Overpopulation: Malthus was right

Global warming is not a threat, nor are nuclear weapons, deforestation, the financial crisis or even Israel. Because overpopulation is the greatest threat facing humanity. Malthus was right.

And yet no one, not even a liberal PC Greenpeace activist whose professed goal is to save Mother Earth and provide humanity with a blissful future of love, peace and harmony with the Environment will mention it...

Something very fishy is going on...

Over-population presents a tricky area for the PC crew.
Mostly because it isnt whites who are the main culprits, they would be forced to criticize other races and ways of life which is the complete opposite of what they believe in.

There's no danger of overpopulation. People aren't having children at the replacement rate anymore.

See the documentary "The Demographic Winter".

<<There's no danger of overpopulation. People aren't having children at the replacement rate anymore.

See the documentary "The Demographic Winter". >>


Um, what? Rich Westerners may not be but the third worlders are breeding like rabbits, the population is exploding exponentially. All China has to do is eliminate the one child policy and the world as we know it comes to an end.

Malthus was totally wrong. His predictions should have been accomplished a long time ago but the limit of sustainability has not been reached yet. Of course left wing propaganda keeps insisting that Malthus is right and the end of the world is set to come. If their predictions are proven false , they simply choose a later date and keep cheating credulous people. Planet Earth produces food enough to feed double current world population and more. Definitely Malthus underestimated progress of science and capacity of this planet to produce food.


<<All China has to do is eliminate the one child policy and the world as we know it comes to an end. >>

Once China achieves half the standard of living the Western countries have the one child policy will no longer be necessary. The Chinese themselves will decide to have fewer children like westerners do to provide them better education and material conditions.

The one child policy has caused problems of its own anyway.
most of the kids here are spoilt little bastards with massive egos.

>> Malthus was totally wrong <<

-- Presque tous les peuples de cette planète sont des pollutions sans utilité ni nécessité. Une population mondiale réduite à quelques millions de Blancs aurait un niveau technologique et culturel bien supérieur à celui moyen d'aujourd'hui.

Depuis trente ans le niveau de vie des Occidentaux est stagnant voire régresse, en dépit des gains de productivité. La cause : l'explosion démographique du Tiers-Monde, avec ses effets collatéraux (immigration parasitaire, criminalité, coûts de sécurité etc.).

PARISIEN, write in English if you want people to answer you.

Especially Africans are having ten, twenty kids per family and then wait for white westerners to feed them. Why are they having so many kids when there if they can't even look after themselves?

Sex is the only entertainment poor blacks in Africa have access to. Maybe that's the reason.

By the way, Malthus established 1000 millions as the maximum population the Earth has resources for. Figure out, nowadays total population is 6000+ millions and if some people suffer huger it's due to their bad governments, not overpopulation. Indeed Africa is sparsely populated compared to other continents.

>> By the way, Malthus established 1000 millions as the maximum population the Earth has resources for. <<

-- Je pense que la limite raisonnable est encore plus basse. Mais cette limite n'est pas un mur auquel on se heurte brusquement, elle est une transition insensible vers la loi des rendements décroissants.

Exemple : l'Espagne excède depuis longtemps la limite de ses ressources en eau. Une augmentation minime de leur disponibilité exige des investissements toujours plus hauts pour des rendements toujours plus bas.

Autre exemple : depuis 25 ans, il faut tous les ans un peu plus de fuel pour pêcher 1 tonne de poisson en mer.

Contre-exemple : aux 18-19e siècles, la France a eu une population stabilisée qui, combinée à une révolution industrielle peu traumatique car très étalée dans le temps, a permis à la population de profiter à plein des gains techniques de productivité et donc d'atteindre un haut niveau de prospérité.

[ Il y a eu toutefois des effets pervers géostratégiques : la stabilité démographique a empêché d'avoir une émigration significative pour peupler le Canada et la Louisiane, et l'Allemagne s'est vite retrouvée avec une population double de la France. La concurrence démographique est une arme de destruction massive. ]

The thing is, there is enough food to feed the world, but it is distributed unevenly. Think about how much extra food and waste Americans have, compared to starving Africans.

And I believe I remember in a demographics class that world population is supposed to peak at around 8 to 9 billion eventually, and then start to decline. But with the peak of oil production coming soon, that might happen earlier. Who knows. Western countries have slowed down, but developing ones are still having many kids in order to use the help for their parents later on, to try to produce a male heir instead of a girl, and to make up for the potential loss of kids before they fully mature due to diseases and stuff.

Well the Africans are starving because they have to many children and don't farm like white people do. Why is it when white people were living in Zimbabwe there was enough food for everyone and now that all the white people have left, and a black man governs the country (Mugabe) they are all starving???

Is cultivating potatoes and maize so difficult?