Progressive leadership in a nutshell

[Jibartik]

Originally Posted by HalflingSpergand [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not even close to over populated

yea.

The problem is half of america owns 4 homes, so it feels like we are.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You're correct, population control is a thing

I don't believe anyone's taking overall population seriously as long as nations which breed like rabbits beyond their own ability to support themselves keep receiving outside aid. Most developed nations aren't seeing all that much natural population growth; rather they're importing more and more immigrants in an effort to prop up economic models that depend on perpetual growth. America might not be "overpopulated" yet in a literal sense, but you cannot convince me that an America with 600 million people is going to be an actual improvement, either.

I believe the gay agenda is not some great conspiracy but is rather the natural progression of the slippery slope that those wary of that movement predicted 25/30 years ago. Their ultimate goal--understandable enough--seems to be seen as just as ordinary and normal as anyone else. Hence they push for education to that effect, and in some cases get it when they aren't met with sufficient pushback. The great fallacy of the slippery slope is calling it a fallacy. Support or oppose that movement as you may, but the slippery slope is very much real.

Danth

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by HalflingSpergand [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not even close to over populated

This guy must never drive on a road and live alone on an island somewhere, obviously isn't in touch with modern population density.

If you wanna make it a land mass argument, 57% of the earths landmass is uninhabitable desert or mountain. This is inconducive to further exponential population growth.

So the "leaders" have got to know that the rate of human population has, or will soon overwhelm the earth's ability to support human life.

[Baler]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I don't believe anyone's taking overall population seriously as long as nations which breed like rabbits beyond their own ability to support themselves keep receiving outside aid. Most developed nations aren't seeing all that much natural population growth; rather they're importing more and more immigrants in an effort to prop up economic models that depend on perpetual growth. America might not be "overpopulated" yet in a literal sense, but you cannot convince me that an America with 600 million people is going to be an actual improvement, either.

I believe the gay agenda is not some great conspiracy but is rather the natural progression of the slippery slope that those wary of that movement predicted 25/30 years ago. Their ultimate goal--understandable enough--seems to be seen as just as ordinary and normal as anyone else. Hence they push for education to that effect, and in some cases get it when they aren't met with sufficient pushback. The great fallacy of the slippery slope is calling it a fallacy. Support or oppose that movement as you may, but the slippery slope is very much real.

Danth

I present to you, China's 1 child law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy

The one-child policy was part of a program designed to control the size of the rapidly growing population of the People's Republic of China.

-----
In regards to gays It was something that came out of the Free Love movement of the 60s. That said, let's talk about aids.
Which political party backed Free Love and many partners (spreading aids). Progressives.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Baler [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I present to you, China's 1 child law.
Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

What about it? Okay, a few nations take it seriously. Fair enough. Rest of the above still applies.

[Baler]

was editing my post, I like to edit my posts alot. sorry about that [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[indiscriminate_hater]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What about it? Okay, a few nations take it seriously. Fair enough. Rest of the above still applies.

Seems relevant that the country with the #1 largest population took it seriously when it started to actually become an issue.

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by Cassawary [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Carrying capacity stopped being even a mild concern when we invented dumping nitrogen on crops. Nitrates? Something chemicals.

food is alot lower on the list of population issues than social structure breakdown. Humans are animals like any other, just slightly more intelligent but animals nonetheless.

You put enough of us in one place, and we're going to find reasons to fight each other. If we don't have any, we'll make them up.

We're humans, we evolved to fight. Look at us right now, modern tech has given miracles to humanity, yet we still fight each other over resources, religions, and even fucking pronouns lol

I figure thats a major psychological problem in the modern human, Survival is no longer a fight. dunno about other states, but in PA I have a "Right to Work"

So I have a right to go someplace, perform some task for 40 hours a week, and then i get my house and my food. I don't cut down trees for shelter, I don't spear rabbits for food, I don't trek miles for water.

The fight for survival is gone in the west, are people in ethiopia arguing over genders and bathrooms?

[Gwaihir]

Screenshot_20210415-233709.jpg

Now available on Steam. Seems to be up a few of your alleys.

[HalflingSpergand]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This guy must never drive on a road and live alone on an island somewhere, obviously isn't in touch with modern population density.

If you wanna make it a land mass argument, 57% of the earths landmass is uninhabitable desert or mountain. This is inconducive to further exponential population growth.

So the "leaders" have got to know that the rate of human population has, or will soon overwhelm the earth's ability to support human life.

Deserts are fine to inhabit unless its fuckin dunes. Mountains is aguable its way to vague . U don't have to live up each other's asses u choose to