🌟 Exclusive 2024 Prime Day Deals! 🌟

Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁

Human Pollution.

Global warming is bad enough. But there is another BIG problem! Overpopulation. About a month ago there was a very interesting news segment on the TV show 60 Minutes. It was called, The Vanishing Wild. Nothing in it was a surprise to me, but they did make some interesting points. (Some come from the show, some are my own) Such as that the last time human life was sustainable on Earth was in 1970. When there was around 3.5 billion people on Earth. Now there are over 8 billion. In the past 50 years, global wildlife has decreased by 69%. Every year about 150 species of animal goes extinct. We are consuming 175% more than the Earth can regenerate. And though it is possible that could included fossil fuels in that, I doubt if they meant that.

Also, the U.S. is losing soil 10 times faster than its natural replenishment rate. Each year we lose around 960 million tons of topsoil. Places like China and India are even worse. They are losing soil at 30 to 40 times faster than its natural replenishment rate. Another thing is that in the Amazon alone, each day about 200,000 acres of forest is burned. That is around 78 million acres a year.

Another point is that every single day there are about 228,000 more people on the planet than there was the day before. But the population of White people isn't rising. In some places it is even going down a little. Despite all this, that moron Biden is letting just about everybody from south of the border that wants to enter the U.S. to do so. Why would he care. That old douchbag doesn't have much longer to live anyway. So what is the future matter to him. (Not that republicans are any better)

There was a movie made once that was very very loosely based on an actual event called "Abandon Ship!" It was about the captain of a lifeboat who had to turn people away so that those on the lifeboat could survive. We are in the same position. When swarms of humans begin to be like swarms of locusts, what is needed is come crop dusting with insecticide. Or "humacide." Not letting them in to increase their swarm here. Which they are. I will include the URL of the 60 Minutes episode I mentioned. I doubt if it will work. So you will just have to go to youtube and look up the episode yourself. I suggest you watch it.


I entirely agree with you, dimensional, and have understood for years that the whole Global Warming nonsense was actually an overpopulation problem. If every woman has no more than one child each, in three generations only, we'd be down to 1 billion instead of the current 8 billion --------- and I think one billion is a reasonable burden of humans for the planet, without unbalancing it. Now it's a total mess of extinctions and pollutions, of course, and to blame that on "global warming," which isn't even happening, is just silly.

I think it's because leftwingers feel embarrassed to tell the real overpopulators (not whites: we're depopulating all over in the U.S. and Europe, etc.), the brown and black and yellow people, that they shouldn't have so many children. But that's what is really going on.


Hopeless, I suppose.
 
Not really.
Humans have built villages, towns, and cities everywhere.

Most of the centered area states have billions of acres of flatlands which are not inhabited by any significant creature that can't be easily relocated. And these areas are significantly easier to build and live on that most of the places that have populations on them now.

And yet........these areas are STILL untouched.

Its a lot more than just a matter of empty space. See post #20.

As it is, we are already running out of timber, resources, rain-forest, thousands of species, and food. Why do you think folks talk of using crickets as food? And all those flat plains? Most of them are used for growing food or raising cattle because no one wants to live there. Where would you rather live, on some barren prairie in south dakota or in Malibu with good weather?

That's right. If these empty places were any good, the rich would already be living there.
 
Stupid .....idiotic times we are living in....


vEIt7Kb.png
 
Another thing is that in the Amazon alone, each day about 200,000 acres of forest is burned. That is around 78 million acres a year.
.

200,000 x 365 = Would be 73 million acres a year ... Not 78 million.

200,000 acres is 312.5 square miles.
312.5 x 365 = 114,062.5 would be square miles a year.

At the figures you have stated ... And the 78 million acres a year ...
The Amazon Rainforest would have been destroyed 22.2 years ago.

Always be suspicious when numbers simply do not "add up".


Here is the deforestation of South America

52701817409_9c279f2dd4_c.jpg



This is the part that is the Amazon Rainforest
(the big green part ... the grey square is just a target area for specific research)



52702050208_bdd1645499_c.jpg



.
 
Global warming is bad enough. But there is another BIG problem! Overpopulation. About a month ago there was a very interesting news segment on the TV show 60 Minutes. It was called, The Vanishing Wild. Nothing in it was a surprise to me, but they did make some interesting points. (Some come from the show, some are my own) Such as that the last time human life was sustainable on Earth was in 1970. When there was around 3.5 billion people on Earth. Now there are over 8 billion. In the past 50 years, global wildlife has decreased by 69%. Every year about 150 species of animal goes extinct. We are consuming 175% more than the Earth can regenerate. And though it is possible that could included fossil fuels in that, I doubt if they meant that.

Also, the U.S. is losing soil 10 times faster than its natural replenishment rate. Each year we lose around 960 million tons of topsoil. Places like China and India are even worse. They are losing soil at 30 to 40 times faster than its natural replenishment rate. Another thing is that in the Amazon alone, each day about 200,000 acres of forest is burned. That is around 78 million acres a year.

Another point is that every single day there are about 228,000 more people on the planet than there was the day before. But the population of White people isn't rising. In some places it is even going down a little. Despite all this, that moron Biden is letting just about everybody from south of the border that wants to enter the U.S. to do so. Why would he care. That old douchbag doesn't have much longer to live anyway. So what is the future matter to him. (Not that republicans are any better)

There was a movie made once that was very very loosely based on an actual event called "Abandon Ship!" It was about the captain of a lifeboat who had to turn people away so that those on the lifeboat could survive. We are in the same position. When swarms of humans begin to be like swarms of locusts, what is needed is come crop dusting with insecticide. Or "humacide." Not letting them in to increase their swarm here. Which they are. I will include the URL of the 60 Minutes episode I mentioned. I doubt if it will work. So you will just have to go to youtube and look up the episode yourself. I suggest you watch it.


Stop believing what Gates, the WEF, and the UN are telling you. It's all bullshit to further their depopulation agenda. You are useless to them and they want you gone...
 
I entirely agree with you, dimensional, and have understood for years that the whole Global Warming nonsense was actually an overpopulation problem. If every woman has no more than one child each, in three generations only, we'd be down to 1 billion instead of the current 8 billion --------- and I think one billion is a reasonable burden of humans for the planet, without unbalancing it. Now it's a total mess of extinctions and pollutions, of course, and to blame that on "global warming," which isn't even happening, is just silly.

I think it's because leftwingers feel embarrassed to tell the real overpopulators (not whites: we're depopulating all over in the U.S. and Europe, etc.), the brown and black and yellow people, that they shouldn't have so many children. But that's what is really going on.


Hopeless, I suppose.
Why do the skin colors matter to you? Why wouldn't you just say that we should all have less children? The view you've just expressed is purely racist.

As I believe I pointed out to you in the past, there is nothing preventing people from working on multiple problems at the same time. Worrying about global warming, which is quite real, does not mean we cannot simultaneously work on overpopulation, pollution, housing, medicine, justice, freedom and the American way. As soon as someone (in this case, you) starts telling you that working on A is preventing us from working on B, you can be certain that their real intent is to stop us from working on A and they couldn't give two shits about B.
 
I've got a better idea. Start looking at facts and objective evidence. All you've got here is a new Illuminati.

Yeah, trust the science. Vaccines are safe and effective. Men can get pregnant and have periods. The polar bears are drowning. Socialism only doesn't work because we haven't tried it here. Dick Cheney's Halliburton Weather Machine caused Hurricane Katrina. Hands up, don't shoot. Antifa is just an idea. 81 million people voted for Biden.

:laughing0301:
 
Yeah, trust the science. Vaccines are safe and effective. Men can get pregnant and have periods. The polar bears are drowning. Socialism only doesn't work because we haven't tried it here. Dick Cheney's Halliburton Weather Machine caused Hurricane Katrina. Hands up, don't shoot. Antifa is just an idea. 81 million people voted for Biden.
You're not listening. I said start looking at facts and objective evidence.
 
You're not listening. I said start looking at facts and objective evidence.

Your facts are notions, fallacies, and half-baked kookiness based on fear. We are not all going to die in ten years, like your global warming cult leaders have told you. We are not going to run out of fossil fuels, and so-called "green energy" is a pipe dream cooked up by globalists and socialist, in order to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots.
 
For about 6 hours. Then they'd all be dead. Not a real good argument there bud.
It just shows how, if spread out, the human population affects the earth. I would think that if everyone can fit in Rhode Island that the earth has more than enough room.
 
Your facts are notions, fallacies, and half-baked kookiness based on fear. We are not all going to die in ten years, like your global warming cult leaders have told you. We are not going to run out of fossil fuels, and so-called "green energy" is a pipe dream cooked up by globalists and socialist, in order to redistribute wealth from the haves to the have-nots.
Facts are things that are proven or known to be true. Your descriptions of my arguments are false. Your descriptions of what democrats and liberals have done and wish still to do are false. Your positions on all the issues I have ever noted you speaking on here are not based on objective evidence; you regularly espouse nonsensical extremist fantasies.
 
It just shows how, if spread out, the human population affects the earth. I would think that if everyone can fit in Rhode Island that the earth has more than enough room.
I think it needs a far more detailed approach. How much space do humans actually require to live in, to raise their food, to collect their drinking water? How much is available? As pointed out earlier, there are large portions of the Earth that are not amenable for human life. Too hot, too cold, not enough water, too much water, etcetera. And there are many reasons for which people choose to live closer together than nature requires. By looking only at area, you grossly oversimplify things. Go visit Manila, Mumbai or Port-au-Prince and ask yourself why people sufferr such crowding if the world is such a wide open space.
 
If humanity was hellbent on reducing population, it could be achieved through means that don't involve genocide. A simple one child policy (which backfired on China), mathematically would solve any perceived overpopulation problem within a couple generations, or 40ish years...
 
If humanity was hellbent on reducing population, it could be achieved through means that don't involve genocide. A simple one child policy (which backfired on China), mathematically would solve any perceived overpopulation problem within a couple generations, or 40ish years...
Why, do you think, it backfired on China?
 
Facts are things that are proven or known to be true. Your descriptions of my arguments are false. Your descriptions of what democrats and liberals have done and wish still to do are false. Your positions on all the issues I have ever noted you speaking on here are not based on objective evidence; you regularly espouse nonsensical extremist fantasies.

How is anything I said "nonsensical extremist fantasies"? I'm not the idiot who's super-gluing myself to paintings in museums or chaining myself to street signs, in the name of "climate change." That's you folks. I hate to piss in your mama's cornbread, but there is no "Mother Earth", there is no"Mother Gaia", and climate change and overpopulation are hoaxes and cults.

The cult of global warming is not based on science, facts, and objective evidence. It is based on fear, superstition, and the godless secular belief in worshiping the creation, not the creator. You poor deluded folks who believe you actually have any control over your environment have an overblown sense of self-importance. You look at charts showing the global temperature and CO2 content over the last 100 years, while disregarding the fact that those have cycled to higher levels millions of years before any humans existed on this planet. It's all hogwash, fearmongering, and superstition.
 

Forum List

Back
Top