Topic: War can solve overpopulation issues (Read 306 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.

who said you need to live in a town where you can only afford a small apartment, find better cost of living locations

did you know that america is turning into a prison, the wall is not to keep people out, but to lock people in
free yourself, move to a better place, the world is a massive place.. stop letting people tell you its small and you're only allowed one corner of it

Ok, so since I don't have a big space to live in, what can I do, under such circumstances, to achieve a more comfortable and pleasant life? To not raise the population exponentially, because if I do, I will be raising misery and poverty exponentially as well, what will be bad for personal development of each individual inserted on this environment. And when personal development isn't reached by individuals, the elites are more likely to continue ruling the world.

you need to do research
when the international elites invade a country to buy/destroy land. they displace the native population.. then the natives have to find unowned land to set up their camps(slums)

there is enough land available. literally hundreds of thousands of square miles. however people are made to be huddled together in small area's on purpose..

its not a over population problem .. its a land ownership/utility problem

the reason why slums are set up half a days walk away from a river. because they are not allowed to live near the river and are only allowed to walk to it and walk away.

learn the real reasons why it appears people are shoved into small area's and why it seems its overpopulated in those area's then do a google map search of that area and see the wider expanse of unused land right next to them

too many people watch all these charity adverts on tv showing poverty. however what you dont realise is the camera person is being selective of the direction of the camera. and even funnier then that is that when the elitists invade and take over prime land and displace the natives nd force them into slums. its the same elites that then set up the charities to then get the public to fund the charities to aid in helping the people in the slums. thus removing the liability of the elites from paying compensation for the displacement.. yep the elites avoid the compensation because they set up charities to take care of the displaced and then get the public to fund it rather then using their own funds..

the most lucrative land deals in the third world is simple maths: invade+displace+charity=cheap land deals
in first world countries its nearly the same, but its called gentrification

At the moment the world does not have an overpopulation issue.

And it will take many more billions until we could potentially face such issue. Our planet had the capacity to produce enough energy and food so maybe 20 billion can live happy lives, with shelter food security and all modern comforts.
And if we organize our resources better maybe that number could go up evern more. We can reduce waste and utilize public transportation as much as possible, maybe cut back on meat a little bit too. Apparently meat is very inefficient. And slsm create better infrastructure so there's no energy waste from any kind of production. Over producers can transfer their energy to countries with deficit etc.

Anyway. To think that after reaching overpopulation we would need a war to keep population at bay is insanity. It would need to be a war killing hundreds of millions at unprecedented pace...

But the population growth rate is stagnating anyway so don't worry about overpopulation.

War can't and shouldn't be used for or as population control mechanism. The world is large enough to house every living being, the problem is that some rich and influencial elites  are recently feeling entitled about the universe and doing all in their power to depopulated the world.

Saying that war should be used to reduce world population is like taking a departure that the Israel and Hamas war is doing the entire world some good by the number of lives that has been destroyed from attacks on both ends.

 Sadly this depopulation for balance is targeted and mostly suffered by the poor and less privileged in society who is thought to become an economic and security threat.

Funny enough, last time I checked India and China that are said to be the highest populated countries in the world aren't African countries. And maybe if we go further to fact check about the population of China and India put together it could be higher than the entire African continent human population. So what are you really implying mate!

Isn't the world overpopulated? Tell this to a third world country citizen who lives in the slugs with a dozen of people sharing the same room. There isn't life quality for all these people in the world right now. Quality is directly related to low numbers. The most pleasant places are empty, and there is a huge space between one house and another. Take those US traditional neighborhoods for an example.

There is indeed a lot of empty space in the world, but those spaces aren't suitable for people to have decent lives there. It's easy to say the world isn't overpopulated when you live in a quiet, secure, pleasant area, while the rest of the world lives mostly in slugs.

Another example are school classes. Do you prefer joining a class with 30-50 people, or a class where there are only 12-15 students? In which of them the teacher can be more present and attentive to each student's demands and needs?

I do not see any superpopulation issue in general. I think there are certain countries, mostly in Africa, in which family planning is not feasible or is ignored. War is rarely about superpopulation for humans - other species like rats do fight when overcrowded and well before they reach the real population limit.

No, modern human war is about greed, power and the like, an excess of population yields poverty, which yields many natural early deaths and pretty much self-balances.

If you say war can solve overpopulation issues means you are encouraging war bro. War is never a nice way to solve over population humans are not animals that we should come out one day and say we are over populated let's start killing ourselves. The earth is never overpopulated.
Corruption between humans, greed, theft, lies, hatred are over populated we should be looking for the way out of these things then we would know that there is no over population.

Are you a fucking psychopath and out of your mind?  Even if overpopulation were a problem that should concern us, as you claim, do you seriously suggesting that the solution is to kill tens or hundreds of thousands of innocent people through the horrors of war? You are a sick individual. War is never the answer.

we are not over populated
there is enough land to live on and to grow crops

if you feel that your city center apartment is too small but expensive, and you feel the nearby shops and streets are crowded.. well get out of the city

landlords in the city want to make people feel city land is overpopulated as that gives a fake image of demand and thus profit
but once you are out of the city your eyes will open, much like the space you can have by not being a cityboy

It has never been a welcomed insight on reducing overpopulation by wars and looking at the effects of overpopulation, it does not seem a course of critics rather the state of economy to sustain the people should be hold responsible which the governments and the questionable authorities should be blamed because there are definitely sufficient resources ought to sustain the people in both natural and human resources if they are being utilized.

Instead of encouraging war to limit population, I would support the child birth policies of China were individuals are under control to have a specific number of kid (s).
And the government must utilize the public resources usefully to contain everyone's welfares.

If your main focus for instigating War is to reduce overpopulation, you should also be prepared to lose some of your country's assets, including very important productive citizens who would lose their lives during that period of war. War will not be able to distinguish between productive citizens and non-productive citizens, lives will be lost and a good number of the country's Labour force will be gone too. This is why countries often suffer in terms of manpower.

War renders people and the economy miserable, it would be better to leave the country overpopulated than choose War as the only option. Wishing for pandemics, natural disasters and wars just to reduce the number of humans in the country shows no regards for humanity.

That's just stupid! War is a terrible thing that causes immense suffering and destruction. It's not a solution to any problem, let alone overpopulation. (Btw, who says overpopulation is even a problem?) Suggesting that war could somehow be a good thing is both ignorant and insensitive, imho.

The overpopulation that exists is local. There is no world overpopulation. If people worked together, the Earth could hold a hundred times more people.

Two simple things that could increase sustainability are:
1. Increase CO2, because it's the stuff that plants use to grow. More plants equals more food for animals and people.
2. Seasteading.

War shouldn't be used as the solution to overpopulation. The war in Ukraine and Russia has led to an unplanned sharp decline in population. After this war, they will have to seek diverse means to balance the population deficit. I hate the idea of using war to reduce population because my continent has a growing population and I wouldn't want to experience war around.

Come to think of it, is overpopulation a problem? The world has enough resources for all to survive. The problem is that few individuals and powerful nations just have more than they need. While weak nations are exploited and left to wallow in poverty.

Ukraine and Russia didn't had an overpopulation issue. Infact both countries were already in a path to decreasing population.
The overall trend of human population growth have already slowed down. Almost all of civilized world now has a fertility rate of below 2.1 which is replacement rate i.e. their population is going to decrease soon.
This includes the top 3 countries with largest population namely India, China and United states. Even the Muslim majority nations now have fertility rates below 5 on average.

Covid19 did not do work
War can the hit list of putins new missiles locations are over populated a lot unproductive people too.
Who knows maybe Putin doing favoure for Western countries leaders coz they themselfes will be in safe bunkers.
But world needds balance balance of people balance of good and evil something too much not good too.