These are the the people who make up the far-right

You don't know what overpopulation means. The world is vastly overpopulated. Ergo, life is cheap and we should not feel bad about killing a few billion people. Just need to determine who is worthy of life (Europeans, Japanese) and who is not (Chinese, Indians, negroids, Arabs).

Even if communists managed to build a mass movement, there would very likely be close to half the population against us. Believing that there aren't going to be millions of bootlicker reactionaries willing to die for their masters is unbelievably naive.

Hey Holla Forums.

and in case you aren't Holla Forums.

overpopulationisamyth.com/content/episode-5-7-billion-people-will-everyone-please-relax

You could go post this on Holla Forums and they would defend it, though.

The Alt-right are the SJW's of the right, libertarians are the right wing equivalent to leftist.

I can't watch the video in this browser cuz Flash, but from what I read on there, the issue doesn't have anything to do with there just not being enough space or whatever this person seems ot think is the issue people are concerned about re: overpopulation.

The problem with overpopulation is that people need places to live, but we also need large amounts of land to grow enough food to support people (especially if we're still a meat-eating society). But the coming climate changes this century are going to collide with these issues to create far less available land to grow food or for people to live in, which will cause widespread geopolitical unrest in many areas in the world and ultimately lead to a massive death toll (mostly outside the Anglosphere).

The fact of the matter is that we can already barely afford to support all the people in the world without making some drastic changes to how we run our society (which would obviously entail a communist revolution, since capitalism is by its very nature bloated and wasteful). The last thing we need is more people, especially when climate change is going to exacerbate this problem even further.

Read dis shit tbh. We're all fukt: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

I am Holla Forums but I was only half joking. Overpopulation actually is a big problem. It's not that we don't have enough food, it's that we don't have the capability of sustaining this population level without doing irreparable damage to the environment. In fact, we can only make that much food with ecologically destructive agricultural practices. You can look into all the problems caused by industrial agriculture from the "green revolution," deforestation, desertification, soil depletion, species extinction, etc. Very big problem.

I was "half-joking" because I believe there is really zero chance of fixing the problem.

Having fantasies about hurting people is normal. The crazies are the ones who actually do it.

There seems to be a weird phenomenon where people actually want to have some sort of mental disorder because it makes them feel good or something. I noticed when Monk was on TV everyone in middle school claimed to have OCD. When Dexter was suddenly is was cool to be a murderer. What the fuck is up with this shit?

...

...

Which why I actually support genetically modifying food so that these practices become obsolete. I agree with have huge problems though - the fore front of that is climate change. We can come up with cleaner ways to exponentially grow food supply.

Climate change is the problem not over population. So if we're gonna blame anyone for our impending doomsday, it should be 7 day creationist and people who support Trump.

pop.org/content/debunking-myth-overpopulation

Do you not realize that overpopulation and climate change are two intimately related issues?

I'd like some justice to be administered to those behind off-shore fracking, the heads of these oil companies, and those who used child labor for manufacturing.

One is only a problem as a result of the other.

That's kind of a moot point considering that overpopulation is in fact a problem because of the effect is has on climate change.

Didn't someone literally make that thread recently

Wow it's almost like you found that site by just googling the phrase.

You're being obtuse, population growth inevitably leads to growth in emissions, because you now have more people consuming resources which necessitate the release of emissions.

What are you on about, this board fantasises about that sort of shit as much as Holla Forums does.

Also the point in general is pretty moot, since its not like a future successful revolutionary organisation is going to be conducting elaborate psych tests on every applicant for its inevitable secret police force

These are the people that make up the far-left

the Spectacle along with commodity fetishism has reduced everything to mere identity without meaning. It's cool to say your depressed, it's cool to come from the ghetto, cool to be edgy and racist, or a cancerous liberal. Things like being pro-choice, or a feminist have lost all meaning.

I haven't seen anyone say they want to torture, and make others suffer just for their own pleasure here. There are some edgy people who want to kill all cops, or gas porky.

Reminder this man mods Holla Forums

still better than rebel

Legos are cool bro

Hello newfriend

Lurk more newfaggot.

those are just a few posts and now the thousands of them are psychopaths?

nice photoshop

Alt-right autist detected

Yeah, we can just build vertically. Put farms on top of our houses, and then put more houses on top of those, then some parks and recreational areas, then more houses. We can use fiberoptics to channel sunlight down to all the layers. You could feed and house the entire world's population with zero energy cost in a single square mile of land if you built tall enough.

youtube.com/watch?v=_Eh7_cyBs28

The population is gonna level off and in 75 years we'll be back to 7 billion people.

Not if we're using alternative sources of energy, my point is over population wouldn't be an issue if climate change hadn't been an issue - if we had started to switch to alternative fuels like 30 years ago.

What? Did you bother reading

Yes, because when there are more organisms than can be supported by an environment, the mortality rate increases.

It outright claims that human population growth isn't exponential. That belies a fundamental misunderstanding of more or less every argument related to overpopulation.

Birth rates tend to go down when people inhabit better material conditions, they don't need to have as many children to take care of them since one child in Germany is just as likely to survive till the parent is old as 5 children in an African village.

Care to explain further then?

By far the biggest problem is that that claim is based on just the last ~50 years of population data. That's a ridiculous abuse of statistics to push an agenda. If you plot the human population for the last 1000 years or the last 100,000 years on a log plot, it's very clearly exponential. Even if it were less than exponential, that wouldn't make the warnings of what will happen if population growth continues any less valid.

It's especially hypocritical for the Population Research Institute to be saying this - the same group who are doing everything in their power to oppose birth control and encourage population growth. It's like Shell or BP saying "look guys, the rate of increase of CO2 emissions is decreasing. Global warming is nothing to worry about, so let's all go back to burning fossil fuels, okay?"

In fact, every part of that article is just utter bullshit. Take this bit for example:
The good old "people have been criticizing capitalism for centuries and nothing bad has happened yet" argument.
In other words, they don't understand what efficiency is. If they want to try designing a 100% efficient system, they're welcome to, but the fact is we don't have one. You can't just magic away that 30% loss.
I forgot we can literally think food into existence. I guess that's why the homeless have all become independent farmers, right?

Exactly, 99% of that 70% is undrinkable because it's contaminated with salt, you dim-witted fucks. You need energy to desalinate it, and guess where that energy's going to come from?

No, it doesn't. If you had been following any of the actual scientific studies on freshwater use you would know that underground stores of freshwater are being rapidly depleted precisely because withdrawals have increased seven-fold. Stop getting all your data from Nestle investor fact-sheets.

The source is behind a paywall, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that that's a lie. Not only is it misleading (by 0 AD there were only 170 million people alive) but it also exceeds my estimate from the same numbers by a factor of 2.

This is junk science on par with the articles claiming global warming is a myth. It's published by a blatantly biased organization with strong religious objections to birth control.

I honestly can't believe I just wasted my time refuting something which should have been dismissed immediately because of the fucking crazy people who wrote it.

I see what you're saying. Do you think it'd be possible to create a sustainable system if we abandon capitalism?

Probably. Capitalism certainly encourages tragedy-of-the-commons situations, so getting rid of it would help.

Personally I think the best solution is a propaganda campaign to encourage the use of birth control. It already exists to a limited extent, but it's being countered by groups such as the PRI.

Basically we have to choose a trade-off between the number of humans and their quality of life. You can't bring the third world up to first-world living conditions and simultaneously sustain positive population growth. Even things like fusion power won't be enough to make up for the growth in energy demands.

Real question: do you think were fucked? We really need to purge the evangelicals. If what you say is true, sex ed should have an aspect of impending apocalypse.

Funny how tragedy of the commons is often used by libertarians to encourage capitalism.

That only works on people with the ability to plan ahead (i.e. white and Asian people). It just ensures that only dumb people will procreate, which in the long run ends up screwing us. We need to kill dumb people and undesirable races. There really is no humanitarian solution to environmental problems, which is why I have no hope they will be solved. People are too cowardly and moralistic to do what needs to be done.

No such thing.

Humanity will survive. I have no doubt about that. We've survived through an ice age with nothing more than sharp sticks and stone tools.

It's not going to be pretty though. If even half the predictions of the consequences of global warming come true, we'll be woefully ill equipped to cope. There'll likely be a lot of wars and we'll see a refugee crisis far worse than the current one. If you're in a rich western nation you might be okay, especially if it's a non-equatorial country which grows most of its own food.

The thing with overpopulation is that it only has consequences decades later. We're only now starting to see the consequences of our 19th and 20th century excesses. We have many decades to implement a solution before things get really bad, but any solution is going to take many decades to figure out and implement. It's "urgent", but only in a very long-term sense. The biggest problem is that the timescales involved just don't match with the timescales on which people normally think.

That inability to plan ahead is generally due to a lack of education. People are not as different as you think they are.

I live in B.C. and kind of want to invest in a farm in northern BC when I'm older. You can get a lot of land for really cheap, like 200k .

>>>/monster/ is pretty cool on Holla Forums though

No, it's due to underdeveloped frontal lobe, which is due to genetics.

The moralfaggotry I was talking about on display in this post. We are doomed.

And material conditions affect how you develop.

Because you're wrong. Unless of course, you agree the whites in England should be killed and the non-whites should be spared considering they're surpassing them intellectually. Not to mention the biggest obstacle to implementing birth control propaganda are white evangelicals. Race realism is pseudo-science because race doesn't exist.