"WE", like it's their world to decide. That kind of arrogance definitely needs removing from this world. Then a real discussion can happen.
That's exactly right.
It's a good thing the WEF isn't ruling the world then.
I don't disagree with the sentiment that the planet is better off with a much reduced population.
I just disagree with how they want to get there. Anyone who understands human behavior knows there is no utopia at the end of their path.
Agreed. There's already too many people for us all to 'have nice things', and we're well past the point of diminishing returns wherein the harm of larger populations starts to outweigh the few benefits.
They don't seem to be actually going for depopulation, however; instead all of their efforts are geared towards engineering larger/denser populations which have been trained to accept lower standards of living.
Humans only inhabit 5% of the earths land mass. problem is, the population is too concentrated around the wealth. Alaska is the most unpopulated place in America. If the motherfucking save the planet peeps want to make everything solar. start putting that shit in alaska which has 40 more minutes average daylight. But we all know it's about control and not about climate.
Sure, but consider that the concentration of most people into those areas is likely sparing the world's ecology from much greater harm. It would be nice if more of us could hunt without waiting for tags, and live on homesteads with a few acres to farm... But the more of us there are, the smaller the proportion of us who can theoretically live like that without doing severe damage to ecology at large. The current pop. is already very leveraged with the shitty practices of industrialized agriculture, cheap grains and they want us eating ze bugs next. More people will only contribute to the already dropping standard of living in the West (and everywhere else too once the low-hanging fruit of basic development is played out).
Also when you count all agriculture, power generation or other modification to the land, we are using more like 50% of land mass (and of course that's ecologically linked to the other half). I agree that the globalists are spinning this issue for more control, but there is some real cause for concern if you don't think humans should aspire to live like bugmen.
I don't know why you believe the world would be better off with a lower population. It sounds like you've fallen for the same bullshit overpopulation myth as the majority of NPC retards.
By which metric is it better with more population?
If you want your standard of living to improve, you want more people.
As technology improves, as we gain more knowledge, we have more questions. We need more brains to answer those questions, to fill all the new career niches that open up.
70 or 80 years ago, there were probably not that many jobs for people who liked computers. And the ones who did were experts in nearly every facet of computer technology - the hardware, the software, machine language, other programming languages, different operating systems, etc. There wasn't that much to know.
Now there is a lot more to know, and no one person, nor even a small group of people, could understand enough about the entire field of IT in order to reproduce all the capabilities that we have today.
We need more people to support the growing base of knowledge so that we can continue to advance as a civilization.
And no, not just intelligent people. For every intelligent person who excels in some specialized field, there are dozens of support people who maintain his plumbing, his air conditioning and/or heating, his food supply, and all the other necessities and luxuries that he consumes.
We need more people, not fewer. Because only someone who has fallen for the very stupid overpopulation propaganda would believe otherwise.
There are many reasons: -we're not evolved to live in such dense/urban populations (e.g. Calhoun's behavioural sink, Dunbar's number, social atomization) -deforestation (people forget how much forest area gets cleared to feed and support a city to any reasonable standard of living) -rapid phosphorus consumption (if the easily minable sources become sparse, we'll be in serious trouble) -overfishing (farming fish alleviates this somewhat, but the quality is inferior and has issues with antibiotic use) -pollution (the amount of microplastics and chemicals ending up in the water can't be a good thing) -impact on other species (not everyone cares, but humans have had a considerable negative impact upon the world's biodiversity) -dysgenics (no concern for unchecked pop. growth implies a lack of eugenic practices and unhealthy degree of 'dodging' natural selection pressures) -standard of living (all of the above problems are with the majority of the world's pop. living in what we Westerner's would consider poverty... more people means a lower achievable standard of living for the common man)
We're way past the point of larger pop. being beneficial (probably around 2-3 bn. total). I can understand why the dissident right has this kneejerk reaction because they view the globalists as having a depopulation agenda, but you might consider that this reaction is wrong. Look at what the globalists are actually doing: Replacing Whites with browns is going to result in more people being born in the West, and they're not doing anything about the largest pops. in Asia/South-Asia. Foreign aid and anti-virals going to Africa means again—more people, not less. It seems that their aim is to have larger, but more controllable (i.e. docile and accepting of eating ze bugs and so on) populations.
Now I don't think Whites need to worry about pop. growth since we seem to be fairly K-selected, but we shouldn't approve of the perpetual growth of Asian/South-Asian/African populations.
I think there is a distinct lack of basic economic knowledge on this site and that is incredibly depressing.
>I don't know why you believe the world would be better off with a lower population.
Tell me you want more diversity niggers in your midst without telling me you want more diversity niggers in your midst...
Seriously, you want more of that? -> https://youtu.be/0H5nIQPzBzQ?t=32 Because there's no shortage of those retarded savages, actually their numbers are exploding
You want more? Why? What for?
Maybe those guys are god's shittest; you accept them, tolerate them, you get more of them. And when you get too much of them, it's game over, they takeover. At that point you failed the test, and you're completely fucked
They said on another thread that you were a retard and that seems to be the case.
What if I wanted 16 billion whites on the planet? Would you oppose that?
Because that is absolutely what I meant.
But the problem is the population that innovates and creates virtually everything that makes up a modern society- including the modern society itself, is literally dying. Browns and blacks are out breeding White European/Americans by as much as 7 babies to one. Yearly. You want population reduction you're going after the wrong group of people. This isn't about population reduction it's about White genocide.
Else they'd be filling brown arms full of the vax and spreading monkeypox and polio amongst the browns and blacks. Promoting abortion and trannyism and homosexuality.
Kikes, niggers and spics need to go. They're useless eaters, most of them inbred with corrupted genes.
We feel the same way
I do not.
The natural rulers of humanity, the truly superior humans, (not the hebraic leviathans like WEF lizards) should rule over humanity with grace. There is plenty to go around, there is enough food and resources, the scarcity is contrived. There is no reason why we shouldn't be "ruled" with humanity, grace, and plenty to go around.
How do you decide who's truly superior? Are you going to follow the orders the ones who claim to be superior? We already have leftards doing that.
My point is, a ruling class would not immediately need to be sadistic. Judeo-Christian conditioning has led us to conclude that it is just human nature aka original sin that "absolute power corrupts absolutely."
This may very well be true, which is why I don't openly advocate for caste systems or fascism, no matter how just. even though there may be reasonable arguments for it.
Alright. Now please WEF identify which ethnicities and races you just don't need and tell us who has value to you and for what reasons.
Gonna be a rude awakening for all the brownies and shabbos goy...(((they'll))) be drawing straws to see which group gets "re-educated" first. Pol Pot style.
They’re not wrong. Delete virtually all of SS Africa, most of the Middle East, a good portion of Asians, all of the useless cowardly disgraceful Whites in Europe, the 3rd worlders in LATAM…
At least 50% of the global population is useless.
Schwab is an corrupt piece of shit. He doesn't need anyone that doesn't believe his line of bullshit. If not for the poor people; who is that piece of shit going to steal from. I really believe it's going to take a currency collapse for this shit to be righted. make everyone poor and see what their real skills are.
(post is archived)