link sources for those numbers or GTFO.

also
>implying this wont re-ignite survival of the fittest like humanity so sorely needs
>implying this will be a bad thing.

>>3279204

>implying you would survive

Needs more sterilization and one-child policies.

So then how do you propose we solve the situation?

Over population is not a problem.

Only shit hole countries like Africa, India, and China have major population problems.

Basically, the brown races are the only one's suffering from over population, and no one cares anyway.

The US just recently passed 300 million, which is nothing compared to the size and resources the nation has.

with oil production at 85 Million barrels per day Earth's carrying capacity is roughly 10 billion.

Even if we obtain 100% of our energy needs with renewables it won't offset oil production declines (Hubbert Peak).

To replace all transportation with electric vehicles, and all fossil fuel electricity with solar and wind would cost several trillion per year. Given the state of the worlds wealthiest nations (Europe, Japan and the U.S.) this won't happen.

Earth will be lucky to have 3 billion in 2100.

>>3279204
Oh shut up kid. Real people will struggle and die, the environment will take a serious beating. High as fuck food prices.

And survival of the fittest is a lengthy process over thousands of years. We'll "evolve" via technology a lot faster.

It's just going to be a lot of death and suffering and the collapse of ecosystems. No good will come of it.

>>3279234

>Earth will be lucky to have 3 billion in 2100

you know this is absolute bullshit but since we probably won't be around to see that you just decided to throw that sloppy turd of a comment in here anyway.

>>3279233
>implying overpopulation's effects are only felt in India, China, and Africa

United Nations says 9 billion by 2050.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/01/problems-food-population-ba
batunde-osotimehin

there's your proof.

>>3279208
>implying i wouldnt.
i'm a born survivor!

>>3279246
YA CUZ PEOPLE JUST STARVE TO DEATH PEACEFULLY AMIRITE GUIZE!?!?

>>3279241

>No good will come of it.
most of the deaths are going to be brown people. for the 1st world it means higher prices, that we will still be able to cope with, and wars against brown people that we will win easily (considering we will just be stealing their shit, not trying to get them to build a stable democratic nation, in case you decide to throw "lol iraq lol afghanistan" out there).

>>3279246
>>implying we won't be around

>>3279259

yeah pretty much. the wars you see in conjunction with famines in africa are famines caused by wars. famines don't cause wars, they cause dead people.

>>3279241
whoah, dont get mad at me. its not like im in favour of it or anything. i'm not gonna have kids at all. i dont wanna add to the problem.
also
>implying people arnt suffering and dying already.
there will just be a few more of them.

What is with these "survival of the fittest" faggots posing ridiculous notions of hulking muscle-men and ruthless geniuses killing off the sick and frail and generally being brutish thugs? You really think such a pathetic existence is the prime goal of humanity?

Survival of the fittest doesn't mean you have to be the best - you just have to be good enough. There are plenty of ridiculously pathetic littl pointless creatures out there that have been around for millions of years.

Also, overpopulation is a myth.

>>3279260
so your argument that no good will come of it is "in the west we will be paying high prices and fighting many expensive wars against brown people"

thats good? thats your idea of a happy outcome? a massive war? it doesn't matter if the us can win that war, the death count will be massive on both sides. and rising food costs hurt the lower classes in the states quite a bit, many will starve even here. while many more die in wars overseas. thats not a good thing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4171942672579965146

>>3279273
>>overpopulation is a myth.

well we're already overpopulated. and our population is clearly rising. so you couldnt be more wrong

>>3279283
Population density is the unknowable factor, and the only thing the space race would actually help solve.

>>3279283

Funny, I can drive but one mile away to find myself in the middle of nowhere, without a single human being in sight.

Overpopulation only exists in the wasteful paradigm of scarcity. We could easily remedy it if we otherthrew the paralysing grip of oil dependance.

>>3279297
we're overpopulated. there is almost 7 billion of us. the worlds oceans are taking a beating. read the fucking news we are seriously damaging the environment and food prices are on the rise.

>>3279312
But if we could pack everyone into super dense cities, theres alot of land to be reclaimed.

If we continue with urban sprawl, then you're right.

It's still a matter of population density.

Inb4 scientific dictatorship/ genocide.

>>3279306
but we're not going to are we? it would be nice if the species could manage itself and organize itself with utmost efficiency. then 10 billion would be easy. but we're not going to do that. its not on human nature. we will continue to act like we do now and its clearly going to cause hardships and suffering.

and the fact that you can find an area empty of humans is irrelevant. at current consumption levels it takes acres of land to support every human, and not all land is good farm land. and we're adding a billion new mouths to feed every decade.

Al Green
that's why

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/06/15/a-world-of-10-billion/

>>3279326
>>Inb4 scientific dictatorship/ genocide.

or we could at least spread awareness of overpopulation because there is still a massive amount of the general public that is still totally unaware or in denial that there is even a problem.

that wont magically fix the problem. but making people aware that there even is one will change attitudes and priorities so we can as a people start planning for this better.

the amount of ignorance in this thread is astounding. so many in denial. yes, we are overpopulating, i'm sorry. deal with it. but don't pretend it's not happening.

Overpopulation: the general public for the most part doesn't think about it, believe it, or care.

It's not yet cool and trendy to think about overpopulation.

>>3279369

Actually it's NO LONGER trendy or cool. It was the liberal retard thing in the 70's.

>>3279382
the point is whether something is cool or not to care about shouldn't matter. we should care because it's a real problem, and perhaps the most serious problem we're facing right now as a species.

>>3279389

How is it a serious problem? Enlighten me.

Nvm, you can't. People have been crying about it for decades, just like literally every other load of fear-mongering bullshit, and it's not even a problem in theory. Over-population takes care of itself.

Now run along, kid.

>>3279382
this attitude is a problem. so many liberal retards care about overpopulation. so many that now people associate caring about overpopulation with being a liberal retard.

but you don't need to be a liberal retard to care about overpopulation. what's important is that this is a real problem and a major problem for mankind.

>>3279395
why not read the thread before posting. it's explained many times how this is a serious problem. the united nations has declared it a serious problem.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jun/01/problems-food-population-ba
batunde-osotimehin

and furthermore your little theories that there wont be any overpopulation problems don't apply to the human race right now. the problem will not correct itself without an incredible quantity of human suffering and environmental damage.

>>3279395

>Problem will resolve itself.

To quote another guy from earlier today;

"I wish I could hate you to death, you ignorant swine."

It'll be much more spacious once every last baby boomer is mulched, just wait it out

>> People have been crying about it for decades, just like literally every other load of fear-mongering bullshit

What a silly attitude. Our population is increasing at an exponential rate. That's a fact. 6 billion of us ten years ago, another 3 billion on the way within our lifetimes. The 7 billion we have now are already causing massive damage to the ecosystems, there are already food shortages, and they are getting worse.

>>3279426
>>It'll be much more spacious once every last baby boomer is mulched, just wait it out

Oh well I guess i'll just take your word for it instead of trusting multiple UN backed scientific studies on future human population. Population is going up, the baby boomers dieing off is going to slow the rate of growth but only slightly, our numbers will still rise.

>>3279438

but we'll just be next in line for death

get your priorities in order

>>3279409
I'm not the man you're arguing with, but he's correct in a sense. There's a metabolic limit to what this planet can support; a maximum amount of energy that can be harvested, and a minimum amount of energy required for an individual to survive. Its dinizens live in equilibrium with that metabolic limit. A number of interesting things have happened to change this equilibrium: neolithic revolution, industrial methods, and so on. But nevertheless, there is a finite upper bound to the human population which will not be reached. As we get closer to it, people will starve to death until humanity is sustainable.

Solution, draft millions of people into slave labour, building the things we need for renewable resources.

Eventually someone will start a war because slavery is bad, and we'll be back to living as we are, only with all the benefits of the slavery era.

>>3279447

>>But nevertheless, there is a finite upper bound to the human population which will not be reached. As we get closer to it, people will starve to death until humanity is sustainable.

YOU'RE RIGHT. Yes. Of course you are. But that's the problem. There will be a massive amount of human suffering when we reach that limit. And we could ride the edge of that population limit with all its suffering for decades or longer. And along with all these suffering millions the environment will take severe damage. Humanity has already caused a mass extinction of life on this planet, many more will go extinct.

>>3279461
Yeah, but we're in America. We wont be the ones suffering.

And yet we still draft laws against the gays because they dare not breed...

>>3279450
your solution to all the human suffering and environmental disaster of overpopulation is war.

thats not a good solution. in the entire history of the human race our overall population is always increasing. war can slow that down but it wont stop it. and once we reach the limit of what this planet can sustain (and we will within a mere hundred years or less reach that limit) war still wont bring our numbers down. it never has. it only slows us down. it's not a permanent solution

>>3279465
Tax breaks for non-breeders. I'm okay with this.

>>3279464
>>Yeah, but we're in America. We wont be the ones suffering.

Does that really matter? Human suffering is human suffering. And if you think the US is invincible against the teeming billions of non-us humans soon starving and demanding resources you're a fool.

At the very least food will be very expensive and there will be a few wars. Meanwhile there will still be massive suffering in other countries. And during all this massive environmental damage.

>>3279484
>>Tax breaks for non-breeders. I'm okay with this.

agreed. the rest of the world could also learn from chinas one child policy. not a perfect policy but if it helps slow down overpopulation well worth it. it'll have to wait till the last minute though, the general public would not support it right now because so few are aware of the problem or care.

>>3279491
In Australia it's the opposite. The government pays women to have babies. Google the "baby bonus" or in lieu of that, they'll pay your maternity leave. Should be the opposite. Most of those mothers are ferals who want the bonus to buy rum and cigarettes.

They will just synthesize a new super-virus; perhaps simply update AIDS to airborne status.

>>3279494
>>Most of those mothers are ferals who want the bonus to buy rum and cigarettes.

we get this in canada too. women who make a career out of spitting out babies. it's quite stupid since babies also cost so much. but they invest as little money into these children as they can to make that meager profit. only the dumbest women think this is financially wise.

anyways just because countries like canada and australia are underpopulated in the short term doesnt mean the world wont be overpopulated in the long term. some countries will be the last to suffer greatly but with human population growing as fast as it does their time will come soon.

>>3279474
War was not the solution I provided, slavery was.

The war would end the slavery when it was no longer required. Unless of course, people could acknowledge when slaves were no longer required, then free them all, but what are the chances of that? Hence the war.

Lowering the population is not the solution you want. We should be aiming to have the capacity for a higher population.

The higher the population, the more workers, great minds etc... that are born.

But agreed, in the mean-time, until we can support more people, we need to keep the pop count under control.

>>They will just synthesize a new super-virus; perhaps simply update AIDS to airborne status.

Right. "They"

there will be virus's and plagues evolving naturally to wipe out populations. but the biggest plague to hit manking, the black plague, only halted human population it did not reverse it, and it only halted human population in europe and it did so by killing off 1 in every 3 people.

get that? 1 in 3 humans have to die for a population to stabilize rather then grow. when the human population reaches its limit about 1 in every 3 or 4 or 6 or so people will die off, and the population wont go down it will only stabilize and only if the death count doesn't stop.

From 1960 to 2000, the world’s population doubled from three to six billion people

religion

>guns
>people still think survival of the fittest means anything to humanity anymore

goddamn, no wonder why everyone hates atheists.

>>3279545
not to mention how natural selection takes thousands of years to develop dramatic results.

>>From 1960 to 2000, the world’s population doubled from three to six billion people

There is a point where this has to stop and we have clearly passed it.

none of you will starve, we all live in first world nations with an abundance of food and clean water.

>>3279557

see this >>3279486

If you've been watching the news recently major studies have just been released regarding the oceans future. And basically we're fucked. Just google it, it's on literally every major news site.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/21/3249755.htm?section=justin

>>3279551
Read "The Greatest show on Earth", sure, thousands of years are required for speciation to occur, but you can get dramatic change within our lifetime.

>That feel when I'm going to survive and have 3 kids.

>>3279582
and will these "dramatic changes" be "totally worth it"

totally worth the billions of people suffering and mass extinctions and total destruction of the environment. totally worth it because we're "too soft" and need to "man up" and "become awesome with war and apocolypse". give me a break

>>3279566
none of that effects me. I am certainly empathetic to their suffering, but if it were to come to such a thing I'd be more worried about my family and friends than a bunch of starving people I've never met in my entire life.

>>3279605
>i don't care if my species survives i only care about myself and my family

sure thing kid. let the adults handle this then.

Mormons contribute a lot to overpopulation.

In National Geographic they said the entire human population could fit into the city of Los Angelos.

>>3279624
Why do you care if the species survives?

>>3279663
yeah if you stacked them in coffins and piled them up high to the sky. not much use that

>>3279675
Why don't you? What could be more important?

>>3279652
P.S.
>ITT: Elitist douches.

>>3279680
You assume I don't care.

I asked why you care.

giving a fuck about the species or the planet doesn't make one an elitist douche.

pretending that you're too cool to care about the species. that your apathy somehow makes you awesome. that is being an elitist douche.

>>3279709
Because there will be a mass amount of human suffering and environmental damage. I have every right to be bothered about that, we all do.

>>3279211
>>3279211
>>3279211

LOL ppl r starving, therefore there isn't enough food.

>In 2008, 1.5 billion adults, 20 and older, were overweight. Of these over 200 million men and nearly 300 million women were obese.

Looks like a real global famine going on here. Overpopulation is obviously to blame.

The united states alone already supports the food needs of the entire population of Earth, we have an overabundance of food which is why we literally PAY people NOT TO PLANT THEIR CROPS.

The entire population of Earth could be supported in California alone. Overpopulation is simply a mismanagement of the Earth's resources and a failure of distribution. There is simply no economic benefit to give people food who have no money.

Examine every single instance of the last century of people starving and I will show you a corrupt government.

OVERPOPULATION IS A MYTH. Go fuck yourselves.

There is surely some point at which the human population can outgrow the planets resources. We're just not there yet. While there are billions starving, there is at least another billion stuffing it's face with all the red meat they can find, and burning corn in their cars so they can drive to their weight watchers meetings.

>>3279523
>The higher the population, the more workers, great minds etc... that are born.

Maybe 200 years ago when the population of Europe was increasing, and there were great minds in places like Germany and England who helped invent the technology we have now.

But since most of the population growth now is in Africa, I doubt any minds of value are going to appear, their IQs are just too low.

The world isn't overpopulated, but I'm glad to see OP is at least working for a cause he thinks is real by not reproducing and being a faggot.

>>3279793
Its not mismanagement. Its energy intensive. You would be exporting wanted to places withou it.

>>3279297
How the fuck would space help? Even 'cheap' space flight would be ungodly expensive compared to trans-continental travel, not to mention the cost to build space habitation.

Great job, OP. You're just like every other person who preaches overpopulation. Pointing out that there are too many people on the planet, and insinuating that they need to be rid of by some way. Why don't you step up and be the first one to contribute to de-populating the planet?

The world is not overpopulated.
But if you're stupid enough to believe it is feel free to commit suicide and help stem your imaginary problem

>>3279793

You have a good point. We are managing resources poorly. But that doesn't change the fact that we likely won't get our act together. And awareness needs to be raised about that.

There will be an overwhelming amount of human suffering and massive environmental damages with every extra billion. This is going to be a serious problem.

>THE WORLD IS NOT OVERPOPULATED

But it's going to be soon is the point.

>>3279841
>>3279892
>>3279893

>>3279905
It really only gets to be a problem when the standard of living for more of the population goes from un grain rations to cheeseburgers and SUVs.

>>3279892
Fucking population control, how does it work?

>>3279918
>>It really only gets to be a problem when the standard of living for more of the population goes from un grain rations to cheeseburgers and SUVs.

yes. and that will take only decades. a mere hundred years from now at least this will happen. and then as you said, it will be a problem.

This thread has opened my mind and my bowels.

That's only China, India and some other Asian countries
Its their problem not ours

looks good up there guys. good discussion.

>>3279977
fail at long term planning. fail at global affairs and economics. fail for completely disregarding the environmental impacts.

"Foresight is strong in individuals and a weak in masses."
- anonymous

If you have a yard you're not living in a over populated area

>>3279999
Oh god I know where this is heading
You're a tree hugger that thinks everyone should die so we can save some trees
Well let me tell you something
humans>nature
Get it through your thick skull

>>3280033
You're missing the point. The point is we as a species aren't managing our shit, people are starving, and the environmental impact is massive.

The planet can handle 7 billion even with our poor resource management. And it can handle 9.3 billion by 2050, but there will be hardships due to human failure in management.

We won't distribute resources properly and we will starvation and we will continue to have an increasing impact on already straining ecosystems.

There is a huge difference between the damage over 6 billion humans are causing and the damage when that number nearly doubles within mere decades. There will be a great deal of hardship.

>>3280059
People are starving because they have a lot of kids
They have a lot of kids because they know that many of them will die due to starvation
The problem is solving itself as nations become wealthier. Quit worrying about it.

Am I the only one who thinks Gay Marriage is a good thing for only this reason? If there are a bunch of gay couples, the population will start to thin as the family trees die off due to lack of spawn.

I feel like at this point in life, gay marriage is 100% needed for stability in our world. That being said, I'm still going to populate it. Fuck dicks.

>>3280044
bit obvious trolling there.

we're not talking about saving a few trees. we're talking about a continuing cycle of mass extinctions and exponentially driving towards environmental collapse across multiple ecosystems (especially the ocean, google news that) and it is not good for humans.

And that would be very very bad for the human race. In case you hadn't noticed fish is the main protein source for 1/3 of humanity. Collapsing fish stocks due to very probably ocean ecosystem collapse and coral reef extinction and bad fishing practices is going to be a problem. One of many obvious problems.

>>3279199
****WATCH THIS****

There is no such thing as over population DAMNIT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZVOU5bfHrM

>>3280072
>>The problem is solving itself

no. you idiot. we will reach around 9.3 billion by 2050. that is what the united nations and the international scientific community suggests. this is happening.

and 9.3 billion people and rising is going to put a super massive strain on the environment and food supplies due to human nature poor resource management.

it doesn't mean the apocalypse but it does mean serious problems and it's clearly a legitimate concern.

>>3280091
***ALSO THIS***
This video is actually better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBS6f-JVvTY

>>3280091
>implying overpopulation has ANYTHING to do with how much space people take up

You fucking idiot. Don't you EVER post such shit, again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

>>3280091
OK I will deconstruct the arguments made in this video.

>>A bunch of people through the years made false population predictions. Therefore all population predictions are false.

A few people making predictions that turn out false happens in literally every aspect of predicting the future. It doesn't mean anything if a few people are wrong.

>>every family on this planet could have a house and food for life and no starvation or hardships and all live in texas.

Yeah that's nice. But is that going to happen? Clearly not. So whats your point? Also that's a pretty wild claim. Super fucking mario couldn't make that leap.

The UN says 9.3billion by 2050, most scientists agree. We're already poorly managing resources at 6 billion. The environment is not doing so well. The ocean is on the brink of collapse in the coming decades if we don't change our ways according to recent studies that have been all over major news in the last week.

We're already having problems and human nature being what it is we're not fixing them. 9.3 billion is a lot more then 6 billion. There will be a lot of strain on food supply and the environment. It doesn't mean the apocalypse, but it does mean our species and the planet will have a great deal of difficulties in the decades ahead.

This is real people. This is happening. Get it through your heads.

>>3280160

Meh.

>>3280171

Sure there are hundreds of acres of farmland/pastures/fishable seas that are required to support all the people in the world but it just seems weird that all the people in the world could live in city the size of texas with NYCs' population density.
The problems with overpopulation, seem to be a complex engineering/technology problem. More efficient use of farmland, "renewable" energies, water supply recycling and conservation.

As people become more wealthy they eat more, and less land efficient food. Meaning very poor developing world citizens eat less meats and more grains/veggies. Rices for most meals and meats rarely, and even then they're the cheaper meats that consume less sq ft/water/time to maturity. This could be potentially solved by lab grown meat. Reducing energy spent by as much as 45%, land use by 99%, water by 96%, 96% less greenhouse emissions.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-lab-grown-meat-emissions-energy.html

Not saying overpopulation isn't a big deal, but with some innovation and a lot of effort it can be solved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkgDhDa4HHo

>>3280181
A valuable post thankyou. This is what happens when people plan ahead and worry about the future. More people need to be aware of this kind of thing. We as a species need to change our ways.

The world could fit a hell of a lot more people than it does. If the entire world's population were living in a city as dense as Houston Texas, we could fit everyone in under half of the United States and easily feed them all. It's all about being able to manage food.

>>3280182

>>3280181
>>3280213
Well that's what I get for forgetting to press enter on my post, someone beat me too it with more information!

>>3280213
Nothing, at all, to do with land taken up.

>>3280213
>>The world could fit a hell of a lot more people than it does. If the entire world's population were living in a city as dense as Houston Texas, we could fit everyone in under half of the United States and easily feed them all. It's all about being able to manage food.

In a perfect world we would do that. This is far short of a perfect world, we are far short of a perfect species. The reality of what will happen is huge mistakes and fighting and bad habits and poor resource management and environmental disaster, because we are human.

>>3280269
If the entire world's population were living in a city as dense as Houston Texas

>>3280213

I don't think you realize how big that is. Sure it seem much smaller than the rest of the world combined. But a city as dense as Houston? Could we really do a highly urbanized area that spans the entire midwest, north and south? That would be one hell of an infrastructure.

>>3280294
Yes it would be. I imagine something like that would necessitate a Police State of some kind. Feeding them wouldn't be that hard, but feeding them food that people want in portions they are used to probably would be.

Not to mention what kinds of effects a terrorist attack would do or a natural disaster.

>>3280282
I didn't imply it was realistic. But most of the problems of overpopulation have to do with poor countries in shit-holes not being able to feed themselves, and being too underpoliced and uneducated to do anything about themselves.

>>3280160
Life, uhh, will find a way.

>>3280294
If most of the American and Canadian midwest areas were used for food we would have enough to feed such a population if you combine it with fishing..

>>3280091
How insipid.

sounds like you need to develop a dispersant sterilizer or figure out some method of population control that does not offend the tender sensibilities of the West's morality.


Perhaps it is easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission.

Don't fuck in the front hole.

>>3280335
Or we could raise the average income of the poorest nations. That would really bring down birth rates.

>>3280324
Except we're already overfishing the ocean.

>>we could raise the average income of the poorest nations

but we're clearly not going to are we. and that would only slow population growth it would not stabilize it.

>>3280335
Stabilize disease and famine in poor countries and abolish their subsistence lifestyles. Then condoms everywhere.

Also get rid of poor people in the developed world who end up having too many kids. I'd think some of those people should be sterilized once they reach a point that they can't support themselves.

>>3280345
Though much of the seafood fished isn't ever eaten. It ends up being thrown away. Not only that but 20% of all the food ever produced by us is eaten by rats.

>>3280343
You have a better chance of trying to tell the Catholics and Muslims to importance of maintaining a low birth rate.


We will not improve the living conditions of the majority of the planet in the time it takes for them to overproduce beyond comprehension. Improvements in life expectancy in the 20th century has resulted in an exponential explosion of surviving offspring.

>>3280380
Beyond Comprehension? Really?

Maybe in the third world, or India. But for the rest of the world the population is already stabilizing or going down. The only reason it's not going down or stabilizing faster is because of immigrants being brought in to help fund jobs.

>>3280393
And Europe is being overrun by fundie Muslims. Guess what? That's not going to decrease anytime soon.

The West is too squeamish to wall off the wonderful, civilized parts of the planet because it they want to treat every human equally.

The rest of the planet has no fucking problem with beating women and spitting out babies without planning for their life.


And guess where those overpopulated, uncivilized cultures invade?


Overpopulation is no going away. It is becoming much worse.

>>3280380
Also about famine and disease. If you look at demographics and history, famine is usually caused by war. People who are starving can barely put up a fight.

Most First Worldcountries won't even notice mass-starvation in Africa or the poorer parts of Southeast Asia. The distances prevent them going to war over food and water with them. Even if they did, they would lose horribly due to superior technology and attempting to openly fight for something.

The biggest problem will be immigrants from these places trying to go to the First World. That and natural resources, but I'm way more concerned about our depleting Helium than I am of oil. At least we can substitute other things for oil.

Malthusian nightmare!

>>3280422
Yes, but food shortages will never become a problem in most first world countries. Parts of Europe might eventually start having to do things to feed their people or deal with their immigrants, but North America can easily sustain itself.

And also, not all of the radical islamists are just hanging around having babies. A large percentage of the turks in Germany end up giving up Islamd and their children tend to have alcohol problems and less children.

>>3280380
>We will not improve the living conditions of the majority of the planet in the time it takes for them to overproduce beyond comprehension. Improvements in life expectancy in the 20th century has resulted in an exponential explosion of surviving offspring.
Only to an extent. High infant mortality is one of the biggest problems for overpopulation. You heard me right. Lowering infant mortality rates would decrease the population.

The people having the most children on the planet are the people who live in the poorest regions with the highest infant mortality rate. They NEED children to survive later in life, but the survival of their children is less than assured due to poor survival rates. So what do they do? They fuck and fuck and fuck until they've had 18 children, between 8 and 15 of which survive. As soon as medical services improve in a region birthrates go down.

That is a major reason why birthrates are so low in post-industrial countries. The chances of a child surviving to adulthood are nearly 100% so families tend to have either one or two children.

lol, 133 replies and not a single person has mentioned fertility rate, which is the primary factor involved in calculating how quickly earth's population will grow and when growth will stop

this thread is balls and made of trolls and fail

spoiler: you need a fertility rate of about 2.2 to grow at all, anything below and you're shrinking; world fertility rates have been trending down since world war 2 and will continue to trend down, they are currently at about 2.33. Wanna know why people are having less babies? Read a fucking book. I recommend "The Next 100 Years", it's available via audio book for you retards out there.

Or you can just watch this ted video: http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

Question regarding China's One-Child policy: Is it actually having any noticeable effect on population? If you were to simplify it to a birth/death ratio (ignoring immigration, etc.), then within a few generations, their population should be less than half. One child born for every two people, then you consider the fact that not everybody will have children, and simplistically speaking, that SHOULD have a huge impact once the older generations die out. There's also the fact that many couples may choose to have a boy (I've heard about many female fetuses being aborted, no idea how true that is though), which would also lead to a gender imbalance, further lowering the population within a generation.

That said, how long has it been in effect? Because I haven't heard anything about China's population dropping significantly as of yet. What is the expected outcome of it. I'm not trying to express an opinion for or against here, I just don't really know much about the situation...

And half of these people (the world population) are dependent on something that is going to run out or become prohibitively expensive in the next 20 years.

I'm going to the gun range tomorrow. I think that is going to be an important life skill.

If only we could build up, rather than out.

If only we could grow supercrops with extremely high yields.

If only we had massive amounts of surplus food which goes to waste which had the capacity to be redistributed to feed people less fortunate.

Oh wait we have all those things.

>>3281442

If only the people making the big decisions were interested in more than money, power and their own isolated well-being.

If only the masses were strong enough to break out of their consumer hypnotization and do something about it.

Oh well, im convinced its going to be absolute 1980s movie style post apocalyptic chaos by 2030 in western society. We have almost completely succeeded in making it so you can't live off the land with out the aid of technology. And imported food.

I think all the brown people will have a population implosion then go back to their traditional ways of living. They haven't jumped off the technology edge and become dependent like we have.


Remember that saying about any population is 3 meals away from chaos. You cut off the food for a whole day with out any hope of purchasing a meal tomorrow and shit will explode.

>>3281442
>>3281463

Shipping the food would probably cost a number of times its actual worth. This is one reason we don't do it.

>>3280455
First world countries suffer from topsoil loss die to overfarming just like third world countries do. Remember the Dust Bowl?

>>3280324
90% of fish stocks are gone. Bad idea.

If we can support all those people, then it's not overpopulation.

And if you believe world is overpopulated, don't just talk about it and do something. I suggest killing yourself.

>>3281548
>And if you believe world is overpopulated, don't just talk about it and do something. I suggest killing yourself.

What an incredibly stupid idea. Removing one person would not solve the problem. Especially if the person being removed was one of the ones who recognized that there was a problem in the first place, rather than some idiot who thought

>If we can support all those people, then it's not overpopulation.

that overshoot never happened and biodiversity wasn't necessary.

Oh wow, it's like I'm really on /b/! Keep up the great discussion, guys!

Use condoms.

Science/medicine/technology are the reasons why human populations have exploded. Survival made easy.

And we can't support much more without damaging the ecology of life on earth. Species of plants and animals are going extinct at a record pace. It's just a matter of time before human life is unsustainable on earth.

ok i have a solution it actualy solves 2 problems ... just kill all the fucking religous people i mean the hardcore once that all they do is give birth to new tards and pray to a fairy tale god stupid fucks

It's seriously time to chlorinate the gene pool.

>>3281609
Well good news, the world population won't grow luch larger (forcasted stabilization at 10 billion)

Those who think there will be no overpopulation crisis are naive dreamers. Remember your words now, you'll be eating them in the coming decades. And washing them down with a $10 glass of milk.

>>3281609
But it is impressive to know that there has been a point where there were as many human living than dead.

>>3279204
>>3279208
>>3279250
>>3279256
>>3279263
>>3279270

Population in developing countries in levelling out.

Also:

http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_on_global_population_growth.html

Here's your solution.

>>3282339
How does it concern me ?
I don't give a fuck if africans can't into food.

SUGGESTION

1. Sneak chemical sterilization drugs in 4/5 of food aid.
2. Send to poor/brown nations.
3. ????
4. PROFIT!

Even if you believe the population will stabilize at around 10 billion. Even if you think better resource management and we could support ourselves...

THERE WILL STILL BE AN OVERPOPULATION PROBLEM
Fact: Human beings won't co-operate and share resources properly, we won't make the lifestyle changes needed. This is already causing mass starvation in some places, as our population almost doubles so will the scope of this problem. Human nature is not going to change, we will never share our resources with anything close to perfect efficiency.

Fact: The population will be around 9.3 billion by 2050. That's the opinion of the United Nations who gathered together scientists from across the world for lengthy hardcore research and discussion.

Fact: We've already had a major destructive impact on the environment. Many species have gone extinct at the hands of man.
Fact: Doubling the population is going to make that a lot worse.

Fact: There is a problem

Rising food prices are already having an effect IN THE WEST. IN THE UNITED STATES. Food prices are rising faster then inflation.

NOW LETS DOUBLE THE POPULATION IN 4 DECADES. If you think food is still cheap in the west after that you're a fool. Prepare to pay a fuck of a lot for food even here.

Your "nothing bad can ever ever possibly happen to america ever" attitude is not doing credit to your intelligence.

Furthermore the environmental impacts effect us all. As the poor starving people of other countries rape the already stressed and collapsing ocean ecosystem that effects the US too. Because we have the same oceans.

You will feel the strain America.

It scares me how many retards think that over population isn't real. Anyway retards will be retards there isn't much we can do about it. The only thing that could save the us and the planet at the moment is a mass genocide or something. Revive Hitler.

>>3282416
>save the planet
Yeah 'cause 5 or 10 billion it really makes a difference for the planet.

Here's how we kill all the retards: Invent a sound and picture combo that instantly causes an epileptic death. Broadcast that sound and picture over tv during an episode of jersey shore.

problem solved

>overpopulation

we produce food for 12 billion people. give all those middle ages chinese farmers modern tech and we are at 18 billion.

bring it on, fuckers.

>>3282431

>Yeah 'cause 5 or 10 billion it really makes a difference for the planet.

Implying it won't

There's already too many helpless children dieing of malnutrition as we speak. Slowly, painfully, and they're crying. And it will get worse. It doesn't matter if they're american or not, they're just children, they cannot help themselves and they are in pain. You don't want that.

It doesn't matter if we can do something to stop it, because were not making it stop it are we? The people who give a fuck like you and me don't have the power to stop it. The people who do have the power to stop it don't have the give a fuck. This will not change.

This will get worse. We don't want this to happen. Also the environment damn.

>>3282431
>>Yeah 'cause 5 or 10 billion it really makes a difference for the planet.

I agree, but with no sarcasm. It really does make a big difference. That's quite obvious. Common sense really.

>>3282495
>Using children to appeal emotion
I fucking hate people like you.

>>3279204
>re-ignite survival of the fittest like humanity so sorely needs

EK, you truly are a retard. Society does not "need" survival of the fittest. The age of embryonic selection is already dawning.

>>3282521

Seriously that shit should be illegal

>>3282539
Someone obviously forgot that EK was a failed abortion

>Make only sustainable fish stocks legal to fish from.

>Contraceptives for all, catholic church needs to allow contraceptives. Too many poor catholic countries not using condoms. Too many poor people period don't have access to condoms, make them rain from the fucking sky and force them on at gunpoint if need be.

>The governments need to begin advertising the problems caused by our population and how things will get worse. The media needs to begin discussing this more. This needs to be made common knowledge, the general public needs to be made aware for real change to have the driving force it needs.

>And then we will need one child policies
>Continuing technological and scientific advancements in lowering environmental impact
>The public will and funding to adapt and use in mass new green technologies
>And we need to eat less beef and go with more sustainable animals. Cattle are very inefficient protein sources by land use unless they're dairy. And their methane emissions are the third greatest source of global warming and the easiest to reduce.
>and we need to get better at distributing our resources. the public made aware of the problem will help drive this. because ultimately it is the general public that is distributing most of the resources.
>we need to change some ways of life to make smaller impacts, mainly by eating less meat and more local vegetables.

>>3282495
>lack of argument
>talk about dying kids
>ohhoworiginal.jpg

>>3282555
>>3282521

>>>Using children to appeal emotion
I fucking hate people like you.

It's not a logical fallacy. Emotional issues can be real issues. Some news is sad. We need to be aware of the sad realities and not ignore them because "hurr duurr eemotions!". Millions of children dieing is a real problem, how emotionally stunted are you that you don't realize this?

>>3282555
>>3282521
>>3282571

You must be at that age where a man assumes all emotion is illogical or somehow unmanly or not scientific. As you get older you'll realize that emotion is very real for all of us and cannot be switched off only understood and calmly dealt with. I place your age at about 16-18, or an immature early twenties.

Children dieing is a legitimate argument and fact.

1st world educated people have no children
3rd world uneducated savages have 8 children

>>3282607
Actually it says first world countries have on average 1.5 to 2 kids not 0

What do you think about the ethics of euthenasia for the 'mentally ill' and depressed people who WANT to die? Coming from the perspective of someone who is depressed I think it would end a lot of mental suffering and at the same time reduce the population.

TBH I think that euthenasia for the chronically mentally ill will become legal at some point in the future, perhaps in 50 years or so. Dignitas (the Swiss company that assist the suicide of the terminally ill) have already tried it once.

>>3282634
Not him, but still you can see the problem with people droning about overpopulation.

All of the West is going to have a population crash in another 50 years full of elderly people. The same is going to happen to China.

Japan and Korea can not really sustain their elderly populations anymore and they're already trying to use as many machines and robotics as they can to replace that part of the workforce, especially Japan which is xenophobic as hell.

>>3282659
People who want to die should be allowed to die if there's no way to medicate it or treat their depression.

>>3282607
People who complain about overpopulation should see this.

In the future the only way to keep our population from becoming full of old useless people will be killing them, which will NEVER happen, or accepting boatloads of dangerous or uneducated immigrants to fill the dregs of society.

>>3282666
It doesn't matter. Majority of scientists suggest 9.3 billion by 2050. The UN agrees.

That's enough people to cause pressure in our lifetime. A lot of it. That's the reality of the situation.

>>3282495
People like you who complain about starving people are unrealistic. The reason these babies in Africa are starving is because their families are refugees. It's not a problem of too many people(well not REALLY), it's a probably of subsistence farmers being forced from their land due to war or mobs of third world douchebags.


People complaining about food are idiots. We can easily feed more of the world if it were closer together. People complaining about rising food costs are silly. It's all about oil costs. If we use electric vehicles, food costs would plummet again.

>>3282678
Yeah sure, if we still let them in from Africa and India. People don't look at WHERE the problem is. If we ignore it, it will fix itself in a very inhumane way.

>>3282676
Killing the old is something that's been done before... eskimos used to kill the old members of their groups so that they didn't prevent the group from moving on so they could hunt.

>>3282678
In fact, many countries in Europe have a declining population. The only ones that don't are the ones with lax immigration laws, and the only European country showing any actual growth from the native European population is the United Kingdom.

>>3282607
It seems like much of the third world has the range of the first. cept africa.

>>3282705
Not really. They either didn't feed them, or the elderly tended to leave on their own for the betterment of the tribe.

Do you really see society or our self-entitled elderly doing either of these on a large scale?

>>Majority of scientists suggest 9.3 billion by 2050. The UN agrees.

>>That's enough people to cause pressure in our lifetime. A lot of it. That's the reality of the situation.

>>3282693
but we're not going to do any of that. thats's what i said. that's the problem.

>>3282695
>>If we ignore it, it will fix itself in a very inhumane way.

Yes. this is true. that's the problem.

Also the environment.

>>3282721
I think not feeding someone until they die pretty much classifies as killing them

If it ever becomes a problem governments will act. The UK, US etc will not have their resources challenged in the event of a world crisis. You might see rich countries being nice to the 3rd world nations now but once the population of the world increases too much and resources begin to run out they will be leaving them with nothing.

If the 8 richest countries in the world kept to their own affairs and looked after their own citizens, pretty much everyone in Africa would die out. Africa is a giant, cancerous version of Israel - it needs western support simply to survive at the rate it is doing.

>>3282710
What's your point? 9.3 billion is going to be a strain on resources wherever they are. And that strain will reach even the first world by way of rising food prices. And fish stock collapse.

Overpopulation is only a problem for one reason: Resources.

Not everyone can have nice things when there isn't even close to enough of stuff to go around.

The only solution is space

>>3282810
>>If it ever becomes a problem governments will act.

Governments are too shortsighted to act, they only care about what happens in their own lifetime or they see ahead as far as the next election. They should be acting now because....

There is no "if" it ever becomes a problem. There will be over 9 billion in the coming decades. That is happening. That is real. The UN and most scientists agree. And at the rate we're going this will cause problems.

Honestly arguing with that makes you seem like a moron.

>>3282820
space is the very long term solution. we need to find a cheaper way to get things into orbit. right now the cheapest we can do is a thousand dollars per pound on the falcon 9 heavy.

colonies in space will need regular shipments from earth of the stuff they can't get for themselves for a long while before we develop fully self sufficient asteroid and martian colonies. and that is very expensive.

eventually we'll spread into space I hope. but that wont come in time to ease any pressure off the population crises of the next few decades.

As cheesy as it sounds; perhaps we should think of something we can do RIGHT NOW instead of philosophising about whether something will be done about overpopulation or not...

>>3282839
9.3 billion by 2050. That's not the distant future, you will be alive for it. This is happening RIGHT NOW. And any changes will happen slowly which is why what we need to do most of all right now is spread awareness.

>>3282846
Ok but we can raise awareness by DOING something like making a petition instead of just talking!

From this United Nations press release:
http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/other-information/Press_Release_WPP2010.pdf

", reaching 9.3 billion by the middle of this
century, according to the medium variant of the 2010 Revision of World Population
Prospects, the official United Nations population projection"

The only solution is widespread AIDS, WWIII and another holocaust

>>3282863
You are completely right. Let's get on it. Are you in?

Can someone create an IRC room for this? We could get together and work on this.

>>3282568 something like this as the proposed solution

and so we maybe loic the popes website, knock it down, and make a press release saying we did it as protest against their contraceptive policy especially in regards to population pressure.

All the rich people will be living on the moon by the turn of the century, the final bastions of civilized society. The plundered remains back on Earth will be squabbled over after Kurt Russel finally dies.

This thread proves this board is just as stupid as /b/.

>>3282931
>>This thread proves this board is just as stupid as /b/.

huurr durrr caring about a real problem is dumb you guys just get laid and be cool derp hurrr

Cheap energy would solve everything. If the energy catalyzer pans out(we'll see when they put their first power plant online in Greece on October and Rossi finally lets the cat out of the bag in how his invention works once his patents go through) then it would solve that problem. If it does what he claims it does, we'll have a cheap, environment friendly energy source that uses small amounts of nickel and hydrogen to work.

After that, we'll be able to solve food/water shortages with vertical farming/hydroponics and desalination plants (which all need lots of power to be effective).

After that, 3rd world countries will be able to increase their living standards when basic needs are no longer a problem. This will allow them to build infrastructure, increase education and build up their economies. Along with this, developed nations will have no need to fight wars over resources.

With living standards increased, people in developing nations will have less of a need to have 8/9 children to ensure their survival.

After that, population levels will level off(America/Europe) or drop, like in Japan. I mean, most educated people don't even WANT to have children. I know I don't.

>>3282950
Thanks for further proving my point.

>>3282953

And all the waste goes where?

The minerals and other supplies necessarily to produce these items bringing the 3rd world up into the first come from where?

If we held the population steady right now at 7 billion we are still going to cause a global collapse of all major ecosystems.

There is a major problem with the perspective western society has, and nobody seems to want to talk about it.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/21/3249755.htm?section=justin

EVERYONE READ THAT the whole thing. the whole article. read it.

over the next two decades our need for fresh water will be 40 per cent greater than today’s, the UN predicts. By 2025, two-thirds of the world’s population could be living under water-stressed conditions (when demand can’t be fully satisfied).

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/06/15/a-world-of-10-billion/

>>3283388

That will never happen to America. FUCK YEAH!

>>3283388 Implying that the cost of desalination a yeara supple of water for 1 person is more than a 12oz deerpark water bottle.

OP is gay and so is everybody agreeing with him.

UN is gay anyway, especially UNESCO.

Let's just get rid of all gays and lesbians. they cant reproduce anyway. amirite guise?
WAIT the fact that im 26 and never had a GF will look suspicious to them and they'll kill me too

>>3283501
>>3283483

9.3 billion is going to be a strain on resources wherever they are. And that strain will reach even the first world by way of rising food prices. And fish stock collapse. It will effect the US.

>>3283501
>>3283501

Hope you have enough money to hire and feed body guards too. This is going to be everybodies problem.

>>3283514
>>Let's just get rid of all gays and lesbians. they cant reproduce anyway. amirite guise?
WAIT the fact that im 26 and never had a GF will look suspicious to them and they'll kill me too

kill the people that aren't breeding to solve overpopulation? that doesn't make any sense

>>3283516
>Switzerland
>never occupied
>Armed with bars of gold
>Food is already insanely expensive here so that already happened lol.

It might make my salad a bit more expensive but I will feel no major effects, these things take time to hit the wealthiest societies.

I will be long dead before there's is food/water-shortage here..

Might be a problem for further generations though...

>>3279233
>Only shit hole countries like Africa, India, and China have major population problems.
>Only shit hole countries like Africa
>Africa is a country

Why was I the first person in the thread to catch this, I mean, I know we aren't a geography board but

>>3283531
>>3283531

It will make your salad a lot more expensive not a little. The fact that Switzerland already has high food prices just means it will be hit harder.

And it will happen in your lifetime. The world population will gradually almost double in the next 50 years.

>>3283531

A barrel of oil goes to $300 because of rising demand from China/India and decreased supply from the middle east.

Petroleum based fertilizer and pesticide costs go up %100.Harvesting and transporting operations have also seen massive cost of operations increases.

A tomato now costs $8. Shit just got real. This is something that could easily happen in 10 years.

I know 3 people who got a kid this year

They are all under 20

>>3283524
then let's kill all the people that are breeding, fuck yeah!

Here's part of your problem, and the United States is facilitating this problem by encouraging people to illegally immigrate here, breed like rabbits and collect social service money to pay for the kids. The immigration laws are not enforced and the free citizenship and money for children are only incentives for breaking the law and overpopulating.

Here is a fun fact:

"Agriculture accounts for 70 per cent of withdrawals of freshwater resources."

>>3283543
African geography is constantly changing, because they are too busy killing each other and redrawing borders to do anything more useful. That doesn't change the fact that they are all pretty much on the same level of shithole-ness.

>>3283573
That's true, but I was just being an asshole

>>3283549
Today i payed 14.5 USD for a kebab. (no shortage, but don't be afraid, the salaries here are set accordingly.)

Might have to go for germane shopping in the future then. (prices down by 80% on some foods lol)

This thread has stayed alive. /sci/ i am impressed. you can discuss serious issues.

>>3282953
Living standards have *been* increasing, and it doesn't slow population growth.

Here's the ecological truth: when you make it possible/easier for a population to increase, that population will increase. Cheap energy will make things worse, not better.

>>3283596
Example: industrial revolution based on high EROEI oil led to population boom, not bust.

9.3 billion. This will happen. And we will feel the pressures. Within our lifetimes.

>implying 90% of population growth happens outside of naturally self-regulating 3rd world countries

>implying record population growth isn't a result of charity efforts in otherwise stable (albeit miserable) environments

Growth isn't sustainable. Food only runs out if its magically and freely distributed to every living person. Which isn't going to happen.

>>3283596
Population drops below replacement when an economy enters a sufficiently advanced post-industrial phase. The only post industrial economies with population growth can be entirely attributed to immigration from less developed nations.

There is no demonstrated link between long term economic growth and increasing populations.

You can read more about these results here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition

Every post industrial economy matches the phase 4 and 5 demographic transitions. With countries like Austria and Japan heavily in phase 5.

The solution is EUGENICS

>>3283651
>Population drops below replacement when an economy enters a sufficiently advanced post-industrial phase. The only post industrial economies with population growth can be entirely attributed to immigration from less developed nations.

This kind of conclusion is only possible if you ignore that all the advanced post-industrial societies are still connected to the developing industrial and pre-industrial societies and still have dependencies on them. It's a global system now; you can't just look at one section and ignore the rest.

>>3283651

So wait... how does that work if you have an economy whose very basis is constant expansion?

Is this the reason why everybody in charge just ignores the Mexican hoards invading?

>>3283679

I fuck your sister but you are the one who feels like they got raped.

got it.

>>16850482
current economic models aren't so much based upon constant expansion, expansion is simply a side effect of advancement. Current economic models simply implode once expansion is no longer possible. All economic models are bubbles.

>>3283696

Viva La Raza!

>>3283727

Wait so you cut off the possibility of loans being re payed and our economic system just keeps chugging along?

>>3283745
Repaid with what? Trillions of dollars in credit have been destroyed; there isn;t enough money to cover those debts.

>>3283745
Nope, simply bursts faster.

this is a big deal

>>3279199

Apparently the more poor and underdeveloped one's country is the more people fuck.

Bring in education, opportunity, technology and I guess people have something other than fucking to do. Also, I suppose once people have to follow the set rules of a stable economy they act more responsibly about how many children they can afford/rear.

Which is why paying welfare mothers who have children in DEVELOPED countries is the stupidest thing we can do. It's like going backwards; or like we are creating our own problems.

>>but i thought scientists claim the earth is expanding. then there will be enough space for everyone

trollololol

i will have the last word. 9.3 billion in 40 years. this is happening. it will hurt.

>>3279254
>guardian
>proof

No, it's one of the better newspapers but it has an agenda.

>>3284385
i'm referring to the united nations report. the newspaper doesn't matter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXRjmyJFzrU
/thread

this guy had it right

jst think even if everyone had only two children our population would start to slowly decline. your input (the parents) is equal to two and the output (offspring) is also two. now you can also assume that some of the offspring wont find a mate (so the tree stops there) and some will die before they reach of producing age (unfortunate loss :/) so not jst the one child family clause can work but two as well. it's people like the duggar family (those 100 kids and counting ppl) and most mormons are the ones overpopulating the earth (or anyone else that has had more than two children i.e. octomom, kate plus eight, etc.)

Overpopulation is real.
/sci/ is filled with liberals who actually value human life.
That's our greatest problem.

>>3288092
That is not a problem.

>>3279999
Also fail at immigration.

>>3280091
Just because there is enough room on dry land for all the people doesn't mean that the planet has enough resources to support everyone.

1. Allow legal suicide.
2. Child limits, don't follow the limit (west), we sterilize you and forcibly remove your children. (3rd world) don't implement/follow the limit? Bye bye foreign aid.
3. Food production is sufficient, distribution and availability is not. Stop sending food to Africa, send food, condoms, and large military forces, kill all the warlords/thugs/militias, feed the people, and force condoms into their brains, and onto their dicks.
4. Educate the public about the growing problem.
5. Cheaper/free vasectomy or tube-tying in the west.
6. Tax breaks for no-child working people/couples.
7. Invest in more efficient energy harvesting, food production, infrastructure and information dissemination.
8. Abortion, legal/free/encouraged.
9. No more welfare checks for >2 children, if you are an unfit parent with >2 kids, the authorities will pick them up shortly.
10. Stop locking people up for inconsequential crimes, execute the criminally insane, rehabilitate and release the ones that can be helped.
11. Tax breaks on efficient cars, for the purchaser, the dealer, and the manufacturer. Increased taxes on inefficient vehicles (>the "gas guzzler" tax, weak, ineffective policy that's easily skirted).

Not a complete solution, but it's all stuff that could be done now/soon.

Brofessor G for Supreme Emperor of Man, 2012!

Kill off all of the dark skinned races. Problem solved.

>>3288353
>>3288353
So much this!

>>3288353
There is only one Emperor of Man, and he does not take your heresy very kindly!

>>3288565
ALL GLORY AND HONOR TO HIM WHO SITS UPON THE MOST HOLY GOLDEN THRONE.

>>3279233
thats a crock of shit. Shame on you sir

>>3288406

Kill all humans, Problem solved, fucker.