You Libertarian types understand nothing


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

This planet has hard, finite physical limits, and humanity has reached them. There is only so much arable land, only so much fresh water, only so much rare earth minerals. You keep going on about your rights this, and your rights that. We're all on the same cosmic life raft together, and you're like that one guy who goes crazy yelling "I have my rights!" before eating all of the rations and letting everyone starve to death. We have a duty to interfere and to silo you into programs that guide you towards more sustainable per-capita consumption. We will not stand by and casually let you eat the planet right in front of us.

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    And because there's a limit of land on Earth we have to live in pods and eat bugs?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      We're losing 12 million hectares of arable land to desertification every year.

      https://press.un.org/en/2019/sgsm19680.doc.htm

      The topsoil is disappearing and being replaced with sand. The burden of having nearly 8 billion people on this planet is pulling so many minerals out of the ground, hundreds of years of topsoil accumulation are disappearing in mere months. Groundwater aquifers are having water drawn from them at well beyond recharge rates, leading to widespread droughts. Ammonium nitrate and phosphorus for fertilizer are going to be harder and harder to obtain for numerous reasons, including peak energy limiting the usage of mining equipment.
      The push for entomophagy isn't supposed to make people miserable. We're not trying to humiliate people by feeding them bugs. Quite the opposite. We're trying to figure out how to keep everyone on the planet from starving to death in a few decades, which is absolutely inevitable with the current trajectory of agriculture.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Australia, Canada and Russia are mostly unsettled

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >desert
          >permafrost

          Wow such great soil.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Antarctica is unsettled too

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              so then why can't we go there?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Do you really have no grasp of how civilization works?

              The amount of resources you will have to ship in just to get started is insane.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                See Inset.
                It's not that far from South America to Antarctica

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >The amount of resources you will have to ship in just to get started is insane.
                what something like 1/100th of the amount of shit that is shipped from U.S. to China annually just to be packaged and shipped back to U.S. and sold
                It would be easy to do, but not easier than settling any of the other empty, more desirable and easily accessible areas of Earth.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Australia is mostly unsettled
          Most people do not conceive of just how vast the unused land in Australia is, and all it needs is some rivers and reservoirs cut into it for irrigation.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        You didn't answer his question, homosexual.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          It's an asinine question. Not all land on Earth is usable or can be developed. Some of it is marsh, some of it is mountains. The proportion that can be graded and built on and economically reached with utilities/sanitation is actually a lot smaller than the total landmass.
          Then, you need to take into account access to transportation, like rail and roadways.

          Australia, Canada and Russia are mostly unsettled

          It's desert and tundra. What do you plan to do? Build log cabins out there and engage in open defecation like India? If you have a million people doing that, all you will have is a bunch of hungry people with polluted groundwater and no amenities of any kind.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            It's way late to answer, but what the hell.

            >It's an asinine question. Not all land on Earth is usable or can be developed. S

            No, you are the one who is asinine. Just because growth is finite does not mean that libertarian's don't know this, or that free markets are bad, nor does it mean that your UN bullshit is the way to go.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >because growth is finite
              it's not
              see:

              wrong on literally every single count
              you're totally clueless, zero idea what you're talking about
              https://ifreetrade.org/article/the_secret_of_eternal_growth_the_physics_behind_pro_growth_environmentalism
              >In the longer term, there is nothing in physics to stop the economy from growing forever. It’s not just that more and more of the economy will consist of services, though that is certainly the case, and more and more of them will be digitally provided by computer ‘bots’. The physical sectors of the economy will trend towards becoming entirely circular: material efficiency and recycling will improve indefinitely; the extraction of materials and production of pollution will first peak and then asymptote to zero. We will use unlimited knowledge and clean exergy from solar or nuclear power to drive endless improvements in human wellbeing and flourishing.

              >libertarian's don't know this
              any person, libertarian or not, who thinks growth is finite or that there is land that can't be used or developed, is a moron
              when we start terraforming other planets we will obviously be able to fashion ours as we please

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                growth is finite

                Yeah, it should have said "even if".

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Now I agree with you
            Nuke Africa
            Nuke China
            Them everything will be alright.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It's an asinine question. Not all land on Earth is usable or can be developed. Some of it is marsh, some of it is mountains. The proportion that can be graded and built on and economically reached with utilities/sanitation is actually a lot smaller than the total landmass.
        Then, you need to take into account access to transportation, like rail and roadways.
        [...]
        It's desert and tundra. What do you plan to do? Build log cabins out there and engage in open defecation like India? If you have a million people doing that, all you will have is a bunch of hungry people with polluted groundwater and no amenities of any kind.

        The people who made innovations that could have changed the course of history for the better have been killed, their innovations stolen. Think about this logically, consuming our finite resources in order to leave this rock and get to another is simply not viable to begin with. The current way of life is based on consumption because it's profitable, not because it's the only way. Much effort has gone into keeping things the way they are. Solving the problems that you're talking about would cost people money so they won't let it happen. It's fucked. Welcome to hell.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          There are solutiond to all his points but established billion dollar industries dont want to be irrelevant and fade out. They pay millions through lobbyism, badically bribes, to kill new imerging markets and technologies or buy them up outright. Even if these industries fail and are bankrupt, politicians will bail them out because jobs and because they own these Companies stock. So politicians are compromised to begin with.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Current trajectory of agriculture
        Suprise suprise, spraying the soil with chemicals on top of chemicals destroys the health of crops and the soil and decreases it's life span from 100k years to sometimes just 50 years. I guess nobody knew that this was going to happen 40 years ago when they locked farmers into this process.

        >Trying to figure out how to keep everyone starving.
        We only got the haber process because of the need for bombs. Lol. And then when it was used for food it was used for maximum profit, which, I'll repeat, destroyed the health of plants by removing crop rotations (which they knew would happen) and required pesticides that the plants could no longer produce naturally (which they knew would happen). Every move was for money and not longevity. Maybe if they stop killing innovators we can survive the next 50 years

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          it's not even just "chemicals" as in pesticides and such, but even fertilizer harms soil long-term, since it promotes organisms which essentially "prey" on readily available minerals, rather than the complex web of life present in healthy soil which continuously breaks down minerals and makes them available for other organisms, like plants
          Elaine Ingham has spoken and written extensively about this, and measured this countless time, so it's undoubtedly a scientific truth
          we're definitely going to have to employ this knowledge and engage in sustainable farming practices if we want the economy to grow forever

          [...]

          Either way this does go beyond economy. You'll be eating money if things don't change

          I'm not defending current practices at all, just making a point to OP that eternal economic growth with finite resources is absolutely possible, because efficiency can essentially improve forever, and coupled with larger and larger amounts of exergy we aren't even at a tiny fraction of what could be possible
          as long as we manage to avoid destroying ourselves in the process (the article warns about this too), we will eventually become something like The Culture from Banks' novels

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Efficiency can improve forever.
            Yeah, but only in increments that do not destabilise profit margins (not fast enough)

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >We're trying to figure out how to keep everyone on the planet from starving to death in a few decades
        You fags already vaxxxed over half the population, so there is about to be a lot less resource consumption.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Stop selling it to China then, agent homosexual

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why don't we just Colonize Australia

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Why don't we just Colonize Australia
      >Australia heat map.jpg

      how about you pull up the actual HEAT map of australia to answer your own question

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Russia, Canada and Australia are full of empty land

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          How old is this map? It's missing it's western most additions.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Russia, Canada and Australia are full of empty land
          the more empty the shittier it is to inhabit, anyways why do you want empty land?

          all those are protected either by the US army or the Russian army, you can't just take that land for yourself if the israelites don't want you to

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >israelites hoarding land is the problem
            you don't say.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          If that land had any intrinsic value, it would have been already settled.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    And Canada

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    NO! JESUS WILL COME DOWN AND GIVE US MORE OIL.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    malthusian theory is wrong please remove yourself from the gene pool.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    that's why we should vaccinate everyone, so they can keep living long lives, breeding like rabbits, and depleting the resources at an exponentially increasing rate

    haha jk, they will be depopulated, OP
    the problem is already solved
    all you have to do is sit back and wait

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    lies, we are experiencing the detrimental of effects of depopulation and demographic collapse.
    We have abundance beyond our numbers and the only way forward is rasing birthrates to replacement levels.
    China has realized this and has done a complete 180 from their short sighted one child policy.
    Malthusian nonsense is so tiring

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Antarctica is unsettled too

      Stop subsidizing naggers and shitskins.
      Problem solved.

      And Canada

      Why don't we just Colonize Australia

      That's still not going to solve the problem of the world running out of fuel and energy within a century or so at the current rate of consumption. Oil will run out in 40 years, Uranium will run out in 60 years, Natural Gas in 80-100, and Coal in around 120. Where will you find the energy to keep the tens of thousands of street lights on in the cities or to keep your desktop computer running 8-10 hours a day? Even batteries only delay the inevitable, the world is already running out of lithium in the artificial demand for electric cars (when millions of cars in themselves are a problem, especially when resources are being wasted manufacturing them every year). How will you replace the batteries and solar cells then?

      It's not hard to see this, a child can come to this conclusion entirely on their own.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Y’all said oil will run out in 40 years 40 years ago.

        How do you know oil isn’t replenished via an abiotic process?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          We don't, but we can't pretend like the situation will solve its self or through some magical new technological innovation either. As hopeful as that would be. I fucking wish that Tesla's schizo tech or whatever that enables free energy or some shit was real or that a cure for ageing was found, but even if it was we would never know about it outside of like a few people in whatever military or scientific contractor or whatever with the right security clearance. So even if they COULD solve all the problems of the world with whatever technology they might have, they seem to be keen on not doing that or not revealing the fact that they could do so.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Why can’t we just have production areas closer to where people live? And only eat in season foods, we don’t have to move tomatoes from Mexico etc

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >Why can’t we just have production areas closer to where people live
              Ask the people in charge of zoning laws or city planning.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager
        In 1968, Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, which argued that mankind was facing a demographic catastrophe with the rate of population growth quickly outstripping growth in the supply of food and resources. Simon was highly skeptical of such claims, so proposed a wager, telling Ehrlich to select any raw material he wanted and select "any date more than a year away," and Simon would bet that the commodity's price on that date would be lower than what it was at the time of the wager.

        Ehrlich and his colleagues picked five metals that they thought would undergo big price increases: chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Then, on paper, they bought $200 worth of each, for a total bet of $1,000, using the prices on September 29, 1980, as an index. They designated September 29, 1990, 10 years hence, as the payoff date. If the inflation-adjusted prices of the various metals rose in the interim, Simon would pay Ehrlich the combined difference. If the prices fell, Ehrlich et al. would pay Simon.

        Between 1980 and 1990, the world's population grew by more than 800 million, the largest increase in one decade in all of history. But by September 1990, the price of each of Ehrlich's selected metals had fallen. Chromium, which had sold for $3.90 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.70 in 1990. Tin, which was $8.72 a pound in 1980, was down to $3.88 a decade later.[2]

        As a result, in October 1990, Paul Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager in Simon's favor.

  8. 1 week ago
    sage

    And why do you have to do something about it ? If there's really a problem (there isn't) it will sort itself out.
    All the land used for ethanol production could be used for food instead.
    All the not so good land for agriculture could be used if we didn't outsource production to enrich some billionnaire.
    Also, the people preaching about sustainability are the main poisoners of the air, water and land.

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    arguing with schwab is worse than with your ex wife

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It's an utterly shitty situation considering that the concern surrounding finite resources on this planet eventually being depleted along with ecological damage is valid, it's just that these aristocrats/billionaires/bankers or basically any of the self-proclaimed eugenicist "elites" of this world with access to unimaginable wealth are going to use every opportunity to play the old tactic of deliberately impoverishing and reducing the living standards of ordinary people (or basically anyone outside of their circles).

      If they could press a button to kill 90% of the human population of this Earth whilst they hide away in their bunkers or private mansions or wherever during such a doomsday event that would leave them as the only ones left they would absolutely do it. Especially if they could justify it in the name of "saving the planet".

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >We have a duty to interfere and to silo you into programs that guide you towards more sustainable per-capita consumption.
    Uh, cool eyes your zogbots have, it would be a shame if something happened...

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    None of what you said contradicts libertarianism retard, *maybe* anarchy

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >We will not stand by and casually let you eat the planet right in front of us
    could you suggest a final solution perhaps?

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >I am a fascist
    >I can make you do what I want because it's for the greater good.
    Whatever helps you sleep at night scumbag.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    So ban wealth accumulation above a certain limit, simple as, but we all know the israelite will arbitrarily define that limit right in the middle of the middle class, and not above, because they want to keep their planes and boats and multiple mansions while we all fight for our scraps at the bottom.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The error that these communists always make is that when there is actual scarcity, the price of the resource goes up. This curbs consumption automatically without any need for a communist revolution

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >The error that these communists always make is that when there is actual scarcity, the price of the resource goes up.
      they compound that error by making this price increase illegal, branding it "price gouging"
      thus the resource remains scarce instead

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    wrong on literally every single count
    you're totally clueless, zero idea what you're talking about
    https://ifreetrade.org/article/the_secret_of_eternal_growth_the_physics_behind_pro_growth_environmentalism
    >In the longer term, there is nothing in physics to stop the economy from growing forever. It’s not just that more and more of the economy will consist of services, though that is certainly the case, and more and more of them will be digitally provided by computer ‘bots’. The physical sectors of the economy will trend towards becoming entirely circular: material efficiency and recycling will improve indefinitely; the extraction of materials and production of pollution will first peak and then asymptote to zero. We will use unlimited knowledge and clean exergy from solar or nuclear power to drive endless improvements in human wellbeing and flourishing.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >The error that these communists always make is that when there is actual scarcity, the price of the resource goes up.
      they compound that error by making this price increase illegal, branding it "price gouging"
      thus the resource remains scarce instead

      Either way this does go beyond economy. You'll be eating money if things don't change

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >>In the longer term, there is nothing in physics to stop the economy from growing forever.
      What a bunch of retarded bullshit.
      >he physical sectors of the economy will trend towards becoming entirely circular: material efficiency and recycling will improve indefinitely
      Yeah, we just need magical lossless 100% efficient recycling.
      Whoever posts this as a proof of any kind must be brain dead retard.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        no, you're the one who is retarded
        typical moron with zero understanding
        >magical lossless 100% efficient recycling
        nope, just closer and closer to it, nothing magical about it, and that's just one of many factors
        learn to read and turn on your brain while at it

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Okay go to war with Asia, Africa and South America over scarcity that doesn't exist yet.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    So how come we have more resources today then 50 years ago?

    Name a single raw material that we have less of today.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      it's pretty hilarious to consider OP's point of view when thinking about how we live on a huge ball of resources that literally weighs 6.6 septillion kg (6.6 * 10^24 kg)
      in comparison the total anthropogenic mass (all mass which humans have employed for their purposes that's currently sufficiently intact) is 1.1 quadrillion kg (1.1 * 10^15)
      in other words, we've only used less than a billionth the mass of the planet so far
      all we need is the knowledge, energy, and efficiency to make more and more use of that, and that's just Earth, not even considering harvesting resources externally (with enough energy, we can even start harvesting from the interstellar medium and transmute as we see fit)

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Name a single raw material that we have less of today.
      there are way less fossil fuels today than 50 years ago

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Stop subsidizing naggers and shitskins.
    Problem solved.

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >There is only so much arable land
    Bill Gates bought it all up.
    The amount of land is not the problem.

  21. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >only so much rare earth minerals.
    tell us more about the mineral scarcity

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      There's a reason why you can't go any deeper than a few kilometers underground. And neither can you expect the crust to be continuously rich with veins of useful ore.

  22. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    So we import 10 million Africans?
    You’re preaching to the choir, bud.

  23. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >only so much fresh water
    please, tell me all about how the water will run out

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      LITERALLY JUST BOIL THAT SHIT.
      I hate when people say we can’t turn ocean water into potable water. Like you can’t boil it bruh??

  24. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >You keep going on about your rights this, and your rights that
    So you want to take away my rights, is that where this is going?

    Nah. You can waive your rights if it's so important to you.

  25. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >before eating all of the rations and letting everyone starve to death.
    Have you ever grown even a single piece of food?

  26. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >We have a duty to interfere
    We have a duty to interfere

  27. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Solve the problem and kill yourself

  28. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >and to silo you into programs
    How are you going to do that without being a hypocrite?

  29. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >that guide you towards more sustainable per-capita consumption.
    If you care about security and sustainability, why are you destroying the bedrocks of successful civilization, like food, air, water, and social interaction?

  30. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >flat earth book

  31. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If that was truly your worry, you would glass China, Africa, and India you fucking hypocrite bullshitter. "Libertarian" types are objectively the least of your worries. They are far more self sustaining than any of your leftist saviors or victims. Fuck you, DIE.

  32. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Canada has the largest amount of land per person on earth as well as the highest housing prices.
    We're in a stage of cannibalism where those who have are preventing those with potential from building something of their own

  33. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >We're all on the same cosmic life raft together,
    This is ONE OF Klaus Schwab's many houses. Does it look like a life raft to you?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Does it look like a life raft to you?
      Bet it floats in case of floods.

  34. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >There is only so much arable land
    It CAN and HAS been created. Aran Islands used seaweed and sand for planting.
    It's a doable process, but people want the cheap and lazy way of growing first versus thinking of holistic long-term planting. Case in point, slash and burn in the Amazon.
    tldr; people who are lazy, short-sighted bums deserve to die

  35. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >We will not stand by and casually let you eat the planet right in front of us.
    So we agree on something.

  36. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Libertarianism is the most retarded ideology ever. It's not as evil as modern leftism but boy it's uber retarded. They are all about competition yet also try to ban violence which is just as legit form of competition as the others

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I almost became dumber just from reading this
      luckily I've learnt to defend my intelligence from this level of stupidity, so no loss of IQ for me today
      enjoy radiating stupidity, retard

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        poor guys' whole ideology got destroyed by a single argument.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          there was no argument, just the literally stupidest straw man I've seen in years, maybe decades
          >all about competition
          wrong
          >violence which is just as legit form of competition
          wrong
          try again, moron

  37. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The Malthusian law is the first principle of population dynamics, and simply says that populations grow exponentially:

    dP/dt = rP

    No serious person (economists aren't people, so if they claim otherwise, it's safe to ignore them) has ever claimed that exponential growth of populations is unbounded. That is retarded. In reality, populations may grow exponentially, but they will ultimately be limited by resource availability (even if the limited resource is simply the space needed to exist on the surface area of earth, fucking idiots). So the exponential growth equation becomes the logistic growth equation:

    dP/dt = rP(1-P/K), where K is the growth upper boundary.

    Of course, human individuals don't exist in a vacuum and neither do entire species. So we have to account for this. We can apply inter-specific competition (as long as we're not secular humanist or neolib capitalist religious retards). Then we get a system of non-linear ODEs known as the Lotka-Volterra equations. Interestingly, if we model, for example, a population importing another foreign population to fill some niche (i.e. jobs we don't want to do), then BOTH populations suffer. In some cases, there is no steady state for the system, and one of the competing species goes extinct.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >No serious person
      Don't you mean "no true scotsman" ?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        No, I specified what I meant in the (). Economists aren't scientists and they abuse scientific models.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          I was simultaneously more pedantic and more terse than you. I win.

  38. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Read Ted Kaczinski
    Oh wait, you wouldn't like that type of environmentalism now would you homosexual
    What you really want to do is kill White people, you shitstain fucking nagger

  39. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Next OP will tell us there's only so much oxygen encased in the firmament

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      There's only so much oxygen within the atmosphere, and atmospheres slowly are lost to space over time. Decay is the natural state of things in our reality.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        This is now a cooking thread.
        Just look at those emissions.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          There's only so much oxygen within the atmosphere, and atmospheres slowly are lost to space over time. Decay is the natural state of things in our reality.

          >emissions
          Pic related

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Anons: what is the best steak for fighting the WEF/NWO?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Ship round, but I'm a phaqfuck

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Do you prefer to consume other people's wood or natural gas resources when you grill?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Recycled Coconuts husks ,and wood chips for entry into flavortown.

  40. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >and humanity has reached them
    Earth can probably support up to 100 billion people.

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/world-population/

  41. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Its retarded most animal systems are self regulating. The Utopia experiments showed that the rats died before there were any limitations on necessities. Likewise population was declining naturally in the west and far east. What these idiots don't get is as soon as they pull this resource argument they take on responsibility of what normally would be a self regulating system. Meaning failures, mass death, and future regulation are theirs to own and should receive full punishment. It always was a bullshit argument to appease moral idiots and to please the donors.

  42. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    M8, the Nazis were the OG environmentalists

  43. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Advanced 1st world civilization will start starving way before we get close to hard limits on things like minerals and living space. I wouldn’t worry about it. As long as red meat (the most expensive food in terms of space) is affordable there’s nothjng to worry about. By affordable I mean you can go to any grocery and buy it. When it’s 15$ per pound of ground beef start worrying.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      When it’s 100$ a pound it’s over

  44. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    HEY OP YOU GOT A CALL

  45. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I get the feeling that OP isn't going to come back and e-argue with us in good faith, but who knows? Perhaps if you cattle feed this shit enough angry (you)s I'll be proven wrong.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *