This is not the discussion. I never even said I disagreed with you, I said it wouldn’t make a difference if the population kept on expanding, I said nothing about it in current terms. If you want to debate about this, go start a thread on the distribution of wealth.
And I’m sure you have some facts to back up that contention, right? Some graphs of global food production versus population, comparative rates of increase, etc?
Everyone knows that gross food production has been steadily increasing due to advances in technology. It’s an open question whether this increase is keeping pace with population growth, and neither of us knows the answer - thats why I was ignoring your statement, as you so helpfully pointed out.
Wait, are you serious? You honestly think you need anything other than common sense to work out that in a world with limited resources an expanding population that already has a significant amount of starvation would run out of resources fairly quickly if it kept doubling in size?
Here’s an idea that won’t work at all due to freedom and such. (just proposing it in case you do manage to start a country with your idea in mind)
Make people have to get licenses to breed and become parents, this would make it so only people who are fit and capable of becoming parents have children. Thus having a new generation of kids that wouldn’t end up becoming waste like us and becoming a valuable part of society (unlike the children we have today which sit around in front of a TV managing to eat up as many resources as possible)
And the antidote is drinking large amounts of liquefied $1000 bills.
Easier said than done, propose a plan or something or else that response reads something like “We should do something, how about we make it all better? that will work right?”
I am a tumor of the planet.:retard:
Like I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, the current amount of starvation has nothing to do with the current global food supply. It is caused by lack of money to obtain said food supply.
At some point we’ll run into the upper bound of what the Earth can produce, but at what point? 50 years from now? 1000 years from now? I’ve never read anything that implies we’re in immanent danger of running out of global food production capacity. And you don’t seem to keen on providing sources. So why do you insist on debating as if its a fact?
Not sure why you wrote that last part, I answered it in my previous post.
Actually, I also answered that first part: that’s nothing to do with the current discussion.
You’re saying the world can’t sustain 12 billion people. I’m saying it can with the proper resource allocation. That has everything to do with a discussion about population control.
Actually, the food supply is only a secondary problem. Fresh water is already about to run low in various countries - and this problem will continue to grow in the near future - well within our lifespan, supposedly.
Without fresh water, food cannot be grown. Starvation is not as big a problem as dehydration.
As far as I know, there is currently no way of creating fresh water from salt water - which would, of course, solve the whole problem. But the supply of fresh water on this planet is limited, and currently decreasing due to global warming - be it caused by us or the sun or whatever else.
Much like the food situation, the supply isn’t the root of the problem. It’s the costs associated with the supply.
Thing is, like I said before, I never disagreed with you. Yes, better distribution would help, but overpopulation is the main problem. Things will go bad no matter how well you organise shit with twice the current population of earth - I’m not saying everyone would starve, but it would not a pleasant standard of living for anyone. And then the population would still increase and people would starve.
Ah, you’re right. Much better just to blame the rich instead.
So how do you propose to “fix” the “distribution of wealth?” How do you plan to tell people that you know how to spend their money better than they do?
Actually what I was saying is that it’s interesting to blame POLLUTION on cliche’d culture war punching bags, rather than on the Industrial complex which needs to be heavily regulated by the government in order to prevent the profit-motivated race to the bottom in terms of environmental protection.
Good luck regulating “Pimps” and their pesky rainforest-destroying diamond grille purchases. On the other hand we allegedly have infrastructure in place to regulate corporate pollution already.
I wasn’t talking about what the poster you were responding to was doing. I was talking about what you and Danson have been doing for the last two pages, and what you just did in your response to me.
I’m not supporting regulation of pimps or whatever. You’ve already got my suggestion on how to fix the alleged overpopulation and pollution problem: if it’s truly such a problem, so much so that it convinced you that peoples’ freedoms need to be taken away to fix it, then share your reasoning with others. If it’s so convincing, then surely they’ll agree with you and take action of their own free will, instead of requiring laws, no?
If blaming petrochemical corporations and the coal industry for releasing billions of tons of pollution into the atmosphere every year while the EPA sits on their thumbs is the same thing as “blaming the rich,” then sign me up, because thats what I just did.
Perhaps you have a point. While blaming business and blaming the rich are usually one and the same, there are some nuances there.
Considering the whole “90% 10%” discussion that’s been going on here, though, it seems like in this case they are equal statements.
I just say we burn everything. Burn it all and leave the people to their own devices to get out. The smart will prevail and the dumb will fall. There, problem solved.
If you’re worried about overpopulation, come to Australia. Plenty of empty land here.
Moving on:
Coincidentally, that’s exactly what I said should be done earlier in this thread, to influence individual behavior. A widespread propaganda campaign equivalent to the successful anti-tobacco propaganda should influence lifestyle choices equally effectively.
So that covers individual behavior. That leaves us with corporate behavior, which is not swayed by propaganda but rather by profit motive, and therefore must be regulated through law.
I have a solution
contact the Combine and let them make a Suppression Field 
The fortress forever forum has a debate topic area that all debate threads are moved to. I am thinking of suggesting such a thing to keep all the debaters away from the general populace.
Or is this a stupid idea?