Liberal Forum

A world with fewer people means a changed climate and better outcomes for the remaining population – human and otherwise – of the planet, an essay in Scientific American magazine claims.The opinion piece, authored by Stephanie Feldstein, points to the U.N. predicting dozens of countries will have shrinking populations by 2050 as “good news.”

 Less people require less feeding and less energy, the piece maintains, further declaring “we should all be celebrating population decline.”The premise is further enhanced by the claim the planet is suffering from overpopulation that diminishes wildlife habitats and ecosystems as human impact has a deleterious effect on everything around it. The essay states:

The loss of biodiversity is tragic in itself. A world without elephants, hellbender salamanders and the million other species at risk of extinction in the coming decades would be deeply impoverished. Wild plants and animals enrich our lives and hold vital ecosystems together. The fresh water we need to survive, the plants we rely on for food and medicine, and the forests we depend on for clean air and carbon sequestration are all the product of complex interactions between life-forms ranging from microbes and pollinators to carnivores and scavengers.When even a single thread is pulled from that tapestry, the entire system can unravel.

Ultimately the opinion piece, written by the “population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity, ” states, “Population decline is only a threat to an economy based on growth. Shifting to a model based on degrowth and equity alongside lower fertility rates will help fight climate change and increase wealth and well-being.”Humans therefore must choose between population growth and the survival of the planet, the essay posits, repeating previous claims that “declining populations and ageing demographics” help  governments meet climate change goals:

“We also need to bring together the reproductive rights and gender equity movements, and the environmental movement. Environmental toxicity, reproductive health and wildlife protection are deeply intertwined. Pollution, climate change and degraded ecosystems harm pregnant people, fetuses and children, and make it difficult to raise safe and healthy families,” the essay further states.

 
 

The author points to recent globalist forecasts for the planet and climate as a further driver for limiting human population growth.
[…] we need what the United Nations’ most recent climate and biodiversity reports drive home, and conservationists, climate scientists and policy makers have demanded for decades: a rapid, just transition to renewable energy and sustainable food systems and a global commitment to halting human-caused extinctions now.Population stabilization and decline will inevitably be achieved by centering human rights. Policy makers must guarantee bodily autonomy and access to reproductive health care, gender equity, and women and girls’ education.

Ultimately the essay delivers a plea to address “the crises in front of us” with everyone deciding “if and when to have children, and planning for population decline, we can choose a future of sustainable abundance.”The essay is the second time in less than 12 months globalist urging for a decline in the human population has been heard.As Breitbart News reported, Yuval Noah Harari, historian, futurist, and World Economic Forum (WEF) adviser, said last August, “We just don’t need the vast majority of the population” in the early 21st century given modern technologies’ rendering human labor economically and militarily “redundant.”

 He assessed widespread contemporary disillusionment among “common people” as being rooted in a fear of being “left behind” in a future run by “smart people.”Such fears are justified, he added, given his projection that emerging technologies will displace economic needs to many categories of existing work. With the triumph of those machines, the need for humans and their labor diminishes.

https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2 ... good-news/
 
 

There is no such thing as global overpopulation. The issue is urban crowding.

LincolnNebraska » 08 May 2023, 1:23 pm » wrote: ↑

08 May 2023, 1:23 pm

There is no such thing as global overpopulation. The issue is urban crowding.

Agreed.
but these **** lunatics want a world to rule over where Technology will be their labourers while they wipe out all segments of the human population so they and only they will be around to enjoy the planet Earth while building a new society that caters to their needs ....
In affect they want to start over without the costs associated with a free society and billions of lives to support .
They are playing God ....and we are allowing them too....
It's Madness....
​​​​
 

Majik » 08 May 2023, 3:43 pm » wrote: ↑

08 May 2023, 3:43 pm

Agreed.
but these **** lunatics want a world to rule over where Technology will be their labourers while they wipe out all segments of the human population so they and only they will be around to enjoy the planet Earth while building a new society that caters to their needs ....
In affect they want to start over without the costs associated with a free society and billions of lives to support .
They are playing God ....and we are allowing them too....
It's Madness....
​​​​

Here's how you defeat doper-babies:

• Own your own **** - no debt
• Live a clean life.
• Have some good land
• Live around like minded people
• Keep your guns close and your ammo closer.
• Be ready for SHTF.

Now, you too can have a F-U peace-of-mind.
 

Pretty sure that you guys have no say in the decline. Why don't ya yell at a cloud in the sky?

Skans » 08 May 2023, 4:48 pm » wrote: ↑

08 May 2023, 4:48 pm

Here's how you defeat doper-babies:

• Own your own **** - no debt
• Live a clean life.
• Have some good land
• Live around like minded people
• Keep your guns close and your ammo closer.
• Be ready for SHTF.

Now, you too can have a F-U peace-of-mind.

Don't you understand yet .....????
Those are all nice sentiments .....
but when they perfect their new generation of automated technological warfare.....which they are testing as we speak.....so time is short...
none of those things above will have any value in actually keeping your self alive and intact....
And this Agenda cannot be stopped politically as we will all find out in 2024.....
Do you play chess?
because if you do then you know there is only one gambit left that can and would work ....but not for long ...







 

ScottMon » 08 May 2023, 5:03 pm » wrote: ↑

08 May 2023, 5:03 pm

Pretty sure that you guys have no say in the decline. Why don't ya yell at a cloud in the sky?

Scientific American has a say in the decline?

Fewer human beings is unequivocally a good thing.

Majik » 08 May 2023, 5:32 pm » wrote: ↑

08 May 2023, 5:32 pm

Don't you understand yet .....????
Those are all nice sentiments .....
but when they perfect their new generation of automated technological warfare.....which they are testing as we speak.....so time is short...
none of those things above will have any value in actually keeping your self alive and intact....
And this Agenda cannot be stopped politically as we will all find out in 2024.....
Do you play chess?
because if you do then you know there is only one gambit left that can and would work ....but not for long ...

Yes, I play chess.  What do you propose to give up to "win"?
 

Punch » 09 May 2023, 12:36 am » wrote: ↑

09 May 2023, 12:36 am

Fewer human beings is unequivocally a good thing.

Well, when it gets right down to it, everyone believes this. 101 is a fine population number for humans on Earth.   Me, and 100 beautiful women scattered around the globe.  When I'm not fornicating, I'd be playing with all of the fun **** all you dead people left behind.  Guns, motorcycles, cars, planes, lasers - all kinds of fun stuff to do.  And, when I get bored, I'll go find one of the 100 women around to screw. 
 
 
 

Majik » 08 May 2023, 8:58 am » wrote: ↑

08 May 2023, 8:58 am

A world with fewer people means a changed climate and better outcomes for the remaining population – human and otherwise – of the planet, an essay in Scientific American magazine claims.The opinion piece, authored by Stephanie Feldstein, points to the U.N. predicting dozens of countries will have shrinking populations by 2050 as “good news.”

 Less people require less feeding and less energy, the piece maintains, further declaring “we should all be celebrating population decline.”The premise is further enhanced by the claim the planet is suffering from overpopulation that diminishes wildlife habitats and ecosystems as human impact has a deleterious effect on everything around it. The essay states:


Ultimately the opinion piece, written by the “population and sustainability director at the Center for Biological Diversity, ” states, “Population decline is only a threat to an economy based on growth. Shifting to a model based on degrowth and equity alongside lower fertility rates will help fight climate change and increase wealth and well-being.”Humans therefore must choose between population growth and the survival of the planet, the essay posits, repeating previous claims that “declining populations and ageing demographics” help  governments meet climate change goals:

“We also need to bring together the reproductive rights and gender equity movements, and the environmental movement. Environmental toxicity, reproductive health and wildlife protection are deeply intertwined. Pollution, climate change and degraded ecosystems harm pregnant people, fetuses and children, and make it difficult to raise safe and healthy families,” the essay further states.

so as usual humanity promises better tomorrows until one side accomplishes the demands and those that haven't illegally come here to over populate the country again, then claiming rights to the safety net prepared by those accomplishing humanity's global ruling elite pay for the migration of illegals to this country to reduce the population of unwanted soles in theirs.

I really don't like humanity intellectual dreams of better tomorrows since evolving never exceeds reproductions occupying space in series parallel displacement conceived to decomposed now.

I discovered my ancestry has been misled throughout history and current events. I have silently compromised as long as I can not revealing the deep secret used against ancestries for 7,000 years.

Genetics has always naturally eternally separated all reproductions native to this atmosphere. Everyone chose to believe they aren't being eternally separated in plain sight. The original sin and final conflict at the same time.

There is a definite limit to the number of humans this planet can support.
Fewer people means more resources per individual. That is not politics, it's simple arithmetic.

Skans » 08 May 2023, 4:48 pm » wrote: ↑

08 May 2023, 4:48 pm

• Have some good land
•  

I agree with everything, expect this.

The cost of land is not like the good old days. Land these days can cost as much, and even more, than homes. This wasn't a huge issue in the past, it is today. 

Xavier_Onassis » 09 May 2023, 10:34 am » wrote: ↑

09 May 2023, 10:34 am

There is a definite limit to the number of humans this planet can support.
Fewer people means more resources per individual. That is not politics, it's simple arithmetic.

so is evolving in plain sight as long as everyone stays with life works in series parallel time occupying space one at a time here now. You always argue potential differences of opinions while describing kinetic balancing outcomes only evolving in plain sight here now.

You play past, present, future as the whole evolving now against itself. Numerated ideologies against the common denominator time evolving changes everything forward now.

You play past, present, future as the whole evolving now against itself. Numerated ideologies against the common denominator time evolving changes everything forward now.

GIBBER GIBBER!

Xavier_Onassis » 09 May 2023, 11:11 am » wrote: ↑

09 May 2023, 11:11 am

You play past, present, future as the whole evolving now against itself. Numerated ideologies against the common denominator time evolving changes everything forward now.

GIBBER GIBBER!

See you won't even discuss it. avoid it like tomorrow doesn't happen if it is accepted. That shows you knew there never was a tomorrow already.

Nostradamus'omh » 09 May 2023, 11:18 am » wrote: ↑

09 May 2023, 11:18 am

See you won't even discuss it. avoid it like tomorrow doesn't happen if it is accepted. That shows you knew there never was a tomorrow already.

I DID discuss it. I read it, and noted that it was incomprehensible GIBBERISH! Then I read i again, with the same conclusion. Hence the second GIBBERISH!
 

 

Nostradamus' omh » 09 May 2023, 11:18 am » wrote: ↑

09 May 2023, 11:18 am

Xavier_Onassis » 09 May 2023, 11:11 am » wrote: ↑

09 May 2023, 11:11 am

You play past, present, future as the whole evolving now against itself. Numerated ideologies against the common denominator time evolving changes everything forward now.

GIBBER GIBBER!

See you won't even discuss it. avoid it like tomorrow doesn't happen if it is accepted. That shows you knew there never was a tomorrow already.

anyone reading this, can you tell which of us is separating evolving from reality defining life beyond what evolving does in plain sight?

Xavier is suggesting I am interfering with humanity and I am discussing every reality is interfering with evolving in actual time for the concept of humanity to divide ancestries until extinction event happens.

Xavier_Onassis » 09 May 2023, 11:26 am » wrote: ↑

09 May 2023, 11:26 am

Nostradamus'omh » 09 May 2023, 11:18 am » wrote: ↑

09 May 2023, 11:18 am

See you won't even discuss it. avoid it like tomorrow doesn't happen if it is accepted. That shows you knew there never was a tomorrow already.

I DID discuss it. I read it, and noted that it was incomprehensible GIBBERISH! Then I read i again, with the same conclusion. Hence the second GIBBERISH!
 

 

Vegas » 09 May 2023, 10:38 am » wrote: ↑

09 May 2023, 10:38 am

I agree with everything, expect this.

The cost of land is not like the good old days. Land these days can cost as much, and even more, than homes. This wasn't a huge issue in the past, it is today.

Sorry, it's a necessary expenditure.  You have to be the king of your own kingdom.  Otherwise, the one who owns the ground under your feet will become your enemy.  You can still obtain 5-10 acres of good rural land for a reasonable price.  You need good dirt, good drainage and access to potable water - - i.e. a well on your property or a clean stream.  Then, you can work out the rest.

Some people think they can "bug out" and become squatters in a SHTF scenario.  But, let's think this through for a moment and consider:

• In a somewhat rural community, neighbors all know each other.  They know their land and they know the bounds of their land and their neighbor's land.
• They are entrenched in their land.  They have water, septic, good shelter, security systems in place, appliances, necessities, storage for valuables - and much more that would be necessary for surviving and thriving.
• Let's say a landless person of some "means" travels from the city into the rural areas thinking they can set up camp and establish their own fortified area.  No one is going to sell them land.  They would be stick out like a huge puss-filled zit on the landscape.  No one is going to help them and they very likely will get themselves killed in short order. 

You've got to have some land.  You've got to know your neighbors and tolerate if not actually like them.