Overpopulation

i don't think you understand the problem of over population.
The very point of the fact that many areas are unproductive is exactly why overpopulation is a problem. we don't have enough land that can produce food for many more people. at best, sub-Saharan Afrcia can be more properly utilized and we can feed another billion or so people, but beyond that there are problems since we cant convert arid land to fertile land without some exorbitant sum of capital and time.

>at all.
bullshit

It's not even arid land. We just have so god damn much of it that nobody has bothered trying to use it all. That's why overpopulation is such a joke. I don't have the link, but there was a study a while back estimating that the earth could support 80 billion people with current technology.

Thinking about the issue for a while, I reached the following conclusion:

Earth's ecologic systems means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

We should devote more money and time into researching closed-loop ecosystems.

We already have the building blocks, keeping things alive shouldn't be a big problem.

Who cares if earths biodiversity dies, we only need a few hundred species counting animals, insects, plants, bacteria et cetera..

As benefit, we would be half way into colonizing other planets/living on large ships.
We would still need to mimic earths physical conditions.

look on google earth, majority of the land is already used for farming already, especially in western nations, china, india etc. Look at satellite images of deforestation images of brazil where entire forests have been cleared for farmland. not only have they disturbed carbon cycle balances, they are running out of usable farmland to feed their population.
i dont think you realize this, but yo can just put farmland on everything that is green, that is how the ecosystem works. without forests, we would have no paper, we wouldn't have soil nutrient cycling and no water filtration.
you need to ick up actual textbooks on the matter, and not jut make shit up in your head.
80 billion isnt even a reasonable sum, it is the most b8 shit i have ever seen

>Who cares if earths biodiversity dies
Biologists care, probably. Or maybe they want less biodiversity so their job becomes easier?

kek

you will screw up too many food webs if you start taking out low order consumers. the larger creatures would not have enough of a variety of food to sustain themselves.
counting the bacteria that due important nutrient recycling, you already have hundreds. both in, and out of your body.
to add to that, we need lot of crops and foods, which, in order to be productive need nearby land such as forests to be a harbor for the bacteria that do nutrient cycling in the soil. in addition to that, we have worms and other insects which improve soil quality.
within supporting forests alone, you have lots of species of fauna and flora which are part of nutrient cycling, such as birds in the phosphorus cycle, which need smallr birds and stuff to feed off.
hopefully you get the point and realize that we cant just remove random species without everything collapsing.

>He fell for the overpopulation meme

What the 19th and 20th century scientists failed to predict is that once a certain standard of living is achieved the birth rate falls below replacement rate.

>assuming africa will achieve that standard of living

now it is you who is memeing

Then they'll just keep starving.

>North America
>little or even negative growth
census.gov/popclock/

And the first world will keep sending "aid" which will support this clearly unsustainable growth.

>hopefully you get the point and realize that we cant just remove random species without everything collapsing.
It either can be done, of we are doomed to die in this blue dot.

We do to know all the details, including the mineral cycles and such, but I it doesn't seem impossible.

>we are doomed to die in this blue dot.
If you've got the money you can also die in the dark emptiness called space.

I believe we can do better.
Earth is not special.

I believe we can live a lifetime in space by controlling the conditions.

>Nuclear power as source of heat and energy.
>Tightly controlled mineral/gas cycles (reusing excrement, etc)
>Simulated gravity
>Simulated atmosphere
>Controlled "Biosphere" inside the habitat

et cetera

The aid is insignificant.

The only thing that will actually help is economic development and infrastructure.
All the aid we've send is meaningless compared to what the chinese are doing.

The aid isn't really aid in the first place, it's just to pay off our guilty about the past. If we wanted to help Afrika we would've taken a more direct approach.

Major advances in self-replication technology is the solution to the resource scarcity problem, and will happen in this century.

Even if it were possible, what's the point?
Not only does it require a stupid amount of funds, but what's the difference in dying in this blue dot and dying in some red dot?
I don't think overpopulation will become such a big issue that we'll have to move planets any time soon. Maybe eventually a war will break out and we will send people to space for safety while whoever the participants of the war are blow up earth. As it stands now though, we don't NEED to go to space.

>As it stands now though, we don't NEED to go to space.

>asteroid hits the Earth
>goodbye humanity

And yes, I realize we have seed vaults and whatnot, but we're still keeping all of our eggs in one basket.

At least we would know way ahead of time if an asteroid big enough to wipe out all of humanity was heading our way.
What are we gonna do about it? ehh.. I'll let the professionals handle that one.

The two biggest populations, China and India, are slowing in their growth. China's one-child policy led to a whole generation where men outnumber women by 6 to 5. The population replacement rate needs to be ~2.1 for exact population stability - China's is 1.4 (only slightly better than Japan's 1.26). Meanwhile Indian replacement rates are falling across the board - states like Maharashtra and Kerala, each with tens of millions of residents, are somewhere between 1.6-1.8. Africa is going to be the next demographic bomb, as the population (average replacement rate of 5+) is going to boom with better healthcare.

>what is intensive economic growth

I wouldn't be too sure about that.
What if said asteroid is in a really whacky orbit outside the main orbital plane of the solar system?
I'm not sure how good our tracking of that kind of objects is.

Anyway I guess the best approach would be to send up the biggest open cycle nuclear thruster we can manage to build and try to push the asteroid away when it's still far.

Open cycle uranium rockets aren't researched because of their environmental impact, but that would go out of the window in that situation. They have the potential to give incredible thrust even compared to thermal nuclear rockets which are just starting to be researched seriously.

youtube.com/watch?v=3aBOhC1c6m8

>green(((berg)))
>stop populating the world, goy

this is bad and you should feel bad

>/Sarcasm

>Overpopulation
We have a simple solution for that.
War.

Seriously.
Let people kill one another and problem solved.

Why is this so hard?

War is messy and causes even more environmental damage than overpopulation.

That might work depending on the size of the asteroid, but what if it's fucking massive?

Man kind does not exist to preserve the environment.

Literwlly just have a mass genocide of all niggers and everything will be okay again

not if white people genocide themselves first (then the east asians will do it)

Forgot to mention liberals as well

>africa
>welfare

they also have really high mortality rates, and the mortality rates are growing faster than the birthrate. Sit back, enjoy the show, because everyone is gonna die.

There is no overpopulation problem. You are deluded if you think there is.

If you look at the population charts even WW2 isn't even a small dent. The most bloody and costly war in human history didn't affect the overall population numbers.

That's very solid argumentation right there. I guess you are study at an liberal arts college, right?

Counter mandatory watch:
youtube.com/watch?v=hVimVzgtD6w

It's fine, unstoppable socioeconomic trends are in the process of bringing birth rates down and by the end of the century people will wonder why anyone was worried in the first place, and there's nothing you or anyone in this thread can do to meaningfully help or impede this.

War causes massive population growth, see Afghanistan and the Congo. Prosperity (and education of women and their inclusion into the workforce) is the only thing that can bring down birth rates.

But if we stop breeding then won't all the people left mostly be the Africans who keep breeding and didn't get the overpopulation memo

(oh wait never mind they'll just starve anyway I forgot)

Stop sending food and medicines to Africa

Let the low IQ niggers starve. Darwin wins.

No, here's a mandatory watch:
youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348

Close the borders and build the wall. Problem solved.

Also, nuke the indians and chinese

Look at the aid that is being sent.
If you saw the numbers, you would know the aid is insignificant.

youtu.be/QsBT5EQt348

Overpopulation presented in a way even morons can understand.
/thread

The problem is not overpopulation it's the way we live. The global market economy has created a synthetic ecology that treats the living world that we depend on as an externality. Capitalism and its sociopathic values that allow for usury, and the privatization of land and labor make the problem of negative externalities in market economics much worse. Neoliberalism and corporate-state command economies make it worse still.
It's easy to scapegoat such complex, systemic problems on an easily identifiable correlation such as overpopulation. The truth is we are overpopulated because the global consumer culture is throughly detached from its place in the living world.
Truth is we would not even be overpopulated if we lived in the real world.
The solution? Anarchy, and deep ecology. We need to live in a world where you can only receive ends from your own work or mutual aid, and the living world we live in is allowed to live. We can still have markets, we just need to manage externalities before they become externalities, using the science of ecology to manage our resource allocation. I'm not claiming I actually know all the answers, I'm claiming that they exist, and I'm claiming I know the problem.

Nature likes to balance itself, soon enough we will reach an equilibrium where children are too expensive for the average person to raise and nobody wants to bother with sex when their "deepthroat special edition loli 3000" is just so much easier. Also the more africans there are the more africans there are killing each other.

Systems like to ballance themselves, its why capitalism works so well.

>long defunct and retarded interpretation of ecosystem dynamics that applies the notion of thermodynamic equilibrium to open, complex adaptive, living systems
>is why capitalism works
KEK, fucking brainlets
Have an example that hopefully will shed some light on the way things actually work.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169534703003197

>capitalism works

>Overpopulation is not a problem at all. The lack of resources are.

>I don't know the definitions of words :)

>capitalism neoliberalism usury consumerism memes
Nice memes, the real cause is human nature and your pet ideology won't do shit.

Overpopulation means less resources per person and poorer more desperate people who are less likely to put aside wealth in favor of preserving the environment and conserving resources, so it absolutely is a problem.

I am in favoutr of Evil;how do I honestly contribute to over-population?
donate to vaccine campaigns? Boycott c*ndoms? Rally for GMO's which have proved to solve famine?

>give free food and medication to populations that don't work
>they continue to grow and not work and the situation gets worse
the obvious solution is to stop aid.

> Nice memes the real cause is human nature
Wew lad, you really went all out on this argument.

Capitalism means less resources per person and poorer more desperate people who are less likely to put aside wealth in favor of preserving the environment and conserving resources, so it absolutely is a problem.

>poorer more desperate people
Seems like a problem exclusive to capitalism.

If that is true then simply don't let them immigrate and let their problem remain their own.

I hate cities

>the virgin Capitalist
>exploits others and the environment for their own well being
>preachs doctrines of economics without any cultural or ecological context
>Hates government intervention, but unironically supports the enforcement of property rights
>Preaches social Darwinism, but has probably never exercised in their life
>Preaches the impracticalities of raising a family, yet unironically believes in importing economic migrants
>probably a member of AIPAC

>could oil be discovered to be more than all known oil reserves
>it actually happens like 4 times
AND

>oil demand nearly stable
When does he talk about carrying capacity? Or the mouse experiment.

>capitalist
>exploitation
not an intelligent opinion

>capitalism
>capitalize
Huh? Do you even now what capital is?

wealth, both material and immaterial
aka personal property

>UN comes up with a babby making system
>something along the lines of "don't fucking make babies unless we allow you to"
>mere mortal men are not allowed to make babbies anymore
>gifted people with perfect genes, high IQ and such are allowed to breed
>rich people can buy permission to make a baby
>normal people can buy tickets for the babby lottery
>if you win you can have a baby
>more money for the government too
>population kept in order and becoming higher quality
It's the perfect system.

No, capital is wealth arbitrarily valued based on utility to the evaluator(capitalization)
Aka privatitised property. Capital can be someone else's labor, land you never touch, a fish swimming in the ocean or any number of things.

>capital is wealth arbitrarily valued based on utility to the evaluator
is it evaluated arbitrarily or based on utility?
it can't be both. also, why did you limit it to one evaluator? there is more than one way to seek employment, or wages for your skills in the world. you can even work for yourself.
hell, you could even grow your own food to survive if you live in a free place without intrusive property taxes.
"privatized property," "personal property"
in a capitalist system, these are the same things. only when you include the precious State is property not "personal"
capital is never someone else's labor. everyone is free to seek work somewhere else, unless they are bound like a slave to their employer by the strong arm of the law.
>land you never touch
nothing wrong with this if you can prove ownership
>fish swimming in the ocean
you can't prove ownership of this. not without the strong arm of the law arbitrarily deciding to enforce it

>t. Larry Niven

Except no reason to assume a benevolent UN.

We obviously do have the ressources, because otherwise there would be no population growth.

Overpopulation is only a problem if you want to form modern, education-based societies, because for that we don't have enough ressources.

>is it valued arbitrarily or based on utility
>it can't be both
Lol you don't know what arbitrary means.
Hint: "utility to the evaluator"
>wages for your skills in the world.
Yeah there sure is a myriad of ways for you to let other make money off of your work.
>you can even work for yourself
Sure, after you can buy land and pay property taxes and buy supplies from corporations. If you can't even live on this planet for free because people are allowed to own land they don't live on. You aren't free.
>you could even grow your own food to survive if you live in a free place without intrusive property taxes.
So your choices are to become capital or be put in excile?
>in a capitalist system, these are the same things.
That's the problem. People are allowed to personally own property they never even set foot on, this is theft to all who are deprived.
>state
Fuck states
>nothing wrong with this if you can prove ownership
t morally inept scumbag.
There is nothing wrong with owning something you do not touch while other people live with nothing? Fuck you!
>capital is never someone else's labor.
Then what is a wage?
>everyone is free to seek work somewhere else
>you are free to work a wage for whoever you want?
Not being able to eat or have a home if you don't work for someone else?
>the strong arm of the law
>strong arm of the law arbitrarily deciding to enforce it
Capitalism wouldn't exist without the strong arm of the law enforcing it you fucking retard. Nobody would consent to going hungry and homeless while working for an absentee owner without the state enforcing private property.

>1 hour 6 minutes
>USA is the overpopulation problem, 5 billion Africa and 3 billion India aren't the problem
>2 billion South America is isn't the problem
>its those 400k 52% white Americans that are the problem
And here comes the marxist justifications for turning the world to shit

I'm no Marxist but do you have any idea how the global economy works? No, you don't. All the wealth is funneled to the rulers, western and East Asian economies make all the decisions.

If your goal is to turn the entire world into USA you promote standard of living in other countries you don't promote population.

If your goal is to turn the entire world into Africa you replace the population by importing economic migrants from Africa.

If you disagree you are making a moral judgement that sub-Saharan Africa is superior to Western society.

>why did you limit it to one evaluator?
Because one person or entity pays for it and sets the value.
Sure the more wealth they have the more autonomy the seller has in the price they get paid. This is the case for large corporations selling products to consumers, this is not the case for the vast majority of people who sell themselves to produce for large consumers.

>large consumers
*corporations

This is one of the most irrational and fallacious arguments I've ever seen. I'm being generous in calling it an argument.
>if you goal is
The only goal in the global economy is to accumulate wealth. Fuck your ridiculous strawmen, gb2/b/

I think the rise of artificial intelligence and general purpose humanoid robots will coincide with the collapse of the human population due to the elimination of almost all employment opportunities for humans.

The rich, who own the machines, will use the military to suppress the masses of unemployed starving people until the poor die off.

Then the 1% left alive will restore the ecosystems of the planet and periodically cull wild populations of humans to prevent their numbers from threatening the environment.

Meanwhile space exploration takes off in high gear and super advanced technologically marvelous fully automated cities and systems of production/distribution cater to every wish of those in power.

but first all the poor have to die. Their is too many of them. We are past the earths carrying capacity for humans.

>importing economic migrants who will live on welfare improves the economy
forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2012/01/25/bernanke-tells-people-stop-saving-and-start-spending/#d1bbbea3546c

>not realizing that Federal Reserve Monetary policy's goal was to impoverish the middle class
Little baby libertarian thinks globalists are capitalist. At some point you'll need to consider your own interests.

>1%
way less than that

>>importing economic migrants who will live on welfare improves the economy
I've never said this. People should be allowed to go wherever they want for liberties sake, the reason why neoliberal want economic migrants is to pay the working class less. I think wages are slavery to begin with.
>not realizing that Federal Reserve Monetary policy's goal was to impoverish the middle class
No, it's to allow the rich to make money from impoverishing the middle class.
>Little baby libertarian thinks globalists are capitalist.
"Globalists" (neoliberals) are capitalists, and I'm a libertarian socialist.

>libertarian socialist.
b8

>b8
Under aged b&
You are probably so indoctrinated you think that is a misnomer. If you knew anything you would know that libertarian was coined by anarchists(socialists) for PR purposes, and that libertarian capitalism was invented in America during the 80s and is completely at odds with actual libertarianism.

>Lol you don't know what arbitrary means.
>Hint: "utility to the evaluator"
so they determine a range of how much they're willing to pay for labor depending on how much wealth they can extract from your work given how much people are willing to pay for your contribution to the creation of consumer goods?
that doesn't sound arbitrary at all.
negotiate your own wages.
>Yeah there sure is a myriad of ways for you to let other make money off of your work.
there are. your ignorance is not an argument
>So your choices are to become capital or be put in excile?
another nonargument. you pay for social conveniences and city living in more ways than one. choosing to go without those to save money is a choice anyone is willing to make. just because some options aren't available, that doesn't mean freedom doesn't exist.
if you disagree, you're free to kill yourself and prove me wrong from the afterlife
>That's the problem. People are allowed to personally own property they never even set foot on, this is theft to all who are deprived.
owning something is not theft just because someone else could imagine a scenario in which they could use it more
>t morally inept scumbag.
>There is nothing wrong with owning something you do not touch while other people live with nothing? Fuck you!
not an argument, buddy. give me an empircal way to determine who "needs" something more than someone else given the infinite complexity of human life and living standards
>Then what is a wage?
a wage is how much you're willing to sell your labor for. selling labor and skills is no different from selling objects and property. just because you can't see it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. else the whole world would vanish when a man goes blind
>Not being able to eat or have a home if you don't work for someone else?
you are free within the confines of human existance. again, kill yourself and prove me wrong from the grave
>Capitalism wouldn't exist
LMAO. you're completely delusional

I mean the UN could require all countries to kill off 15% of Thier population (probably worth ugenix in mind) and make 50% of the female babies born in the next 50 years infertile.

There problem solved

>that doesn't sound arbitrary at all.
Again
Lol you don't understand what arbitrary means
>negotiate your own wages
>just hold out on feeding yourself and providing for your family and sleep in the gutter until a better offer comes along
>there are. your ignorance is not an argument
Are you implying I don't know that? The problem is the "other people making money of your work" part.
>just because some options aren't available, that doesn't mean freedom doesn't exist
it exists for the rich. I really hope you experience utter poverty one day.
>owning something is not theft just because someone else could imagine a scenario in which they could use it more
Like I said, you are morally inept. This is because you are stupid.
>who "needs" something more than someone else given
Nobody "needs" land they never set foot on. From each according to his ability, to each according to their need. A homeless person needs an acre of land to live on much more than the land Barron who is allowed(with state protection) to own thousands of acres he doesn't even live on.
>a wage is how much you're willing to sell your labor for. selling labor and skills is no different from selling objects and property.
Back to my point, I'm glad that you agree with me that other people's labor is capital.
>you are free within the confines of human existance. again, kill yourself and prove me wrong from the grave
>lmao your delusional
Disappointing from someone so fond of saying "that's not an argument"
Fuck off retard.

>you don't understand what arbitrary means
I just defined how the wages were determined by market principles
>just hold out on feeding yourself
fantasy scenario. go to a charity if you're too inept/unlucky to feed yourself
>other people making money off your work is a problem
people working together is a problem?
there is more to value creation than just creating something that people can eat or wear
>exists for the rich
no it doesn't. it exists for everyone besides the most absurdly destitute and crippled, who in turn get free things through charity
>you are morally inept. This is because you are stupid.
you are deluded because you are closed minded in your religion of ideology
>need
don't care
>From each according to his ability, to each according to their need
communism has never worked no matter how many times it's been tried.
communism is the ideological equivalent of shooting yourself in the head. only a megalomaniac could convince themselves/other that it's a good idea.
everyone else knows exactly what's going to happen when they give it a shot

you exist in a fantasy world of someone else's creation.
think about your cult's dogma before posting anymore

> I think wages are slavery to begin with.

this is the single dumbest thing anyone ever thought of. Socialists are so fucking retarded and anti-freedom, that they have to redefine the concept of slavery to such as degree that having to work, having needs at all, is slavery, you're a slave of your biological necessities, wow, very insightful.

>I just defined how the wages were determined by market principles
Exactly
That's is arbitrary, you are also drawing a false equivalence between the agency of those paying the wage and those who are paid.
>fantasy scenario
You trolling? Hundreds of millions if not billions of people go hungry every day
>people working together is a problem
No people working for an hourly wage for someone else is a problem. Wage labor is far off from workers self management and syndicalism.
>no it doesn't. it exists for everyone besides the most absurdly destitute and crippled, who in turn get free things through charity
You are very detached from reality. Give up all your personal possessions, sever all family ties, and burn your credentials before moving to a new city to understand.
>communism
Wew lad
I'm a left wing market anarchist that favors revolutionary syndicalism, workers self management, mutual aid, and the scientific management of externalities you idiot. Who said anything about communism? You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

>fantasy world of someone else's creation
No u
You aren't worth my time.

>I think wages are slavery to begin with.

Jesus christ I don't know who's more retarded.
The borderline fucking commie, or the one who calls himself a libertarian and has a fucking problem with two people entering into a VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.

It's sensu libre you mong.
The idea that wage labor is a form of protracted slavery was even a popular idea in Lincolns Republican Party.
It's economically forced labor. When people have no right to means of production without paying for them, they have no means of economics self-determination and are forced to work a wage or live in abject poverty.

>VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT
>volunteer or sleep outside and live off of spare change.
Lots of choices

The only places where people don't have to work to survive, are places that nobody wants to live.