Is mass sterilization or genocide inevitable?

WWIII when?

No, but famine is.

I think a valuable lesson US leadership has failed to acknowledge within the last 50 years is that nationalism is a stronger ideology than democracy. You can't just franchise and export democracy to the Middle East like a fkn Starbucks- this is a place where democracy is a rather foreign concept. There are fundamental differences in our international perceptions too.

Furthermore, whilst it's obvious to mention that Brexit had multiple drivers - it's important to establish that the British do not consider themselves European.

There's countless groups of people to this day fighting for the notion of a state and that fight will never cease. Supranational organisations like the EU and liberalist ideology fails to acknowledge these facets and instead relies on arguments like Democracy being a facilitator of peace and that interdependence and institutions can lead to perpetual stability. It's undeniable they can offer some mitigation but realists would argue that our international system is anarchic in nature. The belief that it is the structure of the international system, the architecture of the system that explains the behaviour of states.

Realists believe that states live in an anarchic system – that’s a system where there’s no higher authority that states can turn to if they get into trouble. Furthermore, states can never be certain that their neighbour isn’t harbouring malign intentions towards them. This causes states to seek power and they do this because the more powerful you are – the less likely someone is to hurt you. If you’re small and you’re weak in the international system – you’re vulnerable.

Realists often describe the world in Hobbesian terms – a war of all against all – as there’s no regulating entity to keep them all in awe – it’s everyone out for themselves and whilst war may not always occur – realists believe that it lurks in the background of all international politics.

So to answer your question in a round about way. I think some cultures are doomed to integration and assimilation - others will be subject to genocide and atrocities. (Not sure about mass sterilisation though sorry). And these factors that it's subject too are numerous. Geography, geopolitics, economic stability, religious etc.

My point is - it's subjective as a whole - but no I personally don't think genocide is the norm - but I think war can be.

What? Lots of religious denominations breed like rabbits.

Just ignore him, he's one of those theology is a science kids.

The people of Somalia agree.

Tell us first what led to your judgement of this being bad?

How? Where does it say that humans will suddenly not survive if we are too many?

You sound like those "scientists" from the beginning of the 19th century saying that 1 billion humans cannot posibly be fed on the planet.

>dude just breed like rats nothing can go bad xD

>Where does it say that humans will suddenly not survive if we are too many?
Where will we get the oil and resources enough for all of us to function

Climate change accelerating desertification will render huge swaths of farmland unusable. The famine that follows will essentially be a soft reset

>implying everyone needs oil in the first place
Different folks, different strokes.

You know what a market is? The higher the demand the more profitable it is to produce oil that is currently untapped.

And even if it gets scarce, the alternatives will just become more lucrative as well.

Same for food. So, I ask again: What makes you think that this planet is not capable of housing, what 4bn more? If we follow OP's graph that is.

Source and any estimates when that will be?

jornada.nmsu.edu/lter/expanding-deserts

ciesin.columbia.edu/docs/002-479/002-479.html

nature.com/articles/srep15998

I shouldn't need to tell you the relationship between more desert, less farmland, and less food

Because I don't want to go vegan because niggers and poo in loos can't keep it in their pants

>Niggers
If white people didn't cure and feed them, it wouldn't happen.

We, European people, had to cross the famines, diseases and wars and nobody took care about us.

Thanks for the sources, happens way too few times here.

Now, forgive me for only skimming through them, but is there an actual link between less farmland and less food production already?

So far, it seems this is a problem for the future and nothing that will be fixed now, because it does not seem pressing enough.

That's why I asked about an estimate of when desertification will actually affect agrarian production.

As of now, everything about agricultural production is pointed into the direction of increasing said production overall.

For example:
fao.org/docrep/meeting/X2996E.htm

if its on a per capita basis then the whole fucking game of countries loses all meaning

t. birth rates

80 years

tomorrow

no. we will eventually run out of food and room and the problem will solve itself.

It feeds into the notion that the easiest way to get food is to farm it, any land aside from deserts can ostensibly be turned into farmland. Fisheries are fine but the amount of energy input to output of usable food is a lot lower than simply putting seeds in the ground and watching them grow. If the time and energy needed for aquaculture to yield the same amount of usable food as agriculture is more, then you're investing more energy for comparably less resources. A system like that cannot be sustained indefinitely.

Ultimately, modern factory farming relies almost exclusively on oil (plastics, pesticides, the like) to boost productivity. The less oil, the less economical and therefore less productive. Alternatives to ENERGY exist, but there is no large scale way to produce pesticide and plastics without oil.

ranken-energy.com/products from petroleum.htm

This is a small list of products that use oil. And more people on the planet, the faster oil is used, the less oil is economical to extract.

When we reach the point in population where the amount of remaining oil is in no way economical to extract (in terms of energy used to extract energy) we're now collectively up shit creek without a paddle. I understand the optimistic mindset of "we'll adapt and fix it in the future" but the problem with that mindset is it essentially kicks the can down the road and nothing gets accomplished.
The point I'm trying to make is nipping the problem in the bud NOW so it doesn't become a problem LATER

This is the most informative post I read today.

But you basically said it yourself, there is no incentive to solve this now.
Oil is still there, it is affordable, the optimistic mindset is there, lots of R&D departments are itching to research for efficient oil alternatives, farmland is still available, etc.

Knowing about a problem does not mean it is the "right" time to solve it. Sometimes you need your back against the wall and minmax.

Especially, if you are not controlled by foresight and rationality but by supply and demand.

There's no reason to think that developing countries won't eventually follow the path that developed countries have set in terms of population growth. The fertility rate in India has fallen from 6 births per women to 2.5 births per women, most likely India's population will start to decline within the next 30 years. Population growth in China is already below that of the US. And the more developed African states (Nigeria, Kenya, Ghana) are already experiencing a collapse in fertility rate.

Most projections (including the OP pic) have world population peaking at 9-13 billion which is perfectly sustainable since we aready have 7.4 billion.

but what if China can become developed?

Earth can house 13 billion people but at the expense of living space(hence life quality) and destruction of nature.

Do you want that, or do you want to live in a comfy world? I'd rather live in a comfy world, even if it means that we have to sterilize some people

Edgy.

Bangladesh is at 2.21

Would you be willing to flip a coin to see if you get sterilized, or are you assuming you're one of the privileged ones that won't get sterilized?

how is this history & humanities? post it on the proper board

thanks, christfag

How to choose who gets sterilized?

You pay them, the poorest and those to whom it is no loss will voluntarily have themselves sterilized, it could be reversible sterilization, more like a contraceptives program really. Women in particular would be most interested in it.

Those countries that don't allow contraception for religious reasons can be walled off and left to overpopulate and starve.

These types of programs get ABUSED hardcore for nefarious purposes not to mention it's retarded as fuck.

I wonder if the eugenics supprters are willing to be affected by their eugenics plan. Probaly not, they are the people who think they are smarter than anyone else.

>it could be reversible sterilization, more like a contraceptives program really.

You mean like giving out free or reduced cost contraceptives and abortions? You really like to reinvent the real user.

Mass sterilization and forced vegetarian diets for all except the wealthy.

Enjoy one child laws and beef flavored soy products.

Well to be fair, most people on Veeky Forums have an above average IQ, all memes aside. I don't see why we should have to start sterilizing peaceful and prosperous westerners when we have so many violent third worlders who stone women and burn "witches" to choose from. Though to be honest if we stopped feeding them and giving them medicine and infrastructure this problem would probably self-correct

>humans aborting and having sex solely for lust is Christian

Spotted the nominal proteshit.

>most people on Veeky Forums have an above average IQ

PPFFFFFFFFFFFTTTT hahahaha
Really user?

What are corrupt types going to do with a bunch of contraceptives you can get for free anywhere?

Didnt chinas 1 baby rule work fine mostly?

only Veeky Forums, Veeky Forums, Veeky Forums and Veeky Forums are respectable boards and even those are retarded at times

Nope. Heavy sex imbalance and a huge demographic strain of many old people coming up.

>implying pakistan and india won't nuke each other in the next 50 years

>Veeky Forums
>respectable
/k/ and Veeky Forums or more respectable then Veeky Forums or any of the other boards you mentioned since they at least they know what they are and have self-control.

Well thats mostly because chinese were being retarded and only made boys.

It "worked" in the sense that it reduced the birth rate. But it also produced a 20% gender imbalance and led to thousands of forced abortions.

White women crave black cock then marry a rich chinese man when they hit 30, whitey's finished, all of you should preorder your chastity cages right now to be honest.

No, but carrying capacity overshoot is