NationStates Jolt Archive

There are 6 billion people in the world and rising. The world can only support so many. There will be a point where world can not handle the number of people it has. Much of this population growth comes from Africa. Africans may in fact began diverting resources from the west(which in many places is suffering population loses). So if the population crisis gets to the point where what we have is threatened would you support a genocide of Africa? Because I have to be honest, its not pretty but I would. Those of us in the west need to start producing more children as well.

There are 6 billion people in the world and rising. The world can only support so many. There will be a point where world can not handle the number of people it has. Much of this population growth comes from Africa. Africans may in fact began diverting resources from the west(which in many places is suffering population loses). So if the population crisis gets to the point where what we have is threatened would you support a genocide of Africa? Because I have to be honest, its not pretty but I would. Those of us in the west need to start producing more children as well.

I remember hearing the Club of Rome announce that there would be worldwide, massive starvation (a prediction from the 1970s) by the year 2000, because the world could only support 3 billion people, and that even in Europe and the US, we would be in famine.

*scratches head*

I still haven't seen it... And such notable luminaries who spoke of the coming famine as though it were as certain as the sun rising...

We could just solve the problem by letting the other countries kill themselves, reducing the population.

There are 6 billion people in the world and rising. The world can only support so many. There will be a point where world can not handle the number of people it has. Much of this population growth comes from Africa. Africans may in fact began diverting resources from the west(which in many places is suffering population loses). So if the population crisis gets to the point where what we have is threatened would you support a genocide of Africa? Because I have to be honest, its not pretty but I would. Those of us in the west need to start producing more children as well.

Y'know I can't understand your reasoning behind this. I'm not going to scream "ZOMG YOUR A NAZI", but I do vehemently disagree with genocide. Don't you think it's possible that the western elements of the human population are falling under what is known as natural selection?

Most of the population growth is actually occuring in Asia and South America.

And you start by saying that you'd support a genocide of Africa to reduce the burden on the world's resources, then say that the West needs to produce more children?

I remember hearing the Club of Rome announce that there would be worldwide, massive starvation (a prediction from the 1970s) by the year 2000, because the world could only support 3 billion people, and that even in Europe and the US, we would be in famine.

*scratches head*

I still haven't seen it... And such notable luminaries who spoke of the coming famine as though it were as certain as the sun rising...

I love when people misquote the Club of Rome. Some myths:

1. They said that by the middle of this century we would experience a population crash as we outstripped our resource base's ability to support us, not by the year 2,000. I wouldn't bet against that.

2. The Club of Rome never said that we would reach Peak Oil by the 1990s, that was M. King Hubbert. In fact, the Club of Rome never mentioned an energy crisis at all. What they focused on was water, food and disease, for the most part.

If Earth is too crowded for you, you could always move to Mars.

So the world is horribly overpopulated, but we in the west need to get in gear and start shooting out babies like we're rats?

Explain, please.

I love when people misquote the Club of Rome. Some myths:

1. They said that by the middle of this century we would experience a population crash as we outstripped our resource base's ability to support us, not by the year 2,000. I wouldn't bet against that.

Not a myth.

They kept moving the goalposts as time went on. You should have been there in the 1970s.

There are 6 billion people in the world and rising. The world can only support so many. There will be a point where world can not handle the number of people it has. Much of this population growth comes from Africa. Africans may in fact began diverting resources from the west(which in many places is suffering population loses). So if the population crisis gets to the point where what we have is threatened would you support a genocide of Africa? Because I have to be honest, its not pretty but I would. Those of us in the west need to start producing more children as well.

Let's start with the illogic of the bolded statements, and ignore the blatant prejudice and ultimately both horrific and nonsensical suggestions in the middle, shall we?

There are too many people. We should breed more.

Nuff said.

I still haven't seen it... And such notable luminaries who spoke of the coming famine as though it were as certain as the sun rising...

Boy, we sure showed them! :p

http://farsiblog.250free.com/STARVATION-2.jpg

http://borgenproject.org/sitebuilder/images/starvation_picture-640x428.png

http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1979/1101791112_400.jpg

Annnd..

Cue genocide.

OMG please don't take that seriously..

Not a myth.

They kept moving the goalposts as time went on. You should have been there in the 1970s.

No they did not. They wrote one book in the early 70's and wrote an update last year.

Where's the massive starvation in Europe? In the US?

Eh? I was told in the 1970s that by 2000, most of the US would be in famine like the Sahel.

So the world is horribly overpopulated, but we in the west need to get in gear and start shooting out babies like we're rats?

Explain, please.
because soon there will be more old people than those in the work force, which could hurt western economies. At the same time Africans are breeding like crazy not doing anything but taking up space and resources.

Those of us in the west need to start producing more children as well.

Those of us in the West are the ones taxing the world the most. If anyone, it is we who should stop having children.

Let's start with the illogic of the bolded statements, and ignore the blatant prejudice and ultimately both horrific and nonsensical suggestions in the middle, shall we?

There are too many people. We should breed more.

Nuff said.

Thanks, I was going to mention that, too, but I got sidetracked by DK.

Let's start with the illogic of the bolded statements, and ignore the blatant prejudice and ultimately both horrific and nonsensical suggestions in the middle, shall we?

There are too many people. We should breed more.

Nuff said.

I explain why this is in an early post.

because soon there will be more old people than those in the work force, which could hurt western economies. At the same time Africans are breeding like crazy not doing anything but taking up space and resources.

Have you thought to consider we western folk are dieing out naturally? Will it really matter?

Those of us in the West are the ones taxing the world the most. If anyone, it is we who should stop having children.
We don't tax the world the most. This is a myth.

because soon there will be more old people than those in the work force, which could hurt western economies. At the same time Africans are breeding like crazy not doing anything but taking up space and resources.

I don't think we have to worry about our population over here, we're pretty much rabbits. Duggar family, anybody?

I'm staying out of this mess. My tubes eagerly await tying.

Where's the massive starvation in Europe? In the US?

Eh? I was told in the 1970s that by 2000, most of the US would be in famine like the Sahel.

Who told you that? The Club of Rome's book, "The Limits to Growth," didn't say that. :confused:

We don't tax the world the most. This is a myth.

Well we sure do control approx. 80% of the wealth and resources.

Have you thought to consider we western folk are dieing out naturally? Will it really matter?

Thats my point. We are dying out, this a hugh problem. And at the same time we have other breeding extremely rapidly. This is why we have a population problem in the world.

So if the population crisis gets to the point where what we have is threatened would you support a genocide of Africa? Because I have to be honest, its not pretty but I would. Those of us in the west need to start producing more children as well.

Let's just say I really hope people like you don't produce any children. Christ.

Well we sure do control approx. 80% of the wealth and resources.

your point?

I remember hearing the Club of Rome announce that there would be worldwide, massive starvation (a prediction from the 1970s) by the year 2000, because the world could only support 3 billion people, and that even in Europe and the US, we would be in famine.

Ironically, the cost of all commodities fell continuously following the predictions of the Club of Rome; it was little more than Malthusian bullshit with no grounding in reality. Even today, the price of commodities is only high because of fast economic growth; the slowdown over the past few months caused the CRB index to fall 16%, with some like gold and oil down multiples of that.

By 2030, the price of commodities will be less in real terms than it has been in any time since commodity pricing began.

I still haven't seen it... And such notable luminaries who spoke of the coming famine as though it were as certain as the sun rising...

Well, considering that we haven't even begun to tap the resources in the ocean or even most of the resources on land I'd say that's pretty unlikely. I guess people forget the hundreds of millions of acres left fallow in the US because food prices are so low...they also forget that food production has grown geometrically or that population growth slows as the world gets richer.

The predictions that our planet can't support X people have been disproven time and again for one simple reason: efficiency. We only need 40% as much energy to produce $1,000 of GDP as we did in 1979 and that number continues to fall with each passing year. The current population of the OECD is 1.07 billion compared to 957.3 million in 1981; energy intensity has fallen by 60% over the same period so we can actually support 1.56 billion people without affecting per-capita energy consumption.

That's 553 million people, quite close to the population of Africa. If it continues to improve to 25 or 30%, the number jumps to 1.76 billion or about 1.5 times the population of the Middle East. The two fastest growing populations in the world can be folded in to the OECD with no change in per-capita energy demand. And guess where we can get all the energy from? It's a limitless supply of nuclear and renewables!

Let's just say I really hope people like you don't produce any children. Christ.

I plan to do my part and have a few actually.

We don't tax the world the most. This is a myth.

Yes we sure as hell do. We have about 8% of the world's population and use 25% of it's energy resources and almost 50% of it's avialble raw materials. How can you think that the average person in the world who lives on a subsistence diet can possibly use as many resources as a westerner with his car and his steak and his lobster and his Monday Night Football? You don't even need stats for that. Just watch TV and realize that you probably have two or three of them in your gigantic, by world standards, house.

We don't tax the world the most. This is a myth.

List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions)

There is no population problem.

Developing regions have growing populations because people recognise that the visible improvements in quality of live, and thus subconsciously wish to bring children into the world.

In the developed world, improvements in quality of live have plateaued, meaning that child-bearing is not such a priority. This is why European birthrates are falling. The solution is not to encourage Europeans to reproduce, that would be like throwing petrol in a fire. Immigration can keep Europe's population stable and balanced.

There is no population problem.

Developing regions have growing populations because people recognise that the visible improvements in quality of live, and thus subconsciously wish to bring children into the world.

In the developed world, improvements in quality of live have plateaued, meaning that child-bearing is not such a priority. This is why European birthrates are falling. The solution is not to encourage Europeans to reproduce, that would be like throwing petrol in a fire. Immigration can keep Europe's population stable and balanced.

you made me smile. Immigration used in the same sentence as Europe, stable, and balanced is funny:)

you made me smile. Immigration used in the same sentence as Europe, stable, and balanced is funny:)

Sorry but what is your point?

Who told you that? The Club of Rome's book, "The Limits to Growth," didn't say that. :confused:

Didn't go to enough conventions in the 1970s did you? Where they gave presentations and horror shows?

Yes we sure as hell do. We have about 8% of the world's population and use 25% of it's energy resources and almost 50% of it's avialble raw materials. How can you think that the average person in the world who lives on a subsistence diet can possibly use as many resources as a westerner with his car and his steak and his lobster and his Monday Night Football? You don't even need stats for that. Just watch TV and realize that you probably have two or three of them in your gigantic, by world standards, house.

alright so even if we do, we can sustian ourselves so long as we don't have Africans or others draining our resources.

Thats my point. We are dying out, this a hugh problem. And at the same time we have other breeding extremely rapidly. This is why we have a population problem in the world.

Okay... without being racist, describe why Westerners dying out is a huge problem, and Africans being slaughtered is not.

Sorry but what is your point?

immigration does anything but keep Europe stable and balanced.

alright so even if we do, we can sustian ourselves so long as we don't have Africans or others draining our resources.

Greed-motivated genocide. Nice.

Okay... without being racist, describe why Westerners dying out is a huge problem, and Africans being slaughtered is not.

Because if we die out, we lose our way of life. And I am not about to give up what I have, even if some sacrifices have to be made.

you made me smile. Immigration used in the same sentence as Europe, stable, and balanced is funny:)

How is it? You stated the equation yourself you just didn't solve it. You said that Europe is getting older, and that Africa is getting younger. You effectively said '2+2', but you forgot to mention that it equals four.

Greed-motivated genocide. Nice.

You can't tell me with a straight face that you object if it came down to this.

Because if we die out, we lose our way of life. And I am not about to give up what I have, even if some sacrifices have to be made.

You will likely be dead before the swarms of the scary-different-coloured-skinned people start to descend upon our countries, convert everyone to Islam and PRAISE ALLAH!

Seriously, you haven't thought this thing through.

Big woop. Westerners are using more birth-control in order to lead childless lifestyles which decreases the birth rate, wheras African and Middle Eastern folks are increasing in number. This change will be pretty gradual. All that's going to change is our populations genetic make-up, that is all. It's natural selection. The traditional western lifestyle will perhaps fade but thats called change. You can't stop it. I don't really give a damn how many middle easterners there are or Africans because in the end we're all human beings. It's an example of human evolution. Get over it.

How is it? You stated the equation yourself you just didn't solve it. You said that Europe is getting older, and that Africa is getting younger. You effectively said '2+2', but you forgot to mention that it equals four.
Wait so you want Africans moving to Europe!? WTF!? Europe can handle the problem without anything drastic like that. They just need to start reproducing more.

You can't tell me with a straight face that you object if it came down to this.

I can, and I do.

We don't tax the world the most. This is a myth.

Really? Per capita, how much of the worlds energy resources are used by Africans as compared to those in the west? Disposable diapers, same question. How many trees are cut down so that the west can have newspapers, fashion magazines, mailings from politicians and toilet paper (including places where these catagories overlap)? Same question, Africa? Of the available steel on the planet, how much is used by just the Americans who buy new cars every year?Same question of any equivalent sized group of Africans? How many plastic toys do children have in the west? Same question, Africa? Compare the amount of greenhouse gasses put out by the west and by Africa. Based on greatest need (that is, which population has a higher percentage of persons requiring it) who gets most of the medicine (and here, look specifically at AIDS related drugs)?

We tax the world the most.

immigration does anything but keep Europe stable and balanced.

That's because there is not enough immigration. And the immigrants we do have we do not correctly utilise, there are PhDs cleaning our streets, that is a ridiculous situation.

There is no danger of our civilisation being dilluted by immigration. The dominant ideology is powerful enough to insure people conform. Hell, our civilisation is built on immigration.

I plan to do my part and have a few actually.

So you wouldn't mind if they were killed? You know, to save Europe.

alright so even if we do, we can sustian ourselves so long as we don't have Africans or others draining our resources.


So your goal in this is to suggest that everyone who is not us should DIE so that we can wallow in disposable goods????

Swell. You are a great fellow, you are. Remind me not to invite you to MY next barbecue.

Wait so you want Africans moving to Europe!? WTF!? Europe can handle the problem without anything drastic like that. They just need to start reproducing more.

What!? Importing workers is drastic and genocide is a pragmatic course of action? You have some fucked up priorities.

So you wouldn't mind if they were killed? You know, to save Europe.

Wouldn't that make more sense?

If you have 1000 people in group A who consume 50 units of a resource each and 5000 people in group B who consume 5 units each, it would make more sense to kill group A, right?

Wouldn't that make more sense?

If you have 1000 people in group A who consume 50 units of a resource each and 5000 people in group B who consume 5 units each, it would make more sense to kill group A, right?

How about we kill nobody, and instead cooperate on an egalitarian basis to ensure a solution in which everyone's needs are met?

If it means giving up unsustainable luxuries and lifestyles, so be it.

Wouldn't that make more sense?

If you have 1000 people in group A who consume 50 units of a resource each and 5000 people in group B who consume 5 units each, it would make more sense to kill group A, right?

Sure would. Though really, killing each other for renewable resources is rather silly.

Ironically, the cost of all commodities fell continuously following the predictions of the Club of Rome; it was little more than Malthusian bullshit with no grounding in reality. Even today, the price of commodities is only high because of fast economic growth; the slowdown over the past few months caused the CRB index to fall 16%, with some like gold and oil down multiples of that.First, oil is not down a multiple of 16%. It's down to about 64% from a high of 78%. Seeing as how it's up about 640% since 1998, though, and you see that that is little to crow about.

Second, you have no idea whether the Club of Rome was right or not because their predictions centered on the middle of this century which, of course, hasn't happened yet. As a matter in fact, you have no idea whether Malthus was right or not because he set no time frame at all. The fact is, we see in our present world, in our history and all over the natural world populatiosn grow and then die out as a result of resource scarcity. That's just indesputable.

By 2030, the price of commodities will be less in real terms than it has been in any time since commodity pricing began.predictions are very difficult, especially with respect to the future.

-Niels Bohr



Well, considering that we haven't even begun to tap the resources in the ocean or even most of the resources on land I'd say that's pretty unlikely. I guess people forget the hundreds of millions of acres left fallow in the US because food prices are so low...they also forget that food production has grown geometrically or that population growth slows as the world gets richer.Food production sckyrocketed as a result of the introduction of petro agriculture. No other reason. Food production per capita in the world has been dropping since 1988. The fact is that most people can't compete with North Americans for petro chemicals so they can't grow food the way we do. There's also no guarentee we'll be able to sustain the knd of agriculture we practice in an age of falling oil production.

The predictions that our planet can't support X people have been disproven time and again for one simple reason: efficiency. We only need 40% as much energy to produce $1,000 of GDP as we did in 1979 and that number continues to fall with each passing year. The current population of the OECD is 1.07 billion compared to 957.3 million in 1981; energy intensity has fallen by 60% over the same period so we can actually support 1.56 billion people without affecting per-capita energy consumption. There are other considerations besides energy consumption. Quality of life, for example. Also, efficiency gains are subject diminishing returns. For example, we used to make improvements in moving electricity that amounted to multiple hundreds of percents gain in efficiency. Now each improvement gets us 3% or 4%. Eventually the effort put into the improvement is not worth it.

That's 553 million people, quite close to the population of Africa. If it continues to improve to 25 or 30%, the number jumps to 1.76 billion or about 1.5 times the population of the Middle East. The two fastest growing populations in the world can be folded in to the OECD with no change in per-capita energy demand. And guess where we can get all the energy from? It's a limitless supply of nuclear and renewables!

Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Donkeys will now fly out of my ass!

How about we kill nobody, and instead cooperate on an egalitarian basis to ensure a solution in which everyone's needs are met?

If it means giving up unsustainable luxuries and lifestyles, so be it.

No, that would make too much sense.

It's not like technology, taxation, conservation and government regulation ever did anything good for the world economy...aside from that 18-year period of flat oil demand following the 1979 oil crisis.

Efficiency enables us to produce more goods with fewer resources than we did in the past; if our economy becomes 60% more efficient like it has over the past tow decades, then we will be able to produce 60% more with no change in resource consumption.

There's a difference between saying, "We're running out of resources. People are going to die. I hope it's not us." And ..."We're running out of resources. People are going to die. Let's make sure it's them."
The first is a philosophical, political, and socio-economic discussion totally worthy of these forums. The second is a call for genocide against a specific sub-culture, which is against the rules of these forums.

The implied threat is non-specific enough to not generate a warning for the OP, but it's worthy of a lock. Restart it under premise 1 above if you want to continue this discussion.