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.
You're nuts man. A tiny weeny fraction of the people alive today operate in that knowledge base. We don't need net more people, we need less people overall and a larger proportion of above average intelligence people. Agriculture is heavily automated. Service fields are increasingly automated. The trades are critical of course, but you don't need that many tradesmen/construction workers per egghead to justify our enormous (for the level of our technology & resources) population. The whole coof boondoggle exposed just how unecessary a large percentage of our jobs really are.
There's an argument to be made for larger pops. producing more geniuses, but there's no indication that this trend is unlimited, nor that the potential for more innovation always outweighs the increasing costs of those larger pops.
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.
- We're not "evolved" for a lot of things, but we have highly adaptable brains and we can do a lot better than chase buffalo now.
- Deforestation, as well as every other tragedy of the commons, is only a problem in places that don't respect property rights, i.e., places that have strong governments.
- We'll find a way to produce more phosphorus or, as the price of phosphorus rises, some other compound that can substitute. This is a basic principle of economics.
- Overfishing is another tragedy of the commons problem solved easily by strong respect for property rights, regardless of population size.
- Pollution is also tragedy of the commons.
- "Impact" is a nebulous term. 99% of all species that have ever lived, are extinct.
- "Dygenics" is pseudo-science. We've never had any "eugenic" practices and people aren't all walking around retarded. Using the senses you were born with disproves this nonsense.
- Standard of living improves because of what I told another commenter - we need more people as our base of knowledge grows. I'm not going to re-write it here, just go find my other comment.
I think there is a distinct lack of basic economic knowledge on this site and that is incredibly depressing.
It's not a knee-jerk reaction at all. It's ... really simple economics that anyone with the internet should be able to figure out.
-Sure we have impressive neuroplasticity, but it has limits. Following that line of reasoning without restriction leads to the insane and reckless worldview of the 'progressives' we rightly deride, wherein any maladaptive behaviour is fair game.
-All your tragedy of the commons stuff is a massive cop-out. Do you really expect property rights (especially for non-elites) and even property ownership in general to increase with larger populations? At some point you have to recognize that hypothetical ideals typically lose out to messy realities. And even if some enlightened mode of civilization was the solution, it would be reckless to support unchecked population growth when you have still no idea when/if it that state can be achieved.
-We need a lot of phosphorus to produce fertilizer. Some alternate method of mining or reclamation will not keep up with demand due to the dispersal involved—that's just the physics of it. Not saying this will be a problem soon, but it would be prudent to give ourselves the most amount of time to technologically advance and to not have a huge population when it does become a problem. Futhermore there is no compound that can substitute (it's an essential element), and your response belies a very poor understanding of the basic dependencies of life.
-Human activities have caused an atypical frequency of species extinction, is the point
-Dysgenics are documented. We certainly have had eugenic practices before (death penalty, sterilizations, arranged marriage etc.), and insinuating that gross retardation is the only form of maladaption is entirely disingenuous. Using the brain I was born with tells me that many people are able to proliferate today who wouldn't have survived before modern medicine and welfare.
-Your other comment is garbage too and I've addressed it.
I think there is a distinct proliferation of lolbertarian idealism on this site and that is incredibly depressing.
Your half-knowledge is woeful to behold. If you're such a proponent of autodidactism, then do some more of it and develop a more realistic understanding of our world.
>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.
They? Oh you mean the "forever buttmad at 0K" club?
Ah!
Well they're mad at me for a reason... And what's funny is that they don't come to me to settle score, they don't dare :)
What if I wanted 16 billion whites on the planet? Would you oppose that?
Non sequitur, irrelvant. We're not talking about what you want for christmas, and santa claus isn't real
We're getting overrun by violently retarded diversity niggers, and whites are less than 10% of the world population (and I'm generous...), that's the reality on the ground, TODAY. And there won't be a cake for everybody.... You want to feed 8 billion people? 90% of which aren't white? Well I'm afraid that's going to be at our expense...
Your call
(post is archived)