GHETTOBLASTER » 10 Jan 2024, 9:57 pm » wrote: ↑
No doubt the Elite have already calculated what the "critical mass" of people needs to be reduced to and held to in order to avoid future population explosions.
During WWII the USA was somewhere around 90 Million.
Anti-biotics and other medical advances kept raising the life expectancy so that now 1/2 my friends have 90 year old parents still alive.
Longevity is not a curse but a blessing, in a sane society. In a society such as ours that does not revere age and recognize the wisdom that comes with it, that's another issue.
The idea that human population is a problem is an anti-human idea that puts the holder on a philosophical par with the worst types. The carrying capacity of this planet is in the hundreds of billions. As it stands, humanity is an absolute stranger to more than 90% of the planet - and that includes ANY type of footprint: agricultural, commercial, residential, or industrial. And we have only stumbled onto the extremely land-and-resource efficient concept of the urban corridor quite recently. We can go up instead of out from this day forward, with good government that can be trusted. The problem isn't PEOPLE. The problem is how we behave. And even with that problem, our population is tiny.
Look at China, with 1.5 billion in an area smaller than the lower 48, and STILL with 42% of its land being proper wilderness. Mind you, much of what is NOT wilderness is still just a bunch of small villages.
Between Bangladesh, Nepal, India, and a handful of small southeast asian nations, 1800 people per year, on average, are killed by tigers. Think about what that statistic means, when it comes from one of the most populous areas of the earth. If those being killed by tigers lived in urban corridors instead of far flung villages, these deaths would stop entirely. People being killed by tigers are living in de facto wilderness. If the millions living like that lived in cities instead, what does not currently
count as wilderness then
would count as such.
This is not a cry for urban corridors, per se. I do not trust my government NEARLY enough to choose to live in one - though in the past, I did have that trust and I did live in urban corridors quite happily, with plenty of easy access to bucolic outdoor spaces. The Bay Area of Northern California, for one example, consists of 90% green space. Only ten percent of the area has any human footprint beyond recreational opportunities.
The point I am getting to is that human population is not a problem for humanity but a blessing to humanity. The more the earth has filled with people, the richer everyone has gotten. The dire poverty and misery of the third world - ubiquitous in the 60s - has been eradicated in direct proportion to population growth. More people means more solutions, more economies of scale, more cooperation. More hands makes lighter work. God didn't make junk - people are worth their salt. And the one thing the earth is CONSTANTLY doing is regenerating. Things get transformed - they do NOT get "used up."
Why the super rich wants to kill us off is difficult for me to understand. But THAT they want to kill us off is being pretty clearly signaled, in my perspective. Your sympathies should be with us - not them. Because you are one of us.
When you complain, ur friends roll their eyes and ur enemies rejoice
"Because I SAY I am" is a todler's tantrum, not "science"
You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.
Who cuts off your dick is not a friend
An opinion you won't defend is not your own
Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe
When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge
If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?