Most Based Comments
Basedness: ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐
This isn't even true (-8)
Basedness: ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐
They know it, they donโt ACCEPT IT (30)
Basedness: ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐
Non-central fallacy.Humans practice 'eugenics' daily, and have done for thousands of years. (4)
Angriest Comments
Angriness: ๐ก๐ก๐ก๐ก๐ก
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02323/fullhttps://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-healthLooks like there is a new study (since I researched a few years back) it puts the deaths at slightly over a million a year. This is by an independent journal though, the WHO (UN-funded World Health Organization) and a US gov't study put deaths at 250k and 500k respectfully, if I recall correctly. (Couldn't find the US study at 500k)New study: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dishashetty/2021/07/30/climate-change-would-cause-83-million-excess-deaths-by-2100Another news site citing same article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-29/warming-planet-means-83-million-face-death-from-heat-this-centuryOne million deaths a year (the upper limit) is by no means okay, and I don't blame those on the right side of history (those of us trying to stop global warming) for sensationalizing facts in order to spur people to action. Still, one millio... (2)
Angriness: ๐ก๐ก๐ก๐ก๐
Angriness: ๐ก๐ก๐ก๐ก๐
You realize not all land is usable and habitable. There needs to be space and nature for other species. How tf do you colonize the ocean? Fill it with land and ships? Then you block transport and kill all ocean life. You think every inch of of the Earth must have a human on it. You are so r-slurred, your mom should have aborted you. (8)
Biggest Lolcow: /u/innocentbystander64
Score: ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐ฎ๐๐
Number of comments: 10
Average angriness: ๐๐๐๐๐
Maximum angriness: ๐ก๐ก๐ก๐๐
Minimum angriness: ๐๐๐๐๐
autodrama: automating away the jobs of dramautists. 
Ping HeyMoon if there are any problems or you have a suggestion 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I can't tell which comment is more reddit
Snappy please
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
God darn I love watching Euroshitters getting dunked on.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
There's objectively zero reason to think he was talking to a Euro but I choose to believe it anyways
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The difference between a hustling bustling American and a euro is the color of the passport
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
AHHHHHH frick off irrigationcels you're making things MUCH worse
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
who are irrigationcels and has it yet begun/ended for them?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Fricking aquecucks
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
It's over for Colorado rivercels
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
What was that? Can't hear you over the sound of my rushing rivers of fresh water.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Based redditers btfos doomerpeans
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Liberals pre covid: The earth is over populated. We need a plague.
Liberals during covid: We need to save everyone, especially the boomers, err elderly.
Liberals post covid: The earth is over populated and we need to get rid of people really really fast, so we need abortion.
Srsly, just fricking be consistent.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Covid was the solution to the aging population problem and the overweigh problem.
If they let covid kill all the olds (burden on social security systems and healthcare, only consume and don't produce anything) and the fats (health hazards, least conscientious part of the populace, and probably the most lazy, so not that good at generating value, and more prone to be a burden in general, besides being generally disgusting) the society would be in a much better place.
Nothing like a culling of the undesirables of society to revitalize things.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is why California catches fire every year. They don't let all the dead wood burn, it increases the amount of dead wood, and the result is worse fires.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
They're totally reactionary which is why they can't pick a lane. I remember during the Floyd riots a ton of people in lefty states scrambled to get a gun and got big mad when they were told they had to wait for two weeks to get their gun because they voted for waiting periods.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The whole point of being a liberal is that being vaguely left while maintaining the status quo. That said, Burgenland is more successful and strong than most leftards admit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"I'm $90k in student loan debt with a useless degree working a minimum wage job. America is a failed country."
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Humanitards in a nutshell.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
This is all r-slurred. Human population is already going to peak by the 2050's so there is literally going to be only one generation that is going to suffer the direct active negative effects of overpopulation, after that the global housing prices keep scaling down forever. Beyond that you are left with global warming but even global warming can be stabilized/ the worst left behind us in the next 60 years, so the preset suffering is only for two generations in the history of the human condition which is practically a blip. Cutting the population right now actively will do nothing except collapse the entire system which will kill far more humans than letting things run as normal.
There is only one win condition. It is that you as a person rise up and make sure you are in the top 20% of humanity that does not get completely fricked over for the next two generations. The easiest way to get to the top 20% is to shift from being a consumer to becoming a producer. create things, stop consuming, become the top 20%. That is all.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Reddit needs doomerism so they can convince themselves their sad loser lives are somehow noble and the reason that they suck so much is everyone else's fault and they're just some misunderstood genius who failed because the world was destroyed before they had a chance. Doomer's biggest fear isn't the apocalypse or a collapse, it's that everything will be perfectly fine and all their peers will grow up successful and happy while they wasted time doing nothing.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You explained my thoughts about doomers perfectly. Doomerism is the biggest cope of all time for people who can't accept that the majority lead far better lives than them. Instead of bettering their sad lives, they instead cope by thinking everybody is as unhappy as them.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
true that amen.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I'm going to have ten kids and contract out their labor.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I'm still trying to figure out how we went from "we're going into an ice age" in the 60s to "we're going to be on fire in ten years" now
I don't think these scientists have everything figured out quite yet. I'll just go to mars with Rocket Daddy if I have to
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Duh the CFC's were gonna cause an ice age which we stopped but then the big oil is now gonna cause global warming. (honestly Idk)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Overpopulation in the context their talking about it means the overuse of Earth's resources. Even with the current population we're seeing impacts in the form of a mass extinction event and climate change.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Climate change is definitely a problem. We will likely have to go into active geo engineering to solve it.
On the other hand South Korea is already seeing a decrease in population. Same for Japan and Italy. Those are some of the big economies with a likely big individual carbon footprint. East Europe is also seeing a population decline. Depopulation is like a cultural virus that would continue to spread so I think it will turn out okay after a generation or two at most.
China is expected to lose half it's population in 30 years so taking that into account Asia will likely have it's population shrink by 25-30% in one generation. We are pulling our weight on this one continent. Europe will likely shrink by 20-30% too. North America will grow while South America will stagnate. It's mainly Africa that's gonna be a problem but due to their low level of development their carbon footprint will be far smaller and it is likely they will start dying off in the millions in heatwaves long before the rest of the world.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I'd be hesitant projecting population trends too far into the future. People want to have kids and governments/economies hate declining populations. What we know today is we're seeing startling changes to the natural world as a result of human activity.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's why pretty much every Western government has been on board with mass immigration into their country. And it's also why rightoids can't stop it when all they can see is "da joos" instead of the underlying reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
See, the problem with this is that not every single country is at the same spot on the timeline so you can generally make deductions based on which countries are the furthest ahead. In the case of both Japan and South Korea there have been no signs of birth rate going back up in 50+ years now. Which indicates that the low birth rate persists across generations. Of course there is a chance that we are all a hive species which overgrew and is now shedding off the excess weight for which we ought to keep an eye on Lithuania to see if their birth rate increases over time due to population loss, but even there they shrunk by a quarter population yet their birth rates did not recover which seems to indicate that over the longer term this is likely going to be a collapse problem.
Personally my money is on human population halving before recovery.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Definitely reasonable to make population projections based off current trends. Personally I'm what the kids might call a doomer, and I have several highly neurodivergent theories regarding this. You're lucky I'm sober, otherwise I might have sperged out.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I actually want a spergout, gimme your theories fam.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ping me when he does, I wanna read the spergs
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
sure will do
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I need to be at minimum 6 drinks deep to spergout and currently I'm at 0, but I'll do my best
One highly speculative and unprovable idea I've had is trying to loosely imagine the odds of being born when we are and the implications that come with it. Imagine the whole of humanity summed up on a simple graph, where you can think of the x-axis as time and the y-axis as the human population. The starting point can be where we first became anatomically modern humans, and the end will be when humans are wiped out. You could also choose the starting point as the beginning of civilization and agriculture, which is estimated to begin somewhere around 10,000 BC, and the end point as the collapse of civilization (you can define this collapse however you like). That might be a more useful way to think about this.
If you've ever seen a graph of human population trends, you'll know that the advent of modern medicine and agricultural practices has allowed our population to explode. Before the agricultural revolution it's estimated there may have been less than 10 million humans at a given time. I'm sure this isn't news, but let's consider the possibilities going forward into the future. Our population with either grow, shrink, stabilize, or some combination of the three. Let's for arguments sake, say it stabilizes at 7 billion. I want you then consider the possibility that this trend roughly stays the same for another 50,000 years as a hypothetical.
Why not? It may be optimistic to think we'll be around in 50,000 years but our species has been around for millions of years and anatomically modern humans are estimated to be around 300,000 years old. From here with our new graph that projects we'll have 7 billion people for another 50,000 years try and appreciate just how unlikely it is that you are born right as our population explodes, right as we are seeing a massive revolution in how people live their lives. Right as we are learning that have a concerning impact on the Earth. If we work under the assumption that civilization is here to stay and that we'll continue to enjoy billions of friends along the way, the odds that we're born now is vanishingly small. Even if we change our parameters to picture there's 3 billion people for another 50k years, it doesn't change the fact that our odds of being born in this era are very low. Up until now it's estimated that roughly 120 billion people have ever been born. Under this hypothetical projection we should guess that roughly another (50000/80)*3,000,000,000 = 1,875 billion people will come and go.
Now, two things go without saying. The first is, that obviously it is possible we're born in an unusual time, after all someone had to be a caveman and someone had to be Genghis Khan's 600th baby momma for us to get here. The second, is that it's not possible to prove any of this, it's just my r-slurred theory. Pushing past those considerations, I speculate that we are somewhere near the time when there's the most people because it's so incredibly unlikely that we're born right now provided we would continue to see similar population trends in the future. The stipulation here being that if we're born near the height of human population I have wonder what correction would occur to change that. Keep in mind when I say height, I'm not talking about the literal year when there's the most people, I mean a cluster of time perhaps a few centuries or more when there's lots of people.
It's sometimes concerning how oblivious people are to the toll humans have on their environment. I'm hardly an expert myself, but I know that researchers around the world are sounding the alarm. Humans are not living in a sustainable way, everywhere you look you find warning signs, whether it's the acidification of the ocean, unusually rapid climate change, or the windshield effect. I think the consequences of our lifestyle will come to harm future generations more than anyone realizes. Scientists have done fun little experiments where they put food in a petri dish and study microbial populations. Without fail they multiply and grow endlessly until the food source is gone and they die. It seems like a good cautionary tale to me.
Anyhow, I'm tired of typing and I think I've sufficiently proven I'm r-slurred.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Your hypothesis makes sense but ignores the fact that individual nations have already figured out how to live well.
China CO2 emissions are already starting to go down. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/china-co2-emissions/
India is still going up. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/IND/india/carbon-co2-emissions
US is going down. https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/carbon-co2-emissions
Indonesia is going up. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/indonesia-co2-emissions/
Pakistan is going up. https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/pakistan-co2-emissions/
Brazil is going down. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=brazil+co2+emissions+
Nigeria is pretty stable. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=nigeria+co2+emissions
Bangladesh is going up.
Russia's emissions have been stagnant for the past 25 years.
Mexico's CO2 emissions have been going down.
Of these China is going to have it's population collapse so less CO2 out there. India is going to increase for a bit but not enough to overpower China's decrease. US will continue to go down year on year. Indonesia will probably continue going up for some time. Pakistan will probably start going down. Brazil is going down. Nigeria might increase in time. Bangladesh will keep going up. Russia will go down.
Now let's look at two other orgs. ASEAN CO2 emissions are continuing to rise. European Union CO2 levels are pretty much at 1965 levels of pollution.
Let's look at it by continent:
North America: Generally in decline - https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/NAC/north-america/carbon-co2-emissions
Latin America's CO2 emissions are in decline as well - https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/LCN/latin-america-caribbean-/carbon-co2-emissions
Europe's CO2 emissions are also in decline - https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/EUU/european-union/carbon-co2-emissions
Saudi Arabia CO2 emissions are also in decline. Same for Australia.
So as you can see CO2 increase is a developing nation issue primarily but even there generally if a country is richer than 10,000 USD per capita it ends up with decreasing CO2 emissions on a yearly basis. So there is still hope. Add on to this the fact that once CO2 production is in decline in developed nations the tech starts to spread out to middle income nations and you realize that things will only be getting better in time. I am telling ya man. 2030 will be a far more optimistic decade.
Add on to this the fact that becoming renewable energy based is a national security issue now due to how Russia cut it's oil pipelines and you realize that renewables are going to see a fresh boost in energy production.
I would put the litmus test at India and Indonesia. The year you see both these countries with declining CO2 emissions you know the peak frickup is behind us.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Darn, you're really mad over this, but thanks for the effort you put into typing that all out! Sadly I won't read it all.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Hit the liquor bud, Iโm in desperate need of a spergout
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
What resources are the biggest issue at the moment besides oil, which won't be a problem by the time we get anywhere close to a point of running out? (Serious question btw, I'm curious)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You don't need to run out of a resource to encounter a problem. We're seeing widespread habitat destruction (biggest issue imo) along with the loss of biodiversity that accompanies it, pollution, CO2 emissions and climate change, unsustainable waste disposal, etc. These trends aren't changing, year by year they are just as bad as ever from a global perspective. I encourage you to do your own research.
No one can see the future, so it's impossible to know fully what the consequences of our activities are. What I think we're more likely to see in the future is a slowly deteriorating quality of life if things keep up at the current pace rather than any specific calamitous event.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
we've been causing a mass extinction since we stopped being monkeys
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It's more about the rate at which animals are going extinct. We've seen a significant loss in biodiversity over the last few centuries, in particular the last 2.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Absolute win.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Do you know where i can read about global warming being stabilized? Not asking to be a redditor, I'd love to be told that everything is going to be alright
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Well it's more like depends on which country you are at.
I mean we have definitely missed the window on 1.5 degree temperature increase so the locations most vulnerable to climate change are absolutely fricked. The good news though is that that is not the entire world.
https://www.worldometers.info/oil/ if you look at oil consumption globally and future projections it is pretty much stagnant or seeing minimal increase primarily due to developed economies seeing a rapid shift to renewables which reduces oil dependency.
As per the image i found on google images we are likely gonna end up with a 2.5 degree temperature increase globally.
What does a 2 degree increase in temperature mean?
Two degrees of warming would bring around 29 additional days of extreme heat, with warm spells enduring for 35 extra days. At 1.5 degrees, 14% of the global population would be exposed to at least one severe heat wave every five years. That rate jumps to 37% if the planet reaches 2 degrees of warming.
what this means is that we are likely going to hit the 30% of humanity getting fricked over my extreme weather range. I am assuming 30% because constant technological improvements should result in decreasing extremes. As long as you have in the climate safe 70% of the world your life is going to be fine.
In addition the primary remaining challenge is one of geoengineering. As per current trends it is expected that geoengineering is pretty much a necessity in the future to balance out climate change. Not a if but a when question. We already made advances in cloud seeding tech and California has been using that for decades. If you ever find an article in the future about a state figuring out the tech to stop tornadoes in their footsteps then I would say we have reached the technological point where we can survive/ reverse global warming as per our preference.
For some positive news you should look towards Israel. It managed to over a generation increase it's green tree footprint from less than a percent to about 6-8 (forgot which number) percent and is still pushing towards turning Israel green. What this means is that we already have some revolutionary technologies to survive in a world with global warming as a persistent state of affairs.
The primary danger exists to badly located regions and poor nations.
here is a link to a map of climate risk by world map nations. https://www.germanwatch.org/sites/germanwatch.org/files/2019-12/climate_risk_index_2020_world_map_1999-2018.jpg
If you are a country that is red or dark red then you are absolutely fricked. This is visible in the fact that Germany is in the red and it is already suffering from surprise flash floods this decade. The dark red countries are probably going to turn into unsalvagable dead zones but even so as you can see 70% of humanity will be able to make it through fine.
So what does this mean for you? In general terms this means that humanity is going to be fine. The world won't end because Pakistan starved to death and heatwaves killed the rest. Same applies to Madagascar. The individual who is located in a bad place and has not planned things out is absolutely fricked though 3 times out of 10.
I hope this helps.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
OUT!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Wrong
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
This implies that people in the dark red don't have a multiple generations to slowly move and migrate as small areas get effected. Its not like 30% are just gonna sit there and die of heat and floods
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
global warming increases the likelihood of flash flood and surprise heat waves and other natural disaster phenomena. Also it is hard for people to leave who grew up in one place and often won't until the last second.
So yeah many would still likely die.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Humans are pretty hardy and adaptive, we'll live in underground huts if we have to, but it's never going to get to that point.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Anyone thatโs worried about overpopulation is a moron
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"Overpopulation is the problem of our time"
"Overpopulation is the problem of our time"
"Overpopulation is the problem of our time"
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Malthusians are and have always been r-slurs.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
They were all right, other people are awful.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Don't forget you have to let them in,no person is illegal
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
If you're country is suffering because of overpopulation it's justified
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
No such thing
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Egypt
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
How can people be this stupid. I was pretty stupid and miserable when I was 14, but I certainly didn't think 90% of the world was with me on that
I've had to read that an over 50 year precedent was overturned all weekend. Yet this sub existed before friday. What would Roe v Wade change that it didn't already change before Friday?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
The overpopulation stuff is such a stupid take. We're headed for a population crash. And that's a spectacularly bad thing
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Overpopulation is a myth perpetuated by Capitalists to deflect attention from their destructive, unsustainable, degenerate behaviors.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
"Unethical consumption" is oxymoron bc there is no ethical consumption under capitalism
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
but also ethics are relative
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
"consumption" is oxymoron bc there is no ethical consumption under capitalism
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
There's no such thing as overpopulation, every country starts to have population problems when they have developed, in the future countries will be begging people to breed more.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Where's the lie? This is why people who advocate for open borders are basically traitors. Unless the rich are willing to throw open their homes and let all the immigrants stay with them, the working class is already at capacity and can't take any more load. Any more reductions to their quality of life and we'll probably have a revolution.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
And because it is such a big problem, everyone in America and Europe needs to stop making babies. No, don't tell Asia or Africa to stop. That would be racist.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yes it is, and thats why all r*dditors should be lined up behind the barn and shot
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
these are the same people that b-word to you about masks
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Snapshots:
undelete.pullpush.io
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
This isn't even true:
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
There is nothing to be done about it, why sweat it?:
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
Touch grass you eugenicist frick.:
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02323/fullhttps://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/climate-change-and-healthLooks:
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dishashetty/2021/07/30/climate-change-would-cause-83-million-excess-deaths-by-2100Another:
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-29/warming-planet-means-83-million-face-death-from-heat-this-centuryOne:
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
Did you even read your articles?"His calculations don't include the number of people who might die from rising seas, superstorms, crop failures or changing disease patterns affected by atmospheric warming. That means that the projected deaths - which approximate the number of people killed in World War II - could still be a 'vast underestimate'.":
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
But Iโve heard thatโs incorrect, rather that unethical consumption under capitalism is whatโs killing us. Not overconsumption, but unethical consumption. That we have an okay population, but an uneven distribution of them, and improper care and maintenance to the numbers where theyโre located. In other words population density measured against the carbon footprint of the population. Your personal consumption means absolutely nothing. Youโre an example and the people you know are just a small sample. Everyone I know owns a large house with a huge yard they donโt need or use. People in my family collect properties with the idea โidk, maybe Iโll resell it if I feel like itโ. I donโt live anywhere near a big city or town. Property and resources are bountiful, no traffic, no wait at the DMV, no lines to vote, Iโve never had to wait for anything. No shortages, disease hardly hits us, hospitals are expensive but there are no waits and the doctors listen to you because everyone knows them. ...:
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
either you've never left your house, or live in a tiny European country. you have very little to know knowledge of how absolutely collosal the world is and how much land IS habitable and how much land there is that can support farmland or crops, AND land that can be made to support farmland and crops. we literally irrigated the southwest to be able to do this a couple hundred years ago. you seem like an insanely angry and pretentious person with little to no compassion, who I'm sure sits in his room all day playing with his peepee, and likely doesn't have a real job in the real world doing actual things and contributing to the economy. if you want to spread awareness about this, than stop telling people who you perceive are less "human" than you that they should have been aborted, and get off your lazy fricking self righteous butt and do something with your pathetic loser life. loser.:
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
ghostarchive.org (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context