Overpopulation Hoax

In 1798, Thomas Malthus wrote “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” He predicted that mankind’s birthrate would outstrip our ability to grow food and would lead to mass starvation. Malthus’ wrong predictions did not deter Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich from making a similar prediction. In his 1968 best-seller, “The Population Bomb,” which has sold more than 2 million copies, Ehrlich warned: “The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.” This hoax resulted in billions of dollars being spent to fight overpopulation.

  • FactsWillOut

    The left as they are now:
    1. We need to curb population growth because we’re killing the planet!
    2. We need to import millions of muzz because our population is dropping!

    The left as they should be:

    • John Boy

      Just an overpopulation of the follower of one book.

  • Ed

    You’d think after repeated examples like this, the “global warming” crowd would be a bit more modest.

    • FactsWillOut

      On the contrary, it is examples like this that mean that they must scream their BS ever louder.

  • P_F

    Both Malthus & Ehrlich were partially right. If not for the ingenuity of the western/white countries 2/3rd of the earths population would’ve died.
    Even in 21st century we are feeding them at the cost of our own people. Earlier we use send aid money & grains in trillions, that was not enough now we import their useless by hundred of millions, soon to be billion.

    • pdxnag

      When Africa’s population quadruples will we finally cut off food aid and health care aid and let nature take care the problem? The Great Migration out of Africa will swamp everything in its way. It is like a one way wildebeest migration already today.

  • Watchman

    If we don’t have billions more people, how can we make enough Soylent Green?

  • Drunk_by_Noon

    Overpopulation is a huge problem in the third world but not in the first world.

    • It’s a matter of resources. Africa should not be a poor continent given its resources but it is.

      • Drunk_by_Noon

        Well… I think that’s a very telling statement about the people who populate Africa.
        That continent’s natural human carrying capacity (when it’s filled with Africans living their native lifestyle) is only a hundred million, and that’s an absolute maximum, and might actually be half that.

        • Consider how many people die due to war, disease, ect.

          Again, there is no reason why a post-colonial continent can’t get its act together.

          • FactsWillOut

            Yes, there are.
            The people there are ignorant savages, its that simple.

          • Oh, really?

            You’ve met all of them?

          • FactsWillOut

            Read “The Bell Curve”.

            …and don’t forget your albino-blood witchraft!

          • No one is approving of that.

          • FactsWillOut

            Many Africans approve of it.

          • And many don’t.

            As I said before, it’s their continent to waste. If there are any sane ones, they can deal with the dysfunction.

          • FactsWillOut

            As I said before, the resources there are our to seize, local warlord savages notwithstanding.

            Stop being an apologist for savages.

          • You’re doing that childish thing again.

            No, those resources are not yours to seize. You want them, pay for them.

            That’s capitalism.

          • FactsWillOut

            Pay who?

          • I’ll let you figure that out.

          • FactsWillOut

            I did already. I’ll pay myself.
            My local workforce gets paid in gruel. They are free to find work elsewhere if they don’t like it.
            That’s how the world works, when you’re dealing with savages.
            Of course, you think that savages are the same as us, so your opinion holds very little value.

          • Childishness again.

            Look at this way: an African fellow is smart enough to know where to dig for X resource in Canada (he can pay you in gruel if you want).

            Shouldn’t he make money off of it?

          • FactsWillOut

            Depends on who’s running the show, now, doesn’t it?

            Here’s a fact:
            When we drop bombs on the enemy’s women and children, its good.
            When the enemy drops bombs on ours, its bad.

            Can you understand that?
            If so, apply it to economics.
            If not, then there is no use continuing to argue.

          • You just want to have things every which way.

            Your example does not apply as it excludes the rationale for the action.

          • FactsWillOut

            When they mine our resorces, its bad.
            When we mine theirs, its good.
            Not every which way, our way.
            They have their way, we have ours, to the winner goes the spoils, as God intends.
            If North Korea invades South Korea, and South Korea loses, then South Korea is gone.
            That’s how it works.
            If The USA invades and annexes Canada, then Canada is gone, unless we can put up a good enough fight to stop them.
            Thats how it works, whether you like it or not. The idea that you can freeze the world in some “desirable” configuration is not only insane, but to attempt to do so is pure evil, much worse than anything Genghis Khan ever did.

          • Did you cry when someone took your guns away?

          • Drunk_by_Noon

            Yes, there is no reason why they can’t get their act together, yet why don’t they?
            In reality it’s impossible for the Africans to EVER get their act together.
            They are Africans and not Swedes nor Englishmen.
            Greedy, stupid, tribal, and violent is not much to work with when you are trying to build a society that is none of those things.
            I say it can’t be done without a full scale effort at recolonization, but what first-world country needs that kind of trouble or international acrimony?
            ‘Best to let nature take its course, while never allowing them to leave the continent.

          • FactsWillOut

            We could put the resources there to good use, lord knows the natives will never use them.

          • It’s their continent to waste.

          • FactsWillOut

            …and the resources there are ours to seize.

          • That’s theft.

          • FactsWillOut

            No, it isn’t.
            If a bunch of copper is sitting under some land some goat-fuckers live on, I can take it if I can. They’re not using it. The resources belong to those that get them out of the ground and to market. Anything else is commie BS, like the idea of “Nationalizing” resources.

          • Uh, yeah, it is. There is a reason why people trade.

            I mean – how would you like it if the RCMP kicked down your door and stole your guns?

          • FactsWillOut

            Ahh, so building a mine where some folk herd sheep (and hiring the locals to mine, etc, just like the old British Empire did) = kicking down people’s doors and taking their stuff.
            Moral relativism at its worse. I’m surprised at you, Smashi.

          • It’s not relativism.

            You can’t have it every which way. If all one needs to simply take something is the ability, then the RCMP was right in kicking down doors and taking guns.

            Or, one could simply compensate another for a resource.

            You know – like capitalism.

          • FactsWillOut

            Compensate who?
            Hand a pile of paper money to an illiterate who doesn’t know what numbers are?
            Women are so stupid.

          • There’s that childish thing again.

      • FactsWillOut

        No, it is not a matter of resources.
        Look at Japan, they have almost no resources, at all.
        Its a matter of the people who live there.

      • They have um ‘management issues’.

        • FactsWillOut

          I think the technical term is “ingenuity gap”

        • Putting it mildly, yes.