Posted by: @japov

Lol... I don't believe you're getting the scope of what you're being taught Polly. Do you really believe it takes 98% of an entire planet to support the 2% that's occupied? Do you really believe that 5% of that 2% really "owns" it all? The world is much bigger than your TV screen.....

I have NOT been TAUGHT anything about this! I think for myself. I KNOW that we are destroying the planet, and we are killing the other species. It does not matter how much empty land there is. Most of the good agricultural land is already being used, and even that is depleted of minerals.

It isn't just how many people there are vs how much land. It's people driving cars, flying planes, industry, etc. 

I have no opinion on global warming. But anyone should be able to see that we are destroying the earth and its creatures.

Hmmm..... Well, do you believe that the consumer should be held accountable for the mess that commercial industry makes?

Posted by: @japov

Hmmm..... Well, do you believe that the consumer should be held accountable for the mess that commercial industry makes?

I have no idea who should be held responsible. That is a different subject. You said the earth can sustain the rapidly increasing population and I gave good reasons why it cannot.

It's not a different subject... it's just another method of control... and it's a lie. The math is important Polly. If just 5% of the population owns the world then, figuratively speaking, Rhode Island is destroying the entire planet lol...

You see, the truth is, the only thing the population is actually outgrowing is the 5% that claims to own it all... and they want you to believe it's YOUR FAULT that they can't keep up with demand. They mass produce all the products, pass the cost of advertising and packaging onto the consumer (which is always more than the product is worth), then hold the consumer accountable for all the mess, while paying government to write laws protecting their interest and maintain status quo. All this in the name of economic growth and security while socially engineering the lifestyles of the 95% indebted labor, and insuring  the nations go further into debt and continue to raise taxes. Viruses, population, pollution, racism, false religion, wars... All just engineered distractions to justify the cost of living for someone else's leisure. We're all just slaves... At least the Democrats have enough integrity to admit they want to own the system.

Posted by: @japov

It's not a different subject... it's just another method of control... and it's a lie. The math is important Polly. If just 5% of the population owns the world then, figuratively speaking, Rhode Island is destroying the entire planet lol...

You see, the truth is, the only thing the population is actually outgrowing is the 5% that claims to own it all... and they want you to believe it's YOUR FAULT that they can't keep up with demand. They mass produce all the products, pass the cost of advertising and packaging onto the consumer (which is always more than the product is worth), then hold the consumer accountable for all the mess, while paying government to write laws protecting their interest and maintain status quo. All this in the name of economic growth and security while socially engineering the lifestyles of the 95% indebted labor, and insuring  the nations go further into debt and continue to raise taxes. Viruses, population, pollution, racism, false religion, wars... All just engineered distractions to justify the cost of living for someone else's leisure. We're all just slaves... At least the Democrats have enough integrity to admit they want to own the system.

I agree that we are being increasingly controlled by the powerful minority. But that minority is not a cohesive group.

But it's true we are becoming helpless slaves. 

Central banks are trying to keep the economy floating, but in the process create unfathomable debt and bubbles. The world will stop trusting the USD and we will be sunk.

But aside from all that, population growth is a terrible threat. The amount of land is not relevant.

Oh, Polly... If the size of the Earth was irrelevant then they wouldn't have to lie. There wouldn't be a debate...

Self serving greed is the root of all evil, and this world is governed by evil in high places 🙂

Posted by: @japov

Oh, Polly... If the size of the Earth was irrelevant then they wouldn't have to lie. There wouldn't be a debate...

Self serving greed is the root of all evil, and this world is governed by evil in high places 🙂

No, I don't think greed is the root of all evil. That's what the socialists and the progressives are always saying. But greed is perfectly natural and we all want more than we absolutely need. We want to feel safe in the dangerous world.

The rich and powerful have many diverse motivations. Some are very well intentioned, but we know what the road to hell is paved with. Bill Gates, for example, may be the most evil person on earth, but his intentions are probably mostly good.

Cain and Abel would disagree... 😉

Posted by: @japov

Cain and Abel would disagree... 😉

Cain was envious of Abel. Envy might be one of the roots of all evil.

I can go along with that... But what was the real difference between them?

How is Bill Gates the most evil person on earth? You can't have good intentions and be evil. If you buy into the bs about vaccines being somehow evil, then you could argue that the effect of his good intentions is evil, but then you'd have to be stupid, and I see no evidence of that from you 🙂

Tony, your arguments about population make no sense. Not everywhere on earth is suitable for people to live. http://www.zo.utexas.edu/courses/Thoc/Texas.html

Feeding the earth's expanded population may be theoretically possible, and scientists are constantly working on ways to do so, but it means giving up a lot of things that enhance our lives like wildlife, open spaces and some freedoms, all in the name of being able to eat. It also requires the world working in harmony and in agreement on what has to be done. I don't see that as being very likely. The world has become less rational rather than more so. Besides, this global cooperation would be seen by those with your views as inherently evil.

Gavin, I agree with you about overpopulation. 

Here is why Gates is the most evil person on earth -- He has extreme power because of his money, and he uses that power to "help" the unfortunate. But what Gates considers helpful might not be, from someone else's perspective. 

I don't think there is anyone who consciously wants to hurt others just to be mean. We all justify our evil motivations (and we ALL have them).

So I judge evil by the results. The rich and powerful are potentially more evil because they have the ability to do evil. The poor are more likely to be "good" because they can't do very much damage.

Yes, I get what you are saying. However, I'm not aware of anything Gates is doing that is not helpful - helping to eradicate polio, using some of his vast wealth to fund research into combating pandemics, even promoting research into toilets that can be deployed in areas of the world where sanitary conditions are dangerous and there is no plumbing infrastructure. There is a very interesting documentary on Netflix called Inside Bill's Brain, which gives an insight into his motivations and ways of thinking.

Posted by: @gavin

Yes, I get what you are saying. However, I'm not aware of anything Gates is doing that is not helpful - helping to eradicate polio, using some of his vast wealth to fund research into combating pandemics, even promoting research into toilets that can be deployed in areas of the world where sanitary conditions are dangerous and there is no plumbing infrastructure. There is a very interesting documentary on Netflix called Inside Bill's Brain, which gives an insight into his motivations and ways of thinking.

For one thing, he's a condescending arrogant white guy who thinks the Africans are stupid and need his help. The "white man's burden." That alone is evil.

And I explained the serious scary problems with the new mRNA vaccines. Gates is "pro-science." And you know what that means now days? Reckless arrogant blind faith in every and any new technology.

I can't agree with either of those things. He's not supposed to help people because they are in Africa, but it would be OK for him to do so if he was black? You don't have to be stupid to need or accept help.

And no, "pro-science" does not mean "reckless arrogant blind faith in every and any new technology." If you define pro-science in this way, you have to be "anti-science." Gates' approach to science appears to be rational and actually pretty cautious, but he has supported research into mRNA vaccine technology in the past, so I can see how you would have problems with that.