LeopJag
Member
Panthera kryptikos (cryptic, evasive panther)
Posts: 440
|
Post by LeopJag on Dec 20, 2013 9:17:04 GMT 5
This is insane! a couple of youtube comments to this vid   this particular form of denialism is an new one to me....between that and global warming dialism, etc,,, there is no limit to the amount of stupidity and arrogance amongst our species. this pissed me off needless to say  like one commenter replied - anthropocentric pieces of shit like this are what is wrong with this world and why we are destroying the planet and eventually, ourselves... |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 20, 2013 19:40:59 GMT 5
I'm astonished by how such stupid comments always get likes. Everything bad in this world is fear mongering. Climate change, loss in biodiversity and now even overpopulation.
I guess the Chinese people are utterly stupid, because they don't know about their own problems and started a useless one child policy. There is/are definitely enough food/resources for everyone, I don't know why people are worried.[/sarcasm]
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Dec 21, 2013 1:53:03 GMT 5
I remembered when Bill Gates adressed this issue many angry internet morons accused the man of wanting to commit mass murders....
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 21, 2013 2:23:19 GMT 5
I wonder how they want to solve the poverty of people in overcrowded cities (unless they deny this).
|
|
|
|
Post by Runic on Dec 22, 2013 21:23:43 GMT 5
Some even say the world needs massive warfare to kill off large number of people. I'm not one of those guys (they only are for it as long as they survive) but I could see the overview of their reasoning though. One could say war keeps the population down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Dec 22, 2013 22:58:55 GMT 5
^Not really, after WW2 despite the massive casualties the worlds population went up shortly afterwards due to the baby bloom. Disease is really the biggest killers of humans, though I woudn't suggest spreading those purposely just to lower the population. Personally I am in favor of enacing birth restriction across all large first world countries. I personally don't see why anybody would feel the need to give birth to more than three children when their mortality rate is low and adoption is an option.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 23, 2013 0:14:50 GMT 5
Plus, WWII actually only killed 2.5% of world's population. 50-70 million people died in this war. In 2010, 100 million people died worldwide (for whatever causes). As for your proposal, the first world really isn't the problem. Most first world countries have the opposite problem (especially in Europe), they don't get enough children: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_fertility_rateMost European countries have a fertility rate of less than 2.0. |
|
LeopJag
Member
Panthera kryptikos (cryptic, evasive panther)
Posts: 440
|
Post by LeopJag on Dec 25, 2013 13:40:06 GMT 5
I'm astonished by how such stupid comments always get likes. in many cases they maybe using vote bots.... as for denialism of loss of biodiversity, i'll have to look up that one. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Dec 25, 2013 18:21:57 GMT 5
I doubt they used a vote bot in this case, comments where a vote bot was used normally have at least 20 likes. 4-11 is really a little bit low.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Jan 11, 2014 23:33:02 GMT 5
My solution for overpopulation is promoting gender equality. If women in muslim countries don't have to be mere birth machines, they would have far less children. I don't want to say it's bad to have children, but the population of Saudi Arabia has sixfolded from 1961 to 2003. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia is quite rich, so I don't believe the infant mortality is that high there. I know, some other countries, like Niger, have a far higher one, but do they really need seven children?
Alos, it would be great if more countries with a drastically shrinking populations (like the ones in Eastern Europe) would support immigration from overpopulated countries (but I don't really think this is possible, as they won't have many workplaces for the immigrants).
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Feb 3, 2014 23:55:44 GMT 5
The world is far from overpopulated. If we had to, every human being could live in Texas, and be fed from just a few of the midwest states. Certain regions are obviously environmentally stressed, but just look at all that space in Russia!
|
|
|
|
Post by Supercommunist on Feb 4, 2014 1:41:31 GMT 5
^Well assuming everyone is willing to discard the luxary of modern day convenience like automobiles and housing with electricity I would agree with you.
|
|
Fragillimus335
Member
Sauropod fanatic, and dinosaur specialist
Posts: 573
|
Post by Fragillimus335 on Feb 4, 2014 7:38:50 GMT 5
^Well assuming everyone is willing to discard the luxary of modern day convenience like automobiles and housing with electricity I would agree with you. If the whole world is the size of Texas a bike would be fine! And electricity would still be available. |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Feb 9, 2014 0:17:37 GMT 5
This is not only about space, many of the first world countries are quite crowded, but they don't have problems with space. The problem is supplement with food and energy. For example many of the poorer countries have a too unproductive agriculture or not enough arable land to supply their population with food.
|
|
