4chan archive /r9k/ (index)
similar threads
2012-09-12 10:59 3744559 Anonymous (wargames.jpg 625x480 165kB)
Do you think the planet needs another large scale war to deal with overpopulation? Imagine all the lifelong friends you could make and lose if you survived! Connections!

4 min later 3744583 Anonymous (tumblr_m4x2n5UAho1qcobwd.png 500x418 30kB)
It doesn't matter whether you owe someone or they owe you; as soon as you start fighting, you are in the wrong either way

6 min later 3744594 Anonymous
A "large scale war" nowadays would probably just result in nuclear warfare, which would kill.. .well.. everyone. Too many nutcase countries with nuclear weapons, one of them would be bound to fire one off if there was another world war.

8 min later 3744603 Anonymous
>>3744559 War is too ineffective at killing people. Unless it went nuclear. Pandemics would be the way to go.

9 min later 3744608 PlατΩ
Overpopulation would not be a problem if human beings were allowed to reach even 1/100th of their productive potential.

10 min later 3744617 Anonymous
I wouldn't join, pacifist for life. Unless you occupy my country and then I'll passively resist.

11 min later 3744622 Anonymous
>>3744594 No one is going to use nukes. The only reason to use nukes is to stop total takeover of their country.

12 min later 3744628 Anonymous
>>3744603 >War >Ineffective at killing people 15 million Russians died during WW2. Also, 400,000 Americans died, about 3 million Germans died, and I forget how many Brits died, but I believe their casualties were around 1-1.5 million.

14 min later 3744635 Anonymous
>>3744628 well when you consider their are billions of people in the world. a couple million aint much

19 min later 3744657 Anonymous
>>3744635 Imagine the hundreds of millions of Indians and Chinese who would starve.

20 min later 3744661 Anonymous
>>3744635 >couple million I didn't say a "couple million." WW2 killed about 70 million people worldwide (didn't include France, Japan, and Italy in my previous post). While there are billions of people, 70 million is still a lot of fucking people.

29 min later 3744705 PlατΩ
"Overpopulation" is a ridiculous concern. The fact of the matter is, if we lived in a sane world having more people would be a GOOD thing, because they would be contributing a surplus of their efforts to others. It's the rhetoric of people who were already anti-human to begin with, because the only way they could reach this conclusion is by assuming that life isn't worthwhile in the first place. It perpetuates an ignorant, unjustified elitism that suggests that productivity can only be ascribed to those who have already accomplished it(industrialized nations), but that it was some sort of miracle that can never happen again, instead of the culmination of man's triumph over nature and his material circumstances. The reality is that while the unindustrialized world does benefit from us, this benefit is in fact mutual, as would be expected to be the result of free trade. However, we benefit massively in a parasitic fashion from them through "free trade" agreements that manipulate currencies to central banker's benefits and state apparatus industries, and provide us with convenient enemies for our propaganda system.

32 min later 3744719 Anonymous
>>3744705 People having 10 welfare children are no benefit to this world. >See Gypsies 600 or so years and still they haven't become productive.

33 min later 3744724 PlατΩ
>>3744719 Ultimately, that is a political problem, not one of any physical circumstance.

35 min later 3744735 Anonymous
>>3744635 You have to remember that at the time of WW2, there were only around 2 billion people on the planet. So a loss of 70 million would have had a much larger effect then as it would today.

41 min later 3744755 Anonymous
Parts of the world are still underpopulated. If India and China had a massive war that would be just fine. The rest of the world can cope population wise and I have no idea why people keep banging on about overpopulation as though it's a real concern.

8 hours later 3746754 Anonymous
War is a shit way to deal with overpopulation. Morally and efficiently. Instead, lets mess with the root of the problem, birth. Maybe give prisoners a early release deal if they get sterilized. Maybe have some legal discouragement from having over two/three kids? At very least, stop welfare from rewarding mothers for bringing a dozen children into a world of poverty.

8 hours later 3746764 Anonymous
>>3746754 >Eugenics No Timmy, we've decided that's not a thing we'd like. War is much more reliable.

8 hours later 3746771 Anonymous
No, it needs an aggressive zombie virus that turns people into fast-running, super-strength. flesh-eating monsters. That will take care of things nicely.

8 hours later 3746789 Anonymous
>>3746771 If they could starve yeah. I'd just chill in my cabin in the middle of nowhere. Flesh eating zombies in the bush? Nope they'd die of exposure.

8 hours later 3746818 Anonymous
>>3746764 not him, but please stop with your condescending Timmy bullshit and royal "we."

8 hours later 3746841 Anonymous
>>3746764 How's that eugenics? Nothing I said had anything to do with genetics.

8 hours later 3746867 Anonymous
>>3746841 forced sterilization they used to do that with homeless people.

8 hours later 3746877 Anonymous
No because we need to lose billions, and wars only take millions. What we need is some sort of STD that spreads fast to kill off all the normalfags.

8 hours later 3746881 Anonymous
Not enough people die in wars and population growth explodes after them too

8 hours later 3746885 Anonymous
>implying I would fight in that war... >just abandon everything and run and hide until the war is over

8 hours later 3746902 Anonymous
I like how all the intelligent, successful people refrain from having children because of over population. Fucking idiocracy... captcha: facipami sanctus lel.

8 hours later 3746916 Anonymous
I live in Russia. In WWIII or whatever, we're definitely not going to ally with 'Murrika. So, er, I'm definitely not looking forward to that, especially considering the current political climate and that I'm in applied physics. It might be pretty ok for people in the US though, considering that land wars kind of don't even exist any more and the preposterous amount of weaponry you people have.

8 hours later 3746917 Anonymous
>>3746902 Evolution takes place over hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Education, healthcare and economic prosperity will increase population intelligence

8 hours later 3746926 Anonymous
>>3746917 >Education, healthcare and economic prosperity will increase population intelligence I don't believe you.

8 hours later 3746944 Anonymous
>>3746916 If Russia and the US go to war they'd never use nukes. No one is that stupid to start a nuclear winter.

8 hours later 3746971 Anonymous
Overpopulation in the western world is only a myth; the opposite is happening. Not enough couples are having children. Developing nations are awash in too many babies, though.

8 hours later 3746974 Anonymous
>>3746944 Mm, I wouldn't be surprised if the US ends up nuking someone in the Middle East after fabricating some manner of justification for it. I do doubt that they'd nuke Russia, but weapons production will obviously be kicked into overdrive.

8 hours later 3746979 Anonymous
>>3746971 Smart wealthy people are having 1 child. Minorities are having 5-10. Do the math. It won't end well.

8 hours later 3746982 Anonymous
>>3746917 No. You completely misunderstand evolution. While it's very hard to predict what evolution selects for, I'd say that right now it mostly "cares" for fertility. oh, and describing natural selection as actively selecting for things is moronic

8 hours later 3747004 Anonymous
>>3746867 But what he suggested is not forced sterilization.

8 hours later 3747018 Anonymous
>>3746979 >implying united states Is the only country in western civilization and that our current birth rate isn't shit. You're right about minorities though. Whites will be the minorities here soon enough.

8 hours later 3747020 Anonymous
>>3747004 It's almost the same thing >early release >Sterilize It's like offering poor people 5 thousand dollars to get snipped. Millions of idiots would go for it.

8 hours later 3747047 Anonymous
Except the planet isn't actually overpopulated. The population of the world could fit in texas, in a single layer, with ~1100 square feet to each person. So space isn't a concern. There are entire swaths of completely wasted land that could be used for food crops. So food isn't a concern. The only reason water purification and desalination technologies aren't more widespread is because of how abundant fresh water truly is (it falls from the fucking sky, you know). So water isn't a concern. With none of this things actually being a concern, the only question is thus... where the fuck do you live that you think overpopulation is an actual problem?

8 hours later 3747056 Anonymous
>>3746979 The chance of the smart wealthy people's kid being intelligent is zero. Whereas the minorities have an actual chance of having a smart kid. The only real barrier is cultural.

8 hours later 3747057 Anonymous
>>3747047 Humans pollute. Lots more humans? Way more fucking pollution. >See China >India

8 hours later 3747061 Anonymous
>>3747057 "pollution" is a side effect of life. Its also solvable. The only people in the way of that are fucking oil companies.

8 hours later 3747067 Anonymous
>>3747057 >Rich humans (<1% of population) who own factories and private jets pollute. ftfy

8 hours later 3747069 Anonymous
>>3747067 Hes probably thinking about trash and shit. As shithole third world countries don't have any public works systems to take care of that shit.

8 hours later 3747081 Anonymous
>Live in LA >dude, tha planet is soooo over populated man >live an hour away from LA >don't say shit because you're alone in the middle of a fucking desert

8 hours later 3747123 Anonymous
Sometimes I'm happy that those chinese and indians and russians and americans and japanese and brazilians and europeans are polluting and destroying our world Imagine how many would have to suffer from hunger if they weren't dying of cancer and exhaustion and assaults

8 hours later 3747148 Anonymous
>join military when the shit hits the fan >get blown up in the first seconds

9 hours later 3747159 Anonymous
>>3747081 That's the thing about underpopulated areas: They're underpopulated for a reason. Besides, an hour away from LA is still in LA

9 hours later 3747163 Anonymous
>>3747148 Such is life in Mother Russia

9 hours later 3747170 Anonymous
>>3747163 >join marines >go through boot camp >get blown up by IED while on the way to FOB

9 hours later 3747172 Anonymous
>>3747159 The vast majority of the united states is completely rural. Maybe 5 people per square mile. Most of those places are fucking paradise. Zero property value, zero traffic, no fucking people, and if you're so inclined, a drive into the city is utterly beautiful.

9 hours later 3747176 Anonymous
>>3747159 An hour away from LA means an hour away from the outer border of LA. Not an hour away from the center.

9 hours later 3747202 Anonymous
>>3744628 ineffective at the cost/death ratio

9 hours later 3747219 Anonymous
>>3747202 >cost Wars are great times for scientific innovation. Most of the deaths will be from disease and starvation.

9 hours later 3747262 Anonymous
>>3747219 Actually, most the of the reason this is even true is because more money is shuffled to tech sectors. If we still had good funding for NASA(which makes the country 7 bucks for every 1 spent on it) then this isn't an issue. No one wages war because they want to. They want something that they believe they need to get through force, and it's well-known that force rarely solves issues and costs more money both in the short and long run.

9 hours later 3747290 Anonymous
>>3747262 >(which makes the country 7 bucks for every 1 spent on it) Source please, I guess you've mixed up those numbers.

9 hours later 3747300 Anonymous
>>3747262 Use of force can solve problems in the short run, but for long periods of time? pretty shitty. in the UK we used to have a standard for our navy, it was to be bigger than the 2nd and 3rd largest navies put together. That way we were never challenged in the naval department until the dreadnoughts. I can look at the US in the same way, nobody really wants to fuck with them because of how much money they pour into their armed forces and the nukes they have.

9 hours later 3747327 Anonymous
>>3747300 >nobody really wants to fuck with them because of how much money they pour into their armed forces and the nukes they have. A few nuclear bombs are enough to nuke a country into the stone-age. Plus many foot-soldiers like the US has are cost-ineffective.

16 hours later 3751383 PlατΩ
>>3747219 >Wars are great times for scientific innovation. Only if you completely ignore the opportunity costs of millions of people dying and trillions of dollars of wealth being wasted, sure. The only reason anyone believes bullshit like this is because of the expansion of Big Science after WWII, which has consumed the entire scientific establishment.

7.970 0.128