&
☭proletarian☭
Guest
- Thread starter
- #81
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Navy1960 again.
he gets it!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Navy1960 again.
So let's see about increased food production..........HORMONES, INSECTICIDES, FERTILIZERS, GENETIC MANIPULATION........Did I mention how GREAT we thought DDT was?
☭proletarian☭;1804622 said:Well first of all DDT didn't have long term effects until it HAD long term effects. Second there is only SO MUCH WATER.........People need to drink it to live and crops need it to grow........IT IS A FINATE SOURCE YOU FUCKNG MORON!!!!
So? You're the one arguing that the available resources have nothing to do with how many people there can be. By your reason, we can have 3 trillion people living on the moon.
I'm sorry pal but you have shown in three posts that you have NO CLUE about Ecology.
says the idiot who thinks people don't need food to live
Thats exactly the reason why I offered in a previous post a few examples of new methods of food production Cold. Of course no one wants DDT or harmful things like that, or at least I hope not, but frankly I like to think we can solve this issue. One thing that I have seen in my career is the sheer number of people the world over that live in poverty, and even though some may not agree with me, I have come to believe that if we address just that little part of it, it will provide a firm foundation in which to build from. If we and other nations put as much effort as we did in building Missile technology to uplifting the poor and no I'm not talking about giving handouts. here, I'm talking about true help, roads, bridges, schools, dams, etc. then that effort will eventually be rewarded in my opinion with a new generation of young people that want more than those that came before them and that includes a world not so crowded.
most respectable people only have 1 or 2 kids anyway. this will help curb the overtaking of the world by ignorant poor people who cant keep their dick out of every girl they come across. I have been for sterilization of people unfit to raise kids for a long time.
☭proletarian☭;1804643 said:So let's see about increased food production..........HORMONES, INSECTICIDES, FERTILIZERS, GENETIC MANIPULATION........Did I mention how GREAT we thought DDT was?
wow.. we were wrong about one thing... we should stop farming, go back to living like naked Africans, and sacrifice any children beyond the first to Gaia...
Crown vics and Pintos caught fire, does that mean electric cars are evil?
☭proletarian☭;1804622 said:Well first of all DDT didn't have long term effects until it HAD long term effects. Second there is only SO MUCH WATER.........People need to drink it to live and crops need it to grow........IT IS A FINATE SOURCE YOU FUCKNG MORON!!!!
So? You're the one arguing that the available resources have nothing to do with how many people there can be. By your reason, we can have 3 trillion people living on the moon.
I'm sorry pal but you have shown in three posts that you have NO CLUE about Ecology.
says the idiot who thinks people don't need food to live
WTF I am the one who IS talking about RESOURCES!!! You are the fucking fool who isn't.
☭proletarian☭;1804500 said:The population will never remain higher than Earth can support. It's self-regulating like that (if we stop feeding Africa, the population will drop to a sustainable level). What right do you have to arbitrarily decide what a 'desirable' population is for Earth and prevent others from reproducing to fit your twisted vision? What justification can you possibly offer for forced abortions, forced sterilization, and the other horrendous acts necessary to carry out your vision?I can accept that w/o some massive technological explosion in space colonization there is a chance we'll reach the point of a 20 billion human planet. How about 40 billion?
Perhaps at that time a universally applied "replacement voucher" system could be necessary.
Something like "117 year old Myrtle has died so now you're permitted to have a child".
Superficially I would think this would lead to about 1.9 children per couple.
☭proletarian☭;1804511 said:How many people do you think the Earth can support 10-20-30-100 BILLION?
Depends on the methods used to harvest resources. Modern farming techniques enable much larger populations to be sustained, for instance.
As for not overproducing you are DEAD WRONG the most impovershed countries have VERY high birth rates.
You went from overpopulation to high birth rates. Are you retarded? Those are two different things. Population is a function of both birth and mortality, as well as em- and -immigration.
☭proletarian☭;1804548 said:Superlocusts?In the short term but not in the long term when you consider what the ultimate effects of increased petrochemical based fertilizer and insecticide will be.☭proletarian☭;1804511 said:Depends on the methods used to harvest resources. Modern farming techniques enable much larger populations to be sustained, for instance.
There exist fertilizers with no significant long-term negative environmental impact. The right fertilizers combined with crop rotation, selective breeding, and possibly genetics in the future, allow for a level of sustainable production unheard of 1000 years ago. Aquifers and irrigation revolutionized farming a few thousand years ago, and farming itself allowed much larger populations to be maintained than hunter-gatherer societies could sustain.
Modern distribution has allowed food to be sent far from where its grown, allowing nations like the US to have a massive population even in areas with little farmable land (sending food from Kansas to Arizona, for instance) and even allowing artificially high populations to be sustained in Africa (without US aid, the population would fall drastically and the natural regulators of such things would soon restore the population to a sustainable level).
☭proletarian☭;1804581 said:Much of the problem is less an issue of resources than of distribution. Americans waste enough food every year (half a burger @ MCDs, for instance) to feed a lot of people.
You ALSO ignore the FACT that ALL those niffty ways to increase crop yields could EASILY have long term effects. Ever hear how the effects of hormones to make cows produce more milk have BUILT UP in girls bodies? They are maturing earlier than they should. TEN YEAR OLDS HAVING MENSTRAL CYCLES!!!!
You just can't see past the PROMISE of tomorrow to the TERROR of the future if we CONTINUE to fuck with nature.
☭proletarian☭;1804661 said:Thats exactly the reason why I offered in a previous post a few examples of new methods of food production Cold. Of course no one wants DDT or harmful things like that, or at least I hope not, but frankly I like to think we can solve this issue. One thing that I have seen in my career is the sheer number of people the world over that live in poverty, and even though some may not agree with me, I have come to believe that if we address just that little part of it, it will provide a firm foundation in which to build from. If we and other nations put as much effort as we did in building Missile technology to uplifting the poor and no I'm not talking about giving handouts. here, I'm talking about true help, roads, bridges, schools, dams, etc. then that effort will eventually be rewarded in my opinion with a new generation of young people that want more than those that came before them and that includes a world not so crowded.
a hand up....
Spoken like a true delusional Utopian liberal
You forgot one thing: If you want Americans to do it, you have to convince them that they'll go to hell for eternity if they don't and/or that there's money to be made
☭proletarian☭;1804679 said:☭proletarian☭;1804622 said:So? You're the one arguing that the available resources have nothing to do with how many people there can be. By your reason, we can have 3 trillion people living on the moon.
says the idiot who thinks people don't need food to live
WTF I am the one who IS talking about RESOURCES!!! You are the fucking fool who isn't.
Moron
You ALSO ignore the FACT that ALL those niffty ways to increase crop yields could EASILY have long term effects. Ever hear how the effects of hormones to make cows produce more milk have BUILT UP in girls bodies? They are maturing earlier than they should. TEN YEAR OLDS HAVING MENSTRAL CYCLES!!!!
Do you have evidence thaT COW'S MILK IS TO BLAME?
How much of it is diet and social factors?
You just can't see past the PROMISE of tomorrow to the TERROR of the future if we CONTINUE to fuck with nature.
You're too busy being an ignorant fear-monger to see that iif done carefully, emerging technologies could help alleviate Man's burden of trying to sustain himself when he is born in an area with precious few resources. I guess the fact that we could develop Dioxin means we shouldn't put Aloe Vera on sunburns, take asprin, or fix a man's broken arm.
☭proletarian☭;1804661 said:Thats exactly the reason why I offered in a previous post a few examples of new methods of food production Cold. Of course no one wants DDT or harmful things like that, or at least I hope not, but frankly I like to think we can solve this issue. One thing that I have seen in my career is the sheer number of people the world over that live in poverty, and even though some may not agree with me, I have come to believe that if we address just that little part of it, it will provide a firm foundation in which to build from. If we and other nations put as much effort as we did in building Missile technology to uplifting the poor and no I'm not talking about giving handouts. here, I'm talking about true help, roads, bridges, schools, dams, etc. then that effort will eventually be rewarded in my opinion with a new generation of young people that want more than those that came before them and that includes a world not so crowded.
a hand up....
Spoken like a true delusional Utopian liberal
You forgot one thing: If you want Americans to do it, you have to convince them that they'll go to hell for eternity if they don't and/or that there's money to be made
To bad I'm a lifelong Republican Cold lol, liberal is not a word often attached to me, however it means that I am advocating for making the world a better place for those that come after me then so be it. I do think however, that theres a LOT of money to be made, in doing this, those roads, schools, dams, bridges, etc. and I don't think you will have to look hard for the number of companies to do it should enough money a resources be put into doing it.
And you are too busy ASSUMING that chemical incecticides will not show LONG TERM effects
The population will never remain higher than Earth can support. It's self-regulating like that (if we stop feeding Africa, the population will drop to a sustainable level). What right do you have to arbitrarily decide what a 'desirable' population is for Earth and prevent others from reproducing to fit your twisted vision? What justification can you possibly offer for forced abortions, forced sterilization, and the other horrendous acts necessary to carry out your vision?
For any given level of technology there is a limit to the population the earth can sustain.
My goal would be to create a stable world. I
aww, touched a nerve.
do you get upset when people call round, shiny red fruits *apples*?
how about if the govt euthanizes childless people over the age of 40?
much less disruptive of families with the same end result.
plus we could then redistribute their accumulated wealth to other, more deserving poor people.
and, it's still fascism-a win-win for the govt knows best group
More like I touched a nerve with you.
What does your rant about euthanizing childless couples have to do with the question of how to ethically reduce overpopulation by lowering the birthrate?
I guess you were unable to answer my question so you threw out a strawman.
doofus!
no strawman. what use to childless people serve?
they don't help to improve the gene pool, which is the reason for human life.
if the goal is population reduction, why should euthanasia not be considered?