Overpopulation

If given how we've been handling things, people being alive is killing the planet, and killing the planet is killing people anyway, they're going to be killing people. What's been going on? climate change forest fires food shortages water shortages increase in income inequality (less to spend, less harm to planet?) Russians stealing farming land? nofap nosex "is something in the water?" covid monkeypox vaccinations What else? In any case, as usual, those in power are the problem. Restricting natality with communication such as anti-natalist philosophy was disregarded as "anti-natalists are a problem". It was apparently decided we would be killing people.

climate change is a normal natural phenomena forest fires are a normal natural phenomena food shortages are caused by those that want weaker middle class water shortages are caused for those that want weaker lower class increase in income inequality is caused by capitalism russia fighting war they did for 10 years now wow what a shocker oh my god nofap - retards nosex - unwanted retards covid wow i caught cold scary monkeypox wow one of 89315289 diseases on news vaccinations - wow time to wash my big pharma money and earn billions in any case you the nigger cattle is the problem, go blow up a government building or kindergarden and mage a change glitterboy

How is global fertilizer bans for le enviroment not on your list? No food should be number one concern.

>>61505 >glitterboy I'm non-binary

>>61504 >anti-natalist philosophy In order for that to have an effect, you must spread anti-natalist philosophy (and contraceptive devices) to the part of the World where overpopulation is a problem. >>61505 >go blow up... Watch the edge.

>>61505 >x is a normal natural phonomena Doesn't mean we can't cause it to happen Fire occurs naturally too, does it mean every lighter is a wonder of nature?

The problem is not overpopulation but overpopulation of idiots and cultivation of usefull idiots, in practical terms disposable useless flesh robots. It is perfectly reasonable to be self sustainable and maintain reasonable modern infrastructure with minimal expense and effort, yet despite all the greenwashing the powers that be totally go the opposite direction. Most people are too dumb to even figure out how to turn off the light or their car engine when in every newspaper and billboard it says the usual climate and crisis bullshit while gas prices are trough the roof, go figure how this goes with like 8 billion of those. Not to mention people who have enough brains to realize that killing plants is what caused all of this crap, where should all that water, sunlight(heat), wind and disperse when there is only concrete everywhere? Plants function as universal buffer, if you ever seen a heavy storm in a urban area you know what i mean, you dont see that in a forest. I have been observing this for years, i can tell the weather went extreme over time as more green was gone and now its a new extreme despite gov pushing all "green" lies bullshit. The people who are not useless eaters depending on a parasite infrastructure that feeds on other parasites is vastly small. People could grow sufficient food and energy even in apartments with some investment, yet most chose to buy really expensive soykaf that makes them sick and tastes like ass. Yes humans are killing the planet by their own stupidity, but humans mostly get killed by their own stupidity either way, there is no excuse for what is going on.

Overpopulation is an insane 18th century meme. Food supply is a solved problem, hunger is a purely political issue and has been for like a hundred years at this point. The move towards non-fossil energy sources is awesome because it allows us to ignore resource-cursed authoritarian regimes. Also, the wave of on-line pessimism looks like a propaganda operation to me. Don't be afraid of the future, the future is bright.

>>61535 This is supposed to be about on-goings, regarding reality isn't pessimism. The "negatives" are the problems, humans are problem solvers. Let's hope discussing the problems leads us to a bright future. This is positivism. Your post was pessimism?

>>61528 >cars >8 billion people >no plants concrete everywhere I'm sorry but how can anyone take you seriously with such blatamt claims?

>>61504 Just shut down the manufacturing of particular heart and blood pressure medicines and de-industrialize food. Then let natural selection and Darwinism take place.

>>61544 > particular heart and blood pressure medicines highly noticeable, targets specific groups and for what reason? >de-industrialize food so pretty much more food shortage, panic and starvation >natural selection that would be "unnatural" selection, human made selection

>>61535 >Food supply is a solved problem Far from it. But I'll play; if it has indeed been solved, how come the solution is not being widely implemented?

>>61504 humans are a part of the Universe; life/being sorts itself out

Nice a "global warming" astr-o-turf thread. How original

>>61584 because it's not profitable

>>61653 You now have 2 biters. Not profitable also means not sustainable. You can't just not pay farmers, truckers, supply chain specialists, warehouse workers, distributors and grocers and expect your supply chain not to fail. It's also kind of a bullshit idea that sustainable food supply isn't profitable. Approaching a country and saying, "hey I'll solve this problem for you, if you give me X" is an extremely strong negotiating position.

>>61655 >not profitable also means not sustainable Not sustainable within the context of the need for ever increasing profits, perhaps. It's definitely sustainable in terms of providing to each their necessary sustenance not to mention in terms of preserving soil quality and biodiversity. Certain activities should be carried out collectively without profit motive (that does NOT mean not paying all workers involved). Food production is definitely one of them.

>>61505 >go blow up a government building or kindergarden in minecraft.

>>61528 indeed, the problem with overpopulation isn't that the current population is unsustainable, it's that the current population is unsustainable *with our current level of social and economic sensibleness*. Although I contend that there is a hard carrying capacity given reasonable assumptions on technological advancement, and we're approaching it quickly. This appears to be a problem that will automatically sort itself out over time, though, so we're good. >>61506 Which fertilizers?

>>61659 nitrogen nentherlands & canada are following the same route sri lanka took. https://nltimes.nl/2022/07/08/eu-deal-new-blow-dutch-farmers-tightening-fertilizer-rules-nitrogen-protests-continue

>>61660 Nowhere in this article is a ban mentioned.

>>61662 >we aint starving you with a food ban, we let you eat 1 bread slice a day ...

https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/climate-change-scarcity-chip-away-degrowth-taboo-2022-08-08/

https://www.reuters.com/world/china/more-chinese-women-delay-or-give-up-having-babies-after-zero-covid-ordeal-2022-08-08/ >"Studies have shown that pandemics and economic uncertainty historically weigh on birth rates around the world."

>>61545 Eliminate the elderly and those who chose to live off of chips and soda. People would have to exercise and make smarter choices. The young will replace them and genetic reincarnation will happen for those deemed worthy by their gods to live again. Those who are not are erased like bad software. De-industrializing food helps fight against the devaluing of soil and fights desertification. Modern agriculture turns fertile lands into a desert. Hunter-gatherers of the Bronze and Iron Ages of Germania and Scandinavia had a wide range of wild plants and animals to eat and became stronger and taller than the average Mediterranean townsman. Humans are nature too. We should reintegrate more with wild nature and relegate industry to space tech to alter the flight path of otherwise deadly meteors and to enable humanity's rebirth on a terraformed planet through microbes engineered to grow into humans.

Some might have heard bill is buying all the farm land. Well now ive also heard he holds over 200 patents on artificial food. You now see where this is likely going.

>>61699 We have seen where this is going for years now, and good ol bill made no secret of it, just as he made no secret about the vaccines and the plagues. In fact they were very open about what they were doing and what they intend to do. None of this is new and it will continue to increase until a optimal saturation is achived. >>61664 This would be funny if it werent for the fact that this is the kind of logic that normal people use and will parrot on until its their turn to pay the piper for the state. It wouldnt suprise me if in not even 10 years people will say this literally.

>>61662 Yeah, they just create new regulations designed specifically to reduce food production and on top of that they force the food producers to use less efficient processes under the false mask of environmentalism. I would believe some nefarian plot against mankind is at work if the EU weren't know for making stupid, pointless regulations that serve no purpose, are disconnected from reality and make everyone life more miserable. >>61668 >"But it's not about going to a low-income country saying 'You can't grow anymore'," he said. "It's saying: We need to look at the entire system and see how do we over time decrease total consumption and production in aggregate." I don't feel targeted at all. Everyone but us will keep growing but the average consumption of the world will decrease. Their next line will be about living in a pod or eating bugs. >>61659 Turn it the way you want, I don't see how Chad or Nigeria will feed the hundred of billion of people they will soon have. They are already becoming a desert, they are already overpopulated and things keep getting worse.

>>61709 As mentioned before its not just in eu. Canada&US are also attacking farmers. Burgers even went after the amish with ridiculously high fines for daring to produce and sell among themselves. Monopolizing essential markets is a nobrainer for safe massive profits. Regulatory capture is the standard model. So what you naturally get is corruption in food and medicine because both are essential. All what you see is the logical conclusion of ultrarich looking to grow further while the unwashed plebs keep themselves busy with entertainment as they don't want the discomfort of conflict.

>>61709 >Turn it the way you want, I don't see how Chad or Nigeria will feed the hundred of billion of people they will soon have. Hundreds of billions? I assume you meant millions. It's clearly not impossible to feed their current population in the future, California has managed to keep up population growth even with rapid desertification and much less arable land to start with. The problem is more that the population growth rate is too high. Lowering population growth is a massive problem for industrialized countries, because access to medicine, sanitation, and a baseline of food means that fertility rates are higher. There aren't any countermeasures that people wouldn't consider barbaric, aside from unrestricted access to contraceptives and abortion. And some people still consider that barbaric. One way or another it's very likely that billions of people will either starve or die of dehydration or die in warfare or die of some deadly disease over the next century.

>>61718 Cali is sucking water from all of the US and keep draining more and more of it. I wouldn't use it as an example because they became radically hostile to businesses and are leaking the only resource they ever had: trillionaires. Cali don't even have to produce it's food, it export dystopian tech all over the world. Third world landlocked, undeveloped countries can not import a lot of things. Just like Rwanda before the population control event, they have to produce their own food and can't. The sahel have no water to suck. Of course they will blame climate change and they will say it's the duty of the west to save them from the problem they have created. >Lowering population growth is a massive problem for industrialized countries You must be confused. We are far under replacement rate. Our population decrease so fast that it become hard to take care of all the old people with so few workers. It's the selling point of unsustainable immigration: we need more people. The overpopulation problem come from India and China who both don't want to be in a position of weakness against the other in one or two generations and from Africa who will soon make half of the world population while clearly not being able to feed them all.

>>61718 I mean, look at that. The problem isn't industrialized countries where women focus on their career and where the culture have turned against having kids. The demographic crisis in the west is a lack of native kids, not too many of them.

>>61757 >The problem isn't industrialized countries where women focus on their career and where the culture have turned against having kids. That's completely wrong and as long as you keep believing this nonsense nothing will change. Where I live the percentage of women in workforce was more or less the same in 1985 as it is now but the fertility rate in 1985 was twice as it is now. You know what changed? Taxes changed, we went from basically no taxes (communism) to half of what you earn being taken by the state as a tax or a para-tax. And it's everywhere like that. That's the real reason why industrialized countries are under replacement rate, it's not culture or feminism or women having careers or any other fairy tale like that, it's the taxes. Young people cannot afford to have kids because the taxation burden is too high. So who gets all that money? Mostly, old people. As old people become the majority of the voting population the taxation burden increases on people in reproductive age thus decreasing the fertility rate even further. It's a failure of democratic system but it's not unsolvable. >>61756 >China China's about to hit the mother of all demographic cliffs, they have like 10 to 15 years left of being relevant.

>>61756 >Cali don't even have to produce it's food, it export dystopian tech all over the world. Cali also exports a lot of food. The economy would collapse if farming collapsed. >we are under replacement rate Who's "we"? Many industrialized countries such as India and China are well above replacement rate. However it is clear that after a certain point, the rapid population growth due to industrialization starts to level off or even dip negative. This is a very good thing. >>61761 Taxation + generally housing getting more expensive + complete lack of economic security + conversion of middle class to poor people. Sure, these can all contribute to lower fertility, *if* people have contraceptive options available. People are gonna fuarrrk, that's one of the only constants you can rely on.

>>61761 >Where I live the percentage of women in workforce was more or less the same in 1985 as it is now but the fertility rate in 1985 was twice as it is now. I am going to take a guess and say that under communism, they were paper pushers or factory workers and were happy with it and now they chase the dream of being a top executive. The difference is how many sacrifices you have to make for your career. I will also argue that as violent and repressive as the soviet union was, at least they knew they needed families and everything was in place to make life easier when you wanted kids. Just like on my side of the iron curtain. When my parents grew up, taxes were made in such a way that you would maintain your quality of life no matter how many kids you had. >it's not culture or feminism I only see correlations. South Korea is a nightmarish feminist state, Japan have turned hostile on men a lot more than the west and the crisis is worse there. > or women having careers This is the cause of low fertility rate in developed countries and it's the first time I see someone disagreeing with it. Having a career isn't the same as having a job. Women always had a job, I don't have or want a career. Poverty does not cause low fertility. Poor people always had more kids than rich ones. The lack of access to homes is new, and indeed it's hard to start a family if you can't house them, but regulations are to blame here. >>61763 My point was you don't need to produce your food if you can trade it for something you make. Maybe the industrial GB is a better example. They didn't produced enough food but their industries gave them plenty to export. India will become a superpower only in 2020. They still are a third world country and one of the priority of their first minister is to install a toilet in every home. China is doing better but the back country is still medieval. The crisis in China is artificial. One child policy, plus student baby death syndrome of the girls mean China don't have a lot of kids and it's unbalanced. It's another Maoist cataclysm. The developed world, including Japan and South Korea suffer a very low number of kid per women. This is a disaster much worse than a world war. Even the black plague only reduced the population by a third. Yes, the tragedy is a lot less easy to live, but the effect on society are worse. To get back on topic, yes the world will be overpopulated, but not by the developed countries. It will be overpopulated by countries that does not develop their economy and stay so poor that they have a high number of kid per woman, sometime even an average of 8 for the country.

>>61767 >The developed world, including Japan and South Korea suffer a very low number of kid per women. This is a disaster much worse than a world war. Even the black plague only reduced the population by a third. Yes, the tragedy is a lot less easy to live, but the effect on society are worse. Is it not technically organized? >To get back on topic, yes the world will be overpopulated, but not by the developed countries. >It will be overpopulated by countries that does not develop their economy and stay so poor that they have a high number of kid per woman, sometime even an average of 8 for the country. Makes sense, but developed countries will produce more waste, pollution. Developed countries will consume more.

>>61771 > developed countries will produce more waste, pollution. You have to be more specific. The EU only emit 2% of the plastic found in the oceans. It's a bit less than 5% for microplastic. India, China and Africa, once again, are to blame for the plastic islands. If you want to talk about CO2, then know the rich countries (S.A., the Emirate, Qatar) emit a lot more per capita than the west and only the west invest to reduce their production. China have a forever increasing CO2 emission, Mongolia can't stop burning coal, Africa don't even have the money to do something that isn't fossil, so they just use the climate scheme to get some billions from the west, money that invariably get lost into pockets. Not even 10% of the world population fight climate change and you can't blame it on them. If you count forest fire in the carbon emission, then Africa pollute more than Europe. Just like Brazil, they burn forests to make room for agriculture. I know it's easier to blame the only people who want to solve the pollution crisis but it won't help solve the problem.

>>61767 >I only see correlations. South Korea is a nightmarish feminist state, Japan have turned hostile on men a lot more than the west and the crisis is worse there. What are you referring to specifically? >>61781 The things you said are technically true but without further context cannot help to adequately address climate change. First, it's reductive to blame countries for their emissions. What exactly do we mean when we say, for example, "Brazil is responsible for x percentage of CO2 emissions". Are we blaming every Brazilian citizen? Similarly for every other nation on earth. I presume I don't have to tell you how individual changes in consumption habits are virtually useless in tackling climate change. This goes doubly for poor countries, where poor people's most cost-effective source of food are often various processed unhealthy plastic-wrapped foods. Also, for many of those people, driving a vehicle might be a necessity due to the planning of their cities. Furthermore these people have been sold the idea (by whom? keep reading) that living like this is synonymous with, or will at least lead to, prosperity. Denying these people these things which are to them still essential will be met with indignation and opposition. And again, any single one of them changing their consumption habits within what is possible for them will be insignificant the the grand picture. So obviously we don't mean every single citizen. We mean the organizations that maintain the conditions that require them to participate in that consumption. There's two types of those organizations: government and private. The private ones are corporations, obviously. The massive profits of international corporate groups like Coca Cola, Nestle, Colgate, etc. are dependent on the cheap labor available in poor countries as well as their sales globally. But these corporations don't belong to any one country. As a matter of fact, despite being founded mostly in developed countries, no one nation on earth seems eager to claim them as their own. They don't have nationalities. The governments of those countries are obviously of those countries and they bear much of the blame. If only they weren't so corrupt and laser focused on their own enrichment by facilitating the exploitation of their citizens and extraction of their natural resources. Have none of the citizenry of these countries attempted to install better regimes focused on societal progress, prosperity and long term development? Sorry for the sarcasm. You know the answer. Yes. Many of them have and many of their attempts have been hijacked by the interference of foreign agents, primarily from the USA. The USA government would sooner back fascist radicals, religious fanatics and terrorists in third world countries than allow for the democratic self determination of those countries people than permit the threatening of the resource extraction and cheap labor that still today makes the standards of living of developed nations possible. You are right, mitigating climate change will not be possible if the developing countries that pollute the most don't stop doing so but that also doesn't mean that developed countries should stop their own systematic decreases in pollution (you didn't say that explicitly but it's an easy conclusion that some people might arrive at given only the information you provided). Considering all of the context of history, and the urgency of the problem, I'd say that developing nations have the responsibility to aid as much as possible in the infrastructure projects in developing nations that would severely reduce gas emissions, the improvement of education in said countries (as it correlates inversely with population growth, not to mention sexual education, contraceptives etc), the availability of basic health care (as it would grant access to relevant procedures like abortion, vasectomies), and the preparation for the extreme weather events that have already come and will keep coming as a result of climate change (as not doing so will lead to refugee crises). It might seem difficult to believe but all of these things would be cheaper than the extermination or military campaigns that neo-fascists would have you believe.

>>61788 >I'd say that developing nations have the responsibility t *developED

Overpopulation? . Population is one of many factors in the equation that leads us to concluding a problem. The problem being that humanity's current state of being in the world is leading to a decline in the Earth's liveability for humanity and nature at large alike. Aside from the fact that we're an extraodrinarily clever yet flawed species capable of shortsightedness selfishness and deceit, making any such measure is deeply flawed in its own -- while important, such a factor is not so much to make the question less valued as it appears to indeed be a problem regardless from the best we can tell, and the consequences of thinking otherwise are far more severe than taking it seriously when it is not neccesary -- the number of factors in which are possible contributors to this problem, what will likely be contributors in the future, and, most importantly, what is contributing at this very moment brings me to two seperate conclusions. We have many sacred cows in our way of life by the result of modern societal structure. Resource control and distribution, technology, medicine, travel, standard of living, political philosophy, and so on. Not only are these things monumental in their impact on the environment, but likewise are monumental in their impact of our lives. Instead of tackling they myriad of issues these foundational aspects of modernity bring (or even more unthinkable - to remove them to the best of effort), it seems some people would prefer to remove the most obvious commonality between all of these things - people. Once removed from the human mindset and into the managerial mindset, this conclusion seems the most rational. However, the consequences of such even in such a non-human (less-human) mindset seem to be taken for granted. To what end will humanity have to spill itself to allow its other gloatful cups to continue to overflow? Second, it is obvious the human spirit for innovation far outpaces its willingness to understand such innovation. The interconnectedness of the world, the complexity of technologies, the public dealings at a mass never before seen, the beaurocracies, the powers and principalities that direct it all... never mind now, but how far past have we gotten from any individual having any honest idea of how the whole of these systems work, interact, as well as the consequences intimately to arrive at some ultimate answer? We are hyperspecialized, confused, and isolated, and this is evidenced by the inability to reach consensus. Furthermore, there are no signs of this growing complexity slowing down, and all the signs point to it only speeding up. Not only does this present a poor prognosis in the long term, but constantly presents new, ill-prepared dangers every step of the way. The way I see it, humanity needs a hail mary. I have no idea what that will be, and I don't think anybody is capable of saying for certain what that will be. But I don't think we as a species are capable of going very far against our own instict for better or worse, and our way of life and the consequences of it are the unavoidable reflection of those instincts. As the growing complexity and instinct dance in a fractal of cosmic survival we can only hope the next trip won't do us in for good, for we have enough trouble grappling with the unknown to consider what would happen if we were to lose the world and vehicle we are most familiar with. And so recognizing the issue isn't the number of us around, but instead a very core part of us we unavoidably must face, maybe the best thing we can do collectively is to recognize what we are, what we are capable of, and focus our efforts to being the best version of that. If we can tackle that individually, with honesty and humility, we can collectively take our best steps forward in this dance for survival.

>>61781 you're right we do do that stuff

>>61788 I have one argument to oppose to your reasoning: if a thirdie banana republic somehow became a democracy despite the deep ethnics and religious divisions inside the country that would make it a dictatorship of the majority (see Iraq), then the first focus of that democracy would be to invite external capita in their country because that is obviously the only way to get to prosperity in less than 200 years and their second would be strong investments in the extraction of the resources you are speaking of, because that is and will stay the only export possible for the country until an industrial network is built. The the poor countries becoming rich only mean more markets for the corpos and more profit. It would be better for the corpos and the developed countries to have democracies there. They stay poor autocratic dictatorship because of the internal divisions in their countries, not because the CIA influence counter the KGB infiltration. Okay, one more argument: Every single fossil fuel that is not burn this year will be burnt eventually. Even if all countries in the world became at war against climate change, we would only slow climate change. Consider this: every € spent trying to prevent the unavoidable is an € not spent mitigating the effects of climate change. > I'd say that developed nations have the responsibility to give free money to developing nations No. We gave them 50 Marshal plans already. As long as they are plagued by corruption, even cent sent to them is a cent lost, to development or to fight climate change. If you want us to help them, you want us to send the army and to set up governments for them, but that's colonization. All the money sent in the past just got wasted and it will stay that way unless we make it change. I say we keep the money and use it to prepare ourselves for the changes. Rational self interests and all. And another point: in the 80's we had only 20 years left. In the 00's we had only 20 years left. We have only 20 years left. Al Gore got me, I admit. I was fooled once. I have learnt. As long as the climate change freaks don't make amends for the lies of the past and don't explain why they were wrong back then and not now, I won't even listen. Every single alarmist study is similar to the ones I saw when I was a kid.

>>61791 Why are you so conservative? We can teraform this planet. Plants need a lot more CO2 and our duty as a plant dependent specy is to give it to them. Once we have fission reactors our energy problems will belong to the past. Every € wasted in misplaced conservatism is an € not spent moving us forward. If we gave it the money we wasted on wind turbines and photovoltaic we would have the first generation being built as we speak.

>>61808 >then the first focus of that democracy would be to invite external Not necessarily true. Modern examples: Bolivia, Cuba, China. Whether or not corporations later, as a consequence of the prosperity obtained through social-good minded policies in those countries, have an interest in expanding to those countries is another matter. If they are denied entry often those corporations backed by USA government institutions force their way in one way or another. And if tacitly denied entrance despite every effort, the country is punished as a whole. >It would be better for the corpos and the developed countries to have democracies Why not democratize the management of those corporations and distribute their profits equitably? That is effectively dismantle them. Your solutions seem intent on no large systematic changes. >They stay poor autocratic dictatorship because of the internal divisions in their countries, not because the CIA influence counter the KGB infiltration. I encourage you to do more research into CIA interference in the third world. You will be very surprised as to the extent of their actions. >Every single fossil fuel that is not burn this year will be burnt eventually Why? I reject this. >We gave them 50 Marshal plans already. Untrue. The foreign aid developed nations have given the global south (especially that given by the USA) has been mainly focused on the development of their extraction or manufacturing industries. With stability (if needed) provided by military occupation, which is both unpopular at home and in the occupied country. Furthermore, stability bought solely with a foreign military presence is incredibly fragile (Afghanistan). In my previous post I detailed the ways in which foreign aid should be invested to build long term stability and to raise the standard of living that will serve to curb overpopulation and pollution. Cast away ideas of whether or not they deserve it and/or any racist disgust you might feel towards those people, the urgency of the problem requires it. Especially when, since you didn't know about the extent of US foreign interference through the CIA, you are most likely ignorant about the historical causes for the underdevelopment of those countries and the material conditions of their people. The historical causes don't stop at CIA intervention of course, the legacy of colonialism (yes, even today), neo-colonialism, corporate lobbying and more are causes. >I say we keep the money and use it to prepare ourselves for the changes. Rational self interests and all. What do you think that means, really? For example, extreme weather events will cause food and water shortages south of the US southern border (north as well) as a result of this an economic downturn will occur, social stability will deteriorate and the government will struggle to counter popular anger. Millions of Latin Americans will flee their own countries in an attempt to reach the USA which has secured relative stability for itself. The US government will have to deal somehow with the incoming waves of hundreds of thousands of refugees. What will it do with them? Take them in? Certainly not. Turn them back? Desperate people WILL find a way in. Exterminate them? Look into the logistics and costs of the holocaust. No. This attitude, thinking that any one country can look solely after itself is stupid. Especially in our modern globalized world where interdependence ubiquitous. This modern globalization, by the way, has been primarily established the governments of global north countries. Regarding your last point, If you're a climate change denier, then I don't think there's anything I can say to convince you otherwise. Except that I urge you to look at it from a scientific perspective. Understand that your own personal experiences in the scope of a larger global phenomenon is only one of millions of data points, so to speak. No useful trend can be discerned only from your experience.

>>61656 If you fix the money, you fix the problem. You're trying to collectivize farming, which to some degree it already is with subsidies, and all we have are sprawling factory farms owned by massive corporations. You decentralize it, by deincentivizing a debt economy. You do that by having a commodity backed currency. Take control of the money and we fix the lion's share of our corporate and governmental problems.

The only way there's going to be a drastic reduction in world population within the next ~30 years is if the food supply chain gets disrupted because of drought, failing logistics and civil unrest in major food producing countries. If world population goes down, it will be a symptom of some other, unintended system failure.

>>61822 It won't happen all at once, unless something really big happens like a massive volcanic eruption. Instead the death rate will slowly creep up while birth rate stays constant or goes down. It's a bit morbid to think about but overpopulation is a problem that solves itself whether we want it to or not.

>>61811 Wonderful examples. Neither Bolivia, Cuba and China are democracies. China got rich only when it created special economic zones for western capital to invest in. >as a consequence of the prosperity obtained through social-good minded policies in those countries WTF are you talking about? Bolivia is one of the poorest country in the world. Cuba is less prosperous than before the revolution. China don't give a soykaf is a million of their own citizens die. And social policies don't create prosperity. >And if tacitly denied entrance despite every effort, the country is punished as a whole. Yeah, Japan got a full invasion. China had the brits to become cocaine dealers. But look, Norway have nationalized its oil resources and let the corpos only take a fee for the extraction and refinement of the oil. They got rich from the resources of their country and use it to invest wisely for the future and to provide one of the best welfare net of the world at a low cost for their workers. Have Murika gone ape over the fact that Exon can't milk them? No. >I encourage you to do more research into CIA interference in the third world. You will be very surprised as to the extent of their actions. I encourage you to do more research into KGB interference in the third world. You will be very surprised as to the extent of their actions. Take the Algerian war for instance. It was started by KGB agitators and funded by the Soviet. They don't even hide the fact that they have started countless conflicts all over Africa. Back in the days of the cold war, there was only two kinds of communists/socialists: agents of the Soviets and the so called Troskists who had to hide form the KGB to not be suicided. >Why? I reject this. Fossiel fuel is a potential energy. As long as their is some oil or gas somewhere that can be used at a reasonable cost, it will be cheaper to use that rather than another energy. The dedication of 99% of the countries of the world will not matter if there is still one country to burn oil and gas for cheap energy: the CO2 will be released eventually. It will only be slower. Currently, we have 10% of the countries trying to stop climate change. Won't work. In fact, even if 100% of the world population was ready to pay more for energy, it will only delay its burning to a time of crisis. Germany is burning coal like crazy and all over Europe the coal plants are restarted. We can't have potential energy laying around like that and not being used by anyone forever. > The foreign aid developed nations have given the global south (especially that given by the USA) has been mainly focused on the development of their extraction or manufacturing industries. Yes, we gave them free money so they can have a functioning economy. With the exception of the few places that are not plagued by corruption, like Rwanda, it was wasted. > foreign aid should be invested to build long term stability and to raise the standard of living You raise the standard of living by giving a man a fishing pole, not a bucket of fishes. The money must be used on means of productions, as you said it was. Stability can't be bought. If the crazy Muslims in one part want to convert every one by force and the Christians in another exterminate the Muslims for historical reasons, no quantity of money will change that. When you have 10 tribes in the country and all of them want to use the political structure for their own needs and at the detriment of the others, no quantity of money can buy stability. Not even the Balkans are stable despite all the things the EU did. A pax Britainia or Pax Amaricania is the only way to stabilize countries that have strong divides. Soon it will be Pax China since the balance of power is shifting, and as our countries become unstable I fear we will end in the list of countries having the choice only between civil war and Pax China. > the urgency of the problem requires it We have spent half a century trying to have them to develop. If as you say there is a problem and you find it urgent, then it's time for another solution as the free money one have failed so far. And I still have a problem with people deserving a share of my money because they can't have a functional society. I will conveniently ignore that this is basically thievery made by politicians to gain the vote of minorities because it became accepted by everyone that my wallet is the solution to every problem in the world. Now, if we want what is best for mankind, punishing the ones who are productive to reward the ones who aren't is dooming mankind to poverty and it's consequences. This is exactly why agriculture is fuarrrked in Africa: the agriculture who work had have less than the one who don't even work his soil and beg the development fund for free land and tractors. How do you develop an economy with that factor? >you are most likely ignorant Yes. I disagree with you after all. It can't mean you have a partial view of the situation, or haven't considered all aspects of the problem. No, no, you are intelligent and open minded. It's the others who are wrong. They must be ignorant, or stupid, or racist or whatever it take but it's not you. It can't be. You are open minded after all.

>>61811 >extreme weather events will cause food and water shortages We can prevent them. We can create more barrages and get the barrage to manage the water not according to the electrical need but the agriculture ones. This will also mitigate the flooding events so they will deal only minor damages. Of course everything we built in the historical beds of rivers will have to go. We can grow different plants. We can generalize offground farming like they did on Spain. This allow them to have a good agriculture despite their climate. Genetical engineering become advanced enough to make assisted selective breeding and to have plants and animals much fitted to our new needs in just a few years. It just need some funding, and it don't have it because the money goes somewhere else. Economic overturn and social instability? Open your eyes, it's already there. Poverty become normal again and the middle class is becoming poor. >Millions of Latin Americans will flee their own countries in an attempt to reach the USA Only if they think they will have a better life if they do. Australia had this problem with all the thirdies around "fleeing" poverty to try their chance. The problem got solved by one law on the conditions to get the nationality: to never have been illegally on Australia. That mean all illegals lost all means to ever have the nationality and they either became undocumented workers who came to bag some money before heading home or waited in line in the embassy for the legal way to enter. It's all it take. >hundreds of thousands of refugees I am an European and I laugh at your rookie numbers. We had millions of Malian and Iranian and Congolese refugees investing tens of thousands, sometime with the participation of the whole village and risking their life to "flee" anything they could find to flee. It have nothing to do with actual refugees. >Desperate people WILL find a way in. Opinion. If the people who get in aren't welcomed, given a status, access to our job market (totally not the goal, I swear) and our welfare but are just send to the other side of the sea to whichever country accept our money to get them, they won't even try to get it? What for? They will waste money ad take pointless risks. Ho, and why do you think the flee to the countries that have money? There is a flooding in Chili so onme lillion Chilians make their way to the US? Not to 10km away where it is safe, not in any of the countries on the way that are flood free? This isn't about fleeing a disaster, it's about going where the money is. Don't act like it isn't. >Especially in our modern globalized world where interdependence ubiquitous If only the eggheads weren't constantly cutting international ties to force the Brits to stay in the union or to force Putin to behave. Hey, it look like loosing ties with the west wasn't really that hard for them. In fact it look cheaper than covering every county of the world with solar panels at our own costs. Modern globalization have been made at a cost for the citizens of the north and the reindustrialization of our countries is what we ask for. Corpos got rich, we got our jobs sent oversea. >>61823 What if African keep making a national average of 8 kids per women even when they are starving?

>>61833 >Wonderful examples. Neither Bolivia, Cuba a You don't know those countries histories. The way they've come to be the way they are now is important. The relative prosperity they've achieved for themselves has come despite western interference and aggression. Study their histories please and the involvement of western powers in them. And take into account all of my post. >Fossil fuel is a potential energy. As long as their is some oil or gas somewhere that can be used at a reasonable cost, it will be cheaper to use that rather than another energy. The dedication of 99% of the countries of the world will not matter if there is still one country to burn oil and gas for ch... You seem to think that corporations and profit interests are forces of nature. They're not. Again, your solutions seem intent on no systematic change. There is no reason at all fossil fuels must eventually be burned. >Yes, we gave them free m... Come on. Read my post please. > Stability can't be bought. If the crazy Muslims in one part want to convert eve You are being racist. Most Muslims aren't radical. Most "crazy Muslims" are no different than the "crazy Christians" of various sects. Puritanical, fanatical and aggressive. Just as the influence of the Catholic church has been eroded over time due to (presumably, it's only a correlation) increase in literacy levels and standards of living, Islam's will do the same. See Iran and Lebanon. >When you have 10 tribes in the country and all of them wa... I wonder why those 10 tribes have been forced together under one nation (colonialism). >We have spent half a century trying to have them to develop. Again, with ill advised, ineffective aid. >hen it's time for another solution as the free money one have failed so far. Failed so far as implemented. I've gone into how to do it correctly. >ntly ignore that this is basically thievery made by politicians to gain the vote of minorities because it became accepted by They won't be gaining any votes if those policies are effective in keeping those people there will they? >Yes. I disagree with you after all. It can't mean you have a partial view of th Calm down. Now that you've realized your ignorance on this subject, take the opportunity to learn. Don't take injury to your pride, I'm not looking to injure it. >We can prevent them. We can create more barrages and get the barrage to manage the water not according to the electrical need but the agriculture ones. This will also mitigate the flooding events so they will deal only minor damages. Of course everything we built in the historical b You can prevent them, to a certain extent. And you should, the well being of the common people is important. But they will continue to get worse. Long term action is also essential. >Economic overturn and social instability? Open your eyes, it's already there. Poverty become n It will get worse. >I am an European and I laugh at your rookie numbers. We had You're right. I severely low balled that estimate. It will be many many millions. Europe will also similar, more severe crises. >Opinion. If Not an opinion. The USA is already hyper aggressive towards Latin American migrants (legal and illegal), refugees and asylum seekers. And they still try to get in because even that is better than their conditions at home. >This isn't about fleeing a disaster, it's about going where the money is It's about both. Yes, they flee their war torn, crime ridden, natural disaster ravaged countries for the "richest" country on earth, because they believe, since it is the richest on earth, surely they will be able to find prosperity there, or at least a decent living. The solution is once again to provide them those things at home. >Modern globalization have been made at a cost for the citizens of the north and the reindustrialization of our countries is what we ask for. Corpos got rich, we got our jobs sent oversea. I agree. The corporations are the problem. Keep in mind though under our current system if Europe re-industrializes and is intent in keep the size of it's current market, it will still require the resource extraction of the global south and logistical connections with it's countries, which will contribute to both climate change and overpopulation. If it is intent on focusing on it's own internal market, it's economy will shrink SEVERELY and many Europeans will suffer greatly from it. The proper solution is foreign aid. >What if African keep making a national average of 8 kids per women even when they are starving? Same reason white pilgrims in the new world had plentiful families despite having no food security.

faith is crazy if faith were considered faith, it wouldn't be influential

>>61836 >The proper solution is foreign aid. As well as a radically different economic system, I should have added.

>>61823 picrel >>61833 Cuba adapted to life expectancy comperable to other western states with a homogenous society and community action, would not happen elsewhere >>61834 >We can prevent them. We can create more barrages and get the barrage to manage the water not according to the electrical need but the agriculture ones Agriculture is a kill, everyone wants to do cash crops until its time to need food crops. Not to menton monsanto and co. Genetic engineering is also a fuarrrk, it reduces biodiversity and increases the risk of crop disease and failure. Human migration only works when people allow it. If people start gunning down migrants at the border, it won't work so well. If that is an ethical solution is another matter. Many migrants end up sending money home to family in the 3rd world, which exacerbates problems. They stay just alive enough to keep needing, while their family abroad lives as 2nd class citizens slaving to keep 1st world economies running doing jobs that nobody else will do for pay that is blatantly insufficient. The third world was always the problem. Too many kids, too much inequality, poorly allocated resources.

>>61836 Fact: Bolivia is ruled by a military junta. Fact: Cuba is a dictatorship. Fact: both of them are underdeveloped Blame the CIA for their failures as long as you want, Brazil, Chili or Argentina had the same interference and ended much better. And you keep ignoring the KGB made coups and sponsored revolutions too. >You seem to think that corporations and profit interests are forces of nature. Do you seriously expect the whole humanity to rise for communism one day and to have a great evening? This soykaf is more ridiculous than the day of the rope and SHTF. Yes, looking for the best outcome to a minimal effort is human nature. That mean all fossil fuel that isn't hard to reach will be burned. >You are being racist. Most Muslims aren't radical. First, Muslims aren't a race. Then, Christians in Africa don't start civil wars all the time to convert by force the rest of the country. Show me on a map where the Christian state in levantine and the Christian state in Sahel are. Your average moderate Muslim is moderately opposed to the behaders. In my country 35% of young Muslims have a good opinion of ISIS, but try to remove the radical Muslims form the institutions and they make anti islamophobia protests. Only one religion in the world do that. >I wonder why those 10 tribes have been forced together under one nation (colonialism). And I wonder what happen when 100 tribes emigrate to the same country. >Failed so far as implemented. I've gone into how to do it correctly. No, you gave general, feelgood ideas that ignore the local corruption and just hope money will be put to good use. >They won't be gaining any votes if those policies are effective in keeping those people there will they? You are ignoring that we are already above 20% diversified, and giving more free money to thirdies is how you gain that much votes. >Long term action is also essential. I couldn't agree more. Long term action is preparing for climate change that have become unavoidable decades ago. >It will be many many millions. Ha, yes. Europe can perfectly accommodate 100 millions or even a billions of refugees. The borders will be shut one day or another. We are only discussing when. > Yes, they flee their war torn >In South America >Natural disaster ravaged >In South America No. They just seek money. War refugee move a few hundreds kilometers to the safe refugee camps that we build for them and wait until it's safe so they can rebuild. When you risk your life, you are not seeking safety. >surely they will be able to find prosperity Not if we accept the millions of them every year that want to come. Prosperity have it's causes. >The proper solution is foreign aid. We have done that for decades, it failed so far. What is the problem with having an healthy economy and trading things we make and thirdies want for the resources we need and thirdies produce? >>61844 >Human migration only works when people allow it. This. When Morocco went manu manu military on the migrants going to Spain, the numbers of attempts went from tens of thousands per days to hundreds. In one day.

>>61856 >Fact: Bolivia is ruled by a military junta. >Fact: Cuba is a dictatorship. >Fact: both of them are underdeveloped >Blame the CIA for their failures as long as you want, Brazil, Chili or Argentina had the >same interference and ended much better. >And you keep ignoring the KGB made coups and sponsored revolutions too. There's really no other way for them, the US is at war with them until US policy is imposed. The US is effectively responsible for that authoritarian presentation. Brazil, Chili or Argentina went to the right, implying US policy. An underdeveloped nation opening up to capitalism is much easier to exploit than a resilient leftist nation. The US has capacity to not act as extremist authoritarian regime, both inland and abroad, yet they act as extremist authoritarian regime. What's up with that? Usually, when I get into this sort of discussion online, my take on it gets censored, what's up with that?

>>61856 I was oppressed in Europe for being on the left since I was a child. What the fuarrrk is up with that?

>>61865 By resilient leftist nation, I hope you don't mind Venezuela? They have been given everything by nature and failed because it's a dictatorship that mismanage everything. The world have stopped pretending that it was socialist because the soviet union is gone and there is no more free rubles and weapons when you do. >Usually, when I get into this sort of discussion online, my take on it gets censored, what's up with that? Because internet is dead and it's not only upvote/downvote sites that end with a dominant opinion and erase everything that does not conform. >>61866 The only way to be oppressed in Europe is to not be on the left in the soviet union or to debate unsustainable immigration. What happened to you? You were fired from uni because you were screaming stalinist propaganda? You get oppressed only when you go against the will of the elite, and the left now support the same thing as the elites. The "far" right, meaning the one that consider more than money is almost illegal.

>>61856 >Fact: Bolivia is ruled by a military junta. >Fact: Cuba is a dictatorship. >Fact: both of them are underdeveloped We're going around in circles regarding this. Again study history. You are ignorant on the topic. >Do you seriously expect the whole humanity to rise for comm I believe capitalist countries can turn communist, yes. It's happened in the past. Study history. I also believe countries with heavy private corporate influence can become more like social democracies. It's happened in the past. It happening "one day" and everyone has a "great evening" is an exaggeration that YOU introduced. Please argue in good faith and don't get angry. Rationality and the ability for restraint is also human nature, some might say it's what separates humans from other animals. No. There is no law of nature or human behavior that makes it an axiom that all untapped fossil fuels must eventually be burned. >Then, Christians in Africa don't start civil wars all the time to convert by force the rest of the cou Study the history of Christianity. I won't discuss this point further you are simply ignorant on history. >And I wonder what happen when 100 tribes emig They largely stayed were they where. They just had a racist government imposed on them that made no distinction between their ethnicities. >You are ignoring that we are already above 20% diversified What a non sequitur. What point are you trying to make? First, many global north natives support foreign aid regardless and a majority of their support is still needed to pass anything. What about them? Second, for any one country, 20% diversified could mean that 20% of people are from foreign countries, not necessarily African or Latin American ones. Indeed many of those 20% constituents are other whites from within Europe. And even if they were all sub-Saharan Africans they are still not a majority. Regardless, the great replacement conspiracy theory is bullshit and you can find countless counters to it on the internet. Please do some research. >No, you gave general, feelgood ideas that ignore the local cor In many Latin American countries the local corruption is the result of USA backed coups. Again you are either ignorant of history or simply intent on ignoring it at all costs. Bolivia, for example, has been doing relatively well since a more socialist indigenous government was introduced. Why don't global north countries back said governments? Because it would hurt their corporate profit interests. >Long term action is preparing for climate change that have become unavo Yes. But that alone is too little. Foreign aid is also essential. > Yes, they flee their war torn >In South America >Natural disaster ravaged >In South America Yes. Study history. >Not if we accept the milli You're just blatantly misreading what I write at this point. You missed that I was describing what the motivation of those migrants was in their heads. Their rationalization for it. Whether it's true or not is another matter. For the purposes of policy, specifically one attempting to address the problem in a sustainable long term way, those root motivations must be addressed. And for that: the proper solution is foreign aid. >We have done that for decad It must continue to be done and be done right. > What is the problem with having an healthy economy and trading things we make and thirdies want for the resources we need and thirdies produce? The problem is that capitalist profit motives necessitate an asymmetric trade. Workers never get rewarded the value of the labor, and their countries as a whole, never get the equivalent value of what they are trading. This is a built-in feature of capitalism. >>61844 The problems with murderous deterrence of migration on the scale that will become necessary due to the coming extreme climate events, is that it will be extremely unpopular both in the country repelling the migration and the countries from which people are migrating. It will cause severe civil unrest, political instability and global condemnation. Once before this has culminated in a totalitarian genocidal state and the most deadly war and monetarily costly in history. I personally do think such deterrence is unethical, but also it's simply not the most practical cost-effective way.

>>61868 >By resilient leftist nation, I hope you don't mind Venezuela? They have been given everything by nature and failed because it's a dictatorship that mismanage everything. The world have stopped pretending that it was socialist because the soviet union is gone and there is no more free rubles and weapons when you do. I'm democratic, liberal. It was merely a "we" sentiment as a child. My influence was discarded for it, technically for faith, for assumptions about how it would develop. >The only way to be oppressed in Europe is to not be on the left in the soviet union or to debate unsustainable immigration. What happened to you? You were fired from uni because you were screaming stalinist propaganda? This isn't true. Oppression was organized since I was a child for being on the left, by extreme right, I experienced this myself, I was framed and my influence was disregarded, children were developed to be on the right. People with extremist views will oppress different views even when it's not thoroughly organized by government. Yet technically it was also government. >You get oppressed only when you go against the will of the elite, and the left now support the same thing as the elites. The "far" right, meaning the one that consider more than money is almost illegal. This was being on the left here in center Europe, and I guess times changed for the better then. They fuarrrked with kids.

>>61872 Small fix: >By resilient leftist nation, I hope you don't mind Venezuela? They have been given everything by nature and failed because it's a dictatorship that mismanage everything. >The world have stopped pretending that it was socialist because the soviet union is gone and there is no more free rubles and weapons when you do. I'm democratic, liberal. It was merely a "we" sentiment as a child. My influence was discarded for it, technically for faith, for assumptions about how it would develop. I know I had to be a certain way as a child and usually development is sort of like this, however extreme right went much too far, they organized against kids, and they ruined me. Any judicial outcome was obstructed for me too, it's not like this reality will ever be found in history books about the flemish.

>>61868 >What happened to you? Targeted normalization of child sex abuse. My mother did it. I was elaborately framed, damaged for it. Justice is obstructed by state, so in any case state is calling for it. State is aware of it, they damaged me and they tried to kill me for it.

>>61871 >Everyone who disagree with me is ignorant. I am an enlighten intellectual and Bolivia, Cuba and China are rich countries. >I believe capitalist countries can turn communist, yes. It's happened in the past. Only in one case: when the advancement of society was blocked by political factors, like in the Tsarist Russia or China. The same causes were present in Spain. As soon as the established order that kept everyone poor and miserable was gone, the reason for the communist uprising was gone and the time of communism was counted. How many countries are still communist today? Social democracy require a culture and a unity you can find only in Nordic countries, it is not possible to have in even on continental Europe. What we have are liberal democracies. Just like social democracy, it's based on capitalism and the quest for profit but with voluntary solidarity in the case of social democracy and mandatory solidarity made to fit the needs of the market in the case of liberal democracy. Ho, and the great evening is from Karl. If you don't even know what I just wrote, at least be humble. >There is no law of nature or human behavior that makes it an axiom that all untapped fossil fuels must eventually be burned. Humans, especially when in countries that are in competition with each others are trying to figure how to get the best outcome with the limited resources they have. Oil is cheap, oil get soykaf done, oil will be burnt.

>>61871 History of Xtianity is history. Today they are harmless and even at their worse point, the Spanish inquisition, it was no worse that ISIS. And that was centuries ago. If you have a problem with Christianity because of that, then you are also an anticommunist or an hypocrite. Christianity expanded by conversion, Islam by sword, conquest and submission. If you want to point at the crusades, then at least know it were defensive wars to stop the Islamic expansion in a first time and then to allow pilgrims to go to Jerusalem. The only two exceptions were the Teutonic knights, Germans just can't let Poles alone, and the crusade against Cathares. The wars of religion were purely political, and unlike the Sunni/Chiite one it lasted only one century. Islam is more violent and retrograde that Christianity ever was. As we speak, the last French soldiers leave Mali after the corrupt government decided it would be colonialism to fight the Islamic state in the sahel from taking over the country. >Drawing borders over 10 ethnicity cause wars but making 100 of them move in the same country will not Explain yourself. And about diversity, the official numbers of France just dropped, 40% of the babies have extra European roots. Surely, this will end better than the 10 ethnicity finding themselves in the same country. > many Latin American countries the local corruption is the result of USA backed coups. Opinion. Venezuela is the most corrupt state of South America. It was corrupt to the core since the independence. In fact, it became independent only so the elite could take more wealth. >those root motivations must be addressed. It's what Australia did. They had a strong anti migrant policies and made a "you won't call it home" campaign in the countries of origin of the migrants. It worked. It will work again. More free money will only be wasted in corruption. Unless we give them so much that we become all equally poor it won't work, and I am sure you understand my rational self interest in not wanting the quality of life of thirdies. >It must continue to be done and be done right. The only right way to do it is called colonialism. I bet you are against. It was the only time of peace and their fasted material and social progress. It costed us a lot of money but we uplifted them to where they were at the end of the colonization. It's gone. > Workers never get rewarded the value of the labor And they don't in communist countries either. The entrepreneurs are just called members of the politburo. >The problems with murderous deterrence of migration on the scale that will become necessary due to the coming extreme climate events If we don't apply punctual force where it is needed, it will lead to a billion climate refugee in Europe and the consequential fall civilization. A lot more people will die if we do nothing. On one side, we get a hundred people beaten to death every year, on the other a hundred million dead bodies.

>>61882 > If you want to point at the crusades, then at least know it were defensive wars to stop the Islamic expansion Nice try. When crusaders went into battle, they literally cried out "Today, please God, you will all gain much booty". > muh Venezuela What CIA did in Guatemala is like billion times worse than anything that has ever been happening in Venezuela. > As we speak, the last French soldiers leave Mali after the corrupt government decided it would be colonialism to fight the Islamic state Good. I would rather have ISIS members than whitoids as neighbors.

>>61882 > Germans just can't let Poles alone https://cznazbol.wordpress.com/2022/08/16/why-slavs-are-the-dumbest-race-of-all/

>>61873 >The far right organized against kids What country did you grew up in? The far right wasn't more than 10% in any European country until the 00's. And to get back to the present, now it isn't the far right that insist on forcing chemicals (experimental gene therapy or hormone blockers) on kids. It isn't the far right that sexualize kids and bully everyone who want kids to grew up by themselves. It isn't the far right that fire everyone who insist life changing choice should not be made by immature people who live under the influence of adult. >>61874 That's very sad to hear but I don't see how that had anything to do with you being on the left. If anything, it's the tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists that fight potential network of pedophiles in the elite, and they don't tend to be on the left.

>>61884 And what do the jihadis scream, even today? Christianity expended by spreading words. In Rome, they were not the ones doing to killing, they were the ones being killed. For political reasons, they got accepted when their number grew and became the main religion only when enough people made the choice of being Christian. Then it was mostly the kings and nobility of other countries converting to gain the support of Rome, like Clovis. Christianity extended to Scandinavia when the monks the Vikings took as thralls (slaves) converted the locals. The extension of Islam was an imperialist war that have annihilated every culture and religion it conquered. They literally admire a man who have killed 500 prisoners of war with his own sword. The worse you will see from Christian today is a god hate user sign. Islamists throw them from the roof. That's the difference. >Good. I would rather have ISIS members than whitoids as neighbors. Let me guess. It's not just words and you are already buying a house in Mali, right? The Christians in Mali organized only because their own government allowed their massacre and as a sign of good will they gave their weapons to the French when requested. You just can't compare that to an islamic state.

>>61881 >Only in one case >like in the Tsarist Russia or China >How many countries are still communist today? Virtually none. Because from their inception countries who have chosen communism are subjects of the combined aggression (military and economic, covert and overt) of the capitalist west countries. >Social democracy require a culture No such requirement exists. Social democracy movements exist all over the world and their member ship is very diverse as it must be. >Humans, especially when in countries that are in comp If they exist in a system that requires it perhaps. But humans make up the systems. They can change the systems as they have done in the past. No. There is no law of nature or human behavior that makes it an axiom that all untapped fossil fuels must eventually be burned. >History of Xtianity is history. Today they are har... My original point was about how improving living conditions and education correlate with diminishing religious influence. I even gave you examples. You continue to harp on about history demonstrating your incredibly simplified view on ancient history and ignoring modern history. >Drawing borders over 10 ethnicity cause wars but making 100 of them move in the same country will not I didn't say that. Please argue in good faith. The implication was that instability in these nations is to some extent due to the denial of their own self determination in favor of colonial interests. Which resulted in division of land not based on the already existing allegiances of the locals, but instead on natural resource distribution among colonial powers. >Opinion. Venezuela is the most corrupt stat Come on man. You gave a single example. And again the combined aggression of the western world towards it is a factor. >It's what Australia did. Again. Crises will continue to get worse, migration pressure will increase far more. Such policies will cease to be enough, more radical ones will lead to social unrest and political instability. > I am sure you understand my rational self interest I understand it. Rest assured, your well being does not have to come at the expense of millions of people. The resources which corporate leaders hoard can be redistributed/invested. Don't antagonize the less fortunate of the world, they largely share they same struggle as you. They are not your enemies. >The only right way to do it is called colonialism. I bet you are against. Yes I am. It's been a historic failure. Colonialism mostly uplifted a minority of the population (the foreign colonizers, and the local elite) rather than the working class. >It costed us a lot of money but we uplifted them to where they were at the end of the colonization. It's gone. Again, misguided investment of resources. It's must be done right. They must be allowed their own democratic self determination. >If we don't apply punctual force where it is needed The punctual force needed is foreign aid to third world countries, in order to lessen motives for migration. That means improving their standards of living and building up their protections to natural disasters. This will be cheaper than the eventual cost of the consequence of a military deterrence of migration which in the past has lead the the most deadly and costly war in history, as I described.

>>61888 You have a very narrow, politically motivated view of history. Perhaps that's just the education you received. I don't know, but it is the case. Proper history seeks to be more objective and realistic. Be wary of simplified and idealized framings of historical events, especially military ones. The following can serve as a good introduction for how political motivations can paint historical events in inaccurate ways. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejdlkfXwPQc But of course do more reading and research than just that.

>>61887 >The far right wasn't more than 10% in any European country until the 00's. That's obviously made up. I grew up in it it since the 90s. >That's very sad to hear but I don't see how that had anything to do with you being on the left. That's merely I was me with my influence, and this treatment was applied on me. It's me who was oppressed, and who am I? >What country did you grew up in? Belgium, Flanders: I understand I wasn't allowed to be natural, empathic, social me who thought of "we", not just "I" as a child here in Flanders, this influence was discarded. In fact these were anti-socialization schemes. Yet I was a child, and it's not easy to understand what is withheld from me. But in any case, I understand myself, I understand I was able to reason, I understand I was able to discredit widespread right wing fraud. So I understand the selective normalization of child sex abuse, and the elaborate framing, damaging, mutilation that follows, was effectively weapons against "leftism", leftist influence. The only question is if it was deliberate use of weapons against "leftism". If the use of selective normalization of child sex abuse was deliberate use of weapons against leftism, then that means the left that exists here in Flanders got filtered by extreme right using extreme means, for practically faith. In any case state calls for it, treatment makes this apparent. Victim of child sex abuse gets elaborate framing, organization of fraud, damage, mutilation. Victim of child sex abuse gets indefinitely convicted to circumvention of the judicial system since childhood. Justice against abusers and state are obstructed by the entirety of government, including lawyers. The entirety of government is an extremist damaging pedo cult in the case. In the case, Belgium isn't ruled by law nor by democracy, Belgium is ruled by trust in extremist damaging pedo cult. My income is disability, state owes me enormous damages in fact. Judicial system is sham. They stole from me and they ruined me. I have heart problems and no diagnosis of the heart.

covid is totally bio weapon it's totally efficient

>>62011 surprisingly damage covid measures caused is already estimated higher than ww2 and the hidden costs are also not immediately visible. Academic failure due covid will express themself decades later when the kids who were supposed to be working with good degrees are now dropouts on meds.

>>62018 Wow, you're totally right! How did I not notice that all the cities in Europe have been bombed to rubble? And all the young men are dead?? Crazy how the liberal media hides these things from us!

>>62019 Why are you this retarded? Economic damage doesnt require dead .

>>62019 >>62018 Probably means deaths

>>62020 Look around, there are still factories that produce stuff and you can still buy food at the store. Whatever economic damage there has been, its nothing like having your city razed to the ground.

>>62022 you forget covid is worldwide while what you mention was mostly a german problem. There are obviously profiteers in covid (mask sellers etc.) but i doubt those profits outweigh the losses. Gastronomy&Tourism got kneecapped so hard you could read about suicides. Then you have the burdened health care and insurances who reported 40% higher mortality alongside inability to keep up with the demand for mental health care. And you can bring this back to your suggested theme: In war the best way to harm the enemy is not to kill enemy soldiers but to mangle them into a state where they are unfit to fight but still have to be supplied. That caries a much higher cost and handicaps the enemy far more than simple loss of life.

>>62011 It is a whole lot more than you think. >>62022 As if you couldnt buy anything during the war, ofcourse you could as long as it had and you werent bombed. >>62023 Not him or anyone else. Also dont forget covid was not even 3 years ago and was not a "war". I dont think numbers mean soykaf in the context tho, you cant really compare, not even caring about the difference between monetary value for the sake of argument. A known gureilla tactic is not to kill but to harm and enemy soldier so that others are weakened by helping him. And as others mentioned, the long term effects will be devestating, the short term effects already are. Back to the topic at hand, most of these problems are artifically caused and most of the worlds resources are either supressed or controlled and therefore result in conflict caused by those who use them for their own ends. Most of the world is perfectly habbitable and many alternative self sustainable solutions are availbable for low cost.

>>62024 >artifically caused human made yes Why did we do it? >A known gureilla tactic is not to kill but to harm and enemy soldier so that others are weakened by helping him. Like the Belgian state handling leftist children.

The Belgian state ethically has to support those it disabled because extreme right harming leftist children went for not supporting them in the past. They totally frame and kill them though.