|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
[Want even more content from FPM? Sign up for FPM+ to unlock exclusive series, virtual town-halls with our authors, and more—now for just $3.99/month. Click here to sign up.]
Would the planet be better off if there were fewer people inhabiting it? In this short video from Prager U, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Marian Tupy — along with some thoughts from billionaire X owner Elon Musk, and rapper and social media maven Zuby — explains why having fewer humans does not make for a better world.
Check it out below:
Many radical Eco-Freaks think Humans should be eliminated and go extinct and Tom Clancy wrote a book Rainbow Six about radical Eco-Freaks who want to eradicate Humanity from the Earth
I notice that when people call for a reduction in earth’s population that it doesn’t include themselves.. What arrogance!
They should be invited to lead by example.
The globalists have it backwards. They want to limit population growth by reducing prosperity. More prosperity reduces population growth. Shrinking population is a problem faced by every advanced country on the planet.
Organizations like to WEF promote the notion of reducing population by reducing the availability of resources. It sounds intuitively correct, but it’s backwards. They do it not b/c it will actually work, but b/c they want to enslave us.
It’s evil, but it’s also what humans with unchecked powers do- advance their own interests at the expense of everybody else.
Indeed. The ruling elite are trying to claw back the tenets of classical liberalism, and return to a Neo-feudal model where they control everything, and the remaining , hungry, cold, and ill population is beholding to them for their very breath.
It’s true that as the population grew, technology advanced such that the production of food increased by much more than the population. This is evidenced by the fact that a hundred thousand tons of food can be shipped to an area struck with famine due to some natural cause without causing any noticeable shortage to the area sending those supplies. That’s because farmers are able to grow more food on less acreage and do it more efficiently. But there is a huge number of people convinced that these great advances in growing are a major cause of Climate Change, aka Global Warming.
So this large and very vocal group would want to roll back these advances even though thousands or millions of people starve, but hay, we saved 1 degree F over the next 100 years and stopped Al Gore’s boiling oceans and raining fire bombs falling from the sky.
Population isn’t the problem, people are.
Only Dim OH Kraps and “Liberals” should be eliminated.
And Muslims and the Chinese. .
So one trillion people per square millimeter of the planetary surface will be just fine. I am so glad this issue has been settled.
Nice straw man you have there.
What’s the carrying capacity of humans on the Earth? How does technology affect the answer? What if we start migrating to Mars or other worlds? These are serious questions and worthy of debate.
Every single one of these exterminists should be asked, “well, if you believe that humanity is the problem, are you ready to go, and do you have a preferred method to be euthanized?
Back in the 1700,s a Man named Malthus was one of the first to bring up the idea of Over Population it just took some nutcase Paul Ehrlich too get the ball rolling again
We have to find a ‘happy medium’, as it were, between the two extremes. One extreme wants to make humans virtually extinct (exempting themselves and their offspring, presumably, to ‘manage’ the resulting world as they see fit), and the other wants unlimited numbers of humans to overrun habitable areas of the globe (just plainly not–shall I use the word—-sustainable). Can’t humanity dedicate itself to a reasonable, obtainable compromise? What can’t we do with but some 2.5 billion or so, a figure gradually achievable if we work at it? The earth is not an infinite physical object with unlimited resources. Population expansion cannot perpetually go on. Both eventually finite resources and overall world politics will not support it. In the case of world demographics, the ‘middle of the road’ is in this case the safest place for reasoning policy.