Survival of the Fittest & Population Reduction

You've probably heard the whole 'it took us thousands of years to get global population to 1 billion and just 100 more to get to 6-7 billion'. Why so? Is this due to technology?

Whatever the case, the balance of life has been so thrown off lately that an imminent earth cleansing is not only natural, but desirable?

Look at nature, do they have welfare systems where some don't do anything but still consume? Don't we call these parasites? Aren't there enough natural parasites in the world?

Let's face the facts, Earth is plagued with an abundance of human parasites, due to dependency on government and technology. What if suddenly, those support systems collapsed and these people were forced to live in a self-sufficient manner?

Well just about everyone in the city would eventually die through crime, disease, or starvation. City people are like baby birds with beaks open waiting for the worm of the mother bird. And when the mother bird has flown away what will the open mouths do? Shrivel up and blow away, just like every other form of life on earth that wasn't needed at that point in time in the history of this planet.

Isn't it ironic that these modern city slickers like to make fun of rural, self-sustainable people? And how about all those mocking jokes about the slow moving way of life in the South?

I would say about 80-90% of people on this planet would perish in such an instance, and that instance has a great chance of becoming reality very very soon.

As you adopt the illusion of your own evolution, nature and its students still walk the same steady path and always arrive at destination. Quite literally, don't be in a hurry to go nowhere, because that's the path chose by the majority of man.

And so what if you die, you're just comin' back anyway .

 

I agree with you.

 

Hey buddy Nate, you're really pessimistic, even more than me...

How are you preparing for the future?

 

Good idea Nate.

I think welfare is a stupid idea.

Here in Mexico there's no welfare. If you don't work you starve. THAT'S LIFE.

If you can't work and have nobody to take care of you, you beg. I give money to these people all the time. Society makes sure these people don't starve.

I'm sick of welfare cases. It's nothing but a big sham, and with it in place people go around expecting handouts from the government. It's really pathetic.

 

it's due to industrialisation and medicine

I think a population decrease is desirable but only if it's done in like 2-3 generations and by decreasing the birthrate

well, I don't see how tehnology could disappear

what makes you think that? Sure people in the city don't produce their own food, but as long as they produce something the ones who produce food want the city people are OK

they're not self sustainable either dude. No one is truly self sustaining unless they're amish and don't use electricity, mobile phones, cars, fuel, etc. I mean all this stuff has to be made somewhere and they're much more likely to be made in a city.

nahhh, people adapt pretty fast. There would be a transfer of riches as the ones who have food will suddently find out their stuff is much more valuable but I wouldn't bet on such a large percentage of people dieing

what exactly do you mean by this?

and what do starving people do? Would you prefer to be robbed by them instead of the state giving them enough to survive?

 

I'm generally referring to growing your own food or capability of hunting and fishing. Yes, rural people may not be 100% self sustainable, in that they use gas, electricity, etc. But if you already have an independent means of getting food, you won't be effected as much and you won't be starving.

Reincarnation, my personal beliefs.

I can't speak for him, but I would prefer there not to BE these starving people in the first place. As grim and guerilla stated in stOx's earlier thread, the sole reason for poor areas of the globe to be firing babies out like an Uzi is the known fact that government will provide for these helpless people. And especially in America, child support.


I mean no malice or hate by this thread, it's purely honest observation.

 

If you actually think paying potential criminals will stop crime, you need to think harder.

If people can't find a means to survive without commiting crimes there's a mechanism which we use to take these people out of society - they call it "jail".

By the way, there are plenty of food banks in the US where people can go and get free food. I prefer this over welfare. Welfare is a joke.

 

No, that's just how exponential functions look. The human population doubles about every 40 years, if anything the rate of growth has declined in the last century with the rise of the middle class and improved contraception. The human population has always been doubling short of during times of severe plague and famine.

Technology is, and is what always has been, facilitating our population growth. Technology doesn't cause more people to be born, it is moreso useful in preventing death.

People have been predicting that the current generation would never create the technology to sustain the next one - for hundreds of years.

Yeah, we have to be smart with our resources, think up new ways of doing old things, and once in a while get serious about tough choices, but I don't think its a coincidence (or a bad thing) that population and technology are both exponentially growing charts.

If anything, technology grows faster than population! Consider the following functions:

1960 - 3 billion people in the world. Let us call the "scientific and technical capacity" of the average person a base unit-value of 1. Total science units = 3 billion

2000 - 6 billion people. Pretend that the internet, satellites, and other improved tools only raises the average "science and technical" capacity by 10%. Now the unit-value is 1.1 and the world's total "science units" = 6.6 billion

Honestly? Some would suffer initially, but I think most people would be able to adapt to new systems.

Well, I agree with you here. The cities are nice in boom times but it isn't the place to be in a crisis phase.

I doubt it. Rather, I would expect people to realize that they don't "need" 90% of what they currently assume as a fundamental materialistic need. We have a lot of buffer room in current waste that could go away without causing anyone serious physical harm.

 

WW, make sure you understand what causes welfarism and poverty.

Because if people die in poverty, then they aren't around. And if they try to climb out of poverty, many of them will make gains.

Unless there is an unseen hand holding them down.

Your giving is the sign of a mature and honest soul.

 

I've known people who don't want to succeed because then they will stop getting welfare - LOL

While for many I'm sure it helps, but for others it's just a nice incentive to be lazy.

 

Technology has given people the ability to live "off the grid"... I was reading an article the other day about people growing their own food and using solar panels and wind mills to generate their own power...

 

You can bet that won't last long. Hard to tax someone who is off the grid...

 

Interesting idea... But the article mentioned that the government was giving tax breaks to those installing "green energy sources"... I agree though, something will wind up changing...

 

If we get enough people doing that, the government can kiss our self-sustainable asses.

 

Which is exactly why they will try to stop it.

 

i think too - welfare should be damned

here in UK benefit people produces more kids to get more benefits

at the end these benefits would not be enough to cover university education, so the kids will go by the steps of the parents to produce more kids for benefits

everyone knows to afford at least two kids is extremely expensive for the career oriented person, why benefiters should have such a privilege

article

 

I was always curious what is really work?

Is a bureaucrat, middle manager, paper pusher really producing anything other than more make-work, paper, and waste for other people?

It seems like the people who work the least in the US, make the most money (athletes, entertainers, CEOs, executives) and produce the least value, if not undermine wealth.

How is that encouraging anything but more waste?

 

Well, one good thing about welfare. Eventually it collapses the socialist state.

Unless stOx can find a way to sterilize all of the street people.

 

There is a farmer up North, one of those M states, who captures methane from his dairy cows in a silo and uses it to power a modified 57 chevy engine that then turns an electric generator, saw it on Dirty Jobs. Powers his farm and still sells some of it back to the grid. There is also a move by some to start producing biodiesel and to modify their diesel engines to run on vegetable oil. I can grow a lot of beans if and when we get that next Great Depression. I might have the only tractor in the county still running too. There are ways to filter your own sanitation water with a series of specially designed ponds for example too, can't forget clean water. All of that will be worth a lot more to me than anything that is purchased only through money. I honestly think in this coming crisis the gov won't try to stop me from being self sustaining and another poster kind of hit on why. I am a producer. I create new actual in your hands goods that people NEED. Part of the problem with the US economy is the decline of such producers and the move towards a service/import society instead of a producer/export society, and yes I blame the government.

 

Work is simply trading your time for money.

And you're right. The people at the top don't work hard they work smart.

The key is getting yourself there.

"I must create a system or be enslaved by another mans; I will not reason and compare: my business is to create." -William Blake

LMAO...