If the World Is Overpopulated, Who Should Die?

Discussion in 'This Cesspool We Live In' started by Sluggo, Nov 7, 2011.

  1. Sluggo Son of Holocaust Survivors

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2010
    Message Count:
    2,145
    Location:
    In The Ether
    Reputation:
    5,981,420
    Ratings Received:
    +1,370 / 14 / -14
    If the World Is Overpopulated, Who Should Die?

    by Jim Goad

    November 07, 2011

    [IMG]

    If the United Nations can be trusted, planet Earth welcomed its seven billionth living human on October 31. As if it were currently possible to pinpoint such a landmark, nations jostled one another in staking their claim to having birthed the world’s “seven billionth baby.” Hoisted before the media flashbulbs by their proud parents as potential candidates were a li’l Filipina squirt named Danica May Camacho and a tiny Russian seedlin’ named Pyotr Nikolayeva, shown here being coddled by a rather uncomfortable looking Vladimir Putin.

    No one really knows whether we’ve even reached seven billion yet, but we eclipsed six billion only a dozen years ago. In 1927, there were only two billion…in 1800, a mere billion or so. According to UN projections, we’ll be up to nine billion in less than 40 years.

    If you happen to dislike people as much as I do, this is not good news. There are already far more people than I care to know on a first-name basis.

    Over two hundred years ago, British doomsayer Thomas Malthus prognosticated a demographic apocalypse caused by an exponentially ballooning population that suddenly found itself starved to death by a lagging food supply. But though Malthus was correct about the population upswing, he was wrong about the endless fields of starved cadavers. His foggy isle now hosts about five times as many people as it did when he was writing his alarmist screeds, only they’re much fatter now and their life expectancy is twice as long. For the time being—at least in the UK—the technology to keep humans alive is outpacing the ominously swelling numbers.

    “In the improbable event that the heavens were to part and an angel were to task me with immediately eliminating half the global population, I’d halve the global IQ bell curve at its apex and sweep away everything to the left of it.”

    Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 eschatological scare tract The Population Bomb sold millions of copies by making seemingly billions of terrifying predictions about imminent demographic catastrophe, none of which have come true.

    Some will say the fear of overpopulation is unwarranted, that it’s just a “green myth” propagated by a sociopathically snobby flaky upper crust of elites grasping at global power to cull the peasant herd by vicious and uncaring methods based on discredited and shameful notions of eugenics and, well, you know, Hitler and all that. They say there’s enough land and sufficient technology for the world to host a trillion people without too much discomfort. They say you could give Manhattan-sized apartments to everyone on Earth and squeeze them all together in a land mass the size of Texas. If people didn’t mind being crammed together shoulder-to-shoulder as if they were at a rock concert, you could fit the entire planet’s population in Rhode Island—assuming that being shoved together with seven billion people in Rhode Island is your idea of a good time. I tend to recall that Rhode Island has had problems with overcrowding before.

    Others will say there are too many rats in the cage already, that we’ve exceeded our carrying capacity as a species and are in for one bleeding, shrieking, flame-engulfed global migraine of behavioral sink, with all the violence, famine, collective mania, and infant cannibalism attendant thereto. They say we’ve reached peak oil and peak food and peak soil and peak ocean and peak air—in short, we’ve reached the peak, and this roller coaster is headed straight down no matter how loudly we scream about it.

    What’s rarely discussed is the notion that we may soon also be reaching peak population. According to some estimates, the global head count will top off at around nine billion at some point later in this century, then start an inexorable decline. Experts differ on whether the decline will be gradual or swift, peaceful or calamitous.

    In many parts of the globe—especially highly developed areas such as Europe and Japan—fertility rates have already begun to plummet far below replacement level. But not everyone’s plummeting at the same rate. According to the CIA, 24 of the 25 nations with the world’s highest fertility rates are in Africa or are islands off the African coast. In 1950, whites comprised nearly 28% of the global population, while blacks were only 9%. By 2060, this will have reversed itself, with blacks projected to comprise more than a quarter of the world’s inhabitants while the white quotient will have fallen under ten percent.

    Is this good news? Depends, I guess, on whether or not you’re African.

    Since this document is not legally binding, let’s pull the magical eugenics rabbit out of the hat and quit futzing around. If one sits passively and allows the imminent population decline to be completely laissez-faire—entirely at the whim of famine, pestilence, weather, disease, and especially reproductive patterns—are we sure we can trust Mother Nature’s wisdom to make the best decisions? If we do, the future will belong to the most prodigious breeders, who statistically are among the dumbest mackerel flapping around this here gene pool. Is passively allowing a New World of Retards to blossom a truly more ethical option than actively trying to sculpt a world that’s more intelligent and functional? Would “natural” collapse somehow be less bloody, chaotic, and truly inhumane than managed pruning? The problem with letting nature take its course is that nature does not always have the best taste—remember, nature smiles upon the cockroach.

    Let’s say you don’t believe in God—or at least not one that cares much about us—and that you also believe nature can be brutally random. In many cases, natural selection has the potential to be worse than unnatural selection. Who’s to say there won’t be a super-virus in 10 years that slays everyone but people with Down syndrome? Wouldn’t those with the highest human capital be that infinitesimal minority of scientists who are remotely capable of working on a vaccine for that virus? Especially in times of crisis, not every human life is worth the same. The eternal political question is whether it’s more “ethical” to let nature take its course or to try and intervene. So do you merely roll the dice, or do you also load them? (It’s not as if the US government hasn’t already been practicing its own deliberate demographic replacement program.)

    I’d leap at the chance to decide who gets to live and who gets to die. Maybe I’m a wide-eyed rube, but I’d like to believe such goals can be achieved through a peaceful re-jiggering of social policy toward a meritocratic model that rewards potential and achievement rather than inability and dysfunction, so I’m not talking about forced castration or Astrodome-sized death factories—at least not yet.

    I wouldn’t blanch at bearing such a terrifying responsibility, either. I have no idea why God is so angry, because it’d be absolutely thrilling to do a lot of the things he routinely gets to do. Imagine waking up in the morning, rubbing your eyes and saying, “I’ve had quite enough of Bob and Joe. Today, they are outta here!” Since I will never know that glory, I will at least indulge that fantasy.

    If there is one group that needs to die, it is the stupid among us. If I had to give a name to my political philosophy, it’d be “bright supremacy.” If I could summarize my social policy with a slogan, it’d be, “Start With the Smart.” I believe the higher a population’s collective intelligence, the better will be the society it builds. Smart people can always raise crops, but dumb people will never be able to solve quadratic equations. Therefore, my primary determinant regarding who gets to stay and who has to file out the door marked EXIT would be intelligence. Although imperfect, we have ways of testing such things. In the improbable event that the heavens were to part and an angel were to task me with immediately eliminating half the global population, I’d halve the global IQ bell curve at its apex and sweep away everything to the left of it. We’d still have representatives from every race and most cultures—although in grossly different proportions than they currently exist—but the quality of human existence would take a gazelle-sized leap forward overnight toward a brighter future come dawn.

    Or maybe that’s just the hippie dreamer in me.
  2. Bardamu New Member

    Member Since:
    Feb 12, 2011
    Message Count:
    20
    Reputation:
    22,225
    Ratings Received:
    +2 / 0 / -0
    All of Africa. Intergenerational welfare recipients. Prisons worldwide. Half of China, half of India, for starters.
  3. Ozzy Bon Halen LOLworthy Threadmonkey & Critic Of Texas Dentistry

    Member Since:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Message Count:
    5,265
    Location:
    In a van down by the river
    Reputation:
    16,413,354
    Ratings Received:
    +4,490 / 14 / -15
    Been around the world
    and noticed only stupid people were breeding
    See the mutants cloning and feeding
    and I don't even own a tv- Harvey Danger

    Actually in places like Germany the birth rate is on the decline. In places like Africa it's always going through the roof. Looks like some sort of peculiar reverse Darwinism.
  4. MadScienceType Riding in style.

    Member Since:
    Apr 23, 2010
    Message Count:
    3,895
    Reputation:
    23,335,865
    Ratings Received:
    +4,858 / 9 / -33
    It's r vs. K breeding strategies and r is winning the debate.

    If you prefer, Idiocracy centuries ahead of schedule.

    The wild card is that the prodigious breeding of shaved ground apes, wogs and other denizens of the left side of the bell curve is only made possible by the intervention and efforts of those populating the middle and right side of the curve. When they don't exist in sufficient numbers to keep darky fat, happy and whelping, his population will crater nicely, especially when you factor in that white man medicine will be replaced by witch-doctoring, further reducing the Dark Continent's population through disease.

    So take heart...the future isn't all gloomy. There will be stickniggers galore and not nearly enough SWPL bleeding hearts to keep them all healthy enough to breed.
  5. SouthernStar Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Message Count:
    7,926
    Reputation:
    11,396,126
    Ratings Received:
    +4,068 / 83 / -120
    How lovely to read you again. :)
  6. apollonian Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,179
    Reputation:
    -9,261,105
    Ratings Received:
    +547 / 216 / -1,647
    RIP: Peak Oil - we won't be running out any time soon


    Link: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/02/23/peak_oil_is_dead_citigroup/

    Human ingenuity wins the day

    By Andrew Orlowski • Get more from this author

    Posted in Environment, 23rd February 2012 12:29 GMT

    Free whitepaper – Application Performance Management:


    Analysis The idea that seized the imaginations of the bien pensant chattering classes in the Noughties – "Peak Oil" – is no longer relevant. So says the commodities team at Citigroup, and policy-makers would be wise to examine the trends they've identified.

    "Peak Oil" is the point at which the production of conventional crude oil begins an irreversible decline. The effect of this, some say, is that scarcity-induced prices rises would require huge changes in modern industrial societies. For some, Peak Oil was the call of Mother Earth herself, requiring a return to pre-industrial lifestyles. One example of this response is the "Transition Towns" network, a middle-class phenomenon in commuter belt towns in the UK.

    But in a must-read research note [PDF] issued this month (which is also implicitly critical of the industry) this is premature. Thanks to "unconventional" oil and gas, which can be tapped thanks to technological advances, Peak Oil is dead:


    The belief that global oil production has peaked, or is on the cusp of doing so, has helped to fuel oil’s more than decade-long rally. The resurgence of US gas production to well over its 1970s peak and into the number one slot globally over the last seven years is a result of hydraulic fracturing – fracking – techniques being applied to shale gas reserves across the US. The same companies are now using the same techniques on shale oil reserves, with results that in many cases look as promising as the early stages of the shale gas revolution. US oil production is now on the rise, entirely because of shale oil production, as conventional sources such as Alaska or California are structurally declining, and as Gulf of Mexico production is poised for a post-Macondo recovery.


    Forecasts can go up as well as down

    Doomsayers had reasonable grounds for suspecting this - but failed to address the bigger picture, one which includes technological innovation. They simply wanted Doomsday a little too badly. The briefing note continues:


    Belief in peak oil was bolstered by the repeated failure of supply to live up to the optimistic forecasts put forward by various governmental and international energy agencies. The IEA, the industry benchmark, made a habit of putting forth forecasts for the coming year of big gains in non-OPEC supply, only to spend the next 18 months revising those forecasts lower

    Citigroup also castigates the oil industry and experts for failing to take this into account - over-promising and delivering late.

    It's a must read. Oil production is far more contingent on upstream investment than many people realise. When it does respond, it responds rapidly; the US well count has increased 500 per cent in three years.


    US oil rig count: a splurge in production capacity

    So what now?

    Yet Peak Oil isn't the only casualty of recent energy developments. The death of Peak Oil kicks away the underpinnings from a great deal of policy-making by our bureaucracies and their advisers. Over the past two decades, we've seen the mushrooming of the "sustainability" sector, which is almost completely dependent on state funding and which shares similar erroneous assumptions.

    The proposition we're invited to accept in each case is that modern industrial society is founded on a resource which is being depleted and which cannot be easily replaced. The second part of that is rather crucial. Peak Oil thinking was based on the idea that crude oil couldn't be replaced by unconventional oil and, in time, with synthetic hydrocarbons. We're now seeing unconventional oil production ramp up, and in a decade the low-carbon synthetic replacements for oil will be in production, too, assuming oil remains at $40-$50 a barrel.

    The deeper problem shared by both "sustainability" and "Peak Oil" thinking is that both camps insists on thinking of a resource not as a vector, but as a thing - a thing that's rare, unique and irreplaceable.

    The Victorians once depended on whale blubber for lighting and heating - and fretted, much like today's sustainability crowd, about what might replace it. Human inventiveness rapidly provided an alternative. And policy-makers were once gripped by the constrained and volatile supply of saltpetre, the nitrate being essential to both feeding their populations and making things that went bang. Then chemistry came to the rescue. Of course a resource is a combination of things - the limits of human invention being just one.

    This inflexibility in thinking is proving fatal.

    Of course, simply because we are quite good at inventing stuff doesn't mean utopia is imminent or that politics as usual will somehow be suspended. Future technologies will still be priced, rationed and abused. But it signals the beginning of the end of what we might call Apocalypse Politics - where unpopular and daft policies gain traction simply because their advocates claim that they're justified by some catastrophic and irreversible historical trend. Nobody but the superstitious can really believe that any more
  7. Johnson WiLSON

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2010
    Message Count:
    7,140
    Location:
    shit abyss
    Reputation:
    33,143,735
    Ratings Received:
    +6,580 / 129 / -251
    Shut the fuck up, Dennis. Bums should be the first to die.
  8. apollonian Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,179
    Reputation:
    -9,261,105
    Ratings Received:
    +547 / 216 / -1,647
    * * * * *

    --says jewstink the kikenvermin, MOSSAD commandant of buffoon scum
  9. Mr. Prac ϟϟ ✞ 卐

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    2,330
    Reputation:
    4,514,451
    Ratings Received:
    +513 / 8 / -15
    True. They should start in Texas, too.
  10. Hawthorne Abendsen Number One Epic Sloth

    Member Since:
    May 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    9,585
    Location:
    Kehlsteinhaus
    Reputation:
    22,797,965
    Ratings Received:
    +5,621 / 43 / -341
    stickniggers :disagree:
  11. fips Terroriste

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    807
    Location:
    White Specie Refugia
    Reputation:
    196,556
    Ratings Received:
    +127 / 0 / -3
    .

    Get some man-made diseases going and see if we can chop the hooman sewage forest down by 6.66 billion, with those with the best medical care systems surviving. God will sort out the rest.

    .
  12. Bluto Drunken lout

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    7,769
    Reputation:
    40,105,543
    Ratings Received:
    +8,085 / 37 / -138
    :agree:
  13. Hawthorne Abendsen Number One Epic Sloth

    Member Since:
    May 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    9,585
    Location:
    Kehlsteinhaus
    Reputation:
    22,797,965
    Ratings Received:
    +5,621 / 43 / -341
    True. Stickniggers must perish.
  14. rasputin Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    2,676
    Reputation:
    18,530,366
    Ratings Received:
    +3,365 / 9 / -8
    Make appo shower and do some work everyday, and he won't survive such a torture.
  15. apollonian Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,179
    Reputation:
    -9,261,105
    Ratings Received:
    +547 / 216 / -1,647
    * * * * * *

    --says the buffoon moron
  16. GiovanniTheGreat Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Message Count:
    170
    Location:
    Girlswithoutweinersville
    Reputation:
    -727,819
    Ratings Received:
    +126 / 64 / -284
    I think this will end of being survival of the fittest.. Those who will not get informed or those dependant on welfare will be the first ones to go. Any race qualifies. The sheep are going to the slaughter. While I have time, I plan to learn new skills, surround myself with knowledgable people so I in turn can be knowledgable and know how to feed myself. Either this or I will use the stock up method. Freak things happen though like I heard a story how a survivalist even who had a lot of knowledge about this sort of thing couldn't find the rice and beans he stocked up on when the electricity went out so he ended up starving. Either way you just never know. I do think a lot of those ghetto baboons will be some of the first to go and many of them are sheep too just falling into the slaughter. Also since many whites todasy are poor, we may have more room to regroup. Blacks and mexicans will have more of the material things and they are gonna attack eachother first.. I feel whites should avoid this game and try to play it smarter. War should be the last resort. See we just need to be smart.. thats all.. Work in our communities, volunteer even, get to know people. There are many non violent ways to solve this race issue. Just let the muds go at it with eachother and the mestizos just like they do now, and lets be the smart ones and only use what you have for weapons in defense or to stop someone else doing something bad, however whites also should not be in the wrong place at the wrong time in ghettos either.
    My take is this whole thing will be survival of the smartest and fittest. Smarts and healthiness both are big factors.
  17. apollonian Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,179
    Reputation:
    -9,261,105
    Ratings Received:
    +547 / 216 / -1,647
    Giovanni: u gotta break ur text into more readable, hence smaller, paragraphs to make it easier for the dumb-shits on this site (not me, of course).

    Note "white" is abstraction which requires definition. Proper focus in NOT NOT NOT on "whites" vs. anyone, but rather anti-semitism--all gentiles can and must unite against kikes and their collaborators behind Christian front.

    On this site, for example, we have a notorious and noxious clique of Jews and accomplices known as "Buffoons bureau"--ck under "community" heading at top of page. These buffoon scum must and will be exterminated. Take care. A.
  18. Mr. Prac ϟϟ ✞ 卐

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    2,330
    Reputation:
    4,514,451
    Ratings Received:
    +513 / 8 / -15
    lol @ crapo criticizing the format of others' posts.
  19. apollonian Bar Regular

    Member Since:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Message Count:
    6,179
    Reputation:
    -9,261,105
    Ratings Received:
    +547 / 216 / -1,647
    * * * * *

    --says buffoon moron, mr. puke
  20. Bluto Drunken lout

    Member Since:
    Apr 22, 2010
    Message Count:
    7,769
    Reputation:
    40,105,543
    Ratings Received:
    +8,085 / 37 / -138
    Good one, sticknigger. :rolleyes:

Share This Page