Liberal Forum

GHETTOBLASTER » 12 Jun 2022, 7:09 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 7:09 pm

I pointed out that the rate of growth is unsustainable..

I am pointing out that the concept is a shibboleth of the left and jewry. 
 

DeezerShoove » 12 Jun 2022, 7:21 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 7:21 pm

Not exception.

To me some folks miss the distinction between a cease in the acceleration of growth vs a drop in in the total population.
I have had this discussion before and the first time I read about this the author even said it was a point of contention.

There is still an increase in population that is estimated to plateau in about one generation.
Then we will finally reach Utopia: ZPG. 
Happy times for all. 9 billion wandering, functionless, fellow ****...

People will be so miserable they will stop ****.   

Sending people to another planet will never happen.
But if it did by some miracle, it would be .00000001% of us.

Imagine a future where there is less demand for water, fuel and land.
People didn't routinely travel insane distances to work and more families managed with just Dad holding a steady job.
With a shrinking population there will be some UNGROWING PAINS in the job market and with Social Security .

Cannonpointer » 12 Jun 2022, 9:39 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 9:39 pm

Do you have any idea how many levels of "unsustainability" we have disproved? How many times we have hit the expert-predicted human population ceiling and burst through it - only to see life spans and overall human wellbeing INCREASE - to see poverty and disease diminish globally?

Your view of sustainability involves a  qualitiy of life that is below my standards. I want no part of mere survivability / mediocre existence /society full of Dejected Renters For Life.
I would love to see a day come when all the USSR style housing complexes could be bulldozed and replaced with the open fields that were there just last week.
My dream of rolling back to 155MM has more people able to afford single family homes on nice lots and with more mothers able to devote more time to raising health children.
Much of our infrastructure would remain intact, but our powerplants wouldn't be running  as hard, our grid would have many more miles of spare copper to serve as back up, our lands would need to be farmed as intensively.
We wouldn't have hunting and fishing shut downs or so tightly regulated.
 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 12 Jun 2022, 10:02 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 10:02 pm

Your view of sustainability involves a  qualitiy of life that is below my standards. I want no part of mere survivability / mediocre existence /society full of Dejected Renters For Life.

You had to make up my idea of sustainability. I never said anything about renting.=13pxGHETTOBLASTER

I would love to see a day come when all the USSR style housing complexes could be bulldozed and replaced with the open fields that were there just last week.
My dream of rolling back to 155MM has more people able to afford single family homes on nice lots and with more mothers able to devote more time to raising health children.

The number of people in the united states has **** to do with the schemes that **** the working class out of the american dream. Whatever relationship you believe population has to the plight of working people, I don't believe you have really thought it through. The heyday you pine for had nothing to do with the number of people - ****, it occured during the largest baby boom our in history - never to be duplicated. The economic conditions you speak of occured when the democrat party was a labor party, running the country - and not the wall street party it became under clinton.

What **** working people was NOT the couple next door being visited by the stork. If that were the case, the baby boom would not have also been an economic boon. What **** working Americans was multinational corporations overtaking our political parties. When workers lost representation is when the country went to **** and the american dream became the american fantasy. POLITICS. ECONOMICS. CORRUPTION. Not population.

GHETTOBLASTER » 12 Jun 2022, 10:02 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 10:02 pm

Much of our infrastructure would remain intact, but our powerplants wouldn't be running  as hard, our grid would have many more miles of spare copper to serve as back up, our lands would need to be farmed as intensively.
We wouldn't have hunting and fishing shut downs or so tightly regulated.

Hunting and fishing regulations are a blessing, not a curse. As are people. They are not a threat to our grid - they are partners in its buiding and maintenance. More hands makes less work. Humans are helpless alone, unstoppable together.

Bill Gates and his crew are calling for the culling of 13 out of 14 people - taking earth's human population from 7 billion to half a billion, in keeping with the Georgia Guidestones. I'm sure that retarded girl who poses as a climate scientist agrees - as do all of the bilderberger set.

What's your cull number?
 
 

Cannonpointer » 12 Jun 2022, 10:58 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 10:58 pm

You had to make up my idea of sustainability. I never said anything about renting.

The number of people in the united states hs **** to do with the schemes that **** the working class out of the american dream. Whatever relationship you believe population has to the plight of working people, I don't believe you have really thought it through. They heyday you pine for had nothing to do with the number of people - ****, it occured during the largest baby boom our in history - never to be duplicated. The economic conditions you speak of occured when the democrt party was a labor party - and not the wall street party it became under clinton.

What **** working people was NOT the couple next door being visited by the stork. If that were the case, the baby boom would not have also been an economic boon. What **** working Americans ws ultinationl corporations overtaking our political parties. When workers lost representation is when the country went to **** and the american dream became the merican fantasy. POLITICS. ECONOMICS. CORRUPTION. Not population.

Hunting and fishing regulations are a blessing, not a curse. As are people. They re not a threat to our grid - they are partners in its buiding and maintennce. More hands makes less work. Humans are helpless alone, unstoppable together.

Bill Gates and his crew are calling for the culling of 13 out of 14 people - taking earth's human population from 7 billion to half a billion, in keeping with the Georgia Guidestones. I'm sure that retarded girl who poses as a climte scientist agrees - as do all of the bilderberger set.

What's your cull number?

I think home ownership will once again be within the reach of more people once the demand for homes / prime real estate  falls back what it was 60 years ago.
Once our population drops back to what it was the pressure on hunting and fishing will be 1/2 of what it is now.
The mood of the average person should improve..we might even see a return of people waving for the other guy to go first at 4 way stops...?

 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 12 Jun 2022, 11:12 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 11:12 pm

I think home ownership will once again be within the reach of more people once the demand for homes / prime real estate  falls back what it was 60 years ago.
Once our population drops back to what it was the pressure on hunting and fishing will be 1/2 of what it is now.
The mood of the average person should improve..we might even see a return of people waving for the other guy to go first at 4 way stops...?

Germany had 70 million people going into world war II - in a country the size of Oregon. They were very prosperous, havng risen from depression-era poverty to a European economic colossus in less than a decade under a government that represented them. Workers owned their homes. There was plenty of land for people and plenty of wilderness. It was the politics - not the population - that made the German people prosperous. 

How do you suggest we enforce the culling of our population that you call for? 

Cannonpointer » 12 Jun 2022, 11:22 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 11:22 pm

Germany had 70 million people going into world war II - in a country the size of Oregon. They were very prosperous, havng risen from depression-era poverty to a European economic colossus in less than a decade under a government that represented them. Workers owned their homes. There was plenty of land for people and plenty of wilderness. It was the politics - not the population - that made the German people prosperous. 

How do you suggest we enforce the culling of our population that you call for?

I lived in Germany for a couple of years....1977 to 79 at Panzer Kaserne near Boblingen / Stuttgart. 
They have houses where the 2nd floor overhangs the road...!
The shops in some towns are so close to the road that you can practically touch them as you drive past them.
People park on the sidewalks..routinely.
In some neighborhoods the roads are not wide enough for 2 cars to pass side by side.
I drove a Fiat 600...a car that might fit inside a VW Bug...?
Beautiful country that looks like Oregon. There were / are still a few places where people can pursue outdoor hobbies. I think this is how farmers make money on the side.
It was my understanding that the German Hunters  spent their entire "hunt" playing cards in tree houses, drinking and eating. That's their "hunting experience"
They toss the scraps below the treehouse and when  the wild pigs show up they blow them away.
Hunting was a  highly regulated and expensive thing to do.
I couldn't tell you what percent of their population are private land owners with enough acreage to call what they own "Equestrian" or simply  "a ranch".
I don't remember calling for a "culling". 
If you have read my posts over the past 2 years that I've been here...you would know that I have written volumes about what I think are  [[[GLOBALIST / NWO SOCIAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMS]]] that have led to people having less desire / ability / energy / selflessness to have children. 
[[[WOMEN'S LIB]]] is just one example of the deliberate [and clever] social engineering of society debasing trends.
I think these passive / social engineering measures are enough to see a significant reduction or at least a noticeable reduction in 50 to 100 years.
Little did I know that the NWO would lose their patience and ramp up their program.

 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 12 Jun 2022, 11:40 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 11:40 pm

I lived in Germany for a couple of years....1977 to 79 at Panzer Kaserne near Boblingen / Stuttgart. 
They have houses where the 2nd floor overhangs the road...!
The shops in some towns are so close to the road that you can practically touch them as you drive past them.
People park on the sidewalks..routinely.
In some neighborhoods the roads are not wide enough for 2 cars to pass side by side.
I drove a Fiat 600...a car that might fit inside a VW Bug...?
Beautiful country that looks like Oregon. There were / are still a few places where people can pursue outdoor hobbies. I think this is how farmers make money on the side.
It was my understanding that the German Hunters  spent their entire "hunt" playing cards in tree houses, drinking and eating. That's their "hunting experience"
They toss the scraps below the treehouse and when  the wild pigs show up they blow them away.
Hunting was a  highly regulated and expensive thing to do.
I couldn't tell you what percent of their population are private land owners with enough acreage to call what they own "Equestrian" or simply  "a ranch".
I don't remember calling for a "culling". 
If you have read my posts over the past 2 years that I've been here...you would know that I have written volumes about what I think are  [[[GLOBALIST / NWO SOCIAL ENGINEERING PROGRAMS]]] that have led to people having less desire / ability / energy / selflessness to have children. 
[[[WOMEN'S LIB]]] is just one example of the deliberate [and clever] social engineering of society debasing trends.
I think these passive / social engineering measures are enough to see a significant reduction or at least a noticeable reduction in 50 to 100 years.
Little did I know that the NWO would lose their patience and ramp up their program.

Well, it gets a bit confusing when your desired outcomes and theirs seem to match up. You want less people, they want less people. 

We have less than thrice Germny's population and are 28 times their size. And they're a happy, prosperous, first world country with good longevity and happy folks - good outcomes. . 

I just don't think our problems would even be ADDRESSED by populaton reduction.I think you're looking in the wrong place. There is plenty of land to go around. What drives up prices is people like buffet and gates buying it all up with fake money they stole and taking it off the market. The answer to that is land taxes - not population reduction. You should ax @SJConspirator  about that. If we taxed LAND instead of improvements, everybody and his brother would own a home. It is POLICIES - not persons - which are **** us out of our natural estate.

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/Current World Population7,953,570,459
view all people on 1 page >
TODAY
Births today: 142,304
Deaths today: 59,742
Population Growth today: 82,562
THIS YEAR
Births this year: 62,685,295
Deaths this year: 26,316,788
Population Growth this year: 36,368,690

And counting.

Curiosities:

SOCIETY & MEDIA
1,229,127 New book titles published this year
175,198,678 Newspapers circulated today
251,633 TV sets sold worldwide today
2,645,642 Cellular phones sold today
$ 115,767,087 Money spent on videogames today
5,335,801,435 Internet users in the world today
106,204,513,561 Emails sent today
3,246,196 Blog posts written today
325,223,014 Tweets sent today
3,336,347,862 Google searches today

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... w0G2rUyA&s

What I miss in this discussion is the UNWILLINGNESS of politicians to sacrifice votes (voters) for the good of the planet.

Cannonpointer » 12 Jun 2022, 9:33 pm » wrote: ↑

12 Jun 2022, 9:33 pm

By many accounts there are more trees in America today than there were when columbus landed in the americas.
And this is due to human activity. You see, we plant trees - for all KINDS of reasons. Syrup. Fruit. Timber. Arboriculture. Municipal improvement.
 

That may be true  . . .  but the trees we plant are mostly 2 years old  . . .  or younger.

It'll take hundreds of years, before they become the size of the trees we cut for lumber, construction etc.

And even so I'm afraid that that applies only to North America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The changing picture of South America :

JinnMartini » 13 Jun 2022, 3:43 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 3:43 am

That may be true  . . .  but the trees we plant are mostly 2 years old  . . .  or younger.

It'll take hundreds of years, before they become the size of the trees we cut for lumber, construction etc.


 

    If we replant them that is.
 I can clear 3 to 5 acres per day on average.
That's roughly 700 to 1200 acres per year.
The company I work for has 2 feller bunchers so that means 1 logging company averages 1400 to 2400 acres cleared per year.
 That's one logging operation. How many are there in Michigan alone? That's a lot of trees gone.
 I don't see anyone furiously planting trees behind me. 

Squatchman » 13 Jun 2022, 4:47 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 4:47 am

    If we replant them that is.
 I can clear 3 to 5 acres per day on average.
That's roughly 700 to 1200 acres per year.
The company I work for has 2 feller bunchers so that means 1 logging company averages 1400 to 2400 acres cleared per year.
 That's one logging operation. How many are there in Michigan alone? That's a lot of trees gone.
 I don't see anyone furiously planting trees behind me.

Well, some nice hero should blow up the company you work for  . . .  with all the employees in it

And then organize a manhunt for those like you out there in the woods !

I bet you feel so unsafe going to work  . . .  you need to carry your AR15 for self protection ?
 

JinnMartini » 13 Jun 2022, 1:52 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 1:52 am

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/Current World Population7,953,570,459
view all people on 1 page >
TODAY
Births today: 142,304
Deaths today: 59,742
Population Growth today: 82,562
THIS YEAR
Births this year: 62,685,295
Deaths this year: 26,316,788
Population Growth this year: 36,368,690

And counting.

That is a growth of less than one half of one percent per annum. Anemic, to put it mildly. The trend is reversing. Stabilization is occuring. 

JinnMartini » 13 Jun 2022, 2:09 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 2:09 am

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/imag ... w0G2rUyA&s

What the image doesn't show is the virtual braking of growth which your previous statistics demonstrated.

JinnMartini » 13 Jun 2022, 3:25 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 3:25 am

What I miss in this discussion is the UNWILLINGNESS of politicians to sacrifice votes (voters) for the good of the planet.

The planet is not in any danger from humanity. Humanity is. 

If we become a danger to the planet, the planet is capable of defending itself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDkiq5jD5Hc

JinnMartini » 13 Jun 2022, 3:43 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 3:43 am

That may be true  . . .  but the trees we plant are mostly 2 years old  . . .  or younger.

Hungrier.

Greedier for C02.

The old and stately trees have less appetite.

JinnMartini » 13 Jun 2022, 3:43 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 3:43 am

It'll take hundreds of years, before they become the size of the trees we cut for lumber, construction etc.

Blink of an eye - and the timber industry has been plnting 2 to 1 and 3 to 1 for over fifty years. We call that "sustainability."

JinnMartini » 13 Jun 2022, 3:43 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 3:43 am

And even so I'm afraid that that applies only to North America.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The changing picture of South America :

There are a few issues with that graphic - provenance, agenda and translation being among them.

I will speak to translation - which I believe hints to the answer as to agenda.

"Disturbed vegetation" is a curious term. The Pampas of Brazil and Argentina have not been cut down or deforested - they are - and were before the Europeans - open plains. Like the Great Plains in the United States (which we have fruited and forested). The only "disturbance" to that vegetation has been herd grazing - a usage which virtually always is accompanied by husbandry and stewardship. 

The graphic makes mankind and his activities a bad thing. You will just have to forgive me - I distrust the reports that I suck and should not be here. If you trust the reports that you suck and should not be here, that is your prerogative.
 

Squatchman » 13 Jun 2022, 4:47 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 4:47 am

    If we replant them that is.

You mean "when."

WHEN we replant them, is what you mean to say.

Squatchman » 13 Jun 2022, 4:47 am » wrote: ↑

13 Jun 2022, 4:47 am

 I can clear 3 to 5 acres per day on average.
That's roughly 700 to 1200 acres per year.
The company I work for has 2 feller bunchers so that means 1 logging company averages 1400 to 2400 acres cleared per year.
 That's one logging operation. How many are there in Michigan alone? That's a lot of trees gone.
 I don't see anyone furiously planting trees behind me.

Reforestation efforts in Michigan have taken Kirtland's warbler from the Endangered, Presumed Lost designtion to having a designated Sustainable Population. Google is your GOOD buddy. 

https://www.quora.com/Do-lumberjacks-lu ... e-they-cut

Yes. All major lumber companies (and I’m sure nearly all of them of any size too) plant more trees every year than they fell.

 But not really because it’s the “green” thing to do, though I’m certain that is a factor in their decision. But mostly because it’s the economical thing to do.

 Felling trees in old, natural forest is difficult. It’s hard to get your equipment in there. Some trees are good, some trees are bad. Some are close together, some are far apart. It’s just inefficient.

 So, after they clear an area, all timber companies will go in and re-plant trees. Their access roads are already there. They will space the trees out to maximize their growth and minimize the effort to go in and fell them again in a number of years.

It's right there on the interwebs, buddy.