The world is not overpopulated

Overpopulation is a myth that's been going around since the dawn of eugenics since the entire point of it is to reduce the number of undesirable people and the undesirable people for some reason, are never of European extraction.

There is enough food, power, and materials for everybody. We live in a post-scarcity world. If a warehouse full of food cannot be sold, that food will always be thrown out rather than donated. We sprawl out our cities rather than build them up because there is so much space. Our arable land is used for luxury goods and meat.

We will literally go to another country, train and fund killers to put dictators in charge, the dictators let our corporations buy all the land, and then that land is used to grow luxury goods the locals barely see a dime from and never get to enjoy. Then we complain about them having too many kids.

If the population of the earth was half of it was right now, the amount of hunger in the world would be the same.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Graylight · 51-55, F

You don't factor in natural resources and our impact on the climate. It's not a matter of how many bodies are here or who eats at night, it's about an environment that has grown unable to sustain this species. Every creature, herd, colony or tribe is limited by natural resources. Then those are exhausted, the population will decrease to a sustainable size.

Don't think Covid wasn't a trial run.

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

@Graylight Imagine in the forest there is a population of deer and 90% of the available resources to sustain the deer population go to a single deer.

The deer population suffers and many go hungry. The response is to reduce that population rather than to look at the one deer hoarding all the resources. And weirdly, even after the population drops, there's still not enough in the forest. Wonder why?

As I've said repeatedly in this thread, the ills of the world are not to blame on the birth rate of South Sudan or wherever. We could have 4 billion people and the same problems. These problems are ones of waste, hoarding, and deliberate inefficiency in pursuit of profit.

If when we heard the world has 8 billion people the response is "OH FUCK WE GOTTA GET RID OF SOME OF THESE PEOPLE" congratulations, you're a eugenicist.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@CountScrofula Realist.

Scientists more worried than public about world’s growing population
ver the course of history, many scientists and activists have raised alarm about population numbers that only increase every year.
Pew research.org

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

@Graylight I'm not surprised a lot of this stuff comes from Malthusian beliefs that still underpin a lot of scientific thought. But uh, they're wrong.

The notion that we need to have fewer people sidesteps the problem of resource hoarding and waste which we can actually address.

And of course, if overpopulation is a problem, the only solution is eugenics.

So perhaps if we want to deal with the resources of this planet, we should deal with the fact that like four people are consuming half of them rather than send the castration squads out to Bangladesh.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@CountScrofula Well, between you and literally every scientific discipline and its experts, I’ll take the latter.

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

@Graylight I appreciate you dodging my point entirely and just appealing to authority.

Graylight · 51-55, F

@CountScrofula Your point is flawed.