Topic: War can solve overpopulation issues (Read 299 times)

War is not the way forward for controlling the population of the world because war in this present time that the world is filled with nuclear weapons is not going to be funny but devastating and catastrophic so nobody should use war as a means of controlling the world population Russia and Ukraine war is one war that has taken allot of time and there is allot of politics that is going on and the way things are going it will move into a full nuclear war one thing that those that are beating the war drums should know is no country is going to war for any country in the world currently so if the so called world war start only them will fight and kill themselves

It is not only about economical and societal factors which are pushing people to abandon the idea of having children in the mid or long term, it is also part of western culture and the point of view the majority of people from developed countries have. If you take a look at developing countries like Nigeria or other countries from Africa, you should realize they continue to have a relatively high rate of fertility in spite of the harsh and perpetual economical hardships they are going through. That is because in their culture having a family comes first and the economy second, actually they have several family members and children in order for them to turn into productive members of the household and face those economical hardships.

It's true war can solve overpopulation issues, but you don't have to worry because we already have the solution.

The solution is LGBTQ+.

LGBTQ+ community is increasing really high from time to time, people who're in this community will not having kids, instead they can just adopt the kids and turn the kids like them.

Not to mention this community will destroy your anus and increase the chance to being infected by HIV.

Fertility rates are dropping in Western countries due to the cost of living so overpopulation is correcting itself any way. People are having fewer kids because it’s simply so expensive to raise them. It’s sad really but this is the world we now live in.

So in essence, you're advocating that there be more wars?  Are you even aware of the consequences of wars and the emotional traumas, amongst others that it leaves it's victims in? Or are you more focused on reducing the population more than you're concerned for human life that you feel it's okay to suggest or imply that being at war is the quickest way to solve the issue of overpopulation.
 Probably you're just airing your own opinion, which is a free thing to do but sometimes being a little bit empathic goes a long way though.

I don't know from the school of thought that you're getting your theory from that war that will terminate a lot of people is the solution to overpopulation. Who told you that the world is overpopulated? You probably think that densely populated cities are getting overcrowded and wars needs to happen to reduce the population, that is a very myopic point of view. You need to understand that hundreds of kilometers away from that overcrowded city, there are very quiet vast lands where fewer people lives, so the earth have enough lands to accommodate and house any population explosion that can happen. Wars are not a good thing to joke about, remember that you or your loved ones can be victims if it happens where you are, so be careful what you wish for.

I think covid and the war didn't just start like that, it's all a scenario...

ok you stay single and a virgin then.. thinking your helping
but if there was less population.. the real estate developers would want to raise the prices of housing even more, because if they cant build 1k houses per year and instead only able to build 100. they still have bills to pay so would put the cost of the 100 properties up

.. meanwhile.. the psychology of my initial point is this:

most people choose where to reside based on convenience. which comes at a price
EG wanting to live in a city, walking/cycle distance of schools or be within walking distance of a grocery store or less than a 15min commute to work

i know a city nearby where it would cost alot to live in the city and due to traffic would take 30minutes to get from one side of city to the other.. however by simply taking that 30minute commute and then looking outward of the city i can find far cheaper, but larger property and still get to the city within 30minutes, the school system away from the city is less volatile as the kid are raised better, the property has more space and rooms. there is a grocery store a stones throw from the property. and im saving money by commuting efficiently on a highway rather than stuck at endless traffic lights.. as well as all the other cost savings of the property and even the local government taxes for the property are lower, so a win all around

the thing about idolising unrealistic scenarios, is that the unrealistic scenario is not actually that a minimum wage employee can afford a mansion with a white picket fence to house 3-6 kids.. but that media and PR campaigns have suggested peoples unrealistic scenario to idolise is to live in the rat race thinking 'one day i will get promoted to CEO, if i just follow X lifestyle..'

if you escape the rat race of thinking you need to live in a city, you need to have an apartment on a certain city block to impress your work colleagues, you can actually find better suitable property

..
as for poorer/third world nations. yes being displaced and forced into slumlands, where employment opportunity is low because the "charities" provide everything thus not require grocery stores(employment). meaning a cyclical economy is dead within the slums.. if you did take yourself out of the slums and find a village that does have opportunity of employment and schooling where there was a cyclical economy that avoided the free hand-outs. you could better yourself
however most just accept the convenience of getting free handouts

of all the ways you can think of as a solution to over population, you think that war is a best solution to decreasing the population of people? what happens to the destruction of properties that happens during war knowing that it took a very long period of time and resource to build those structures? depopulating a country through killing of already existing people is a method that should be totally discouraged for several obvious reasons including the future and trauma you will be exposing them to.

the world is not even facing a serious population crisis to the extent of needing an overhaul. the percentage of the region that is yet to be habitated is still high and the highest we can think of if there is even a need of a decrease in human population should be to encourage proper family planning such that people gives birth to children they are capable of training. I'm certain that you have not been involved in war and apart from watching war documentary on some channels don't understand the effect of war let alone have a first hand experience of being inside an hot war. war is never the best solution to any of mans problem.

You have been listening to too much propaganda BS.

The other nutrients are in the soil. The CO2 only gives the plants more strength to get and use the other nutrients.

Nobody has proof that greenhouse gasses cause anything on the earth as a whole. It's never happened on the earth as a whole. Global warming increase has been slowing down. Soon it will turn into global cooling. Cycles like this have always happened.

When you look at the natural electrical sources as a whole, they have been a failure worldwide. The backup goes to fossil fuels, because nuclear power plants aren't practical in every car. Study it.


The Poster Child Of Europe's Electric Car Future Just Filed For Bankruptcy After Burning Through Billions

---

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/poster-child-europes-electric-car-future-just-filed-bankruptcy-after-burning-through
It was supposed to be the poster child of Europe's electric car future. Instead, it filed for bankruptcy this week, a poetic end to a company which has become synonymous with Europe's "green" debacle.

For Swedish startup Northvolt AB, the route to collapse started in June when BMW AG canceled a multi-billion order. Back then, few saw the significance of the move, which effectively started a countdown that would culminate in a Chapter 11 filing less than six months later.

As Bloomberg details, Northvolt scrambled to keep the financing flowing, but as Germany's car industry fell deeper into a historic crisis, precipitated by a flood of cheap Chinese EV imports in the past three years...

... it became clear orders would dry up.

Setting off the infamous death spiral, the company responded to the lost revenue by retrenching expansion plans and slashing jobs. By the time the last attempt at an emergency plan failed, investors who had poured in $10 billion discovered only $30 million cash was left.

Northvolt's filing for bankruptcy protection in the US, announced Thursday, marks one of the highest-profile setbacks for European industry against cheaper and nimbler Chinese and South Korean competition. The following day, co-founder and CEO Peter Carlsson, who only a year ago had been trumpeting Northvolt as a possible IPO candidate, resigned and warned the European Union risks falling behind on green projects.

The company needs as much as $1.2 billion to finance its new business plan, Carlsson said, telling reporters that "we'll regret it in 20 years if we're not driving transition" to clean technologies. Translation: I already spent all the money, but if European taxpayers don't pony up to maintain my spending habits, they will regret it.

In addition to BMW and Volkswagen, Northvolt's top investors included Goldman Sachs's asset management arm, Denmark's biggest pension fund ATP, Baillie Gifford funds and a number of Swedish entities.

On Saturday, the Financial Times reported that funds run by Goldman Sachs Asset Management are set to write down almost $900 million at the end of the year.  The total loss is a sharp contrast to the bank's bullish prediction just seven months ago which told investors that its investment in Northvolt was worth 4.29 times what it had paid for it, and that this would increase to six times by next year. Spoiler Alert: it would decrease by 100%.
...

---

I'm wondering how such idea can come to someone's head. But let's trybto look seriously into it. If Putin would decide to expand war outside Ukraine, probably he would hit some Western country with decreasing population, not some poor African or Asian country which has rapid growth of population. So, it wouldn't "solve" this issue.

I will correct you about China, it's not overpopulated country. Fact that their population is above 1 billion doesn't means that they're overpopulated. With 1 children policy they're actually already have some demographics issues like aging society.

And somehow rapid and uncontrolled growthbof population doesn't helps at all for these 3rd world countries in therms of economic development.

I'm following your logic that elites own the biggest and best portions of land, while restricting everyone else to small areas which are turned into slums.

But now, if the world is a massive place full of opportunities of new areas where I can settle myself, while having autonomy on my choices, maybe the elites aren't so determining like firstly stated, right?

People have to do the best with the tools they have available. The simplest answer on most cases is to just avoid increasing population, instead of idealizing unrealistic scenarios. It's obvious life quality would raise if there were less people in the world.

The sole increase of carbon monoxide won't be translated into the growth of more fertile land, because plants need more than that gas in order to develop and give fruits and vegetables in large crops. green house gases make earth to warm up and that contribute to land turning into deserts.
There is a lot of land which is not being worked on the planet, that is true, but in reality an important percentage of that land is not suitable to sow the most important and consumed crops, like Corn, wheat and rice.

Also, you are implying by those thing you are saying electrical cars and the effort to reduce CO2 emissions are contrary to the increase of production of crops, which is a rather silly thing to even put on the table. Human beings cause desequilibrium.

A country having a large population does not mean that that country will lag behind. If the population can be converted into manpower, then the population of that country will be converted into wealth. I do not want to think that the recent war is being used to reduce the population. Because due to a war you can reduce the population of a particular country to a large extent but this is never desirable.

The problem is that in the present time the powerful countries want to show their power. That is why they are interested in using that power to expand their influence in poor or less powerful countries. That is why there is a constant situation of war in the world today. If the developed countries want to grow financially by providing better services to the people, then the world can be a place of peace. Only by killing people can you never reduce the number of people.

Nature has a way of creating balance on its own. There are people who naturally succumb to certain diseases, and as the birth rate increases, so does the death rate. Nature has a way of regulating itself, and it's not necessary for humans to intervene in a way that inflicts pain, torment, and torture on others.

Furthermore, it's illogical to think that war is a viable solution to controlling population growth. War is never justified, and it's not a reasonable solution to any problem. If the argument is that war is necessary to control population growth in Western countries, what about African countries? Do we want to start wars on the entire continent just to control population growth?

Who gets to decide who lives and who dies? When missiles are launched, they don't discriminate between innocent civilians and military targets. The cost of rebuilding what's been destroyed in war is staggering, and it takes years to recover from the devastation.

The solution to population growth lies in proper resource allocation by governments. If resources are managed efficiently, the economy will be able to support the population. There's no need to resort to violence and war to control population growth. That's just flawed reasoning.

I know this might seem like a clickbait question, but you're here anyway. The debate about 'overpopulation' has been ongoing, but personally, I think the real issue lies in 'population structure,' such as the increasingly severe problem of aging populations.

In my view, the underlying cause of waging war is often a deep social crisis within a country that it cannot resolve. As a result, war becomes a way to shift those problems outward.

I don't like wars, because it leads to destruction and worsen the country economy. Where there is war, there will be no growth. Who told you that the world is over populated when some countries don't have the required man power for production and they seek for workers from neighboring countries. Lands and power tussle is what causes war and not because those countries wants to reduce population. No one in the world can control the population of the world but you can control that of your country.

How can population growth be a problem for a country? I think that population growth can be more good news for a country. The country with a higher population has a higher chance of economic development if they are civilized. Let's say that overpopulation is a disadvantage for a country, but through war you will only lose resources instead of reducing the population of the country. Like skilled manpower or various assets under construction. War can never solve any problem.

The only way war can reduce overpopulation is by causing people to lose their life during the war because we have seen and heard many people that lose their lifes in Russian and Ukraine, which is not encouraging for other countries to embark on war again because it will not bring joy and peace among themselves. Oh, you think what Putin is facing in his government, he is happy about it? No,  because is only a fool that will be happy for losing his followers in the country, and even though the whole world want to balance the population of the world not by causing issues between two countries.  

All the governments in the world can put a law, for everyone to be giving birth to 2 or 3 children and it will reduce the population without causing people to lose their lifes, this is just a suggestion which I know it can help the world to reduce overpopulation.

The covid pandemic would fit OP's conspiracy theory instead of thinking about using war to reduce population because war only directly affects Ukraine and Russia, and those 2 countries are not overpopulated countries like India or China. This conspiracy theory is inaccurate and unconvincing.



Currently, our earth still has enough resources to serve humans, but it cannot last forever because the earth's resources are also limited. In addition, uneven population distribution is also a matter of concern. In developed countries, the population growth rate is insignificant but in poor countries, the population growth rate is increasing rapidly and alarmingly. That would actually cause an imbalance between supply and demand, along with many other problems.