shake wrote:
We already have far fewer kids than we used to do, birth rates are well below the 2.1 replacement ratio throughout Europe, so basically as usual you haven't looked into it have you?
In japan they're actually worried that they will shortly have no youngsters left to pay for the pensioners.

If you want links you're welcome to them, I've thoroughly taken on all comers on the DIF already on this topic.

andyh wrote:
2 billion in 40 years comes mainly from the developing nations. I am aware of the rates in Europe, hence the high levels of immigration in recent years.

shake wrote:
there are only a handful of places in the world that are overpopulated.
IMHO they are:

1) Holland
2) Japan
3) UK
4) Hong Kong
5) Singapore

HK and Singapore shouldn't really count as nation states tbh.

So basically we are looking at a small handful of truly densely overpopulated countries then cities after that. You'd be lucky if its 1% of the landmass. The rest of the world is not overpopulated so no-one can in their right mind say the earth is overpopulated unless it has exceeded its physical scientific carrying capacity.

If on the other hand the carrying capacity of the planet is determined by how a few thousand people can live in ridiculous luxury and maintain that lifestyle without losing out...well different kettle of fish.

The real crux of the issue is the WAY we live our lives, nothing else. We have to raise the standard of living for everyone to avoid overpopulation and immigration and that means that the 1% have to lower their standard of living to raise the 99% and we have to base our life around something other than monetary gain.

Some people have a brainfart when they consider that raising quality of life lowers birth rates but the stats do show this.
The evidence is irrefutable - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

As you can see the world fertility rate is falling and has been doing so since the 50's. Due to the population lag effect, many people have the 'impression' that there is a problem, just as this is 'impression' is strongest in built up areas and with people who rarely travel.
Around 2040 - 2050 the population will peak and thereafter decline. Much of Europe has a fertility ratio of 1.5. Historically such fertility ratios have never been reversed, they disappear.

There are some really, really remote areas of this planet that are not desert, a lot of it is fertile empty land just sat there.
Someone 'owns' it though....

If immigration is needed to maintain a monetary paradigm then should we really be looking at the immigration or looking at the monetary paradigm? Its pretty obvious to anyone who can swallow the nationalistic jingoistic bollocks and look at the facts that they are being played like puppets on strings.

World statistics *updated every second*

www.worldometers.info/world-population/

www.un.org/popin/data.html

^I go off the real stats not some made up algorithm.

Also world fertility rates..

esa.un.org/wpp/fertility_figures/interactive-maps_TF.htm

Click 2013 in the dropdown.

Now take a look at how blue that map is.
Reality check.

Why Worldometers clocks are the most accurate
back to top ↑

The above world population clock is based on the estimates of the United Nations and will show the same number wherever you are in the world and whatever time you set on your PC. Worldometers is the only website to show live counters that are based on UN data and that do not follow the user's PC clock.

andyh wrote:
I think they're all made up, but this is probably the least reliable source given their political/religious ideology.

World Evolutionary Humanism and Eugenics. UNESCO it's purpose and it's Philosophy.

Reptired wrote:
Actually it makes it all the more reliable in the sense that if anything they overestimate the numbers lol.
Govts in all western nations will have reliable figures and those can at least be relied upon and it is those figures which are actually showing alarmingly low fertility rates well below replacement ratio.

If you forward the clock linked here to 2048 you can see how the entire planet is almost below replacement ratio, that is predicted on reliable figures over time and you can see clearly where its headed.
There is no need to make people infertile because its already happening....

esa.un.org/wpp/fertility_figures/interactive-maps_TF.htm

There it is, UN's own stats.

If you want projected figures the UN preditcs around 8 billion in 2040 and then decline.

esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/unpp/panel_population.htm

Pick population on the left then world on the right.
Pick low variant at the bottom (not low as in numbers, low as in variation from data or most accurate)

You can leave it at 1950 - 2100 and you get the following:

Year Population
1950 2 525 779
1955 2 761 651
1960 3 026 003
1965 3 329 122
1970 3 691 173
1975 4 071 020
1980 4 449 049
1985 4 863 602
1990 5 320 817
1995 5 741 822
2000 6 127 700
2005 6 514 095
2010 6 916 183
2015 7 256 925
2020 7 539 163
2025 7 768 450
2030 7 969 407
2035 8 135 087
2040 8 255 351
2045 8 323 978
2050 8 341 706
2055 8 314 597
2060 8 248 967
2065 8 149 085
2070 8 016 514
2075 7 852 342
2080 7 660 738
2085 7 449 881
2090 7 226 104
2095 6 992 097
2100 6 750 256


As you can see, we end back up where we started by as soon as 2090.
Then we lose half a f*cking billion in 10 years to arrive at 6.7 billion in 2100,

You will NEVER see Ehrlich mention this...he stops at 2040 and its obvious why.


“The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”

Paul Ehrlich the fuckwit, he's no better than cathetar the DIF pee tube doom merchant.

andyh wrote:
Pretty much exactly the same line Reverend Malthus was spewing out in the 17-1800's.

Reptired wrote:
Charles Dickens apparently was portraying Malthus through Scrooge. That sort of misanthropy is pretty much what is understood by the word Malthusian. However, any concern with the ratio of resources to population can be described as Malthusian and with a few non-sequiturs here and a strawman or two there, you can "prove" that anybody worried about what Bill Hicks referred to as "The food-air deal" as a raging eugenicist, misanthropist, elitist and genocidal maniac. Even, if all that person is doing is focusing on increasing/distributing the food/water and not reducing the population.

And that is especially, convenient for folks who might not share political and economic ideas like the redistribution of food and water

mikey mikey wrote:
I have no way of knowing whether this individuals constant straw man arguments are intentional or not......
Either way I think the comments speak for themselves.



[url=George Bernard Shaw]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw[/url]

This is all for your own good folks.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw#Eugenics

mikey mikey wrote:
It could be argued it was Reduction Ad Absurdum if it didn't logically follow, or perhaps more importantly if it didn't actually happen.

"They were stolen from their homes, locked in chains and taken across an ocean. And for more than 200 years, their blood and sweat would help to build the richest and most powerful nation the world has ever known.

But when slavery ended, their welcome was over. America's wealthy elite had decided it was time for them to disappear and they were not particular about how it might be done.

What you are about to see is that the plan these people set in motion 150 years ago is still being carried out today. So don't think that this is history. It is not. It is happening right here, and it's happening right now."

Well the context that he was talking about and to criminals and not the general population (not that I would agree with that either) was omitted by you and your source. So that means that you are either unaware of the context or you are dishonest.

www.itnsource.com/shotlist//RTV/1931/03/...punishment&st=2&pn=1

Same vid, different title.


And then, since capital punishment was already legal, it seems an odd argument he's using.
Let's see if he was for or against, shall we?

Reptired wrote:
uh huh

Propoganda and spying, eh?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Crutcher
What a guy!

Oh and he writes for these guys!

Fundie wingnut too!

"Eugenics[edit source | editbeta]
Shaw delivered speeches on the theory of eugenics and he became a noted figure in the movement in England.[79]
Shaw's play Man and Superman (1903) has been said to be "invested with eugenic doctrines" and "an ironic reworking" of Nietzsche's concept of Übermensch.[79][80] The main character in the play, John Tanner, is the author of "The Revolutionist's Handbook and Pocket Companion", which Shaw published along with his play. The Revolutionist's Handbook includes chapters on "Good Breeding" and "Property and Marriage". In the "Property and Marriage" section Tanner writes:
To cut humanity up into small cliques, and effectively limit the selection of the individual to his own clique, is to postpone the Superman for eons, if not for ever. Not only should every person be nourished and trained as a possible parent, but there should be no possibility of such an obstacle to natural selection as the objection of a countess to a navvy or of a duke to a charwoman. Equality is essential to good breeding; and equality, as all economists know, is incompatible with property.
In this Shaw was managing to synthesize eugenics with socialism, his best-loved political doctrine. This was a popular concept at the time.[81]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw#Eugenics

"An ardent socialist, Shaw wrote many brochures and speeches for the Fabian Society."

mikey mikey wrote:
I don't find the Genocide of African Americans in the least bit funny you sicko.

Reptired wrote:
And now Reptired has quite intentionally omitted the sentence following [81]

See for yourselves here
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw#Eugenics