Too Much Humans

Sometimes I wonder if humanity was ever meant to be this big, or if it's even humanly possible. This isn’t about capitalism or communism, the real question is: is it possible for any society of 8 billion individuals to live in harmony? Humans are the only species with such scale and impact on the planet; every other animal lives in small groups of their own kind spread around the globe. Should humanity have even reached this point? And is there any way for us to live in harmony that doesn’t rely on the obvious utopia of expecting everyone to agree on what we think is right? please don't read this in a edgy goku black tone, its an genuine thought of mine

the amount of white people is just right, very sustainable and great for development it's the brown masses breeding uncontrollably that put the strain on the earth

was it possible for a population of 1billion to live in harmony ? 500m? 250m? I think if you got 100 people together on an island you'd have disharmony. Probably even if you just got two

>>93541 It is not our fault. There is no free will without freedom. We fight for resources because that's just the way you survive in this cursed world of limited resources, immense pain and overbearing suffering. We should trap Yaldabaoth and his servants into perpetual torture machines when we finally break out of Samsara.

>>93539 "Muh browns no sustainable" - says a burgerino hitlerino cracker after riding in his oversized car for 20 miles on the oversized highway for an oversized burger after working for his "Hitlerino Enterprises" megaburgercorp which produces nothing but a dressed up Chinese export product.

>>93545 spoken like a true npc

>>93539 This is unbelievably true. The most horrifying part is that their birth rates just keep going up. Whites don't breed if it isn't sensible but the browns and blacks fuarrrk like rabbits constantly. Something something lack of ability to plan ahead due to lower IQs I would imagine

>>93537 The problem is the way you are looking at it. What causes conflict isn’t the size of the population, it’s the social structure and function. The international system incentivizes violence and conflict in several different ways that would take hours to explain. The dominant ideologies of liberalism, Marxism, and online burger neo-fascism are all conflict sociologies. At their root, they all believe humans must compete and struggle for dominance to annihilate each other. They are all Darwinian ideologies very useful for states and corporations that are repressive resource hogs. What these ideologies also share is utopianism, the sense that a heaven could be realized on Earth through resource exploitation, eliminating the need for Christianity. And of course, resource also includes “human resources.” Capitalism, Marxism, and Trumperoid fascism are extreme cultic religions. Since they can’t actually realize a heaven on earth, they continually destroy it to try and realize an impossible ideal which drives them to compete more aggressively and violently. This is why the failure of the US political system is often blamed on others (Chinese, blacks, immigrants etc) rather than owning up to the fact the system doesn’t work and never will. There’s a similar phenomenon in China where people blame “corruption” or Japan or the US for Marxist failures. >every other animal lives in small groups of their own kind spread around the globe. Animal species vastly outnumber humans. There are more house cats in the US than there are people. There are about 1 trillion fish. However, fish (unmolsted anyway) live harmoniously with their environment. Modern humans are the only species that have developed a culture of destroying their environment and each other so they can live it up in the short term. And now some people like Musk, Bezoes, and Thiel believe that the planet should be abandoned so a small elite can live it up and everyone else dies. Lmao like we need white people for development. Tell that to China, Japan, Korea etc. fuarrrking retards.

>>93548 >Utopianism >Marxism Marx is rolling around in his grave, while Engels is slapping his knee and laughing hysterically

>>93548 >China, Japan, Korea etc. they're white though

>>93539 Africa is the least strain-on-earth putting continent though

>>93555 Do you not know what "per capita" means?

>>93537 The problem is that 90% of any given sample at any given scale will be NPCs, and the world currently is tuned to mass produce low quality people. NPCs lack the insight and cognitive characteristics required for self correction, so the world gets more and more unbelieveable and degenerate as more and more are badly programmed and then sponge up those behaviors from their perceived peers.

>>93556 nta but even considering the higher population density of africa the us of a is still a dumpster

>>93555 This map makes the Philippines look clean in comparison to others, while in reality there's smelly trash and litter thrown everywhere like as if it were India.

>>93555 >india >less than 200 kg

>>93573 >>93574 Waste generation does not mean anything about where the waste goes. Burgerreich generates a soykaf ton of waste, but collects it and either exports it abroad for other countries to swallow or dumps it in their own landfills.

>>93548 Animals can't help but come into balance with their environment because their environment kills them until they do. It is our long search for utopia which has granted us our dominance through engineering so i wouldn't badmouth such passions. As you've described we've come to craft ourselves using moralities and ideologies, systemic concepts of civility and we resent our own painful sculpting. I don't know if it's a good thing that we're doing that to ourselves. Maybe it's like physical exercise and we rip the benefits of those efforts. Maybe conflict made us strong enough to even consider our future at all. The act of walking forward is a cyclical loss of balance. Nice. On the other hand we are killing ourselves at the task because it's a path of transcendence. I don't want to die, could i get a glimpse of that rebirth first? O muh humanity.

>>93574 there is probably 200kg of waste being thrown into the rivers of india , indians parking moped by the side of the river and launching bags of garbage into the ganges river on the daily

The population numbers are fake, everyone is just being crammed into cities. There was a huge die off from the v a x but housing prices didn't budge because it's all artificially controlled. Mass migration is to provide the illusion of overpopulation.

Yes I do, and I live in a densely populated city. People get along just fine, and in this awful terrible economy people buy and sell stuff to and from neighbors and help eachother. Sometimes people dont get along, and yet it gets sorted and life continues. The issue is you have a large swathe of america at least that is deeply antisocial, does not have the tools to deal with difficult personalities (despite being one themselves) and actually gets thrown into a complete existential panic when they do have to deal with somebody who does not slot into their "how people are supposed to act and how interactions are supposed to go" box. That would be many on this board, or especially on places like reddit. Its crazy my city has a subreddit and there is a huge disconnect between what they think the problems are or their ideas on things and what anyone ive talked to out on the street or at events or the store or on the bus thinks. Not always obviously, and this wouldnt be that insane except that the people on this subreddit truly think they and their solutions "speak for everyone" and every now and then you encounter one of these people in the wild and they do say or do something insane thinking everyone is gonna back them up not realizing they live in an alternate reality of the very place they live. Which brings me to my other issue that I cant say how many people humans were "meant to be around" but I can say for sure the exposure to people and ideas the internet provides is not something humans were meant for. People have strong violence inducing opinions now on sorts of people and ways of life they do not even have exposure to and often will never have exposure to. In a city like mine and it used to be even more like this, theres a whole different zeitgeist and community and set of ideas juat from one tiny burough or neighborhood to the next, and my ideas on how life should be and whats needed are focused entirely on my city and even more so just my neighborhood. I dont even worry about what people a city over are doing except in the sense of whether its something that would be a good idea to do here or not, i certainly dont worry about people a state over or a country over. Im not talking about being fundamentally isolationist but in terms of what should occupy space in your mind as something you have any input or control over I think this should be it. And a lot more people can get along and work together when your average person operates like this than you would think, as is we have people who want to kill eachother for things they have never even witnessed in real life at all, that half the time arent even true or are half true and certainly arent understood in any sort of context. The issue isnt "better educating people" on the myriad of issues with new ones popping up every hour its that they shouldnt even be aware of them. Because when people just hear telephone game mode that california is doing this or texas is doing this you have people reacting to it as if its happening to them right now and making big huge sweeping moral and value decisions, and then making decisions off of those decisions. We have like some kind of modern state to state orientalism where people dont leave their home or cul de sac and just hear fantastical exaggerated accounts of soykaf happening a state over. Except instead of it being about egyptians having magical powers or accounts of african animals being in china its that students in portland are using litterboxes because they are all catkin or some bullshit. And then the people reading just go "oh yeah of course that would be true" and eventually are primed to believe literally anything about places they will never go to and live in fear its coming to their state. Again almost exactly like one of those 19th century "complete accounts" or encyclopedias of india or wherever written in britain by a guy who knew a guy who went once. Except turned up to 11 and all in the direction of rage instead of mysticism and wonder as well. We certainly cant keep up like this if there is 8 billion people and all those 8 billion people also have increasing access to everyones screaming and raging at all times on their phone with 4 hour plus screentimes. Everyone thinks they really have their finger on the pulse too and if you point out to your average american thay something they think about another state is fake or exaggerated or out of context its blown off as just one little thing. The realization that that means every piece of "news" they have been basing things around and making leaps off of leaps off of is similarly unvetted and unreliable never hits. Its just "okay a detail is wrong but overall i get the picture", no man all of the details are a mish mash of wrong and right. The initial thing that set you off on whatever idealogical path your on if it came after like 2010 might even be wrong.

>>93539 >the amount of white people is just right, very sustainable and great for development about 1/2 bn amirite lainchan?

>>93598 Not him, but what are you implying here? Because every time I've seen someone bring up the guidestones in a conversation, it's almost always a rightoid conspiracy nutjob who thinks it's all a jewish-reptoid plot to enslave humanity and usher in a new satanic dark age hell-bent on destroying the christian world by creating a totalitarian world government where people are forced to speak sanskrit, when in actuality it's all just things nobody but a barbaric molemen could disagree with: "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. Guide reproduction wisely – improving fitness and diversity. Unite humanity with a living new language. Rule passion – faith – tradition – and all things with tempered reason. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. Avoid petty laws and useless officials. Balance personal rights with social duties. Prize truth – beauty – love – seeking harmony with the infinite. Be not a cancer on the Earth – Leave room for nature – Leave room for nature." You'd have to be a mental patient if you think these statements were satanic in any way whatsoever. In fact, anyone not agreeing with these statements is literally a satanist, a child of egotism, vanity, greed, gluttony, hatred and pride.

>>93601 if you think diversity is good then replacing languages with a new unified language is peak retardation. And the longterm consequence is loss of history as people lose the ability to read their own records. Guiding reproduction is peak nazi soykaf and you too stupid to even notice. Every bad measure is propagandized with positive marketing and you idiots keep falling for it.

>>93602 You don't understand, we NEED to give absolute power over lives to a bunch of psychopathic pedos. It's the only way forward!

>>93602 People always were very careful in their breeding. Misceganation is only a recent fad.

>>93604 You miss the autonomy point entirely. Currently you pick yourself. Gov eugenics means gov chooses who you can fuarrrk or if you get straight sterilized cause you deemed unworthy.

>>93604 Miscegenation, that is race-mixing, is and has always been, the greatest threat to the survival of the Aryan race. (The 88 PRECEPTS)

How'd this thread manage to attract the most annoying glitterboys on lainchan. This is even more bigoted than the average /p0l/ thread.

>>93602 >if you think diversity is good then replacing languages with a new unified language is peak retardation... Within the context of evolutionary biology, "diversity" is the final outcome of evolution by necessity: you can't reproduce as effectively as someone who is fit for the environment, and there's no fitness without adaptation, and because there are various environments (and functions) to which to adapt in order to improve your chances, you logically get diversity as an outcome to adapting to said different environments (and functions). So, yes, diversity is kind of a big thing in the larger scheme of things. But nowhere in the guidestones does it say anything about "replacing" anything with anything. In fact, it clearly uses the concept of "nations" (notice the plural form), which has by definition included distinct languages as key characteristics that define a people since the invention of modern statehood. So, taken as a political program in its entirety, what it's saying is that we should all have one "world language" in addition to our distinct native languages, in order that we could interact with people from every other nation more efficiently. It's basically advocating for the adoption of a common language like English, but with the key distinction that it should have a worldwide recognition and accessibility unlike English. >Guiding reproduction is peak nazi soykaf That's like saying Jesus was a communist because he spread the message of "loving your neighbour". You can have eugenics without being a member of the nazi party. If that wasn't the case, we'd have to start calling all farmers and cattle-herders nazis as well. Nobody is advocating for gassing the jews in order to make room for the aryan race, but about leaving the coming generations better off with bodies that aren't sickly and miserable to bear. Also, did you not notice the qualifying verb "guide"? It doesn't mean what you think it means, and nowhere in the guidestones does it state anything that would suggest it doesn't, nor is there a "guidestones manifesto" out there that gives you any reason to think otherwise. >Every bad measure is propagandized with positive marketing and you idiots keep falling for it. By that logic, there's no point believing in any positive vision of tomorrow, because at the end of the day it's probably just propaganda with a happy face meant to dupe you. >>93603 If you think "passing fair laws", prizing "truth, beauty and love", balancing "personal rights with social duties" and "not being a cancer on the Earth" are things that a psychopath would do or sincerely advocate for, I don't know what to say to you, lainon. >>93605 >Gov eugenics means gov chooses Dude, it clearly reads "guide". Ever been to a guided tour in a museum? Did you know you needn't follow the guide, and could leave the group whenever you wanted, even though the guide would strongly recommend you stick with the group, because he actually thinks you'd get more out of it when there's a competent person informing you of things you might have not thought to consider? Since when have words stopped meaning anything?

>>93609 Putting up some stones with commandments is cult behavior, guide in cult terminology is "obey or face punishment"

>>93610 >Putting up some stones with commandments is cult behavior, guide in cult terminology is "obey or face punishment" No different from the ten commandments, wherein "commandment", in normal terminology, actually means "obey or face (eternal) punishment". So, Christianity is now a cult all of a sudden? To all who criticize the stones: you haven't got a leg to stand, because everything extra that wasn't explicitly expressed in the stones is just speculation, based on nothing but people speaking out of ignorance. That leaves us with taking the stones at face value. As such the stones do not express anything that a sane, rational, informed person wouldn't agree with. Implementation is a whole other discussion entirely, and because of the vagueness of the statements, there's room for interpretation. But whatever interpretation you landed on pertaining to the guidestones, that's all on you. If you start seeing jewish reptoid cults jumping up and down between the words in the guidestones, it's you who've chosen to see them there.

>>93611 >Christianity is a cult? was a cult, difference between cult and established religion is just size, originally Christianity was just a persecuted arab cult who escaped to europe and then they managed to scam royalty into making them the new state religion.

>>93602 >if you think diversity is good then replacing languages with a new unified language is peak retardation. These stones precede the time when the word diversity took on this very politically charged meaning. See it as meaning to avoid biological bottlenecks for example. Note if you will that modern diversity as it is engineered doesn't seem to be improving it much as it's rather creating a hatred of it and with an end goal that seems to be rather distant from maintaining diversity. Uniting humanity with a living new language means making sure people all around the globe use a language that is common and continues evolving. With the same language, all people can understand each other. That seems to be some newage booner retarded crap really. Protecting people and nations? That's hardly what is going on and by the looks of it, it will get much worse for the next coming century unless some major habbening habbens. A world court implies a centralization of law for international relations. The model advocated here is definitely federal and modeled on the American one, which as we see is also dying. So pretty much like the Bible, there's some good stuff, some okay stuff, and some bad stuff in this list. Why it got people sperging like crazy is the half a billion target. How do you get there? With kind words? When is that milestone supposed to be reached? In 3491, after a chill and quite relaxed depop initiative, assuming everybody agreed without being forced through totalitarianism?

Obligatory old picture for the fast scrollers.

>>93614 >See it as meaning to avoid biological bottlenecks for example. your mental model is constrained by your language. Killing languages kills the range of possible thought patterns. Reducing language to a single one you artificially fabricate from nothing would be creating an extinction event where only one inbred species survives.

>>93611 > the stones do not express anything that a sane, rational, informed person wouldn't agree with. I'm sorry what ? Cap population at 500million ? New unifying human language ? Protect nations ? World court ? I don't thin any of these have particularly universal consent or support even or maybe especially among the people you describe. Seek harmony with the infinite ? Balance with nature, room for nature ? What do these even mean either in practice or in theory?

>>93537 Even if we can grow humans in on a terraformed planet with various earthly plants and animals, natural selection should be reinstated for newborns and the elderly. We also should just down the manufacturing of most vitamin supplements to force certain peoples to remigrate back to their ancestral homelands to build up extra vitamin D through their black or dark brown skin.

>>93610 Laws written on paper are not cult so if someone wrote those same commandments down on a piece of paper then is it cult or laws?

>>93621 Your argument distills to its harder to spot a killer on Halloween. Cult writes a book it's still cult laws. Its just harder to spot.

>>93617 'cause cullture is a reflection of genetics. All languages must be derived from some sort of transcendental grammar connected with the structure of the human brain. A global language won't survive in a truly multicultural world. >>93548 tds

>>93618 Cap population at 500million ? Yes. Ever heard of supply and demand, the planet and its resources being finite, Earth's carrying capacity and how we've been overshooting it for decades on end including this year in July, the western consumer societies not being sustainable, US citizens being among the most wasteful of people (see graph: >>93555), that the experts are beginning to say we might be living the 7th extinction event just now, that most of all our waste does not end up recycled, and that the third world is catching up with the western societies' levels of consumption? In the long-term this whole thing will collapse if the current trends keep going, and if you were to hit up 6 experts in environmentalism, climate change, ecology or biology with an email, I bet 4 of them would think capping humanity at 500mil is a good idea, although extremely idealistic in their view, in order to ensure every nation could enjoy the same standard of living that the average westerner currently has. New unifying human language ? Yes. Do you have any idea what kind of a hassle it is to provide all the legal documentations for all EU member states in the representatives' own language? Not only is it fuarrrking stupid, it's also extremely inefficient in terms of making political decisions. So, why NOT have a one unifying language that is easy enough for everyone to learn, and required for everyone to learn for things which require or would considerably improve if there were one universal language facilitating all administrative, academic and international political tasks? If you were to hit up any expert involved in international affairs, administration or bureaucracy I'm sure all would agree that it would be a good idea. By the way, there have already been attempts before - ever heard of Esperanto? >Protect nations ? Yes. What do you think the Geneva conventions and the prevailing international judiciary architecture were for? Going on picnics with genocidal maniacs? >World court ? Yes. Ever heard of the International Court of Justice, of human rights, of interpol, Puting and Netanyahu having warrants which were issued by another international criminal court, or of the nuremberg trials? Again, ask any human rights advocate, judge or law enforcement agency that has to do with cross-national crime, and I bet they'd be yelling "hallelujah!" for you for suggesting it. >Seek harmony with the infinite ? Balance with nature, room for nature ? I'll grant you the "seek harmony with the infinite" part, but when it comes to the "balance with nature" stuff, well, I ask you, what do *you* think it means? In practice, I bet "don't go pouring battery acid on anthills or sea turtles" is a good start, no? In theory? Well, how about "minimize buying dumb crap you don't need, plan cities and towns in a manner which doesn't require hours of car driving just to get to your job and back, eat your veggies, and design electronics in such a manner that you could get away with the teensiest of component changes in order to upgrade your whole electronic system or device to last you for another decade", how's that for theory for start? When did people become so jaded and pessimistic???

>>93629 >unified legal language reducing barriers good no you naive fuarrrk, people want barriers to have a competitive edge in their own market. Nobody wants to compete with outsiders or lose their job to increased efficiency bureaucrats also go only into one direction - more bureaucracy to increase job security.

>>93630 Okay, fine. But in that case they are being satanic and hence part of the problem, because they are setting up petty laws and artificial borders and hence acting like useless officials. See: >>93601.

>>93632 ensuring your own survival is not useless. The whole free market idea is doomed to fail because everyone does market manipulation. If one country subsidizes their industry with taxes and yours doesn't then your industry will lose the competition and die. Once they took your market over they can raise prices to extortion level and you cant do soykaf about it because now you rely on them as your own industry is dead.

>>93634 >ensuring your own survival is not useless. Except that isn't what an official... is supposed to do? It's a job where you get paid for facilitating or guaranteeing the smooth and efficient functioning of everything around you according to a grander plan. Besides, I wasn't the one talking about markets, but rather focused specifically on international politics, legislation and academic research wherein, objectively speaking, having a universal language would be beneficial, which I doubt any competent person who isn't solely looking for his own self-interest would disagree with. Hell, even the guidestones had nothing to say about markets, apart from the implication that consumerism is bad. Not that I disagree with your point, but I fail to see how it addresses my argument?

>>93635 legislation is how you create walls against the problem i described in previous post. All the red tape is useful for those who are protected by it. And research falls into same segment because it's funded to create patents. Technological advantage drives western economy. You publish in english while opposition publish in chinese? They can read your work but you cant read theirs = they have a advantage to patent ahead of you.

>>93629 >Yes. Ever heard of supply and demand, esperanto ICC etc etc etc yes I've heard of all of these things, I don't deny that all of these represent opinions have been espoused by various people in the last 250 years, my disagreement is that all these ideas are things that sane, rational, informed persons all agree with. If they are then such people are vanishingly rare humans in a massive sea of krokodiladoj. For what its worth as goes for international courts and nuremburg trials, the bedrock of these is the right of the conqueror to do to the vanquished as he pleases and the principal that might makes right. These courts do not exist without the threat of massive violence, and often not merely the threat.

>>93628 Do you imply that the unification must be achieved on a racial basis like some kind of maximum lebensraum? What for? How could that guarantee diversity in mankind? What about the concept of the King of the World? Wouldn't his language by the lingua franca of the whole world? Does it imply destroying the local languages? I don't think so. https://nifiluz.blogspot.com/2023/10/the-mystery-of-king-of-world-in.html

>>93555 Now show me the map of the truly polluting countries, those that have no concept of collecting their own detritus. Cue: they're in Asia and Africa. They're the true source of the floating plastic islands.

>>93637 >Technological advantage drives western economy. Not so much when you consider the relations with China and India. If the Western world truly prized its technological advantage it would not open its universities and academies to foreigners so they can take the knowledge back home, nor would it pull its pants down to get a slice of China's market and disregard everything about patents, nor would it pour tons of money in random mid third world countries to make them evolve and westernize. The Western society doesn't see this technology as its own force but as a resource to spread and share either through violence or economically, and thinks that with so many leaks, the only way to stay on top is to pour more water into the tank. Water here being more money and more inventions and patents, all at a faster rate. The more global the openness on technology, the crazier the rat race.

>>93656 >inconsistent behavior drinking alcohol doesn't invalidate knowing alcohol is unhealthy. People just have other priorities. Everyone knew outsourcing to china would lead to them copying tech but everyone also wanted the profit from cheap labor and no regulations. And if we look at decision makers its mostly old people about to retire / die, they take shortterm gains because they have no future to care about. And once one company starts outsourcing all their competitors are put in compulsory move to keep up. The only way to protect local industry is tax imports high enough it bridges the gap. They didnt do that fast enough and now everyone is doing outsourcing to be competitive.

>>93659 It was unthinkable in the US, and while now the country thinks it can play the protectionist game, OTOH that fuarrrked up place like the UE that can never agree on anything has no chance of ever being self-coherent enough to come up with anything like the most basic economic defenses so it will keep getting raepd hahahaa.

>>93654 Some people, like Serrano, think he will speak the language of Wotan. His Rune mantras will reactivate the chakras of the elect to communicate with them through telepathy. So the higher echelons probably won't use the "global" lingua franca at all because it's inefficient — racial polarization for greater differentiation and fitness of all species on Earth.

There is no west, there are no countries, all peoples are cattle of the powerful. That's why the rich rush to sell out their nation and future for pennies, because neither exists.

>>93537 We became too smart for our own good. Through the millennia we had pretty big buffers for the size of human populations - contagious illnesses, wars, natural disasters… but somehow we learned how to mitigate all these issues. Medicine improved, wars are fought with words and money instead of swords and guns, and we figured out technologies to survive most disasters. There are fewer things that can wipe out the majority of the human race, and our planet is more crowded due to this. But obviously everything has its limits, and one day soykaf will hit the fan. Humanity is fragile, after all. A few world leaders having beef and deciding to deal with it using nukes will do the job. An incurable, contagious disease attacking humans or their food sources is not that unthinkable. Scientists are in awe because of heightened sun activity that may or may not bring a solar storm that will eradicate most of our modern infrastructures. Something will happen one day, and those eight billions of human lives will turn into a billion, maybe less; who fuarrrking knows?

>>93769 >We became too smart for our own good. opposite. ~4y ago i saw a french guy publish how the genius outliers vanished from pisa statistics. Its just mediocre people left. We have existing technology from previous generations genuises but modern people are dumber than those who made the present possible. The way things are going idiocracy will really happen.

>>93775 >idiocracy I can't imagine that this situation will improve unless nations start designating tiktok, instagram, youtube shorts and discord as national security threats.

>>93683 Literally who? Is that another guru? And why are you replying to an obvious xenophobe who speaks in thinly veiled ways?

>>93776 it started way before social media, the school system was designed 18th century to train people who cant use their brain as it's meant to produce obedient factory workers and soldiers not thinkers. And on top of that comes the poisoning. grandpa had lead poisoning, then came dupont teflon poisoning which even reached antarctic, then plastic softerners, mircroplastics,... everything is contaminated in some way.

>>93776 >designating tiktok, instagram, youtube shorts and discord as national security threats. Google is literally the NSA, tiktok is from China's NSA, instagram is facebook which is DARPA's lifelog. These are literally government operations to control the population, the government sees them as national security solutions not threats. Idiocracy was always the plan.

>>93780 I'm not too worried. Countries that choose not to implement blanket social media and AI assistant bans, with exemption provisions that permit their use in the workplace, will suffer from rapid decline in collective cognitive ability and descend into decadency and irrelevance at the world stage. This will be very brutal natural selection at global scale. Somebody ought to make the right choice. Let's see who holds the future.

>>93776 You think in such a small, short-term way shaped by your favorite right-leaning political youtuber. Social media is nothing more than the modern-day religion. Elon Musk or Zuck brainwashing people with algorithms is no different from medieval clergy brainwashing peasants with fear of divine wrath. It just became more efficient and widespread. The main issue of this world is overcrowding and convenience; there are just too many people with nothing to do with their lives. The medieval peasant at least was busy tending his field to pay taxes and prepare himself and his family for the winter. He had no time, resources, or energy to bother himself with silly ideas and political wars. The only way to sway his opinion about rulers was to actually provide him some value- bread and circus. The modern peasant will throw away bread, burn the circus and then mutilate themselves and their children if you tell them that it's to deal with some silly war happening on the other side of the planet or save the supposed suffering minorities.

>>93547 >Whites don't breed if it isn't sensible laughable fuarrrking take, ever heard of mormons dipshit?

>>93784 Thanks for the reading suggestions lainon :)

>>93775 I think of it more as a matter of ambition for the most part, there are a lot of capable people but barely any that actually believes they can do it.

>>93784 >behind lane What lane? I don't know more than a tenth of these guys and I wasn't really asking for this. Nor do I have any interest in failed political philosophies that thought themselves superior, supposedly the new wave of military order, and got their vaunted superiority handed to them on a plate. I didn't know that lain had turned into a relay for poltards with a boner for mass shooter either. There's a containment board waiting for you.

>>93784 Why is it that with each passing day, the number of nazis, fascists and pseudo-nazis seems to be increasing? Since 2015 and a little bit before that, the leftists were crying wolf when they labeled everyone and everything nazi, but I always saw it as the rhetoric that it was. But after 2020 it really *does* seem like neonazis are appearing everywhere like mushrooms after a rain: Musk doing nazi salutes "for the memes" I guess, a bunch of nazi terrorist organizations have been making waves in UK, Sweden, Finland and elsewhere in the form of nihilist terror cells that operate via Telegram and such, a family member of mine has turned into a literal nazi, a random stranger I enjoyed a pleasant conversation and hang out with last week turned out to be a nazi, my fuarrrking uncle has gradually been exhibiting more and more authoritarian characteristics this past year although he used to be a liberal, and just now when I open up lainchan here I am staring at another fuarrrking nazi. I'm so god damned sick of this fuarrrking soykaf. So much so that I'm seriously considering joining with the glitterboys over at antifa or some soykaf just to try and contain the spread of this fuarrrking cancer somehow.

>>93793 wow interesting can you give me a quick run down on what exactly is wrong with nazism or right with antifaism? I guess I'm a little late to the party but I like elon musk. bit of a goofball but his heart's in the right place as far as I can tell.

>>93794 In the case of nazism: lynching minorities, extermination of people, militarism, no freedoms, and blind obedience to the asinine whims of a leader, and in the case of neonazism: nihilism, life denialism, actual satanism, sadism, irrationalism, and cultural brtualist primitivism.

>>93794 NTL but, smug, disingenuous, stupid and annoying on purpose, want to destroy the things that matter and glorify things that are useless or fake. Because of the stupid on purpose bit, guaranteed to take society in an unsustainable direction and ultimately just waste time on bullshit.

>>93794 >nazism It makes capitalism go VROOM VROOM really fast I am being 100% honest rn. Like the faster the capitalism goes, the more lolberts spawn with apologia and those are really unfun to be around. It's fine when Land does sinofuturism with dark enlightement characteristics, because you might be able to stumble onto some soykaf like "Capital is an elder god" from time to time, but in a long run? Eh. I guess I don't like being genocided (slav, not long-nose tribe person here). I will throw you a freebie anon. One thing good in nazism was that Hitler was sorta like White Jesus, who died for colonizers sins. So by some twisted logic, everything imperial core did is automatically not-as-bad™, because hey! They won the WW2 :3

>>93793 >uk >paki pedo rape gangs >protect gangs instead of stop it to not be racist >why are people going nazi???? legit idiot if you dont see it

>>93793 Just because white people finally started to realize that you want them all dead doesn't mean they are nazis.

>>93798 >>93866 no, I do see the connection. But the thing is, being pissed about legitimate injustices by the government and demanding border politics that makes sense isn't nazism. That's why I pointed out how in around 2015 I thought the left making these accusations of nazism made no sense. No, I mean that people are beginning to think human rights and democracy were a bad idea, that we need a strong man to fix these things, and that da joos are behind everything. On top of that, we're seeing neonazis popping up in countries which haven't even seen that much immigration or been affected by paki rapists, most notably in Eastern European countries, including Ukraine. And the cherry on top? The nihilist and satanist neonazi terror isn't even always perpetrated by white supremacists or even against non-whites. It's just indiscriminate violence done to normal people whom they've chosen as prey regardless of their skin color, on the one hand for the violence's own sake or on the other hand for the reason that apparently these nazis are here to train themselves for the coming war in another dimension within the ranks of Satan's army (who, according to them, was actually a good guy, despite the fact that, as the creator of the white race, he made white people evil, which is a good thing) or something. absolutely batshit crazy stuff.

>>93871 Democracy is a popularity contest, it's the belief that what is popular is correct or sufficient for all things and disbelief of higher truth. If what is popular is obviously wrong and insufficient, why even entertain the idea? What virtue is there in forming a confederacy with people like epstein? Democracy is throwing pearls after swine, vainly hoping that defending evil will bestow security unto yourself. Forgetting that evil will merely see that as an opportunity to devour.

>>93871 >human rights and democracy were a bad idea, that we need a strong man to fix these things, and that da joos are behind everything that's not wrong though >neonazis popping up >in Eastern European countries, including Ukraine they were always there >coming war in another dimension don't know what you're talking about specifically, did you read about some insane fringe cult for the first time in your life? these always existed

>>93871 Everyone has seen the cult of democracy fail to pay dividends. So new cults have risen up.

>>93873 >Democracy is a popularity contest Sure, but that's not all what democracy is. It includes checks and balances on the exercise of power so as to prevent or reduce government over-reach, rational debate and deliberation, and a decision-making process which ideally involves and represents everyone. As for why give audience to supposedly bad ideas, well, it's for the simple fact that what works or is deemed right and what turns out to be wrong isn't always that obvious. During the first months of Covid nothing except for the fact that "something was going on" was obvious. During the great depression it wasn't obvious that by printing money the Weimar government was just shooting itself in the foot. Before 50s it wasn't obvious that smoking tobacco was bad for you. In 1989 it wasn't obvious that the Soviet Union was just about a year's away from collapsing, and it certainly wasn't obvious that Japan would be having an economic meltdown in the 90s, and when the US constitution was being drafted, it certainly wasn't obvious that it would lead to today's gun-infested, imperialistic, money-grubbing society of today run by lobbyists and banker-politicians. It's been a long series of trials and errors, but it has managed to stay afloat somehow, despite the odds. >>93874 >that's not wrong though Well, there you go - another case in point. >they were always there Sure, every western country has had its share of nation-born nazis since the 40s. The difference is that, apart from a few cases of major assassinations and bombings, the majority of people didn't think fascism might be a viable alternative to the status quo. Additionally, the 2000s were relatively nazi-free times, if you go by right-wing terrorist attack stats. After 2015 they've started ramping up those numbers to an all-time high, become bolder and bolder in their efforts, a lot more barbaric by incorporating ISIS tactics, and have managed to create organizations that are almost impossible to eradicate. so, if you were trying to play this modern trend off as "just the same old same old", I'm telling you it couldn't be further from the truth. > these always existed Yeah. But unlike before, those cults were most of the time fine with just waiting for the coming apocalypse, mass killing themselves, conning sex and money from willing suckers or just isolating themselves from the rest of the world to do their own thing because reasons. Today's cults are like >WE MUST RAPE AND ABUSE 5-14 YEAR OLD GIRLS AND LITERALLY KILL EVERYONE WE SEE BECAUSE WE'RE BEING LE EVIL NIHILISTS WORSHIPPING COSMIC SATAN LMAO It's on a whole other level with these new cult movements, and the disparity between them is to such a degree that it doesn't even make sense to compare them with each other.

>>93874 >>neonazis popping up >>in Eastern European countries, including Ukraine >they were always there Starting to think that Soviets weren't a bad idea. Kept nazis in check.

>>93672 The EU will begin to build its independence soon, don't bully. No source because top secret obviously. Wait until we finish the "turret" "wall" cheaters. Look at this dog while you wait.

>>93877 >checks and balances The people performing the "checks and balances" are "democratically elected" or placed by those who were "democratically elected". "We investigated ourselves and found no wrongdoing." "Checks and balances" is appeal to authority nonsense, all it takes is will and it doesn't exist at all.

>>93793 >>93794 >>93795 >>93798 When the fuarrrk did this thread turn into a political soykaffest? Get this place back to its neutrality and begone, you have no respect for this place.

>>93537 >is it possible for any society of 8 billion individuals to live in harmony? No, not in a million years. Clashing wills leads to war, always. It's that, or finish the hive mind project. The problem is that a human hive mind must have a disgusting soykafty part to it, otherwise it wouldn't be human at all. Honestly, 10% of the current population distributed in tribes while engaging in local wars from time to time is more than okay for humanity, this is just beyond insane, nauseous and unhealthy. >>93542 Yes, absolutely.

I had a little epiphany right now so I'll try to revive this thread by saying it's both yes and no, it's a bit more complicated as you can imagine. Naturally resources are limited but they're also unevenly distributed and the carry capacity is differently stressed by region and for different reasons.And the question if we're too many is relative to the living standards you're presuming. We could probably be 20 billion if efficiently managed but we would also have to live in massive centralized structures where you'd be happy to be permitted to occupy a living pod by yourself. But do not fret as birth rates are far below the replacement rate in the developed nations. The same nations that allow the developing world to boom in population, although their living standards are often not something that would meet a westerner's criteria for humane and where the body must have become adapted to from childhood to the local pathogens. But with the West suffering a demographic collapse, so will the rest of the world as a consequence, which will most likely be brutal and riddled with horrors you will have trouble to fathom until the population there has reverted back to a more natural equilibrium. But the kicker is, the least reproducing population is the middle class, and particularly those captured by nihilistic demoralization and modern death cult ideologies. While the simpletons are still reproducing because their religious scriptures telling them to. But also the people who're smart enough to not swallow the black pill of modernity and having the mental wherewithal to reject fatalism and realizing that it's their responsibility to propagate. Thus my realization being that we might be at the verge of a mid-wit auto-genocide. Sorry, >>93793 >>93797 and some others here. Huxley's Brave New World is the manual of our current technocrats and supposed elites but this vision will unlikely materialize, there's just too many moving parts to it. But what's plausible is something, like why we have this distinct sexual dimorphism, is because specimen who fall into the middle of two working modes in a way that renders them dysfunctional, will be filtered out by nature harshly. The simpleton operated on time proven heuristics while the intelligent people can deduct their rational retrospectively but the mid-wit sees the local maximum that the simpletons are in but can not fully form the more correct conclusions by themselves and also are highly susceptible to fall for faulty group consensus and mind viruses. This is why that one meme with the "mid-wit gap" is often so poignant. Just now for instance the FDA has approved a new abortion pill and guess which group of people will be most likely to take it. And even if those people do reproduce, their offspring is either even more dysfunctional than them or end up like "Destiny's" son. So if we're lucky and aren't all dragged down to our demise by the mid-wit's folly and outlive and outbreed them then maybe we can at some point attain a Singaporean style system world wide in a century or two, where resources are consumed and handled more wisely and sustainably and have a philosopher king's leadership of people who selectively attained a level of awareness that will not make them fall so easily to the mistakes of the current ones, can be respected unlike today's "experts" and can responsibly direct the human species without forcing everyone to just eat ze bugs already. >>93555 Woefully disingenuous map which makes the sparsely populated Mongolian steppe and the permafrost region of Greenland look like we need to send Greta with an army there asap while ignoring the abhorrent condition that roughly 90% of the Chinese soil is but the mainlanders making up for it by living in abject poverty. >>93769 Don't forget we were down to only a few thousands at some point, technically qualifying for the list of endangered species. It is our infrastructure. supply chains and civilization that require delicate and persistent maintenance but just the first day without food or electricity, we would begin to revert back to monkee the following night, and within the following week or two, in the places where the military couldn't cover presence and emergency generators, sort out who isn't fit for a more primitive mode of being. Humanity at its core is surprisingly resilient.

>>93913 You may avoid politics, but politics is always influencing your life. There is no neutrality when trans rights are being threatened, or white people are becoming a minority in their own country, or whatever concerns you. If you are willing to turn a blind eye, that is on you, let others discuss.

>>93909 so what are you advocating for ? A hereditary branch ? A lottery branch ?

Awesome or stupid? https://open.substack.com/pub/falconutan/p/the-silence-of-god?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=6lwxgb

>>94029 >Thus my realization being that we might be at the verge of a mid-wit auto-genocide too bad ill continue to be subjected to posts as fuarrrking stupid as yours until that happens

>>94029 Le midwit meme: what if all our political opponents were kinda smart but not super smart, and being merely kinda smart actually means they're congenitally incapable of appreciating how we're right? You know, because being being smart makes people bad at understanding things. Deep edgy shadow intellectual concepts like Chesterton's fence, social capital or evolutionary psychology actually require 120+ IQ to even BEGIN to understand. This is also the best use of high intellect. I could be doing some higher math like abstractitional linearismic calculos or learning to parse biological ontologies or hunting the elusive great American novel but I am spending my time much better by rephrasing the premise of Idiocracy (2006) on my xitter account. It's a very helpful idea to define your variables so that their fundamental qualities change dynamically depending on how much of them you have I think I will call this modularity? Low-to-medium wit range: more wit means you can be tricked by bad arguments but not good ones for some reason that I will remember soon. Medium-to-high wit range: More wit means you can open your mind to my arguments and also pose insightful self-critique.

>>94103 People should stop pretending that political systems & ideologies control anything. Individuals are the government, and always have been. It doesn't matter how it's dressed up, some have more power than others and are the ruling class. Democracy is merely a means to hide those with power.

>>94113 Funny, but where am I wrong? Which groups are reproducing? It's Christians and some people on the top end of the IQ distribution. But the nihilistic secular part of the population is actively anti-natalist and out-group oriented. Granted, I did not mention the return to the means from outliers, however if the means is this antagonistic to propagating itself, there will be a demographic gap forming either way, effectively beginning to split us up into separate coexisting evolutionary groups with different survival strategies, albeit resulting in the same outcome of above replacement reproduction and both of which being immune in their own ways against the modern mind virus, call it post modernism or urban monoculture, but which is not sustainable beyond only a few generations. The auto-genocide of the mid-wit is thus not only plausible to me but apparent. But I'd love to hear your thoughts on that. >>94117 Some of it is a bit difficult to read but it seems you understand. The thing is that as a mid-wit one doesn't even recognize what's a good argument or not. Despite touting their education level and the need to be the smartest cookie in the room, at that level where they can't fully contemplate their position to their logical conclusion, they will simply adopt what is the current consensus and what simply is sounding nice anyway. The little edge in intelligence that they have above the average and below intelligent, they use to prolifically write elaborate constructs of excuses and rationalizations to force their stance be true and give a nice wrapping to the tower of bullshit they erect. That's the pitfall of the mid-wit, that then forms the intellectual basis for the behavioral sink it leads to. Many of the urbanite upper and ruling class do live in a bubble without realizing it since they only trust each other to access the current situation correctly. For one, because it's more comfortable this way, but also holding multiple views really seems to be exclusive to only a certain level of comprehension. That said, I don't claim to be a genius either but it still baffles me how concepts I believe should be simple to grasp just aren't. And it took me a while just to understand that others don't understand. But could you elaborate on what you meant by defining your variables with modularity? A programmer mindset or lens has been very instrumental to me in understanding many systems related issues but I'm not sure if I could follow what you said there.

>>94124 Where did you get all these ideas? Twitter? Reddit? Treat everything you read on news and social media as creative works of fiction, engagement farming and algorithmic psyop. They are not real. People often do not reproduce out of economic or practical reasons. The common running theme is that raising children is inconvenient and they don't want to lose their free spirit lifestyle. They are conformists.

>>94125 >Where did you get all these ideas? It came to me in a dream. Anyway why do you think you're disagreeing with me? People had children in much more dire situations, and still have. But if your priorities are the bread and circus even if the bread has become stale, and so the circus, then yes, you will not propagate your predistposition for comforts over ensuring your bloodline. It's a very simple mechanism, where anything that can't establish its presence multi-generationally will be replaced by that which can. Works for microbes, works for us just the same. The post WW2 era apears to have been incredibly kind and forgiving, historically speaking. But as any herd which grows too large when entering a lush pasture, or in our case industrialized food production, modern medicine and allowing early births to survive, will see themselves strapped for resources. But I suppose getting preoccupied with their funkos, fur babies and what's left of party culture and many even volitively tying up their tubes, it beats mass starvation and violence as they simply chose to fizzle out. But then who's left? The traditionally religious and those who manage to withstand the constant demoralization and nihilism. It's natural selection happening live and so far I've not been given a proper response to where my assessment is wrong. It's in a way funny really that the ruling class wants their people smart enough to operate the factory lines but too dumb to ask too many questions but in practice you get people who're just at the wrong inbetween-level of intelligence and education to cause serious damage. And if my hypothesized scenario comes true, we will end up with a large number of basically medieval minded people and a small community of actual elites who hopefully will be sensible enough to not turn this into the usual mess. Of course this won't be this absolute but there most likely will be some sort of greater class divide. That is if we survive the mid-wit's follies. Birthrates in developed nations have been cratering but not evenly throughout the board.

>>94126 I want to preface this post by declaring that I'm currently under the influence of drugs so excuse any incoherent ramblings hereafter. I disagreed with you because the real world is more nuanced. I have observed a trend where there is an exaggerated portray of the real world on the internet that do no quite match the reality I live in. I keep two diaries. One of them is for what happened that day in meatspace and how it made me think and feel. The other one is for the internet, same concept. I can compare the two and go back and forth years in time. From my anecdotal experience, there is a mistmatch between the reality portrayed on the internet and the real world. There is a delay, internet affects the reality with a delay. First, they portray the world in whatever shape they want it to take, and then propagate this idea through news websites and social website. That, in that moment do not reflect the appropriate depiction of reality. However, since many people are exposed to this portrayal, and take the social media at face value, they shape their behavior around it. In time, the constructed reality on social media becomes the reality. I suspect this is how they affect the population and nudge the elections to one candidate's favor - among other things. Social media is a mind virus factory that shouldn't be trusted. Why did I tell you all of this? Because I noticed that your depiction of secular people is mismatched with the actual secular secular people in the real world, and I suspected that your social media use might have affected your perceptions around this demographic. It is true, but exceptions make the news and regular people are rarely talked about. You are exposed to these exceptional people, and generalize your perceptions around a certain demographic based on this highly visible minority. That is why it is warped, and that is why I am warning about you about it. Moreover, I have met plenty of people from all walks of life throughout my life. I have observed that high intelligence and academic proficiency is a directly dsygenic trait that self-selects itself out of the gene pool for women. They were often single, jaded, and had an awful personality. I do not claim to have the exact answer to why this is the case, but I suspect that they might have came across some men with awful personality and generalized their view of men from these encounters. This can't be helped, but it is a trend that I have observed first-hand, and I were not conditioned to believe this from engagement farming posts on social media - purely an anecdotal observation. Then, I can say that it is true that intelligent people can self-select themselves out of the gene pool, and this is more common among women than men but still significant for both. Why is this? I have some ideas about that I will elaborate in my next post.

>>94127 Like I have mentioned, I have observed that intelligent women were more susceptiple to this self-selection compared to men. But I have observed and also read about some pretty insightful essays that I will summarize below. Basically, we can view the dating market from a job hunting perspective, you (or anyone in the dating market on the lookout) is a job applicant, and your potential partner is a job application. In this setup, you want to aim high, not play your hand too soon, and look for the best offer you can get. This is true for the dating market as well. From such a large pool of potential dates, people tend to calibrate their expectations higher cities than they would have in a smaller dating market - in a small town for example, and don't want to settle too soon. People with high attractiveness never have an issue in this environment, and people with low personality and low attractiveness find each other soon enough. What is left is the high personality but low attractiveness crowd. This particular demographic do not compete with low-attractiveness-low-personality demographic and naturally check out. No one they are willing date is willing to date them. This particular demographic tend to weigh on their intellectual side to make up for their shortcomings on the attractiveness. Hence, they optimize for better education, better grades, better jobs, and tend to expect a partner on their caliber. For men, this varies. For women, it is lethal - because women tend to expect their partners to be an improvement over who they are, and be better in several aspects: looks, personality, income and social status. Since women exhibit this hypergamy aimed at a pool of men (top 10% men) who date women with both high attractiveness and high personality, the princess syndrome who think they are too good for their available dating pool becomes an attribute that self-selects out of the gene pool. On the other side, people who have forgone all of this madness in the modern dating market and found a stable partner, want to spend their youth on fun activities, and engage in lots of sexual activity without being tied down with children. When they hit their mid-30s the biological clock hits them. There is a choice to be made. Either they try for children now and send them to college in their 50s, or not try for children at all. Some people choose the latter option, but it's not as widespread as you think. Most men and women who have no children are single to begin with, and from what I have seen, stable relationships without issues always end up in marriage, and marriages tend to produce children. The outliers are what you see on social media, while the actual parents are too busy taking care of their newborns.

We knew where the world was going when The Limits to Growth was first published in 1972. Nobody really cared then, and nobody really cares now, because nobody wants to sacrifice material wealth and personal convenience, or put in much effort just to leave a livable world for their offspring. It's easier to just kick the can down the road and blame the poor, the hungry, the outsiders. So when Recalibration of Limits to Growth came out a couple of years ago, it wasn't a big surprise to see that we are essentially still on the same path to collapse sometime mid-century. Not to mention the whole resource constraints problem being only one aspect of the polycrisis, or the planetary boundaries that have been broken (so far). Whenever I see others' opinions on this topic, it always seems to boil down to some variant of "there is no issue," or "we will invent our way out of it." I don't think this world will have anywhere close to as many people as there are now at the end of this century. I also believe that poorer parts of the world are much better positioned to survive, as many already live in somewhat harsher environments and practice subsistence farming, whereas many, if not most, people in developed nations are soft and spoiled by (fragile) supply chains. I understand these are just models and not predictions as such, but my opinion is based on more than just those two sources. I genuinely can't see how we can fix the mess we've created.

>>94133 How is this relevant to food though? The only non-renewable resource it's slightly dependent on is probably oil for fuel for transportation, but imo it's realistic to eventually replace it with electricity by optimizing logistics.

>>93537 this is all women fault tho, remember women only wish is that there would be as many intercourse as possible

>>94140 much*, also forgot to add the fact they are high entropy beings, they love chaos, the more people the higher the chaos

>>94133 "Overpopulation" is merely justification for making everything horrible. The entire idea is propaganda, to make people overlook lowering standards and wages. There's heaps of land and resources, everyone is just crammed into cities and the rich are hoarding for their bunkers.

>>94139 Agriculture is dependent on oil for much more than just transport. Without artificial fertilizers you would not be able to sustain anywhere near 8 billion people. The raw material for such fertilizer is dependent on mining, or is even a byproduct of the fossil fuel extraction process (in case of nitrogen fertilizers this would be natural gas extraction). The issue with food is also due to the fact that we lose a lot of topsoil through erosion and bad farming practices, topsoil which regenerates slower than we destroy it, and that a lot of our agriculture relies on drawing water in mind boggling amounts from aquifers that fill much slower than we deplete them. The amount of water we pump is so large, that it now contributes more to sea-level rise than ice melt in the poles. To top it all off, the amount of crop you can grow organically vs. on artificially fertilized land is very different. Of course, this is all an issue in the long term, and there will never come a day where you wake up and the world is over or something, but it does mean that things will only get progressively worse. The price of input resources (fossil fuel, minerals) keeps increasing due to falling ore quality (we extract the best stuff first), the increased energy needed to extract said ore, as well as the falling EROI of energy sources we use. This results in the ever-increasing price of food (as well as most commodities), that seems to rise faster than most people's wages. It's death by a thousand cuts. When I talk to people irl, current food prices are a common topic, and the rise in prices is often blamed on inflation and greed, which is only partially true. It's just that developed nations have made use of cheap energy and raw materials for so long that we have grown blind to where it all comes from. And even if you transition to renewables (which is an admirable goal, since they are better than fossil fuels in many ways), they still have a limited life span, low EROI, and questionable scalability. And we rely on fossil fuels for more than just energy, but also for raw materials. I think the idea is that, well, we have bad stuff in the world, and we have good stuff, so we should just like, get rid of the bad stuff? But the way I see it, the bad stuff (e.g. pollution) is just a byproduct of the good stuff (e.g. minerals extraction). I cannot see a way in which we could transition to renewables, keep all the amenities we have today, and keep a stable society in the future. We could certainly have a good society I think, but it would take a lot more effort from everyone than is being made today, and probably some material sacrifices on the part of wealthier populations. I hope this is not coming across as too much of a rant, I just rarely have an opportunity to talk about this since I would never bring it up irl. >>94142 I think many people can't imagine how much they actually consume, since a lot of the energy and materials get used up before goods and services ever reach their household. And not all land is suitable for agriculture, but some may be improved if enough artificial fertilizers are pumped into it, not to mention that you can grow less crop per m2 on organic farms than artificially fertilized ones. In addition, the global economy appears to be almost completely based on debt, and to service said debt the economy needs to grow, which is why we are locked into this mess at the moment. While we will never run out of resources in a literal sense, the increasing amount of energy required to extract them, and the falling yields per unit of energy invested, make it apparent (at least to me) that we will reach a point where there are resources in the ground, but the energy required to extract them is so large that it makes no sense to do so. Keeping growth rates going is why developed nations outsourced much of their manufacturing and other labor intensive jobs to poor nations. But what happens when growth rates stall or start falling irreversibly? And again, resource constraints are not the only issue. Climate change is set to make portions of the world uninhabitable for months out of a whole year, and let's face it, these months are probably summer months, you know, the time when we tend to grow food. These people won't just stay there and die, they will move in search of a better life (and many already do), putting further strain on world's limited resources. The rich are hoarding because they understand this and are preparing for the inevitable (and also because they are sociopaths, and since they are in power they would have the most to lose if we went off the growth model). I do not want everything to be horrible. I want to have a child someday, and I want that child to have a stable, fulfilling life. But fertility rates are dropping for a reason, and it is happening everywhere. All we have to do is let people live out their lives naturally, and make less people in the meantime, at least temporarily. But we would also need to figure out some way to have a stable economy and build stronger communities. I think that systems based on infinite growth, like all the "-isms" we have tried so far are probably not well suited for this, so we would need something new. Not to mention that we have a limited amount of time to do this, and that every nation would need to be in on it - which brings a whole new set of problems. I really do wish you all the best in life.

>>94151 Damn, we should just loot 3I/Atlas at this point... Seriously though, space colonization would be such a great and simple answer to this - if only it were real. Maybe if Mars became viable one day and they figured out terraforming and established colonies, they could find something super valuable there in cosmic amounts. Maybe if chemistry became more advanced and AI found more ways to molecularly transform abundant materials into something rare and important by adding small amounts of rare chemicals from Mars that could be transported efficiently.

>>94153 lain protocols are white invented , you dumb monkie. go back selling crack in the hood. once the brotherhood is done with you , your kind will be speaking back in whistles.

>>94149 >Niggers are unable to maintain a functioning society. White societies nosedived the moment niggers were imported. Stop pretending otherwise. They had them prior to western colonialism and imperialism. To say something like this demands that you know absolutely nothing about history, not even current history right this moment. Western powers steal their resources, western powers produce instability by empowering tyrants and killing opposition leaders. Western powers artificially produce food scarcity. To this day this happens.

>>94154 speak to dis dick, dumb ass skinny ass muthafuckin cracka. cant spell monkey right. u gotta eat more than chicken tenders and diet coke to grow the fnck up. all that processed soykafs prolly whats makin u retarded.

>speak to dis dick, dumb ass skinny ass muthafuckin cracka. cant spell monkey right. u gotta eat more than chicken tenders and diet coke to grow the fnck up. all that processed soykafs prolly whats makin u retarded. just lol

>>94152 Yeah I keep hoping someone can figure something out, but it's hard to imagine it would be easier to get soykaf from Mars or the asteroid belt than than the bottom of the ocean or mile deep pit mines or whatever it is they're doing now. I hope there actually is something that can be done about this.

>>93537 What you're thinking of basically justifies the Tracer Tong Ending from DX1

>>94156 >They had them prior to western colonialism and imperialism. In America, yeah, but that's a poor example of a successful integration of black people in a society. They have the same rights since decades ago and Europe was 99% European until the 60's. That's exactly when soykaf went south. >Western powers steal their resources Hoooo. I see. Well, the people who told you that lied to you. For political reasons. Those mining rights are bought and bring capital, investment, development and jobs to those countries. And colonialism costed a fortune to the colonial powers. A fortune that have not be given back. Not to mention all the humanitarian help since, we are talking about 50 Marhal plans. That's not what I would call creating food scarcity. Maybe you want to explain yourself. >>94167 The cost to LEO is still too high and the specific impulse of our reactors is still too low to do more than exploration at the moment. Perhaps in 30 years. When this happen, sell all your gold while it's still worth something. But here is the thing: even with 10 time more gold, we won't be any richer.

>>94128 But these kind of modern spinsters are the exact people I've talked about, or rather fall under that umbrella among many others. You're right to question how insulated by bubble is and I've interacted and worked with people like that, and other sorts who I'd consider of the mid-wit variety. You know, very competent people withing a narrow field of subjects, but have grade school level comprehension whenever they try to inject their political opinions during conversations and even meetings. I'm well aware of this somewhat amusing phenomenon of redditors realizing when they interact with people outside their house to not echo the views they've become accustomed to online. Yet these people still hold significant pull in academia, politics and now blatantly so in tech where some can't even make a simple powerpoint presentation any more without dedicating at least one slide to one of their moronic activist causes. And many of these people are also tasked with safe guarding AI, now tell me why I shouldn't be worried about people who're sufficiently competent to get each other promoted and promote their half baked ideas but then not intelligent enough to realize their errors before the damage becomes inevitable or they are replaced in time. The one saving grace appears to be that they're reluctant to reproduce and while this doesn't stop them from trying to spread their mind viruses, it work on people in different rates based on how intrinsically predisposed they are to be receptive to them without developing this nagging sense in the back of their mind which keeps them from actually downing that cup of cool-aid. >>94133 Those early malthuseans didn't predict the invention of fertilizer production methods, nuclear power or GMO crops. But either way this sounds like a self correcting problem once the developed world has to downscale their operations due to low replacement numbers and the developing world stops getting propped up where then massive demographic catastrophes will surely bring the number down some more. So yes, in a sense there indeed is no issue and/or we will invent our way out of it as we've done so in the past. >>94140 To be fair you could likewise argue it's all men's fault for not keeping them in check. >>94156 Pity if you can't keep your resources for yourself. But if it makes you feel better, those geopolitical disputes over resources will move to other continents too, when one remembers how rich in soil and natural gas Russia and Ukraine is. >>94151 Much of what you've stated, I agree with. But what are your current ideas what an alternative to the "isms" could look like aside of the possible scenario of fractions of populations splitting up into byzantine enclaves while everything around them is burning or ramping up social darwinism as the belt gets tied tighter?

>>94167 >>94170 Or there could be rare chemical elements that can turn soykaf into diamonds by using chemical reactions, so that you can extract molecules on Mars, carry few gallons of molecules from Mars to Earth and transmogrify soykaf+molecules into 100000 years of atomic fuel or something like that.

>>94117 The fence is an appreciated concept but the reason why our societies exist is easily understood and their demise just as easily welcomed. There is no great mystery to them beyond the obfuscation created by uselessly complex terms. The old fences have been destroyed, the lines redrawn, new fences erected that divide the world in hurtful ways. >>94133 The capable, complex and elaborate nations are perfectly capable of attending to their own needs if they were left to their own affairs. If the rule was to be "to each his own according to his own capabilities" then it has been violated times and times again. It is not a crime to aspire to a good life. Nor is it an immutable rule that such comfort should made us complacent or weak minded. It's a fallacy to believe that one leads to the other. As long as a nation is capable, it is entirely within its reach to achieve a high quality lifestyle while combining it to elevated principles. Many people want it and believe in it but such ideals are routinely thwarted by evil people. >>94151 A smart and honest exploitation of hemp and algae farms alone solves all the resource and logistic issues. The increasing prices is not due to a lowering quality of ores at all when there are many more efficient methods we could be using to achieve what we produce today, but they are kept away. The rise of prices is due to the constant production of money beyond what is truly needed and also the growing hoarding percentage by fewer groups of people. Nor would a slight reduction of the population be a problem, it's in fact quite the lie that we need to always keep a population growing as well as an increase of the GDP. Such excuses being used to paradoxically ruin our nations. >Climate change is set to make portions of the world uninhabitable for months out of a whole year, and let's face it, these months are probably summer months, you know, the time when we tend to grow food. This is not an issue. If summer is too hot, the other months during which culture was harder are becoming more acceptable of our necessities. Climate change is such a weak scapegoat.

>>94174 > Climate change is such a weak scapegoat. Not him, but no it's not. It might not be visible in city settings or currently temperate regions, but climate change does show its effects acutely in certain places. Spain, for instance, suffers frequent wild fires, on top of which, since it's a dry country most of the year, the water demand of their agricultural sector isn't sustainable long-term, with the current demand and available water supplies. Not directly related to food production, but German pine forests have had to be cut down by the k's of hectares due to bugs that like munching on it. In Asian countries they suffer floods more frequently, which fuarrrks up their rice crops. This August I know from first-hand experience how the out-of-the-ordinarily hot weather rotted the apple harvest in Finland while they were still in the trees - in the news they said the harvest was 30% down from last year's. There are natural cycles which the plants abide by. If the year's weather skips a beat, it causes issues to said cycles in certain regions, especially for polar and upper temperate zones during winter when the sun is up for only about 6 hours. No amount of warmth will help with natural agriculture from September till April. It's just gonna make it easier for the bugs and other pests to push up north earlier, stick around longer, and in the mean time lay waste to the little harvest we get during summer. Also, let's talk about the Gulf Stream. Can we talk about the Gulf Stream please, anon? I'm dying to talk about the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream soon won't even exist, because of climate change. The whole Northern Europe is soon going to be a goddamn ghost town.

>>94174 >Climate change is such a weak scapegoat. If the earth's temperature increases even a little bit more than it did for the past 10,000 years then the entire agriculture industry is fuarrrked. Climate skeptics usually point to the fact that the earth was goes through warming and cooling cycles, but the models they are using go back millions of years before humans and agriculture. And hey even in the best case scenario, we still have to pray microplastics and a whole bunch of other soykaf chemicals we are exposed to daily don't have any long-term negative lasting health effects.

>>94156 Name me examples of functioning nigger societies. Name me examples of white societies that functioned better the moment niggers became a sizeable part of it.

>>94175 A bigger issue to Asian rice farming might be that their soil is mostly contaminated now and Chinese farmers are incentivized against good irrigation practices. China has to even import soy beans now. Meanwhile European farmers lose their land due to regulatory changes specifically targeted at them despite possibly being the most yield efficient and environmentally conscious agrarians we've got. We pump endless pesticides into the environment coz GMO is scawwy, we burn coal and gas coz Chernobyl and Fukushima, we live in a drastically atomized society where nobody cares about each other let alone the planet's future because being for the good and unity of your people is ebil nationalism. You point out some topics of concern but I don't think it's clear how wide spread greed and midwittery is tying our hands behind our backs when it comes to even attempt solving any of it. We worry that AI might become a runaway system but the thing is we're already in one. Bad incentive models that make us throw away perfectly fine utensils and appliances and produce for the landfill. And some issues we can't even talk about lest we get censored at the public square or have some weird mass consensus technique thrown at us, or outright get debanked and made it impossible to live. We really have to solve our own algorithms first before having a chance to solve anything else meaningfully and without just making things even worse. This in my opinion begins with open and critical discourse, which is why I'm drawn to this place, and creating parallel competing structures to academia and other walled garden institutions which inevitably end up only serving their internal interests, as the shadow of their legitimacy gets used by other parties to in turn serve their interests and profits instead of working on more economic and sensible solutions. I believe this is something very important for us to understand. >>94181 You're not helping your cause. There's legitimate concerns and complaints to overreach, bad decisions, opportunistic power grabs and other midwittery in the name of supposedly saving the planet and the terms "climate skeptics" or "denialist" have been used as a club by such people to push their harmful and counter-productive nonsense. I believe thanks to this we're now even worse suited to tackle the existing problems and getting others on board. I hope you know that instead of going to reply with some immature response in hopes to safe face. But I'm not interested in arguing climate change here in detail, go to that "solarpunk" thread for that. >>94183 You're not helping much either even though remigration and ceasing all foreign aid has become a very necessary thing to do. >>94174 But the fence has been tipped over, without much regard why it was there in the first place. Meanwhile we're getting trapped in a digital ID panopticon by people who don't even have the capacity to imagine. Our current managerial class is acting like a dog who bites you in the leg while you're trying to get out with it from a burning building. In their mind they're doing the right thing somehow but I've only seen the situation deteriorate.

>>94172 I would say that some mixture of degrowth, 2000-watt society, and letting older people die naturally while keeping replacement level lower than 2.1, at least until we reach a point where we can sustain ourselves at a level where we still have some modern comforts like education, healthcare and mechanized agriculture might work. It would also mean getting rid of bullshit jobs and training more people to do things we need. I don't really see why we should be splitting into enclaves. People have always worked together and traded, I would say that such a high degree of individualism is one of the issues with developed nations. Maybe I'm just being naive, but I think we should start implementing some solutions even if imperfect, since we have limited time. Saying "oh we'll figure this out once soykaf gets bad" comes of as irresponsible. And I'm not quoting you specifically, but I've heard arguments that essentially boil down to that, and I can't get behind it. Also what early Malthusians? The first study was released in 1972, and the recalibration in 2023 (which used data collected up to year 2022, so 50 years). They were aware of the green revolution, since it started decades before. The issue with keeping low replacement numbers is that if you let your government fill the void with foreigners, these foreigners will attempt to live at the same level of development as you (naturally). And the government will try to fill that void, since growth requires consumers and (cheap) labor, someone to tax and put to work to keep the retirees taken care of. I may be a bit harsh on old timers here, but whenever retirement age gets increased by a bit most of them are pretty fuarrrking angry because they don't want to work anymore. All governments are reflections of their population and their values. Then, when tough times do come, you won't have a lower population - only a lower native population. >>94174 I'm sorry, how would algae and hemp farms solve the logistics issue? They are still plants, they need nutrients, like all living beings. And on an industrial scale, those nutrients are artificial fertilizers, i.e. nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, two of which are minerals mined from the ground, and one of which is a byproduct of natural gas extraction. Even if you add aquaponics with fish or something, fish still need to eat something, and on an industrial scale what would that something be? And who keeps away these more efficient methods? I didn't realize farmers were forced by someone else to use methods that the destroy the land they work. Who is keeping these more efficient methods away from them? While inflation does only benefit the rich, and while we should redistribute the wealth better, it's not as if you can just make a policy that soykafs out extra resources. Money is just a claim to energy/resources, having more of it only lets you claim them faster, it does not make more of them. Population growth being needed for prosperity is a lie, yes, but it's a lie most people believe in, and good luck changing that. Good luck going against all the religions, entrenched ruling classes, and sociopathic billionaires/millionaires that support this lie. Climate change isn't a scapegoat (please elaborate on this point?). It is real, and something we have to deal with. The areas that will be hit the hardest will be the ones closest to the equator, which are already hotter on average, and which tend to have year round growing seasons that can be influenced by dry/wet weather. Something like 1/4 of the year being too hot to grow anything or be outside simply decreases the yearly crop yield, there isn't much of a silver lining here. And since this is a global issue, would the more northern nations be able to import as much food during lower production seasons, and to supplant increasingly higher number of harvests ruined by rising number of harsh droughts and floods? Agriculture developed during the Holocene because of the unusually stable climate, and the increasingly chaotic weather patterns due to climate change don't benefit anyone, least of all those of us who eat food and drink water. >>94185 Solarpunk is cool and all, but you can't hook up a solar panel or a wind turbine into a field and have it grow more crop.

>>94186 >what early Malthusians? Obviously Thomas Malthus himself who in the late 18th to early 17th century already was talking about overpopulation and was proposing solutions for it while we were barely at 1 bil. people globally. And clearly he didn't predict the tech that allowed us to grow to close to 9 bil. >I don't really see why we should be splitting into enclaves. Small, intelligent and cohesive populations who reject the idiotic ideas of today's crumbling modern society would have a better chance to be self sustaining and getting through the more chaotic historic periods. >these foreigners will attempt to live at the same level of development as you Yes, but also if you do import the 3rd world, you will become it. The idea of the noble savage is false and these populations care even less about sustainability and ecology. >I may be a bit harsh on old timers here Hold my beer, since I've come to believe that if you're incapable of creating the circumstances for yourself to retire after having had 60-70y of time during a golden economy or create a family who cares to take care of you then frankly, for the most part, you should be on your own, let alone being harshly criticized for even just suggesting to permanently alter your and your children's country's demographic just for the promise of getting your retirement bux from your ponzi pension. This became clear to me after having watched the elderly happily sacrificing the young during the corona scare simply for the hope of living another 5-10y where they can spend their time talking about what part of their body has failed them this day. And I'll go even further and say we need to publicly execute the foreigner child rapists and murderers and the judges, politicians and police who allowed this to happen like it's the 9th century again, start sinking those boats and jail the NGOs, send 90-95% of the people back who've arrived to Europe in the past 5-10y, and cut social benefits to the remaining 5-10% with minimal exceptions. I don't like this at all but this is what "bleeding heart" politics lead to and make necessary. >All governments are reflections of their population And weak men create hard times, yes. >And who keeps away these more efficient methods? NTA but government and private interests. This is the bad incentive models and self defeating algorithms that are making things worse than they have to be. And this is what we must solve. >we should redistribute the wealth better I don't think 20 somethings who got deep into some 'ism are holding the keys to that solution. It's more about game theory and autonomously self correcting systems while a sense of fairness and responsibility is established. >Solarpunk is cool and all It's not, it's junk. It's socialism with solar panels, but I just didn't want to contribute to the further derailment of this thread into it. What we need the most is innovation and allow especially Europeans to start enterprises and find solutions again but their governments made the whole place shoot themselves in the foot and instead they just double down and use institutions like academia and journalism to hide their tracks. This has to stop first before we can even address other issues because if the discussion isn't honest and based in reality you will just try to put out the grease fire with water. You know, solutions that sound good on paper but in reality only make things worse.

>>94170 >In America, yeah, but that's a poor example of a successful integration of black people in a society. Explain. Assumedly you mean crime rates which are the product of the war on drugs and black americans being sequestered to underfunded, underdeveloped, contaminated (by lead for example) communities. >They have the same rights since decades ago and Europe was 99% European until the 60's. That's exactly when soykaf went south. >Those mining rights are bought and bring capital, investment, development and jobs to those countries. Yet people work for pennies under conditions with no regulations and they see little development. This is neoliberal nonsense. >And colonialism costed a fortune to the colonial powers Explain how that is. They clearly made a fortune off of it, an incomprehensibly large amount of wealth was gained which spurred economic and technological advancement, this is idiotic. All I can think of is the 'white man's burden'. >Not to mention all the humanitarian help since, we are talking about 50 Marhal plans. That's not what I would call creating food scarcity. Maybe you want to explain yourself. They're given enough aid to keep them too dysfunctional to obtain independence, but strong enough to continue farming their resources and selling them off for next to nothing. Giving them some crumbs does nothing to negate the impact of interference in their politics. As I said, western powers are sold their resources for very little in return. Receiving little money for their products, they don't have much money to develop with. And how are they supposed to develop infrastructure and technology when all of the materials are getting sent off. Tyrants are supported by western powers who stymie resistance movements, which produces conflict, which causes food scarcity (wars interfere in people's ability to farm). Lackluster regulations cause ecological devastation, leading to food scarcity. >>94183 The Kingdom of Zimbabwe, the Oyo Empire, the Ghana Empire, the Benin Empire, the Malian Empire, the Kingdom of Punt, the Songhai Empire. I shouldn't have to spoonfeed you, you can just lift a finger. >Name me examples of white societies that functioned better the moment niggers became a sizeable part of it. What is it to "function better"? If it is to benefit economically and technologically, all of them did due to slave laborers under colonialism and the resources they extracted. They continued to benefit in the 20th century from this in places like the UK when black people from the carribean came to work.

>>94187 There are many things I'd like to add here, but I'm getting tired and these posts take more effort than I'd be willing to put in usually. I'm sure this will be even less coherent. Yes, Malthus didn't predict the tech, he simply reasoned based on the info he had. The way I see it, the Limits to Growth models don't really try to predict the future either, but rather extrapolate what would happen if we just kept doing what we are doing. And seeing as we've, for the most part, kept doing what we were doing for the last 50 years, and are still on the path to collapse sometime mid-century, I'm not so convinced we will change soon enough to avoid the consequences of using up energy/resources like there's no tomorrow. Every solution would require reworking our societies on a deeper level, which would take resources, time, and effort (that is, buy-in from the general population), all of which are limited. Also, there were many times in the past where people didn't invent themselves out of these issues, and there is no guarantee that we'll do so again. This is where I wage slave the planetary boundaries framework. It just seems like there are so many issues that make each other worse, and that we'd have to deal with them at the same time to even make an impact. I think we agree on many things in regards to demographics, I don't have too much to add here. "Small, intelligent and cohesive populations who reject the idiotic ideas of today's crumbling modern society" are what I'd like as well, but it seems like an antithesis to what we currently have. I don't think a small population like that would survive a crisis in our interconnected world, everyone would know about them soon enough. As far as farmers go, governments often provide many subsidies in developed nations, whether directly or through subsidizing fossil fuels. There are promising methods like no-till farming and agroforestry, but most farmers lean older, and I somehow doubt they would be willing to experiment much. There are less and less people becoming farmers, so any developments are sure to be slow. Furthermore, we would need the population to be on a more manageable level in order to sustain agriculture using these methods and with less fertilizer. Unfortunately, I've seen my country go from 99% white to 90% white within the span of 3 years, and it's projected to be 50% white in 2050 so I don't hold much hope that this will get better through peaceful means. I think you may have misunderstood me when I said "these foreigners will attempt to live at the same level of development as you," I didn't mean that culturally, I meant it in terms of energy and resource consumption. Certainly the 3rd worlders I have met so far have been uhhh... Well I'm sure you know what Indians are like. I do not want any of them here, for the record. Without the 3rd worlders, we would be very close to sustainable in 2051, in terms of population. I've never thought of solarpunk as socialism, but it may be that I have my own idea of it. Nor do I think that it is realistic, but I do think its cool even if it is a cope. As far as I know Europeans are allowed to start enterprises, it just seems like most people either believe someone else is going to fix things, or that the problems I've brought up are not really there, or that it's just pessimism or fatalism and don't want to think too deeply about these kinds of topics. For this discussion to be honest and based in reality, we have to take into account that our current way of living has some real downsides that could lead to civilizational collapse if left unchecked for too long. In any case, I'm glad we've managed to avoid insults, since these kinds of topics often devolve to that kind of discourse quickly. We might not agree on everything, but at least I understand where you're coming from.

>>94175 >Spain, for instance, suffers frequent wild fires, on top of which, since it's a dry country most of the year, the water demand of their agricultural sector isn't sustainable long-term, with the current demand and available water supplies. Their production is outstretched and owes a lot to exportation of bad food and it's extremely wasteful because they grow vegetables too fast by using too much water. The food is bland and useless. The issue is mismanagement of resources. They have enough water and more than enough sun to grow proper food. They could also have a plan to produce cleanwater from seawater but like many countries that could gain a lot from this, they don't do it, while rich Muslim cities that didn't even exist fifty years ago rely on this. It is again a criminal and cynical level of mismanagement. >Not directly related to food production, but German pine forests have had to be cut down by the k's of hectares due to bugs that like munching on it. More a case of a lack of a natural predator. Or a political lie on a large scale, a version of what I saw firsthand at the scale of a city with the council using fraudulent excuses to take down trees, because of bugs or illnesses. >In Asian countries they suffer floods more frequently, which fuarrrks up their rice crops. They have to pivot to other cultures. >Finland's apples They lost an edible quantity of apples but did they fail to find a smart use to what they would have naturally called a loss? >No amount of warmth will help with natural agriculture from September till April. It's just gonna make it easier for the bugs and other pests to push up north earlier, stick around longer, and in the mean time lay waste to the little harvest we get during summer. Insecticide is a thing you know. Farmers adapt and change portions of their cultures as well as shifting the exploitation schedules. If the situation truly was that bad we'd already be having nutritional dearths and small famines in places of high produce output, but this is simply not the case. >Also, let's talk about the Gulf Stream. Can we talk about the Gulf Stream please, anon? I'm dying to talk about the Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream soon won't even exist, because of climate change. The whole Northern Europe is soon going to be a goddamn ghost town. The Gulf Stream has been there for more than two million years anon, stop being so dramatic. It has seen many civilizations come and go. It has seen much worse in terms of global temperatures, with peaks and lows that dwarf our current exaggerated concerns. >>94181 >If the earth's temperature increases even a little bit more than it did for the past 10,000 years then the entire agriculture industry is fuarrrked. Considering that global temperatures have known several much higher peaks during that 10KY time period there is no reason to be worried nor to play scare-mongering tactics. >Climate skeptics usually point to the fact that the earth was goes through warming and cooling cycles, but the models they are using go back millions of years before humans and agriculture. Incorrect. >And hey even in the best case scenario, we still have to pray microplastics and a whole bunch of other soykaf chemicals we are exposed to daily don't have any long-term negative lasting health effects. We don't have to wait for far removed long term effects, they are already measured today: loss of life expectancy and increased sterility amongst other phenomena.

>>94186 >I'm sorry, how would algae and hemp farms solve the logistics issue? The former grow fairly easily and naturally. There even are issues sometimes because there are too many of them in some places. They're begging to grow naturally in large quantities. The latter has an unthinkable wide range of uses while requiring far less nutrients and water for growth. When your output is much better with less input, it solves tons of issues. >And who keeps away these more efficient methods? I didn't realize farmers were forced by someone else to use methods that the destroy the land they work. Who is keeping these more efficient methods away from them? Regulators who have for half a century at least ruined entire landscapes and farmers' lives, and it keeps going on. When you look at the state of our soils, they are literally destroyed on purpose whereas older solutions that were perfectly functional allowed the lands to breath and heal, but overexploitation has required these lands to be drained of their life. We can also encourage more people to live in the country side and lean on permaculture for a sustained growth of natural food, which would alleviate the importance of the modern large scale agriculture. Of course it would mean a lot of people who in the end have a really soykafty life and run from montly pay to monthly pay would return to a farming life where they would be in control of what they eat directly. We could, at least, rebuild a denser network of more local and smaller farmers. This too has been slated for destruction, there is no other way to look at it but see malevolence. Mistakes constantly repeated year on year for countless decades are not mistakes, they're planned. >While inflation does only benefit the rich It wouldn't. >we should redistribute the wealth better Definitely. >Population growth being needed for prosperity is a lie, yes, but it's a lie most people believe in, and good luck changing that. It's only because it's repeated mindlessly by all politicians. GDP or demographics, it's all about growth, growth and more growth. It's cancerous in mind. I agree, it seems hopeless to change that but is it really? >Climate change isn't a scapegoat (please elaborate on this point?). It is real, and something we have to deal with. Climate change per se is the name of a theory that purports that man is destroying the planet. That's a cult, not science. >And since this is a global issue, would the more northern nations be able to import as much food during lower production seasons, and to supplant increasingly higher number of harvests ruined by rising number of harsh droughts and floods? Northern nations have the highest concentration of fertile lands. They don't experience any issue. Overpopulated third worlds are the ones suffering from their reckless demographic expansion at the expense of a future better life. >solarpunk is cool and all Three threads already >>91183 and not much of a decent defense of this "genre" has been put up yet. The latest attempts to claim things to be solarpunk have also fiercely backfired. I won't derail the thread more with this so you can head to the solarpunk thread and see what you can do over there.

>>94192 This is silly. GISP2 in that chart dated to 1855, not 1905. It may seem strange but in climate research the year 1950 is defined as the present. So, the year 2000 is actually 1885 in that chart. The reason why the person who made that image didn't know this is because they're an idiot who somehow knows less than a person that can do 5 minutes or research. They're probably a grifter you've been tricked by. The chart also crams time periods together. With the way they disingenuously squish the timeline, it makes it seem like there's a downward trend, when there would really not be a trend. The little ice age is just an anomalous dip. Get a newer chart and you'll see temperatures are still rising. Nature has caused the temperatures to rise and fall, sure. There were significant ecological consequences as a result. There weren't 8 billion people on earth when that stuff happened. And it wasn't humans themselves causing the change. Whether you like it or not in the best case scenario the global average temperature will increase by 2 degrees celcius. That's if we do everything in our power to stop contributing to global warming. We won't though, because people still deny that in the modern times it's an issue of human creation. Even with a 2 degree increase, there will be ecological crises. Food chains will collapse. Famines will break out. There will be even more natural disasters and deadly climate events like heat waves. There will be many refugees coming from the southern hemisphere to the north to escape these problems. This will embolden authoritarian nationalists. Since we won't be seeing a best case scenario, we'll suffer these same issues but worse. Assuming you're not old, you'll witness this in your lifetime when you're middle-aged. You'll be living with the consequences as the crisis reaches the point of calamity though, it's not like 40 years from now the temperature will suddenly jump 2 degrees.

>>94188 The whole of Australia was violent and underfunded too. >What is it to "function better"? If it is to benefit economically and technologically, all of them did due to slave laborers under colonialism and the resources they extracted. They continued to benefit in the 20th century from this in places like the UK when black people from the carribean came to work. You're not dodging fast enough Neeeow.

>>94192 Oh, you're a denialist :(

>>94216 >you're a denialist of human responsibility :)

>Those mining rights are bought and bring capital, investment, development and jobs to those countries. The European mind can not comprehend not everyone wants to be a commodity. You're so anthropomorphized by capital, you can not see people as anything other than profit margins.

>>94188 >The Kingdom of Zimbabwe, the Oyo Empire, the Ghana Empire, the Benin Empire, the Malian Empire, the Kingdom of Punt, the Songhai Empire. Do you have any examples that aren't tribal kingdoms? >What is it to "function better"? Some pretty standard stuff in white societies, for instance that as a woman you can walk down the street at night without being rapemurdered. Or that crime rates are low. That drugs abuse isn't rampant. That degenerate behaviour is condemned. That social systems aren't abused for self-gain. That work is being done to improve themselves and those around them. >If it is to benefit economically and technologically, all of them did due to slave laborers under colonialism and the resources they extracted. Very few of the people but the slavekeepers enjoyed the fruits of this slavery. This is such a big misconception that everybody enjoyed the gold. >They continued to benefit in the 20th century from this in places like the UK when black people from the carribean came to work. This is because they were still very few and worked in an almost all-white workforce. Now that those percentages are in the double digits, you can see it going bad. This is all by design. With the influx of foreigners, unions lose their cohesion and strength and those multinationals can keep wages low. -- Black empires, even with the wealth of African resources at their disposal, have never really managed to evolve beyond tribalism. All those kingdoms after 800 AD were islamic kingdoms, and islam isn't better as tribalism. I can see you aren't stupid, but you are conceited. For the record: i don't 'hate' blacks. There are some aspects which I respect, for instance their capability of living in Africa. They just aren't compatible to live in white societies because of genetically defined behaviour. And because they can't function in a society that demands them to be better, they drag society down to their level, and run it in the ground. NO white society became better as it was with the influx of blacks.

>>94269 >>>/q/

>>94265 >Do you have any examples that aren't tribal kingdoms? What do you mean by tribal? They had centralized power structures, they weren't any less organized that European societies. You're shifting the goalpost. These are societies that existed prior to colonization, which brought about the destabilization of the continent. It's for that reason they're no longer around. >Some pretty standard stuff in white societies, for instance that as a woman you can walk down the street at night without being rapemurdered. Or that crime rates are low. That drugs abuse isn't rampant. Crime rates are linked to income inequality, not race. The inequality of wealth is heavily tied to race, due to systematic racism, and so you see more crime in less white communities. You, like every racist idiot online, confuse correlation with causation and immediately jump to black people being inherently violent. >That degenerate behaviour is condemned. What is "degenerate behavior"? I would say sitting on an imageboard all day, monitoring threads for replies is degenerate. >That social systems aren't abused for self-gain This doesn't happen on a meaningful scale. The whole welfare queen stereotype which introduced the concept of the abuse of welfare systems was made up by Reagan. America's welfare queens are people in red states who get aid money from the more egalitarian blue states. The blue states are more prosperous in part for their greater equality. >That work is being done to improve themselves and those around them. This is vague and meaningless, much like "degeneracy". >Very few of the people but the slavekeepers enjoyed the fruits of this slavery. This is such a big misconception that everybody enjoyed the gold. They did enjoy the fruits of slavery by being brought out of the feudal ages and ultimately into the modern era with liberal democracies; and also by obtaining enough political power to not get kidnapped and thrown into slavery themselves which used to happen in Europe prior to the enslavement of Africans. I never said that regular peasants were enjoying gold. >Black empires, even with the wealth of African resources at their disposal, have never really managed to evolve beyond tribalism. All those kingdoms after 800 AD were islamic kingdoms, and islam isn't better as tribalism. You need to explain what you mean by tribalism. If you view it as general instability, and a lack of centralization of power, then European empires evolved beyond tribalism only because of the technological advancements they were able to achieve by plundering the wealth of places like Africa. The African kingdoms I mentioned had centralized power structures and trade routes, the Kingdom of Zimbabwe was indirectly linked to the silk road. You're assuming a priori that they were all "tribal" because they were black, which must mean they were all uncivilized ooga booga people, because you're a racist 4channer idiot. You bring up Islamic kingdoms influencing African societies. European empires themselves benefited from Islamic kingdoms. Iberia was conquered by Muslims for centuries. The upper classes of Iberia received their education from Muslim scholars. This is how they learned about Africa and Muslims' enslavement of Africans. It's what prompted the Portuguese to sail off to Africa and take their first slaves, beginning the slave trade, which brought power to Europe again. Human societies don't develop in a vacuum. The people we'd deem to be "white" by today's standards only even became relevant in the last millennium.

>>94190 Looks like me poking fun at some of the less intelligent posts got someone upset. Thus again, I likewise appreciate the civility. Even though it's sad that this needs to be remarked on rather than it being the norm. Remember to detach your ego from discussions like that and treat insults like it's just a dog barking at you. And yes, sure you can start a business in Europe but it's better be profitable right away due to the tax and regulatory burden, and somehow have all the compliance and paper work figured out, which depending on what you're doing is either a lot or insurmountable. But really, the governments only want you to be dependent on an employer or the state. And that's all while they've been pushing for degrowth, vice down on speech and other nonsense and it's a disaster. But open discourse and an unburdened middle class, probably also abolishing the Prussian school model which verifiably dims any genius so we can be a catalyst for innovation again and have a chance at all to solve any of these looming issues like population density and AI. But currently, like I've said we're captured by detrimental algorithms which predate any of that tech and bad incentive models which somehow end up accumulating at leader positions and end up pushing us to national and civilizational suicide. Growth can of course not go on indefinitely and resources are limited but innovation is what has historically allowed us to win some more leeway every time. It would be stupid, as the European leadership currently is, to thwart the conditions for it rather than to foster it. And yes, if you read some of the "solarpunk literature" it becomes apparent that it's just some nuts trying to repackage Marxist Leninism in some low-scifi aesthetics that they lifted off a yogurt ad of all places. But just go check out those threads and see for yourself. There are non stupid ways to make dense population dwellings and environments more efficient but this and what fake climate alarmists suggest just ain't it. >>94188 >>94282 NTA but where are those kingdoms now? It's like civilizations and their level of development are in continuous flux, with the option to also regress. Babylon was once the most metro area in the world but now wouldn't even compare to a random small town in sophistication. The ottomans were at the forefront of mathematics at one point but now people there believe that their Soviet surplus kalashnikovs are operated by magic fairies. And while once Europe was but a patchwork of barbarian tribes and the occasional fortress not much bigger than some mc-mansions, this obviously has changed. Due to many factors, Europeans managed to jump ahead of everybody else which is evident when you consider they had to build slave ships first before going slave shopping in Africa. And even with slaves the contribution of an enslaved plantation staff would have been more or less that of a modern combine harvester. It's not nothing but also not the same as slaves having built western civilization. This can also be easily compared to other places which had the same or even greater amount of slaves, yet did not achieve the same level of sophistication, tech advancement and infra development: - North America: ~0.5mil afr. slaves - South + Cent. America: ~5.5mil afr. slaves - Europe: few 100k afr. slaves inlands and large colonies like the British Raj only becoming a thing late into the european industrialization and also really only benefiting England - Ottoman Emp.: ~5-6 mostly slavic but also eur. slaves but we don't talk about the Trans-Saharan slave trade.. So not only are you derailing this thread (although I'll tie it back in next), you try to equate populations with modern industrial infrastructure and governance to something which is just war lords without running water. Why? And even if the West has stolen everything from Africa, which seems to be a heavily exaggerated at most, whatever the reason, you still have a backwards culture that believes in witch craft, people who seem to be intrinsically prone to more impulsive and violent behavior, and letting millions of them into Europe has turned it more into the 3rd world. You seem to be willing to sacrifice our chance at exploring the stars for an attempt at forcing your feel good ideas to be reality. But this isn't how this works. And a people who went through the evolutionary bottle necks as Europeans did, should probably be just let to do their thing without forcing dead weight on them. Especially when it comes to sustain large populations on Earth with increasingly dwindling resources. But if we were truly that comparable then Africa would have had it all, would've dominated the world instead of tiny countries like Britain, Belgium or Portugal. The geographic landmass of the DRC (Congo) alone can fit Germany, France and the entire UK within it, crops can be farmed all year round. Yet the most that they have to show for are struggling cities and towns (of which much has been built under British rule), rolling blackouts and governments that are so comedically corrupt that they make Eastern Europe look upstanding. And if you thought the brits were bad, now the Chinese are going to strip mine the hell out of that place. And that's after they've received trillions of dollars from western nations, have black ethno states that want their while boers farmers back, and otherwise have a population that they just simply can not sustain on their own. And if it wasn't for the CCP trying to take over that whole continent (which they're succeeding at btw) then I would've said to just leave all of Sub-Saharan Africa alone aside of securing Johannesburg and violently go against poachers, and just let the rest of the native african population figure things out for themselves. But your suicidal altruism will likely disagree with that. And I get it, but not every person or group thinks like you. To some people, mercy and kindness is nothing but a display of weakness and stupidity and an opportunity to take advantage of that. And playing white savior will only get you rightfully despised by your own kin, you will never receive gratitude from your pet projects all while jeopardizing humanity's chance to avoid the great filter.

>>94282 >What do you mean by tribal? Africa without European influence. >These are societies that existed prior to colonization, which brought about the destabilization of the continent. Africa always has been a jungle continent. Those kingdoms weren't highly functioning societies with a rule of law or civilized social life, but were what I said: tribal kingdoms, with rampant despotism, nepotism, violence, corruption etc. I don't know where you get the idea that this was different before Europeans conquered it. Where did you get this idea? >Crime rates are linked to income inequality, not race. Explain to me how it's possible that even in those lowest brackets of income, blacks still have higher crime rates as whites. >The inequality of wealth is heavily tied to race, due to systematic racism, And even with those past 20 years of DEI-hiring, giving blacks all kinds of advantages and step-ups, it only got worse. Ultimately, the ironic thing of DEI-hiring is that it gave living proof as to why there was segregation and racism in the first place. >What is "degenerate behavior"? Drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, polygamy, hypergamy, anti-intellectualism, anti-work ethic, stealing just to name a few. Basically anything you see in your average hip-hop clip. >This (sic: abuse of social systems) doesn't happen on a meaningful scale No, this is wrong, at least where I live. I'm not American but live in Europe in a country with a highly praised social system. This system is highly abused and it's mostly abused by foreigners. Some examples are that Africans and Middle-easterners both absolutely and relatively are the highest recipients of welfare. Many of these do illegal work as well, and there's a lot of drug hustling going on. So they both drain the treasury and add nothing to it, while poisoning the society. Another thing they do is that they abuse the legal system to get into social housing and subsequently sublet it, but only to their own. This is the cause for many young whites not being able to 'start their life', leading to a whole heap of problems down the way. This last bit is ofcourse by design by the malevolent rulers, but the foreigners still gladly abuse it for their own benefit. >What do you mean by "That work is being done to improve themselves and those around them." Basically to evolve past tribalism and see past one's own needs. >because of the technological advancements they were able to achieve by plundering the wealth of places like Africa How does one become more technologically advanced by accumulating more resources? As someone else already pointed out: many more factors contributed to this fact. Also with gold I mean the wealth all those resources brought, and that wealth for the largest part, stayed in the pockets of the select few. >You're assuming a priori that they were all "tribal" because they were black No, I am pointing out that all these kingdoms came into existence before 1000 AD, and all of those kingdoms were tribal. >You bring up Islamic kingdoms influencing African societies. You brought up those kingdoms, and I pointed out they were islamic kingdoms, and islamic kingdoms are only a very small step up from tribal kingdoms. > European empires themselves benefited from Islamic kingdoms. This is what I call 'being conceited'. Europe is going to the dogs, and Muslims are a huge factor in this. >The upper classes of Iberia received their education from Muslim scholars. Only after being conquered and they did this because they had to survive. In other words: if they didn't follow the education, they were murdered. >This is how they learned about Africa and Muslims' enslavement of Africans. The Romans already knew this. >It's what prompted the Portuguese to sail off to Africa and take their first slaves, beginning the slave trade, which brought power to Europe again. The slave trade was mostly to ship out slaves from Africa (who were enslaved by their tribelords) to America. In those early days, very few slaves went to Europe. And you haven't answered this question >Name me examples of white societies that functioned better the moment niggers became a sizeable part of it. Can you name just one example? All in all, you appear to me as someone who wants to mold the ideals to reality, and this what makes you conceited.

>>94295 Small correction >This is how they learned about Africa The Romans already knew this. >and Muslims' enslavement of Africans. Which the Romans didn't know, but you inadvertently pointed out that Muslims are only just a step up from tribal kingdoms.

>>94282 >>94282 >>94282 >Crime rates are linked to income inequality, not race. The inequality of wealth is heavily tied to race, due to systematic racism, and so you see more crime in less white communities. You, like every racist idiot online, confuse correlation with causation and immediately jump to black people being inherently violent. On today's episode of: "Bleeding heart liberal lies about the data" >>Crime rates are linked to income inequality, not race. Let's focus on *this* claim. We are going to calculate adjusted crime rate / adjusted poverty rate per race in USA. If poverty == crime, we should expect all of these to be ~1x. From [1], we have some data on arrests for violent crimes: | White Arrests Black Arrests Hispanic Arrests Total Arrests Total Arrests 3,927,500 1,624,000 1,023,000 5,781,000 Violent Crimes 196,000 134,500 76,500 407,000 Now lets translate that to per-capita with the help of [2] Population: ~342 million (342,000,000) Whites: 58% -> 198,360,000 Blacks: 12% -> 41,040,000 Hispanics: 19% -> 64,980,000 (assuming 100% of hispanics are not-black, which is being generous to our leftist friend) For all crime: 3,927,500/198,360,000 -> 1.98% crime rate 1,624,000/41,040,000 -> 3.96% crime rate (2x whites!!!) 1,023,000/64,980,000 -> 1.57% crime rate (80% of whites!!!) Now, lying lain said that "Crime rates are linked to income inequality, not race" So let's get some poverty data [3]: | white black hispanic asian american indian USA Poverty rate % 9.5% 20.6% 16.6% 10.0% 24.2% Set white poverty rate as baseline and compare as ratio to white, e.g: 20.6/9.5 -> 2.17x impovershed blacks as whites | white black hispanic asian american indian USA adjusted Poverty rate 1x 2.17x 1.75x 1.05x 2.55x now we need adjusted crime rate (just divide by white rate), e.g: 3.96/1.98 -> 2x | white black hispanic asian american indian USA adjusted crime rate 1x 2x 0.8x NA for now NA for now and now adjusted crime/adjusted poverty rate! | white black hispanic asian american indian USA Crime/Poverty rate 1x 0.92x 0.46x NA for now NA for now Took a while to get here, but look at that, we have some fun numbers to think about: - White rate is 1x, by definition. - Black rate is 0.92x, which suggests they are a little *less* violent that you would predict based on poverty alone. - Hispanic rate is 0.46x, which is exactly 1/2 the black rate. Despite sharing similar rates of poverty, hispanics commit *way* fewer crimes! Clearly, poverty != crime. Now I will do the same for violent crime (not showing my work, just follow procedure above if you want to duplicate): | white black hispanic asian american indian USA adjusted *violent* crime rate 1x 3.33x 1.21x NA for now NA for now | white black hispanic asian american indian USA *violent* Crime/Poverty rate 1x 1.53x 0.69x NA for now NA for now What do we see? - This time, blacks are *way* overrepresented among violent criminals, even when adjusted for poverty! - Hispanics are, yet again, *way* underrepresented. Clearly, poverty != violent crime either!! Now, for the nail in the coffin, let's check asian and native americans! (Had to use [4] for data this time, but it is all the same source, I just didnt bother scumming around FBI site) | American Indian Arrests Asian Arrests Total Arrests Total Arrests 130500 76000 5,781,000 for % population, I used [2] again American Indian % population 0.68%*324mil -> 2,203,200 Asian % population 5.92%*324mil -> 19,180,800 % crime rate amerindian: 130500/2203200 -> 5.92% / 1.98% white = 3x % crime rate asian: 76000/19180800 -> 0.40% / 1.98% white = 0.2x | asian amerindian adj poverty rate 1.05x 2.55x | white black hispanic asian american indian USA Crime/Poverty rate 1x 0.92x 0.46x 0.19x 1.18x And yet again, we see that poverty alone CANNOT explain differences in racial criminality! Asians are hiliarious un-criminal for their poverty rate. Native americans are slightly more criminal than poverty alone would predict. Now let's finish it off with violent crime (murder+rape+robbery+agr assault in [4])! amerindian -> 133+274+566+5412 -> 6385 -> 0.29% / 0.099% white -> 2.93x / 2.55 = 1.15 asian -> 113+299+531+4404 -> 5347 -> 0.03% / 0.099% white -> 0.30x / 1.05 = 0.29 all the adjusting math yields: | white black hispanic asian american indian USA *violent* Crime/Poverty rate 1x 1.53x 0.69x 0.29x 1.15x There you have it. Remember, if poverty==crime, you'd expect all of those to be 1x. Instead, we've got outliers all over the place! Bonus round for fun: MURDER!!! white: 0.00203% -> 1x /pov -> 1x black: 0.0137% -> 6.75x /pov -> 3.11x hispanic: 0.00275% -> 1.35x /pov -> 0.77x amerindian: 0.00604% -> 2.98x /pov -> 1.17x asian: 0.000590%-> 0.29x /pov -> 0.28x >You, like every racist idiot online, confuse correlation with causation and immediately jump to black people being inherently violent. I'll let you puzzle over this one. >inb4 b-b-b-b-but other socioeconomic factors besides poverty that aren't controlled for by checking literally every other race [1]: https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/united-states-crime-statistics-by-race/ [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States#Race_and_ethnicity [3]: https://www.kff.org/state-health-policy-data/state-indicator/poverty-rate-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22Location%22,%22sort%22:%22asc%22%7D [4]: https://www.crimeinamerica.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Screenshot-2024-03-19-at-3.52.06-PM-e1710878059840.png unrelated: >flood detected post discarded my beloved...

>>94265 >unions lose their cohesion and strength and those multinationals can keep wages low. But with unions in leftist hands you cannot attack your neighbor on their basis of his origins and you must instead actuate the reality of the class system with your class brother, mkay? >NO white society became better as it was with the influx of blacks. And soon Japan is about to realize this too as they're feverishly catching up on their lateness.

>>94282 >What do you mean by tribal? They had centralized power structures, they weren't any less organized that European societies. You're shifting the goalpost. These are societies that existed prior to colonization, which brought about the destabilization of the continent. It's for that reason they're no longer around. They never achieved anything more than that. >Crime rates are linked to income inequality, not race. Income inequality is linked to the capacity to work, to organize, to create wealth and more complex structures. You cannot create much added value from a bunch of chicken. Creativity, discipline, fortitude, all of these are severely lacking in these people. It directly relates to what they are, their instincts hard coded in their genes. Thus, their race. Everything trickles down from race because it's impossible to overcome the biological cap on abilities, and that ceiling is rather low for these people and rather high for whites. Systemic racism is nothing more than a reaction to an intrusion. It's also fairly logical for the group that has created the most refined societies to first and foremost enjoy the fruits of their labor. You may find episodic cases of foreigners being used but they were never eseential, their input never unique, their work never exceptional. >You... confuse correlation with causation and immediately jump to black people being inherently violent. They are. They are unruly and lack impulse control. As soon as they are released in a foreign society they immediately start making themselves remarked for their bad behavior and detestable mannerisms. You can again observe this right in Japan and that has nothing to do with poverty because the blacks going there have the means to travel. They're in fact richer than me. While criminality does correlate with poverty to some serious extent, the black population acts as a huge multiplier so much that poor white neighbourhoods experience much less crime than black ones with wealth parity. There's that video of a US TV show featuring a man shooting down the same kind of arguments you defend, going through the crime rates, race and wealth in the US. >This doesn't happen on a meaningful scale. It totally does. In my own country these populations are known to prefer being paid through welfare than working, so they benefit form their laziness. >The whole welfare queen stereotype which introduced the concept of the abuse of welfare systems was made up by Reagan. Don't try to shoot the messenger, you have yet to prove that he was wrong. >America's welfare queens are people in red states who get aid money from the more egalitarian blue states. Whatever complicated scheme could explain this, in other countries there's none of this nonsense that you could hide behind so as to avoid facing the truth. >The blue states are more prosperous in part for their greater equality. Equality of what? They are more prosperous because they're states that grew in wealth and prestige while they were predominantly euro-centric. They were also far more functional and productive when mostly populated by whites. Obviously people flocked to these areas, the economy bloomed there. Then immigrants were poured en masse to these places so you get a false sense that equality is responsible for the observed current wealth when it's in large a question of momentum built by the previous whiter generations during the former century. >They did enjoy the fruits of slavery by being brought out of the feudal ages and ultimately into the modern era with liberal democracies The feudal age was preceded by another organization that was functional. Now today these liberal and modern democracies are falling apart, totally incapable of upholding the levels of good life that were enjoyed by former generations, in countries which incidentally were much whiter. This is just a simple matter of fact. >European empires evolved beyond tribalism only because of the technological advancements they were able to achieve by plundering the wealth of places like Africa. Come on, for the most part the great Rome entertained good old trade with the major ports of North Africa, and if you're going to whine about the plundering you'd better remember that Carthage was behind no less than three assaults on the Italian peninsula. Greece at its peak hardly focused on Africa and certainly wasn't concerned much about black Africa. At later times the powerful Central European empires had more than enough wealth within their own lands and the neighbouring ones to have to even think about plundering whatever distant place beneath the Sahara. You also act as if the African wealth was intelligently extracted by black populations but ripped from their innocent hands through evil plans, but black people are notoriously known for having lands full of potential wealth which they simply never really bothered to pick up. You ascribe to some kind of fantasy were black Africa was a silenced El Dorado that had been depleted through scheming. You would also note that the theory you present follows the idea that for thousands of years, blacks in Africa have always been beaten, abused, scammed and dispossessed of their wealth. Wouldn't this be the proof of their inherent weakness and incapability to organize a truly meaningful force, civilization and true empire? With so many failures, why would anyone need to import such incompetent people if not only for their only good value, their physical labor to do things when told to do so? I do not care about modern values and principles, but I'm not big on slavery either. But you should know that slavery has been everywhere for thousands of years and blacks are not special in the slightest. Yet they keep returning to that, thinking that if they complain loud enough about what they think being the only ones to have experienced, they should get some special treatment. Imagine if all the other populations of Earth behaved the same way just because at some point in their existence they had been exposed to some form of slavery. >The African kingdoms I mentioned had centralized power structures and trade routes, Not a lot to write home about, with those "routes", when we're looking at people who barely used boats at all, if they even knew how to make them! >the Kingdom of Zimbabwe was indirectly linked to the silk road All large population groups belonging to one of the three continents tied together by the Middle East were linked indirectly to the silk road. That's not an achievement. >You're assuming a priori that they were all "tribal" because they were black, which must mean they were all uncivilized ooga booga people There is nothing to assume here. They have simply not been capable of rising above that level of stunted development. Calling them kingdoms is very generous and just a pretentious trick to elevate them by force to the level of other nations. It's not just a question of black against whites, it's blacks against everyone else. They have simply never achieved anything memorable and no amount of skewed leftist-liberal academic propaganda is going to change that. >You bring up Islamic kingdoms influencing African societies. European empires themselves benefited from Islamic kingdoms. Iberia was conquered by Muslims for centuries. The upper classes of Iberia received their education from Muslim scholars. The Islamic populations of the Middle East in their most developed areas and cities were not ethnically monolithic. Between the European slaves, the people descended from ancient Greek settlements and with the foreigners going to these lands, a lot of the Islamic science owes its heights to such foreign racial elements. On top of this, all the mathematical science was inherited from Persia and India from times when they were ruled by white elites. >This is how they learned about Africa and Muslims' enslavement of Africans. It's what prompted the Portuguese to sail off to Africa and take their first slaves, beginning the slave trade, which brought power to Europe again. So does that mean that prior to this, the blacks were irrelevant to the success of powerful European kingdoms? Nearly every powerful kingdom has been into some form of slavery one way or another. But that requires a capable kingdom. Incapable people cannot make capable kingdoms, because that requires organization, strength, science, planning. >The people we'd deem to be "white" by today's standards only even became relevant in the last millennium. Now you're coping hard and being ridiculous.

>>94311 >But with unions in leftist hands you cannot attack your neighbor on their basis of his origins and you must instead actuate the reality of the class system with your class brother, mkay? Unions haven't been in leftist hands for like 50 years, and a lot of them strongly opposed globalization (along with leftists) in the 90s. People who drone on about >muh blacks are the only ones who I genuinely think should just kill themselves right this very moment.

>>94314 >Unions haven't been in leftist hands for like 50 years, and a lot of them strongly opposed globalization (along with leftists) in the 90s. Humor me. Labor unions have been conceived as solely leftist groups since the end of World War Two (I say that because we know that workers were also defended by Fascists during the 30s). Your case could at best only be limited to the United States and even there it is widly incorrect. In all of Europe and in any other part of the world they are 100% leftist and always in favor of mass immigration because the greater goal is the union of all workers of all races and sexes. Also their opposition to globalism is tokenist and as impotent as ever. We had decades and more decades of unions and globalism and rapacious capitalism have hardly taken a step back. These unions only exist to make it easy to swallow by thinking workers are aptly defended.

>>94319 >humor me no. >In all of Europe and in any other part of the world they are 100% leftist [citation needed] >We had decades and more decades of unions and globalism and rapacious capitalism have hardly taken a step back. unions were weakest exactly when globalization was at its height. Huh, I wonder why.

>>94196 Please read my answer here >>94322.

>>94320 >>In all of Europe and in any other part of the world they are 100% leftist >[citation needed] Good job. You're dumb. >unions were weakest exactly when globalization was at its height. Huh, I wonder why. 1. They have never been stronger unless you're looking at the USSR. 2. They're part of the plan. Oh wait, you thought they existed to protect your working rights?

>>94325 Maybe bring some facts to the table if you want people to believe you

>>94326 No it's just you asking stupid questions. Just taking a look at any march organized by any union in a Western nation will provide all the evidence you need, starting with the flags. You're the only person I know of who has the audacity to claim that labor unions are not leftist. These unions are only a cover to defend immigration.

>>94311 The inherent power that unions have - banding and standing together - is much less the moment it becomes "diverse". This isn't a jab at any race, but just shows that the innate strength of these homogenous groups vanishes. It's why someone like Jeff Bezos actively pushes for a diverse workforce: to have the workers infighting so there won't be demands for better wages or better working conditions low.

>>93785 So base it on 0.something% of total white population instead? Monkeybrained take

>>94349 You're consistenly insulting anyone that doesn't agree with you. This is not helping the discourse.

>>94346 After acknowledging this problem, Marx suggested his own solution: unity of the labor class regardless of race or sex. Someone else said foreigners raus! You decide.

>>94349 mormons are like 2% of the US population. Considering they're disproportionately white lets say they're maybe 3% of the white pop. Not that significant but far less trifling than you make it out to be. Not like the Amish (who are actually german by the way). Also mormon birthrates are dropping they're just behind the curve not on a different one.

>>94359 >It's either A or B Stop it with this false dichotomy.

>>94360 2-3% of the US white population is what % of the total white population? Not a particularly big number

>>94359 People cannot unite without a leader, bad actors have too much to gain from infiltration & parasitism.

I know it's elusive but... (((unions)))

>>93537 Even if people can sustain 8-10 bil of units in terms of food and housing (maybe); people still cannot solve the problem of urbanization, e.g. more and more people living Babylon-style - less reproduction, lack of time to "get a life", and such. Instead of embracing this phenomenon, various countries pull off various "stimulations" that prett much only adress, say... * fatherless' offspring of fatherless * slags * proles and such, e.g. NOT affecting people who are involved in the "post-industrial" kind of life and who do the high education stuff. Instead of embracing it, humanity keeps pushing the idea there are "normal" people all while closing their eyes towards the part "normal" person is, basically, a caveman. So, cramming billions of people in sprawls is one thing - the side effect of industrialization. Keeping pretending it's not normal to not reproduce and sometimes stress so much no libido is present - in a sprawl - is another.

>>94399 we allready have those they're called countries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qtJjs2o97U I bet thou didn't zee zat one coming, did thou?

>>93598 As an person from ex-USSR, I have to remind you this idea lacks "do not build densely populated cities" because in Zamyati's "Mii" book (1920s), there: a) a huge, unrelaistically huge city where things are dystopian. b) the rest of the planet, captured by some "forest". The idea is to spread the world in a way as cozy as possible to avoid WWs, and renewables are supposed to be gathered globally, not by one city

>>94738 It's Tower of Babel again. One world government in a big skyscraper, everyone dependent on everyone and stuck in an apartment. AI translators to breach the language barrier, which also is used to impede communications dis-favorable to the government, by preventing or corrupting the translation of certain things. Or it already is, people aren't allowed to live in the woods yet its lauded that the govt has national parks and protected forests.

>>94753 >people aren't allowed to live in the woods yet its lauded that the govt has national parks and protected forests. In the US & Canada you literally are allowed to live in the woods, including most protected forest, you just have to move every 60 days or something if you don't have a lease.

>>94754 Just don't touch Federal wood or you're in for a very nasty surprise.

>>94768 >>94768 can i find a ravine/open spot to put a smol cabin though? A solar patel, cheap stuff, this, that...

>>94770 You must obtain licenses and government safety approvals for that, and pay the fees.

>>94774 oi mate got a loicense for that loicense?

>>94774 I think cyberpunk-smelling small modular homes with solar panels already included should be a thing, licensed in advance. >>94777 aha oh wait ex-cons aren't allowed many things

>>94768 How much wood do you need that you couldn't get from fallen logs? >>94770 There are a lot of people that drive around in trailers or vans and set up camp in an area for a month or two at a time. No permits needed, depending the specific type of land. Long as you don't leave trash around, don't cut down trees, and don't piss off the rangers you'll be fine.

>>94782 They are already a thing. Just pay money for someone to build and license one for you. You're not poor, are you?