SS: I am reluctant to post these sort of articles as they contribute little to the debate. This article however exemplifies my frustration with the MSM as it portrays a series of horrific problems we face without once mentioning overpopulation as a cause.
Given that both the left and the right regarded overpopulation as a serious concern in the 1960s, I am curious as to how it became regarded as a non issue; or worse a taboo.
Edit: Here's an article on the subject which I posted in another thread. It goes into some of the history of the U.S. Population policy.
>Newly ascendant anti-Keynesian economists rejected an older consensus that slowing population growth would yield economic benefits. These market-oriented economists asserted that denser populations created economies of scale, and that individual fertility decisions would adjust to any temporary population problems. President Ronald Reagan, who once had dabbled with Malthusianism, tellingly labeled advocates who worried about scarce resources “Doomsday prophets.” [Cont...]
The author of the article, Derek Hoff has written a history of U.S. population policy called <em>The State and the Stork</em>. It's a pity there are so few people working in this field.
Interesting experiment, but what the holy hell PUA bullshit website did you link to? Halfway through reading I get a pop-up urging me to subscribe for 'tips to improve my game'.....
Edit: Also fairly rife with misspellings and grammatical errors, and wild conjecture and predictions by the idiot author at the end. This is some MRA website trying to use a mouse experiment to justify their views. The author also believes that the world is now in population decline, using Japan as an example, and ignoring the fact that the world population as a whole is still growing rapidly.
Reindeer on St. Matthew island had plenty of space. Polynesians on Rapa Nui had plenty of space.
I recommend a copy of Overshoot.
>It is the latest step by the conservative government in this mostly Catholic country of 38 million to reverse a shrinking population.
It's how flies do it: quadrillions of short lives instead of billions of long ones. Well, the figure provided is highly suspect but the principle is valid: either more short lives of fewer long ones.
What's the actual cite for this? The Medium fertility model from the UN which is what is generally used, predicts
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
I can't see the OPs table anywhere on this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Thanks for the book recommendation. It looks excellent. The first review at Amazon summed up something I have been thinking about for years:
> “Standing on the globe as we know it today, among people who are predominantly urban, who often spend more time in virtual landscapes than in natural ones, and who in large part have never known — do not have a single personal memory — of anything approaching nature in its full potential, it is hard to even wrap one’s head around where to begin.” > > [Snip] > > The tiny minority of folks who have found the power to think outside-the-box, like biologist Michael Soulé, feel “profoundly alienated from mainstream society.” Communication is nearly impossible. He says, “We are different. We’re wired to love different things than other people are.” I know what he means. We don’t feel at home in this society. Maybe we’re pioneers, scouting a new and safer path. [Cont...]
Look forward to watching your videos
Edit: Here is a 30 minute documentary about a NZ rewilding program. It is truly inspirational.
If you don't know Hans Rosling, he works with creating stunning data visualizations over at Gapminder, and he has held many a fantastic TED talk, in which he (among other things) explain why we don't have to fear over population if we only can get people out of poverty (which his statistics shows that we are on our way to do).
Education and birth control are very important, yes. But the most important thing is to raise people out of poverty (which is important in and of itself). Have a look at Hans Roslings fantastic TED talks: http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html
Approximately 346 days, so we should be there by 7 April, 2020.
Based on the estimated growth rate of 82 million per year:
77,777,777 / 82,000,000 * 365 = 346.206
http://www.worldometers.info/geography/7-continents/ Asia and Africa have bred like cockroaches. You sound resentful of white people because they've been making every other race their Bitch economically and historically for generations. No one likes a sore loser so try to repair that chip in your shoulder and go look up some stats - there is no need for any more Asians or Indians. It's a numbers game. There's a surplus of certain kinds of people- that makes some more expendable than others. If there is a depopulation agenda it would not be directed at Caucasians so take from that what you will.
The population of the planet has more than doubled in my life time. I remember being in first or second grade, and they actually made the announcement over the loudspeaker, saying that the population of the world was 3 billion. We hit 7 billion not too long ago, and are already at 7.5 billion. (http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/)
The more people there are, the faster the number go up.
Almost immediately after WWII people were concerned about the effects of overpopulation yet it is now an almost taboo topic. I have long been interested in why the public perception shifted.
You are correct about the influence of Reaganomics.
>Newly ascendant anti-Keynesian economists rejected an older consensus that slowing population growth would yield economic benefits. These market-oriented economists asserted that denser populations created economies of scale, and that individual fertility decisions would adjust to any temporary population problems. President Ronald Reagan, who once had dabbled with Malthusianism, tellingly labeled advocates who worried about scarce resources “Doomsday prophets.” [Cont...]
The author of the article, Derek Hoff has written a history of U.S. population policy called <em>The State and the Stork</em>. It's a pity there are so few people working in this field.
This site agrees with you. Hell, according to them, we've already increased the population by over 23 million people in this year ALONE. Obviously I'm preaching to the choir here, but this is not fucking sustainable.
>Life wouldn't "be better for the average American" if we had even more restrictive immigration policies. There is no legitimate scarcity of resources here. It is purely artificial and driven by profits.
This was comprehensively debunked by William Catton Jnr 40 years ago. The entire book was written to debunk exactly your argument from exactly your perspective.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Overshoot-Ecological-Basis-Revolutionary-Change/dp/0252009886
For a more comprehensive view, read Alan Weisman's Countdown, which describes population situations in many cultures. It starts with the middle east, so the free preview probably includes that part.
Just checked and it does. Well worth reading. Also listening to his podcast episode with me.
Read Alan Weisman's book Countdown to see the results of overpopulation in the region.
I just checked and the free preview at Amazon includes some of it, though I recommend the whole book.
I've held Thailand as a role model for years, since reading Alan Weisman's Countdown, which I recommend.
Lately I read short histories of other role model nations. Thailand is one of many. A great resource is Family planning success stories from The Overpopulation Project.
I once watched a hard hitting documentary on this very subject. What was it called again...?
Edit: Found it!
On a more serious note, some people think IQ is declining; quite possibly for the reasons you outline.
I read Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth? several years ago, and it had a really interesting chapter on Iran, actually. I guess in the 70's (? forgot exact timeframe) there was a big push from Iranian leadership for women to have more babies, the idea being to bolster the number of military-aged men for their armed forces.
Eventually though, some of their social planners realized how bad the consequences of that policy were shaping up to be (from a food security and ecological point of view), and so they implemented social campaigns to encourage women to have fewer children. The slogan was something like "1 or 2 children are good, 3 if you must" (I'm mis-remembering the slogan terribly, but this was the gist of it. It was a really good one).
I've always thought that it was a great slogan worth spreading to other countries, including the US.
I encourage everyone to read that book, by the way. It was very well written.
> But what happens when the CEOs of a company lets call it AT&T take the tax cuts and by back the stock in the company for themselves I just found this out today so their already stating it. This is what happens every time. Thanks for your perspective but I don't think any of this is going to help and if they take my social security away and medicaid which is what Paul Ryan wants to do next I am going to to fucking leave this country fuck it! I did get that corporate tax wrong it went from 35 to 21% that will starve the country and the government from doing what needs to be done for its people. Sounds like your a boomer I just want to commend your generation on screwing over this country leaving nothing left for further generations. Heres a christmas present for you to read if you like form me to you. https://www.amazon.com/Generation-Sociopaths-Boomers-Betrayed-America-ebook/dp/B01HZFB7GI/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1514010148&sr=8-1&keywords=baby+boomers+a+generation+of+sociopaths