Are there too many people on earth?

I think if we are going to even attempt to reverse global warming we could stand to lose a few billion people.

Yes, 1 human is too many humans

this

Your average middle-class prole produces a ten times bigger footprint than an african. I'm not saying I'm against democide, just don't put the blame for your slaughter on the greenies, because it's not fair, say you're doing it to protect our Autism Level or something.

Explain this meme pls

No

I'm in favour of killing off billions of people.
Human beings breed like maggots, invent harmful spooks that oppress one another and we have trashed this planet beyond repair.
Holy fuck, I would hate to be the American President, having to tell calming lies and coddle stupid people.
I would go full evil misanthropic egoist.

Then hasta luego bitch

Start with yourself, you spineless faggot.

Questions of overpopulation always imply that the real issue is sustainability, not population. Asking a question about overpopulation therefore obscures that issue and leads to discussions about decreasing population size, often through unacceptable means (state-enforced policies, eugenics, genocide, war, etc.) rather than discussions about improving sustainability. The theoretical upper bound for a sustainable global human populace, assuming sufficiently advanced technology, is over one trillion people. Overpopulation is not the issue.

yes there should never be more than 1 billion people on Earth

...

men are generally ugly and not exactly easy on the eyes during sex, Louis CK does a vaguely funny bit about this in one of his newer stand-up specials. So while she looks pretty and sexy while she blows you, you look like an ugly faggot to her whose making weird faces. the extra humor comes from posting already existing meme characters as "what she sees" to exaggerate the dichotomy between pretty girl giving head and ugly dude getting head. there i ruined the fun. thank me later you autist

this meme is so overused

Could you stop being racist

It isn't enough

lmao at this

WOW RUDE!!

yeah we need to completely ruin the meme, fuck letting it fade away gracefully

I remember when you at least tried

Yes, but they're all in India and china, so no one wants to admit it.

...

No we need to kill all memes in the cradle.

I want to believe this assertion, but I need convincing. Namely, quantitative analysis of the availability of resource per person.

...

India and China will reach below-replacement fertility in a decade. China already has.
Why you want to cull other people's countries I have no idea.

What is no less important: demography is a highly ambiguous and ideologically charged social discipline that cannot be reduced to a mere numbers game in biological reproduction. Human beings are not fruit flies (the species of choice that the neo-Malthusians love to cite). Their reproductive behavior is profoundly conditioned by cultural values, standards of living, social traditions, the status of women, religious beliefs, socio-political conflicts, and various socio-political expectations. Smash up a stable precapitalist culture and throw its people off the land into city slums, and due ironically to demoralization, population may soar rather than decline. As Gandhi told the British, imperialism left India's wretched poor and homeless with little more in life than the immediate gratification provided by sex and an understandably numbed sense of personal, much less social, responsibility. Reduce women to mere reproductive factories, and population rates will explode.

Conversely, provide people with decent lives, education, a sense of creative meaning in life, and above all free women from their roles as mere bearers of children—and population growth begins to stabilize and population rates even reverse their direction. Indeed, population growth and attitudes toward population vary from society to society according to the way people live, the ideas they hold, and the socio-economic relationships they establish. Nothing more clearly reveals deep ecology's crude, often reactionary, and certainly superficial ideological framework—all its decentralist, antihierarchical, and "radical" rhetoric aside—than its suffocating biological treatment of the population issue and its inclusion of Malthus, Vogt, and Ehrlich in its firmament of prophets. - Bookchin
dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/socecovdeepeco.html

This.

Don't ever reply to my posts again you disgusting slag. Take a shower, it's no surprise no man would fuck you when you resemble a slovenly pig.

yes

is this a man?

Hoochie face reveal, exactly what I expected :^)

Not too much people so much as badl distributed.

Humans evolved to live in small bands, at most clan-sized. The bigger the city, the higher the chances of alienation and violent crimes caused by the social fabric being pulled too tight.

We must keep cities small, yet some need to be big enough to support heavy industries, state organs etc. Cities must have no more than 100k inhabitants, preferrably spaced regularly.

what's the source for the theoretical upper bound being a trillion people? I was agreeing with everything you said but came to a different conclusion. Sustainability is not possible as the population continues to increase exponentially and technology at some point won't be advanced enough to even get a cheap mass-produced happy meal to every person on earth. Even if the upper boundary for population size is ridiculously large, like a trillion people, we're going to hit it eventually and life is going to get suckier for people the closer we get to that limit. Capitalism assumes that infinite population growth is sustainable, and it's not.

From some calculations on land mass and hypothetical zero-waste, closed-system resource consumption in massive superstructures supported by vertical crop farms which produce the oxygen and food for the inhabitants, etc. I don't know if I can find it, but it wasn't really rigorous, just persuasive enough for me to imagine.

The time it would take to reach that upper bound would be ample time to produce the technology needed to support such a population. By that time, we'd be interplanetary at least, anyway, so then we'd have Mars and elsewhere to provide additional resources and land. Again, the matter is one of sustainability. If we seem to have too many people, the response should always be to improve sustainability or increase available land and resources first and foremost, not to decrease population. The Universe may not have infinite resources and habitable land, but it has enough that it practically is for the purposes of our species. The same is true for the Solar System. We don't really need to worry about overpopulation and absolute resource scarcity over sustainability for a long, long time. And by the time we would, we would either already have the technology and capabilities to easily solve it or we (and our descendants) would already have went extinct well before then.

no

I disagree. I dont't think that we can call a system "sustainable" if it relies on farming, housing, and spacetravel technologies that don't exist yet, and also assumes that once we use up all the resources on earth we can simply move onto a different planet like some sort of parasite looking for a new host. True sustainability would mean that the human race can survive indefinetely on the resources we currently have.

That's what I am saying, though. I'm just explaining that even in the future, the "muh overpopulation" argument is bullshit and distracts from the real issue of sustainability.

You are all spineless cowards.
The laughable notion of "start with yourself" is a cheap way to avoid addressing the serious problem of overpopulation.

Do you honestly think people will support your NEET, misfit "revolution" if they realize their standard of living will have to be sharply reduced?

You cannot support over 10 billion people on a first world standard of living, and not expect total environmental destruction.
The technology to jump off a dead Earth and go to other planets to exploit it's resources is laughable, the technology will not be be available for decades, possibly centuries.

This is why I despise the Left, you are spineless cowards that refuse to admit that people are stupid, weak and not fit for breeding.
You defend morbidly obese people, people who willing ruined their bodies being allowed to have publicly funded surgery, you defend the continued existence of Down Syndrome people, you defend people with other such disgusting deformities being allowed to breath.

Here's the harsh truth the Left denies will all it's core ideology, that human life isn't all equal or sacred. Some people are worthless.

I would argue that Elon Musk is worth far more in terms of human life than all of you and the world's poorest.

Ideally, the human global population should never be more than 1 billion people.
I don't care about race or how tall people are.

When are people going to realize that both the left and right are spooks?

You're retarded and don't understand the basics of the topic you're discussing such that your position is highly dangerous and counterproductive. You should kill yourself because of the aforementioned reasons, not because it may be consistent with your insane and unsubstantiated beliefs.

Pure ideology.
I'm not "retarded".
You are still denying the serious issue of sustainability and the need for a small global population.
I don't care if my position is offensive to morons like yourself.
There should be billions of people killed.
Human life isn't equally valuable.
Not everyone should procreate.

Many people are stupid and ignorant and any talk of "local democracy" means that policy will be decided by emotionally charged morons who don't understand a fucking thing, but will vote based on their emotions.

You're using sustainability as an excuse for population control when the rational response ought to be to improve technology and social practices and to promote system change to achieve sustainability. Killing off billions only resets the clock while failing to meaningfully solve the problem. Your position is nothing more than a front for state control, eugenics, and genocide. It's not a tenable position, just the sophistry of an illiterate coward and dullard who would better serve society as fertilizer than as a promoter of repressive and authoritarian pseudo-solutions under the guise of sustainability.

Once more, you don't know what you're talking about. You have a child's grasp on this issue and your "solutions" demonstrate as much. Blow your brain out or at least start using it, lest you continue to peddle your infantile nonsense on this board.

Don't bother replying. I don't care about what you have to say on this issue or about me anymore than I would from a toddler.

And you are an infantile mongoloid that thinks too highly of humanity.
Killing billions, then implementing harsh social practises and technological advancements would be better solutions than the mental deficiency you have demonstrated in this thread.
I know what i'm talking about.
You would serve society better by being thrown in a gas chamber by fascists and filmed for the world's amusement.
And there's nothing wrong with eugenics.
It's amusing that stupid radical leftists like yourself whine about "state control" if you yourselves don't control it.
How emotionally charged of you.
Yet you keep replying.
You are a biological failure that has yet to be terminated. A genetic dead end, a stupid ape.

This is pointless.

this is me

I got a dick and I'm not asian, sorry guys, the fun is over. I've been exposed.

Start with yourself

Overpopulation very much is an issue. It is estimated it would take 4 earths for us all to live like americans. 3 to live like the French. If somehow consumption, production and distribution were equalised overnight, the best we could hope for with current tech would be the living standards just below the average for an Indian.

Assuming communism then you have to remember this. What you are advocating is taking from the first world and distributing among everyone else. The more the population rises, the worse it gets for everyone when communism happens.

why do people even care about that old faggot manlet?

Huh. I always felt kinda bad shouting at Minge before cause I thought it was gril.

Hoochie, kill yourself. Really fucking kill yourself you degenerate, deranged cunt.

Read a book or neck yourself, retard.

The west eats too much, reduce consumption to daily nutritional needs. Get rid of unhealthy snacks which require perfectly fine ingredients to be altered in huge factories at the consumption of huge amounts of water and electricity. If we could remove those it would already be a decent start. Removing the huge consumption of oil and replace them with alternatives would help immensely. We could reduce the amount of plastic wrappings and foils used in packaged products. When the battery tech has improved a little more, we could change over to electric cars. We could further invest in thorium nuclear fission reactors. And also in nuclear fusion tech. Which would be able to replace the majority of oil and coal used for electricity. I don't know how much this would reduce the numbers, however, it would probably reduce it quite a bit.

As opposed to the first world looting everything for itself?

...

But redistribution is a part of it no? Or are we just going to wake up to gloriious communism one day and find that the global poor are still starving?

You focus on means of production but what the fuck good is that if the global poor have no means to seize? Fucking kys.

My point was simply that as the global populace grows, what already limited resources we have are stretched thinner and thinner.

Then they have to move to places where there is a means of production. It still works on the principle of work or you go hungry. Communism isn't a charity case, it just makes sure that porky doesn't take the surplus value, or decides that we overproduce certain commodities we don't need.

i'm anprim not a ecoanarchist

Letting population control their country's arable land to grow food instead of car fuel could improve the situation

So you would prefer Possadism over eco-anarchism?

I would argue that if people like Elon Musk died nothing of value would be lost. Promoters of corruption aren't needed, they can be killed.

So i agree with you on that not all life is equal or sacred. We just disagree on the peopel that must be squashed that's all ;)

How many open jobs do you think there are in Africa? You think they choose to live and work in junkyards cause of the sweet employee benefits they get? Honestly, if we were to implement your system tomorrow I can get al of Holla Forums onside cause what you are proposing is to let half the world die overnight. Unless you intend to maintain porky's 'foreign aid'.

Brilliant.

No. We have plenty of space and we have the technology to produce food for everyone.

We can build housing on all the land, every scrap of it, and in other buildings we can have genetically modified hydroponics factories and lab-grown meat factories. Maybe we can even recycle the protein from deceased humans, people will stop being squeamish about it as soon as they are hungry enough.
Every useless forest should be cut down to build on, the oceans can be full of controlled fish and algae farms too, pumped full of steroids and growth hormones and fertiliser. We can put a dome around the earth made of solar panels and use the electricity to power it all as well as provide quality artificial light.,
It isn't like the plants need is as we will have built on all the land, and the ones in the factories will have full spectrum fluorescent lighting.
It would also remove the need for seasons, and the gen-crops can grow all year round.
As a matter of fact, years wouldn't need to exist either, nor days.
We could make people work in the factories for massively extended periods of time, fill them up with stimulants and keep them at it - they wouldn't have any idea of what time or day or year it was.

We could easily store 100 billion humans in capsules or pods, and feed them intravenously.

What a perfect world it would be.

Keep sending the trillions to africa, the more the merrier!

I agree that a nation/state/commune's first objective should be to feed its own. But its not like mean old men in tophats are scouting Africa looking for independcet sustancance farmers and burning down their crop to replace with fucking soy. The problems in Africa are much more deep-rooted(infrastructure, education, spooks.

What you suggested would likely improve shit but it still sounds like 'fuck em, leave them to it'.

What is your argument anyway?
1. If communism was implemented overnight (your premise is stupid), no one would stop them from moving to somewhere else, where they can work at an actual cooperative which wouldn't use them for slave labour. Getting there might be a problem, but since they are living in the area they currently inhabit, it means that they are getting food and water from somewhere. There are probably vehicles as well. Stock up and go somewhere else.

2. If communism was established world-wide overnight somehow (your premise is still stupid), then it would mean that the people in these regions could still accept. Unless if someone decided to stop foreign aid the second the revolution succeeded. Which wouldn't happen because of how Dual Power works and revolutions usually take place.

3. "Everyone has to work" or "no charity" means that any abled bodied person should have some duties. This doesn't mean that disabled need to do work they aren't able to do. Or that people without the proper education should perform tasks they don't know how to perform. This also doesn't mean that everyone has to work 12 hours every day even if it is a meaningless task. If you somehow extrapolated that.

lol no, we just dont have enough resources for everybody on earth to live the way rich american "entepenurrs" live. A "middle class" european (IE teachers, well paid craftsmen, general office and service workers) lifestyle is easily achieveable for everyone.

1000 AD (estimated 400 million on earth)
2000 AD (estimated 6,000 million on earth)

Between that,

1830 (estimated 1,000 million)
1930 (estimated 2,000 million)

That's right, world population doubled in 100 years.

1960 (estimated 3,000 million)
That's another thousand million in only 30 years.
1975 (estimated 4,000 million)
1 billion more in only 15 years. Doubled from 1930, in only 50 years.

1989 (5,000 million)

To 2017 (7,500 million)

It is clear what will happen.
They claim there are now, very recently, diminishing birth rates. Yet it is only a few countries where this is true. Most others are expanding incredibly.
Conversative estimates put the figure of 2050 at 10 billion.

That means 10x the population from 1830 to 2050.
220 years.

It is unprecedented, these figures are incomprehensible and in no way comparable with a population of a thousand years before.
People, especially the young, have little idea of how things have changed, as it is a slow drip effect in terms of the 20 or so years you might have lived so far.

Imagine having ten times the forest, ten times less traffic, ten times fresher air, ten times the animals and variety of wildlife.

Don't think so.

No shit. 220 years ago we lived purely off primitive organic farming, relying solely on nature. Then we started extracting fossil fuels, making artificial fertilizer with its energy and many things. We then used this energy surplus to greatly reduce the number of people who need to farm for a living, allowing for more research to be performed and more people to be educated. This resulted in accelerated progress of technology by sheer numbers of researchers, together with improved information relay systems. This in turn lead us to be able to develop means to generate the energy we got from fossil fuels renewable, which is currently being hindered by big oil/gas interests and "the market (because the monetary cost of fossil fuels is lower, as it ignore externalities).

humans dont live in forests, even primitive hunter gatherers burned down forests because plains are better for hunting and safer. Humans are savannah/grassland monkeys. Ever tried to navigate an honest to god forest, one not managed and cleared by humans? Its nearly impossible to get anywhere. All forrest in europe for the last 2000 years have been managed by humans to some extend. No real "primal forrest" existed.

not an issue, you just need to ditch cars, they are primitive and wastefull

thats not how "freshness" works.

False. Reducing the human population by 10 would just mean the cities would shrink and humans would spread out more. There wouldn't be more animals, and even if there were, it wouldnt benefit us.

Humans did not cause the extinction of 20 million to 10^13 spicies

What are those numbers based on? French people do not eat that much.

Mind numbingly stupid comment.

What do you think you are breathing, apart from your own distilled fart fumes.

Really you have no concept of how nature works.

You claim plant life and biodiversity to be insignifcant and unimportant - yet your entire existence is based on it.

99.999% of the population are no contributing anything at all to the furtherment of mankind, and are simply existing and using resources.

no u

Its actually mostly produced by algea, dumbfuck. And humans did burn forrests all the way back then. I did not say we should burn forrests, you are just projecting your stupid hippy ideas of "the enemy" onto me.

No, I did not. Strawmanning hard my man.

Pic related

I DONT LIKE WHAT YOU SAY YOU ARE HITLER NAZI.

You have absolutely nothing to counter any of what i said or the figures.
No concept of how the world works and have clearly not lived long enough to see any of the evident effects of overpopulation.

sure

Lets see
What is there to refute?

Its a bit vague but basically the study it was taken from tried to quantify the ecological impact of the average person in each of the given countries. It considers, among other things
Food consumption
water consumption
oil consumption

Moar

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_hectare

&

bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-33133712

Perhaps not the most rigorously scientific method but I suspect it will be pretty close to truth.

Oh and im not
btw, who is obviously satirising the same kind of person you think I am

Is the oil consumption calculated in plants grown or something? I have to leave for work not but you can easily provide enough energy renewably with a tiny footprint. A very small area in the sahara can supply all energy needs of the world, so oil (energy) wouldnt be an issue.

I assumed this was fucking satire starting up here.>>1528143
How does left/pol/ not get this?

10 second memory span. Cognitive capability of a stool sample.

Keep posting reaction images and vibrating in your chair.

Serious mental illness is the answer.

You're talking about things that are theoretically possible, not as they are right now. As more resources go to sustaining people in frankly unsustainable places then there is less left for such mega-projects. Sure, you could say 'communism will fix it'. But that's not an argument.

Based on the tech and society we have today, there are too many people. Blame the system if you will but there is no sign of it changing any time soon.(this cuts both ways, the current system relies on population growth to pay denbts but attacking it from an ecological angle is more demonstrable than ideological attacks (leftism))

Stop responding to ironic shitposing.

You do sound like though.

People who count each square yard of space on the surface of the planet, including mountain tops and ocean floor, as being enough physical space for a person to stand, and therefore enough space for someone to live.

"100,000 people can fit into a stadium! So why do we need a city!!??"

The only problem is, it isn't ironic.
The majority of the people on this board really believe it.

I'd gas them all with the push of a button.

...

If you didn't check it, 'global hectare' attempts to address this.

samefag

2 consecutive posts =/= samefaggin newfag.

I agree, with even our current technology we could feed the world ten times over.
Population is falling dramatically in places like Japan, and that could easily be changed if things were managed properly. That Japan, a rich and developed country with some of the advanced tech in the world is having problems even maintaining it's population is a sign that something needs to change.

In the US, for example, only a tiny fraction of the land is used for housing. To fix the starvation in Africa for example, we could simply rehouse africa in a small portion of the land in the US, and it still wouldn't be full.

Called out on it, denies, presents no evidence. lol

The people of the world were nearly wiped out in ww2 and you want people to slow down?
You must be one of those freak anti-humanists.

I'm not denying the two posts were me. That's still not samefaggin.

How about back on topic?

and look to be samefagging too,

Trying to play both sides against each other.

...

I'd fuck you if you shaved and dressed like a lady lmaooooooooooooooooo

ffs…

These are all my (Yous)

This thread has got all fucking retarded.

Overpopulation and climate change go hand in hand actually feeding back to each other and amplifiyng the dangers.

Even assuming the projections through 2100 for population are correct, we're still looking at 10-12bn people by then. This brings us to carrying capacity.

So. If we get to 2050 and the population is still rising, and rising faster than current UN projections, should something be done?

If you look at the data, Europe hasn't grown by much at all.
North and south America have grown by a moderate amount.

The main areas of growth are in africa and Asia.
From 1980 to 2050, a mere 80 years - the combined population of those two continents rises from 3,000 million to 8,000 million with current estimates.

There is the problem.
How to deal with it? Well, 'feed the world' certainly didn't work - as when you feed something it tends to grow. Africa went from 470 million in 1980 to double that in 2005. 25 years.

During those 25 years, trillions upon trillions were sent there and untold amounts of food and relief.
The relief only further burdens not only Africa but the whole planet.

The west likes to feel guilty about everything, that the west is overpopulation the planet, but the reality is that the overwhelming majority are not in the west.

Climate change, if it is indeed caused by man - will increase exponentially as Indian, china and africa grasp at the western ideal of living.
Each person with a car, heater, air conditioning, bottle water, constantly new things, worldwide air travel.

A few conscientious do-gooders in canada aren't going to affect a thing, even if they slave all their life to recycle every last plastic bottle.
Not with 8,000 million third worlders with a demand for all the mod-cons.

So what potential solutions exist?

Forced depopulaiton (genocide)
Natural depopulation (no more aid)
managed natural depopulation(don't know how you'd manage it mind)
NWO and hands on population management (mass sterilisation)
Technocratic solution like start proper masss exporting people from asia to Europe while urbanising what can be saved in Africa
One child policy all of asia and africa (most human, hardest to enforce)

Did I miss anything?

I mean I guess we could in the west make going to Africa to educate and help build shit the only/best option for work for Gen Z but even then would this be enough on its own?

One child policy helped a lot in china, but even that wasn't enough.

The answer would have been simple when they were talking about it in the 60s or 70s with only a couple of thousand million.

Currently it is heading towards nwo, world government which will be followed by license to procreate and sterilisation rewards.
Applying these measures in the west will do almost nothing to combat world overpopulation however, as states previously.

Nature might find a way, if not someone might use bio-warfare to thin the herd.

Aid being targetted towards food was a hideous wrong-doing.
They had plenty of food for the population size they had, which began to grow once they had more food from western sources and modern medicine.

Asia, no idea how to fix it.
India and china are around 4,000 million total.

Ww3 would likely result in indirect deaths of 80% of the world. Due to distribution methods and dependencies.

Some methods that were being suggested in the late 60s by the world's scientists of all fields, were:

1. Cessation of the nuclear family, with the government taking control of all births and child rearing.
2. Increased sex for pleasure, contraception and - no joke, encouragment of homosexuality.
3. One child policy.
4. Voluntary sterilisation with benefits provided.

Some others too.
For some reason, after the 70s it became unfashionable or politically incorrect to talk about overpopulation problems. Yet the problem only grew.

I guess this is why people don't like the topic, no easy answers and kinda depressing. I just don't see natural decline in birth rates happening fast enough to prevent things getting real shitty.

Sterilisation after one child, no exceptions.

Population halves with each generation.
Withdraw funding from all third world countries.
Give them a choice, either be governed and follow all set rules, or starve.

Any family found breaking rules will all be sterilised, even if just one member goes against policy.
Sterilise any women choosing to study for a degree. Give them the choice between work or child-rearing.

All depressing and 'unfair', but if something isn't done the world is going to be over for humanity as a whole.

The amount of autism in these posts.

But he's right.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth#Club_of_Rome_reports

Yes it is a problem.

Yes we could have prevented it.

He didn't argue for any of the points he made. He's just sperging hard.

He is absolutely correct that the response of 'kill yourself' on the topic of overpopulation would have zero effect. Its the breeders and wogs that re the issue and they don't have the self-awareness to consider suicide.

No, it is not "theoretically possible", it is possibly right now, we just need to build the infrastructure. The same goes for anything that requires a slight change in living conditions. Everything needs to be made and build. We can make all energy sustainable with current technology, but the rich wont do it.

What the fuck are you on about? You just keep saying I said shit I didnt say at all.

Hey Holla Forums, perhaps you should consider limiting population in europe instead of this thinly veiled attempt at suggesting that we genocide almost everybody in asia, africa and south america. The first world consumes more resources per head than the places you suggest "population control" IE genocide on. But suuuure, the problem is simply the amount of people, not the consumption and technology used.

Which means it is possible in theory then?

By that logic everything that is doable is only "possible in theory"

When people say "only in theory" they usually mean only in hypothesis, with the technology to realise it lacking. We dont lack the tech. We just lack the political power. Litterally all it would take is a government like the USA, Russia or China to push the button.

This wouldn't effect anything though. Europe's population is stable to falling once you discount migrants from other continents. Wipe out every European overnight and at current rates they'd be replaced in 8-9 years, assuming somebody else pays Africa's gibs.

Yup this is part of it. But with the white man gone do you think the rest of the world will forgo the creature comforts we've invented?

Additionally, the US was 5th in terms of consumption/capita based on the data the produced this graphic.

Bullshit. Brexit, possible in theory and a practice. Communist revolution currently only possible in theory. But I don't want to get bogged down in another argument over semantics so lets just agree to call it highly improbable currently.

With all the niggers and gooks gone, do you think da wite man will stop being an american and be more ecological?

No, I dont think so. But by your genocidal utalitarian logic, every american killed is worth 12 bangladesians.

No, fuck off. Any plan suggested here is only possible "in theory" by that logic. Population control is only possible "in theory", reduction in consumption is only possible "in theory". You dont get to pull the "muh semantics" card while doing the same to me.

whatevs.

Probably not no. but another billion and a half people in asia will offset any savings. Which brings us back to the central point, the world can only sustain so many people. If we aspire to the living standards of those in India then sure, we can probably fit 12bn people here. Chuck in some more tech and you could push that to 15 or 20bn. Bottom line, eventually you hit a wall. Better to plan for it and act accordingly than wait and see.

Yes. We would all live more comfortably if there weren't so fucking many of us.

too many commies
we need more anarcho-socialists

yes, we need more diversity. All teh races hae to become one shade of brown. Then we won't have any more racism after we kill all the racists.

i fucking know right? lets kill off the europeans, its their fault the world is overpopulated, browns and balcks can't into capitalism so they don't owerpopulate like petit bourgoise(white people) do