Global warming. 🥶🥵🤠🤯🥸🥳

[Ooloo]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nobody needs to go, but less people need to be born.

Total bullshit. Why? Explain why.

[Trexller]

no, Lune is correct

to say, "oh everyone but you" is childish, and reflects great immaturity, this is not a statement of individuals but the population as a whole, there is no favoritism, this is indifference.

anyone who doesn't recognize the overpopulation issue, is not mentally addressing it in scale to the planet. Elon Musk fails to understand, not by lack of ability but personal refusal. might be like the only thing I disagree with him on. Musk is also one of the only legit capitalists (meaning, you earn money by simply having alot of money), and population growth is directly commensurate with economic growth.

a guy like Musk looks at the world and sees populations dropping globally, to him that means less income.

if you allow yourself to address population concerns on the scale at which they occur, a real problem arises that is not any more difficult to understand than arithmetic. Every living being requires X amount of land to produce their food, their energy, and whatever else they want from the planet. Land space is finite, regardless of how efficiently that you use it.

Forget fossil fuels, imagine 8 billion people burning wood for their primary source of heat and mechanical energy. All trees would have been gone decades ago, which would have led to ecosystem collapse.

There are going to be many different estimates of what is the X amount of land required for each human, and everyone will lose the point splitting hairs over the X value, at which point they all forgot what started the debate, which ironically was about there being too many people on earth.

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, Lune is correct

to say, "oh everyone but you" is childish, and reflects great immaturity, this is not a statement of individuals but the population as a whole, there is no favoritism, this is indifference.

anyone who doesn't recognize the overpopulation issue, is not mentally addressing it in scale to the planet. Elon Musk fails to understand, not by lack of ability but personal refusal. might be like the only thing I disagree with him on. Musk is also one of the only legit capitalists (meaning, you earn money by simply having alot of money), and population growth is directly commensurate with economic growth.

a guy like Musk looks at the world and sees populations dropping globally, to him that means less income.

if you allow yourself to address population concerns on the scale at which they occur, a real problem arises that is not any more difficult to understand than arithmetic. Every living being requires X amount of land to produce their food, their energy, and whatever else they want from the planet. Land space is finite, regardless of how efficiently that you use it.

Forget fossil fuels, imagine 8 billion people burning wood for their primary source of heat and mechanical energy. All trees would have been gone decades ago, which would have led to ecosystem collapse.

There are going to be many different estimates of what is the X amount of land required for each human, and everyone will lose the point splitting hairs over the X value, at which point they all forgot what started the debate, which ironically was about there being too many people on earth.

Malthusians r ghey

[Lune]

I did. There are too many people for the space and resources available on the planet. The industry and agriculture involved with feeding and clothing 8 billion people is polluting the fuck out of everything. Plant and animal life are devastated, which I'm sure you give a fuck about.

Yea, the more people we have the more talented folk will innovate, that's great. But 2 billion well taken care of people with more than twice the space and resources available to them is probably going to work better than 8 billion people where half of them are getting ground into the dirt. Most of the innovation already comes from an extreme minority of the planet anyway.

Nevermind the simple quality of a life not lived in an overcrowded fucking shithole.

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I did. There are too many people for the space and resources available on the planet. The industry and agriculture involved with feeding and clothing 8 billion people is polluting the fuck out of everything. Plant and animal life are devastated, which I'm sure you give a fuck about.

Yea, the more people we have the more talented folk will innovate, that's great. But 2 billion well taken care of people with more than twice the space and resources available to them is probably going to work better than 8 billion people where half of them are getting ground into the dirt. Most of the innovation already comes from an extreme minority of the planet anyway.

Nevermind the simple quality of a life not lived in an overcrowded fucking shithole.

2 billion people with 6 billion slaves would be better cared for than 2 billion people with 750 million slaves.

[Lune]

You see in order for my point to resonate you have to give a fuck about plant and animal life, and if that's not the case, I earnestly could not give less of a fuck about your point of view.

That includes humans being happy and healthy and not just drivers of growth and innovation.

[aussenseiter]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You see in order for my point to resonate you have to give a fuck about plant and animal life, and if that's not the case, I earnestly could not give less of a fuck about your point of view.

You know they're food, right?

[magnetaress]

Concern about the climate takes up far more of our zeitgeist than it should.

Absolutely agree with you lune no snark..

I do get a huge chuckle about cool pictures of dual big tropical storm systems tho [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, Lune is correct

to say, "oh everyone but you" is childish, and reflects great immaturity, this is not a statement of individuals but the population as a whole, there is no favoritism, this is indifference.

anyone who doesn't recognize the overpopulation issue, is not mentally addressing it in scale to the planet. Elon Musk fails to understand, not by lack of ability but personal refusal. might be like the only thing I disagree with him on. Musk is also one of the only legit capitalists (meaning, you earn money by simply having alot of money), and population growth is directly commensurate with economic growth.

a guy like Musk looks at the world and sees populations dropping globally, to him that means less income.

if you allow yourself to address population concerns on the scale at which they occur, a real problem arises that is not any more difficult to understand than arithmetic. Every living being requires X amount of land to produce their food, their energy, and whatever else they want from the planet. Land space is finite, regardless of how efficiently that you use it.

Forget fossil fuels, imagine 8 billion people burning wood for their primary source of heat and mechanical energy. All trees would have been gone decades ago, which would have led to ecosystem collapse.

There are going to be many different estimates of what is the X amount of land required for each human, and everyone will lose the point splitting hairs over the X value, at which point they all forgot what started the debate, which ironically was about there being too many people on earth.

What people like musk fail to see (because they don't see it being a problem for themselves perhaps so just don't think in terms like you said) is that for the earth to host 1 person per square 10ft or 100ft or whatever (that would be a lot more ppl than we have r now) quality of life collectively would have to go down for everyone (including musk). So therefore --- and I agree with Lune on this one too.

To have a good quality of life for everyone, we need more land per person and more space per person than we currently do. We already cannot efficiently manage land. Industrialization helped a little bit (this is where Musk is coming from, trading an early grave/starvation/predation/freezing to death for abundent canned and processed food with a shelf life if 1000 years was good for a lot of peasents with no sanitation or metal /materials/ mined mountains of gypsum to make stuff out of).


Anyways.

I can't wait for the Sahara to be a tropical paradise again in this way I am rooting FOR climate change.

Originally Posted by aussenseiter [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You know they're food, right?

POV: Soylent green, touche! (CHarlten Heston was also cute in that and he didn't even need to kiss a black woman (snark not racism you FOOLS (I'm pro the kiss in ::::The Omega Man:::[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]).

[Lune]

Originally Posted by magnetaress [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I can't wait for the Sahara to be a tropical paradise again in this way I am rooting FOR climate change.

I mean Earth got along just fine in the carboniferous era when it was a million degrees, you had jungles at northern latitudes, and there were dragonflies the size of your torso flying around. I could go for that

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You see in order for my point to resonate you have to give a fuck about plant and animal life, and if that's not the case, I earnestly could not give less of a fuck about your point of view.

some folks have alot of trouble comprehending concepts of massive scale. nothing in their lives can remotely compare to global type things. I may have an advantage working for a water utility, which itself is a massive concept, yet alot smaller than anything global. I can see the effort required to put running water in every man-made structure, which in simple terms is basically a miracle that it functions as well as it does.

people might hear in the news about a city having some nasty chemical in their water, and think to themself of thats a tragedy, i'm sitting here thinking, "it's a miracle that this doesn't happen more often"

take that understood concept of running water in millions of buildings and apply that to any other resource, and you can pretty easily start to understand that this planet-sized machine humans have built to maintain their existence, has trillions of moving parts which all must function, cannot last forever, and is a miracle it has survived just decades.

young people aren't having kids, that means the elderly will rapidly out number the young. Kids are a huge economic driver, young people with no kids spend less, meaning that they also earn less. People who need more money, usually end up earning more of it. If they aren't earning money, then they aren't paying taxes, they aren't investing, they aren't spending. We go back to the start with population growth being economic growth, population shrink means economic shrink.

Less money going into the pool, means less spent to maintain the infrastructure of any resource. Less maintence means a less functional infrastructure.

this isn't a jab at capitalism, it's just a reality-based assessment by a qualified analyst. (I do believe that anything required for survival should be provided by the government, and also available in the private sector for those who choose, but that's another topic)