overpopulation

[Proskill]

georgia guidestones made me think. who would benefit from a lower earth's population and what would that be? on the other hand, who benefits with the higher population?
for the former question its people like rockefeller or bill gates, for the latter its elon musk that said population should grow from what it is now (7,888 billion as of 2021)

all those influential people that see the current state as an overpopulation seem to have plenty of children. ironically its the rapid growth of the human race that allowed them to amass ridiculous wealth. now when they have their they can limit what we can have. these same people scream about climate change, fossil fuels, pollution. they want to decide who can own what kinds of vehicles and how much energy u can use to warm your house in the winter. also no meat, milk or eggs. eat vegan worms instead

do you think such control over other people should be given to anyone?

[arandomuser]

over population is a myth, actually all data points towards a demographic collapse with deteriorating birth rates in almost all industrialized countries, regardless of culture, ( china and japan the biggest sufferers of this)
right now i think the US is carried by immigration, but that will go away as the top countries we get immigrants from also become industrialized, basically no need to worry about over population.
also the whole eating bugs thing was mainly a solution for ultra poor counties that cant sustain farming livestock for protein, it was never some conspiracy to force middle class westerners to eat worms likes its propogated as by people like you

[Mekh]

Every single person who thinks overpopulation is a problem, wants everyone else to die first.

[PC2]

georgia guidestones made me think.

The people who created those guidestones sound like doomsday prophets. The thing they share in common with overpopulation theorists is that they're pessimists who don't understand history and how civilization and progress works.

who would benefit from a lower earth's population and what would that be?

Nobody. The natural environment might benefit but the natural environment was never going to be sustainable forever anyways.

on the other hand, who benefits with the higher population?
for the former question its people like rockefeller or bill gates, for the latter its elon musk that said population should grow from what it is now (7,888 billion as of 2021)

Elon Musk is correct to be pro-human and pro-growth. These things help to make the world a better place.

all those influential people that see the current state as an overpopulation seem to have plenty of children. ironically its the rapid growth of the human race that allowed them to amass ridiculous wealth. now when they have their they can limit what we can have. these same people scream about climate change, fossil fuels, pollution. they want to decide who can own what kinds of vehicles and how much energy u can use to warm your house in the winter. also no meat, milk or eggs. eat vegan worms instead

do you think such control over other people should be given to anyone?

Those influential wealthy people you're talking about aren't evil people who are less moral than you, but sometimes some of them can be authoritarians who advocate for too much regulations. Since we live in democratic societies that means you can vote against the people who want to control your life.

[Draco-Onis]

Elon Musk is correct to be pro-human and pro-growth. These things help to make the world a better place.

The only thing Musk is pro is himself, he needs as many consumers as possible.

Those influential wealthy people you're talking about aren't evil people who are less moral than you, but sometimes some of them can be authoritarians who advocate for too much regulations. Since we live in democratic societies that means you can vote against the people who want to control your life.

Except this is America and money equals speech as decreed by the reich wing supreme court so their votes literally counts more than anyone else because they have more money aka speech.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Earth population would be perfect capped at 3 billion.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Can you elaborate on why 3bn is a perfect amount?

Because from everything if read the climate didn’t seem to change until after that.

Cap at 3 max 5. Unless some technology makes it sustainable beyond those numbers.

[Elegiac]

Because from everything if read the climate didn’t seem to change until after that.

Cap at 3 max 5. Unless some technology makes it sustainable beyond those numbers.

Okay, so why aren't you volunteering to be culled?

[Draco-Onis]

Because from everything if read the climate didn’t seem to change until after that.

Cap at 3 max 5. Unless some technology makes it sustainable beyond those numbers.

The problem ultimately isn't the number but the systems in place, for example recycling plastic is a joke because companies don't want to spend the money to make it so.

[enigma77]

When I hear about overpopulation I cringe. Nations are dying out already. People do not have enough kids. It's just very poor countries who are still pumping out babies in large numbers. And I imagine these poor countries won't stay that way forever, also who wants to see their country depopulated and its culture and demographics completely replaced by foreigners? It's like a peaceful conquest. And even the nations who rely on immigration to not have their demographics collapse won't be able to do that forever. What happens when the currently poor high fertility rate countries become developed? Who is going to fix your broken nations who can't manage to replenish their own numbers then?

The sad reality is, something is very, very rotten about all those wealthy nations who don't have enough children. It's either economics or culture or both, people not feeling financially comfortable enough or girls being raised to emulate men, rather than embracing motherhood/child rearing like they used to, or both. So yeah, we need MORE children, certainly not less.

[Biglog]

The problem ultimately isn't the number but the systems in place, for example recycling plastic is a joke because companies don't want to spend the money to make it so.

Things like that generally are not a nefarious conspiracy, though that's usually what people jump to conclude nowadays. It's a simple matter of economics, if it's cheaper to make new plastic than recycle...that's exactly what companies will do. The big example is Wind Energy. Energy companies aren't as keen on "being green" as they might like to pretend. But, when Wind Energy became cheaper to produce about 5 years ago than from burning fossil fuels, they jumped on board. Then it's a double-win for them, more profits and the side benefit of public goodwill from doing the right thing. The key is making the right thing to do be the most profitable.

[Doctor Amadeus]

The problem ultimately isn't the number but the systems in place, for example recycling plastic is a joke because companies don't want to spend the money to make it so.

Don't thing you can recycle your way out of this one, and in general the more people we have the more conflict humanity is bound to have.

[Draco-Onis]

Things like that generally are not a nefarious conspiracy, though that's usually what people jump to conclude nowadays. It's a simple matter of economics, if it's cheaper to make new plastic than recycle...that's exactly what companies will do. The big example is Wind Energy. Energy companies aren't as keen on "being green" as they might like to pretend. But, when Wind Energy became cheaper to produce about 5 years ago than from burning fossil fuels, they jumped on board. Then it's a double-win for them, more profits and the side benefit of public goodwill from doing the right thing. The key is making the right thing to do be the most profitable.

No the key is regulate companies so that they do the right thing, you can't rely on a profit motive to show up for companies to do the right thing for society.

[Draco-Onis]

Don't thing you can recycle your way out of this one, and in general the more people we have the more conflict humanity is bound to have.

I don't see how having less people would matter when so many countries have nukes, they aren't fighting for the right of the average man but for influence and power. Our ancestors didn't have less conflict we had century long continental wars where larger portion of the population died due to it.

[Doctor Amadeus]

I don't see how having less people would matter when so many countries have nukes, they aren't fighting for the right of the average man but for influence and power. Our ancestors didn't have less conflict we had century long continental wars where larger portion of the population died due to it.

These are some pretty valid points. Less people means more resources, and better management.

[Calfredd]

These are some pretty valid points. Less people means more resources, and better management.

Press [X] to doubt.

[Elegiac]

These are some pretty valid points. Less people means more resources, and better management.

I ask again why, if you believe this, you aren't volunteering to be culled?

[Doctor Amadeus]

I ask again why, if you believe this, you aren't volunteering to be culled?

You asking me to kill myself?

[Elegiac]

You asking me to kill myself?

I'm fairly sure that I asked you why you aren't volunteering to be culled if you think overpopulation is a problem.

[Draco-Onis]

These are some pretty valid points. Less people means more resources, and better management.

But we have the past literally proving that wrong, we didn't manage resources better with less people.