/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

what's the name of this?
Contrarianism because Maupinist spread the schizo paranoia for the malatusian meme?

>>405188
If were discussing my ideas than it's pro natalism with my belief being that even if everyone's poor if theres more people than that's better than everyone's rich but theres very few

>The earth should have at least 100 billion people on it
how about we get a handle on managing the number of people we have now before ballooning the population by 1200%

fake anti-Maltusianist, the earth should have at least 200 billion you fucking pseud

the bubble will pop before 100 billion

>>405198
But tribes did only have more kids when they were doing well though.

counterproposal: only i should be permitted to exist

How much biomass is enough?

>>405245
Infinite until heat gets high enough that it cant be easily diffused

>>405177
The ideal human population would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-2 billion people. You would have a high enough population density for big cities and infrastructure that requires economies of scale, but your resources wouldn't be stretched too thinly and your impact on the environment would be less than today. Unfortunately, our population is currently way higher than that, and we won't be able to reach that number any time soon without resorting to mass genocide. What we can reasonably do though is minimize future population growth.

>>405232
I am already the only one who exists. Solipsism is philosophically true

>>405327
>ideal human population
That's fucking infinite faggot, we exist on this planet and what's important is completely conquering it, wealth inequality existed when we were at 2 billion and will continue to exist, what's important is that more people have the potential to improve their future

>>405327
if we have fewer people we have a lower capacity to actually extract said ressources

>>405370
read marx and stop pretending to be a marxist

>>405327
the depopulation cult is getting invasive, even going as far as complaining that you can't do a genocide

Large numbers of people are obviously able to extract more resources, so if you reduce the number of population you will also have proportionally fewer resources. Fewer people are also less able to design and maintain sophisticated clean industry, so you might not even get much of a environmental bonus from reducing population size.

>>405370
>wealth inequality will continue to exist
yeah but under socialism it will be extremely low, where most people would say it's an equal society.

Quality>Quantity

>>405370
what the fuck is this gay fashie shit

>>405420
>the depopulation cult is getting invasive, even going as far as complaining that you can't do a genocide
You've completely misrepresented him, intentionally. You know that that was not his intended meaning.

>>405420

>Large numbers of people are obviously able to extract more resources, so if you reduce the number of population you will also have proportionally fewer resources. Fewer people are also less able to design and maintain sophisticated clean industry, so you might not even get much of a environmental bonus from reducing population size.
This vulgar marxist growth fetishism is exactly the sort of shit mao criticized. Go back and read, and while you're at it read some books on marx's ecology.

>>405379
We will also have less need for said resources with a lower population. Additionally, automation will enable us to extract more with less labor. Basically, we will have the same amount of natural resources with fewer people to share them between.

>>405420
>the depopulation cult is getting invasive, even going as far as complaining that you can't do a genocide
I am not advocating for genocide, just stating that there is a (roughly) optimal population and that we are above it. Genocide would obviously do more harm than good, so we have to make do with the population we currently have.
>Large numbers of people are obviously able to extract more resources, so if you reduce the number of population you will also have proportionally fewer resources.
See above
>Fewer people are also less able to design and maintain sophisticated clean industry, so you might not even get much of a environmental bonus from reducing population size.
We won't need as much industry in the first place, although I will admit that we would have less economies of scale with a smaller population.

I should remind the people that the following resources are finite and do not increase with population:
-Land
-Water
-Minerals
-Fossil fuels

>>405420
It's all so tiresome. The problems with population are political rather than the result of some natural limit being reached. Eugenicists bitch and moan about people existing for the stupidest reasons, because they don't want to extend the most basic human dignity to the broad masses, and they cannot for their ideology to be consistent.

A planned economy could support a human population of something like 20 billion, just from present production and expansions of it that would be possible with immediately available technology. Of course, all of this eludes the reality that technology does change, as do the conditions in which people live, what they will accept and what they will demand in response to the new human relations that have emerged. Today's austerity is completely a choice of those who hold status in our society, because austerity is the means by which behavior can be modified, by which people can be ground down into lower and lower expectations for the future. There is no good reason why medical care would need to be rationed. We could, if we so desired, train new doctors and medical workers, such that heart disease could be attended to properly. But, if that happened, life expectancy would increase dramatically, and that is not what the middle class wants. The middle class does not want competitors, and the whole system we've had for the past 100 years was premised on intense competition in the middle class, on top of the tendency within market economies to produce a stark divide between those who own property and those who do not. Modern society is in a precarious situation where technology requires a large middle class of technical workers, but the economic system was in the broad strokes designed to produce a few rich oligarchs and managers down the line while immiserating everyone else. Attempts to reform this into something workable have run against the basic tendencies of economic thought, but also run against the desires of many middle class dogmas, as the middle class in the end hated the poor more than they had any plans for making the middle class the universal class.

>>405497
We have enough land, water, and minerals to last a really long time. The greater problem by far would be the health of the soil and the ability to replenish it in the long term, but even this is not an immediate concern. We could very easily build large desalinization plants to obtain water.

Estimates of when oil will expire have always been way off. According to the prognosticators, oil would have been unavailable by 1990, but the available deposits and the quantity in existing wells were drastically underestimated - if the figures reported to the public were not just lies from the outset, to justify the oil oligarchs restricting the supply.
In any event, oil and any means of transportation are available enough to move people from point A to point B. But again, a long run goal of the oligarchs is to remove the freedom of people to travel around the world, and it is also a goal to control the spaces in which people live. Hence, why they're rolling out vaccine passports and internal, eugenic barriers which are intended to lock out the underclasses of society, and then the general population from the preserves of the middle and upper classes.

>>405497
If there were an actual, REAL resource crisis that was imminent, the behavior of states and large firms would be drastically different. The likely response of a state to an actual resource crisis would be immediate rationing and rationalization of oil use. You wouldn't have seen the use of plastic explode. It is far easier to just produce reusable bags out of plant material or even reusable plastic bags, than it would be to construct this rigid police state that requires immense resources to support internal security forces. Nothing like the neoliberal consumer economy would have been accepted if the ruling oligarchs were worried about genuine resource crises. No, you can't claim the capitalists are too stupid and that only you brainiacs can understand the model. Who do you think produced the neo-Malthusian models? The oligarchic foundations were the people with the most interest in exploring whether their economic model could continue, and whether they were actually hitting a natural resource limit.

It does not, of course, mean that the ruling oligarchs don't have a genuine interest in preserving natural resources. The primary aim, though, is political rather than practical. It is more important to impress upon people a eugenicist mindset, than it is to produce people and a society that would be wise in consuming resources. Doping people with mass stimulants and a consumer economy is far more important, and it is especially important in eugenism that they never feel fulfilled. The utilitarian, devilish philosophy of many of these people precludes any satisfaction or deeper meaning to life. For all their pretenses, a lot of these eugenists are like the autistic kid with no soul and no core, who is always wanting and always in pain. You can see it how a lot of these people act, and I see it because I know what that feeling is like.