Because population collapse is actually worse than population growth. Lower number of people to do things that need to be done but still with too many unable to work who still have needs.
Yes, overpopulation is a huge problem. For an exhausting quantity of reasons. I never undrstood why people go on about talking poi.ts about economy, pump out more babies. That is the most short term strategy to accomplish our short term gain, long term pain goals that is our species claim to fame.
They, Ehrlich and the like, were wrong before. Why do you think youâre right this time? What problems canât be overcome in your opinion?
Essentially: the world is finite in every aspect. Realistically we keep ramping up more and more. Half the planet is already starving. one can argue its.getting better but anyone with high school level biology and/or history knows populations follow food. Rise and fall, it is innevitable if we keep expanding.
Of course sollutions are simple, but not always easy. Solving.food waste wouwould on its own solve starcation and deforestation in many regions. So as food is available, babies get pumped out. Food needs to be produced more. Cat and mouse game.
Some of us arent so optimistic on people being logical qnd controlling ourselves. As history has shown we dont. A this present time we see very serious problems that we still are unwilling to change.
Im not saying we cant. just saying we wont.
Reproduction seems more related to wealth and the empowerment of women rather than food. Genetic engineering and fertilizers, bringing poor areas to the technological level of the west and reducing waste (40% in the US 
) can supply all the food we need, especially after populations of developing countries stabilize.
Access to food, especially in excess, is what wealth is. Same thing. So yes both are related.
Womens rights i would think would reduce birth rates a fair bit. Rape, forced marriages, multiple wives etc etc would theoretically go way down.
Fertilizers produce benefits and negatives. Fertilizers contribute a lot of pollution. Not just via production, but excess are known to cause ground water pollution which should be easy to see where that can go wrong. And it absolutely is going wrong and.m essing.up untild quantities of land and waterways/oceans. Dont get me wrong, petrochemical fertilizers and gmo have created a massive abundance of food, seen by our rapid population growth coupled with extended.lifespans due to health care, housing, logistics etc. On the face, more food = better. But if any scientists equation is that simple, they belong in the 11th century.
So this is where things always get exceptionally large, complicated and nearly impossible to comprehend. We need more food. 2 solutions. Waste less and/or create more.
Creating more via more fertilizer use, more spraying etc is a short term sollution to a long term pain. Not going to touch on gmo yet as there are legiitimate pros and cons and frankly it is so insanely complicated that our species is thus far unable to comprehend the real world long lasting effects of genetically engineered organisms.
People always expanding to points we are changing entire regions weather patterns (eg dessertification) must be taken into account with such conversations. People are part of an ecosystem, regardless of how many deny it and think we are psudeo gods separated from the natural world. Its amazing how a 6" thick wall of powdered rock and dead trees over a few millenia has altered our egos into thinking we are above the environment outside. This is the kind of monkey logic that keeps getting us in trouble.
Perhaps, but Americans are also bloodthirsty. I say this as an American myself. The United States is filled with millions of gun owners who love firing their weapons, and who, despite the lamentations in the daily news after each mass shooting, seem to accept that itâs okay for lots of people to get killed all the time.
The population of the United States has also shown a willingness to follow its leaders into war. Look at the destruction in Iraq, Afghanistan. The reasons for sending US troops to those countries were objectively questionable or downright stupid. But experience has shown that when the leaders say âGo,â the people of the U.S. will follow orders and the killing will begin. American mothers and fathers who lose their children to war often say that it was a sacrifice made for the good of our nation. Rightly or wrongly, people in the United States are immensely proud of their country and their military strength.
I am not making value judgments, Iâm simply describing what I see among my own people. The U.S.âfrom its revolutionary origins through the Civil War and countless other conflictsâis a violent place with a lot of people who are ready to kill if they think they are defending âThe American Way.â
With the right propaganda spin to get the American population worked up, the United States war machine could quickly go into attack mode against China or any other country. I find it frightening that this is not a hypothetical or theoretical possibility. It happens all the time, and U.S. politicians and common people simply accept it. âWhat did you expect? We had to bomb the shit out of those people to teach them a lesson.â
Yeah, but also not an american thing. This is a prety human thing with our tribal dna. Many countries are just the same, or even worse. Look at euro countries before (france, spain, england etc) and now countries like china, korea etc. Often times the leaders push too hard and.revolution happens. Honestly, despite how bad revolutions are, they tend to be an equalizer to tyrannical oppression to help balance things slightly. The US empire will likely collapse, like every world dominator has before us. We are too immature to really make it work it seems.
I agree. Everything you wrote is true from a historical or long-term perspective.
My post was in answer to the type of comment saying the United States would not dare get into a conflict with China. So Iâm talking about specifics, in the year 2021: I believe it is very possible that the United States would strike hard and fast.
I think the United States is too trigger-happy in military situations. I prefer diplomacy. So Iâm not bragging about the US. Instead I am describing a very real danger. A powder keg that could explode quickly.
There is a t-shirt that has been very popular over the past 40 years, often worn by unsophisticated types in the United States. In its many various forms the shirt usually features an image of a military weapon, often an AR military rifle, and the text reads âKill Em All - Let God Sort Them Out Later.â
This dumb T-shirt has remained popular for many decades. I suspect the reason is because it describes something in the American character. It is a belief that, in a military or other conflict, the best course of action is an overwhelming incredibly destructive show of force. The military even has a name for it: âshock and awe.â I would propose that this same attitude is the reason why U.S. civilian police forces are overly militarized and aggressive, and commonly kill citizens.
So when people say ânothingâs going to happen, China wouldnât dare; the U.S. wouldnât dare,â I say âI wish you were right. But it could happen, and very quickly.â
In reply to @jmee
Ahh i see what you mean. I agree on that in places succh as iraq and vietnam. China is a totally different game and their expansionist style along with total disregard for life is a scay situation. So in this possible future war, it should be treated more like Nazi Germany, not like Iraq. And the US was late as hell to the ww2 party, in ww3 might be nice if they show up on time rather than wait til their âalliesâ are about out of steam. Its sad when we gotta say thank god for StalinâŚ
Its not good to be trigger happy, for sure. Its equally as bad to be complacent.
Mobile artillery is the name of the deployment (usually army however can also include navy warships) It is artillery that is mobile. They tend to have designated locations where they deploy to (hence the term deployment). And are instructed co-ordinates to aim for (usually because they are too far away to actually see the targets theyâre aiming for). Mobile artillery is usually heavy artillery units with the majority firing 155mm Howitzer shells. When on the receiving end it is usually termed âcoming under artillery fireâ.
Weapons used in strafing range from machine guns (5mm to 20mm) to autocannon or rotary cannon (typically 20mm to 37mm). This means that, although ground attack using automatic weapons fire is very often accompanied with bombing or rocket fire, the term âstrafingâ does not specifically include the last two.[4]
In any case youâre right bud. Not much point going
The weapons listed there are aircraft weapons, because its aircraft that do strafing, which is where we came in.
Such light weapons wouldnât have the range to be generally useful in the mountain mobile artillery role you suggest, though the 40mm Dusters I mentioned were used a lot at close range against infantry in Vietnam .
2.1 is the replacement rate of fertility.
I think the American fans only sing when they are winning. Vietnam and Korea were very different wars to Iraq and Afghanistan and the fan base felt differently. Iâm not saying the USA wonât go to war, but Iâm saying it wonât be anything like Afghanistan or Iraq.
Current model truck, APC, or tank mounted heavy machine guns have a range of up to 118mm these days. The weight has been reduced through simplification of design.
Anyways. Who cares. Youâre right. Strafen. Strafing. A term coined during World War 1. Some are so blind they canât see their very own noses. Best of luck to you.
What is the expansionist style of the Chinese? Are you going back to the Qing dynasty, when they conquered Tibet East Turkistan, and Mongolia? Back when Britain ruled a quarter of the world, the US had taken the middle of the American continent, Russia had conquered central Asia and Siberia, the Ottomans had conquered most of the Middle East, and the French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch had seized most of the rest of the world?
Or the PRC. which in seventy years has given up (formerly Outer) Mongolia, squabbled with India over border adjustments in some of the most desolate places on Earth, fought a war not over territory with Vietnam (in which they were slapped back by the Vietnamese, and forced to give up on the Khmer Rouge in spite of American backing?
Their âexpasionist styleâ apparently consists of claims to Taiwan (as both the Qing- at the insistence of the Great Powers- and the ROC did) and the nine-dot line in the South China Sea, which admittedly is ridiculous (Canada says âhelloâ from the Northwest Passage).
The PRC has been and continues to be terrible to its own people; in the world as such it is an unpleasant and grumpy neighbor (greetings from Mexico, Ireland, and Ukraine).
Yeah I think itâs their aim to take control of the South China Sea and Taiwan. Duterte seems like heâs currently loathed in the Philippines for letting the Chinese do whatever they want. The Japanese are worried that China taking Taiwan might bolster Kim JongUn. South Korea the same. China has been using both their Panda Diplomacy and Economic Power throughout the Pacific for the last decade now. All while profiting off artificially low wages within China to attract Western manufacturing.
Thereâs a few issues. China is vulnerable to economic shock. Cutting off manufacturing in China as well as imports of fuel would see the vast majority of poor affected in a way not seen since Maoâs Great Industrial Stride or whatever it was when they all starved to death after melting down all their tin to make, well, more tin.
As for Chinaâs reclaimed islands they would be all but useless after a few hours of targeted missile strikes. Not only couldnât they land there the air defense batteries would be obliterated. Whitsun Reef is a new development. The same with Taiwanâs decision over this last week to start painting ADIZ incursions rather than send out sorties. Then again they sent out sorties yesterday on a number of occasions.
I think the most concerning thing is the Chinese eliteâs disregard for human life and differing opinions/beliefs. And the Westâs eliteâs reliance on China to make them more wealthy. If this was just a war between those that already have then Taiwan is a goner. Both sides are filled to the brim with people that embrace ignorance. Weirdly enough fueled by the Murdoch Media empire (he gave up his Chinese media enterprises to his ex wife Wendy Deng and Iâm wondering how far removed she was from Deng Xiao Ping the leader that introduced Capitalism with Communist control).
If the US had a plane replacement program with the F16Aâs then that might be a game changer. I have no doubt we will be seeing more and more US warships traveling the Taiwan Strait with the reduction in incursion intercepts.
China has a lot more to lose in this fight. It would set them back decades. Internally it would damage the CCP beyond any attempts at their cyber policing unitâs ability to minimise people finding out about what was going on. As others have pointed out it would greatly effect the traditional role of providing for the elderly if large numbers of only children were to die in conflict and the state had no means to look after them. Although itâs not a hard stretch of the imagination that they could set up large serviced centres and just merely relocate the elderly into them while providing CCP families with generous contracts for providing meals and entertainment.
Economically China is like most newly wealthy people. Most of their wealth is tied up in what they owe. Hitting Chinaâs economy would seriously impact their ability to service their debts. No money, no resources, and no oil means they would struggle to replace damaged fleet.
China has such a bright future I canât see them starting a war that risks it. Itâs just rhetoric and small actions for show.
They would not start a costly war, but would start a war to stop, as they see it any break away provinces of which they consider Taiwan to be inching closer to it. The USA has never claimed to support independence of Taiwan but rather the one country two systems. War can happen at any time.
A future so bright that itâs marked by genocide in Xinjiang, smashing Hong Kong, and working hard to piss off almost all their neighbours except Pakistan, North Korea, Laos, and Cambodia (with the latter two bought-and-sold).
Guy