What should I care about climate change when the population chart looks like this? (inside)

submitted by illjoi from self.AskSaidIt

http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/world_population_1050_to_2050.jpg

Is bill gates right? Quality of life? Why do poor people have 8 kids? Media? Is bill gates so redpilled he doesn't even know what nigger music is?

all 5 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Tom_Bombadil 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What isn't discussed is the trend is slowing, and total population is expected to stabilize and stop at 11 billion.

Gates is being dishonest, and is motivated by eugenics to reduce population under 1 billion.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think it's because the kike religion says the goyim are to be their slaves, and quoted a number of us to be slaves to each of them. So he's trying to make the numbers match. Some sick kike shit like that.

[–]TheNecrons 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, the thing is, this argument could be perfectly legit and fine...but there's one thing missing:

We need arguments that indeed, "the Planet's resources are not enough for all". Infact, we have to consider another important point: about 50% of the resources are in the hand of 2% of the population, so yea, that would be a problem even if we had 1000 people on Earth xD

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Exponential graphs are the hallmark of propagandists. They are used to make fallacious claims. The first is that an exponential curve will continue to skyrocket indefinitely until there is a catastrophe. This is very rarely the case. One in million examples of something that went exponential ended up with a total collapse. most things have an exponential period then plateau and stabilize. The second fallacious claim is the "doomsday clock" which claims that in exponential situations nothing appears to happen despite the problem existing and growing for a very long time and only in the very last second does the problem cause total destruction. This fallacy simply seeks to dismiss the correct assessment that if something has been around for a long time and not caused any problems then it is unlikely that it will suddenly and acutely cause massive damage.

Over population theories are only pushed in western countries where over population is literally not a problem, however in countries where people are starving to death those theories are not pushed. This can only be because the people pushing those theories are disingenuous. It only makes sense to control the population in countries that are unable to feed themselves and starvation is a major concern.

People have lots of kids when they have lots of free time on their hands to have sex. If they are distracted with jobs or entertainment they have fewer kids. It really is that simple.

[–]happysmash27 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is known that as countries get richer, they tend to have less kids. Maybe it is because they are too focused on work for them, or maybe just less worried about more of them dying.

You should care about climate change because it is a huge threat to everyone.

You didn't say why you are so worried about population growth, but a lot of the reasons (actually, all the reasons) I see to worry about it are intertwined with climate change. More people existing often means more people ruining the environment, exacerbating climate change, and both more people and climate change make it harder to feed everyone. I don't see the dichotomy here, but maybe you have different reasons to worry about it?