Message from @Tato

Discord ID: 599191860954660895


2019-07-12 10:52:06 UTC  

Perpetual growth with finite resources isnt possible

2019-07-12 10:52:20 UTC  

and also rat utopia

2019-07-12 10:52:24 UTC  

@ebinmemes22 don't import niggers

2019-07-12 10:52:32 UTC  

Its a bad thing because the aging population where 30% of the population will be paying for 70% of retired people

2019-07-12 10:52:47 UTC  

Its unstainable and they'd all just end up with no welfare and die lol

2019-07-12 10:52:51 UTC  

their numbers are great but they are nothing on a global scale

2019-07-12 10:52:53 UTC  

@ebinmemes22 rat DISTOPIA becouse they were lackin very important ressources

2019-07-12 10:52:55 UTC  

Which will hurt short term

2019-07-12 10:52:57 UTC  

@JackH670 - China's "green energy" push is all show. Their wind farms aren't even connected or being used.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/05/23/how-china-is-blowing-its-chance-to-lead-the-world-in-wind-energy/

2019-07-12 10:53:13 UTC  

But having more kids to keep up with the boomers will hurt longer term

2019-07-12 10:53:32 UTC  

Decrease in population would rape the economy but we'd bounce back eventually

2019-07-12 10:53:33 UTC  

@Samaritan well only the people who rely on welfare will die

2019-07-12 10:54:08 UTC  

the economy is fucked

2019-07-12 10:54:13 UTC  

Problem is China will become the world Hegemone in that time spam

2019-07-12 10:54:14 UTC  

we need long term solutions

2019-07-12 10:54:15 UTC  

A decreasing population only makes sense if you're willing to hang old people out to dry, and I'm not sure we're ready to do that.

2019-07-12 10:54:16 UTC  

Why wouldn't it

2019-07-12 10:54:16 UTC  

to fix it

2019-07-12 10:54:17 UTC  

It was inevitable we'd have lower birthrates compared to the generation that have 8-9 siblings

2019-07-12 10:54:32 UTC  

yeee belle is fucked

2019-07-12 10:54:32 UTC  

yeah

2019-07-12 10:54:42 UTC  

Yeah, but "lower birth rates" was supposed to mean 2.1 kids. Replacement rate. Steady population.

2019-07-12 10:54:48 UTC  

everything relies on china dying before they can get world hegemone

2019-07-12 10:54:55 UTC  

The next generation would be exponentially poorer

2019-07-12 10:55:08 UTC  

there is no reason why we should have more than 0.25 children per woman

2019-07-12 10:55:15 UTC  

I think we should have nuked China in the Korean war

2019-07-12 10:55:21 UTC  

everything will go back to norm during this century

2019-07-12 10:55:21 UTC  

@Tato - The Belle Delphine situation is fucking hilarious, TBH. Have you seen H3H3's video on it?

2019-07-12 10:55:23 UTC  

so why go for short term solutions that will only fuck us over in the short term

2019-07-12 10:55:29 UTC  

Slow decrease please

2019-07-12 10:55:31 UTC  

ye i have ;dddd

2019-07-12 10:55:40 UTC  

Ideally we should he at 4-5B people

2019-07-12 10:55:46 UTC  

when we could bet on china's downfall (which is basically our only hope) and go for the long term

2019-07-12 10:55:47 UTC  

i hope everyone who bought it will sue her

2019-07-12 10:55:52 UTC  

even if it's hard short term

2019-07-12 10:55:53 UTC  

That's not even the wests fault

2019-07-12 10:55:57 UTC  

ala brexit

2019-07-12 10:56:02 UTC  

short term fuck over

2019-07-12 10:56:02 UTC  

Its China and India with the large populations

2019-07-12 10:56:06 UTC  

long term benifit