EnviroLink Forum

Dingo, if you cut the population off at 120 IQ, those above would include every race, so why call it racism?
Only the demographics would change, and that would approximate the sustainable long term level.
Of course no one would be able to do that.
The population growth lead to pollution so large as to cause a destructive turn in the Earth's history.
It is a crap shoot as to what starts the crash, but it is coming soon.
Well before the real thermageddon hits the survivors.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

I'd rather save a baboon than all the genius Hitler's running around.

That shows ignorance. 120 IQ is NOT genius level! 160 IQ is genius level.
Are you calling all the Mensa Society members Hitlers? That is defamatory.
Actually, ecologically, it is better for a species to get rid of all near competition. The 120 number was a point where most, but not all, understand this. The awakening of ecological awareness beyond the grasp of the majority of others. IMEO

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

You're not reading; you're reading in. My point stands.

quote dingo; "I'd rather save a baboon than all the genius Hitler's running around."
That says geniuses are Hitlers. The path of human evolution was toward higher intelligence, and better looks (but if you think baboon asses are nice, yuck!)
Wars became non- then reversely evolutional and did not achieve the goals from the past of keeping the population low and strong.
So we have the accelerating dumbing down of the world, with the greedy making sure we kill the biosphere after they have made their millions and lived their phony lives.
I said that reducing the population to sustainable and of evolutionary higher intelligence, looks and strength just will never be done. That is unfortunate that humans have upset evolution and overpopulated and polluted way too much with hundreds of times the Earth's ability to process.
The crash will occur within 20 years or so, and you will live to see the horror. If we are very lucky, Cascadia, La Palma and Katla will all happen within a decade, or the super-volcanic eruption of Yellowstone (only in time if forced by human hands).
I'm 65 and may just see it myself rather than all the preludes.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

No it doesn't. You're mangling the language. I'll let you figure it out.

My point stands.

Yes, of course, Dingo, you meant just SOME of the geniuses are like Hitler. I think you allude to the so called master race plan of the Nazis.
All I refer to is anthropology and human evolution prior to 'civilization', compared to recent historical reverse evolution.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Okay, let's walk it back. Take an island full of aggressors and an island full of pacifists. One ends up with both islands. Guess which one. Call them the successful Hitler's of their day.

Hitler wasn't the only aggressor who killed off millions of opponents or just people they didn't like at that time. You had Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, and Japan's leaders.
In the past before cities and massive agriculture, people living in small villages became agitated by over-crowding with time. There were new lands, and those of enemies. In fighting, the population would be lowered and the strongest and smartest survived, as a general tendency. New lands also were filled with predators that would eat people.
Pacifists did not survive, as a general tendency. Neither did the inattentive, weak, slow, and stupid. Aggressors didn't always win, either.
Hostility is increasing around the world with the elephant in the room, not mentioned, over-population. It is self-induced by unthought out for the far future irresponsible and stupid over-breeding. There are no new worlds to conquer here, only taking from others satisfies, temporarily, the hunger of overpopulation.
It has vast negative effects, from local shortages of some critical needs, to the slowly falling dominoes of open ocean warming to tundra methane release to oceanic methane release and finally CO2 cookout from seas and land.
Economically, it leads right to poverty on a world scale topped by mass starvation and other horrible deaths.
Psychologically, overpopulation tends to increase hostility, depression, anxiety, and criminality. I would say along with escapism of all kinds.
Because there are so many people, each local disaster becomes bigger, and big disasters are bigger, too. Like the Sumatran tsunami of 2004. Cascadia or La Palma will be even worse. With only an average of about two months of food stored, a missing season on a global scale from a large volcano, could trigger the crash.
Would aggressors like moslems be at advantage in the crash? It doesn't matter, because CAGW to thermageddon will finish off any survivors and their kids. Even cannibals will run out of food.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Now I plan on having about 17 children.

Your wife left a message asking how you were going to give birth to one, much less 17. Not sure what she was taliking about but it sounded like you were on your own there .....

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

LOL! Maybe it's a science experiment. You know, we have all these transgender people and whatnot, why not guys who can give birth? Anyways... Actually it wouldn't be impossible, although any family who has more than about 10 kids, you start you wonder about their sanity.

No offense, but you kinda sound like those folks over at Newsmax and such. "World ends tomorrow, buy your condo in heaven for only $1M! Check or debit card preferred."
However, I know there is some truth to what you say. In a time when we actually have enough food to feed the world, it is sad so many must starve.

I have two children and if I did not question my sanity before having them I sure had to after having them ... especially when they hit the teenage years. And they only get older, never less expensive.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

I hear the average kid these days takes about 400k to raise to adulthood. That's quite a sum. Though of course, it's rathrr crude to put a price tag on life. Needless to say, though, it's how our society works!