Is this sustainable?

File: 1.13 MB, 857x619, worldpopulation.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 20:36:10 2017 No.9288380 [Reply] [Original]

Is this sustainable?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 20:38:02 2017 No.9288385 Nope, and nobody's getting on my land when push comes to shove.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 20:40:34 2017 No.9288394
File: 236 KB, 3000x2100, updated-World-Population-Growth-1750-2100[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It seems to be leveling out. 12 billion is certainly sustainable as far as basic living needs are concerned (food, a place to live, clean water). Anyway the environment isn't being destroyed by too many people, it's being destroyed by a small fraction of people with lots of money.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 20:44:28 2017 No.9288398

>>9288394
>Anyway the environment isn't being destroyed by too many people, it's being destroyed by a small fraction of people with lots of money.

Yeah, no.

Poor people breed more kids, more kids =more co2, more waste, more acidification of the ocean, etc;

We know rich fucks fuck the environment, but there are more poor and poorer (in relation to the wealthy) people out there, (such as the middle class). What with cars, homes, etc; meat agriculture pumping out CO2 etc;

12 billion is certainly not sustainable, especially when the sea levels rise and it forces mass migration of peoples, especially from different cultures which will inevitable cause massive conflicts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 20:45:07 2017 No.9288401 >>9288380 11.2B in 2100 would be a severe drop-off from the rate of the last century. Easily sustainable.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 20:49:22 2017 No.9288413 Similar thoughts here... >>>/pol/148906675

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 20:52:32 2017 No.9288419 Just know war doesn't work well. Example last century. Indirect control mechanisms required.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 20:58:19 2017 No.9288429 >>9288398 You could just Google how much CO2 a third-worlder produces compared to a first-worlder. It's way way less.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:06:17 2017 No.9288443

Check out Saudi arabia 2030 plan. Does anyone think the peasants will be allowed in?

China already partions it's population.

Prepare for mass human migrations. Whether from war, economic, environmental, or other, it's coming to a theater near you. Enjoy what left of the good ol days.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:10:11 2017 No.9288448 >>9288394 This anon gets it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:21:43 2017 No.9288465 >>9288380 Yes. Europe and North America are fucking huge and filled with resources. So after we get rid of the white people we will have a lot of land and wealth to equally distribute among ourselves.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:29:06 2017 No.9288480 Why would anyone want 10 billion people on earth? It would be smart to have plans to not allow that to happen.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:30:43 2017 No.9288485 About 3 weeks ago I farted which pushed the CO2 levels way out of whack - it started to rain instantly.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:32:48 2017 No.9288488 >>9288480 LOLOLOL TIEM FOR ANOTHER LOLOCAUST

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:34:57 2017 No.9288492 >>9288480 Exactly. White people, you NEED to stop having babies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:36:21 2017 No.9288493 >>9288492 Bullshit, niggers and sandniggers just need to be exterminated.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:37:41 2017 No.9288495 >>9288493 Uhm, could you tell me exactly why? HARD MODE: No muh feels argument

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:45:32 2017 No.9288509 >>9288495 Because they're the least valuable. But whitey needs to make big changes also as previous anon stated in reference to pollution and fucking the ecosystem up.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:49:22 2017 No.9288510 Check out this https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r3OlG4OmczI

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:50:16 2017 No.9288513

>>9288509
>Because they're the least valuable.
Least valuable? Ok, let me check real quick... Oh, no. I can't find a single scientific paper that claims that. I am also confused because there is no paper that even proposes a metric by which to measure the value of human beings.

I tried really hard looking but I could not find anything. I'm sorry, could you please share your source? Maybe I simply don't know the journal you are quoting. Sorry for the inconvenience.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:54:43 2017 No.9288522 >>9288513 MY sources? Africa and the middle East.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:55:39 2017 No.9288523 >>9288513 PAPERS LIKE THIS DON'T EXIST BECAUSE SENSITIVE CUNTS LIKE YOU WILL GET ASSBLASTED BY ANY PAPER MAKING SUCH A CLAIM IF A PAPER EXISTED YOU'D SCREAM AT THE CREATOR BASED ON YOUR MORALS AND EMOTIONS RATHER THAN ACTUAL DATA AND SCIENCE

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:56:13 2017 No.9288528 >>9288522 >Africa and the middle East Again, that's not a journal. Now I'm the one who thinks you are stupid. You sure it is not the white race that is filled with idiots? I mean, the superior white race should be able to find their source.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:56:45 2017 No.9288530 >>9288523 Holy fukken lol, my nigga

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:58:15 2017 No.9288533 >>9288528 Fuck your need for a journal, reality is right in front of you you ignorant cunt

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 21:59:05 2017 No.9288538

>>9288523
I am sorry but I don't think you should pretend you know what I would do in some situation. I mean, at that point we are arguing hypotheticals

>Durr if this X happened I bet you would do Y and that is why X would never happen!

I mean, is that a point you are seriously making or is this just a troll? For the superior race you are not looking too good there. You might wanna step it up a little bit. At least don't argue like a toddler.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:02:54 2017 No.9288552 >>9288538 Says the guy who won't acknowledge the obvious shithole that is Africa and the middle east

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:03:19 2017 No.9288553

>>9288533
>reality is right in front of you you ignorant cunt
Yeah, but anyone could say this. Look, I can even claim the opposite of what you are saying:

>White people are the least valuable! Reality is right in front of you, you ignorant cunt!

See, nothing stopped me from typing that without it being necessarily true, so how do I know that you just did not pull your conclusion out of your ass? That is why we need science. I need a paper or please go back to larping as the superior race back in >>>/pol/.

Oh wait, I do have a paper that shows a valid claim for the inferiority of white people. In the paper https://www.nature.com/articles/nature12961 published by Sriram Sankararaman they measure that white people have the most neanderthal DNA. Which means you are actually less evolved.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:06:36 2017 No.9288559

>>9288552
>Says the guy who won't acknowledge the obvious shithole that is Africa and the middle east

First, what do you mean by shithole? That there is poverty? There is also poverty in white countries. That there are dictators? There also are dictators in Asia. Please be more precise, it is impossible to really understand you, you are kinda talking like a monkey at this point.

Also, we are not contained in just one geographical location. We live everywhere. Even with you. And we are thriving. For example, consider:
https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=72

Black women are the most educated group in the United States. See, we are even more educated than your cracker ass.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:12:15 2017 No.9288571 >>9288559 Shithole as in constant warfare between tribal terrorists on a consistent fucking basis in the majority of the country as well as poverty as well as disease as well as famine as well as lack of clean water

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:16:07 2017 No.9288585

>>9288571
>constant warfare
You have that in white countries.
> tribal terrorists
This too. Wasn't there a shooting in texas like two days ago? Kek. Superior white race huh?
> on a consistent fucking basis
Yeah. White countries get terror attacks like every two hours. Yup.
>poverty
Last time I checked poverty was fucking rampant in white countries. Check.
>famine
White contries also get food shortages
>lack of clean water
Kek wasn't there an entire state in the US that was getting literal shit water full of chemicals?

Yeah. So yes, by your definition Africa is a shithole. But so are white countries. Thanks for playing!

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:19:50 2017 No.9288597 >>9288585 Yes, everything that happens in Africa/middle east can be said to happen everywhere else. But at a tiny fraction in comparison.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:23:26 2017 No.9288602

Nope, it's the process of becoming a developed country that's so detrimental
Minimalism needs to catch on, everyone wants to have shit and be comfy like the west but it's just not gonna happen. But I'm not one to talk because I'm not impoverished. This problem is literally fucked, all the solutions are ethically wrong.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:23:29 2017 No.9288603

>>9288597
>But at a tiny fraction in comparison.
Hey, I gave you your shot. I asked to define "shithole" and you did. Nowhere did you mention that proportionality had anything to do.

If we are going to play the game of "Ok, let me quickly redefine shit so that my point makes a little bit of sense" then I will have to politely ask you to go back to >>>/pol/.

I mean, at this point you really should. I've destroyed you. I've posted a scientific paper and a government statistics document at this point. And to this second you have not tried to refute any of those, nor have you tried countering by putting your own research on the table.

People with your inferior intellectual capacity are actually happier when they stay in the designated low IQ zones. So please go back.

Well, folks. I think this was it. We got a taste of that sweet sweet superior white race. My conclusion: Not looking that superior from here kek.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:28:37 2017 No.9288612 >>9288603 It is adorable watching you be your own cheerleader. I dont give a shit about winning an argument by your standards. Fuck your standards. Reality is reality. Africa and the middle east are the biggest shitholes on earth.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:29:29 2017 No.9288614 >>9288603 10/10 bait I love the "nigger nogging" flavor

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:31:09 2017 No.9288616 >>9288602 Anon gets it.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:31:45 2017 No.9288617

>>9288612
>Fuck your standards
My standards are the scientific standards. The same standards that put a man on the moon. If you think that you are below them well, I already told you that you should stay in the designated low intelligence boards.

>Africa and the middle east are the biggest shitholes
Yes, according to your definition of shithole. And as I proved, so is every other place.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:34:42 2017 No.9288623 >>9288617 Your standards are of your own creation. If anything, im being more scientific than you by observing the shitholes that are Africa and the middle East and labelling them accordingly.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:38:46 2017 No.9288635

>>9288623
>Your standards are of your own creation.
No. For all I care you could ignore my words. What will forever stand though are the two scientific results I have shared that prove two of my most important points.

You have no refuted either of those nor shared research that supports your point of view. That means no one has any reason to take you seriously at all. I am simply doing this to bait you into showing me how the superior white race reacts when the facts are against them.

I mean, the superior white race does not fear a little research, right?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:43:30 2017 No.9288649 >>9288635 Im not doing any research because you're either a troll or an irate nigress, neither of which can be reasoned with.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:44:57 2017 No.9288652 >>9288649 Could you please post the scientific paper you are citing when you say "black women can't be reasoned with"? Now, that's is some research I'd like to read.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:46:08 2017 No.9288657 >>9288652 Youre all the proof i need at the moment.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:48:00 2017 No.9288660 >>9288657 Well, I guess that is fine for someone of your intellectual capacity. But here we usually only discuss research.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:51:34 2017 No.9288667
File: 179 KB, 1100x619, 150416123738-white-rhino-1-super-169[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

It is sustainable. The question you should be asking, is. what are you willing sacrifice to sustain it?

now of course we can't sustain that many people at a developed Western/East Asian lift style. defiantly not sustaining it and maintaining current biodiversity.

though if you can deal with living in a commieblock, taking mass transit, and eating a limited veggie/bug diet. Then we can sustain tens of billions. don't forget to take your kid/s to the zoo. to see the last rhino.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:53:38 2017 No.9288668 >>9288667 This anon gets it also.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:58:12 2017 No.9288679

>>9288660

Im sure the research is out there, statistics and all for how horrible an environment africa and the middle East are for human habitation. I dont need to see any of it to comprehend how horrible those places are, and im not interested in expending the energy to show some irate nigtess/troll research clarifying how horrible those places are.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 22:59:37 2017 No.9288682 >>9288679 >Im sure the research is out there Great. Look for it. I'll be waiting.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:01:58 2017 No.9288684 >>9288682 No. Its not that important to me, youre not that important to me. You can if you want, but i got a feeling youre gonna choose to remain blissfully and willfully ignorant.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:03:10 2017 No.9288687 >>9288682 North Africa is the hottest place on Earth, this is common knowledge It's a big ass desert

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:04:47 2017 No.9288691 >>9288684 Well, I told you from the beginning that I did a thorough search on Nature. Maybe I am simply not aware of the journal you are sourcing. Please post it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:05:16 2017 No.9288694 >>9288429 kek, today perhaps, but there's something called "development economics" anon.

Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:09:01 2017 No.9288699

>>9288429
different birth rates, third world development, and immigration into the west; off sets that though.

if western left wing politicans and (((thinkers))) were really concerned with the environment. then they could cut off immigration into the West and allow western populations to decline and stabilize.

instead of keeping the Constant Growth meme going.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:09:48 2017 No.9288702 >>9288691 Youre a broken record. Just Google Africa shitholes or why is Africa a shitholes and read up.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:14:25 2017 No.9288707 >>9288702 I have no obligation to do that for you. By the way, I have to pick up my gf and after that, I'll probably bang her so you have a while to go look for those citations, cracker.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:15:10 2017 No.9288708 >>9288707 The fuck are you on man

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:17:34 2017 No.9288713 >>9288707 Nor do i have any obligation to unveil what isn't veiled to begin with. Enjoy that pussy Tyrone.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 10 23:25:11 2017 No.9288724 >>9288380 Yes, exponential growth forever is totally sustainable

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 00:02:18 2017 No.9288761

>>9288713
Thank you. I just got done. You know, maybe I've been too harsh on you. Busting a nut has made me realize that white people aren't so bad. My beautiful girlfriend is white and she is such a nice person.

And white women, in general, have always treated me so nicely. You know, maybe I don't hate white people. I just hate when you call me a nigger. But after clearing my mind with some nice human contact I think I can forgive you. I forgive you for calling me a nigger. At the end of the day, I don't know you. I do not know what happened in your life to make you feel the need to call people niggers on the internet. Maybe one day you will also forgive whoever wronged you in the past and move on to bigger things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 00:12:32 2017 No.9288777 >>9288761 This was a fun thread to read and now my keyboard has water on it from reading while trying to drink. I like you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 00:40:07 2017 No.9288794 >>9288429 why do libtards advocate for higher consumption?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 00:48:11 2017 No.9288801 Not with Capitalism.

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 00:55:54 2017 No.9288811

>>9288380
Not with consumerist capitalism, no. Consumerist capitalism, perhaps capitalism in general, need to be replaced if we are to make anything of our species. Let alone have half-decent living standards for even 1/10 of the world's population in 100-200yrs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 01:52:56 2017 No.9288860 >>9288603 reading your comment was like watching a pidgeon play chess

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 02:01:35 2017 No.9288867

>>9288559

I'm all for agreeing Africa is a diverse continent. But the poorest Nordic citizen would probably land in top 2% or so in Africa. There is relative and absolute poverty. Relative is when you can't pay your college tuition and can't go out to eat in a restaurant. Absolute is when you line up for UN food truck and squabble for loaf of bread. The kind of poverty where your children end up with 60 iq points due to malnutrition with no hope ever attaining even fair quality of life due to cognitive limitations.

Democracy seems to be in crisis in Europe and USA. Again it's relative . Belgium went without government for like few years and things kept running well due to high quality institutions. In sub saharan Africa there are no well functioning institutions. The leaders you get tend to cater to tribes, implement insane economic policies and generally just be completely incompetent to the extent black Africans were literally better off living colonized and ruled by Europeans.

Let's not even get to uncontrolled fertility rates. It hasn't occurred to you that once you've deforested, erosion has made your land into desert, and nobody buys your oil, it's game over. Rest assured, there will be no 400M Nigerians in 30 or so years. They'll starve, die of disease, massacre eachother (think Rwanda) or emigrate and drown in mediterranean somewhere between 300 and 350M.

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 02:05:08 2017 No.9288870

>>9288380
Definitively unsustainable, niggers, pajeets and chinks consume so much resources compared to what they give back to humanity. I think that a population should only be allowed to reproduce when they could at least contribute a sizable amount to Science. Who here votes to nuke China and India?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 02:27:13 2017 No.9288881 >>9288870 And Africa

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 02:33:14 2017 No.9288885

>>9288394
>Anyway the environment isn't being destroyed by too many people, it's being destroyed by a small fraction of people with lots of money.

Conservation is being sustained by a small fraction of people with lots of money, as well. Our industrial farms feed our enormous population. If everyone tried to live off the fat of the land they would chop down all the damn trees for fuel during the winter months and eat all the game. All of those people want land to live on. They will certainly destroy ecosystems in order to bring their little corner of the Earth to heel.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 04:46:42 2017 No.9289000 >>9288380 Is this sustainable? It stopped being sustainable after 5 billions. I don't want to sound edgy, but a deadly pandemic or a nuclear war can't come soon enough

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 04:58:42 2017 No.9289012
File: 369 KB, 1134x315, love poors (copy).png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Read about "Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development"

People would still be able to live with massive overpopulation, but everybody would be forced to live in a tiny commieblock eating insects with zero commodities or luxury apart from satisfying the bare minimum needs to biologically survive. Basically, living like livestock.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 05:00:17 2017 No.9289013 >>9288380 We must help those in need.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 08:40:50 2017 No.9289222 >>9288380 Just lock niggers in Africa, they can fuck and eat sand there as much as they want, not a problem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 08:44:54 2017 No.9289224 >>9288429 So you're saying "It's OK for population growth to be uncontrolled, as long as everybody is kept in poverty". Got it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 08:48:42 2017 No.9289230 >>9289224 The fact that Africa is stricken with poverty has nothing to do with a lack of resources

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 08:50:57 2017 No.9289231 >>9289230 ...so?

STDTS Warp Drive Sat Nov 11 09:03:49 2017 No.9289244

>>9288602
I think we kinda overblow how much resource expenditure is needed for the essentials of a comfy western lifestyle.

What do we spend the most energy on?
Goods transportation: can easily be reduced tenfold by eating local products.
Persons transportation (actually very, very, very little compared to goods transportation): can be reduced by working more locally, and by not taking overseas vacation every year. I don't consider plane trips to be an essential part of living a comfortable life.

Things like Internet or electronics don't consume that much, and would consume even less if planned obsolescence wasn't so pervasive.

There's also healthcare but it's more of a large monetary expense than a resource one, since prices are so inflated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 09:30:21 2017 No.9289283 yes, send even more food to africa

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 09:31:01 2017 No.9289285 >>9288867 >>9288860 Please let's not fight anymore. We have moved on to bigger things. >>9288761

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 09:34:49 2017 No.9289288

>>9288429
This is why they are third world in the first place.
But don't worry, as their countries finally start developing and as they start to live more and more in giant overcrowded cities, the subsequent damage will easily surpass anything the first world has ever caused.

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 09:52:09 2017 No.9289299

>>9289288
That's what the Paris Climate Accord is supposed to accomplish. You can't stop a developing country from experiencing a population boom. It happened to all Western countries too. But you can try to help them develop cleanly. When developed, they will level out, just like we did.

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 10:01:27 2017 No.9289311

>>9289299
>When developed, they will level out, just like we did.
yeah who cares about absolute population numbers lol, as long as they've got zero population growth nobody cares about that 1.5 billion of africans, 1.5 billion of indians and 1.5 billion of chinese, lets just increase the first world population by 500% what could possibly go wrong btw save the environment

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 10:36:26 2017 No.9289375

It's only sustainable if you don't mind everyone being poor. If you want to minimize suffering and have decent quality of life for everyone you probably need global population under one billion. But there aren't any ethical solutions to achieve this, I expect there to be a big culling later in this century when everything goes to shit

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 11:03:48 2017 No.9289422 >>9288380 Why do they always show niggers instead of a bunch of poor kids from around the globe?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 11:10:44 2017 No.9289433 >>9289422 White kids don't really matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 11:19:41 2017 No.9289449 >>9289375 Get resources from asteroids.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 11:23:11 2017 No.9289451 >>9288538 Ummm how do you know he is arguing like a toddler? Can you provide some scientific papers to prove that’s how Toddlers argue? Otherwise you are wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 11:36:45 2017 No.9289471 >>9289311 Fertility rate in China is 1.60 children per woman.

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 11:38:15 2017 No.9289476

>>9289471
yeah that should probably be 1 billion chinese since their growth has stopped

it's still a fucking bad idea to let them achieve first world standards, any fucking animal with a horn would probably be wiped off the planet if the average chinaman had the money to spend

Anonymous Sat Nov 11 22:24:12 2017 No.9290761

>>9288380
It is an article of faith for egalitarians to insist that every human being is of equal potential and that his potential is solely determined by his social conditions instead of any biological conditions.

It is clear to anyone that now that such a view is false and that genetics affects the brain in the same way it affects any other part of the body.

It is of no use for low IQ individuals to reproduce and burden the planet, but this is a realization that an egalitarian can never make without jeopardizing his faith in his ideology of human equality.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 11 22:34:08 2017 No.9290782 >>9290761 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lahn Bruce Lahn did nothing wrong.

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 05:21:18 2017 No.9291215

>>9288380
Sure is.
Earth could easily sustain 100 billion.
Problem is allocation of resources and waste.

Build a 1000 square foot house and put 4 people in it.
Build some pathways a public square, parks and shops.
Build enough houses to make a village of 1000 people.
Now build another town next door.
Continue until 10 billion people are housed in homes and villages.
All these homes and people would fit within the current border of Texas with a considerable amount of land to spare.
Now use the rest of the planet for food and energy production.

10 billion humans standing shoulder to shoulder, chest to back could fit within the limits of the City of Los Angeles, the City not the county.

Problem is poor resource management, incredible waste of resources.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 05:35:41 2017 No.9291233 >>9288493 this clearly nuke africa

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 05:43:00 2017 No.9291242 >>9291215 that's the dumbest shit I've ever heard, you vile, stupid pig, you piggot, you disgusting piggot slimy ass oinker humans need more than just shelter and low quality food, you god DAMNEd fucking moronic putrid ass retard

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 05:45:15 2017 No.9291243

>>9291215
1. someone completely objective with perfect knowledge and flawless resource management, planning and population control powers has to be responsible for your ideal world
2. you're assuming that people only need food and energy
3. you're assuming that the space for roads, streets, etc. is negligible
4. you're assuming it would be easy to control that extremely high concentration of humans, higher than anywhere else on the planet right now

you're assuming lots of things, my simple-minded piggot friend

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 05:47:14 2017 No.9291248 [DELETED]

>>9291215
god damn it you fucking stupid piggot you ruined my morning, you made my coffee taste like shit with your telepathic, ranged stupidity and stench

your fantasy world is simply not possible, unless humans were just pieces of stationary furniture that consume ONLY FOOD (you didn't even mention water) and "energy"

you have so many fucking assumptions holy shit how can someone think that the world is so fucking simple, you fucking dumb, stupid, putrid, rektarded oinker stupid ass fucking shit-tarded subhuman

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 05:50:09 2017 No.9291251 [DELETED]

>>9291215
you fucking idiot, you vile idiot you stupid fucker, god damned idiot child, retarded faggot

what you are saying is not fucking possible you god damned fucking ape-tarded subhuman

the world is simply not that simply, you cretin, imbecile, shit-tarded subhuman troglodyte

you cromagnon, humans are a range of needs determined by culture, genetic factors, etc.

you would need to have a PERFECT, and I mean an ideal, a mathematical perfection, an abstract world, a PERFECT enforcement of eugenics, resource management, population control and planning

it's simply not possible what you describe, not even as a thought scenario, you fucking god damned idiot, cursed bastard cro-magnon

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 05:51:57 2017 No.9291256

>>9291215
>Build a 1000 square foot house and put 4 people in it.
>Build some pathways a public square, parks and shops.
>Build enough houses to make a village of 1000 people.
>Now build another town next door.
>Continue until 10 billion people are housed in homes and villages.
>All these homes and people would fit within the current border of Texas with a considerable amount of land to spare.

now, the very next second everyone would exit their homes, billions of people, and they would want:
pussy
food
water
entertainment
etc.
the mix of their cultures would create an incredible level of anxiety and tension

in 1 day probably millions, billions will be raped, killed, cannibalized

have you even thought about how you would deliver food, you stupid son of a bitch?

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 05:58:57 2017 No.9291265

>>9291215
what you are struggling to communicate to us, like a growling, desperate, illiterate monkey, is equivalent to saying "y = 5, find x". There is simply not enough information you fucking moron, your example has 0 value. The world is not that simple, you can't just say "put all humans in texas and give them food". What about water? policing? education? entertainment? quality of life? cultural factors? language? transport? eugenics? man, there are so many factors related to human life, it's simply not possible to say what your stupid, cretinous ass just said

crawl back to your cave, cromagnon

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 06:04:55 2017 No.9291271 File: 152 KB, 1440x1080, 1506806221239.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9291215 no, it's not

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 06:07:58 2017 No.9291272
File: 50 KB, 650x366, 1426098539664.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9288380
No considering to live at first world quality, globally, would need 5 earths, at 2100 pop levels, around 8 earths. Best case scenario is Brazil worldwide, living as communal bugmen where nobody owns electronics, cars, anything needing rare earth metals. Worst case scenario is Varg-mode or Mad Max.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 06:15:19 2017 No.9291277 >>9291242 >>9291243 >>9291248 >>9291251 >>9291256 >>9291265 Lmao baited

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 06:36:54 2017 No.9291298 >>9288870 Americans actually consume the most ressources relatively speaking

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 06:47:54 2017 No.9291308

>>9291298

>Americans actually consume the most ressources relatively speaking

Not compared to what they give back to humanity.

Resource consumption must be adjusted for things like quality of life, GDP produced, scientific/technological output etc.

There is no point in consuming little resources if it means humanity will live a subsistence lifestyle.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 07:23:35 2017 No.9291336 >>9288870 china contributes probably more to science than USA

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 12:57:19 2017 No.9291777 >>9291272 >bugmen is this the new alt-right buzzword?

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:01:17 2017 No.9291784 >>9288385 >My land Colonist detected

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:05:36 2017 No.9291788

>>9291308
>What they give back to humanity
Perpetual war, genocide, ecological suicide, and economic destruction?
Fuck the USA and IT'S neoliberal rapery. Anyways states are a complete bullshit way to compare populations of people or to do anything at all save for protecting power.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 13:59:56 2017 No.9291889 File: 136 KB, 728x728, 1507993504191.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9288707 I want to throw you into an oven

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 14:22:49 2017 No.9291928

>>9291215
>everyone falling head over heels to disagree with facts
Since last year, there are more overweight people in the world than there are underweight people. Both groups are likely to suffer from malnourishment, i.e. insufficient intake of necessary vitamins and minerals, but that's a separate problem. In terms of calorie production though, the world's current output can easily accommodate the number of people currently alive - and if a large fraction of arable land wasn't being diverted to cattle feed, it would be pretty trivial to produce enough to feed 10-12 billion people. The only problem is the societal barriers to efficient resource distribution.

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 14:45:10 2017 No.9291963

>>9288380
Yes, with the current state of technology, agriculture and government management people possess the ability to manufacture the habitats and agricultural changes required to sustain a growing population. We live in a time where 5 people can create enough food and housing to support hundreds or sometimes thousands. Cities get taller not just bigger.

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 14:57:23 2017 No.9291993

>>9288394
I was just reading an article about a u.n. study done and it suggested that the population will be peaking out between 8 and 9 billion.

When the article mentioned other studies it mentioned a lot of the weren't even taking into account factors that go into breeding habits of humans. It said they were merely using current growth to predict future growth.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 15:00:37 2017 No.9292001 >>9288513 He's probably talking about an article that was published in "The Scientific Schutsztaffel". They pretty non biased.

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 15:03:43 2017 No.9292011

>>9288523
Did you know that scientists and analysts are only considered reliable if they do not let outside and irrelevant factors influence experiments and research. Did you know that some people despise letting the feelings of others influence there opinions.

>>9289471
Fertility rate or birth rate?

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 15:08:37 2017 No.9292021

>>9291256
>problem is poor resource management
I'm not trolling you or trying to offend you. While I agree that fraud waste and abuse are prolific in America today. I think the world is equipped with the resources to sustain a population of twice what it is now. They just don't have the current demand for it (of course).

I live in a farming community and the ratio of old unused fields to currently used fields is about 1 to 1.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 15:15:13 2017 No.9292035 world war when

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 16:55:59 2017 No.9292253 >>9292035 Outlook looks favorable. Probably soon. We need it. At the very least it seems like everyone wants it, whether they care to admit it or not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 18:02:18 2017 No.9292404 >>9288394 Except humans are responsible for 98%of animals becoming extinct

>>	Anonymous Sun Nov 12 20:22:26 2017 No.9292729 >>9292253 Let eurangutans kill each other. America belongs to Amerindians the same as europe belongs to europeans.

Anonymous Sun Nov 12 21:12:17 2017 No.9292794

>>9288398
This is very wrong.
Pretty much the only time poor people become ecologically suicidal is when they are part of the greater global consumer economy, their they are pretty much just stripped of agency and are economically coerced to follow the commands of the powerful(log them hardwiids, plant cotton and maize instead of millet and traditional food, completely destroy your local fisheries and sell the fish to America and japan) those are typical commands.
Boom and bust population growth typically happens after "market liberalization" same with ecological destruction. Pretty much the poor people loss everything they have and the resources and labour are funneled into capital by the rich states financial institutions and transnational corporate pirates
Basically you are wrong and do know to many facts about this topic. You are right that 12 billion is not sustainable. The population will crash and things almost definitely will only go downhill for about 10 million years(humans would go extinct much sooner) unless we really get our shit together

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 04:42:19 2017 No.9293327 We'll all die out long before we reach maximum supported population regardless how good we're at allocating resources. Mouse Utopia.

Anonymous Mon Nov 13 10:29:57 2017 No.9293661
File: 64 KB, 634x546, 95 percent of ocean plastic comes from 10 rivers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9288394
>the environment isn't being destroyed by too many people, it's being destroyed by a small fraction of people with lots of money.
95% of ocean plastic comes from these 10 rivers.

Stop trying to blame the people of the First World, who are responsible about pollution. The garbage is coming from the garbage people.

Next you're going to say, "But what about the CO2?!" It's deeply debatable whether that's even a pollutant at current levels. Due to long, slow geological processes, the biosphere was carbon-starved when humans showed up. In any case, the technology will be ready to stop increasing it and start reducing it (if desired), within a couple of decades, because we (not they) are developing it, long before any of the serious harms theorized can actualize.

Our competence and success is not the problem. Blaming it on ourselves collectively is only a virtue-signalling position, because self-blame sounds superficially more virtuous than blaming others, especially others who live wretchedly, but blame should be placed with those at fault.

We can't just keep allowing the horrible festering masses of third-world idiots to grow. They are a plague on the Earth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 10:44:44 2017 No.9293683 >>9288380 Why dont those 1 billion niggers eat eachother?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 10:58:09 2017 No.9293713 >>9293683 Irrelevant. Time to go back to europe, subhuman. America belongs to Amerinians the same as europe belongs to europeans.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 11:24:40 2017 No.9293764 >>9293661 Whitey is the one who gave the shitskin subhumans mass produced products leading to litter so it is whitey's fault the oceans and rivers are getting polluted. What did you expect to happen?

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 11:43:40 2017 No.9293787 >>9288553 >Neandratal DNA makes you less evolved Prove that please

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 11:48:47 2017 No.9293797 >>9293713 Amerindians don't exist any more. You're either white or some form of mixed. Sorry Montezuma pro. Your larping was always just larping.

Anonymous Mon Nov 13 12:07:16 2017 No.9293837

>>9288553
I have no love for /pol/, but holy fuck, get off of this board if you want to say "less evolved". Anyone with a cursory understanding of evolution knows that everything not currently extinct is equally evolved. Fuck off to some reddit tier shithole if you want to pull that shit.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 12:28:34 2017 No.9293877 >>9293797 Not him but keep telling yourself they don't exist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federally_recognized_tribes

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 12:39:11 2017 No.9293895 >>9293877 >federally recognized

Anonymous Mon Nov 13 12:56:22 2017 No.9293938

>>9288394

>Anyway the environment isn't being destroyed by too many people, it's being destroyed by a small fraction of people with lots of money.

Completely wrong, and you have no idea what you are talking about at all.

Rich people have above average CO2 emissions but only moderately so, and they are a small minority (few tens of millions at best). Their total emissions are quite insignificant.

Poor people have very low emissions and there are like 3 billion of them. Their total emissions are higher than the rich but still a minor factor. The poor have high fertility rates and could be a big CO2 source if they develop and move into middle class, tough.

But when it comes to global middle class, these people number in several billion and also produce quite a lot of CO2 per capita. These people are by far the main source of CO2 increase. Most of us posting on /sci fall into this category.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 13:07:40 2017 No.9293966 >>9293877 >muh federal recognition somehow prevents me from being a mutt Nice delusion. This is the same federal government that believes in the 1/64 drop rule, retard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 13:11:02 2017 No.9293974 >>9288380 Humans would have been better off living in small tribes as hunters and gatherers. Farming was a mistake.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 13:15:05 2017 No.9293984 >>9293938 But the rich have almost all the authority and command the global economy

Anonymous Mon Nov 13 16:06:35 2017 No.9294375

>>9293984
That still doesn't make them the primary contributors to pollution.

Just because someone has control over you doesn't mean you are not responsible for your own actions.

If we wernt lazy pieces of shit, we could significantly cut our immissions as individuals. Its not their fault when you get chilly and want that electric heater.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 16:07:50 2017 No.9294379 >>9293974 The doors are open if you wish to leave.

>>	Anonymous Mon Nov 13 16:09:20 2017 No.9294382 >>9293938 I think he was including the middle class/lower western class in the 'people with a lot of money' estimate.

Anonymous Mon Nov 13 16:38:34 2017 No.9294469

>>9294375
It's truly a systemic problem with our economics and coercion, and deeper than that there is something of an ecological schism between our lives and the world we live in, especially for the powerful. People are agents but are constrained by knowledge boundaries and ability to act(some are very able to act but their actions benefit them first and often harms everyone, assuming a naive self-interest that most people possess, further more them having a much greater ability to act through privatized property and capital resources lessens everyone else ability to act and the people and other lifeforms who the owner has hegemony over are coerced to do the owners bidding or beg on the street. Here the legal protection of "private property"(not personal possessions) and capital are fundamentally coercive and cause the system to act against itself, some kind of evolutionary trap.
I'm not a communist btw slot of people confuse people for communist as soon as they find out they are anti capital. Just stop assuming anyone follows any doctrine unless they tell you otherwise

Anonymous Tue Nov 14 00:40:24 2017 No.9295411

>>9293661
So, what, you're saying that instead of trying to help other nations develop a sustainable pollution reducing policy, we should just not allow them to grow or develop any further?

First off, it's outright impossible to convince the major nations of the world to abandon other nations; it's just not economically advantageous at all, not to mention the lack of humaneness behind it. Second off, if we can successfully develop other nations to the point where they significantly lower their pollution, it would be sustainable and therefore economically advantageous. No company on its own would do it on its own accord though; they'd lose profits. If each company were held to the same standard, it would become economically unadvantageous to produce pollution (due to fines or whatever is put in place)

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 01:17:25 2017 No.9295469 File: 28 KB, 830x753, 1434806831486.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9288394 >t. communist pic unrelated

Anonymous Tue Nov 14 02:01:38 2017 No.9295529

>>9294375
Have you seen the fucked up shit rich companies owned by said olf that shit do to the environment abroad. I live in Canada and our mining companies are BLIGHT in the places they work in and we have legislature that basically protects and dick sucks these companies.

Many rich folk benefit from pollution and donate/engage in lobbying to promote their interests.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 02:01:43 2017 No.9295530 >>9288380 Well if it’s not then the population will just fall again...

Anonymous Tue Nov 14 02:03:51 2017 No.9295534

>>9295529
Basically the middle class has the numbers but the rich indirectly catch up through a chain of events. It's like people who invest in private education companies that prey on poor countries with struggling education systems and go hustling for poor students to get money from and deliberately try to takeover the education system of said nations.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 02:04:52 2017 No.9295537 >>9293966 1 drop rule was NEVER RECOGNIZED BY LAW OR THE STATE. DROP THIS MEME.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 02:05:33 2017 No.9295538 >>9295534 >offering superior educational opportunities is bad lmao

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 02:12:01 2017 No.9295541 >>9289000 have fin being nuked or diseased to death, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 02:13:20 2017 No.9295544 >>9288867 >to the extent black Africans were literally better off living colonized and ruled by Europeans. Not really. Don't know ow this meme popped up considering that Africa now vs back then in the colonial days is much better off.

Anonymous Tue Nov 14 02:19:10 2017 No.9295549

>>9295538
It's actually pretty shit though. The company would use methods of teaching that is not optimal and often refuses to use input from local teachers in improving the teaching curriculum. Also they are forced to do the lessons form a tablet and give different pay based on race. It literally is going backwards on education development and standards achieved by the world.

Anonymous Tue Nov 14 02:24:09 2017 No.9295560

>>9295549
Why do they then not go out of business if their educational approach is so inferior to the already existing ones? The way I see it, maybe they should improve their own educational institutions instead of barring out the competition so they can continue to be inferior and not be penalized for it.

Anonymous Tue Nov 14 02:33:21 2017 No.9295571

>>9295560
>Why do they then not go out of business if their educational approach is so inferior to the already existing ones?

Parents are desperate for any education AND NGO's/WB/rich people invest so much money into it. The company is literally trying monopolies education then simply doing the bare minimum to get by while getting a lot of poverty money form people.

>The way I see it, maybe they should improve their own educational institutions instead of barring out the competition so they can continue to be inferior and not be penalized for it.

That requires money anon. Bridge International has infinite funding basically and the investors literally believe everything the company says about their results so they get more money.

Anonymous Tue Nov 14 02:37:28 2017 No.9295575

>>9295571
>Parents are desperate for any education
So why would they pay for private education when public education is available? Unless, again, you come to the conclusion that public education is inferior.

>That requires money anon
So they are inferior. No wonder then, that some people will pay extra for their kid to have access to better education. The question is why do you oppose people from pursuing a better education of their own free will and out of their own pocket?

Is investing, and expecting a return, in education somehow morally wrong? How would no investment be better?

Anonymous Tue Nov 14 10:05:07 2017 No.9295958

>>9288380

No.
Agriculture destroys top soil, which will in short order terminate a large percentage of arable land. Most food production is thus not sustainable (in the sense of the word that you could indefinitely continue it).

The planet can indefinitely sustain maybe 4 billion people. At some point in the future we will see humanity face this limitation and either go extinct from overpopulation or fall back to safer levels way below maximum so that the planet can 'recover'.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 15:19:45 2017 No.9296445 >>9288380 The rest of the world will eventually start implementing bredding restrictions

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 16:20:42 2017 No.9296565 >>9291272 >Worst case scenario is Varg-mode or Mad Max. you mean the best case scenario?

Anonymous Tue Nov 14 16:22:23 2017 No.9296569

>>9295575
>So why would they pay for private education when public education is available? Unless, again, you come to the conclusion that public education is inferior.

The public education is to undefunded but it still is developign and getting results..

>No wonder then, that some people will pay extra for their kid to have access to better education.

But it NOT BETTER though. Bridge international is preying on poor families and giving them an education that is inferior to the public one in the long run. They literally are using data on students to sell products to their parents. They are trying to mass privatize education in the developing world which we all know is gonna be a big disaster if it really ramps up high.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 16:29:11 2017 No.9296578 >>9288380 >Is this sustainable? Yes. If we implement communism.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 16:38:16 2017 No.9296593 >>9296578 But communism by design kills everyone with competence and from there starves the... Oh! You're right!

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 16:43:13 2017 No.9296604 >>9288380 African are the bioweapon that will destroy mankind

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 18:17:57 2017 No.9296780 >>9288380 no, just let malaria do its job

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 18:45:42 2017 No.9296833 >>9296593 Not the communist retard, but I agree that overpopulation is our chief concern at this point.

>>	Anonymous Tue Nov 14 18:47:19 2017 No.9296838 File: 673 KB, 1200x750, global-trends-of-urbanization-overview.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Is this sustainable?

Anonymous Tue Nov 14 19:06:21 2017 No.9296867

>>9288380
-That'll never happen. Wireless devices will ensure we're all either braindead or crazy, and or sterile.
-Methane from livestock is a major problem, as is deforestation to grow soybean and palm. People like to blame the rich, but look around. Look how the average person lives, look how they think, look what they'll accept and become when they're prompted. They're mindless cattle, and collectively, a mad beast. You can't talk sense to them, you may only position yourself to seize the mechanisms of control, and herd them in your directions.

Also, the world is already crowded. I don't want more people even if we can all live with the bare minimum to survive.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 15 04:27:22 2017 No.9297655 >>9296833 >overpopulation is our chief concern at this point. It's actually inefficiency.

>>	Anonymous Wed Nov 15 17:05:03 2017 No.9298696 >>9296838 Is this real? Where is it?

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 00:23:48 2017 No.9299306

>>9295411

>So, what, you're saying that instead of trying to help other nations develop a sustainable pollution reducing policy, we should just not allow them to grow or develop any further?

At this point, the population is going to grow so large that the consequences will hit no matter what. What you are going to see is sort of a neocolonialism much like how China/France does it. You will make deals with the people who control the government for whatever resources you need and the people who keep the operations going will get a cut. Everyone else in the country gets nothing and nobody cares about corruption/development/etc of said country. It is only a business arrangement. The country will resemble Haiti and will suck if you live in it and not friends of the government.

I also hope you are in a country that basically makes it impossible for migrants to enter and engages in neocolonialism. Your life will be great. If you are in a developed country now that doesn't do this, than the country will eventually be like Brazil with great social stratification.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 00:33:28 2017 No.9299312 >>9298696 india

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 00:38:55 2017 No.9299316 File: 77 KB, 570x900, cocoon_tower.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9298696 >>9299312 It's Tokyo

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 01:11:28 2017 No.9299352 >>9293974 I wish you retards actually would fuck off into the wilderness instead of complaining all the time.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 01:21:00 2017 No.9299362 File: 903 KB, 1218x1075, nukes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9293661 WW3 when?

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 01:22:23 2017 No.9299365

>>9299306
Haiti's case is extremely exceptional.
You other points are nonsensical and lack any grounding in reality. You assuming every nation is like "You will make deals with the people who control the government for whatever resources you need and the people who keep the operations going will get a cut. Everyone else in the country gets nothing and nobody cares about corruption/development/etc of said country."

You know China invests in other countries to help them develop and become a market in a mutual relationship.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 01:33:03 2017 No.9299376 >>9288380 Yes >>9291784 What's wrong with colonialism?

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 01:39:48 2017 No.9299383

>>9288394
>This fucking regard thinks humans current farming practices are sustainable
>everyone is pointing out plastics and co2 but they don't realize nitrogen enriched fertilizers are the actual devil

The uk alone makes 60kg of nitrogen per person per year. This is causing a plant mass extinction

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 12:12:47 2017 No.9300064

>>9299376
>What is wrong with colonialism
You mean besides the fact that it destroyed biodiversity(including cultural) across the world?
It's inherently sociopathic
>Inb4 "muh everyone else was doing it"
It is a fucking disease vector, far more deadly in its 400 years than mosquitos

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 12:40:09 2017 No.9300104 >>9288559 Lets just take the single mother rate for every race and compare. I would not put value in the male population of a race that won't even stay and raise a child.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 12:54:27 2017 No.9300128 >>9300104 the war on drugs effectively robbed many African american children of 2 generations of adult men, leaving them without strong male role models

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 13:06:15 2017 No.9300152
File: 155 KB, 1900x1314, challenger.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

all these "we have the resources to sustain X billion people" arguments are ignoring a crucial part of global society; increasing complexity of society and population dynamics

more people = more possible connections, conflicts, more chinese hackers, bigger governments, weaker valuation of humans as there are more of us, more disease vectors

the more moving parts a system has the more can go wrong

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 13:26:39 2017 No.9300190

>>9300104

>Implying every race/country hasn't treat it's women like shit

Middle East on average has the most restrictive rights and expression for women.
Japan salarymen culture takes away 90% of men's free time to spend with girlfriend/wife and children to the point where it's become a public trope.
India is notorious for rape and sexual assault corruption cases.
China has literally killed off female children in mass to the point where they have a heavily imbalanced sex ratio (favoring men). Also perpetuates along with several other east Asian countries a social shamming practice of pressuring women to get married before 30 even at the cost of their career.
Russia has sub-par female victim protection in general and just decriminalized domestic violence earlier this year.

But sure go ahead and ignore everybody else's bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 13:27:46 2017 No.9300191 >>9288380 Yes. Fuck off with your malthusian retrograde thought. Wealth today is much more a matter of distribution than generation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 18:31:50 2017 No.9300702 >>9300191 you can give niggers money and they will be poor again a week later

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 18:35:17 2017 No.9300708 >>9300702 fuck off commie

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 19:35:33 2017 No.9300834

>>9300190
>China has literally killed off female children in mass to the point where they have a heavily imbalanced sex ratio (favoring men).

WRONG. They have lot of women but they just aren't in the statistics. There's massive cases of women at 18 suddenly appearing out of nowhere because instead of abortions families kept female kids but just hid them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 19:36:35 2017 No.9300838 >>9300128 Anon that shit has been happening before the drug war it's not solely due to drugs.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 19:50:08 2017 No.9300859 File: 65 KB, 620x838, IMG_3136nn-620x838.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9300064 >slave morality, the post

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 19:56:55 2017 No.9300870 >>9300838 yeah i am well aware of African american men being executed and imprisoned under false and unjust pretenses. its happened for the entire history of colonial america

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 19:59:54 2017 No.9300873 >>9300859 >slave morality explain this meme and why it is relevant to my post. ive seen it around and itseems to be almost exclusively used by people trying to justify immoral convictions >x, the post cancer go back to /b/

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:06:53 2017 No.9300883

>>9300873
Not that anon but let me chip in:

Your demeanor and opinion expressed a very servile attitude, as opposed to dominant. You decry the strong taking advantage of the weak, something more akin to a slave than a slave owner. In your ideal world, the unable would be equal to the able in terms of power, again a common sentiment among slaves. The desire to be equalize power could be seen as not slave-like should it come from motivation in the form of gaining something other than a good feeling.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:12:08 2017 No.9300888 >>9300883 coercion and hegemony are immoral. i dont have a "slave morality", anon has Stockholm syndrome

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:14:23 2017 No.9300893 >>9288794 it's fine if you just hit it with a carbon tax :^)

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:15:11 2017 No.9300897 >>9300888 >coercion and hegemony are immoral In which society? It was completely moral and even envied by peers in the colonial era, morals change.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:15:19 2017 No.9300898 >>9300873 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_morality

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:16:00 2017 No.9300899 >>9300888 >coercion and hegemony are immoral. So what are you some kind of anarchist? Have fun with that kiddo.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:29:13 2017 No.9300927 >>9300897 >Morals change Right and wrong does not >>9300899 I prefer anarchy enthusiast

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:32:30 2017 No.9300933 >>9300927 >Right and wrong does not yeah, something that doesn't exist or can't be fined can't change by defition

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:35:08 2017 No.9300936

>>9300927
>Right and wrong does not
Those are again moral values, which do change. The concept of right or wrong, evil or good, they all depend on the societal group in which they are applied. Had you spoken against a beloved king in his kingdom, you'd be evil and wrong. Had you done the same but in a kingdom opposed to this king, you'd be good and right.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:35:27 2017 No.9300937 >>9300933 Pleb philosophy 101

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:37:41 2017 No.9300942 >>9300936 Fuck off with your moral relativist bullshit, I'm insulted that you think I am actually stupid enough to not understand your absurd beliefs. I don't care about social convictions, I care about ethics.

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:41:42 2017 No.9300953

>>9300942
>I don't care about social convictions, I care about ethics.
Again, ethics are morals, which are dependent upon the society they are applied to. It's ok to be angry at the unknown, it's important you overcome this instinctual fear and expand your knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:44:04 2017 No.9300958 >>9300942 Here's your very own specific ethics that you abide by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics#Anarchist_ethics Note how there are many other ethics to pick from.

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:49:18 2017 No.9300964

>>9300953
Actually moral reasoning is an innate part of human cognition. We must decide between right and wrong to make decisions and live on a day to day basis. There is a logic behind morality and just like in formal logic there are "valid and invalid" moral arguments. Morality is not some set of socially agreed upon dos' and don'ts that exists independent of truth and reason, those are called rules.
>Linking wikipedia to talk about ethics
Living up to my expectations, disappointing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:51:34 2017 No.9300971 >>9300958 Ethics are not doctrinal systems they are axiomatic systems that model human moral reasoning. And because I feel sorry for you, have a better encyclopedia https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:55:47 2017 No.9300976

>>9300964
>there are "valid and invalid" moral arguments
Yes, within their specific philosophy. Isn't it amazing how many different viewpoints on proper living, right, wrong, good, evil or just life goals there are?

Compare hedonism with stoicism. You seem to desire to unify everyone under your own set of ethics, maybe there is some master-morality in you after all. Dominate and enforce your will upon the world.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 20:57:28 2017 No.9300983 File: 19 KB, 200x261, straszak.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >a bunch of rules made by a bunch of monkeys on a single planet is objective and applies to every being in the universe because I say so

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:01:42 2017 No.9300995

>>9300971
>Ethics are not doctrinal systems they are axiomatic systems
Semantic difference, just as further principles come from rules of a doctrine, further reasoning comes from base axioms. There is no need to feel sorry for me, I do not wish to make you depressed, I enjoy our debate.

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:04:20 2017 No.9301000

>>9300976
>Isn't it amazing how many different viewpoints on proper living, right, wrong, good, evil or just life goals there are?
not really, everyone thinks in their own special little semiotic niche. There are 1 thousands ways life on earth began, if i were to take your same argument for moral relativism and apply it to that it would propose that each explanation has the same truth vale and the truth depends on social context. that is obviously not the case, this is what i mean by "invalid"
my only moral axiom is that someone should only have control over their own lives and actions and nothing else, coercing other people is wrong and further more letting machinery that serves to coerce people exist is against rational self interest if you want to have complete control over your life and actions

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:05:07 2017 No.9301003 >>9300983 Is that you God? Can you please send me some money and a wife with big boobs--like really big? I've been praying to Hilter everyday and awaiting his return and I sacrifice one Jewish baby per month in your honor. Amen

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:08:28 2017 No.9301011

>>9301000
>coercing other people is wrong and further more letting machinery that serves to coerce people exist
let e correct my disgusting anthropocentrism
i did not mean people i mean life in general.
also let me point out that i do believe there is a lot of grey area. it may all be grey actually, but out of the grey we may abstract black and white

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:13:09 2017 No.9301021

>>9301000
Nobody has control over their own life. You are born and your parents control every aspect of your life. Every “independent” decision you make is born from that framework. It continues to be shaped by societal pressures after you leave your parents control. Apparently your perfect moral human would be a feral child. Complete control and no parental or societal coercion.

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:14:19 2017 No.9301023

>>9300128
>leaving them without strong male role models
They never had any male role models, the average african black is a deranged retarded psychopath who spent his day killing, fucking, or messing around in the african wilderness.

When will you cucks realize that niggers are not like us, them acting like violent thugs is literally their natural regular behavior.

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:15:33 2017 No.9301026

>>9301000
>There are 1 thousands ways life on earth began, if i were to take your same argument for moral relativism and apply it to that it would propose that each explanation has the same truth vale and the truth depends on social context. that is obviously not the case, this is what i mean by "invalid"
There is an important distinction to be made between historical observation or logical deduction and abstract works with no relation to a physical principle. Argument could be made that since we are based on physical matter reacting in ways that produce these messages, that all thought and as such all morals are based on physical phenomena.

However, since there currently exist many diverging ethics, moral principles or just ideas, it follows that they all came from the same and are equally valid in their existence. If compared to eachother, some parts of particular ethics would be found invalid in parts of other ethics.

You are indeed describing anarchism, one of many different ethics recorded.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:16:49 2017 No.9301030 >>9288553 >Assblasted shitskin / leftist parasite is the biggest brainlet of them all Loving every Laugh

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:21:30 2017 No.9301041 >>9288667 Why should I sacrifice anything so that niggers can fill every available space on this God-forsaken planet? For fucks sake you people need to lay off the altruism a bit before it destroys you

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:23:53 2017 No.9301048

>>9301041
Its western propaganda, they keep playing the BOO HOO poor starving niggers crap on TV so sociopathic charities can get money from suckers then give a little bit back to the niggers but just enough to keep them alive long enough to breed more money makers. Altruist are the cancer of this planet.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:24:00 2017 No.9301049 >>9291298 >Implying a depopulation of (((America))) wouldn't be a good thing

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:28:28 2017 No.9301052 >>9292011 >Implying peer pressure and censorship isn't a thing in the scientific community See: >>9290782

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:31:24 2017 No.9301056

>>9300702
It's not about giving money to them, you unidimensional retard. Recognizing that the lack of wealth is a matter of distribution doesn't mean "distributing money freely", but just understanding that there is money for all. It just has to be better distributed. How? Giving people jobs, for instance.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:32:01 2017 No.9301057 >>9291272 >Varg-Mode What's that? 1984, except the posters say "Stop watching porn" instead of "Big Brother is watching you"?

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:35:10 2017 No.9301061

>>9296838
That pic looks disgusting when you look at it, but considering that it's Tokyo, and that Tokyo has some of the lowest crime rates in the world, the Nips make it work.
The only problem is that most of the newly developing cities aren't populated by Japanese, but rather by Dot-heads or niggers

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:37:50 2017 No.9301067 >>9301056 What drives an employed man to steal an electronic appliance after a natural disaster beset upon his fellow men?

Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:51:03 2017 No.9301091
File: 54 KB, 518x768, 1510813714779.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9300834

So I guess these +30 million Chinese men are just imagining the lack of prospective mates in their own country right?

https://www.zmescience.com/other/feature-post/china-gender-imbalance-243423/

http://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/gender-01222015125826.html/ampRFA?utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=amp&utm_source=www.weforum.org-RelayMediaAMP

http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20170213-why-millions-of-chinese-men-are-staying-single

And they totally aren't preparing to cross borders in mass looking for women right?

http://shanghaiist.com/2017/10/02/ukrainian-brides.php

https://www.economist.com/news/china/21730920-local-residents-often-turn-blind-eye-trafficking-demand-wives-china-endangers-women-who

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/aug/26/ready-married-kidnapped-brides-vietnam-china

Listen anon if you know where these elusive sect of women are please let the Chinese men know about it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:55:56 2017 No.9301101 >>9301067 I would steal from best buy or a grocery chain simply because I don't like the insurance company/state/corporation that would pay for it

>>	Anonymous Thu Nov 16 21:57:58 2017 No.9301104 >>9301101 What don't you like about them?

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 06:41:50 2017 No.9301707 >>9288380 obviously not At some point a country will have to basically have to invade another country for resources and it will all go to shit fast fun fact: if europe and america stopped foreign aid that fate could be avoided

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 07:26:38 2017 No.9301747 >>9301707 Fun fact: if europeans wouldn't have spread their pestilence and steal Amerindian land they wouldn't get extinct'd, before replacing superior beings. Face your replacement subhuman.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 07:30:54 2017 No.9301749 >>9301041 Why would we sacrifice anything for european subhumans that destroyed America and replaced superior beings with their pestilence? All comparisons lead to the same conclusion: european replacement.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 07:31:22 2017 No.9301751 >>9301061 but is it sustainable?

Anonymous Fri Nov 17 08:36:45 2017 No.9301802

In the end though, it is self-regulating. Eventually we simply cannot keep sending supplies to these people and so they will be forced to look after themselves fully, most will die and the population reaches equilibria with the amount of resources.

The problem is the damage done to the environment.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 11:56:13 2017 No.9302063 >>9288761 bruh he just wanted you to cite your sources for a point you were trying to claim and you literally ooga booga'd into a sex rant

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 12:07:14 2017 No.9302080 >>9288380 >Is this sustainable? If it isn't, nature will take care of it

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 16:52:27 2017 No.9302699 >>9293661 china is pretty much at the forefront of pollution control research, just something to keep in mind

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 16:57:21 2017 No.9302713 >>9301104 their existence. they make money off of the hard work of others who are paid a wage. also insurance is usury, mutual aid is where it is at. and the state is a cocksucker

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 16:58:42 2017 No.9302719 >>9301067 Human nature. Also inescapable shitty unemployment conditions.

Anonymous Fri Nov 17 16:59:03 2017 No.9302720

>>9301023
then why is it that black people raised in rich or even middle class neighborhoods don't do that? It's well known to be a question of nurture, not nature, and it so happens that due to the actions of our forefathers, black communities are stuck in a cycle of poverty, creating the behaviors you mentioned

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 16:59:16 2017 No.9302724 >>9302713 okay maybe not technically usury, but you should know what i mean

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 17:00:23 2017 No.9302726 >>9302719 shitty employment conditions*

Anonymous Fri Nov 17 17:05:23 2017 No.9302740

>>9302713
and more importantly than wages, the third worlders, and on a deeper level Life on earth who lose everything they have to supply transnational command economies with raw material to be turned into consumer goods that are laundered into capital by being sold to the aforementioned people who are paid a wage. Its all cancer and a natural disaster is a way to fuck the system without fucking the people it feeds off of. of course most people engaged in looting do not have these same reasons, but i bet they get the fucking over the fuckers part on an intuitive level.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 18:48:46 2017 No.9302960 >>9292794 /leftypol/tard detected

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 18:52:24 2017 No.9302967 >>9302960 >x detected >>>/b/ >>>/pol/ cancer poster pls go home

Anonymous Fri Nov 17 19:12:09 2017 No.9303006

>>9299365

I used Haiti to show how bad things will get. China does development projects in a sense of hey we will build you a new highway between the mine we operate to port we export from using chinese labor, equipment, and companies. We will pay royalties directly to the national government bypassing everyone else. Look at Venezuela and Zimbabwe for another good case of this. And i applaud china for doing this too. No attempting at social development. Just a clean exchange of resources in which china does not care where the money goes afterwards.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 19:25:06 2017 No.9303023 >>9288385 your land wont be yours in 2100. also when push comes to shove they kick your shit in and take your land as any good self respecting human would do >inb4 muh guns good luck

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 19:27:59 2017 No.9303030 >>9288465 this

Anonymous Fri Nov 17 19:31:22 2017 No.9303038

>>9288523
>ACTUAL DATA AND SCIENCE
i love it how poltards like science when it parrots their narrative but when it shows you how the co2 levels are rising or that vaccinces are made so you wont die from smallpox then you just say "nah thats not it because muh trump"
you pathetic scum

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 19:35:33 2017 No.9303044 >>9288380 No and Americas decline from global empire is going cause a global war that will correct out of control birthrates.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 19:59:04 2017 No.9303087 >>9288380 I saw Bill Nye tell me that an African savage breeding 7 or 8 kids is WAY better than a single white couple having any kids at all...

Anonymous Fri Nov 17 21:30:17 2017 No.9303269

>>9303006
Zimbabwe is also an exceptional case.

Also China doesn't do that shit they always do infrastructre projects based off what the nation in needs wants. It's a reciprocal thing you idiot. One country (Gabon) needs a road to connect it's completely isolated by car and truck port city (Port-Gentil) to the rest of the countries roads because that country needs that road to boost economic growth since an isolated port is USELESS. Western companies price to build said road was way to high so China did it.

China doesn't even use that much Chinese labour anymore because it's much easier to train locals to work to do the shit they need.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 21:34:40 2017 No.9303289 >>9301802 >Eventually we simply cannot keep sending supplies to these people But they'll keep sending stuff to you though.

Anonymous Fri Nov 17 22:07:51 2017 No.9303367
File: 12 KB, 212x300, moloch-chan.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9288394
It's only leveling out because of condoms. Within 2-3 generations the population will be entirely made up of people allergic to birth control and we will be back where we started. You can't fight Moloch.

>>	Anonymous Fri Nov 17 22:16:06 2017 No.9303379 >>9303367 >Within 2-3 generations the population will be entirely made up of people allergic to birth control Latex allergy increasing in world populations?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 00:03:23 2017 No.9303585 >>9303087 His reasoning was for climate change reasons. Mainly due to animal agriculture and it's demand for it in the West.

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 01:59:04 2017 No.9303739
File: 218 KB, 628x700, Oblation Moloch ratanon.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9288394
That projection line looks HIGHLY speculative. If I were just looking at the graph and had to predict where the line would go, I would draw it very differently than that.Why on Earth do they assume it will go down so fast, and get even lower than pre-19th century levels of growth?

>>9303379
ANY trait that causes people to breed even slightly more, will be highly selected for. There are some religious cults that try to get their members to have 8 children per couple. In just 2 generations they will make up the majority of the population. Exponential growth is terrifying.

>>9303585
Factory farms will keep producing meat until it's no longer economical to do so. And it will be economical as long as there is land to raise cattle on, or fields to grow corn feed. It doesn't matter if you have 1 kid or 10. They will produce the same amount of meat. Liberals that believe individual choice can solve pollution issues are brainwashed.

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 02:06:08 2017 No.9303748

>>9288380
Totally sustainable, the idea it's not is because people are retarded.

If I said to you, "we reached peak farmland about 3 years ago" you would say "well I guess that means we're fucked, no more humans." But that's now what peak farmland is. It just means that we have now reached a point where if markets were freed and distribution allowed, the amount of farmland we have could feed the world's population. The main barrier is distribution. That is a problem for politicians.

Already yields on crops have been enormously increased from where they were 100 years ago, thanks to efforts of people like Norman Borlaug, who had to make do with traditional splicing methods and was able to feed billions. And there is no reason to assume that areas that were once considered impossible to farm won't be opened up by hardier, more resilient brands of GMOs that can survive in extreme drought conditions, or survive frost for days or weeks at a time. As technology improves, so to does the ability to feed (as well as house, extend services to and enable) more and more of the world's population.

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 02:15:35 2017 No.9303764

>>9303748
>freed Markets
Are you cool freed Market anarchist or just another mouth breathing fake libertarian capitalist?
You have no idea what loss of crop diversty, biodiversity in general, climate change and soil over exploration are doing to our domestic lands. Industrial agriculture is a giant shitshow

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 02:17:51 2017 No.9303766

>>9288380

The pull-out method was suggested to be a failure but if you understand statistics, this was clearly because, on a population level, there would be inevitable failures to pull out.

On a personal level, the mechanism is simple. You don't come in the girl. And guess what? The chance of pregnancy just plummeted. To where? Less than the chance of having one with a condom

AND WHY?

Because condoms break. All the time.

tl'dr: in order to fool dumb people into using condoms they fooled smart people into using condoms and countless women into using brain altering drugs...

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 02:19:54 2017 No.9303771 >>9303739 is this more basilisk stuff?

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 02:28:10 2017 No.9303782
File: 117 KB, 1200x632, farmland 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9303764
I'm an optimistic libertarian. There have been stumbling blocks, and I know that American agriculture could do a lot better. But to imply were entering a new dustbowl is just a little alarmist. Just take a flight over the country someday. There is tons of vibrant farmland everywhere.

I talked to a dirty hippy type who explain how mycellium interacts with plants to create a suitable substrate for growing things, and how modern agricultural practices are decimating the mycellium. This is a serious problem; it's foolish to assume that agribusiness isn't aware of it or concerned. If we NEED mycellium it will be addressed. If we can engineer our way AROUND the mycellium problem, we'll do that too.

Things like climate change are not relevant to the discussion at this level. It's another problem that will be tackled, separately. The goal for agriculture should be to make plants that could thrive in a changing ecosystem.

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 02:44:28 2017 No.9303802

>>9303782
Good for you I happen to be a well studied ecologist and know eco-agricultural systems
There is a way to "engineer around mycelium
It's called using lots and lots of nitrogen and phosphorus aswell as an absurd amount of water(did you know one mycelium can hold up to 16,000 it's weight in water. There resulting pollution from the fertilizer decimates aquatic ecosystems with harmful algal blooms, some much it is responsible for creating the famous dead zones in major estuaries. The effects go on, major contributor to climate change, desertification, ect on many levels but let's get back to soil. This all leads to a tremendous loss of soil carbon, it dries up, and dusts away. We are in far worse than a dustbowl, we are in a mass extinction, pollinators are missing or declining, the soil is drying up and blowing away and crops are susceptible to famine do to genetic and functional diversty jumping out the window.
Those fertile farmlands are hellscape brought alive from deep underground and that source will dry up.
Loss of soil carbon, soil erosion, biodiversity loss and shifting baselines.
When I asked if you where a cool freed Market I wanted to know if you were a libertarian that loves markets and hates capitalism, I don't consider capitalism and liberty to be compatible, but free markets in the mutualist sense is fine by me.
These sleeping pills are really taking there toll,gotta nap, ask me questions because I really like to talk about this type of issue, it's almost all I am able to think about, it's painful

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 02:47:11 2017 No.9303807

>>9303782
>Things like climate change are not relevant to the discussion at this level.
No, it's all very interrelated and can't be viewed like that, earth and its life are not your mom's toaster, you can't figure out how it works by looking at the parts, it's just too dynamic and complex

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 02:48:52 2017 No.9303809
File: 81 KB, 640x430, farmland.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9303802
I don't hate capitalism sorry. Global capitalism has lifted too many people out of poverty for me to hate it. A few rich assholes being extremely rich and assholish does not cancel out all the good that capitalism has brought the world.

But I am very much a free-marketer and hate all the cronyism that occurs in America. We throw far too much taxpayer money at shit, including farmers, for no good reason. Sometimes it produces results like with Tesla. Sometimes it results in an enormous boondoggle like the now-defunct Solyndra.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 02:49:53 2017 No.9303812 Free markets only work under sophomore economic theory of rational actors. And as we know from doing actual research, people are irrational, to the core. Which is why a "free market" is simply ruled by those with the means to manipulate it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 02:51:29 2017 No.9303814 >>9303807 If anthropogenic climate change from CO2 emissions is a thing, having more or less farmland won't change that. India and China are going to industrialize, like it or not. Technologies like CO2 scrubbers might be the solution.

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 02:56:37 2017 No.9303820

>>9303809
>Global capitalism has lifted too many people out of poverty for me to hate it
You got duped by PR my friend. Neoliberalism is a death machine. First it takes the traditional economy and destroys it by allowing transnationals and finance to move in, then the people are robbed of everything they have and are forced to take a wage to eat worse food than they used to grow. The GDP grows, I guess that means "being lifted out of poverty" to you
In 8 hours I will show you the truth about global capitalism, and our ecological Armageddon, with links to case studies and research, I'm simply too tried now.
You seem like a good guy, I worry your opinion may have been subverted by some bad people that control the media

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 02:58:05 2017 No.9303821 >>9303814 Is this bait?

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 03:01:36 2017 No.9303826
File: 908 KB, 500x394, 1445969017550.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9303820
*sigh*

I'm not going to argue with you. I've done this song and dance too many times. I know that the world we live in now is better than the world our ancestors lived in; it's a shitload better than 100 years ago. And it is largely thanks to allowing people to pool their wealth and resources to explore joint ventures; ie, capitalism. Nothing you say at this point will change my mind, because believe me pal, I've heard it all. You're not going to say something new.

>>9303821
No?

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 03:08:10 2017 No.9303832 People blindly loving either capitalism or socialism, failing to see the benefits both can bring with regards to certain elements of those tools/theories together with other theories, piss me the fuck off. Get out of your ideological trenches.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 03:22:00 2017 No.9303846 >>9303832 So much this. Fuck off with your emotional way of life. Theories are not religions.

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 03:27:19 2017 No.9303847

>>9303832
>>9303846

Socialism has nothing to offer. The best parts of what people call "socialism" are actually libertarian concepts, such as the idea of letting people voluntarily form their own collectives where they share ownership of something. That's not actually socialism. Socialism as practiced in history is seizing property from individuals for use by the state, using violence to achieve this end. Socialism is crushing dissent under jackboots.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 03:28:11 2017 No.9303848 >>9303038 classic confirmation bias in science you have to count the misses too, not just the hits

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 03:31:21 2017 No.9303849

>>9288380
Everybody that thinks there are too many people should lead by example. There I just reduced world population. No more liberals and elites bankers. Take away arms from the world worst killers which is government (260million killed by government in 20th century) Now we have world peace. Problem solved.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 03:34:49 2017 No.9303853 >>9303849 Consumption is the real culprit It just happens to correlate with population

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 03:38:06 2017 No.9303854 >>9303847 >Socialism has nothing to offer >nothing Can't make this shit up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 03:44:56 2017 No.9303864 >>9303854 name one thing

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 03:46:28 2017 No.9303867 File: 93 KB, 960x533, bastiat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>9303854

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 04:05:55 2017 No.9303887

>>9303864
>name x things
Retarded rhetorical device to force someone into a defensive position instead of actually having a productive discourse. I'll refer you to what
>>9303847 mentioned and point out that certain concepts aren't copyrighted by some ideology. They can easily overlap. Bet you people have never heard of libertarian socialism.

Either way, your obsession with labels is noted.

>>9303867
>admitting socialism can have certain useful elements must also mean you subscribe to the whole of socialist theory
>a quote from some person on the subject contributes to a discussion in any way
You people are as ideologically entrenched as the most insane believers in socialism.

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 04:20:58 2017 No.9303906
File: 27 KB, 286x367, who are you arguing with, anon.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>9303887
>Retarded rhetorical device to force someone into a defensive position instead of actually having a productive discourse.
A simple errand to make you confront what is essentially a contradiction, actually. I have nothing to gain here; my philosophy is sound and based on axioms.

Libertarian socialism is stupid term, one I hate the most. It's like saying you're an atheist Christian, or a vegan carnivore. You can lean left or right in libertarianism and socialism, but you cannot meld the two. These are essentially polar opposite is how men deal with men. That they share common ground in some very basic ideas is not because they overlap but because things like collectives are inherent to humans are a social animal. HOW one goes about forming those collectives is what defines whether one is an individualist (libertarian) or an authoritarian (socialist).

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 04:29:29 2017 No.9303912 >>9303906 Nice rationalization. I'm just interested in facts, thanks.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 05:13:09 2017 No.9303946 >>9303782 >I'm an optimistic libertarian- Stopped reading right there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 10:11:55 2017 No.9304318 >>9303906 Socialists invented the word libertarianism you dip. Ever heard of anarchy? It wasn't until relatively recently in America when the word libertarianism began to be associated with capitalist economics

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 11:20:44 2017 No.9304430 >>9301802 They are sent remittance by their relatives, the aid they receive from foreign nations of food and clothes stops them developing their own economies. Most of the countries that receive less aid are the faster growing.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 15:11:31 2017 No.9304847 >>9288513 autism

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 15:25:33 2017 No.9304867 >>9288509 Who are you to judge value of a person?

Anonymous Sat Nov 18 15:27:35 2017 No.9304870

>>9288380
This is definitely sustainable, and I'll tell you why.

At any given time there is a small probability of a Henry Ford type guy being porn that will expand the carrying capacity of the human species.

The more people, the higher the probability that happens.

So our sustainability scales with greater and greater population.

>>	Anonymous Sat Nov 18 15:31:14 2017 No.9304875 >>9304870 great typo m8 10/10

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math