WWIII is a positive for the planet

[Aaron]

[Take this with a grain of salt]

The planet is dying due to over-population and the subsequent exhaustion of commodities within the market. I think that WWIII would fix this. If a large, planet wide war occurred, people would die and this would mean that the consumption would be reduced. Does anyone else think that this is the natural progression for international society as a whole? I mean, with the population growth as it is, I can't see the world being able to support China and India in 50 years time.

[Amit]

no this is a stupid idea

[Kronos]

I think we'll be getting something like it within 30 years

[Amit]

sources

?

[PerpetualBurn]

www.wildconspiracies.org/ridiculouswwiiifantasy

[Kronos]

My own feeling. That's all. I did preface my statement with "I think"

But look around - world's becoming ever more unstable. Climate change is upon us quicker than anyone thought. Natural resources are being consumed at an exponential rate. The beginnings of an idealogical conflict between The West and the Islamic world are there to be seen.
All the ingredients are coming into the kitchen - we just need someone to don the Chef's Hat and get started

[Amit]

My own feeling. That's all. I did preface my statement with "I think"

you can think with sources to back up your thoughts as well

crazy isn't it

But look around - world's becoming ever more unstable. Climate change is upon us quicker than anyone thought. Natural resources are being consumed at an exponential rate. The beginnings of an idealogical conflict between The West and the Islamic world are there to be seen.
All the ingredients are coming into the kitchen - we just need someone to don the Chef's Hat and get started

no country actually profits from war in a globalized market economy

[Kronos]

I know, but logic doesn't always figure in these affairs. Mullahs around the world would probably like a return to the Middle Ages anyway

[coheneran]

[Take this with a grain of salt]

The planet is dying due to over-population and the subsequent exhaustion of commodities within the market. I think that WWIII would fix this. If a large, planet wide war occurred, people would die and this would mean that the consumption would be reduced. Does anyone else think that this is the natural progression for international society as a whole? I mean, with the population growth as it is, I can't see the world being able to support China and India in 50 years time.

The theory is wrong because the assumption that the world is over-populated is wrong. World resources (actually, pretty much just oil and timber) are stretched because of Western consumption and waste, not because of over-population. There are more people living in poverty than there are people in the West, how can it be possible that world resources are stretched because of them?

[Kronos]

I think the main thrust of his argument was the developing economies of China and India - they are already consuming a large amount of oil and the demand will only increase



www.wildconspiracies.org/ridiculouswwiiifantasy


God that was hilarious. I nearly shat myself laughing

[Varment]

nahhhh war is bad, but dont worry, someone will think of the solution to global problems, untill then just chill

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar!

Huh!

Yeah!



What is it good for?

Overpopulation!


(say it again)







Anyway, you're wrong. all the (already stretched) resources we do have would go into weapons, not helping people, and nukes might well end up used.

[-1up!-]

Right now, worldwide, there is enough food to support 12 billion people, which is almost twice the current world population.

Unless by "resources" you exclude food.

[StreetlightRock]

State sponsored population control is the way to go.

It should be state policy to eat the homeless, for example. Pensions should be abolosihed, and instead, old people should be used as fossil fuel. That means tax reductions as well.

Vote Streetlight for President.

[Scuba_Steve]

Kill The Poor


oh, and stay warm, burn the rich.

[PerpetualBurn]

State sponsored population control is the way to go.

It should be state policy to eat the homeless, for example. Pensions should be abolosihed, and instead, old people should be used as fossil fuel. That means tax reductions as well.

Vote Streetlight for President.

I think you took NationStates a little too seriously.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

I hope that earth band together to fight ET creatures like clingons in the future and we will space travel and explore new frontiers of time and space and dominate the universe wild west/star wars style tbqh.

[VomitStainedCretin]

State sponsored population control is the way to go.

It should be state policy to eat the homeless, for example. Pensions should be abolosihed, and instead, old people should be used as fossil fuel. That means tax reductions as well.

Vote Streetlight for President.

Sounds like a plan. I'd vote for it.:thumb:

[coheneran]

I hope that earth band together to fight ET creatures like clingons in the future and we will space travel and explore new frontiers of time and space and dominate the universe wild west/star wars style tbqh.

Lawl, you mean Klingons. A clingon is what you get when your guch-pubes are too long and tangly. It's called that because it clings on.

Non-vegan revolutionaries, eat the rich!

[Against Miik!]

You guys are nuts. You are allowed to express something without having to back it up. Like if I think crack is good, i'm allowed to say that without giving 3 websites as proof, although it may be wrong.

With that in mind, yes, the planet is overpopulated. But WWIII would put all countries in such economic disrepair, that it could only be positive in the long run. Does anybody want a source for that?

[coheneran]

You guys are nuts. You are allowed to express something without having to back it up. Like if I think crack is good, i'm allowed to say that without giving 3 websites as proof, although it may be wrong.

With that in mind, yes, the planet is overpopulated. But WWIII would put all countries in such economic disrepair, that it could only be positive in the long run. Does anybody want a source for that?

The planet isn't over-populated God damnit!

[Smokey D]

Nah, as discussed in the Insults thread, some opinions are stupid and worthy of ridicule.

This is a prime example of why.

[PerpetualBurn]

Smokey D, that could be the best piece of moderating I've ever seen.

[A Spoonful Supreme]

Lawl, you mean Klingons. A clingon is what you get when your guch-pubes are too long and tangly. It's called that because it clings on.

Non-vegan revolutionaries, eat the rich!
No no I actually do mean "clingon" srsly our hair will get out of control.

[John Paul Harrison]

I think this is a bit fanatical. India and China will get their growth under control. Birth control, not nuclear holocaust, will put a cap on population. Religious fundamentals aside, I can’t think of anybody who would benefit from a major world war.

[Aaron]

I think the main thrust of his argument was the developing economies of China and India - they are already consuming a large amount of oil and the demand will only increase
yes that is correct.

The planet isn't over-populated God damnit!Overpopulation is directly in relation to the supply/demand cycle of resources; if there are too many people consuming the resources of the planet, no matter which side of the planet they are on, there are too many people.

[iloveyou]

yes that is correct.

Overpopulation is directly in relation to the supply/demand cycle of resources; if there are too many people consuming the resources of the planet, no matter which side of the planet they are on, there are too many people.

overpopulation is stupid

[thedeadwalk!]

I think with an efficient reallocation of the world's resources we can sufficiently provide the current population. A lot of countries as is with starving children produce an agriculture surplus for export.

Why are people so quick to kill each other?

http://www.zolknetwork.com/misc/thomas/jump_to_conclusions.jpg

Thomas Malthus had this same theory, too...in the seventeen hundreds. He predicted overpopulation by the eighteen hundreds. He's been wrong ever since.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Overpopulation? Demographics say otherwise

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

who knows?!?!!??!

[loathed]

Nahhh, its not over populated.

[coheneran]

Overpopulation is directly in relation to the supply/demand cycle of resources; if there are too many people consuming the resources of the planet, no matter which side of the planet they are on, there are too many people.

Then your problem isn't over-population. It's consumerism. I hate to sound like a commie, but your problem stems from capitalism, not people acting like rabbits.

[Smokey D]

Even capitalism as we have it is relatively sustainable, or at least modifiable to a point where it would become sustainable.

Anyway, it's blatantly obvious that even engagement of conventional forces on a scale that a third world war would entail would have catastrophic and long lasting effects on the environment and the world's ecology.

[gingerydoo]

Someone's been reading too much Malthus.

[Aaron]

Then your problem isn't over-population. It's consumerism. I hate to sound like a commie, but your problem stems from capitalism, not people acting like rabbits.Capitalism is natural for groups of people.

[thedeadwalk!]

Explain.

[AA-12]

I like that idea. People dead = good times.

[Aaron]

Explain.History has shown that people naturally consume no matter what the effect, even if we know it is detrimental to the environment. If, as history has shown, people consume more in times of peace, then war will correct this cycle. There's history of this dude.

[TheClap]

History has shown that people naturally consume no matter what the effect, even if we know it is detrimental to the environment. If, as history has shown, people consume more in times of peace, then war will correct this cycle. There's history of this dude.

Yeah, but now we have nuclear war heads to handle the whole, "fighting thing" as opposed to just using man power.

[gaslight]

Not the best idea.

The population will just build back up again over time, and the environmental consequences of industrial activity (which would go into overdrive in a full scale World War) would not be reset.

[bleep_bloop]

WW3 will happen, the only question is when. It is unavoidable. A friend of mine and my prediction is that the next big war will be over resources such as water or food taking into consideration the exponentially increasing population and it's ever increasing needs.

Not the best idea.

The population will just build back up again over time, and the environmental consequences of industrial activity (which would go into overdrive in a full scale World War) would not be reset.

Agreed. What we really need to solve our population problems is a plague.

[thedeadwalk!]

History has shown that people naturally consume no matter what the effect, even if we know it is detrimental to the environment. If, as history has shown, people consume more in times of peace, then war will correct this cycle.
Consuming doesn't equate to capitalism. Capitalism depends on abstract concepts that were only recently developed. Given the millenia of human history without it, I'd say it's not natural.

I think you assume a level of equality is enjoyed among the global population. It is not. I also think your observation of overpopulation comes from this unequal distribution of the world's resources.

There's history of this dude.
You're right. There is history of this dude. His name is Thomas Malthus. Why don't you read up on him and find out why he was wrong in 1798, and why you are now.

[thedeadwalk!]

WW3 will happen, the only question is when. It is unavoidable. A friend of mine and my prediction is that the next big war will be over resources such as water or food taking into consideration the exponentially increasing population and it's ever increasing needs.



Agreed. What we really need to solve our population problems is a plague.
This refers to Thomas Malthus who had a similar theory in the 1798.

Recent research and significant empirical evidence have showed some of Malthus's predictions to be unrealized. For example, the population has continued to grow, yet the prices of resources and foods relative to wages has decreased[citation needed], indicating the supply of food (and resources) has grown relative to population size. This paradox can be easily resolved because Malthus made three assumptions which are further elucidated by history after his death.

First, it is widely acknowledged that population growth is almost never exponential, but instead influenced by so many factors that no simple mathematical model can describe it. Demography since Malthus's time show that population growth rates flatten and then invert as a function of economic prosperity. Malthus lived in the time when England went through a geometric growth before birth rates in that country flattened.

Second, the growth of food production has never been restricted to the rudimentary processes Malthus described. Twentieth-century researchers have provided documentation of the process of agricultural intensification (pioneered by economist Ester Boserup) by which production can be raised in response to population increases and market demands. Production has also been expanded by societal and technological advances in agriculture such as the Neolithic Revolution, British Agricultural Revolution, and the Green Revolution, food supply has outgrown population and is expected to continue doing so by the Food and Agriculture Organization. A review of the most recent edition of USDA Agricultural Statistics reveals that the yield of corn has grown from 113.5 to 160.5 bushels per acre between 1995 and 2004. This represents a 3.5% average annual compound rate of growth. Similar results are reported for wheat -- with growth rates varying by type of wheat. (Tables 1-3 and 1-36) However this growth has been based heavily on a finite resource, petrochemicals, and may yet prove unsustainable. This growth has also been based upon exhaustion of certain soil resources, such as creation of the barren central highland plateau of Madagascar, which by definition cannot be repeated. (Some debate exists on the extent to which Genetically Modified Crops will contribute to continued agricultural growth.) However, the market economy - defined as mutually beneficial exchange between decentralized actors - is responsible[citation needed] for increases in productivity, and is internally sustainable. Likewise, Malthus clearly underestimated the power of the human capacity to increase the means of human subsistence on Earth. For example, Malthus did not fully understand the additional leeway built into the agricultural system - diets composed of different kinds of foods can have a wide range of different land-use efficiencies.

Third, Mathus assumed that technology would be held constants, even while population was growing at an exponential rate.

[bleep_bloop]

But in Cosmos by Carl Sagan he references a theory that analyses the frequency and sizes of wars, and predicts that wars on the scale of WW1 and 2 happen every 40 to 50 (I think). I will attempt to get a reference for that theory though, because me just saying it doesn't prove much.

[Aaron]

Key point that you have missed is we are entering an ice age, and in the 1700s the didn't understand the concept.

[thedeadwalk!]

But in Cosmos by Carl Sagan he references a theory that analyses the frequency and sizes of wars, and predicts that wars on the scale of WW1 and 2 happen every 40 to 50 (I think). I will attempt to get a reference for that theory though, because me just saying it doesn't prove much.
Yeah, I've heard that, too. But, with advances in military technology we've seemed to transition into small conflicts instead of outright war.

Not to mention the still unequal distribution of the world's resources. Lets not count the benefits of a world war before reforming the upkeep of the privilaged.

Key point that you have missed is we are entering an ice age, and in the 1700s the didn't understand the concept.
And in how many thousands of years is the ice age going to be here?

What he didn't understand then is what you're not understanding now. His critics work for you, too.

And in case you missed the bolded text from Wikipedia: food production has outgrown the population.

[bleep_bloop]

Key point that you have missed is we are entering an ice age, and in the 1700s the didn't understand the concept.
Proof? References?

[Aaron]

And in how many thousands of years is the ice age going to be here?

What he didn't understand then is what you're not understanding now. His critics work for you, too.

And in case you missed the bolded text from Wikipedia: food production has outgrown the population.What i'm trying to say is that food production in the future will stop being a fruitful due to the changes in climate. Ask anyone with a geo-science degree: if you could live over the next one-hundred years, you'll notice the difference. This decrease in growth in conjuction with the birth of two new superpowers; China and India; will make the world a very small place to live in. Think of how Britain and the USA wiped out the world's wooded forests in the past 100 years, and then add another variant into the mix.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

ut in Cosmos by Carl Sagan he references a theory that analyses the frequency and sizes of wars, and predicts that wars on the scale of WW1 and 2 happen every 40 to 50 (I think). I will attempt to get a reference for that theory though, because me just saying it doesn't prove much.yes but

we are always in a completely unique position considering how mankind changing and multiplying exponentially

[Aaron]

yes but

we are always in a completely unique position considering how mankind changing and multiplying exponentiallyexactly.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to (*The Noonward Race*) again.

[thedeadwalk!]

We're not growing exponentially! Population growths are affected by the rise and fall of economies more than agriculture! And, for those keeping track, America blossomed as a superpower thanks to its economic boom from WWII!

[Aaron]

America blossomed due to the decline of the British empire, post WWII, not on its on devices.

[thedeadwalk!]

American businesses and our war industry had more impact on our position than the decline of someone elses.

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

We're not growing exponentially! Population growths are affected by the rise and fall of economies more than agriculture! And, for those keeping track, America blossomed as a superpower thanks to its economic boom from WWII!
okay

well compare the population 200 years ago or 10000 years which is a geoloogically short time, and if for some retarded ****ing reason if you're considering the earths condition more than than mankinds it is a short time

[thedeadwalk!]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

[GiB]

no this is a stupid idea
Howd he get banned...

[Egggo]

posting in a spam thread even though i reported it

[Smokey D]

America blossomed due to the decline of the British empire, post WWII, not on its on devices.

What are you talking about? American industry outstripped British industry in the early 1900s.


History has shown that people naturally consume no matter what the effect, even if we know it is detrimental to the environment. If, as history has shown, people consume more in times of peace, then war will correct this cycle. There's history of this dude.

Industrial war consumes far more resources than industrial peace time.

And you haven't actually demonstrated that consumption of resources is necessarily a bad thing.

[Trojan Kahn]

[Take this with a grain of salt]

The planet is dying due to over-population and the subsequent exhaustion of commodities within the market. I think that WWIII would fix this. If a large, planet wide war occurred, people would die and this would mean that the consumption would be reduced. Does anyone else think that this is the natural progression for international society as a whole? I mean, with the population growth as it is, I can't see the world being able to support China and India in 50 years time.

First of all, whoever convinced you of this idea is a ****ing dumbass, second, if world war 3 were to ever happen, it would last like a day...nuclear war would leave the planet uninhabitable. and 3rd, when the world population grows to the point where the planet cant even handle it, then famine and diseases would solve the problem

[postcount plus plus]

I'm so glad you have no power.

[Aaron]

First of all, whoever convinced you of this idea is a ****ing dumbass, second, if world war 3 were to ever happen, it would last like a day...nuclear war would leave the planet uninhabitable. and 3rd, when the world population grows to the point where the planet cant even handle it, then famine and diseases would solve the problem

1) I generate my ideas and concepts on my own

2) WWIII would last one day? you've got to be kidding me. there is a finite amount of nuclear weapons that have potential to do damage currently in the world, and not enough to create enough destruction to leave the world uninhabitable.

3) what do you think the world governments will turn to when they realise that they don't have enough nuclear power at the grasp [ie. it takes a while to produce]; they will turn to viruses as you said.

As much as the US government can talk about how iran et al has "potential" to create nuclear weapons; they still don't have any that are usable, so realistically WWIII will be fought another way. use all of your brain when you try to argue something, rather than just regurgitating things you have heard.

[PerpetualBurn]

what do you think the world governments will turn to when they realise that they don't have enough nuclear power at the grasp [ie. it takes a while to produce]; they will turn to viruses as you said.

I always like it when people assume to know more about the supply of oil and fossil fuels and the time it would take to switch to other sources than the government of the country.

It makes it easier for me to disregard their opinion on the subject.

[Aaron]

I always like when people who are arrogant post rude things because it's easier for me to shrug it off than a nice person posting it. What point are you trying to make exactly?

[Volume8]

Anyway, you're wrong. all the (already stretched) resources we do have would go into weapons, not helping people, and nukes might well end up used.

Enough said, Thread


[/KERClosed]

[Aaron]

Read the thread title. Notice how I don't mention humanity, but the planet?

[Auberge le Mouton Noir]

Read the thread title. Notice how I don't mention humanity, but the planet?

the planet exists only to serve the things living upon it.

[Smokey D]

Why is consuming resources bad?

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

What i'm trying to say is that food production in the future will stop being a fruitful due to the changes in climate

Genetically engineered plants have and will continue to cause the threat of climate change on our agriculture to have little or no impact

Ask anyone with a geo-science degree: if you could live over the next one-hundred years, you'll notice the difference. This decrease in growth in conjuction with the birth of two new superpowers; China and India; will make the world a very small place to live in. Think of how Britain and the USA wiped out the world's wooded forests in the past 100 years, and then add another variant into the mix.

Huh? We've got more trees now than we did 100 years ago, all thanks to lumber industry

[PerpetualBurn]

I always like when people who are arrogant post rude things because it's easier for me to shrug it off than a nice person posting it. What point are you trying to make exactly?

That it's quite unlikely that the governments of the world know so much less about introducing nuclear power to their nation than you do.

And that based on this and other posts of yours I have come to the conclusion that you aren't that bright.

[slim_jim147]

I'm sure that WWIII will kill the planet with all the atomics bombs,missiles nukes etc..
People are stupid. When they create the atomic bomb, there where I think 5 or 10% chance that they burn O² so every body would be dead!!

Sry for my really bad english
Sj