Overpopulation is the cause of all world Problems

It is because there are too many people everywhere that everything is soykaf nowadays. Economy is soykaf. Rents are rising. There is less and less jobs. What do you think /r

No lol. We have more than enough resources to feed the poor, most first would countries can house their entire homeless population and choose not to. Also anti-natalism is cringe. Makes you seem like annoying redditors who call babies “crotch dumplings”. No thanks.

So according to you it is just some evil government policy that forces homelessness and other social ill. Why they do it. We need to fightback against this.

>>32674 space is limited so more people automatically means less space / person. Yeah i know some of you like living in size dog house where you can barely turn but other people want more space. And that further extends to things like forests and larger areas. Tourism seeks beautiful nature only to soykaf it up with its own presence. More people more trash. Once the region is covered in hotels the beautifu nature is gone. >>32675 gov only cares about profits, housing hobos makes no money. A lot of them are mentally ill so it would only cost to care for them while there is no way to monetize their labor. I mean seriously think about it, why would someone who engages in wars and condones killing people for money give 2 soykafs about hobos?

>>32676 Yeah but earth ISNT running out of space? You’re acting like we’re experiencing this extreme urbanization everywhere, when you can look out the window and probably see open land in most of the world. We don’t have this issue. This idea we’re running out of space is a fantasy. The vast majority of America is undeveloped swaths of fields, “amber waves of grain”. Like what are you talking abt? This kinda sounds like fringe eco fascist lebensraum soykaf. Also tourism definitely doesn’t seek nature. Places like New York and LA didn’t become urbanized filth pits because of tourism, but colonization and industrialization. Tourism for nature is niche, most people are going for cultural or other reasons, not to experience hiking or take in natural landscapes. Also socialized housing exists in other places like Austria and they have pools in them as well as great amenities. So why write it off as an impossibility? Even if overpopulation is the issue what’s the answer? Eugenics? Who decides who’s worthy of living and who isn’t? That is where the red herring of overpopulation leads.

>>32677 People have to live where the jobs are which concentrates population density. They have to be settled as compact as possible for efficiency. fuarrrk if you ever just tried getting a house in the boonies you already have to pay a ton to get hooked to the city grid. Tourism follows absolutely nice places. You wanna talk about hiking? Alps are overbooked soykaf shows nowadays with the old timers lamenting how it used to be quite. Though personally i was thinking of that southern thailand place that used to be scenic until everyone wanted to travel there and the natives sold their land to hotel chains. Now you go there and its just another concrete jungle. From gold to trash. Austria is rich af and doesn't have too much dead weight. Of course you can offer fancy soykaf when you have 1 instead of 100 to feed. As for the last point its already happening. They simply accelerate natural selection by adding more challenges to fail. If you survive the gauntlet congrats if you fail good for the rest.

>>32677 >amber waves of grain if litterally the entire world were amber waves of grain & cities, then that would be a sign that you are at the limit. Significant point is that so much of america is NOT amber waves of grain. Go on a road trip from Virginia to California and you'll see how much of the US is utterly open. Farms are development, but much of this continent remains minimally developed if developed at all. Food isnt in such demand that we've gone out to try and turn the appilacians or the rockys into farms. Thats not even mentioning how much food the US just wastes. You could double the population with hardly any need to expand agriculture. If we really taxxed America as far as it goes I'm sure we could double it again, probably more.

People not only need space. Amber fields are needed to produce food. Even seamlessly untouched green fields are needed for cattle to graze on. Forests are needed to produce oxygen and wood. Add to that mining locations for oil, gas, iron, coal, aluminum which too have to be located somewhere. So it is impossible to turn the entire planet into a huge megacity. Also I am not talking here about minimally possible to survive. I am talking about living in affluence and comfort For example computer simulation once tried to figure out where is the best place to found the first city on earth. It assumed that the earth was empty of all settlements and humans and aimed to find the place where the settlement would be the most prosperous and best suited for a living. The result was exactly the place where current city of Dhaka in Bangladesh is located. Bangladesh and Dhaka currently is the opposite of prosperous or suited for a living. The reason is Bangladesh is also very small geographically despite having higher total population that something as huge as Russia. It was probably very prosperous in the past before overpopulation turned it into place of misery and poverty. I personally do not want to live in poverty, scarcity and privation. So I am brining it to attention. Global population is on the rise and if we do not do anything we will be on the road to Bangladeshi standards of living.

>>32677 >You’re acting like we’re experiencing this extreme urbanization everywhere, Its really more that we're seeing urban sprawl and suburbanization, which is much worse because its a significantly less efficient use of land. >This idea we’re running out of space is a fantasy We're running out of space that someone might actually want to live in, and we're running out of unused space which turns out to be very important to keep the ecology from collapsing. >The vast majority of America is undeveloped swaths of fields Most of which is soykaf land you can't even farm on.

>>32683 >Most of which is soykaf land you can't even farm on. much of which is just land thats going to be highly manual labour intensive to work on. If food was actually in serious demand a great deal more effort would go into making these less than ideal lands productive. I won't believe the US is anywhere near carrying capacity till all the mountains and hills of the eastern states are covered with terrace farms, or at the very least sheep. some western places are dry enough that certain types of agriculture are difficult or impossible without irrigation projects that would dwarf basically anything done in america to date, but I am very doubtful that they're at full output, either. >Its really more that we're seeing urban sprawl and suburbanization, which is much worse because its a significantly less efficient use of land. Another good point. I won't believe the US is anywhere near carrying capacity till all the suburbs that tookover old farmfields are ripped out and replaced with farms again. That's also going to be expensive and difficult but, once again: if food is actually in demand, it will be worth it. BUT IT AINT.

It's not that there is too many people it's that capitalism is an inefficient corrupt system that fuarrrks over the majority of all people. Ironically it's also why there are more people than there would be without it due to how people in war zones and other stressors such as bad health reproduce more.

>>32684 >much of which is just land thats going to be highly manual labour intensive to work on. At a certain point the actual energy put into labor is more than the energy you get out of your crop. >some western places are dry enough that certain types of agriculture are difficult or impossible without irrigation projects that would dwarf basically anything done in america to date, but I am very doubtful that they're at full output, either. Oh, you just reminded me of another problem: there's not enough water.

My core point is that we do not want to scrap by on bare minimum. We want to line in affluence and comfort. That means do not getting to the limit of capacity at all.

>>32683 > we're seeing urban sprawl and suburbanization Suburbs are uncommon outside of north America, but yes suburbs, in general, are bad for the environment agreed. But a lot of people here are talking about living in "affluence and comfort" so it seems not to be really an issue for some of you about how much space one person takes up. Hmm. >Most of which is soykaf land you can't even farm on. Not all land is good for farming, but that isn't really super relevant considering we can preserve food long enough to transport it long distances. Besides, do you seriously buy from a local farmers market irl if you can, anon? >>32677 >If you survive the gauntlet congrats if you fail good for the rest. Totally normal open support of eugenics. At least you admitted to being an ecofash unlike some other cowards here, not saying everyone here is an ecofash but christ. Let me guess, you want to purge disabled and minority groups so that the "fittest" aryan people can live? You people are so transparent and sad.

>>32697 >Suburbs are uncommon outside of north America I think many things about this thread are only relevant in the New World, because it's the only place where there's any significant amount of unused arable land.

>>32677 >If you survive the gauntlet congrats if you fail good for the rest. I cannot find this line in his original post. Does that mean he edited it? Came back to being closed fash?

>>32697 >Totally normal open support of eugenics. At least you admitted to being an ecofash unlike some other cowards here, not saying everyone here is an ecof First of its not me, i just wrote down as i see it regarding whats people with power are doing right now. Secondary natural selection doesn't equate disabled/minority =bad. What common people perceive as defects are not always defects. Good/Bad traits only exist in a given environment and what is good changes with changes in the enviroment. You might think being smart is good and stupid bad but then you have historical intelligentsia purges. So the dumb survived where the smart got killed. Same way disabled is a boon in war since it makes you exempt from getting shipped to front and dying. So what survives isn't some gigachad super aryan 2 but whatever traits are best adapted to the current environment. Natural selection contrary to the memes doesnt lead to better people. It just describes those who survive define the following generations. Note also that the goal isn't universally creating better humans. A more pervasive view is to create a servant class too stupid to be a threat but just smart enough to follow orders. The eugenist movement trying to improve humanity largely failed in contrast to the people going this path. Your present education system for example was build for making obedient soldiers not smart people replacing the former attempt to create the smartest individuals possible because it turns out smart critical thinkers wont die for you in soykafty wars. >>32704 he mean to quote me as my post was one below the one he quoted

>>32673 Overpopulation is not the huge problem people make it out to be, that's not saying there aren't Malthusian constraints but you can't blame all the worlds problems on there being too many people. >Economy is soykaf. Rents are rising. There is less and less jobs. The global economy is trash because its been mismanaged for decades. Take rent, why is it so high? Why do we have a shortage of housing in major cities? It's because we have a surplus of luxury apartments in high rise skyscrapers which are mostly empty. These skyscrapers are built purely to exist as a sexy asset on a financial portfolio for wealthy elites, banks, and corpos. Developers know building these monsters is more profitable than an affordable housing block, the result is a shortage in decently priced homes which allows landlords to engage in price gouging. Developers want you to believe there is no space or there are too many people, in reality they simply don't want to build homes for people like you or me.

>>32673 not everywhere, just asia/africa/south america once you cleanse those soykafholes everything will be fine

>>32705 So, according to you, society strives to exterminate people like you, me and most of the members of this board. What do you propose we do about it: Roll over and die? Fake disability? Actually who controls the government to direct them towards this aims? Since we are so smart, we should try to take over. Then we will rule for our sake.

>>32724 >What do you propose we do about it: Roll over and die? Fake disability? This is precisely the meta right now. Some people hide income sources and claim welfare. Some get a doctors permit to neet4live doing nothing. Some falsely claim minority status to get diversity hired by mandated quotas. As the system forces healthy individuals to pay for the sick the natural conclusion is healthy individuals claim sickness now to get ahead. The simple alternative if you have the financial means is to exit leaving to countries still unaffected. Of course these places tend to suffer different issues but then its a choice what you value more. >Actually who controls the government to direct them towards this aims? Elections are 90% correlated to campaign funds and past office they get cushy corp jobs as payment for doing the right thing while in office. In other worlds corporate money controls governments. You can then of course follow corp relationships and you will quickly find choice is a lie and the market belongs to very few individuals using brands as fronts to make it look like there is competition on the market. (image) So a few individuals hold all the reigns ultimately just like middle age royalty. Perhaps even moreso as modern technology enables far more wide reaching control.

>>32732 What about shortages of rental a ccommodation then.

>>32746 Not profitable to build cheap housing. In fact illegal in some places as they set a market price based on existing prices and make you pay extra if you try to offer cheap housing for less as the gov sees it as stealing their money since they get less tax on lower rent so they make you pay the difference. In addition big corps squat on land&housing speculating on prices so a lot of property sits unused.

>32674 >Also anti-natalism is cringe. It's our biological nature to cringe at anti-natalism. I appreciate anti-natalism, it goes against our nature, it takes something to develop this view, and we probably need it as criticism.

>>32746 its more affordable rentals tho... Corpos can afford the increased construction costs because of their capital, while ordinary investors cannot. Increased property values drive up property costs which means corpos can also sell to other corpos at a profit. They are unironically building the pods and charging an arm and a leg to live there. In many places the only alternative is isolated tinyhome living or buying a run down home in the ghetto... unless all the rundown ghetto homes have been bought to turn into budget luxury rentals that anyone can afford (tm).

>>32761 They dont use their own capital, they take a credit from the bank. And the bank is allowed to print money thanks to fractional banking. Its capped at 10xthe amount people have given them in accounts. So in other words the financial rule is the bank can always lend 10x more money than you have saved in your account to corps which ensures you can always be outbid by someone willing to take a credit. And if you buy / rent from them in next step you of course slaving away paying the bank for the monopoly on printing money.

Government should understand that housing is no longer just a commodity like any other on the market, but something essential for human wellbeing. We should influence government somehow. It is a democratic county after all. They have to care about losing the elections. They need to know we are voting down anyone who is not promising to fix housing. Their own jobs and lifehoods will be as stake here, they will do something about it. The bigger crowd we can get, the better. There should be a lot of people in rentals. It is in the intersts of all. We just need to reach out to as many as we can.

>>32773 Gov understands the situation perfectly well. The entire point is making you reliant on gov because that means in next step you either comply or die since you can't live without gov support anymore. You can get a taste looking at welfare recipients now - they have to search for cheap housing on their own and then ask gov for a permit to rent it or else they get no financial support and cant pay rent anymore as their support is cut off. They practice hegelian dialect. Create the issue to lead people to the solution you want to sell. Nobody would willingly become dependable to gov and get dictated where they can live but once "free money" is the only option to pay rent they will take the offer lacking alternatives.

>>32773 >They have to care about losing the elections. lol like they'd let paupers like you influence them >They need to know we are voting down anyone who is not promising to fix housing. lol you're gonna get two options. Maybe three. One wants to declare war on russia, the other simply wants to arm ukraine. They have milequetoast opinions on housing which mostly mean giving federal subsidies to the large rental companies they own stock in. Your Candidate: Snoopy the Dog. >Their own jobs and lifehoods will be as stake here, they will do something about it. on the off chance that they do get removed from their offices, theres a good chance they get some decently comfy job in the media. A book deal here and there, and otherwise can live off the substantial wealth any savvy politician makes in his time. If you get enough people to do it that you pose a threat, they'll send the FBI to infiltrate your ranks and start doing some terrorism. They'll declare your group domestic terorists and make your candidates simply incapable of winning. They will threaten their persons and their families if they ever do win, and they will put up their own infiltrators as candidates too. You are not proposing a political campaign but a military one. Think not interms of elections, its like hoping that you can persuade Superman to come out and help you.

The crowd do not have to be organized into an army, organization or anything like that. So long as they spell out their intentions to the congressmen in their districts it will make a difference. Ordinary congressmen win or lose their seats in congress every 2 years. It will matter to them how many people will or will not vote for them.

>>32787 >Ordinary congressmen win or lose their seats in congress every 2 years. It will matter to them how many people will or will not vote for them. You cannot threaten someone by telling him you won't vote for him. Even in us presidential elections turnout is generally well under 100% of qualified voters (outside of big city, black-heavy districts), there's a lot of people not voting for him. What you need in order to make credible threats is the ability to actually remove him. Maybe you're advocating for a simple thing, hes a democrat who says he hates guns, you call and say you like guns. Last year he only beat out the gunhappy republican by a couple hundred votes, small number of people like you could be a credible threat. Maybe he changes his tune a little bit, does an advert where he talks about how much he loves hunting. You'll see later if he changed how he votes. You're not talking about a thing quite like this though. Most likely the republican laughs at you and maybe the democrat makes a couple hollow promises and vaugely aligned platitudes. You've not got a difference of a few hundred votes to make up but basically the entire voting bloc of the district. If you want to credibly threaten his removal by voting this requires a signficant organization and probably a fair bit of money, perhaps support or a major political party, not to mention a serious candidate who's actually on your side. And if you want to actually get changes that you seem to want you're going to have to do this same thing over quite a few times. Then the house passes a bill that does what you want. by the time it passes the senate, it is what you would call neutered. And it gets vetoed. Maybe you get a second shot, next version is also neutered but includes some big kickbacks for somebody or other and it passes into law. Three years later it finally gets to the supreme court and they manage to dig around and find a way to remove all its teeth, too. Oh and most of those three years it was tied up and suspended by one lawsuit or other so the actual effect it had is basically limited to the 100% legal kickback they slipped in. Democracy in action, folks.

Watch this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs&ab_channel=CGPGrey We need to be a block of voters with clear to understand voting patters and reaons. That is why various interests groups, like rifle associations, do get their way. We should get organized too.

>Overpopulation is the cause of all world Problems So, if we got rid of all the chinese and indians and africans, the world would be a lot nicer. Unfortunately, that's a "no-no" solution.

>>32928 how will you do that without nuclear catastrophe? or just accept nuclear winter?

>>32673 Capitalism (or more broadly inherited economic privilege) is the primary problem but overpopulation is a close second.

>>32929 The lame you're replying to obviously has suppressed all higher cognitive functions in favor of hating a particular subset of people. Their honest answer would be "I don't know, I haven't thought that far ahead"

there are billions of copies of the same thing everywhere, if you're going to mate at least have the decency to EVOLVE first! oh, no suitable environment this one's all polluted? maybe that's a genetic signal.

>Overpopulation is the cause of all world Problems it clearly isn't. Wealth disparity isn't caused by overpopulation (it existed way before overpopulation). If anything, overpopulation is the consequence of wealth disparity, as it's the result of capitalism. (reminder, economy under capitalism relies on infinite growth, and it's not just infinite money or resource growth. It's also infinite human growth to increase the workers force) Sadly, the ways to fight against said overpopulation are limited. You either go authoritarian like china and force people to have fewer children. Or you advocate for antinatalism ideology, which is (for now) very out of the overton window and despised by a vast majority of people (check out the antinatalism thread on lainchan, everyone is seething about their bloodline and personnal rights to have children there). I think people who say that "overpopulation isn't the problem, capitalism is" are wrong too though. Earth can't sustain 8 billion humans living on it unless we go back to some primitive state and abandon every technology we've made in the past 500 years. We have to make a compromise between quality of life and the number of people on earth. There's no escaping it, and people who don't take a stand on this are cowards.

>>32929 Bill Gates gave many Africans vaccinations that sterilized them. We could pursue that avenue. We could also simply allow the Africans to live their lives out in Africa, returning the land fully to the rightful owners, removing all the Afrikaners to their homelands, and then banning other countries from interacting with Africa. This would also make the black power types particularly happy, because they actualy want this (This being a return to their homeland and not having to be around non-africans, they would clearly not be happy about the sterilization.) >What about the Indians They're really not much of a threat or hard to deal with. You could simply vaccinate/sterilize them. >What about chinese They would collapse under themselves if we forced a blockade, especially right now with tensions as high as they are. Of course, this could lead to drastic responses. We could do the misquito method, but this could also backfire as we would have a bunch of misquitos that could sterilize people. Fortunately, the best route for the Chinese would be to simply stop doing trade with them. They would starve out, it would lead to a coup, then you could take advantage of this situation by arming the various pop up groups, then just false flag bomb the soykaf out of population centers (specifically areas with babies.) -- It wouldn't outright remove them, but the population reduction would be impressive. Then we can think about how we could sterilize their population as well. >Cool alternative Simply close off trading with these three groups, do not allow these three groups into your country, and watch their populations rapidly decline. It wouldn't genocide them, either, which might be kinder. >>32931 You don't really know what you are talking about at all. I don't hate anyone except the people who are attempting to genocide my people. I spend much of my time helping others, including non-"Whites", and when I'm not doing that I'm lifting, reading / learning, and spending time with my wife and kids. This is just me being pragmatic: The worst groups in the world (in terms of population and pollution) are those three types. tl;dr: You should spend less time being a bigot and more time learning the positions you criticize so you don't continue to see boogy-men.

>>32673 >Overpopulation is the cause of all world Problems That's something only globalists would say

>>32939 Which globalists? Can you give an example? Globalists need a surplus of third world labour, their system is dependent on it. The more impoverished workers there are, the lower their collective bids for wages.

>>32673 Nope, overpopulation is a meme. The problem is NIMBY policies make it illegal to build enough houses for everyone. You need houses to have a productive population, which you need to keep your country's economy nice and strong. Houses are the backbone of the free world, without houses, your whole society collapses.

>>32939 >That's something only globalists would say That's something only moralists would say >>32942 let's build 8 billion houses then, what could go wrong

>>32940 That's why they only spread the "overpopulation" lie to developed countries, while encouraging 3rd worlders to breed like rabbits. Simultaneously increasing the supply of slave labor while reducing resource consumption so they have more to themselves.

>>32946 its claimed nigeria has the better part of as many humans as the USA. Its possible but seems a little insane to me. I understand these countries often stand to gain by implying they've got more pop, more aid that way and all. How sure are we that all these figures are right and not just the governmental equivalent of wellfare fraud? Something I wonder about. Still probably an awful lot of people out there.

>>32946 >Simultaneously increasing the supply of slave labor this is why we (by we I mean anti-capitalists) need to fight against overpopulation, because the constant growth of the population is an essential pillar to it

>>32948 not joust anti-capitalists. Everyone with exception of privileged few are worse off.

>>32946 Isn't the vast majority of 'overpopulation' discourse focused on Nigeria and other countries?

>>32673 Only parasites are worried about overpopulation. People who can create more than they consume have nothing to worry about. This tells you everything you need to know about our ruling class >Economy is soykaf. Rents are rising. There is less and less jobs. That's because money is not real. The central bank makes it up out of thin air and gives it to governments and commercial banks. Governments spend the money on bribing voters and bombing children in the middle east. Banks use the money to buy real estate and invest in the stock market. People who are connected to government/banks get the new money first and can spend it on assets at per-inflation prices. As the new money ripples out into the economy, prices rise because more money is chasing the same amount of real goods. At the very edges of the economy, workers get a small raise 1 year later and all the money in your bank is now worth slightly less. This is why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. >>32948 >this is why we (by we I mean anti-capitalists) need to fight against overpopulation, because the constant growth of the population is an essential pillar to it If value comes from labor, and profit comes from stealing the "surplus value" of laborers, then labor intensive industries would be the most profitable. That hasn't been true for over 150 years. Time to learn some real economics.

>>32953 >If value comes from labor, and profit comes from stealing the "surplus value" of laborers, then labor intensive industries would be the most profitable. That hasn't been true for over 150 years when did i talk about labor you retard? modern capitalism is no longer centered around production, it's centered around consumption. More people on earth = more consumers. Time to learn some real economics

>>32954 >More people on earth = more consumers And what are these consumers going to pay with? Capitalism is not charity. >when did i talk about labor you retard? I apologize for assuming you were making a smarter point than you really were.

>>32953 What the hell is you then. One of these well connected to the government parasite, who benefits from it all and soykafs on others. The worse the rest are the better off you are, so you soykaf on everyone here. You are the real parasite. Everyone who does not benefit from it like you do will be against you. I do wonder though what entitled you to these benefits? Why you benefit from it and not me.

>>32955 >And what are these consumers going to pay with I hate to break it to you but a vast majority of people are middle class now. you should stop reading books from 100 years ago

>>32958 >I hate to break it to you but a vast majority of people are middle class now. You failed to answer the question. More people means more mouths to feed but it doesn't automatically mean more profit. Where is the profit coming from?

>>32960 >Where is the profit coming from literally everyone and their dog buying ikea soykaf furniture, going to fast foods, buying mass printed books, subscribing to netflix or spotify, buying a car,.... For 99% of the companies, more buyers = more profit. I'm not even sure why I have to explain this

>>32961 >lerally everyone and their dog buying ikea soykaf furniture And where does the money come from?

>>32962 from their jobs, like all middle-class people

>>32963 >from their jobs You think everyone has a job? >like all middle-class people The millions of africans who can't speak english, have no economic skills and flooded into europe over the past few years, you think they are middle-class? I think you lost yourself in your own bullshit. More people doesn't mean more consumers or more profit. It is only profit if you can get something of value from them

>>32958 >vast majority of people are middle class now Hold on. That's not what middle class is. Working/Lower, Middle, Upper class is hierarchy. There is no specific dollar value. Some people associate it with a lifestyle, but it generally relates to some given percentage. The "low/working class" is still defined as "a socio-economic group with the least income." - These people generally live paycheck to paycheck. And this is the one group where making poor financial decisions (weekly/monthly) has little to do with their circumstance. But thanks to financial illiteracy, if you want to pick "lifestyle", then sure. Over 90% of the USA is lower class, whether they make $0/hr or $100/hr, because of poor money management and the sheer volume of debt they are in. The pandemic forced to people to save money, but before it was happening, more than 69% of Americans had less than $1,000 in their savings. And honestly, with the prices today and so many people eager to spend money, I wouldn't be surprised if 2023 or 2024, we see that number again. The middle class is "big", but only because people overestimate what they are. There are confused plebs who think making $12.50/hr makes them "middle class" in an area where the average family is making $30/hr. Do you really not understand hierarchy? Also, check this out: Over half of the USA, workers earn less than $30,000 a year. That is the working/lower class. >vast majority Of what country? >you should stop reading books from 100 years ago No. Let me say one thing though. >>32961 >ikea soykaf furniture, going to fast foods, buying mass printed books, subscribing to netflix or spotify, buying a car You're not wrong with your implication of overspending. But most of that is putting people in debt. People buy IKEA because it is cheap, people buy fast food because it's cheap and they don't have time to cook food, people subscribe to netflix and spotify as some form of escapism, and the car is massive debt that, once they pay off, they will replace with a newer version and more debt.

>>32965 Everyone can see that guy is just confused and butthurt. What do you think about the thread topic?

>>32965 >But most of that is putting people in debt yeas that's what I'm trying to explain, it's literally fuarrrking economy 101 people, companies and countries buy stuff they can't afford, then spend their later years repaying the debt while getting more debt in a neverending cycle. More people = more debt. There's literally nothing more to it. I don't understand how you guys fail to understand something this simple >>32964 you should maybe stop getting your information on 4/poI/. these "millions of africans" you talk about are the 1%, and, as crazy as it may sound to you, most are working decent jobs and live normal middle-class lives. >More people doesn't mean more consumers what are you even on seriously? Are you 80 and have never seen a teenager for half a century? Consuming as a manifestation of meaning in life has been the norm for a few decades now.

>>32967 >yeas that's what I'm trying to explain If that was true you would have said it 8 posts ago. The truth is you don't know what you're trying to explain. >More people = more debt There is still no profit. >maybe stop getting your information on 4/poI/ Don't evade the point. >more people == more consumers == more profit == more debt You're assuming that all these new people will be middle class and have jobs and money to buy stuff with. Those assumptions are wrong. >Are you 80 and have never seen a teenager for half a century? Personal attacks won't change the facts. >Consuming as a manifestation of meaning in life has been the norm for a few decades now. You can't consume if you don't have money. Where does the money come from?

>>32967 >it's literally fuarrrking economy 101 Name one economy book you've read.

>>32967 yes but it just so happens that wherever they go they seem to be followed by a trail of rape and murder not to mention quite a few other unsavory things. Most unfortunate, I wonder who is doing the raping?

>>32966 I'm actually in a fair amount of agreement with the idea that "overpopulation is the cause of all world problems". Unfortunately, I view this from a third positionist point of view. Once eugenics was fully rejected as "pseudoscience" (Which requires you to basically reject genetics, as a whole, mind you.) and the Jewish lawyer was able to associate anti-miscegenation with eugenics, we rapidly fell into dysgenics. We could see this as a good opportunity to implement the ideas discussed by Wiggam, Galton, and other prominent eugenicists to help each race create a more capable version of their race. Unfortunately, the people who statistically use up more than they put out are the ones breeding and the people who should be breeding, are not. Now we are importing the "third world" and it is rapidly destroying everything by over consumption, and so on. I'd say that the overpopulation (of the lesser races) is more-so the problem. If we were to somehow solve this, somehow push civilization to reject the hypermaterialism of today, encourage intelligent people to breed and discourage the lesser intelligent, then we may be able correct this problem. There are other issues that could be discussed on the matter, and of course, that is out of the scope of this conversation due to it easily becoming a discussion of eugenics, implementation, and the ever-present "who determines" rhetorical questions. To put it frankly, the over population of the lesser races and the hypermaterialism supported by the three dominant liberal worldviews (capitalism, marxism, and neo-conservativism) are what I think are the source of the problems. I could easily blame the Jews, but I'll blame Europeans, and their diaspora, for falling for their tricks, despite thousands of years of examples why one shouldn't. >>32967 >I don't understand how you guys fail to understand something this simple You just responded to me, in agreement, then accused me of failing to "understand something this simple"? Lainon, I...

>>32976 >You just responded to me, in agreement, then accused me of failing to "understand something this simple"? Lainon, I... I warned you you were misreading his emotional state. >Once eugenics was fully rejected as "pseudoscience" (Which requires you to basically reject genetics, as a whole, mind you.) And requires you to reject evolution. Hilariously enough for all the fedora tippers who love to own teh religionz. >Unfortunately, the people who statistically use up more than they put out are the ones breeding and the people who should be breeding, are not. I agree with this. Rather than explicit eugenics though I am in favor of eliminating welfare. Just force them to live within the limits of what they can earn for themselves. And if they starve they starve. >If we were to somehow solve this, somehow push civilization to reject the hypermaterialism of today, encourage intelligent people to breed and discourage the lesser intelligent, then we may be able correct this problem. You'll like a book called At Our Wit's End.

>>32977 >At Our Wit's End One of the salient points in the book is how European countries in the middle ages basically genocides low IQ criminals. Basically if you committed crime and were too dumb to read or write then it was the death penalty. And a few generations later Europe basically conquered the world. I'm not that into race stuff I'm an individualist. But that one hit me hard.

Overpopulation is not the problem, the problem is the system. We have enough space, food and resources for more than the current population, yet it is all wasted or hoarded by a few that do not need it. Blaming the general population and the poor is exactly what the elites want you to be distracted with, rather than changing the system to prevent them from hoarding resources and distributing fairly.

If there are so many people then why do we all feel alone :(

>>32977 >I warned you you were misreading his emotional state. I was trying to be open minded. That's alright. >Just force them to live within the limits of what they can earn for themselves. I heavily encourage DIY and lived off barely $15/wk for food with my wife. Our end result would be roughly the same, it's a nice test idea and would come off as "unbiased" compared to being selective. >At Our Wit's End Thank you for the recommendation, I'll pick it up on my next batch-purchase for my library. >>32981 A different application of materialism doesn't solve the problem that materialism creates, on its foundation. >>32983 This might be seen as a "meme" answer but: Modernity and technology. Many of our modern comforts replace the need for people in many different ways. But it still cannot replace the sensation of enjoying another's company.

You are right. Africa should use cannibalism to end overpopulation and hunger,

supply and demand. its a natural consequence that when theres so many people, there will be less of x (housing, good jobs, ...) to go around for everyone

No, it is not true that overpopulation is the cause of all world problems. While overpopulation can certainly contribute to some global challenges, such as strain on natural resources and infrastructure, it is not the sole cause of all problems facing the world. There are many other factors that can contribute to global issues, such as poverty, inequality, political instability, and environmental degradation. Additionally, the impact of overpopulation can vary depending on the specific circumstances and resources of a given region or country. It's important to consider the complex and interconnected nature of global challenges, and to look for solutions that address the root causes of these problems.

>>32981 Overpopulation and waste and the system are closely linked. I went down to UN offices in Brussels this summer and asked: “Why can’t you intervene?” I found that a system in need of emergency measures was a tough nut to crack. In early November, when the Chinese delegation was arriving in Brussels to discuss the planned development of a no-growth zone at the River Danube, everyone I met asked: why should they talk to China? “China is always saying it wants to solve its problems,” someone said. China has been in debt to the tune of $4 trillion and has a reliance on cheap exports that is crippling. Last year it produced four million tonnes of food waste, nearly all of it exported for animal feed. Its current subsidy for animal feed is less than that given to all the developing countries combined, and it does not provide it for farm animals at all.

Over population doesn't actually exist as a concept. Capitalism as an economic system is just really bad at sorting resources and pools everything at the top of society leaving nothing for those at the bottom and disposing of what isn't "profitable"

>>32682 Well we shouldn't be eating meat at the levels we do anyways.

>>32686 Well not to mention capitalism incentivizes people to reproduce to keep profits up.

>Rents are rising. There is less and less jobs. What if there was a move to replace taxes on consumption, [This is assuming we can [a.] get away from the fiat money zombie forever crisis economy and move towards a sound-money economy and [b.] reach the point where slashing taxes is viable without causing a revenue crisis.]. And for their replacement we have a simple Land-Value-Tax in the Georgist sense, but with the caveat that the tax would be an adjusted % of the property value itself and the rental income being charged for it. This would lead to land-lords valuing their properties 'within their means' keeping costs and rent's low[er]

>>32673 EU and the US are filled with old people and they will all pass away in like 20 years making us feel like there aren't that many people after all Also with 2 billion less we still have the same hierarchies and climate change, like the English or Romans back in their days

if you're not full do*mer about the future I believe you have no brain >>33002 can't wait to see you generate infinite resources lainon. You probably have some big brain plan to do it. Keep making children, everything will be fine

>>33002 >Capitalism pools everything at the top of society If someone did work for money but never spends the money then they have effectively worked for free. Money hording is a non-issue if you actually think about it. >leaving nothing for those at the bottom Dude you can buy thousands of calories with an hour's wages. You walk around with a supercomputer in your pocket and have enough free time to use it for brewing soykaf on obscure alt-chans. Don't confuse envy for people more successful than you with actual poverty. >>32993 >supply and demand. its a natural consequence that when theres so many people, there will be less of x (housing, good jobs, ...) to go around for everyone You're assuming (projecting) that these people are all useless consumer and have no capacity to add supply.

>>33107 >If someone did work for money but never spends the money then they have effectively worked for free. Money hording is a non-issue i money isn't just lying around. Its invested and what they hold is asset value. Which again is just ownership demanding to squeeze the plebs at the bottom as much as possible for higher returns which leaves them less of course less to spend which kills of industries that provide quality as they cant afford it anymore. >Dude you can buy thousands of calories with an hour's wages. Garbage animal feed. Actual food is expensive.

>>33108 the healthiest person I know eats more calories than you and has a daily food budget thats less than what you spend going out to a cheap sitdown breakfast place. What the fuarrrk is this 'real food' that you're talking about ?

>>33108 >money isn't just lying around. Its invested and what they hold is asset value. Which again is just ownership demanding to squeeze the plebs at the bottom as much as possible for higher returns which leaves them less of course less to spend which kills of industries that provide quality as they cant afford it anymore. This is a long meandering sentence. And trying to explain money to a leftist is like trying to explain sex to an incel. I'll just say regarding "quality", the only reason they go out of business is because you bought the cheat stuff instead. Don't blame others for your own greed. >Garbage animal feed. Actual food is expensive. No matter how poor you are you never have to worry about starving to death. Like it or not, nobody living under communism could ever take that for granted.

>>33117 Depends on what the issue is. If you dont get vitamins and develop a deficiency youre finished obviously but if you eat dirty like too much sugar then i found exercise fixes health issues popping up. If i remember right body secretes inflammation inhibitors during exercise and too much sugar causes problems through inflammation so makes sense it would help.

>>33118 anyway, point being its very cheap to eat reasonably well; 'Actual food' is not expensive. Maybe its also easy to cheaply eat garbage but that's a seperate problem.

>>33119 A good steak costs a months worth in rice / grain. If you can live on good meat you ain't living cheap. I got surprised myself living in germany and hearing fellow students say skip buying meat we cant afford it.

Entitled assholes who were lucky in life to get 'successful' now preach here that we should just be content with what we have and do not envy them. Hypocrisy of the highest grade I say. There is no point in arguing that we are better than North Korea. We should not compare ourselves with failed Leninist sates, starving Africa or some medieval deep past. We need future, better more shining and affluent future. Basic income. More affluence not less.

>>33121 >But by far the most expensive thing in most peoples' budget is rent Yes but. The reason houses are so expensive is because 1- government debases money, forcing rich people to "invest" in hard assets to avoid inflation 2- government prevents new houses being built through excessive regulations 3- government floods the country with immigrants who then compete with the native population for an already scarce resource None of these problems are a function of capitalism.

>>33122 >Entitled assholes who... Instead of projecting onto anonymous posters why don't you read what is actually being said. >We should not compare ourselves with failed Leninist sates, starving Africa or some medieval deep past. You should not compare yourself to people 2x your IQ or creativity either. Compare yourself with yourself on alternative timelines. You are not seriously implying that if you were born as exactly the same person but 200 years earlier then life would be better. >who were lucky in life to get 'successful' Context elision is the heart of propaganda. So what is the missing context, how did they get 'successful'? Are they leader of a gang with guns who steal 45% of your salary? fuarrrk that guy, he doesn't deserve to be rich. Do they sell products and services you find valuable and for a price you can afford? Your life is clearly better with this person in it. >Basic income. More affluence not less. UBI just means robbing productive people to pay for unproductive people. Like every deluded lefty you automatically assume you will be in the exploiter camp not the exploited camp.

>>33131 >Like every deluded lefty you automatically assume you will be in the exploiter camp not the exploited camp. Envy and greed are the underlying motivation of (western) socialists. The assumption is that they are the average so only people wealthier than themselves will be forced to redistribute their money. For "the good of society" or whatever. If you point out them that they are way above average on a global stage, and ask them to donate 10% of their wealth to starving children in africa then they will change their politics in a heartbeat. They are only socialists as long as they think they will be in the receiving group, not the giving group. Very sad really.

>>33132 >donate to africans >so their population can grow even faster >so you get even more immigrants to wreck your country big mistake in first place. And the donations arent free of charge, idiots donate for "a good cause" while ngos attach conditions which turns it into bribe money since you they only get paid for following instructions which helped wreck african governments. Well meaning idiots are the root cause of many issues,

>>33131 >>Do they sell products and services you find valuable and for a price you can afford? Your life is clearly better with this person in it. How many of them are individual entrepreneurs who started business' with nothing and get where they are now on their own effort alone? I am no talking about exceptions like Elon Musk or Zack Zuckerberg. Their existence mislead you into thinking that you will be like this if you are smart enough, that this game is fair. I am talking about old money like Rockefellers and Trump as well as old corpos. Old corpations like CocaCola, IBM, old Oil companies that were split from Standard Oil and such. Company produces wealth, not any particular individual in it. No matter how smart of stupid he is or is nor. So well connected dumbasses who occupy high positions there benefit from it all for no particular reason. In some of the worst cases they do not even have to understand how the company even makes money. It was well oiled by theit predecessors, now they can just benefit from it all. No level of intelligence or IQ would guarantee you place in Shell or CocaCola or such. Worse yet landlords who own property and collect rent from tenants who live in there. Just cause they are lucky enough to buy and own it when it was affordable. Then they just collect rent and enjoy opulent lifestyle themselves despite contributing nothing to society. Some of these inherited their wealth from their parents and continue to live this upper class lifestyle for no reason at all.

>>33034 Why the fuсk are you using anecdotes for this? There's literally so much data a click away.. "EU population pyramid"

>>33130 Oh, the poor government forcing rich people to invest their money :( what else can they do but be greedy rent-seeking fuarrrks and make money only via speculation? Truly, socialism is terrible.

>>33143 Just here to say neither zuck nor elon are poor startups. Its a nice story for PR but paypal didnt grow by itself. They had connections and big bank backing throwing money around to bribe people into using paypal by literally giving you money for using paypal to beat their competitor. >>33147 Its literally illegal to provide cheap rent. They take a market avg to determine what rent should be and if you go below you pay fines in form of additional taxes. So yeah the gov literally prevents you from providing cheap rent. Financial illiteracy is the root cause of most of these nonsense conclusions. Cant come up with decent ideas if you dont understand the system and of course none of the kids learn the smallest soykaf about it. Only reason i know is i actually took the time to read a book on renting and studied the laws on personal time. Thats what you gotta do before talking soykaf about a subject you know fuarrrk all about. Same soykaf with ubi. Free money sounds cool but you got to be extra gullible if you think gov will give you anything for free. Just look at how people on unemployment are treated. They got to find an apartment to rent and then got to apply to gov for permission to rent the apartment they found because if they dont and change apartment without permission gov can cut their unemployment check regardless of how much they worked before. Should be blatantly obvious if you ever get ubi you wont get it for free.

>>33149 >Its literally illegal to provide cheap rent. They take a market avg to determine what rent should be and if you go below you pay fines in form of additional taxes. What law is this? Can you link its text? >UBI is bad, just look at how bad this other this is! The point of UBI is that it is _universal_, there is no means testing involved which is the source of all the BS you're talking about with unemployment. I gotta say you're sounding like a clown mate.

>>33154 >ubi is supposed to be universal Just like "free health care" is absolutely free and not attached to paying mandatory monthly fees lol

>>33154 >UBI is bad, just look at how bad this other this is! Nothing is free. Someone will pay for it. You are just hoping that it won't be you. >>33143 >Their existence mislead you into thinking that you will be like this if you are smart enough, that this game is fair. You are missing the point of the post you are responding to. I don't care how much money the CEO of VW has because rationally, objectively my life is better with my cool little VW car. Eating the rich might give you a bump in your bank account but you won't have anything to spend it on. >No level of intelligence or IQ would guarantee you place in Shell or CocaCola or such. This is exactly why marxism is so rampant in academia. >I have 150IQ and a first class degree so why is a plumber earning more money than me? Capitalism is broken rеее rеее rеее.

Society evolved way past simple market economy where individual merit and ability guarantee prosperity or failure. So it should not be measured by realities of 18th century. >>33181 If you are so smart, may be you can tell us how we all can get rich here? Otherwise what you say is just excuses to justify your purely luck based prosperity. If it is not luck, then there is method that you can explain and we can follow. So what it is?

>>33182 We can't have a discussion if you say things, ignore the responses and then say different things.

>>33182 The very definition of rich requires you to have more than other people. So it cant be easy as otherwise you will be equally poor. The moment anyone publishes a valid guide to get rich too many will follow it and it becomes immediately worthless because too much competition invalidates any profit margin. tldr is unless you have a special talent which excludes competition by default there cant be a guide. You got to find a niche others didnt find yet to make big bucks. This is also the most basic bitch 101 merchant strat: if you own the market you pretend there is incredible competition to keep others away from trying. Thats why you have 10 corps "competing" in a market that ultimately are all owned by the same family. Plus consumer cattle loves the illusion of choice. Keeps them oblivious to how much they get scammed.

>>33158 >>33181 I am okay with slightly increased taxes if it means that the hopelessly inefficient welfare state is rendered obsolete.

>>33186 That makes a lot of sense, but only if you already own enough. My question is what a poor guy can do to get rich?

>>33190 Learn to do the helicopter dance on webcam and charge the already rich to watch it.

>>33205 That is closer to what I want, but way too generic.

>>33212 Its generic because as already said there cant be a step by step guide to mad profits. And as for simple jobs to gest started - your job center fails to do its job and get you a good job and you want a random online poster who knows fuarrrk all about you to give you a better guide? Unrealistic. The online advice that can be given online is info that doesnt devalue even if everyone knows it like time in market beating timing market which is just a way to say get soykaf done fast and early because 10 years low profits is much easier to do than trying to hit it big quick when youre old and wasted too much time already.

>>33222 What i was trying to point at is job center gives you garbage because thats the best they can do, its not like they intentionally do worse. It would benefit everyone involved if they could actually do a good job but they simply can't. They cant even do soykaf jobs well and compensate with "training courses" to write you off the unemployment statistics since you then count in education.

>>32674 100% this. annoying that this site was found by the trannies to spew their retarded corporate-approved opinions. OP is plebbit tier. everything happening pertaining to economy, homelessness, hunger, drug problems can be traced back to a few jews at the tippy top of international banking. We have everything we need to live in a paradise with everyone housed/clothed/etc but we can't have it because it's much easier to rile up people on both sides, people whose opinions they've created entirely, and distract them in this way. >but the starvin Africans!!!!!!1 notice how all of the civilized actual humans on the planet have had a huge decrease in birth rates in response to modernity, and no matter what we do for them they just keep popping out kids. if OP says "it's overpopulation!!!!" i guarantee he'll blow his lid when I agree with him and say we there's too many dumb Africans and Indians fuarrrking up the planet. OP is a death cult globohomo enjoyer.

>>33375 >I can't believe this image board isn't yet another homogenous echo chamber creating inbred memes, populated by retards who will believe anything about jews and/or blacks Yeah man lainchan has run ally gone downhill

You know, there is another solution to the overpopulation problem that is more immediate?

What about the take that it's not really my responsibility to worry if people a world away from me feel hunger pangs or not, And that i shouldn't be shamed politically for holding that opinion, Or whether some absolute dropkick is just fried from /drg/'s to the point he won't even bother getting off the lounge to do some job at a super-market that a guy with a 50 point I.Q. is capable of doing efficiently. I think that on an inter-personal level, If your stuck near people like i mentioned, It's sorta better to just abandon them to their fate and not toss your vitality and money away trying to help them. I guess on a national level, In relation to starving people in Africa or something, I don't believe in any performative cruelty soykaf like having blue-helmet mass-sterilisations or committing eco-fascist genocide or whatever - Maybe since BASED Russia and BASED China seem to be keen on virtue-signalling about colonialism and reperashuns and sheit and pushing these U.N. proposals - Maybe U.S. aid and the Australia and E.U. could just pull all our soykaf out and Russia and China can just bleed their budgets dry so that people in Chad can keep having 12 kids who are all infected with A.I.D.S and starve to death or whatever.

>>33378 And what this job at supermarket would afford you? Home in mortgage for example no longer affordable, prices gone through the roof. I am echoing Occupy Wall Street protests here. These problems are not solved at all. And it is getting worse. Africa is bad too. We need to stop wasting international aid on them. India is kind of sustainable on its own. Though I do not think quality of life there is high. Back to Occupy protests problem. Evenif you say jews did it or what not. What matters right now is how to undo it, not who to blame for it. And it is not necessary jews or anything of sorts. Any property owner/ business owner and such benefit from surplus of potential workers and shortage of jobs, rental properties, high mortgages and such. Shrinking population can help. Mass protests and refusal to work might be a way too. Political action and voting for politicians who can rule in it like Bern and Yang. Something more... We should think together. Non of us is as cruel as all of us. We can come up with a good way to hurt them where it hurts and then demand our terms..

>>33399 Except consumers aren't driving the increase in carbon emissions. You think I wouldn't like to pick up my goods in reusable glass/ceramic containers? You think I want to buy a little bag of rice instead of a larger bag that uses less material by volume? I'd love to avoid the microplastics and at least get glass milk. I don't have the money for it. The 1% (admittedly including the upper strata of first world countries who drive SUVs around eating burgers all day), manufacturers, packagers, shipping, this is the problem. If you guys haven't figured out I'm talking about capitalism by now you're not gonna make it.

>>33431 This seemsblike an odd shifting of blame. Consumers want (either due to nature or nurture) certain things that cannot be accomplished without excessive emissions. Same-day delivery is an example. Another would be the excessive meat consumption of Americans. There is no way to accomplish either of those efficiently without a *huge* change in infrastructure, which would raise prices and taxes, which nobody really likes.

>>33431 Consumers obvious do decide it all .. if consumers only wanted to buy large bags of rice then that's what the market would be, that's all companies would produce. Consumers obviously prefer the smaller bags of rice.

That is why I say overpopulation is a problem. If there is less people total, then there will be more for those who left. Yet world goes the other direction and keeps making babies, who all need food, cloth, accommodation and so on. I hate people who say we can have less and accommodate more people. Lets have less people and get more stuff instead.

>>33437 Consumers dont decide what even makes it to shelves. Consumers dont decide subventions manipulating whats profitable which is just another way of saying they are forced to finance soykaf like hfcs over taxes and then because they are left with no money forced to buy cheap soykaf - a double whammy of manipulation. Consumers lastly dont decide what data makes it to the label and thereby cant decide on metrics not listed. Corps literally just lobbied for outlawing labeling that says "we dont use X" for some of the soykaf they use going with a "we know better" approach. The consumer cattle image isnt taken from thin air. The corps set the circumstances and the herd can only move within their set confines. The choice where they can run is predetermined.

>>33439 they do, indirectly and as a great herd. If basically everyone was willing to pay 10$ for a gallon of milk if it came in a glass bottle, I'm pretty sure companies would get the hint and ditch plastic ones in droves. The thing is is most people preffer cheaper milk and don't mind plastic bottles to get it. Glass can be a bit harder to work with; its heavier, more expensive, and brittle among other things. I'm pretty sure the cost to work with it is just a little too high at the prices most people are willing to pay for. Not that much higher, but a bit. If people didn't feel like idiots drinking wine out of plastic bottles maybe there'd be more wine sold in them. As it is there's a little, but they usually try to hide it a little and only at the bottom end. Even 10 dollar wines or cheaper are basically all glass bottles, but wine's a much different product than milk; much different problem to store it and to ship it. Myself I want all my liquids in boron carbide jerry cans. Why can't capitalism provide this for me? Must be another j*wish conspiracy.

>>33442 >price diff isnt that high can litterally buy drinks in glass RIGHT NOW dude i litterally talked about this in my poast dude. like litterally. at least where I live dude (dont know about u cuz im not there (probably) lol) u can get milk in glass you just have to pay a little premium 2 get it. most peeple don't ( but some do). so most milk at the store aint in glass (but sum iz). may b if everybuddy bot the glassmilk the store would stock more of it is all im saying. braking in2 the market is a different problem and yeh maybe bit of an ish you; things like milk tho r often fairly local ish and idk but my experience is that most places have a bit of competition/random local corps that only r in small area showing up even in le BIGCHAIN groceries. glass is an established fluid drink storage medium tho and various companies sell in glass, jus a smaller market vs plastic. idk about soda but i.e. wine and beer and lickers are usually glass where i am. these are different products though, much more value dense, much higher shelf life, stores generally move less of them. Even super cheap wine costs more than a gallon of milk and takes up like 1/3 the space more or less. Six pack of beer might cost three or four gallons of milk and take up about the same volume/weight. Glass milk is more expensive but its still like half as value dense as cheap glass wine. ofc stores d-side wut 2 sell but stor who dont sell wut peeple wunt don't do 2 well idk. stores who sell soykaf for bad prices also don't do 2 well. sumtimes stores jus don't do well anyway. Demand and supply are important factors which are pretty much outside of the stores control: if I wan't 4 dollar glass milk maybe the store wants to give it to me, but if he can't get it from upstream for less than 5 dollar (and he wants to make a little money, too) then we're out of luck. Its not storeman's fault, maybe not even dairyman's fault, just basic cost of the product. And probly I settle for plastikmilk and am mostly happy.

>>33398 >"I'm right and you're wrong". i mean, that is the case. I know can infer a lot about you by your snarky plebbit disposition. you will never be a woman.

>>33448 NTL but it's pretty obvious that using phrases like "just are", "objective reality", and accusing people of being trensgander reddit users doesn't really prove anything. I think most people here will find attempts to build consensus /p0l/ style unwelcome and unpersuasive.

>>33443 What i was insinuating is i dont see why basic water is sold in glass but milk isn't. I doesn't make sense that vastly more care about their water being in glass than milk. As for soda - i know there was the idea it tastes better in glass so i would guess thats what led to it. Note also the glass soda isnt cola, its other brands using it as a selling point. Regarding stores - they all sell the same soykaf mostly. So there is no real competition on selling better goods. Some shelf new goods of course but will you go to the other side of town or your local store? Most people dont care that much. Especially if its junk food where being lazy is prio 1.

>>33451 >What i was insinuating is i dont see why basic water is sold in glass but milk isn't IDK where you live man I see way more glassmilk than glasswater around here. People (sometimes) store their own water in glass but stores usually sells plastic here. Some glasswater sure but its usually the big carboy jugs (think 10+gal) and most people just use plastic. The rest is also not 'le basic water' but fancy shmancy sparkly mineral water like saint peregrine; again, high value product which basically doesn't spoil. Maybe where u live is different but here thems the fax. >Some shelf new goods of course but will you go to the other side of town or your local store? don't like how u use 'new' there but ok Ill pretend u sed 'diffrent' or sumting ok ? point is still, sum such stored DO exist. if these DIFFRENT/NEW products were really much better peeple wud rea lies & go there. going to distant bad store is a COST but its not too high a cost, shud b able 2 assign actual dollar value: time, fuel, etc. If product worth is sufficient then mayb sum peeple (prolly not errybuddy but sum) start going, NEW & DIFFERENT store starts winning and may-b sum udder stores get d hint to carry this SPECIAL PRODUCT or die & get replaced by sum1 whu duz. this habbend wit glassmilk in my area in my lifetime. wen I wuz kid glassmilk wuz uberrare, now maybe sumtime around MMX hippiedippie mart & fancyshmancymart start 2 carry it. not much but little, and found it sell ok. since then more store start 2 get it, more brands too, and now even normal person mart has a little bit. In the beginning ud have 2 drive across town and big hassel but now no big deel, ez as buying uther milk (cost/bottle return notwithstanding of course).

>>33452 >point is still, sum such stored DO exist. if these DIFFRENT/NEW products were really much better peeple wud rea lies & go there You keep repeating people would care. No they dont and thats the entire point. Shit if people really cared about food quality they would cook their own food in first place over buying junk food.

>>33453 >u keep reepeeting dat peeple wud cair peeple wud cair if d diffrent store hed things dat dey wunted & nawt tings dat dey didnut wunt. dis is y peeple goe 2 grocery stor to get menee fuds wen mayb gas station closer buy and haz sum fud. Gas station has fuds but dey r bad, few, & expensive. I don't wish to imply that people do care that much about glass milk, my point basically boils down to that its getting a fair shake as far as I can see. Not some conspiracy of Big Grocery trying to get you to drink out of plastic just, the fact that most people preffer the cheaper option and the cheaper option seems to be plastic. >soykaf if people cared about food quality they'd cook their own i think d truble is dat errybuddy has diffrent cares, and multiple cares. I want good food, but I can only spend so much time and money to get it. Maybe I want to support certain types of businesses or people I know, but I'm going to weight that with my desire for economy. Ultimately you get a bunch of little compromises and probably end up buying ok pasteurized milk and keeping it in a plastic bottle in your refrigerator, even if you'd preffer to have something else thats probably more expensive and inconvenient. A lot of people do cook on their own to some degree, but very few make i.e. their own hard cheeses. Its just pretty inconvenient to do some things and most don't care (very much). so yes, people don't care (or care enough) I get that. guy who started this little tangent doesnt care (enough) imho or else he'd fork over the money to get glassmilk and other things. A whole country of people like him are why we get milk in plastic, and maybe its order-of-a-dollar-or-so cheaper per gallon because of it. Thanks capitalism ?

>>33455 last soykafpost of the year: i would agree that its all compromises. The way i see it people are too tired dealing with other soykaf to care about food quality. The more overworked and busy the more likely they stuff anything that wont straight kill them. Theres probably another factor of the dumber the less able to care about longterm effects like getting fat - its heavily extrapolated but ive seen a crime psychologist say their dumber criminals cant be reeducated because they cant mentally link punishment with crime. If the punishment is delayed it doesnt work regardless of how harsh it is. I think the same think is going on with fatties eating unhealthy.

I wouldn't say it's the cause of all problems but it is obviously a huge contributor, less space, more infrastructure, more deforestation, less clean water, more bad people to deal with, more people we'lll have to take care so they won't turn bad..the list goes on and on.