Human extinction movement

[Unkotare]

exactly correct. The world is currently overpopulated with people if the goal is to sustain human civilization. If the goal is population control by starvation then we are doing just fine. Anyone who thinks that the earth can sustain 9 trillion people is living in fantasy land.

The world is not "overpopulated" at all. We have the capacity to sustain well more than current and projected population levels (nobody said anything about "trillion," that's ridiculous). Our population 'problem' is what it has always been: distribution and cooperation. People starved to death, died of disease, and killed each other when there were less than a billion humans living. Hell, stick 100 people in a small space and leave them there long enough and all that will happen. Does that mean the planet cannot sustain 100 humans?

 

[Votto]

Now, now, we must not question the knowledge of the all knowing liberal. They know exactly what doctors we should see, how each individual child should be educated, what kind of cars we should be driving, what kind of houses we should be living in, and how much money we should be making etc. How then do they not know what are sustainable population levels?

 

[Redfish]

exactly correct. The world is currently overpopulated with people if the goal is to sustain human civilization. If the goal is population control by starvation then we are doing just fine. Anyone who thinks that the earth can sustain 9 trillion people is living in fantasy land.

The world is not "overpopulated" at all. We have the capacity to sustain well more than current and projected population levels (nobody said anything about "trillion," that's ridiculous). Our population 'problem' is what it has always been: distribution and cooperation. People starved to death, died of disease, and killed each other when there were less than a billion humans living. Hell, stick 100 people in a small space and leave them there long enough and all that will happen. Does that mean the planet cannot sustain 100 humans?

your 100 humans would be just fine unless they were forced to live together in 1000 square feet. Humans need space.

india, china, indonesia, and some places in south america are already out of habitable human space.

could the earth sustain more people? yes. would life be pleasant for them? no.

our planet is currently overpopulated, china and india know it and are trying to stop it. we, in our smug existence choose to ignore it.

 

[hoosier88]

exactly correct. The world is currently overpopulated with people if the goal is to sustain human civilization. If the goal is population control by starvation then we are doing just fine. Anyone who thinks that the earth can sustain 9 trillion people is living in fantasy land.

The world is not "overpopulated" at all. We have the capacity to sustain well more than current and projected population levels (nobody said anything about "trillion," that's ridiculous). Our population 'problem' is what it has always been: distribution and cooperation. People starved to death, died of disease, and killed each other when there were less than a billion humans living. Hell, stick 100 people in a small space and leave them there long enough and all that will happen. Does that mean the planet cannot sustain 100 humans?

(My bold)

Sure, we can sustain more people - if we all eat soya instead of meat (meat requires a lot of water & feed, processing, transportation). & if we all live @ the level of a taxicab driver in India, sure.

But we don't want that. We want red meat, fruits & vegetables out of season, cars, cell phones, a detached home in the 'burbs, or a condo, annual vacations, travel & so on. Education, work, roads, infrastructure, health care. The question is: How many people living @ the middle class level in the US can the World sustain? PRC is closing rapidly on that level for that population, & they don't plan on stopping @ all until they get there. The issue is coming, there's no avoiding it ...

 

[there4eyeM]

Since I was born, the earth's population of humans has doubled twice.

It cannot and will not double again.

 

[Unkotare]

exactly correct. The world is currently overpopulated with people if the goal is to sustain human civilization. If the goal is population control by starvation then we are doing just fine. Anyone who thinks that the earth can sustain 9 trillion people is living in fantasy land.

The world is not "overpopulated" at all. We have the capacity to sustain well more than current and projected population levels (nobody said anything about "trillion," that's ridiculous). Our population 'problem' is what it has always been: distribution and cooperation. People starved to death, died of disease, and killed each other when there were less than a billion humans living. Hell, stick 100 people in a small space and leave them there long enough and all that will happen. Does that mean the planet cannot sustain 100 humans?

your 100 humans would be just fine unless they were forced to live together in 1000 square feet. Humans need space.

india, china, indonesia, and some places in south america are already out of habitable human space.

No, they are not.

 

[Unkotare]

exactly correct. The world is currently overpopulated with people if the goal is to sustain human civilization. If the goal is population control by starvation then we are doing just fine. Anyone who thinks that the earth can sustain 9 trillion people is living in fantasy land.

The world is not "overpopulated" at all. We have the capacity to sustain well more than current and projected population levels (nobody said anything about "trillion," that's ridiculous). Our population 'problem' is what it has always been: distribution and cooperation. People starved to death, died of disease, and killed each other when there were less than a billion humans living. Hell, stick 100 people in a small space and leave them there long enough and all that will happen. Does that mean the planet cannot sustain 100 humans?

(My bold)

Sure, we can sustain more people - if we all eat soya instead of meat (meat requires a lot of water & feed, processing, transportation). & if we all live @ the level of a taxicab driver in India, sure.

But we don't want that. We want red meat, fruits & vegetables out of season, cars, cell phones, a detached home in the 'burbs, or a condo, annual vacations, travel & so on. Education, work, roads, infrastructure, health care. The question is: How many people living @ the middle class level in the US can the World sustain? PRC is closing rapidly on that level for that population, & they don't plan on stopping @ all until they get there. The issue is coming, there's no avoiding it ...

Wrong. The issue that is really coming is that of a declining global population. That will bring problems that many have not considered because they've been preoccupied with a phony 'crisis' since the 70's.

 

[Unkotare]

our planet is currently overpopulated, .

Not even close.

 

[ima]

our planet is currently overpopulated, .

Not even close.

He's not talking about your brain.

 

[ima]

It's not that we can't fit more people onto this planet, but the amount of pollution that the current amount of people emit is throwing off the balance of what the planet can absorb. If we decrease the amount of pollution that we produce per capita as we go forward, further population growth could be sustainable. Otherwise, and as we've seen already with global warming, polluted air, streams and oceans... WE ARE FUCKED!

 

[Redfish]

It's not that we can't fit more people onto this planet, but the amount of pollution that the current amount of people emit is throwing off the balance of what the planet can absorb. If we decrease the amount of pollution that we produce per capita as we go forward, further population growth could be sustainable. Otherwise, and as we've seen already with global warming, polluted air, streams and oceans... WE ARE FUCKED!

wow, something we agree on

except for the global warmingpart, man is not changing the climate of the planet, he is polluting it, but not causing climate change

 

[editec]

I suspect that humanity has a collective death wish.

Certainly if we cannot stop shitting in our own beds, we'll collectively shit the bed soon enough.

No movement will be necessary for that to happen.

Market forces alone are making that happen without any conspiracy.

But surely, since the 'market' is made up of intelligent people acting in their best self interest, such auto-destruction could never come to pass!

Unless that 'principle' of 'the market' is a myth, of course.

Tragedy of the commons.


The principle of the invisible hand of the market isn't nonsense.

But the faith based belief that the invisible hand of the the market always gets it right is obviously nonsense.

 

[initforme]

We as humans just arent nearly as important as we think and there is no threat of "underpopulation."

 

[Redfish]

The world is not "overpopulated" at all. We have the capacity to sustain well more than current and projected population levels (nobody said anything about "trillion," that's ridiculous). Our population 'problem' is what it has always been: distribution and cooperation. People starved to death, died of disease, and killed each other when there were less than a billion humans living. Hell, stick 100 people in a small space and leave them there long enough and all that will happen. Does that mean the planet cannot sustain 100 humans?

(My bold)

Sure, we can sustain more people - if we all eat soya instead of meat (meat requires a lot of water & feed, processing, transportation). & if we all live @ the level of a taxicab driver in India, sure.

But we don't want that. We want red meat, fruits & vegetables out of season, cars, cell phones, a detached home in the 'burbs, or a condo, annual vacations, travel & so on. Education, work, roads, infrastructure, health care. The question is: How many people living @ the middle class level in the US can the World sustain? PRC is closing rapidly on that level for that population, & they don't plan on stopping @ all until they get there. The issue is coming, there's no avoiding it ...

Wrong. The issue that is really coming is that of a declining global population. That will bring problems that many have not considered because they've been preoccupied with a phony 'crisis' since the 70's.

what forces are going to cause the population of the earth to decline?

 

[KissMy]

All nonsense, of course. There is no population 'problem.'

No problem!

People f**k, they have babies, no problem!

Now the quantity of the population is obviously already too great and will soon provoke misery on a scale never before seen, but that's something else.

If that happens it will be a natural imposed limit to growth, not a government imposed one.

 

[editec]

(My bold)

Sure, we can sustain more people - if we all eat soya instead of meat (meat requires a lot of water & feed, processing, transportation). & if we all live @ the level of a taxicab driver in India, sure.

But we don't want that. We want red meat, fruits & vegetables out of season, cars, cell phones, a detached home in the 'burbs, or a condo, annual vacations, travel & so on. Education, work, roads, infrastructure, health care. The question is: How many people living @ the middle class level in the US can the World sustain? PRC is closing rapidly on that level for that population, & they don't plan on stopping @ all until they get there. The issue is coming, there's no avoiding it ...

Wrong. The issue that is really coming is that of a declining global population. That will bring problems that many have not considered because they've been preoccupied with a phony 'crisis' since the 70's.

what forces are going to cause the population of the earth to decline?

Oh yeah we're going to live forever.

Because our species is SO special.

 

[rdean]

VHEMT

This movement is the heart and soul of the left. They are here to save mother earth from the parasites known as human beings.

They would just assume have an abortion than create another destructive human carbon footprint. No joke, there have been women who have had abortions for this very reason. Secretly they applaude nations like China that mandate parents only have one child, as those same parents in China often disgard or kill their female babies. In fact, China's embrace of capitalism might be overlooked so long as they take draconian measures to reduce population levels. Also, homosexual unions should be celebrated due to their inability to reproduce. In fact, sexual promisuity in general helps propetuate the AIDS epidemic and other life shortening STD's. Children should then be indoctrinated to be promiscuous and well educated in the use of contraception and abortion to boot.

They oppose human progress that may lead to population growth. To be more specific, they oppose anything having to do with fossil fuels. This is because fossil fuels are like magic. There is no other cheap and easy to use energy source comparable and there never will be. Fossil fuels are directly attributable to the exploding population levels and therefore, are a target. This includes oil, nattty gas, or coal etc. Things like agriculture are dependent upon it as well as pretty much every facet of our lives. Without it, the world would be a much different place with no where close the population levels.

This leads us to the economy. Secretly the left hates flourishing economies. After all, this leads to more people prospering which means them wanting to have more babies and burning more fossil fuels. Therefore, flourishing economies are also a target and must be erradicated. It makes no matter how you do it, large deficits, government regulation, higher taxes, the economies of the world must be curbed drastically if not altogether destroyed. Communism, the failed economic model of the world, is then to be embraced whenever possible. We must all live like Cuba if we are to save mother earth. Ultimately, fossil fuels are the backbone to flourishing economies so curbing its use is vital.

For those that think that these views are extreme, consider how this message is being given to us in different ways through the media.

Agent Smith Matrix Humans Are A Virus - YouTube

Hilarious. I just started a thread you should check out:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/educa...position-has-merit-you-don-t-have-to-lie.html

Why this is hilarious. We live in a technological age and you highlight that with a scene from the Matrix. Remember, it's Republicans who want to cut education. Who don't want to build up our aging infrastructure. It's Republicans who helped move jobs to China and call that "capitalism". It was Republicans who said they wanted to abolish the EPA because clean air and clean water are job killers. It's Republicans who worked to undermine democracy and suppress the votes. They still do.

If you are able to, you might want to "rethink" your position. If you are able. To think I mean.

 

[Redfish]

Wrong. The issue that is really coming is that of a declining global population. That will bring problems that many have not considered because they've been preoccupied with a phony 'crisis' since the 70's.

what forces are going to cause the population of the earth to decline?

Oh yeah we're going to live forever.

Because our species is SO special.

you said that the population of earth would decline, I would like to know what you think is going to cause that. simple question, whats your answer?

 

[rdean]

what forces are going to cause the population of the earth to decline?

Oh yeah we're going to live forever.

Because our species is SO special.

you said that the population of earth would decline, I would like to know what you think is going to cause that. simple question, whats your answer?

Two things. Education and filth.

Populations in the US and Europe and Japan declined among the educated.

A dirty world will cause sterility and birth defects.

 

[Redfish]

Oh yeah we're going to live forever.

Because our species is SO special.

you said that the population of earth would decline, I would like to know what you think is going to cause that. simple question, whats your answer?

Two things. Education and filth.

Populations in the US and Europe and Japan declined among the educated.

A dirty world will cause sterility and birth defects.

Ok, so your hypothesis is that pestilence and famine will kill millions in india, china, indonesia, brazil, etc and that europe, the US, Japan, etc will reduce reproduction because they are educated and realize that the world is overpopulated, is that it?