Post: #1

In regarding to this article from Roosh:

The End Goal Of Western Progressivism Is Depopulation

I read the below article a few years ago, that hits the nail a few times in the head and it is some food for thought.

TL;DR: If you feel like skipping it you may want to check the video below "are humans smarter than yeast". It is only 8 minutes long and sums up pretty well the "overshoot and collapse" scenario

Quote:How to Avoid Population Overshoot and Collapse
Manipulating psychological adaptations to help to prevent ecological overshoot.

"All species expand as much as resources allow and predators, parasites, and physical conditions permit. When a species is introduced into a new habitat with abundant resources that accumulated before its arrival, the population expands rapidly until all the resources are used up."

- David Price, Energy and Human Evolution

Life scientists are aware of the concept of ecological "carrying capacity" (the maximum population that can be supported by the environment) and Malthus' application of these ideas to human populations. Malthus wrote:

"It is an obvious truth, which has been taken notice of by many writers, that population must always be kept down to the level of the means of subsistence; but no writer that the Author recollects has inquired particularly into the means by which this level is effected..."
-- Thomas Malthus, 1798 An Essay on the Principle of Population (link is external)

Often, there is a cyclical relationship between the populations of predators and their prey. This keeps the populations of both species in check.



Source: http://www.okc.cc.ok.us/biologylabs/Imag...x-hare.jpg

But, what happens when there are no predators?

This issue was addressed in a paper by David Klein, "The Introduction, Increase and Crash of Reindeer on St. Matthew Island (link is external)." Klein reported that in 1944, 29 reindeer were brought to
St. Matthew Island (link is external). Initially there were abundant food sources, and the reindeer population increased dramatically. There were no predators to cull the population.

About 20 years after they were first introduced, the reindeer had overshot the food carrying capacity of the island, and there was a sudden, massive die-off. About 99% of the reindeer died of starvation.



Source: http://dieoff.org/page80.htm

As shown in the graph below, this is an example of a general phenomenon. All species suffer population collapse or species extinction if they overshoot and degrade the carrying capacity
of their ecology.


(link is external)

This is also the fate that awaits bacteria growing in a Petri dish, as you might remember from your high school biology course. Imagine a Petri dish with enough nutrients to support a growing
bacteria culture until the dish is completely full of them. One bacterium is placed inside the dish at 11:00am, and the population of bacteria doubles every minute -- such that the Petri dish will be full by noon.

At what time will the Petri dish be half full of bacteria?

Most people reply incorrectly that the Petri dish will be half full at 11:30am, because we are more familiar with linear, rather than with exponential, rates of growth. The correct answer is 11:59am -- which seems rather unintuitive. However, because the rate of growth is exponential (doubling every minute) the time at which the Petri dish is half full is 11:59am. With just one more doubling, in the next minute, the Petri dish is completely full, at noon.

Below is another example of a population overshoot and collapse scenario. This is the population graph of yeast cells in a 10% sugar solution. Note that the yeast population first explodes exponentially, and is then followed by population die-off as the finite nutrients are exhausted and their own waste products pollute their environment.

This is how yeast turns grape juice into wine. The next time you say "cheers" over a glass of wine, remember that you are drinking the waste products (alcohol) of a collapsed yeast colony with poor ecological management skills!

Anyone who perceives a linear rate of growth, but who is actually up against an exponential rate of growth, is likely to be very surprised at how the end comes very quickly and seemingly out of nowhere. They will be completely blindsided.

For more information about the dangers of exponential growth, I highly recommend the video Arithmetic, Population and Energy (link is external), by Prof. Albert Bartlett. The key point to remember about Professor Bartlett's lecture: "The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."

Notice how human population has also been on an exponential trend:



Are we humans smarter than yeast? Or will the graphic above of our population follow the overshoot and collapse graphic of the yeast? Unlike yeast, do we have any evolved psychological adaptations to help us to identify and avoid ecological overshoot?

The fate of humans on Easter Island may help to provide an answer. When the first humans arrived on the island, there were abundant resources to support the small population. Just like the yeast and the reindeer, the human population increased dramatically. There were no predators to cull the population. The human population continued to grow until it eventually overshot the island carrying capacity. After overshoot, most of the population starved. Apparently, they even turned on each other, sometimes resorting to cannibalism.

Human ecological exceptionalism?

It will be a race toward either paradise or oblivion, right to the last moment.
-- Buckminster Fuller

Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
-- H.G. Wells, The Outline of History

At this point, many people refer to human exceptionalism. Of course we are smarter than yeast or reindeer, and our scientific advances and our technology will save us from ecological overshoot. We can expand the carrying capacity of the Earth.

Raymond Kurzweil has argued in his 2005 book The Singularity is Near that scientific knowledge, like populations, also grows exponentially. He believes that this will allow us to expand the Earth's ecological carrying capacity, cure disease and aging, and solve problems of energy depletion. He is confident that technology will help us prevent ecological overshoot and population collapse.

So, we have two opposing, exponentially increasing trends. One exponential trend leads to ecological overshoot and collapse; the other trend could lead to scientific/technological solutions to these problems. Which will arrive first? Ecological overshoot and collapse (Malthus), or a "techno-fix" (Kurzweil)? No one knows. But, we probably won't have to wait long to find out. One of these two scenarios will likely occur within the next several decades. But, which one? Generally it is healthy to be optimistic, but optimism can be deadly if it produces a Pollyannaish denial of real problems. We should not ignore ecological problems by assuming "someone else" will take care of it, or that "the free market" or "technological breakthroughs" will always come to the rescue in time. Solutions may not come in time, and we may get quite a rude Malthusian smack down later. To avoid this, one problem we must face is how to make the transition from our finite, depleting oil resources to renewable energy. Technological civilization depends on cheap, abundant energy.

Peak oil as an example of human ecological overshoot.

There is no substitute for energy. The whole edifice of modern society is built upon it. It is not "just another commodity" but the precondition of all commodities, a basic factor equal with air, water and earth.
-- E. F. Schumacher (1973)

We know that we cannot sustain a future powered by a fuel that is rapidly disappearing. ...breaking our oil addiction is one of the greatest challenges our generation will ever face. ...This will not be easy.
-- Barack Obama, August 4, 2008

One example of resource depletion is the gradual depletion of fossil fuels, especially oil. The amount of oil produced by a particular oil field, or a region, shows a regular pattern: first oil production increases, then it reaches a peak, and, finally, as the oil field begins to dry up, oil production starts to decline. World "peak oil" is when world oil production peaks, and then starts an inexorable decline as oil fields start to dry up. Many experts believe that world oil production has already peaked, or that it will occur within the next few years. This presents us with a problem: as of now, no combination of renewable energy sources can scale up quickly enough, or provide anywhere near the energy equivalent of oil. We can anticipate that the world is about to enter a severe, worldwide energy shortage. Since food production is so dependent on energy production, following an energy famine will be a food famine. Many poor people, especially in developing countries, will literally starve to death as oil energy depletes.

Unless scientists discover some energy breakthrough "miracle" that can provide scalable and energy dense renewable energy, the predictions made in the graphs below paint some very grim scenarios. As you review these graphs, keep in mind that these nightmares are not in some distant future. They may arrive in less than one or two decades from now.



Here is a brief video of the history of human energy consumption, and the energy challenges we will soon be facing.





General human ecological overshoot

The 1972 book Limits to Growth also made some pretty frightening predictions back in 1972, as did the follow-up book in 2004 Limits to Growth: The 30 Year Update (link is external). Using computer simulations, they predicted a world peak population around mid-century, followed by population decline.



Given that these predictions are now approaching 40 years old, how accurate were they? Are they still on track today?

In an article published in Science titled "Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil," Hall and Day noted that "the values predicted by the limits-to-growth model and actual data for 2008 are very close." These findings are consistent with another study titled "A Comparison of the Limits of Growth with Thirty Years of Reality" which concluded: "The analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compares favorably with key features... [of the Limits to Growth] 'standard run' scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st Century." To prevent this scenario, the Limits to Growth authors suggested that we must achieve ecological sustainability by 2022 to avoid serious ecological overshoot and population collapse.

Can evolutionary psychology provide insights to aid in our survival?

Can humans be "smarter than yeast?" Can we be the only species that can successfully anticipate and avoid ecological overshoot and collapse? Issues of sustainability are psychological problems. Are we sufficiently psychologically sophisticated to manage our own collective behavior to achieve sustainability on a finite planet?

One sobering answer provided by evolutionary psychology is that we, like all other species, have no evolved psychological adaptations designed specifically to perceive, anticipate and avoid ecological overshoot. In fact, we have just the opposite.

One problem is that inclusive fitness, the "designer" of psychological adaptations, is always relative to others; it is not absolute. That is, nature doesn't "say," "Have two kids (or help 4 full sibs), and then you can stop. Good job! You did your genetic duty, you avoided contributing to ecological overshoot, and you may pass along now..." Instead, nature "says" (relative inclusive fitness): "Out-reproduce your competitors. Your competitors are all of the genes in your species' gene pool that you do not share. If the average inclusive fitness score is four, then you go for five... "In other words, our psychological adaptations are designed to not just "keep up with the Joneses" but to "do better than the Joneses." This is in whatever means that may have generally helped to increase inclusive fitness, such as status, conspicuous consumption, and resource acquisition and control.

If we are to have a fighting chance to be "smarter than yeast," we have to out-smart our own psychological adaptations; we have to "fool Mother Nature." Garrett Harden recognized that the problem of ecological overshoot is the tragedy of the commons writ large. He suggested that the way to solve the tragedy of the commons was "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected." That is, we must consent, collectively, to use our knowledge of our psychological adaptations to tweak them in the service of sustainability.

For example, we can use such knowledge to manipulate our own perceptions of status so that we actually compete to reduce our consumption of finite resources, such that we compete to "keep down with the Joneses."

Psychologist Robert Cialdini has investigated the use of "psychological illusions" to persuade people to do things they otherwise might be disinclined to do. Here is one description of Cialdini's approach (from: "Finding the 'Weapons' of Persuasion to Save Energy (link is external)"):

In one San Diego suburb, Cialdini's team went door to door, ringing the doorknobs with signs about energy conservation. There were four types of signs, and each home received one randomly, every week, ...for a month. The first sign urged the homeowner to save energy for the environment's sake; the second said to do it for future generations' benefit. The third sign pointed to the cash savings that would come from conservation. The fourth sign featured Cialdini's trick: "The majority of your neighbors are undertaking energy saving actions every day." ...(Cialdini also) decided to target the below-average energy users with a special message. "When we sent them the message saying you're doing better than your neighbors, we put a smiley face emoticon next to their score," he said. "And that kept them down below what any of their neighbors were doing."

Note how this psychological manipulation helped to redefine high status to "keeping down with the Joneses."

In addition, women may have a special role to play to promote sustainability. Women need to be prepped to find "ecological men" of limited resource consumption really, really sexy. Unfortunately, sexual selection has designed women to tend to prefer "alpha males" -- high status, high consumption, high resource control men (in ancestral times, they helped women's children survive and thrive). Men are adapted to do their best to give women what they want, or face reproductive oblivion. One way that today's men have demonstrated their high status has been to drive big sport utility vehicles (SUVs). However, what if women's psychological adaptations were manipulated (with collective consent) such that they found the guy behind the wheel of an electric car, electric scooter, or, better yet, a bicycle, irresistible? And, what if women sexually rejected the guy driving a big, gas-guzzling SUV?

Our natural tendencies toward nepotism and favoritism also militate against solving the ecological tragedy of the commons. Evolutionary psychology suggests that, when it comes to sharing valuable resources, especially those that are depleting, we will tend to be most altruistic to close genetic kin (inclusive fitness). We may play nice with non-kin if we have established an on-going, mutually beneficial reciprocal relationship (reciprocity). On the negative side, when the above conditions are not met, evolutionary psychology suggests that we will tend to act selfishly. We may even be spiteful (hurt others even at a cost to self) to reduce the relative inclusive fitness of others, especially when competition is increasing because the overall resource pie is shrinking.

But evolutionary psychology also suggests that we might cooperate with people that we identify as part of our "tribe" (strong reciprocity). This feature of human nature may be one of the keys to our ecological survival. Today, the capacity to be altruistic to in-group strangers may result from a serendipitous generalization (or "mismatch") between ancestral tribal living and today's large societies that entail many single interactions with anonymous strangers. Due to this mismatch, we may be fooled into thinking members of our society are part of our "tribe." Result: strong reciprocity -- acting like a "good Samaritan," cognitive concepts of justice, ethics and human rights, and a willingness to conserve finite depleting resources.

However, such strong reciprocity is more likely to occur in a "positive sum game," when the entire resource pie is growing. An individual simply has to cooperate with social rules to expect a progressively larger slice of the pie in the future. So strong reciprocity works well when the overall resource pie is growing (in a "positive sum game"). But, the world-wide depletion of finite resources is a "shrinking pie" situation (a "negative sum game"). Sustainable management of limited Earth resources requires that the whole world cooperate as these resources dwindle.

Such cooperation may be encouraged by using virtual reality to manipulate our psychological adaptations. Today we can enjoy films, TV, and photos precisely because they were not part of our ancestral environment. We have no adaptations to counter these novel tricks - at some unconscious psychological levels we cannot distinguish between reality and virtual reality.


For example, when we watch a TV sitcom, such as Friends, we are fooled (at least on an emotional level) into thinking the characters really are our friends. We may smile and say hello if we see Jennifer Aniston on the street because virtual reality tricked us into believing that we really are friends.

We cry and laugh at movies, despite the fact that we know what we are watching is just light projected through film, the actors are reciting from a script, and there is a sound guy holding a boom mic standing just out of the frame. Sure, it is sad that the ship sank, but no one on the set actually drowned. Nevertheless, our psychological adaptations are fooled, and we may leave the theater a bit misty.


So just as we can be fooled by perceptual illusions, we can also be fooled (and psychologically manipulated) by virtual reality illusions. By mutual consent, we could use virtual reality to intentionally trick ourselves into perceiving that everyone on the planet is a member of our "tribe," that the Earth is our tribal territory that needs to be defended and protected, and that we need to conserve and fairly share finite resources.


For example, we could collectively consent to allow Public Service Announcements (PSAs) - virtual reality media advertisements -- to tweak our psychological adaptations. PSAs have been effective to reduce other self-destructive behaviors, such as smoking. PSAs could help to develop a strong social narrative of mutual cooperation and sustainability on a finite planet.

Needed: A sustainability movement

A new social movement is needed - a sustainability movement. This is particularly important for anyone who plans to live in the future. A grass-roots movement of the magnitude of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, and the women's rights movement of the 1970s, is needed. Today no one wants to be called a racist or a sexist (but being called a "consumerist" does not yet sting). Those movements had clearly defined out-groups to vilify as the "enemy" -- and that may have helped to mobilize and motivate activists.

But who is the enemy now? There is no out-group. The enemy is us. We are fighting against ourselves -- our base psychological adaptations to compete for relative status, mates and resources. Evolutionary psychology can help by identifying which of our "psychological buttons" might be manipulated to promote sustainability. But we must collectively agree to manipulate our psychological adaptations to attempt to "transcend" our self-ecocidal nature. If we succeed, there may be a glimmer of hope of mitigating our own ecological overshoot, and the potential Malthusian nightmares of the future.

For an expanded exploration of these topics, with a particular emphasis on energy depletion, see my webpage:

Evolutionary psychology and peak oil. (link is external)


References and further reading:

Diamond, J. Collapse. NY: Viking, 2005.

Hall, C. A. S., & Day, J. W. Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil. American Scientist, 97 (2009): 230 -238.

Hardin G. The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162 (1968): 1243-1248.

Heinberg, H. Peak Everything: Waking Up to the Century of Declines. NY: New Society Publishers, 2007.

Klein, D. R. The Introduction, Increase and Crash of Reindeer on St. Matthew Island. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 32 (1968): 235-267

Kustler, J. H. The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. NY: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2005.

Kurzweil, R. The Singularity is Near. NY: Penguin, 2005.

Meadows, D. Limits to growth. NY: Signet, 1972.

Meadows, D. H., Randers, J., & Meadows, D. L. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. NY: Chelsea Green, 2004.

Rahim, S. Finding the 'weapons' of persuasion to save energy. New York Times, June 21, 2010.

Turner, G. A Comparison of the Limits of Growth with Thirty Years of Reality. CSIRO Working Paper Series, (2010). Available at: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/plje.pdf (link is external)

Copyright © Michael Mills. All rights reserved.

In addition, this is from the Wikipedia, from the page "human overpopulation" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_overpopulation

Quote:Education and empowerment

One option is to focus on education about overpopulation, family planning, and birth control methods, and to make birth-control devices like male/female condoms, pills and intrauterine devices easily available. Worldwide, nearly 40% of pregnancies are unintended (some 80 million unintended pregnancies each year).[252] An estimated 350 million women in the poorest countries of the world either did not want their last child, do not want another child or want to space their pregnancies, but they lack access to information, affordable means and services to determine the size and spacing of their families. In the United States, in 2001, almost half of pregnancies were unintended.[253] In the developing world, some 514,000 women die annually of complications from pregnancy and abortion,[254] with 86% of these deaths occurring in the sub-Saharan Africa region and South Asia.[255] Additionally, 8 million infants die, many because of malnutrition or preventable diseases, especially from lack of access to clean drinking water.[256]

Women's rights and their reproductive rights in particular are issues regarded to have vital importance in the debate.[257]

"The only ray of hope I can see – and it's not much – is that wherever women are put in control of their lives, both politically and socially; where medical facilities allow them to deal with birth control and where their husbands allow them to make those decisions, birth rate falls. Women don't want to have 12 kids of whom nine will die." — David Attenborough[258]

Egypt announced a program to reduce its overpopulation by family planning education and putting women in the workforce. It was announced in June 2008 by the Minister of Health and Population Hatem el-Gabali. The government has set aside 480 million Egyptian pounds (about $90 million US) for the program.[259]

The business magnate Ted Turner proposed a "voluntary, non-imposed" one-child family scenario. A "pledge two or fewer" campaign is run by Population Matters (a UK population concern organisation), in which people are encouraged to limit themselves to small family size.

Post: #2

Addendum: In the 70's China adopted their own measures to stop the overshoot and collapse scenario:

One child policy

This policy was adopted after the Great Chinese Famine that caused 36 million deaths. So we can say that the Chinese saw first hand this situation and for this reason they decided to limit their reproduction rates.

I can imagine that this kind of policy can only be implemented in a country run with and iron fist. In the "liberal and free" western world this policy would be viewed as abusive and controlling, therefore a much more subtle way of population control to prevent the overshoot and collapse scenario would be needed...

Post: #3

(12-07-2015 02:16 PM)Silvestroyer Wrote:  Addendum: In the 70's China adopted their own measures to stop the overshoot and collapse scenario:

One child policy

This policy was adopted after the Great Chinese Famine that caused 36 million deaths. So we can say that the Chinese saw first hand this situation and for this reason they decided to limit their reproduction rates.

I can imagine that this kind of policy can only be implemented in a country run with and iron fist. In the "liberal and free" western world this policy would be viewed as abusive and controlling, therefore a much more subtle way of population control to prevent the overshoot and collapse scenario would be needed...

feminism?

Post: #4

As I correctly remembered, and as said in your Wikipedia link, China announced plans in October to increase to a two-child policy.

My guess is they did that due to their aging population (read: soon to-be-shrinking population), as well as the sausage-fest caused by their one-child policy.

I also don't buy the idea that the free market won't adjust. I'm not saying those adjustments are never painful, but I'd rather let people adjust for themselves and their own situations, than let some self-interested and uninformed bureaucrats decide for everyone.

Shit, the Great Chinese Famine that you cite was at least partially caused by uninformed bureaucrats deciding for everyone!

Post: #5

Interesting...just quickly thinking about this.

In the US and Western Europe, the people the births are decreasing. The only groups that are reproducing wildly are the illegal immigrants, Muslims and Hispanics. I carve out the legal immigrants, some of them are more valuable than 80% the "natives". They are coming from lesser situations and are immigrating to more resource abundant situations. In some cases, like Germany, they are handing them cash.

Quote:Initially there were abundant food sources, and the reindeer population increased dramatically. There were no predators to cull the population.

I do wonder what will be done to cull the population. I know most people on this forum think of the illegal immigrates as the issue, so to focus on that, what will be done? I know it has been discussed on other threads.

Post: #6

This article is basically a straw-man argument using statistics.

You don't actually buy this stuff, do you Silvestroyer?

Post: #7

The reindeer and other animals are perfect example as they are capable of manipulating their environment and using machines to generate insane amount of food...

Oh wait...But I agree that more sensible child policies needed outside of the 1st world countries. Like, Africa.

Post: #8

My favorite statements from the article:

Quote:He suggested that the way to solve the tragedy of the commons was "mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon by the majority of the people affected." That is, we must consent, collectively, to use our knowledge of our psychological adaptations to tweak them in the service of sustainability.
(...)
In addition, women may have a special role to play to promote sustainability. Women need to be prepped to find "ecological men" of limited resource consumption really, really sexy. Unfortunately, sexual selection has designed women to tend to prefer "alpha males" -- high status, high consumption, high resource control men (in ancestral times, they helped women's children survive and thrive). Men are adapted to do their best to give women what they want, or face reproductive oblivion. One way that today's men have demonstrated their high status has been to drive big sport utility vehicles (SUVs). However, what if women's psychological adaptations were manipulated (with collective consent) such that they found the guy behind the wheel of an electric car, electric scooter, or, better yet, a bicycle, irresistible? And, what if women sexually rejected the guy driving a big, gas-guzzling SUV?
(...)
So just as we can be fooled by perceptual illusions, we can also be fooled (and psychologically manipulated) by virtual reality illusions. By mutual consent, we could use virtual reality to intentionally trick ourselves into perceiving that everyone on the planet is a member of our "tribe", that the Earth is our tribal territory that needs to be defended and protected, and that we need to conserve and fairly share finite resources.
(...)
Evolutionary psychology can help by identifying which of our "psychological buttons" might be manipulated to promote sustainability. But we must collectively agree to manipulate our psychological adaptations to attempt to "transcend" our self-ecocidal nature.

If it doesn´t fit, we´ll make it fit...

Whoever wrote that piece is a wonderful example of the real and elemental evil, hiding his totalitarian ideas behind some sugarcoated gibberish about the greater good and the bright, golden future that awaits those who follow him and his conspirators.

Notice how he keeps talking about this bullshit collective consent, even admitting in the beginning that the consent of the majority is enough to achieve that. And the majority shall be won over by brainwashing and manipulating their minds, making them agree to go against their own interests.
He even goes as far as to dream about what is basically the Matrix, using virtual reality to make us ignore our material reality and trick us into serfdom to whoever controls the simulation. Only with collective consent, of course.

A little tweaking here, some readjusting there, et voilà, finally you have the right worldview, their worldview.
Collective consent means their consent.

All this talk about transcendence, the assumption that humans are a priori flawed and broken, that we need to reprogram our brain, change the way we live, use our technological progress to cure our sick bodies and minds, all for the greater good and the survival of the species.
It´s all just so their enlightened vision of the future doesn´t fail because it contradicts and ignores human nature, just like all the other great totalitarian ideas and systems before them.

Post: #9

Are we smarter than yeast and animals? Yes. Animals cannot produce nor enslave many other species across continents to feed its appetite. Would the animal take advantage of such a mechanism if it was freely available?

Yes, it would. That mice experiment, where they received limitless resources resulted in a collapse in society and birth rates. Lots of similarities there between humans and mice.

But now we have this;

Quote:At this point, many people refer to human exceptionalism. Of course we are smarter than yeast or reindeer, and our scientific advances and our technology will save us from ecological overshoot. We can expand the carrying capacity of the Earth.

You're now assuming, and assuming has the nasty habit of kicking you up the arse Mr Scientist.

In many countries we have women giving birth to multiple children, even in Britain we have useless deadbeat fucks birthing out one useless kid after another, who by historical reasoning, will themselves go on to have many rug rats.

Contraceptives and abortion is unheard of to these people.

We are approaching 7,000,000,000 people or we already have passed this milestone. These people need food, water, a place to sleep, shit and piss. Where does all of this come from? How much fucking is going on which results in more children?

Right now China has unleashed a monster. They are to remove the 1 child policy and as a result millions of couples will be fucking. Fucking to create more drains on the resources.

How many people can you cram into a space before shit gets heated? Before resource management comes to a point where you need military intervention to secure it?

Human methods of depopulation were war and plagues, along with many people dying of diseases we can cure or remedy.

Either our society gets turned inside out by disease or war on a global scale or we will see the mice project become reality. I just don't see how humans can keep on fucking, giving birth and not dying in effective numbers to offset the balance.

Post: #10

What makes you think society isn't about to be turned inside out by disease and war on a global scale? We're headed towards World War 3 within the next few years and predictions are a drug-free pandemic to occur around the 2018 timeframe.

Post: #11

On one hand, the earth is a finite size & can only handle a population of a certain size.

Yet, that's no reason to excuse or promote eugenics (especially in a globalist context).

Post: #12

(12-07-2015 05:52 PM)Easy_C Wrote:  What makes you think society isn't about to be turned inside out by disease and war on a global scale? We're headed towards World War 3 within the next few years and predictions are a drug-free pandemic to occur around the 2018 timeframe.

You are asking us to provide a Probatio Diabolica and that's impossible. The burden of proof lies on YOU to provide why the world wouldn't continue as is. Sources and evidence if you will otherwise this is an opinion and nowhere close to fact.

Post: #13

Sorry if I'm removing a level of intelligence from this conversation from my inane thinking...

Reading this, I thought about how often I hear people talk about things like the "Illuminati", "secret bankers" and other dark figures that supposedly run the world. For me, once you've met successful people, you'll usually find they are not as "evil" as the general public makes them out to be (if sometimes their moral compass is out of tune due to money being a primary motivation in their life). A great majority of successful people are oftentimes extremely philanthropic. In my mind, I am now imagining these "dark overlords" who govern over global society having conversations about this phenomenon, and thinking of answers to it. How can you decrease the population over a given amount of time without outright genocide? What about introducing cultural changes, like feminism, to combat the ever increasing population? Today's generation has been taught almost 100% different values than the baby boomers, and in such a short amount of time. As well all talk about, the endgame will be 90% of women clamoring for 10% of men, which would effectively decrease the population in future generations.

Half baked theory, of course, as I'm not wearing a particularly global lens, but it weirdly enough gave me a bit of comfort that the Rothschilds might have humanities best interests at heart.

Post: #14

I've long suspected homo/trans sexuality is a direct response to overpopulation

Post: #15

Cappy gives his opinion about the population decline:

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ch/201...g.html?m=1

Post: #16

And then there was space. Space is infinite. Your article seems like comunnism. It simply won't work.

Post: #17

Viewing this through the r/K lens makes it a lot clearer for me; because while I agree with the general thrust and conclusions of this scientist, his rabbit cowardice, and debauched manipulations sicken me.

Of particular import is the oil argument. As he points out, it's the lynch-pin resource which underlies all others; the American Archdruid has written in the past about how incredibly wasteful oil-based commercial shipping is, when wind-power would still serve our needs. Worst case scenario, we see a sudden meteoric rise in the price of oil; best case, it's a linear rise (I've seen arguments for both) - but because oil is a lynch-pin - it's needed for farming, forestry, transportation, steel production, shipping, EVERYTHING - even a linear rise winds up becoming an exponential function. And because it will hit so fast, it's unlikely that we'll have time to switch our towards things like wind power.

The scientist's solution? Brainwash people into degeneracy, encourage immoral behaviour, break down all national borders, and subsidize obvious BS like Solyndra and Tesla Motors. The results of pushing these rabbity policies are precisely the apocalypse he's trying to avert.

My solution:

A) Instead of hiding the threat of peak oil, show some goddamned leadership and TELL people there's an apocalypse coming. Institute a world-wide tax on petroleum, which is directed towards researching alternative energies and building nuclear power plants. Instead of subversion, and bullshit like carbon credits, you'd be implementing a real economic force that would promote positive behaviors.

B) Soft Eugenics. Eugenics gets a bad name because a bunch of idiot liberals in California got ahold of the idea, and started broadcasting it to the Nazis and Commies. In reality, most civilizations have practiced eugenics of the soft variety - the successful ones, anyway.

Liberals can only imagine death camps and brainwashing ("Cut off your dick for social justice!") Instead, what if we merely required that those on welfare be sterilized before they receive any cash?

The hard-working blue-collar middle class - the wolves - is whom we want to be reproducing; the degenerate scum are the last ones who should be having children. We need more wolves, more warriors - less rabbits.

C) Promote civilized values overseas - aka White Man's Burden. The filthy liberal can only imagine invasive, indirect procedures like circumcision, to supposedly prevent HIV transmission, when HIV is a disease that only affects the hyper-sexed degenerates. How about instead of employing this dubious procedure, we instead promote the knowledge that homosexuality causes HIV? And instead of trying to cure that nasty little critter, we instead work on ending ebola and malaria - diseases that pretty much strike at random, demanding a more r-type, randomized breeding, response?

K-types naturally know how to limit their populations; it's in our blood, when the threat is made readily apparent. By promoting a K-type environment, you would wind up with a reduction of population, but those kids that were born would be top-notch.

The r-types promote degeneracy and child abuse; this reduces the future population, but at the expense of super-bugs developing in that population.

They promote birth control; which stops the upper classes from breeding, but is too darned difficult for the degenerates to figure out.

They promote free resources to prevent the lower classes from rioting - which only increases their predilection to r-type, rabbit breeding.

To paraphrase Andre Ryan: a slave breeds indiscriminately; a free man chooses.

We need more free men, and less crack babies.

Post: #18

We defeated the Malthusian problem about ten thousand years ago once we figured out how to plant crops and herd animals. A human being is capable of manufacturing his own food supply entirely out of renewable resources, it just requires way more labor than anyone is used to these days. The only thing that oil exploitation allows is to knock the percentage of the population required to work full time producing food down to 10% from about 90% historically.

So let's say the oil disappears before we can build our Mister Fusions. As the situation decays the people who die off will be the parasites, everyone dependent on welfare to fill their gullets with cheap cartloads of EBT snacky cakes and cheesy poofs. Sure, the government will try and keep the welfare state scam going as long as possible, raising the income tax rate to 99%. But the productive people will simply adapt by switching their behavior to non-taxable labor, essentially reverting to homesteading with families producing their own food, bartering manufactured goods under the table, and raising children without daycare. Once the welfare state breaks, you'll have roving gangs of cultural enrichers spreading out from the cities to pillage, but they'll be met with all those AR-15s that have been selling like hotcakes, and by that point the government will have bigger problems than trying to mollycoddle their precious minorities for locked-in dummycrat votes.

Post: #19

(12-07-2015 01:58 PM)Silvestroyer Wrote:  Klein reported that in 1944, 29 reindeer were brought to
St. Matthew Island (link is external).

If you bring in 29 reindeer, and 22 years later it's 42 - then how exactly is that a "collapse"?

It might be a collapse of an unsustainable bubble, but concerning population growth, it's quite a nice growth in population size, proving that reindeer are better off with no predators around (rather than proving that a "no predators" situation will backfire)