like, even though I am a firstborn. We're already behind in education. We don't need to lower that.

Unless we raise the quality of education as we lower the availability. That'd be okay.

[Anonymous No.3592303]

>>3592288
>We're already behind in education. We don't need to lower that.

Exactly, creating a sub-population that doesn't even know their ABCs while the rest get free college is not going to help society

If it was say free college for firstborns that would work a bit better as an incentive without creating an ignorant underclass

[Anonymous No.3592313]

>>3592303
>while the rest get free PhDs

sorry, seemed to be a little repetitive there and I think it made my point unclear

[Anonymous No.3592377]

>>3592313
yeah

[Anonymous No.3592404]

Force birth control.

[Anonymous No.3592434]

>>3592303
Can we have free sex orgies for last borns?

[Anonymous No.3592450]

>overpopulation
>cities
>land not being used
>money/resources
>anger
>argue
>????
>derp

did i win the game?

[Anonymous No.3592455]

why don't we just bomb Africa?
shitty countries nobody really gives a shit about. No real loss

[Anonymous No.3592680]

>>3592265
Yes. Russia isn't doing great in that respect either. Check out the total fertility rate in those countries.