Amusing article

[TylerDurden]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3084326/Nigerian-restaurant-shut-serving-HUMAN-flesh-bags-containing-human-heads-bleeding.html


I did once point out, humorously, that the obvious solution to global overpopulation was cannibalism. This proves my point!    This is what will happen if meat becomes even more expensive than before.

[cherimoya_kid]

I hope that's a joke.

[TylerDurden]

I hope that's a joke.

It is rather funny/odd- I note how they charged a lot extra for the human meat compared to other meats. That said, from a logical perspective, I really do not see how any other solution can solve the overpopulation problem. I mean, with every human now becoming more and more able to destroy the environment as technology advances, and the overpopulation problem constantly increasing, there is no realistic other solution. Yes I know that other possibilities have been mooted such as insect-consumption or hydroponics/lab-created meat but these are not easy to implement and likely require huge costs, especially the latter. Well, OK, admittedly, one possible solution seems to be to educate women and improve women's rights  as that seems to lower the birth-rate drastically. However, I just do not see Muslims or others in developing countries, for that matter,  wanting to do that. Indeed, even Iran has changed its mind and now wants its birth-rate to go up.

[cherimoya_kid]

Cheap in-vitro grown meat is about a decade away, I'd guess. Maybe a little less. Relax.

[TylerDurden]

Cheap in-vitro grown meat is about a decade away, I'd guess. Maybe a little less. Relax.

I can see a future in which all we eat is disgusting yellowish globs of synthetic matter raised in labs, tasting like meat and veg due to added chemicals, and having some of the nutrients  we humans need but never, of course, being anywhere near  as healthy as the real thing. It will likely mean our descendants will all be even more  unhealthy than  Neolithic farmers.

[RogueFarmer]

It is rather funny/odd- I note how they charged a lot extra for the human meat compared to other meats. That said, from a logical perspective, I really do not see how any other solution can solve the overpopulation problem. I mean, with every human now becoming more and more able to destroy the environment as technology advances, and the overpopulation problem constantly increasing, there is no realistic other solution. Yes I know that other possibilities have been mooted such as insect-consumption or hydroponics/lab-created meat but these are not easy to implement and likely require huge costs, especially the latter. Well, OK, admittedly, one possible solution seems to be to educate women and improve women's rights  as that seems to lower the birth-rate drastically. However, I just do not see Muslims or others in developing countries, for that matter,  wanting to do that. Indeed, even Iran has changed its mind and now wants its birth-rate to go up.

I don't think your research is very thorough. For instance it is said that the American lawn industry is larger than the Indian Agricultural sector. That that grass could feed enough beef that every American could eat nothing but beef. As it is nearly half the food the world grows rots before it makes it to market. In much of the world 1/4 of an acre can meet a person's needs.

Also perhaps the best source of food for mankind could be planctonic fish and inverts which could be harvested in epic volume without negatively impacting the environment.

I have come to this forum on multiple occasions to preach a solution to humanities plight. It doesn't seem as if I was received at all. You know not everyone has to or should eat nothing but meat like you. Do you think it serves your website or your "movement" or whatever your goals are to have such a morbid world viewpoint? Why not try to find something positive?

I would like to find a community of people who are positive while not being loaded to the gills with shit. This is possible you know. There are a lot of bright possibilities for the future.

Invitro meat is going to be vastly inferior and not an ecological solution in any way, period. Science has become a dogmatic religion that has been hijacked just like the Romans hijacked christianity.

The world once sustained 6 times the life on land it does today and it can again.

[TylerDurden]

The trouble is that Man's effect on the environment is such that the current years-long  droughts in various parts of the US are destroying those very lawns. Already, access to water is supposed to be the key problem in the remainder of  this century.

Also, there is room for pessimists like me(I, of course, really mean "realists"  ) and for  optimists as well, it would be boring if we all had the same viewpoint.  As for the issue of meat, sure, I suppose I could learn to like the taste of maggots, insects, planctonic fish and other meat-substitutes but it would be an effort. As to whether the rest of humanity would be prepared to switch is also doubtful.

[JeuneKoq]

If you find that cannibalism is the only "realistic" solution to overpopulation, I advise looking further. There are so many criteria that would make the establishment of such immoral solution in terms of popular opinion downright impossible. Just to pick one of the most obvious opposition to it: which people would be selected to be turned into burger patties? Orphans? The homeless? Convicts?

Surely it cannot easily be done in secret, as family members will soon realize that imprisoned relatives are disappearing. So which modern citizen, Occidental or Oriental, would wilfully accept being fed human meat? Not a whole lot, that's for sure..

IMO a much more realistic alternative is education for an ideal "sustainable" family size fit for modern society, and financial rewarding for people following these guidelines.

Also, there is room for pessimists like me(I, of course, really mean "realists"  ) and for  optimists as well, it would be boring if we all had the same viewpoint. .

I feel pessimism is very in vogue in the Occidental world, and pessimist’s views will often be considered to be closer to reality -thus confused with realism-  than those of "naif" optimists. In truth, realism is often subjective and rarely objective.

There has been optimists and pessimists all throughout history, and both way of thoughts have been alternately proven right and wrong: "The Titanic will never sink", "Hitler will win the war" , "The Spruce Goose will not fly"....

[TylerDurden]

If you find that cannibalism is the only "realistic" solution to overpopulation, I advise looking further. There are so many criteria that would make the establishment of such immoral solution in terms of popular opinion downright impossible. Just to pick one of the most obvious opposition to it: which people would be selected to be turned into burger patties? Orphans? The homeless? Convicts?

Surely it cannot easily be done in secret, as family members will soon realize that imprisoned relatives are disappearing. So which modern citizen, Occidental or Oriental, would wilfully accept being fed human meat? Not a whole lot, that's for sure..

IMO a much more realistic alternative is education re an ideal "sustainable" family size fit for modern society, and financial rewarding for people following these guidelines.

  Financial rewards and education have not really worked in reducing the birth-rate in the third world.

As far as cannibalism is concerned, what I meant was that when masses of people are starving for lack of food due to the future  overpopulated world, they will  inevitably turn to cannibalism as it is an easy, readily available  source of protein. One only has too look, as an example,  at those Uruguyans who crashed in the mountains and ate human flesh as soon as they ran out of food.Sure, they were civilised people but when forced into starvation, they let  their morals disappear.


Hmm, I was going to say "developing world" as my brother has recently claimed that "third world", as a term,  is now politically-incorrect, but who cares? It is, after all, merely a neutral socio-economic term, nothing more.

[JeuneKoq]

Family planing actually has been successful in some developing countries.

Africa:

http://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/africa-bureau-case-study-report.pdf

Thailand:

http://www.context.org/iclib/ic31/frazer/

"Use of contraceptives among married couples has increased from 15 to 70 percent, and in 15 years Thailand’s population growth rate has been cut in half, from 3.2 percent to 1.6 percent."


There are of course some obstacles to the success of family planning in other developing and newly industrialized countries:

Population density management through education is a slow process. Having a smaller number of children often goes against the long held belief (that is sometimes justified as explained later) that more children means more money home.
People from developing countries were only recently given access to better hygiene and health care, which means that most of them still have in mind the times when making ten babies assured at least three of them would make it to adulthood. However, the success of family planning in some countries show that these beliefs are changing in connection with their new life environment (lower child mortality, access to various methods of contraception).

Not enough awareness: organisations promoting these family planning may not be as present as we may think, or may not reach enough areas, and should be better financed and hire more staff and volunteers.

Citizens of these developing countries may not receive sufficient financial compensation for following these guidelines, both from their government and external organisations, and thus could decide that in the long run having more children guarantees more money home.

...This is a non-exhaustive list.

If these issues were quickly and properly addressed, there would logically be no need to resolve to the use of other more extreme solutions.

[TylerDurden]

Muslim countries are exploding in birth-rate and Iran has switched its previous policy and now wants Iranians to breed and breed. And introducing condoms etc. does not guarantee a reduction below the 2.1 replacement rate. What I mean is even if the 3rd world were to reduce to +1.6% above the replacement rate, then at some stage in the future, centuries ahead, problems will inevitably arise. Ethiopians suffered from famines even before they became so numerous as now, so one does not need massive overpopulation even before problems start.

[JeuneKoq]

If the two-children family scheme was to become popular in those countries, like it is in Europe, and citizens were paid enough and had high enough salaries to sustain this type of family unit (which is not going to be the case any time soon, but perhaps somewhere in a further future...), then hitting a population reduction below the replacement rate could be achievable.

Muslim countries such as Iran are in a temporary crisis period, but when things are finally put a bit in order we could very well witness the return of an effective family/population policy.

Another problem that needs to be addressed in connection with overpopulation is distribution of food and wealth. If Ethiopians suffer from famine, and Americans suffer from obesity epidemics, might as well hit two birds with one rock.

An even better solution is removing chronically dependent populations from infertile, arid regions, and putting in place an anti-desertification, re-fertilizing, replanting program. I am actually writing from such a place, in arid Andalucia called "Sunseed Desert Project". Alternatively, teaching these populations how to use and harvest the land in a sustainable way, so as to prevent common problems such as erosion and desertification.

[TylerDurden]

If the two-children family scheme was to become popular in those countries, like it is in Europe, and citizens were paid enough and had high enough salaries to sustain this type of family unit (which is not going to be the case any time soon, but perhaps somewhere in a further future...), then hitting a population reduction below the replacement rate could be achievable.

Ain't going to happen. The more developed nations have this slave-owner-mindset where they need  vast numbers of impoverished workers in the 3rd world to supply cheap goods.

Muslim countries such as Iran are in a temporary crisis period, but when things are finally put a bit in order we could very well witness the return of an effective family/population policy.

This is never-never-land. Sure, when the US and Europe stop  evilly applying sanctions against Iran in an attempt to economically cripple it and when they stop waging war on numerous Muslim countries, maybe in the far future Islam might stop being so powerful as a result, and women might become educated and so the birth-rate might come down in a few millenia or ten - by which time the overpopulation problem will be acute. For those 2 miracles  to happen any time soon, though,  Israel would  have to somehow disappear as an entity, not a likely prospect.

Another problem that needs to be addressed in connection with overpopulation is distribution of food and wealth. If Ethiopians suffer from famine, and Americans suffer from obesity epidemics, might as well hit two birds with one rock.

Communism simply does not work. Equality cannot exist in Nature except in death. Equality of outcome is perhaps the most evil concept humanity has ever come up with.

An even better solution is removing chronically dependent populations from infertile, arid regions, and putting in place an anti-desertification, re-fertilizing, replanting program. I am actually writing from such a place, in arid Andalucia called "Sunseed Desert Project". Alternatively, teaching these populations how to use and harvest the land in a sustainable way, so as to prevent common problems such as erosion and desertification.

Ah, now I understand why you are an optimist. I have been reading claims that the main reason for the droughts worldwide is that the forests near the coasts have mostly been wiped out. Never thought that realistic attempt were being made to reclaim land.

[goodsamaritan]

It comes down again to this contraception depopulation talk.  And from what I see here, it is most successful at contraceptivizing many of our members here to extinction.  I would have thought all our paleo talk would make our members more hungry to survive, not just personally, but multi-generationally as well.

[RogueFarmer]

It comes down again to this contraception depopulation talk.  And from what I see here, it is most successful at contraceptivizing many of our members here to extinction.  I would have thought all our paleo talk would make our members more hungry to survive, not just personally, but multi-generationally as well.

What country should I move to? Who am I kidding, I don't have enough money.

[Alive]

... "The Titanic will never sink"....

This was insurance fraud - it was actually its sister ship the Olympic that was irreparably damaged and renamed the Titanic and sunk on purpose!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgzRQ8tpG1g

[JeuneKoq]

Communism simply does not work. Equality cannot exist in Nature except in death. Equality of outcome is perhaps the most evil concept humanity has ever come up with.

I'm merely suggesting sending the surplus us occidentals already have to much of abroad. Some organisations are already doing it, so why not increase the stocks of food to send over there.

This sort of phenomenon exist in a similar way in nature, where animals eat the fruit or meat they need, and when satisfied, leave the rests to other species. The only distinction is that they don't send the food by plane or boat to other animals. But since we're the same specie, some people could show a bit more compassion and make this one leap...

It is now illegal in France for supermarkets to throw away edible food to waste, and such food must be sent to places such as homeless centres etc.. so we could theoretically send more frozen, packaged or non-perishable foods to countries in need.

Ah, now I understand why you are an optimist. I have been reading claims that the main reason for the droughts worldwide is that the forests near the coasts have mostly been wiped out. Never thought that realistic attempt were being made to reclaim land.

Sunseed is already quite successful in it's anti-desertification program, despite a few concerns re surrounding big culture's thirst for the monopole of the only water point left. There are even more serious programs and NGOs in other parts of the world, especially Africa.

[TylerDurden]

I'm merely suggesting sending the surplus us occidentals already have to much of abroad. Some organisations are already doing it, so why not increase the stocks of food to send over there.

This sort of phenomenon exist in a similar way in nature, where animals eat the fruit or meat they need, and when satisfied, leave the rests to other species. The only distinction is that they don't send the food by plane or boat to other animals. But since we're the same specie, some people could show a bit more compassion and make this one leap...

The UK and Austria and many other countries have the same practice of feeding local homeless. However, a rather simpler solution is to produce much less(yet still feed the homeless) and thereby greatly reducing Man's impact on the environment. Sending food abroad is a disaster as it discourages locals there to keep on producing food when their neighbours can get it for free. This practice also prevents much healthier, more efficient methods being used instead to further reduce human impact on the environment.

[JeuneKoq]

The UK and Austria and many other countries have the same practice of feeding local homeless. However, a rather simpler solution is to produce much less(yet still feed the homeless) and thereby greatly reducing Man's impact on the environment. Sending food abroad is a disaster as it discourages locals there to keep on producing food when their neighbours can get it for free. This practice also prevents much healthier, more efficient methods being used instead to further reduce human impact on the environment.

It doesn't happen so often between us to, but I totally agree.

The only problem I see is the difficulty for populations living in such arid area to move freely to more clement regions, usually for socio-political reasons, and sometimes because of limited amount of space and resources available, that natives will probably and understandably want to keep for themselves. So either countries with surplus food and resources accept to welcome populations from arid regions, or else they just let them get screwed over by circumstances said countries are sometimes at least partly responsible for.

[TylerDurden]

, or else they just let them get screwed over by circumstances said countries are sometimes at least partly responsible for.

It has been rightly said that every country has the government it deserves. So, if one is, for example,  accepting refugees from a broken country, one is simply importing all the problems the latter country has(eg:- corruption/lack of wealth-creation etc.), along with them.This is because nothing occurs in a vacuum, and the millions in a particular populace are in some way collectively responsible for the state their original country is in.People will point to single individuals such as Kim Jong Un to desperately provide an example of an exception, but even he is supported by the Army and by his own people who are obviously not as keen on freedom as  some Westerners would like to think, or they would have otherwise overthrown him long ago.

Take California and the SouthWest USA for example, and the current decades-long drought it is enduring/facing. The sensible thing would be to drastically reduce water-consumption to 1% of its current value. Easily achievable if one is ruthless enough, incidentally(ie vast fines for idiots who maintain swimming-pools, no raising of plants in a natural desert environment other than small amounts of desert plants, prevent mass immigration from within and from outside the US to any drought-hit regions. Instead, we have a moron, in the form of the lead actor of one of the most 10th-rate TV Science Fiction shows of all time, who actually suggests just importing vast amounts of water from Canada by a massive pipeline, all without having to solve the actual problem, and thereby just making the problem much much  worse at a future date.

What I mean is foreign aid is  waste of time, it has been correctly stated that "foreign aid is money from poor people in rich countries which goes to rich people in poor countries). The retard David Cameron has forced us UKers to waste 0.7% of the UK annual budget on countries abroad ,many of whom do not even want the aid(such as India etc.), and most of the aid does not even reach the the genuinely impoverished, and even when it does it just creates disincentives:- what is the point in producing food if you get regular shipments being dropped to your fellow locals? What is the point in practising sensible birth-control and thus avoiding potential future famine in a 3rd world country through necessary and vital population-loss,  when one can just wait for Western largesse to fund families with 20+ children each.