There Is No Overpopulation

[LeeLemonoil]

If you're unable to find your resources,
If you're unable to access/mine your resources,
If you're unable to transport your resources,
If you're unable to refine your resources,
If you're unable to manufacture useful goods from your resources like machines, infrastructure, industrial and consumer goods then it's not your resources.

I'm not denying that the incompetence of Africans is exploited to the max by cooperations but Africans can't even farm the land and produce enough food. Other countries have similar problems, I don't want to single out Africans but their overall ineptitude is at the extreme end.

I agree. Though not only is the ineptitude exploited but fostered by outsiders - in turn reducing the responsibility for their ineptitude. Hard to break such systems.
Still, instead of overpopulating with birth rates of >5 they would better get their ***t avd Ressources together

 

[DaikonRadish]

there is definitely overpopulation. If the world were around the 1-2 billion population range, we would be living in a semi paradise. 7 billion is just way too many people, 10 billion will be hell on earth. Outsourcing of jobs, the rental crisis, wouldn't be as bad without overpopulation. of course there is many other factors that make humans corrupt, but in our modern world overpopulation is generally a big factor.

 

[Sam321]

I've always noticed how misanthropy was embedded in society. From hardcore vegans saying that humans are like a cancer, to the more mild, but still very toxic, governmental propaganda to lower child birth rates, there seems to be an anti- human sentiment going around. Neo- Darwinism could be seen as another weapon to make sick people give up on healing and not reproduce, in order not to pass the "bad genes" to their offspring. People are actually subjecting themselves to vasectomies to " not contribute to the overpopulation problem".

Along with the climate change hoax, this drives people to think that there is no abundance, and that we need to eat to preserve the planet, as if there was actually a shortage of food. The United Nations is promoting a plant- based diet to "lower the carbon footprint caused by animal agriculture", which is just ridiculous, since animals raised on pasture, especially ruminant animals, have a negative carbon footprint. The proposition that there are too many people on the planet comes from the UN, so, as I see it, it comes down to trusting their statement( no, thanks).

Just by knowing that this idea is being promoted so heavily by the government, it should already make anyone suspicious, since the government allowed corporations to poison people with PUFAs, radiation "treatments", iron, birth control, SSRIs, GMO foods, fluoride, vaccines, etc, even though it was already scientifically known that these things were terrible for people.

Lastly, how can there be too many people, since so many died and still die due to wars, diseases, abortions, crime, starvation, medical errors, etc.? Especially considering that a couple needs to have 2 children( assuming neither of them die) just to maintain the population.

Fertility is now probably at the lowest that it's ever being, and having many children isn't common anymore. My aunt had 8 siblings, and my mother has 3. I don't have any. My cousin also doesn't. I never met any couple( from my parents' generation) in real life that had 8 children or more. Not to mention the rise in many diseases that can affect children's future, so even if people were to have more children, they would have to take measures to guarantee that they are healthy, or else, they may have a disabled child/ children.

What do you think? Am I missing something?

Some links:
There's No Such Thing as Overpopulation
Remarkable Decline In Fertility - Half The World Below Replacement Levels


PS: please don't crucify me for linking to a sv-three-rige video.

We def overpopulated.
Need about a 90% reduction globally.

 

[Sam321]

there is definitely overpopulation. If the world were around the 1-2 billion population range, we would be living in a semi paradise. 7 billion is just way too many people, 10 billion will be hell on earth. Outsourcing of jobs, the rental crisis, wouldn't be as bad without overpopulation. of course there is many other factors that make humans corrupt, but in our modern world overpopulation is generally a big factor.

Hunter gatherer or bust.
Destroy the machines.

 

[Peatness]

Genocide is one 'solution' to over population, when they come for you remember that

 

[Peatness]

This is what 'African incompetence' looks like

View: https://twitter.com/Mgsmith4Smith/status/1464306193350807555

About the deliberate spreading of AIDS in Africa.​

View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qJvpqtqHU4YU/

 

[Birdie]

Some parts of the World produce more people than food. Africa is importing 25% of it's food. A lot is send there for free by Western nations. There's enough medication sent to insure the survival of every African child beyond reproductive age and reproduce they do. Arabia and China are food net importers too. This population growth is financed by subsidies like EU subsidies, US farm bill and foreign aid, exporting cheap grains and seeds. If we're going to have a little ice age, like some predict (see Ice Age Farmer) and harvests collapse then we will see a famine of glorious proportion. The consequence would be a population movement that would wipe out the West too. We don't have overpopulation in terms of land vs people but we certainly have overpopulation in terms of food production vs people in large parts of the world.

This nutrition less food we send is, I guess, another form of population control. A boondoggle for industrial farmers who's governments pay them for inferior food. But I don't see this being changed any time soon. It doesn't hurt to remember it and that a mini ice age has been predicted by some first class thinkers. If we are headed that way, the way of famines, the elite know and just another reason to "control" or reduce the population. I'm just meandering...

 

[PxD]

I've always noticed how misanthropy was embedded in society. From hardcore vegans saying that humans are like a cancer, to the more mild, but still very toxic, governmental propaganda to lower child birth rates, there seems to be an anti- human sentiment going around. Neo- Darwinism could be seen as another weapon to make sick people give up on healing and not reproduce, in order not to pass the "bad genes" to their offspring. People are actually subjecting themselves to vasectomies to " not contribute to the overpopulation problem".

Along with the climate change hoax, this drives people to think that there is no abundance, and that we need to eat to preserve the planet, as if there was actually a shortage of food. The United Nations is promoting a plant- based diet to "lower the carbon footprint caused by animal agriculture", which is just ridiculous, since animals raised on pasture, especially ruminant animals, have a negative carbon footprint. The proposition that there are too many people on the planet comes from the UN, so, as I see it, it comes down to trusting their statement( no, thanks).

Just by knowing that this idea is being promoted so heavily by the government, it should already make anyone suspicious, since the government allowed corporations to poison people with PUFAs, radiation "treatments", iron, birth control, SSRIs, GMO foods, fluoride, vaccines, etc, even though it was already scientifically known that these things were terrible for people.

Lastly, how can there be too many people, since so many died and still die due to wars, diseases, abortions, crime, starvation, medical errors, etc.? Especially considering that a couple needs to have 2 children( assuming neither of them die) just to maintain the population.

Fertility is now probably at the lowest that it's ever being, and having many children isn't common anymore. My aunt had 8 siblings, and my mother has 3. I don't have any. My cousin also doesn't. I never met any couple( from my parents' generation) in real life that had 8 children or more. Not to mention the rise in many diseases that can affect children's future, so even if people were to have more children, they would have to take measures to guarantee that they are healthy, or else, they may have a disabled child/ children.

What do you think? Am I missing something?

Some links:
There's No Such Thing as Overpopulation
Remarkable Decline In Fertility - Half The World Below Replacement Levels


PS: please don't crucify me for linking to a sv-three-rige video.

The half of the world that is facing population collapse is the wealthy white and yellow countries - the rest of the world is still breeding like guppies, especially sub Saharan Africa. I think your view on this topic will be highly dependent on where you live. If you live in the West, maybe you haven’t seen what the cheek-by-jowl crowding in a place like Mumbai or Jakarta looks like. Or go visit Rwanda or Lagos or something…half the population is under the age of 20 and every woman over 30 has 5 kids. That’s exponential growth. Play it forward a couple of generations and then imagine what that is supposed to look like.

Demographic dynamics around the world are very uneven right now and what’s unusual and different in the modern world is that instead of people with more resources having more children like is historically normal, it’s the poorest shitholes that are growing, while wealthier cultures are flat or shrinking.

 

[Peatness]

Those ‘shitholes’ are likely contributing to your wealth. That is the kind of language the globalist love and they will use it to describe you and force a mandate on you. You will be depopulated. When are people going to wake up?

 

[PxD]

Even Overcrowding is a bit of a myth. My science teacher in middle school did an experiment where we marked out an acre, and put 30 of us on that acre. It was quite a bit of space. We then were asked where we could fit the world's pop (which I think was estimated to be 4-5 Billion at that time) into a space. We all guess things like several continents or something the size of the pacific ocean, but she revealed that the state of Texas would house everyone at that rate, along with thousands of acres to spare. Even if the pop is triple from that time, we should still all fit in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. 12-20 people per acre is pretty easy, as a family home on 1/4 of an acre that houses 4-6 people can be quite nice with lots of space. Thinking about skyscrappers in places like NY, you might be able to house 1000s of people per acre.

Overpopulation isn’t about lack of physical space, it’s about resources per capita. The limits are adequate energy, clean water, and arable land, among others.

 

[PxD]

Those ‘shitholes’ are likely contributing to your wealth. That is the kind of language the globalist love and they will use it to describe you and force a mandate on you. You will be depopulated. When are people going to wake up?

Oh I’m sorry did I trigger you?

 

[Michael Mohn]

Those ‘shitholes’ are likely contributing to your wealth. That is the kind of language the globalist love and they will use it to describe you and force a mandate on you. You will be depopulated. When are people going to wake up?

If my job gets relocate to their country, how is this increasing my wealth? This is the narrative of the elites and Leftist are mindlessly repeating it against the working/middle classes. When will you wake up the fact that you're the goons of the elites.

 

[Sitaruîm]

If my job gets relocate to their country, how is this increasing my wealth? This is the narrative of the elites and Leftist are mindlessly repeating it against the working/middle classes. When will you wake up the fact that you're the goons of the elites.

Exactly, quality of life was at its peak in the west when the industries they developed were on their own turf. Not only were these relocated to the third world, but "privileged" westerners are made to compete for the jobs that remain with swathes of foreigners. Elites love this, in fact it is they who effected this because they love the downward pressure on wages it creates. They are acclimatizing us to be the "you'll own nothing" serfs that they want us to be.

 

[PxD]

This is what 'African incompetence' looks like

View: https://twitter.com/Mgsmith4Smith/status/1464306193350807555

About the deliberate spreading of AIDS in Africa.​

View: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qJvpqtqHU4YU/

AIDS spreads in Africa because Africans dont understand how condoms work and engage in high-IQ behavior like baby rape and deliberately infecting each other with HIV-tainted needles on the advice of their sangomas (witch doctors), believing that infecting the uninfected will cure one of one’s infection. I know of this stuff from first hand experience.

 

[PxD]

When the calories of energy are not available any more, then the calories to eat won’t be either.

 

[Peatness]

Oh I’m sorry did I trigger you?

Not at all. You are setting yourself up.

 

[PxD]

At the end of the day wouldn’t it all boil down to resource availability and space? There’s plenty of space, are there plenty of resources?

?

 

[Demyze]

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/cordeliers/status/1309807748700397568?cxt=HHwWgIC7labNr60kAAAA

 

[tankasnowgod]

AIDS spreads in Africa because Africans dont understand how condoms work and engage in high-IQ behavior like baby rape and deliberately infecting each other with HIV-tainted needles on the advice of their sangomas (witch doctors), believing that infecting the uninfected will cure one of one’s infection. I know of this stuff from first hand experience.

Ridiculous.

First off, you can't have "first hand experience" examining literally tens (or hundreds) of millions of Africans which are supposed "HIV/AIDS cases." I don't doubt that the behaviors you describe occur in Africa (it is the biggest continent with with a population over 1.2 Billion), but that doesn't mean it's the ENTIRE population, nor a majority, nor even fairly large minority. Maybe you've seen some, but even then, I would guess that your "first hand experience" tops out at maybe 10,000 cases, on the very generous high end.

There's also no good data on how many "AIDS/HIV cases" there are in Africa, nor good data on how much it "spreads." Most of those numbers are made up and inflated, not dissimilar to how they inflate so called "Covid" cases, only with the AIDS/HIV Africa estimates, they don't even bother doing a sham test, or eyeball examination. The actual documented cases are something on the order of 1% or so of "Estimates."

And, of course, for your "first hand experience" to be true, HIV would have to be the cause of AIDS. Except.... there is no evidence that it is. Kary Mullis searched for decades to find any study that would back up the statement "HIV is the probable cause of AIDS," and couldn't find one. Luc Montaigner didn't know of such a study, either. So, why don't you post that study, if you want people to take you seriously?

As for even diagnosed cases of "AIDS," it's very likely that things like malnutrition, drugs (including things like experimental vaccines), contaminated water, and rebranding of existing diseases would account for all of the so called "AIDS" cases, especially since there are 33 so called "AIDS defining diseases."

 

[tankasnowgod]

Lastly, how can there be too many people, since so many died and still die due to wars, diseases, abortions, crime, starvation, medical errors, etc.? Especially considering that a couple needs to have 2 children( assuming neither of them die) just to maintain the population.

What do you think? Am I missing something?

Lol, yeah you are. The timeframe.

As a though experiment, let's say there is a new town where 100 20 year olds move to, all couples, and then no one moves in or out for the next hundred years. Everyone dies at 71, not before or after. Every couple has 1 child in the first decade. Did the population go up or down? Up, obviously. There are now 150 people in the town. Two more decades go by, the original people are now 50, their children about 25, and they all have 1 child only. Did the population go up or down? Up, again, now at 175. Two more decades pass, and those new children now couple up (except 1), and all have 1 child. Did the population go up or down? Up again, now at 187. But, in the next decade, it's gonna come crashing down to 87, as all the original people die. So, finally, after 5 decades, the population is lower than it was originally (albeit with a sudden dramatic event).

So, that's the key. In the long run, everyone needs to average 1 child to keep the population stable, assuming that has been the birth rate for a few decades previous. Anything more (1.001 or something) will cause the population to grow, long term. But, if people produce viable offspring at a rate of 1.5 per person, and/or start living longer than recent decades, the population will swell, and even a birthrate average under 1 per person will cause the population to grow for a few decades.