Thread: How many billions would we have to off for the earth to be sustainable?

All of them! Including all poor people!

Let's face it. We don't have enough resources, and we know that we're not going to scale back our consumption. So how many poor third worldies have to get whacked?

We are sustaining the population currently and doing it with quite a bit of excess.


So zero.

if you disagree, please start with yourself.

Who says we don't have enough resources, and where is their proof. The world is a huge place and when you consider that in one of the most industrialized nations in the world(USA) only two percent of the total land mass here is developed.

You could kill all the "third worldies" and it wouldn't make a difference. They're not the ones causing the problem.

"and we know that we're not going to scale back our consumption"

This puzzles me as consumption constantly fluxes and reacts closely with the current economic times, and available resources.

And this is where colonialism comes into play...

Actually, your premise is incorrect! There is enough land and water (desalinization) to support over double our current population.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid !!!

I've been suggesting that those worried about overpopulation do humanity a favor and off themselves. None of them seem to want to volunteer though. I wonder why?

The third world countries aren't the ones consuming our resources.

While significant reform to our industry in order to make it environmentally friendly would cost a tremendous amount of money, the payoff that industries receive in the long run for being energy and resource efficient can pay off for them as much as four fold.

The problem is that industries wouldn't see that money right away, so they are hesistant to make changes that don't pay off until several years in the future.