Except the levels of overpopulation that result in literal cities, and a blighted landscape. All problems facing humanity are caused by overpopulation.
The issue isn't space nor food/resources, the issue is the Powers That Be crippling nations and reducing stable growth.
A lot of people will say "Oh but large parts of the Earth can't be farmed or lived in!"
But the Dutch proved that was false when they traveled to South Africa and took their farming techniques with them, repurposing the land for farming, and making it one of the most prestigious exports for agriculture in the world:
https://www.colonialvoyage.com/dutch-south-africa/
In essence, even places that are difficult to maintain sustainability can be repurposed for sustainability. It depends on the ingenuity of the people and the willingness to establish stability and growth.
However, allowing a large portion of the planet to eat, live safely, and prosper means less wealth, control, and power for the Elites. It also means less dictatorship over the direction and fate of mankind.
If more independent work-growth and sustenance was the order of the day, everything would basically balance out, and more resources, tax dollars, and slush could be used on important things to secure humanity's future such as planetary colonization.
In fact, if we spent less money sending resources to third-world, impoverished nations, less money selling terrorists military equipment, partaking in pointless proxy wars that line the pockets of the rich, and less money de-stabilizing and scuttling markets, we probably would have already developed the resources and had the means to colonize large parts of Mars by now.
So if any space exists that isn't already crammed full of people, you want it crammed full of people. But that's not an actual reason.
What do you hope to accomplish or to happen by having too many people crammed into the habitable areas of earths surface? Is it the misery and insanity overcrowded conditions create? Are you wanting to increase the drama of our bust when the boom phase finally collapses? Why do you want too many people to exist?
So if any space exists that isn't already crammed full of people, you want it crammed full of people. But that's not an actual reason.
False dilemma fallacy. No where in my post was anything like that written.
What do you hope to accomplish or to happen by having too many people crammed into the habitable areas of earths surface?
Nothing in my post indicates that this will ever happen.
Are you wanting to increase the drama of our bust when the boom phase finally collapses? Why do you want too many people to exist?
Begging the question with a loaded question that haphazardly segues into a non-sequitur doesn't exemplify your point very well.
I'll only humor this much from your response: you have no idea how many people should exist other than what you've been brainwashed to believe is an acceptable number by globalists. This is how they've managed to convince many within the white race to accept depopulation and racial genocide.
Your way of thinking is why white genocide persists.
I'm really hoping Germany gets to enjoy rolling blackouts this winter, too. They've come pretty close several times in the last couple of years, they're using Czech and Polish power grids to balance themselves, but both countries have phase-shifting transformers installed at the borders now in case Germany's attempts at load balancing endanger their grids too, so we can cut the Krauts off if they threaten to take us with them.
This is the same literal script they had when the Texas windfarms froze over. It was all the fault of 'privatization.' Like the publicly run California energy grid doesn't brown-out 3 times a week.
Nice thing about private energy production, if something isn't working, they'll change it cause by god they need it to work to make money. To an ideologue, that's aweful because they might change that thing you like to that thing you don't like.
But ultimately, the only reason a private entity would run a wind farm... is for the tax credit + stipend. That's not a 'private' reason at all.
Because it's not about 'renewable'. It's about controlling your life.
The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. A problem that is solved robs them of a means of coercion directed against us. Ergo, they will continually scream about 'crises' but never try to solve them, at least not unless they can be replaced with juicier ones.
I don't think that's a real risk. However little trust I have in the elites, they will surely have thought of "how to prevent an Islamic from blowing up a nuclear power plant".
Too many 'green' wind farms & not enough wind.
Too many electric cars and not enough electricity.
Except the levels of overpopulation that result in literal cities, and a blighted landscape. All problems facing humanity are caused by overpopulation.
That's always been a Left-wing myth.
Humans occupy less than 0.01% of the Earth's land mass. You could literally fit EVERY single human being in the state of Texas.
American farmers produce enough agriculture food alone to feed up to 10 billion people: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241746569_We_Already_Grow_Enough_Food_for_10_Billion_People_and_Still_Can't_End_Hunger
The issue isn't space nor food/resources, the issue is the Powers That Be crippling nations and reducing stable growth.
A lot of people will say "Oh but large parts of the Earth can't be farmed or lived in!"
But the Dutch proved that was false when they traveled to South Africa and took their farming techniques with them, repurposing the land for farming, and making it one of the most prestigious exports for agriculture in the world: https://www.colonialvoyage.com/dutch-south-africa/
Same thing happened in Zimbabwe with the white farmers: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-13/zimbabwe-offers-land-to-recompense-dispossessed-white-farmers
In essence, even places that are difficult to maintain sustainability can be repurposed for sustainability. It depends on the ingenuity of the people and the willingness to establish stability and growth.
However, allowing a large portion of the planet to eat, live safely, and prosper means less wealth, control, and power for the Elites. It also means less dictatorship over the direction and fate of mankind.
Without American farming subsidies in lieu of the free market to accommodating globalization, America's food and agriculture industry would look VERY different from today's corporatized food market: https://www.heritage.org/budget-and-spending/report/how-farm-subsidies-became-americas-largest-corporate-welfare-program
...a market that includes imports of goods that we shouldn't be importing anyway: https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/blog/the-u-s-imports-a-lot-of-food-from-china-and-you-might-be-surprised-whats-on-the-list/
If more independent work-growth and sustenance was the order of the day, everything would basically balance out, and more resources, tax dollars, and slush could be used on important things to secure humanity's future such as planetary colonization.
In fact, if we spent less money sending resources to third-world, impoverished nations, less money selling terrorists military equipment, partaking in pointless proxy wars that line the pockets of the rich, and less money de-stabilizing and scuttling markets, we probably would have already developed the resources and had the means to colonize large parts of Mars by now.
This is not evidence or proof that there aren't too many humans trying to live on our planets surface.
What is your real reason for wanting too many people?
Everything beneath the line you quoted.
So if any space exists that isn't already crammed full of people, you want it crammed full of people. But that's not an actual reason.
What do you hope to accomplish or to happen by having too many people crammed into the habitable areas of earths surface? Is it the misery and insanity overcrowded conditions create? Are you wanting to increase the drama of our bust when the boom phase finally collapses? Why do you want too many people to exist?
False dilemma fallacy. No where in my post was anything like that written.
Nothing in my post indicates that this will ever happen.
Begging the question with a loaded question that haphazardly segues into a non-sequitur doesn't exemplify your point very well.
I'll only humor this much from your response: you have no idea how many people should exist other than what you've been brainwashed to believe is an acceptable number by globalists. This is how they've managed to convince many within the white race to accept depopulation and racial genocide.
Your way of thinking is why white genocide persists.
It feels like leftists have been yabbering on about this every single day for over a year, yet every time I go to Tesco, everything is normal.
Funny, that. It's almost as if the journos just wait until right before closing to take the photographs.
I'm really hoping Germany gets to enjoy rolling blackouts this winter, too. They've come pretty close several times in the last couple of years, they're using Czech and Polish power grids to balance themselves, but both countries have phase-shifting transformers installed at the borders now in case Germany's attempts at load balancing endanger their grids too, so we can cut the Krauts off if they threaten to take us with them.
Don't go easy on them. If they want to have their 'Wende', let them. And let them also bear the consequences.
Maybe they shouldn't have staffed all these high-ranking government positions with diversity hires.
Did the Fetal Alcohol Syndrome truant dropped out of high school?
This is the same literal script they had when the Texas windfarms froze over. It was all the fault of 'privatization.' Like the publicly run California energy grid doesn't brown-out 3 times a week.
Nice thing about private energy production, if something isn't working, they'll change it cause by god they need it to work to make money. To an ideologue, that's aweful because they might change that thing you like to that thing you don't like.
But ultimately, the only reason a private entity would run a wind farm... is for the tax credit + stipend. That's not a 'private' reason at all.
Because it's not about 'renewable'. It's about controlling your life.
The war is not meant to be won. It is meant to be continuous. A problem that is solved robs them of a means of coercion directed against us. Ergo, they will continually scream about 'crises' but never try to solve them, at least not unless they can be replaced with juicier ones.
You have an overactive imagination.
I don't think that's a real risk. However little trust I have in the elites, they will surely have thought of "how to prevent an Islamic from blowing up a nuclear power plant".