Population Control Isn’t the Answer to Climate Change. Capitalism Is.

Population Control Isn’t the Answer to Climate Change. Capitalism Is.


We are in the beginning of a mass extinction
and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth,
how dare you! When Greta Thunberg drew national attention
for her comments at the UN in the Summer of 2019 some praised her performance as a stinging
rebuke to the rich and powerful for failing to put the survival of the planet
above their own needs. At just 16 years old our next guest is already
changing the world- She became the biggest voice on the biggest
issue facing the planet. Others saw the exploitation of a young woman
with emotional problems for propagandist ends. A mentally ill Swedish child who is being
exploited by her parents and by the international left. But there’s no question that Thunberg’s style
of environmentalism: strident, urgent, and critical of global capitalism,
has gained a strong foothold in contemporary politics. A 2019 paper from the journal Biosciences
cosigned by more than eleven thousand scientists asserted that planet earth’s population must
be stabilized and ideally gradually reduced and some politicians have questioned the morality
of having children at all. There’s scientific consensus that the lives
of children are gonna be very difficult and it does lead, I think, young people to
have a legitimate question, you know, should, is it ok to still have children? Educating everyone on the need to curb population
growth seems a reasonable campaign to enact would you be courageous enough to discuss
this issue and make it a key feature of a plan to address
climate catastrophe. Well the answer’s yes. Fears of overpopulation and ecological disaster
are also beginning to manifest on the far right, mixed in with an anti-immigrant animus. The logic was expressed in it’s most dramatic
and twisted form in the 2019 manifestos of mass shooters in both New Zealand and Texas. If we can get rid of enough people, he wrote,
then out way of life can become more sustainable. Whether contemporary proponents of these ideas
know it or not, they’re all intellectual errors of the misguided
18th century thinker Robert Thomas Malthus. Who believed that when human population increased,
famine and environmental destruction would ensue. Malthus argued that population would always
outstrip food supply because population would grow at exponential
rates whereas food supply could only grow at what
he called arithmetic rates. Reason science correspondent Ron Bailey is
the author of the 2015 book End of Doom. He didn’t recognize that in fact crops and
livestock are also populations. That they can also be exponentially increased
at the same time as a human population was. And that’s exactly what happened. Basically the Malthusian prescription turns
out to be completely wrong. In the contemporary world, Malthusianism was
most famously expressed through the work of ecologist Paul Ehrlich,
especially in his 1998 book The Population Bomb. The only hope that there is is that we will
be able, at least in the United States, through the political process to get a government that’s courageous enough to say ‘look we’reoverpopulated and we have to have population control and start moving in that direction.’ He predicted that through the 1970s and 80s
hundreds of millions would starve to death. He compared humanity to a cancer, writing
that “We must shift our efforts from treatment
of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.” Ehrlich, who still holds an endowed professorship
at Stanford didn’t respond to our interview request. His proposed solutions included taxing diapers,
subsidizing vasectomies and even spiking food aid and water supplies
with sterilizing drugs and then holding a lottery for access to the
antidote. Similarly ecologist Garret Hardin in 1968
compared humanity to over-breeding cattle. Writing that ‘the freedom to breed is intolerable.’ The only way to make this system work is to
have the family be willing to give up one of its former freedoms namely the freedom to determine how many children
it was going to have. Ehrlich would turn out to be as wrongheaded
as Malthus. Over the next half-century, calories available
per capita steadily increased in just about every region of the world thanks to improved agricultural techniques
and technology. Humans are not only consumers, we’re also
producers. We’re able to create new things, to use resources
in better and better ways over time. Human creativity can overcome the problems
that Malthusians think that we’re going to be suffering from over-consumption. We’re using fewer and fewer resources to get
more and more value over time. And yet world hunger is yet to be eradicated with the UN reporting that about ten percent
of the global population is under-nourished and perhaps it’s true that past trends don’t
predict the future. That’s a lot of people, how are we going to
feed them all? Karen Pitts who is a member of the Sierra Club
and ran a northern California subcommittee on population growth is concerned that the world won’t be able
to accommodate a population that’s expected to peak at 11 billion by 2100. She became interested in the topic after a
trip to China in 1996. As you flew over the country, every space
was taken up by houses and housing. They are overpopulated. Whether or not they produce enough food is
a big question and we really can’t take the risk of being wrong. While it’s true that farmers will have to
become 70% more efficient over the next 30 years to feed the growing population, the technology already exists to accomplish
that goal. If all farmers were as efficient as US corn
growers, the world could feed ten billion people today
on half as much land. And as humanity continues moving into cities, the environment will probably be better protected
Bailey points out, because this allows for the restoration of
forests and other ecosystems on the land migrants leave behind. Something like 90% of people will be living
in cities by the end of the century. If that is the case then it’ll be less than
2 billion people living on the landscape. Which means that there’ll be far more scope
for forests to return, for biodiversity to flourish and we’ll be using a lot less resources over
that time. But today’s Malthusians are most concerned
about the disruptive effects of climate change, citing global warming, documentarian David Attenborough described humanity as a plague upon the earth. I can’t think of a single problem that wouldn’t
be easier to solve if there were less people. And the Biosciences paper signed by eleven
thousand scientists projects total societal collapse if population isn’t managed properly. There’s a catastophizing, apocalyptic undercurrent. Ted Nordhaus, who’s a founder of the Breakthrough
Institute, which advocates technological solutions to
environmental problems, believes the environmental movement has long
been hindered by its anti-growth paradigm. Conventional environmental ideology posits human development and environmental
protection oppositionally and I have exactly the opposite view. Nordhaus says that the most effective way
to deal with climate change is by promoting policies that accelerate economic
growth. If you’re really serious about accelerating
the decline of fertility rates and the peak and stabilization of global population, you need to accelerate economic development for certainly probably 3 or 4 billion people
over the next three or four decades. Most of today’s environmentalists don’t openly advocate for the draconian population control measures pushed by Ehrlich and other Malthusians in
the 1970s. Karen Pitts says that she just wants more
sex education and greater access to birth control in the developing world. Pointing to a project she participated in
with Tanzania’s local population. I have introduced contraception, we put tablets
over there that they could use plus being able to administer family planning. And the contraception rate went from about
25% to over 54% surprisingly easy. Those women wanted family planning. Funding greater access to birth control and
education for women in developing countries was also a recommendation of the Biosciences
paper and it’s a policy agenda of the UN and leading
NGOs like the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation. Nordhaus says such measures can help with
the margins, but ultimately miss the big picture. Which is that as wealth increases, fertility
rates naturally fall as families invest more resources in fewer children. The real drivers of long term fertility decline
and population stabilization around the world are just kind of garden variety economic development which a lot of the same people signing those
documents are actually saying is the problem. The Biosciences paper argues that economic
growth is driving over-consumption of resources and says ‘our goals need to shift from GDP
growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems…’ Soon as we find new ways to do it our consumption
increases. That’s the problem. Pitts is right that people in wealthier societies
tend to consume resources and generate greenhouse gasses at rates that
are orders of magnitude higher than thoseW in the third world. But Nordhaus points out that when poor societies
become wealthy there are more people positioned to help solve
environmental problems in the only way that really works: with new
technology. Environmental discourse has been overly focused
on consumption. Technology is one of the key things that mediates
the relationship between affluence and consumption and impacts. Wealthier, more developed societies are both better positioned to adapt to problems
like climate change and climate impacts. A category 5 hurricane creates a lot more
devastation and a lot more loss of life and human impact
in a poorer society than in a rich society. They’re also better positioned to develop
and deploy new technology. Most of the success we’ve had in deploying
nuclear or other clean energy technologies is actually in a context where energy demand
is growing quickly. And so Nordhaus advocates for greater reliance
on clean, abundant energy like nuclear power to fuel advanced economies towards possibly
innovating even lower impact alternatives. But the third world may still need to rely
on traditional fossil fuels on its path to prosperity. Certainly over the next three or four decades
a lot of development, particularly in poor countries, is still going
to be fossil based. But it could be natural gas and not coal, or in Africa, for instance, just there’s huge
hydro capacity. In projections of sort of where populations
are going to stabilize is really when you get down to the bottom of it is just ultimately a question of how rapidly
Africa develops economically. Nordhaus says that climate change will likely
continue to present challenges for governments, individuals and societies
in the coming decades but that it’s better to conceive the problem
not as an asteroid hurtling towards earth, dooming us to extinction unless we thwart
it, but as global case of diabetes. Diabetes when it’s treated is manageable,
it depends on what we do. And it’s not just about cutting carbon emissions, it’s also development makes us more resilient
to climate extremes of all sorts. Malthus wasn’t completely wrong about the
tendency of humans to deplete resources, says Bailey, but he failed to see that new ways of organizing
society would ameliorate the problem. Up until a few centuries ago, Robert Thomas
Malthus was about right. Is that in fact population was regulated by
food supply. And something changed, the world understood
the role of property rights for example, the rule of law, and this dramatically changed
the incentive structures that people had. Activists like Naomi Klein who argued that
our economic system is at war with our climate system. She wants to replace it with some form of
communitarian socialism. I would suggest to you that doing that would
exactly bring back the Malthusian conditions that we used to live in. The thing that we need to do is proceed to
produce more wealth, more technology in order to ameliorate, overcome the problems
that climate change is going to cause. Her prescription is exactly the opposite of
what needs to be done. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction
and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth,
how dare you! That’s the kind of claim that it doesn’t actually
enlighten at all. It doesn’t actually tell us anything about
the real choices we’re faced with. What sorts of social and political and economic
arrangements we ought to aspire to you know for a planet that is pretty soon
going to be nine or ten billion people. What it’s not is gonna be agrarian, traditional
economies. With ten billion people if you ever tried
to actually like actually have everybody live that way we would just cut down every forest in the world
and then we would collapse. This is not real, these are fantasies. She’s going to go back to Copenhagen and live
a very righteous life as an international environmental celebrity in a wealthy city surrounded by extraordinary
modern infrastructure most of which was built with fossil fuels. That’s Greta Thunberg’s future and I would like that future for everybody
else on the planet.

100 Comments on "Population Control Isn’t the Answer to Climate Change. Capitalism Is."


  1. Does anyone remember the "Hole in the Ozone Layer"…. Anybody…. Anybody? Why no talks about that anymore… Oh that's right, because its not marketable anymore and never really existed.. I'm more afraid of these "Solutions" than I am of the over all problem..

    Reply

  2. what's sad is people seem to think a child knows better than anyone who has a doctorate in astrophysics, biochemistry and aeronautical science just because she throws a tantrum on tv. i've said this from day one and every day it continues to be true: people only started caring about climate change when they learned how to make money off of it

    Reply

  3. This is propaganda, using dated propaganda. One thing is certain, the critics in this video will not solve the mass extinction we are already undergoing. The asteroid has already hit. We can't use fossil fuels to solve this problem, it's the cause. Before extinction, civilization collapses, and that is right around the corner.

    Reply

  4. Climate change is a scam, they have changed the name from global warming, because in some countries is not getting any warmer but dam freezing like in the UK where we freeze and waiting for the none existent summers, so we have to go to countries that are warmer and have couple weeks of holidays. And now they want us to stop going for holidays because of climate change, what a crock of shit. Any one that will try to push that idea on me is going to get a punch in the face, we are surrounded by Sociopaths rich MF that never done a days hard work in their life time, the PARASITES OF THE WORLD.

    Reply

  5. Look up Freeman Dyson interview about Atomic Energy. Freeman is a scientist who played a role in the development of Nuclear Power in Los Ala mos during the late 1940s. He is still alive today and is extremely optimistic about the future of humanity. He recommends even more CO2 to be released into the atmosphere for more greening, and he highly supports safe Thorium Nuclear Reactors, buried underground, which can run for 50 years with only Helium being supplied to cool down the Reactor. This is almost equivalent to Free Energy for the mass of humanity – a true age of worldwide prosperity is possible with Thorium energy. The Indian subcontinent have committed to 30% of their energy to be Thorium nuclear produced within the next decade. Watch India lead the way for the rest of the world.

    Reply

  6. I like the wording of her speech, but I really hate her voice so much. If someone with a bit more talent had delivered her speech, I think it would've been far more effective.

    Reply

  7. All this time spend on helping the planet by blaming others to be the problem. Just evolve, innovate and organise on different end goals. Ty…

    Reply

  8. And the poor countries are over populating not the advanced countries the USA only is growing due to immigration. The best way to slow this educating women and more equality for women.

    Reply

  9. Is anyone wondering what this child’s life will be like when she grows up? At the age of 12 she’s speaking at the UN, and on national television. Where do you go from there? I hope she doesn’t end up like McCauly Culkin (the kid from home alone)
    Anyways, what’s this vid about? Global warming?

    Reply

  10. Wut, unfettered capitalism is the reason for this mess we're in because we got these big companies that hold tons of political power to prevent proper governance that could affect their bottom line, and then directing capital into investments that continue to destroy the environment.

    Obviously, technology would solve global warming. But how you get that technology is the result of government action. Forcing businesses to innovate and push towards environmentally friendly solutions. Otherwise, big business will keep doing what they do, and destroy themselves and everyone else in the process.

    Reply

  11. what a nut job at this age; to blame are adults who fill these little heads with so much BS.
    Environmentalism is the most hostile philosophy towards man that has ever been around on this planet. Never before was it demanded that man subordinate himself to every other living creature and plant; that he regard himself as inferior to everything else; that man's ideal state is a zero footprint, which can only be achieved once he is dead. Well, I beg to disagree, and my 'How dare you', is directed towards every environmentalist.

    Reply

  12. MOST food is farmed for animals to eat the animals. you would get more food/calories if we ate all the plants for ourselves instead

    Reply

  13. So this is what is defined as "reason" today, hmmm 😑

    No wonder we're 100 seconds from midnight on the doomsday clock.

    Capitalism just crashed, again a little over a decade ago, and the FED is pumping 250 billion a day into the overnight repo markets, since Sept of last year.

    Capitalism is so great, you get rewarded with a pay raise and huge bonus for 3 felony convictions and be under indictment of the RICO act for operating as a criminal enterprise in the precious metals market.

    Only captialist would think Jamie Dimon should keep his job as CEO of JPMorgan Chase.

    And you people think this is a good thing. 😲

    Ladies and gentlemen, reason as left the building… 😉

    Reply

  14. It's a bit silly as all we would have to do is cut out beef and we would have enough food to give 3 meals to everyone on the planet today.

    Reply

  15. They are so anti-human… yet they need fresh shipments of children for their human sacrifices… Illogical? You can't understand crazy satanist sect…

    Reply

  16. All these eco socialists seem to forget one key thing central planners don't care about anything except perpetuating their power: west Germany was a prosperous clean nation and east Germany was an ecological disaster

    Reply

  17. You guys have been wrong for 50 years. FIFTY YEARS. Now you think you're gonna be the ones trusted to offer up a solution? Sorry. You've totally and utterly failed. It's time to wear the dunce cap and shut the fuck up so we can repair the damage.

    Reply

  18. since modern capitalist development tends to dramatically reduce birth rates it seems that we need more of this than less, canada is only just bigger than china with 37 millions vs 1,200 million, and i'm not supposed to think that there's a limit? when JFK was alive world had half its current population, now planet is exploding w humans who all want to live like americans with their cars & TVs… population is the dominant variable if you ask me…

    Reply

  19. Yeah this video is not reasonable at all it conflates climate change with resource/food availability – two different issues. The argument here that the more people that are born, the more CO2 pollution emissions will increase. More CO2 emissions -> worse living outcomes everyone. Thus an easy way to reduce CO2 emissions is to have less kids.

    HOWEVER – If humans can be born that have 0 or negative impact on CO2 emissions, then population control will not be a solution to climate change.

    Reply

  20. I'm going to charitably assume these people don't realize that they're exactly like Bush Jr saying they hate us for our freedoms and taking them away. Climate change is a threat to humanity? No, the actions you propose to solve it are a threat to your humanity as you risk becoming a monster.

    Reply

  21. Gore wrote the introduction to Paul and Anne Ehrlich's book The Population Explosion: From Global Warming to Rain Forest Destruction, Famine and Air and Water Pollution—Why Overpopulation Is Our #1 Environmental Problem (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1990), Gore thoroughly endorsed their demand for radical population reduction measures in the world's poorest countries. The Ehrlichs argue that AIDS is merely the latest of numerous pandemic diseases that have resulted from overpopulation, in places such as Africa, where they believe that AIDS originated.

    Reply

  22. 3:27 What in the actually fuck!? That's horrible. I'm glad glad this bullshit isn't taken as seriously as they hope it would be.

    Reply

  23. the more educated the population becomes the fewer children we have, how many well off, educated north american family's have 10 kids anymore? and still we will grow from 7 billion to 8 billion in about 11 years, the fastest in human history and were still picking up speed.

    Reply

  24. Human population tipping point for the world's natural environment as you see it today, what say you? Remedies?

    Reply

  25. This is old news
    Socialists have always been advocating for population control since the time of Mao and Pol Pot

    Reply

  26. …I AGREE that the world population should be gradually REDUCED… but the ONLY population the planet Earth should be rid off consists in the FUCKING NWO CONSPIRATORS… So, in His mercy for the planet Earth, MAY GOD STRIKE them with an "FAIL-PROOF" thunderbolt… and thus, SAVE the rest of humanity!…

    (…AMEN!…)…

    Reply

  27. Whenever I read of Greta and Time magazine I am reminded that Adolph Hitler and Joseph Stalin were also Time's man of the Year. She is in the same league as them for sure.

    Reply

  28. this bias video is deliberately confusing the issue.
    Yes affluence is the answer to the problem and yes our version of capitalism is the problem!!!
    The issue isn't between neo-liberal capitalism or poor peasantry. To be beneficial the affluence has to be for all members of society (ie: social-democratic capitalism) rather than wealth collected by in the hands of a small few (neo-liberal capitalism).
    Our neo-liberal version of capitalism is destroying the planet by pushing over-consumerism for the financial gain of a wealthy few, however the alternative ISN'T by reverting to peasant communes but by changing our capitalist model in the developed world to one that benefits all members of society. This would have two benefits; 1.) it would reduce the consumerism of of our society and 2.) would reduce the demands on third world countries allowing them to advance.
    .
    This video also ignores over the fact that the developed world is completely skipping technologies. eg: a lot of African communities aren't building fossil fuel power instead they are going straight to solar power, while also skipping 'land lines' and going to straight to mobile phones. (yes there are thatched roof, mud-houses with solar panels and mobile phone banking for trading)

    Capitalism is the answer but ONLY if we replace neo-liberal capitalism with Kaynsian economics.
    so yes Greta is right, and advancement/ development is also right…. staying on the path we are will destroy us all. We desperately need to change our MODEL of capitalism.
    So yes while this video has ..some.. relevant points its clearly nothing more than propaganda for the super-rich to continue to take advantage of YOU for their benefit.

    Reply

  29. Yes, capitalism will solve it. We need to deregulate the market so that corporations can go back to regulating themselves. It's the only way to solve pollution.

    Reply

  30. Climate change is designed to collapse Capitalism AKA Destroy Western civilization From the inside out By prejudice racist leftists Idiotology

    Reply

  31. She is certainly entitled to her opinion… just like any other 17 year old. Has anybody else read her doctoral dissertation? LOL!

    Reply

  32. Well … you have to give credit where credit is due.
    A third world war between China and the US is drastically going to reduce the world population.

    The problem is it doesn't work, 10 years after WW2 the world population was back to pre-war levels.

    Also scientists who say there are too many people are self centered egotistical and over convinced about their own importance.

    Reply

  33. The 11,000 "scientists" in that sturdy are as fake as climate change itself. It was a petition anyone could sign who they then presented as "scientists". Mickey Mouse was one of the " scientists" along with a bunch of crazy activists.

    Man made Climate change is complete scam.

    Reply

  34. There is a clear lack of morality when it comes to human intellect… we start to define life in terms of a perception, in result losing the sense of value in life! It’s as if just because someone is going to die one day, and the fact life has no exact meaning, automatically brings the individual into a nihilistic perspective. And this is EXTREMELY dangerous, because this “everything is meaningless” is the exact way Islamic extremist think, this is how terrorist are created, or slave masters! The very thought alone that another life is going to be dead, eventually, immediately turns that mans heart into stone, becoming the HAND of death itself! … I think the real problem here is a globalization of privileged citizens who have the lifestyle of pharaohs, or King’s and queens, who want to protect that lifestyle, but it all comes at extreme cost! Because we create a world of haves and have nots, a hierarchy, a pyramid system… if we want to be able to go the grocery store and CONVENIENTLY buy our food, or buy our clothes from a department store, etc, anything we want in the system requires a NATION, a GLOBE, a WORLD of slave labor to produce that! Because the system we live in now is EGYPT and the only way for the pharaohs to have their eternal resting place is from the sweat and blood from SLAVES, which is no different then how the bed we sleep on every night is made… I don’t understand how people don’t realize this! There is no solution within the system!

    Reply

  35. Label me a skeptic, but I seriously doubt whether "elitists" proposing population control are considering adding themselves and their loved ones on the chopping block of eugenics🤨.

    Reply

  36. them- "we must reduce the birth rate, due to over population and global warming, I mean climate change"
    stupid us- " you are right, we will comply"
    them- " birth rates are too low for replacement, we must bring in immigrants to make up for this"
    stupid us- "sounds good to me"
    them- "we must reduce birth rates due to over population and global warming, I mean climate change”

    Reply

  37. What climate change ? I have seen ZERO evidence of climate change. I have seen most climate data collection agencies FALSIFYING raw climate data. I have seen the far-left use the phrase "climate change" to regain and hold on to power. I have seen the far-left media (mainstream) use the phrase "climate change" to help their chosen political party. I have read that the earth was covered in 6km deep ICE during the ice-age. So I guess that the climate has changed from that time. I read that the earths atmosphere had a CO2 concentration of 1600ppm some 200 million years ago. The current CO2 concentration of the earths atmosphere is 400ppm. So I guess that the climate has changed from that time.

    Reply

  38. "Weather." Call it small "w," "weather," not "Climate Change."
    Also–new rule: the next person who calls either directly or by inference, carbon a poison, loses the debate.

    Reply

  39. Population growth will negate any reduction we make in our ecological or carbon footprint. Every solution being circulated violates human rights. But there is one solution that no one seems to be discussing and that is a Mass Exodus event. We have the technology to move significant percentages of our population to other celestial bodies such as the moon and Mars. NASA and SpaceX are both poised to launch thier colonization missions and volunteers have already been selected. Yet all the climate alarmists say we need to stop having children with the most extreme calling for a Mass Extinction event. Additionally, the world produces enough food to feed the world popluation, the problem isn't production, its distribution which is driven by economics. Farmers can't give away thier product for free which is why the bottom 10% (economically) are malnourished.

    Reply

  40. Yes. population control is the answer thanks gretta! So get you ass to Africa and the middle – east and start a mandatory population control oh and get China back on board too! We'll put this in you capable hand Gretta!…..Oh, you just meant population control for the WEST. Oh, I get it.

    Reply

  41. Also Gretta you can help things along by having YOUR tubes tied just to be an example! Do demons have tubes?! You know practices what you preach.

    Reply

  42. If you accept the Man Made Global Warning Theory, You accept urgent action must be taken on a massive scale. 
    You are then faced with two choices 
    A. Stop people using fossil fuels or 
    B. reduce the worlds population by over 90% (if you pick A then B will naturally follow)

    Reply

  43. We start whit the lefties they all get a free cyanate pill, I guarantee non of them will do the first step.

    Reply

  44. Simple mathematics, if two generations of two parents each having one child, they haven't, in both generations, replaced the original two parents. So their family population has halved after two generations. In the western industrial world, particularly in Caucasian families, in some countries it's 0.9 children, in others It's 1.4. In the third world the average children born is 4/5 children. China and India have stabilized their massive populations, in some towns and cities the population has dropped. Figures out lately, informs us that China has 60 million more men, than women, so population will reduce further. So all this alarmist population crap is unfounded, it's just the UN/IPCC/WHO (all funded from the same oligarchs) who want to promote their Agenda 21/2030 (One World Communism), all relying on computer software being programmed with the wrong data, giving those shocking fraudulent results. Wake up people, we are already being poisoned, along with all natural life forms, by the purposely manufactured pollution in our air, water, GMOs, vaccinations, all of which circulated and recycled back through the sewage system. Greta is just a front, watch her in a discussion with no script, then you'll see the real deal, please check out who her granddad was, and, what subject he taught and experimented with, as a professor.

    Reply

  45. Davos, oh yeah foreigner turds go begging for American taxpayers' money…. yeah, world class bunch of tapeworms, dirty and smelly foreigners….

    Reply

  46. the folks don't like population control when its their turn to die, that's when they understand, when they and their kids have to die to protect the good of the collective

    Reply

  47. Collectivism justifies tossing virgins into volcanoes to appease the gods for the greater good of the tribe. Collectivism holds that individuals are expendable for the sake of the collective, and yet since collectives are made of individuals, everyone is expendable.

    Reply

  48. If you want a reduction in births, stop enticing potential parents with subsidies like public school, welfare, and socialized medicine.

    Reply

  49. Stop subsidizing meat, a lot of ecological problems will go straight down. More capitalism, more health, better enviroment.

    Win+win+win

    Reply

  50. Wg=hat sort of Capitalism. There are and there have been many manifestations of it for the last 200 years. The latest version being the financial capitalism whivh is not interested in investing or creating jobs, but casino capitalism fashion play it and win it on the gambling money markets.

    Reply

  51. solving climate change with capitalism:

    “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” —Albert Einstein

    half of the US is the literally definition of insanity.

    "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." —Albert Einstein

    …and virtually no-one on the left says there is too many people… that's a right wing talking point IE why they are anti-immigration whereas the left wing in pro-immigration.

    the world produces enough food twice over, the problem is and has always been greed and logistics… power can literally be made ANYWHERE on earth, and fresh water can be made anywhere any grade of water exists via power and filtration… the problem is greed… greed is usually at the heart most of the world real problems… and the only modern socio-economic system that encourages greed is capitalism, hence most of the worlds real problem are the result, directly or indirectly of capitalism… especially america's form of capitalism, which for the record is why china environment become so bad up to the beijing olympics, and china has heavily implemented top down green changes to migitate their problems, the US even under obama wasn't doing as good as china, much less not under trump where you have an even more unchecked form of capitalism, which is actually actively making thing worse… funny how that works eh!

    and unchecked population growth is inheirently a bad thing , just as much had over-regulating it as china did was… hence why most people in Africa want birth control.

    at BEST you can try to mitigate climate change within the confines of capitalism, but you will ALWAYS be fighting against capitalism's true nature to do the opposite, because climate/environmental stability aren't concerns of capitalism… at its core capitalism is like cancer, its only purpose is to grow, growth for the sake of growth, and while that might sound like a good thing rarely does good even come of it directly, its more of a side effect… even employment is a side-effect, thats why they will replace you with a robot as so as they can, because your not part of the capitalist equation, unless you are a capitalist (and not just a mindless follower of capitalism, you actually have to have capital to be a real capitalist, everyone else just supports a system that doesn't intend to benefit them.

    Reply

  52. Population control isn't the answer to climate change. That has got to be the most ridiculous stupidest thing I've ever read in my entire life.

    if you live in a confined space and it as a very balanced and delicate ecosystem that allows life to exist, then every species in that confined space must be kept down to an acceptable level where it species is in harmony with that confined space.

    the proof of this is in the fact that billions of species have coexisted on this planet for over 400 million years without one of them destroying the environment for themselves and everyone else.

    This is because every species has a mechanism connected to them, in the form of predators, diseases, natural disasters and members of the own species unable to reproduce, this keeps that species numbers down and in check so it doesn't over populated and destroy an upset the balance of the ecosystem. The most intelligent life on a planet, the human race doesn't understand that, so" so much for its claim it is an intelligent species.

    The human species is the only species that is getting rid of all the mechanisms back keep its numbers in check and it is replacing them with nothing, So the result is logical isn't it, "overpopulation" which will result in the unbalancing of the delicate ecosystem and destroying that confined space for itself and everyone that depends upon it.

    Example…….. If you have a disease that kills 1 million people every year and you eradicate it, then you will have an extra million people who will go one to have children and their children will go want to have children, so if you eradicate a mechanism that helps to keep your number in check, then you must replace it with something, to stop that million people being born every year, so the balance is kept, the human race is not doing that, so what do you think the result of that is going to be. overpopulation which results in destruction of this very fine balance ecosystem that you rely on for your existence.

    I find it really comical this young girl talking about climate change when it is the human female that is creating the problem but just pumping the kids out in any environment.

    Let's face facts about half you out there reading this to do so but I will try, Where ever you find the human female regardless of the environment she is living in what you find with her, millions of children living in poverty a poverty that breeds over 90% of your crime a country that over populated and destroying its own environment tried to keep up with the endless people she's pumping out, what comical about the human female she blames the male for creating poverty and overpopulation.

    if this young girl wants to speak out then why don't she say One woman one child until further notice until the human population is brought down to an acceptable level this capability is well within the realms of women, because it is a female of nearly all species that controls the population level of that species, she can either decrease it, increases or stabilise it.

    the human female is just running amok, she wants kids and a full-time job, she wants kids at any age, any number and once to bring them into any environment. don't believe me look across the world regardless whether the country is a Third World or modern civilised one they are all infested with child poverty and crime and overpopulation because of the irresponsible behaviour of the human female.

    Reply

  53. I would like to correct this young girl, I am an intelligent person it while I do not vote for any political party I am too intelligent to be so gullible into believing their lies. but that's the trouble over 98% of the human population are not because they are just as greedy and selfish as the people they vote into govern them.

    So this young girl is totally wrong. There is nothing stopping any human being behaving responsibly especially the human female who feeds this endless growth policy by just popping the kids out into any environment.

    if this young girl wants to do something about the rich and the powerful , then stop having kids and you will eradicate the rich and the powerful because they will not have the masses to feed off.

    The future of our species and the billions of species we share this world with solely relies in the hands of the human female and as you can see the way she behaving we are all screwed. ffor the simple reason she has no ability to be responsible, and the men of society have no ability to point the finger at her for the wrong she is doing.

    It is why nothing can change it only gets worse, To solve a problem you have to have the ability to back engineer it to the point where the problem starts then have the ability to step one further back and to stop it from starting. if you are not capable of doing that then you will never solve the problem, it will carry on getting bigger and creating more problems.

    Reply

  54. Time Magazine called Greta Thunberg “person of the year 2019” as they did with Adolf H. in 1938. Funny.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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