Covid-19 Prepared?

[thisismatt]

20 minutes ago, Mattndew76 said:

 

Its not. Earth is vast and humans are only concentrated in metro areas. The amount of unused land in the world is MASSIVE. The earth is estimated to be able to support from 16 billion to 1 trillion in several studies.

 

ITs not the population issue but peoples inability to create sustainable tech that has environmental cleanliness in mind. The environmental policies put forward is generally always a financial fleecing of the working population of the worlds nations to compound wealth and power for crazy fucks wanting to rule over everyone. 

 

Its generally someone from a massively overly concentrated city that comes out screaming the world is over populated (fucking anecdotal 🤪) that never travels into the wilds of nations, and think every square inch outside the city needs to be a fucking national park.

 

Not disagreeing with the ability to support any X amount of people, but at what cost to the quality of life? A lot of places aren't that great for human occupation, and don't have the natural advantages to sustain human life. 

[Logical1]

1 hour ago, Mattndew76 said:

The earth is estimated to be able to support from 16 billion to 1 trillion in several studies.

 

I couldn't find ANYTHING close to those numbers. Just a quick look yielded these thoughts:

 

Paul Ehrlich, professor of population studies at Stanford University: The optimum population of Earth – enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone – was 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050, said Ehrlich.

 

One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. 

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

 

The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually, he explained. That's enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed 2.5 billion U.S. omnivores, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States.

[bottomwatcher]

We would have to clean up our act because currently the planet is not able to handle the current population at a sustainable level. We are contributing to climate change that's a fact. Ocean acidification is real and probably our biggest threat. As far as unused land goes look across the world at google earth. The US is practically paved because farmland really can't be counted as "Green space" since it is not in it original form providing its balance that the earth has counted on for balance. Everytime time we change things it fucks up the balance that has been going for eons. There are local issues such a arridification out west like what's happening to the Colorado river. Simple math you just can't keep taking water out and expect things to stay the same. I guess you would call that local overpopulated. Things are going to continue as is. Rich folks are not going to change their lifestyles and the poor are just trying to survive and will do whatever it takes to get thier next meal. I don't see any real changes happening so we will continue down the path we are on. I think the Wife and I will be fine for the 30 to 40 years we have left. Glad we didn't have kids they would be inheriting a mess. Funny thing is I have spent most of the last 25 years getting my paychecks from oil related buisness. Ok. Rant over. Back to Covid.

 

 

 

 

[datzenmike]

wayno, might not the increasing understanding and widespread use of condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS be responsible for the drop in births. After all, far and away sex is for pleasure more than procreation and most births are accidental. If you have HIV you are more likely to wear a condom or only have sex if partner is wearing one. If you don't have HIV same thing. Add to this the fact that all developing countries with increasing or higher education, higher standard of living, and a lower infant mortality allow parents to have fewer children. They are just too expensive to raise. The more educated a woman is the fewer children she will have. More can be put into one or two rather than 16. Is 8 or 9 children the norm in North America? Maybe Africa is just coming out of the stone age.

 

The US birth rate in 2007 was 2.12 just barely able to keep the population stable. It's been in decline since. In 2020 it was 1.64!!!!!!! South Korea (1.11), Singapore (1.21), Italy (1.33), Greece (1.30), Japan (1.37), Poland (1.39), and Canada (1.53). 

 

You give Bill Gates too much credit.

[datzenmike]

 

[Mattndew76]

23 minutes ago, Logical1 said:

 

I couldn't find ANYTHING close to those numbers. Just a quick look yielded these thoughts:

 

Paul Ehrlich, professor of population studies at Stanford University: The optimum population of Earth – enough to guarantee the minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone – was 1.5 to 2 billion people rather than the 7 billion who are alive today or the 9 billion expected in 2050, said Ehrlich.

 

One such scientist, the eminent Harvard University sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson, bases his estimate on calculations of the Earth's available resources. 

Aside from the limited availability of freshwater, there are indeed constraints on the amount of food that Earth can produce, just as Malthus argued more than 200 years ago. Even in the case of maximum efficiency, in which all the grains grown are dedicated to feeding humans (instead of livestock, which is an inefficient way to convert plant energy into food energy), there's still a limit to how far the available quantities can stretch. "If everyone agreed to become vegetarian, leaving little or nothing for livestock, the present 1.4 billion hectares of arable land (3.5 billion acres) would support about 10 billion people," Wilson wrote.

 

The 3.5 billion acres would produce approximately 2 billion tons of grains annually, he explained. That's enough to feed 10 billion vegetarians, but would only feed 2.5 billion U.S. omnivores, because so much vegetation is dedicated to livestock and poultry in the United States.

 

Get off of Google is step 1.

 

Search: Estimated population Earth can sustain .pdf

 

It will offer up 65+ different published white papers of estimates. 

 

 

[Mattndew76]

25 minutes ago, bottomwatcher said:

We would have to clean up our act because currently the planet is not able to handle the current population at a sustainable level. We are contributing to climate change that's a fact. Ocean acidification is real and probably our biggest threat. As far as unused land goes look across the world at google earth. The US is practically paved because farmland really can't be counted as "Green space" since it is not in it original form providing its balance that the earth has counted on for balance. Everytime time we change things it fucks up the balance that has been going for eons. There are local issues such a arridification out west like what's happening to the Colorado river. Simple math you just can't keep taking water out and expect things to stay the same. I guess you would call that local overpopulated. Things are going to continue as is. Rich folks are not going to change their lifestyles and the poor are just trying to survive and will do whatever it takes to get thier next meal. I don't see any real changes happening so we will continue down the path we are on. I think the Wife and I will be fine for the 30 to 40 years we have left. Glad we didn't have kids they would be inheriting a mess. Funny thing is I have spent most of the last 25 years getting my paychecks from oil related buisness. Ok. Rant over. Back to Covid.

 

 

 

 

 

Global population is on decline as tech increases. 

 

I'm glad you didn't have kids too.

[Mattndew76]

1 hour ago, thisismatt said:

 

Not disagreeing with the ability to support any X amount of people, but at what cost to the quality of life? A lot of places aren't that great for human occupation, and don't have the natural advantages to sustain human life. 

 

Elevation is where humans have the ability to thrive. There is a gold zone of elevation where vegetation is sustainable, but generally humans congregate around or along rivers. Massive agriculture has grown to enormous sizes and fell off as humans have grown in numbers and died from cataclysms throughout thousands of years. 

 

Truth is humans are fighting with fertility right now so our "scary" population is on the precipice of collapse, The environmental issue is a massive taxation scam with no action to do anything meaningful. People who buy into it are the same dumb shits that are scared of COVID-19 and now Omicron ending them, and our government is here to help. 

 

Environmental change or damage is localized. The oceans plastic pollution is 98% Asia's fault, and couch environmentalist are cultist cunts.

[Logical1]

Don't use google... searched for you PDF found the one from Joel E. Cohen. Doesn't he make movies 😉 Still found more papers that keep the number around 2-3 billion and that's if we go veggie for the most part which I DOUBT will ever happen outside of 10000 years in the future. Not looking to turn this into a full research project but I have been interested in the reality of sustainability and human population over the years. I travel for work constantly, have been to some desolate places and I live out in the country on acreage with barely any neighbors... I think there is too many people there!  

[Mattndew76]

1 minute ago, Logical1 said:

Don't use google... searched for you PDF found the one from Joel E. Cohen. Doesn't he make movies 😉 Still found more papers that keep the number around 2-3 billion and that's if we go veggie for the most part which I DOUBT will ever happen outside of 10000 years in the future. Not looking to turn this into a full research project but I have been interested in the reality of sustainability and human population over the years. I travel for work constantly, have been to some desolate places and I live out in the country on acreage with barely any neighbors... I think there is too many people there!  

 

All anecdotal from people who have no profession in the study of such biological sciences. Remember the same people that sell you Omicron death counters are the same people reverently selling Environmental catastrophe all while getting wealthy , and buying beach front property...

 

Its a scam, and humans are easy to manipulate. 

 

I respect your opinion but I disagree. 

[Logical1]

1 minute ago, Mattndew76 said:

I respect your opinion but I disagree. 

Cheers!🍻

[angliagt]

22 minutes ago, Mattndew76 said:

 

Global population is on decline as tech increases. 

 

I'm glad you didn't have kids too.

 

            Except the Mexicans & Muslims - both seem to have big families overall,

here in the US.

Edited January 13, 2022 by angliagt

[Mattndew76]

Just now, angliagt said:

 

            Except the Mexicans & Muslims - both seem to have big families overall.

 

Not enough to displace the decline. Advanced nations and world populations are going down and literally are facing a catastrophic fall off.

 

Human technological advancement comes with big booms in population and has been a constant fact throughout human history. 

 

If the human experience was a 1000 page novel, our best and recent advancements are but the last few sentences in that book. The rest of that novel is very similar to every other page, but the last 100 years has been our brightest and most exciting portion of our existence contained in a few sentences. 

[bottomwatcher]

5 minutes ago, angliagt said:

 

            Except the Mexicans & Muslims - both seem to have big families overall,

here in the US.

Remember it was the Catholics who vehemently fought any kind of birth control as it became available. It was a race between religions to try and out breed each other to gain dominance. 

[Str8jacket]

I find it a little amusing that the same people selling climate change and carrying on about plastic straws hurting the turtles are the same people who have just had the world crankout untold amounts of fucking disposable masks and billions of plastic rapid antigen test devices. 

 

Environmental damage and pollution is obviously real, "climate change" is a scam to fleece more money from the herd

[angliagt]

        And the Catholics appose abortion,but the Pope told Biden that he

could partake in Communion,even though he pushes for more pro-abortion laws.

[Mattndew76]

59 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

 

 

John is always a sigh of relief. 

 

From December 2019 on he hasn't swayed from his reasonable message.

 

[datzenmike]

16 minutes ago, Mattndew76 said:

 

 

 

Human technological advancement comes with big booms in population and has been a constant fact throughout human history. 

 

If the human experience was a 1000 page novel, our best and recent advancements are but the last few sentences in that book. The rest of that novel is very similar to every other page, but the last 100 years has been our brightest and most exciting portion of our existence contained in a few sentences. 

 

I would say the industrial revolution. Booms in population were more the result of lower infant mortality, public sanitation, clean water, advances in medicine

[Mattndew76]

1 minute ago, datzenmike said:

 

I would say the industrial revolution. Booms in population were more the result of lower infant mortality, public sanitation, clean water, advances in medicine

 

agreed, but the boom in population give rise to higher chances of IQ within the human race and that IQ translates to such revolutions.  Nuclear Revolution gave rise to our fastest advancement in tech in every STEM art. 

[datzenmike]

1 minute ago, Mattndew76 said:

 

John is always a sigh of relief. 

 

From December 2019 on he hasn't swayed from his reasonable message.

 

 

I guess this is at odds with the doom and gloom official story. Like I say I stopped watching the news a year ago but you can't totally escape it. Canadian news is on in the other room and all that is said is the Omicron surge is coming!!!!!! Get vaccinated while you still can. Military sent into Quebec to help with vaccinations, worker shortages in hospitals... like where the fuck did they really go???? They aren't dead, probably told to isolate at home. Other workers have found it's easier to just stay home and the Gov. pay them. Duh. WTF???

[Mattndew76]

1 minute ago, datzenmike said:

 

I guess this is at odds with the doom and gloom official story. Like I say I stopped watching the news a year ago but you can't totally escape it. Canadian news is on in the other room and all that is said is the Omicron surge is coming!!!!!! Get vaccinated while you still can. Military sent into Quebec to help with vaccinations, worker shortages in hospitals... like where the fuck did they really go???? They aren't dead, probably told to isolate at home. Other workers have found it's easier to just stay home and the Gov. pay them. Duh. WTF???

 

Arrogant hubris. What should be a proper reaction to when people don't follow a dictate, "Extreme Measures." A violent pendulum swing from one extreme reaction to the next. Then stand around pondering why. 

[datzenmike]

1 minute ago, Mattndew76 said:

 

agreed, but the boom in population give rise to higher chances of IQ within the human race and that IQ translates to such revolutions.  Nuclear Revolution gave rise to our fastest advancement in tech in every STEM art. 

 

Higher numbers of higher IQs but population booms don't increase the percentage of IQs. Wars (including the Cold War) drive the fastest spikes in technology. If not for WW 1 we would still have bi planes delivering the mail. If not for WW 2 we would be in Ford tri-motor passenger planes.   

[wayno]

42 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

wayno, might not the increasing understanding and widespread use of condoms to prevent HIV/AIDS be responsible for the drop in births. After all, far and away sex is for pleasure more than procreation and most births are accidental. If you have HIV you are more likely to wear a condom or only have sex if partner is wearing one. If you don't have HIV same thing. Add to this the fact that all developing countries with increasing or higher education, higher standard of living, and a lower infant mortality allow parents to have fewer children. They are just too expensive to raise. The more educated a woman is the fewer children she will have. More can be put into one or two rather than 16. Is 8 or 9 children the norm in North America? Maybe Africa is just coming out of the stone age.

 

The US birth rate in 2007 was 2.12 just barely able to keep the population stable. It's been in decline since. In 2020 it was 1.64!!!!!!! South Korea (1.11), Singapore (1.21), Italy (1.33), Greece (1.30), Japan (1.37), Poland (1.39), and Canada (1.53). 

 

You give Bill Gates too much credit.

 

They are not asking Mike, they are doing this thing right now, and they are the ones that appear to own the people running this and other countries, THEY are the ones that got rich polluting this planet selling us things and now they are not happy.

I think they(the filthy rich) have screwed over so many people on this planet that people are flying planes into are buildings and hate Americans, or they hate us because we allowed it to happen.

 

I also read and/or heard of the cattle issue, cattle(poltry also???) are a significant contributor to greenhouse gases, that said I seen these and other facts??? on one of these programs that we now just recently are seeing about climate change on mostly PBS, it is like they are trying to justify what they are doing by showing us all these programs about how we are the problem and at a tipping point.

 

I have read and heard a lot of stuff about Bill Gates over the years, I first thought he was awesome going to Africa to help them people, I thought he went over there because he thought he could not do anything here because of the politicians in this country, well he went there to experiment on the people of that continent.

[Mattndew76]

22 minutes ago, datzenmike said:

 

Higher numbers of higher IQs but population booms don't increase the percentage of IQs. Wars (including the Cold War) drive the fastest spikes in technology. If not for WW 1 we would still have bi planes delivering the mail. If not for WW 2 we would be in Ford tri-motor passenger planes.   

 

Ok so you you agreed with my comment on a higher number of people with advance IQ's come with a population boom, but then said booms don't increase the percentage of people with higher IQ's?? 

 

More people of higher IQ is a greater percentage than before.... The larger the population begets the larger percentage that a higher IQ person is among them. 

 

With each population boom among humans, has come more and more advanced people. WAR is a result of population BOOMS. Thucydides Trap. 

 

Most of if not all the aerospace tech for WW2 was invented or pre-engineered between WW1 and WW2. 

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Mattndew76

[datzenmike]

I'm saying that if the percentage of say genius IQs is 0.5% it can't go up just because the population does. It stays at 0.5%. There are more geniuses because more people. (I think we are saying the same thing)