Human Pollution.

[80zephyr]

As your citation states, fertility rates are well below replacement in Western Europe, Anglo America and China ... and India is getting better ... the main problem today is in Africa, folks there have no retirement systems so they rely on a dozen kids to support them in their dodderhood ... wouldn't you? ...

The good news is that if we don't control our population ... something else will ... that's just how biology works ...

Even Africa's rate

Um.... I did the math.
The question is (or should be) how many could live in a certain area, not how many could "fit".

Sigh. Its just an exercise to show how much of the earth people take up. Look at a globe the size of a basketball, and most likely Rhode Island wouldn't even show up.

 

[80zephyr]

As your citation states, fertility rates are well below replacement in Western Europe, Anglo America and China ... and India is getting better ... the main problem today is in Africa, folks there have no retirement systems so they rely on a dozen kids to support them in their dodderhood ... wouldn't you? ...

The good news is that if we don't control our population ... something else will ... that's just how biology works ...

Even Africa's rate is falling. Since we are so close right now to zero growth, we should be alright.

 

[dimensional]

Malthus was wrong, Galbraith was wrong, Ehrlich was wrong, you're wrong.

I made many points in my thread. Tell me which you think is wrong. Maybe you will think this is wrong too. You have probably of trolling lines that fishermen in the ocean use. Where they have a long line with evenly spaced hooks on them. Well put end to end, the length that is put out each year would circle the Earth well over 500 times! We are killing the oceans. You want to share and eventually have to end up eating bugs? Or maybe you prefer the Solyent Green approach.

 

[dimensional]

There is no over-population. Just because cities are crowded does not mean there is over-population.

The earth is still 80% unihabited by humans.

Wildlife has diminished because humans are GREEDY, LAZY, and RETARDED!!!
Instead of locating habitable lands that are NOT homes and feeding grounds to specific wildlife, they just build "where ever" and be damned to all the creatures there! Humans don't even bother relocating these animals, much less creating safe areas for the them to live around new developments. All of which does NOT take any more time or money than just levelling everything in their fucking way.

There IS however.........an EXTREME over-population of greedmongering, sadistic, violent, and heinously destructive humans that need to be exterminated en-mass, in a very AGGRESSIVE manner!!!!

Or....... You could go to youtube and watch the video I tried to post. It doesn't show up here. But it can be watched there. You might also want to look up the word "unsustainable."

 

[playtime]

Or....... You could go to youtube and watch the video I tried to post. It doesn't show up here. But it can be watched there. You might also want to look up the word "unsustainable."

what did you do to post the youtube?

 

[Crick]

You're a fucking idiot.

We'll just have to agree to disagree as to who's the fucking idiot

People like you can't seem to comprehend that it would take $50 trillion dollars to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050.

I haven't the slightest difficulty comprehending that.

That is not my guess, that is an estimate by Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eagan, the President of the American Action Forum, one of the biggest proponents of climate change.

There you go.

When grilled before Congress the other day, He couldn't even give an answer to the question "How much would that lower the world's temperature, if we spent $50 trillion dollars to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050?" He didn't have a fucking clue.

That you think that meaningful tell us that its you that don't have a fucking clue. America going carbon neutral does not have some fixed temperature differential attached to it. Have you forgotten the rest of the world?

Nor had this illustrious "climate expert" ever heard anyone in the Biden administration say how much it would lower the world's temperature. Nor did two other "climate experts" being grilled by Congress know how much it would lower the world's temperature, if we spent $50 trillion dollars to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050.

Doubling down on stupid?

You climatards are stumbling around in the dark, and worshiping fake science, but you don't really have a clue, do you?

We know it well enough to know what we should know and what we can't and what is being asked just to get guffawing idiots like you all in a lather. For fuck's sake are you stupid.

 

[ReinyDays]

Doubling down on stupid?

What's the correct answer? ...

 

[Crick]

What's the correct answer? ...

Are you as stupid as he is? You don't see the enormous amount of information missing from that question that would be required to formulate even the roughest of estimates? You should be embarrassed.

 

[dimensional]

we are headed for a population crash, not over population

We are at overpopulation right now. Besides global warming, the only thing that will cause a population crash is overpopulation itself.

 

[dimensional]

Feel free to take one for team overpopulation and decrease the surplus population by one.

If an arsonist starts a fire, why should die. The arsonist or the firefighter.

 

[dimensional]

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.

Human caused global warming is real enough. You can bank on it.

 

[dimensional]

.

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

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

.​

Well that is what the website said. Unless I misread it. Also 73 million or 78 million. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

 

[dimensional]

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...

All of those statistics I gave are accurate. Uou should watch the 60 Minutes episode I tried to provide a link to. In it they talk to actual scientists. When you start doubting provable science, you are screwed.

 

[dimensional]

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...

The one child policy they tried in China was too difficult for them. So they just gave up. It didn't backfire. Also, because of human caused global warming, I don't think we have 40 years.

 

[dimensional]

Killing female offspring in poor agronomical cultures predates China's one-child policy by about 3,000 years. It has to do with creating labor for the farm and minimizing the number of mouths to feed. In a patriarchal society, there's also the point that males spread family power and influence while females dilute it.

But, that's your claim? The Chinese abandoned the one-child policy because parents were killing female children? Your realize infanticde is a crime in China.

I think you got that wrong. If they were killing female babies in China 3000 years ago, it was probably for the same reason they do it today. Because female babies just aren't as valuable. I myself knew a girl who was adopted from Korea. She was found as a baby in Korea as a baby. It was probably her father who tried to bash her head in. But she survived. Though she suffered from cereberal palsy from the head bashing.

 

[BlackSand]

Well that is what the website said. Unless I misread it. Also 73 million or 78 million. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference.

.

It makes all the difference ... One is a lie.
If they are lying to you ... You cannot believe what they say.

If you looked at the rest of their data and claims ... Because you can do simple math and figure out they were lying ...
You would have found that everything they were saying is a lie.

But you didn't do that ... You just pretend the truth of it all doesn't matter ...
That's the point of everything that was posted ... You nitwit ...

.​

 

[dimensional]

You're a fucking idiot. People like you can't seem to comprehend that it would take $50 trillion dollars to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050. That is not my guess, that is an estimate by Dr. Douglas Holtz-Eagan, the President of the American Action Forum, one of the biggest proponents of climate change.

When grilled before Congress the other day, He couldn't even give an answer to the question "How much would that lower the world's temperature, if we spent $50 trillion dollars to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050?" He didn't have a fucking clue.

Nor had this illustrious "climate expert" ever heard anyone in the Biden administration say how much it would lower the world's temperature. Nor did two other "climate experts" being grilled by Congress know how much it would lower the world's temperature, if we spent $50 trillion dollars to make the United States of America carbon neutral by 2050.

You climatards are stumbling around in the dark, and worshiping fake science, but you don't really have a clue, do you?

How much will extinction cost, moron.

 

[dimensional]

We do have an excess birth rate.

Not White people.

 

[dimensional]

.

It makes all the difference ... One is a lie.
If they are lying to you ... You cannot believe what they say.

If you looked at the rest of their data and claims ... Because you can do simple math and figure out they were lying ...
You would have found that everything they were saying is a lie.

But you didn't do that ... You just pretend the truth of it all doesn't matter ...
That's the point of everything that was posted ... You nitwit ...

.​

5 million acres out of over 70 million acres makes a difference? You are delusional.

 

[BlackSand]

5 million acres out of over 70 million acres makes a difference? You are delusional.

.

You're delusional if you think it doesn't matter they lied to you ... You ignorant twat ...

.​