Thread: Overpopulation

The world isn't overpopulated and could sustain a lot more people, the problem is the distribution of resources and wealth as in some countries have more than they need and others can't sustain themselves.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The world isn't overpopulated and could sustain a lot more people, the problem is the distribution of resources and wealth as in some countries have more than they need and others can't sustain themselves.

Sustain more, but at what level of comfort and convieniance?
It's been estimated that for a 2 car 4 bedroom house level of comfort the world can sustain indefinitely about 500 million.

As it stands now, most developed countries are only growing through immigration while the 2nd and third world are exploding with people they can't care for.
Korea and Japan are in particular trouble with major negative growth levels.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The world isn't overpopulated and could sustain a lot more people, the problem is the distribution of resources and wealth as in some countries have more than they need and others can't sustain themselves.

Indeed....
Overpopulation, per se, is not the problem [or an issue].

The real problem lies towards a select segment of the population.

The entire population of the world could have 1000 sq ft and still fit inside Texas. Whilst the world is still dominated by companies that have marketing departments convincing people to buy shit they do not need, the problems will continue.

Kill the super elite. All of them. Then continue to kill those that take their place distributing their wealth. Break up all the big companies as well. Take control of currencies away from bankers, owned by the super elite.

job done.

Originally Posted by Necron99

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The world isn't overpopulated and could sustain a lot more people, the problem is the distribution of resources and wealth as in some countries have more than they need and others can't sustain themselves.

Sustain more, but at what level of comfort and convieniance?
It's been estimated that for a 2 car 4 bedroom house level of comfort the world can sustain indefinitely about 500 million.

As it stands now, most developed countries are only growing through immigration while the 2nd and third world are exploding with people they can't care for.
Korea and Japan are in particular trouble with major negative growth levels.

As I said it boils down to distribution of wealth, do some people need billions in the bank that they'll never spend in a 1000 lifetimes while hundreds of millions of people survive on less than a $1 a day, the majority of the world doesn't need a 2 car 4 bedroom house to have a sustainable life, access to drinking water, enough food and a job thrown in as a bonus would satisfy many, in fact it is a total disgrace that in 2014 many don't have access to enough drinking water and food when there is plenty enough on the planet for them to do so. Obviously corrupt governments in the poorer parts of the world have to shoulder a large amount of blame for how their citizens are forced to live but the West also has to take the blame for not doing enough when it has the power to do so.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

The entire population of the world could have 1000 sq ft and still fit inside Texas. Whilst the world is still dominated by companies that have marketing departments convincing people to buy shit they do not need, the problems will continue.

Kill the super elite. All of them. Then continue to kill those that take their place distributing their wealth. Break up all the big companies as well. Take control of currencies away from bankers, owned by the super elite.

job done.

Notwithstanding the powerful, a general overall related mindset within certain cultures needs to be conquered and set right.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by Necron99

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The world isn't overpopulated and could sustain a lot more people, the problem is the distribution of resources and wealth as in some countries have more than they need and others can't sustain themselves.

Sustain more, but at what level of comfort and convieniance?
It's been estimated that for a 2 car 4 bedroom house level of comfort the world can sustain indefinitely about 500 million.

As it stands now, most developed countries are only growing through immigration while the 2nd and third world are exploding with people they can't care for.
Korea and Japan are in particular trouble with major negative growth levels.

As I said it boils down to distribution of wealth, do some people need billions in the bank that they'll never spend in a 1000 lifetimes while hundreds of millions of people survive on less than a $1 a day, the majority of the world doesn't need a 2 car 4 bedroom house to have a sustainable life, access to drinking water, enough food and a job thrown in as a bonus would satisfy many, in fact it is a total disgrace that in 2014 many don't have access to enough drinking water and food when there is plenty enough on the planet for them to do so. Obviously corrupt governments in the poorer parts of the world have to shoulder a large amount of blame for how their citizens are forced to live but the West also has to take the blame for not doing enough when it has the power to do so.

What are you, some sort of Commie?
Communism failed for a reason, taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't work. If the west can't eradicate poverty with welfare in their own countries what makes you think they can do it in the third world? We've been shipping food to africa, and incredibly fertile continent for decades without any success. All you do is create more needy mouths to feed.

The message that if you work hard and develop wealth you will be rewarded by the government taking it away to feed impoverished peasants wont fly well.
India has more than enough billionaires who could develop their own country. No need for the west to strip their citizens and ship their work effort there.

Originally Posted by Necron99

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by Necron99

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The world isn't overpopulated and could sustain a lot more people, the problem is the distribution of resources and wealth as in some countries have more than they need and others can't sustain themselves.

Sustain more, but at what level of comfort and convieniance?
It's been estimated that for a 2 car 4 bedroom house level of comfort the world can sustain indefinitely about 500 million.

As it stands now, most developed countries are only growing through immigration while the 2nd and third world are exploding with people they can't care for.
Korea and Japan are in particular trouble with major negative growth levels.

As I said it boils down to distribution of wealth, do some people need billions in the bank that they'll never spend in a 1000 lifetimes while hundreds of millions of people survive on less than a $1 a day, the majority of the world doesn't need a 2 car 4 bedroom house to have a sustainable life, access to drinking water, enough food and a job thrown in as a bonus would satisfy many, in fact it is a total disgrace that in 2014 many don't have access to enough drinking water and food when there is plenty enough on the planet for them to do so. Obviously corrupt governments in the poorer parts of the world have to shoulder a large amount of blame for how their citizens are forced to live but the West also has to take the blame for not doing enough when it has the power to do so.

What are you, some sort of Commie?
Communism failed for a reason, taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't work. If the west can't eradicate poverty with welfare in their own countries what makes you think they can do it in the third world? We've been shipping food to africa, and incredibly fertile continent for decades without any success. All you do is create more needy mouths to feed.

The message that if you work hard and develop wealth you will be rewarded by the government taking it away to feed impoverished peasants wont fly well.
India has more than enough billionaires who could develop their own country. No need for the west to strip their citizens and ship their work effort there.

No I'm not a commie and I'm not advocating stripping people of their wealth, I'm just asking do they need more than they could ever hope to spend in numerous life times while many live on less than a $1 a day that's a decision for them. As to poverty in the West that's subjective, as in to be classed as living in poverty in the UK it depends on how little disposable you income you have, to me if you have a roof over your head, can feed and clothe yourself comfortably you aren't living in poverty. But in the UK if you don't have the latest game console, the latest 50" TV, cable TV, a new car etc. then you are classed as living in poverty.

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by Necron99

Originally Posted by buriramboy

Originally Posted by Necron99

Originally Posted by buriramboy

The world isn't overpopulated and could sustain a lot more people, the problem is the distribution of resources and wealth as in some countries have more than they need and others can't sustain themselves.

Sustain more, but at what level of comfort and convieniance?
It's been estimated that for a 2 car 4 bedroom house level of comfort the world can sustain indefinitely about 500 million.

As it stands now, most developed countries are only growing through immigration while the 2nd and third world are exploding with people they can't care for.
Korea and Japan are in particular trouble with major negative growth levels.

As I said it boils down to distribution of wealth, do some people need billions in the bank that they'll never spend in a 1000 lifetimes while hundreds of millions of people survive on less than a $1 a day, the majority of the world doesn't need a 2 car 4 bedroom house to have a sustainable life, access to drinking water, enough food and a job thrown in as a bonus would satisfy many, in fact it is a total disgrace that in 2014 many don't have access to enough drinking water and food when there is plenty enough on the planet for them to do so. Obviously corrupt governments in the poorer parts of the world have to shoulder a large amount of blame for how their citizens are forced to live but the West also has to take the blame for not doing enough when it has the power to do so.

What are you, some sort of Commie?
Communism failed for a reason, taking from the rich and giving to the poor doesn't work. If the west can't eradicate poverty with welfare in their own countries what makes you think they can do it in the third world? We've been shipping food to africa, and incredibly fertile continent for decades without any success. All you do is create more needy mouths to feed.

The message that if you work hard and develop wealth you will be rewarded by the government taking it away to feed impoverished peasants wont fly well.
India has more than enough billionaires who could develop their own country. No need for the west to strip their citizens and ship their work effort there.

No I'm not a commie and I'm not advocating stripping people of their wealth, I'm just asking do they need more than they could ever hope to spend in numerous life times while many live on less than a $1 a day that's a decision for them. As to poverty in the West that's subjective, as in to be classed as living in poverty in the UK it depends on how little disposable you income you have, to me if you have a roof over your head, can feed and clothe yourself comfortably you aren't living in poverty. But in the UK if you don't have the latest game console, the latest 50" TV, cable TV, a new car etc. then you are classed as living in poverty.

Many (most?) filthy rich industrialists give away their fortunes once they have won the game and gotten high score. They endow foundations who will likely spend the money much more wisely than throwing it directly at the poor who will just waste it.
Is it better that Bill Gates give everyone in India $50, or that he eradicate maleria worldwide?

Poverty is a symptom, not a condition that you can cure by tossing a few dollars at it.

It simply blows my mind that things aren't being put in place now to deal with what is so obviously the biggest problem the human race is likely to ever face, which is just around the corner. Beggar's belief that it will be ignored until it's way too late to do a thing about it.

Originally Posted by Fozzy

It simply blows my mind that things aren't being put in place now to deal with what is so obviously the biggest problem the human race is likely to ever face, which is just around the corner. Beggar's belief that it will be ignored until it's way too late to do a thing about it.

More senseless wars is what's needed.
That'll sort out the crowding pompem.

Whats the biggest problem the human race is likely to face?

Originally Posted by Fozzy

It simply blows my mind that things aren't being put in place now to deal with what is so obviously the biggest problem the human race is likely to ever face, which is just around the corner. Beggar's belief that it will be ignored until it's way too late to do a thing about it.

The most efficient solution would be to get people in poor countries to start eating their own babies.

Originally Posted by Looper

The most efficient solution would be to get people in poor countries to start eating their own babies.

That's a terrible idea.




It takes a lot more calories and nutrients to produce a baby than you could ever recover from eating one.
Unless you let them graze wild for a period.

Originally Posted by barbaro

I've long thought the world has too many people now (7+ billion) that are consuming resources, need infrastructure, etc., etc.,

Headed for 11 billion by 2100 (or earlier).


World population may hit 11 billion by 2100

Washington (AFP) - The world population may grow larger than previously estimated, reaching 11 billion people by century's end, according to a UN-led analysis published Thursday.

That would mean two billion more people on Earth than expected by 2100, largely due to high birth rates in Africa, said the report in the US journal Science.

"The consensus over the past 20 years or so was that world population, which is currently around seven billion, would go up to nine billion and level off or probably decline," said co-author Adrian Raftery, professor of statistics and of sociology at the University of Washington.

"We found there's a 70 percent probability the world population will not stabilize this century," he added.

World population may hit 11 billion by 2100

That's a load of bullshit thought up by your sick government - fed to you - so you agree with global genocide.

^^^^ Check the thread title.

Read this satire:

A Modest Proposal



For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland
From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and
For Making Them Beneficial to The Public


By Jonathan Swift (1729)

”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled"...

Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal

There was that rumour that the North Koreans were eating people...

Tie very tight elastic bands round the ballbags of poor people and their balls will drop off in about 6 to 8 weeks.

Most of the rich have no balls...

Originally Posted by Looper

Tie very tight elastic bands round the ballbags of poor people and their balls will drop off in about 6 to 8 weeks.

You can joke but I genuinely believe it should be illegal to have children you can't take care of, and if that involves forced sterilisations then so fucking be it.

Wild animals are more capable of knowing how many offspring they should have than a lot of humans. Says it all.

Time to start another World War. Failing that, let ebola out of the bag....

Originally Posted by BaitongBoy

There was that rumour that the North Koreans were eating people...

Not a rumour.......