it doesnt look good for your socialist utopia

Kill both?

That's why I'm a socialist dude

thats not very realistic

how are we gonna stop this

accelerationism ?

kicked over trashcans ?

You're right that the outlook isn't good. But that doesn't change my views.

we are alredy living in a police state, and the backseat elite has both education and goverments in its tight grip

7 billion is a huge number. Pick a target and walk over it. Do what needs to be done. But can't be talked about b/c Discord isn't end to end encrypted.

who are you planning to genocide ? capitalists ? africans ? chinese ?

>Africans
Wut

Wut

Is there an African ruling class I didn't know about

That went from 0 to pol very quickly.

@Firefly pick me

i was asking you

Dude his name is Initial dues

not assuming anything myself

hey, i was picking up on his statement, this is not my position

gosh

oh

Well

>7 billion is a huge number. Pick a target and walk over it. Do what needs to be done.

this i refered to

Ye

ruling class.

well the ruling class is small

being vague on purpose

He basically has pol written on his forehead
Anyway
I don't want any genocide, personally

If it can be avoided, awesome.

the very select ruling class doesnt plan on including this earth population on their plans of transcendece, they plan to enslave.
and as much as they cant include everyone, a socialist utopia couldnt either. theres too many people. especially in 3rd world countrys. its a problem that cannot be solved retroactively

We can hope that people will start to see capitalisms decay when their boss fires them and replaces them with a machine that works for free

high birthrates is what im refering to

Hold on I have a huge essay about this lemme get it

We need to get Jason Unruhe on this convo

Well, it's not so much that overpopulation doesn't happen as it is that it's just a part of a much larger issue, which ought to be the focus. That issue is sustainability. Yes, having too large a population can be a threat to this sustainability, but humanity has encountered this issue frequently throughout its history and its response has always been to change the conditions and expand its territory to accommodate this growing population, not to start executing its citizens, killing off groups of people, or restricting their birthrates. I think we should continue this trend. We should look at overpopulation as just symptomatic of a lack of sustainability.

When we frame the issue as "we have too many people" rather than "we aren't sustainable", it can lead to violent and reactionary conclusions like genocides, """eugenics""" programs, restricting births, and the like. It also provides an avenue for reactionaries to excuse their desire to kill off this or that population, or starve out Africa or whatever, on the basis of preventing AGW and ensuring stability. The greatest problem of this is the same that exists in all reactionary approaches: all it does it return us back to a previous state, or some semblance thereof, without solving the problem itself. That problem is sustainability. Unless we intend on suppressing our population forever and somehow freezing our civilization in a given point of time (which is a stasis myth characteristic of reactionary ideology), we need to develop more sustainable practices and technologies in order to improve the environmental conditions of our societies and lands and to guarantee that we can grow our population without population growth being a threat to ecology, economy, or society.

thats reasonable

do you people at least agree that elite induced mass immigration is an active effort of the ruling class to subvert unique peoples and force them into submission ?

It's a strategy and 'in-power' force would use, so yeah.

Sort of?? I feel like there are multiple factors