Liberal Forum

GHETTOBLASTER » 22 Nov 2022, 8:13 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 8:13 pm

Does God say what HIS UPPER LIMIT is...or is there none...just infinity?

I assume no limit.  We have the technology to feed everyone.

GHETTOBLASTER » 22 Nov 2022, 8:02 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 8:02 pm

The richest areas are where the people at the top of the economic  food chain want to live.
Fewer people competing for x number of homes automatically moves everyone up higher on the ladder. 
Every single country that is full of starving people had at one time a population count that was much more self sustainable.
There wouldn't be nearly as much immigration pressure or  war .

People choose to build on scarce [over valued] open land next to where the jobs are, or buy over valued houses next to where the jobs are...not because they prefer living in a Sea Of Humanity, but because they have to be realistic.

Contrary to your thesis, hunger on earth is inversely related to population growth. As population has risen, living standards have risen with population.

It's not that what you're saying isn't logical - it IS logical. But it's false.

What you are saying is only logical within your errant tautology of scarcity. In a world of want, yes - more people = less pie. But in a world where people are a resource, more people = more resources = more pie.
 
You have NO IDEA how incredibly abundant this world is. It's **** insane. Even in the most extreme climates, this earth is a slot machine.

roadkill » 22 Nov 2022, 8:21 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 8:21 pm

I assume no limit.  We have the technology to feed everyone.

Reducing waste by ten percent - and targeting the salvage - would feed every hungry person on earth.

roadkill » 22 Nov 2022, 8:08 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 8:08 pm

Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

I feel good that CP and I agree on something this important.


I'll go to bed now and sleep well.   

Cannonpointer » 22 Nov 2022, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 8:28 pm

Contrary to your thesis, hunger on earth is inversely related to population growth. As population has risen, living standards have risen with population.

It's not that what you're saying isn't logical - it IS logical. But it's false.

What you are saying is only logical within your errant tautology of scarcity. In a world of want, yes - more people = less pie. But in a world where people are a resource, more people = more resources = more pie.

We take our incredible ability to produce vast quantities of food on properly managed ground with us and all of the rest of our living standards with us when we shrink back the population. 
Do you hunt or fish...?

How many people living in the USA would it take to make both you and God happy..?
A billion..maybe 2 billion...or maybe NO LIMIT AT ALL...?

SJConspirator » 22 Nov 2022, 8:18 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 8:18 pm

about 20 billion.  That would give everybody 5 acres of land per individual

All this land looks nice and warm and fuzzy while surfing the globe on GOOGLE EARTH.  

GHETTOBLASTER » 22 Nov 2022, 8:43 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 8:43 pm

We take our incredible ability to produce vast quantities of food on properly managed ground with us and all of the rest of our living standards with us when we shrink back the population. 
Do you hunt or fish...?

How many people living in the USA would it take to make both you and God happy..?
A billion..maybe 2 billion...or maybe NO LIMIT AT ALL...?

I take it as it comes. You're looking for a prescription from a fellow who lives in descriptions. 

I just booked a getaway for two weeks in Tenerife, after swearing I would burn my passport before I would ever return to Europe, because they went so covid fascist. But some friends were going, they hornswoggled me into it. They didn't have to push too hard. 

I am telling you how it IS - the more people the less hunger. You are telling me how it SHOULD be, based on your world view: more people = less pie. 

When your map disagrees with he territory, your map is wrong. The territory is right.

 
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 22 Nov 2022, 8:44 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 8:44 pm

All this land looks nice and warm and fuzzy while surfing the globe on GOOGLE EARTH.

The eskimos make a living as piss ant hunter gatherers in the most unforgiving climes. The apache lived in the toughest desert in the U.S. 

Imagine what people with technology can do.

Cannonpointer » 22 Nov 2022, 8:47 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 8:47 pm

I take it as it comes. You're looking for a prescription from a fellow who lives in descriptions. 

I just booked a getaway for two weeks in Tenerife, after swearing I would burn my passport before I would ever return to Europe, because they went so covid fascist. But some friends were going, they hornswoggled me into it. They didn't have to push too hard. 

I am telling you how it IS - the more people the less hunger. You are telling me how it SHOULD work, base on your world view: more people = more hunger. 

When your map disagrees with he territory, your map is wrong. The territory is right.

Your "map" doesn't show a 300MM USA in 2022 that has shrunk back to 150 MM by 2082
With fewer  people the less land, fertilizer, diesel, water and  pesticide it takes to feed everyone. 
Explain how our  crop yields would suffer with fewer people.
 

GHETTOBLASTER » 22 Nov 2022, 9:01 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 9:01 pm

Your "map" doesn't show a 300MM USA in 2022 that has shrunk back to 150 MM by 2082
With fewer  people the less land, fertilizer, diesel, water and  pesticide it takes to feed everyone. 
Explain how our  crop yields would suffer with fewer people.

Would and should is inferior to could and did.

As the world's population has grown, hunger has shrunk. That's falsifiable and verifiable. It falsifies your entropic view of how things work.

You are coming at me from the should world, and I am speaking to you from the is world.

Regarding big-ag's profit-driven bad habits, we should work for less evil - not less people.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 22 Nov 2022, 8:28 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 8:28 pm

Contrary to your thesis, hunger on earth is inversely related to population growth. As population has risen, living standards have risen with population.


 

holy ****, you are channeling Henry George almost word for word here.  

https://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp19.htm
That is, in the ability to obtain the goods and services that are the real object of labor. A growing population increases the effectiveness of labor by permitting greater economies. More wealth can be produced with the same effort. It increases productivity not only on the newer land, but on all the better land already in use.  

 

https://youtu.be/qa0UAC8jYX4

SJConspirator » 22 Nov 2022, 11:07 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 11:07 pm

holy ****, you are channeling Henry George almost word for word here.  

https://www.henrygeorge.org/pchp19.htm
That is, in the ability to obtain the goods and services that are the real object of labor. A growing population increases the effectiveness of labor by permitting greater economies. More wealth can be produced with the same effort. It increases productivity not only on the newer land, but on all the better land already in use.

The funny thing is, all I'm doing is honestly assessing the territory - that is, stating that which is manifestly so, such that a fly on the wall could see and record it. I am reporting what measurably and verifiably has occurred in time and space. And this is precisely the world that Aristotle bequeathed us: a world of description rather than prescription. 

Aristotle did not abolish magic - just magical thinking. Using his precepts and apprehending the world in the Joe Friday fashion (Just the facts, ma'am), we can observe the magic that IS, and describe the magic that IS. We no longer have to ascribe it to made up things - anthropomorphize it, sacrifice virgins to it, what have you. We no longer have to appease it. We can simply observe and report. We live in a world that we CAN accurately describe. Instead, we often prescribe the world we live in, which leads to ignoring reality and inventing phantasms like "over-population."

Just look what Jinn and GB - two very fine and well-meaning fellows - have done. They have taken a prescribed reality and quite literally poisoned their view of actual reality, based on a tautological prescription. They decided without considering the evidence what was so. Henry George was describing the world he saw, not the world he expected to see. I'm doing the same. 

If I tell them they are superstitious, they will be insulted. But look at the world, look at their view of it, and TRY not to say ooga booga, population explosion! Ooga booga!

I'm not trying to be a dick. The person who convinced them that people are a problem was the dick. People are a resource. And the fossil layer is in the making. This planet is a giant living hopper that is making US a part of the fossil layer from which we sprang AS WE SPEAK. To suggest that we - creatures OF the fossil layer - can deplete the fossil layer is a snake eating its tail. We can play a part in its transformation - as a shovel-load of **** transforms your loam. But we cannot possibly deplete it as we are it. 

Look at the energy we can take from ONE ATOM, and **** TELL ME we live in a world of finite resources. 
 

Cannonpointer » 22 Nov 2022, 11:46 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 11:46 pm

The funny thing is, all I'm doing is honestly assessing the territory - that is, stating that which is manifestly so, such that a fly on the wall could see and record it. I am reporting what measurably and verifiably has occurred in time and space. And this is precisely the world that Aristotle bequeathed us: a world of description rather than prescription. 

Aristotle did not abolish magic - just magical thinking. Using his precepts and apprehending the world in the Joe Friday fashion (Just the facts, ma'am), we can observe the magic that IS, and describe the magic that IS. We no longer have to ascribe it to made up things - anthropomorphize it, sacrifice virgins to it, what have you. We no longer have to appease it. We can simply observe and report. We live in a world that we CAN accurately describe. Instead, we often prescribe the world we live in, which leads to ignoring reality and inventing phantasms like "over-population."

Just look what Jinn and GB - two very fine and well-meaning fellows - have done. They have taken a prescribed reality and quite literally poisoned their view of actual reality, based on a tautological prescription. They decided without considering the evidence what was so. Henry George was describing the world he saw, not the world he expected to see. I'm doing the same. 

If I tell them they are superstitious, they will be insulted. But look at the world, look at their view of it, and TRY not to say ooga booga, population explosion! Ooga booga!

I'm not trying to be a dick. The person who convinced them that people are a problem was the dick. People are a resource. And the fossil layer is in the making. This planet is a giant living hopper that is making US a part of the fossil layer from which we sprang AS WE SPEAK. To suggest that we - creatures OF the fossil layer - can deplete the fossil layer is a snake eating its tail. We can play a part in its transformation - as a shovel-load of **** transforms your loam. But we cannot possibly deplete it as we are it. 

Look at the energy we can take from ONE ATOM, and **** TELL ME we live in a world of finite resources.

There are certain ways of doing things that would make the world finite.  For example, if every cadaver had to reserve 6’ of land are for a coffin and headstone, we would run out of earth for the living.  That’s why I am being cremated.

the brainwashing that tells everyone we live in scarcity (which hasn’t been true since the industrial revolution) is powerful and its reinforced daily, but it should be easy to see through.  If one guy owns billions of dollars and thousands of acres of land, and there are a few hundred of that ONE GUY, scarcity is an illusion.  We are swimming in abundance and it grows as technology grows

SJConspirator » 23 Nov 2022, 12:13 am » wrote: ↑

23 Nov 2022, 12:13 am

There are certain ways of doing things that would make the world finite.  For example, if every cadaver had to reserve 6’ of land are for a coffin and headstone, we would run out of earth for the living.  That’s why I am being cremated.

the brainwashing that tells everyone we live in scarcity (which hasn’t been true since the industrial revolution) is powerful and its reinforced daily, but it should be easy to see through.  If one guy owns billions of dollars and thousands of acres of land, and there are a few hundred of that ONE GUY, scarcity is an illusion.  We are swimming in abundance and it grows as technology grows

Cavemen lived in scarcity. Then they figured out how to farm. OTHER cavemen - still living in scarcity - raided their farms. So the farmers killed the cavemen. 

The illusion of scarcity killed the cavemen and made killers of the farmers. I would like to say, "and... scene." But we're still in that scene lol. 

SJConspirator » 23 Nov 2022, 12:13 am » wrote: ↑

23 Nov 2022, 12:13 am

There are certain ways of doing things that would make the world finite.  For example, if every cadaver had to reserve 6’ of land are for a coffin and headstone, we would run out of earth for the living.  That’s why I am being cremated.
 

That all depends. I think headstones would crumble before we filled the earth. Earth's big. Y'know what happens to MOST graveyards? They get forgotten and end up paved. 

FOS » 22 Nov 2022, 8:20 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 8:20 pm

i believe that gates does want to reduce population, but he is also an idiot.

i dont think he means vaccinnes will directly reduce population...that would not be a vaccine lol.

he believes that the only reason african woman have so many children is because few of them live past the age of 5.

he has noted that the birth rate of white people have decreased dramatically, and he actually thinks this is because of better health care.

1) circumstances which have a certain impact on white people will not have the same impact on africans. they are different races. Gates is too stupid to understand that.

2) health care is not the reason white birth rates have dropped. It is actually our **** economy combined with cultural antinatalism.

gates has actually managed to do the opposite of what he intended. He made the african population explode. This is because he is an idiot.

Before Social Security retirement income came about....you needed to sire a large family to improve your support system once you got too old to pull your own weight. The kids tended to look forward to carrying on the homestead

I think UNICEF played a part in growing the African populations to greater numbers and more hopeless people than ever before. Their mating habits would only get worse when you try to make life easier for them. A starving woman is more likely to be infertile.

Cannonpointer » 21 Nov 2022, 9:09 pm » wrote: ↑

21 Nov 2022, 9:09 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrFvKmUV88U

He literally says it... population... if we do a really great job on new vaccines... we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15%...

No way that is an innocent mistake, he is actually proud of it...

 



 
 

The Gates family and eugenics

BILL GATES AND EUGENICS: THE WORLD NEEDS FEWER PEOPLE
https://tricentennial.us/2020/03/28/bil ... er-people/

Or, "rules for thee but not for me". From that article:

"Bill Gates presented the following equation: CO2 (total population emitted CO2 per year) = P (people) x S (services per person) x E (average energy per service) x C (average CO2 emitted per unit of energy)"

Which begs the question, what kind of people would it seem the world "needs fewer" of?

"CO2 (total population emitted CO2 per year) = P (people)
Let's take the Gates example. Bill Gates father was a banker and a lawyer who lived off of the wealth that others create. Since Bill Gates Jr. presented this formula, how does he measure up? Let's use his example as one of the "people".
x S (services per person)
Maintenance crew for Bill Gates 7 bed 24 bath 66,000-square-foot mansion. "The house also features an estate-wide server system, a 60-foot (18 m) swimming pool with an underwater music system, a 2,500-square-foot (230 m2) gym, and a 1,000-square-foot (93 m2) dining room.[8]" Let alone maintenance of all their other empty homes. And then there's his collection of 4 private jets, helicopters, planes and boats. A Gates family vacation includes chartering mega-yachts such as the Serene that cost 5 million per week to charter.
x E (average energy per service)
energy required to heat, cool and maintain his 7 bed 24 bath 66,000 square-foot mansion and the rest of their empty homes, like their "massive oceanfront home near San Diego for $43 million", let alone fuel his 4 private jets, helicopters and planes and vacation charter yachts, and all of the fueling of the maintenance crews and companies own transportation and systems, to service Bill Gates family, like the resources squandered on his Rancho Paseana 229-acre horse farm located in Rancho Santa Fe "which includes a three-quarter-mile race track, five barns (totaling 141 stalls), and an olive orchard—in hopes of converting it into a “hunter and jumper” training facility for his daughter Jennifer, an avid horse rider."
So Gates apparently sees nothing wrong with supporting horses for his daughter's occasional frivolous amusement, while his ilk dictate that the planet can't afford for YOU to eat meat.
x C (average CO2 emitted per unit of energy)
No carbon footprint to see here folks, move along, move along. I'll leave it to others to calculate the Gates' annual CO2 production/emissions footprint, but you get the idea.

So then on the subject of eugenics, what kind of "people" would it seem the world "needs fewer" of, for the greatest benefit? Poor Asians or Africans that live in huts, or couples that squander resources and pollute at the rate that the Gates do, whose children carry on their wasteful legacies. 
 
 

FOS » 22 Nov 2022, 8:20 pm » wrote: ↑

22 Nov 2022, 8:20 pm

i believe that gates does want to reduce population, but he is also an idiot.

i dont think he means vaccinnes will directly reduce population...that would not be a vaccine lol.

No it wouldn't be a vaccine. Indeed the CDC and WHO had to change the definition of vaccine to even be able to call it one without lying.
CDC & WHO Redefine ‘Vaccine' And 'Herd Immunity' To Manipulate People To Get Jab

The leaky non-stearilizing clot shots are have never been vaccines, because they don't stop infection by or transmission of COVID-19, which is why it would seem that it's accomplishing what was intended.
Death rate 4 times what would be expected with a 3 sigma, or once in 200 year probability, event.
Life insurance CEO says deaths are up 40% among people ages 18-64
Fifth-largest U.S. life insurer reports 163% rise in 2021 death-benefit payouts

And that's just so far......

VAERS myocarditis already 47% of 2021 in just the first 2 months of 2022
Embalmers Find Veins & Arteries Filled with long stretchy Rubbery Blood Clots
Canadian Doctor Believes Two-Thirds of Vaccinated Could Die of Heart Failure