as on musing

i'm certainly not gonna make a second post before tomorrowmorning so

i'll plagiarize myself

Should the world's population be reduced to save the planet?

:

absolute yes, its probably the only solution left other than colonizing space FAST its not simply the dwindling resources and the fact that matter synthesis isn't really top-notch science yet or you could just have your star-trek gimmick re-arrange molecules from trash into that morning coffee its base sustainability

a question i have asked in many places (to which no one so far has been able to give me an answer ... i heard someone claim to have calculated the possible number of "coinflips" (=timelines) since the big bang and i fear the erudite professor simply assumed that time has an absolute quantum level where it can no longer be divided, since otherwise after a few quanta, or actually after one there would be an infinite number of coinflips/timelines already as , mathematically speaking there's an infinite number of numbers between any two given numbers no matter which ones they are)
but that's a bit off-topic although it should set the mindset for my sustainability koan :

assuming there's a limited number of molecules -> atoms -> particles available here within the atmosphere of Terra (barring the occasional impact from micro-meteorites who might bring a few elementary elements into the eco-sphere on impact and dispersal)
THEN :
how many humans does it take before the whole planet is one ball of homo sapiens and nothing else.

because, and i think that's irrefutable logic, long before that it would be cannibalism lol and way before that total chaos and ofcourse before the last piece of rock has its molecules altered at atomic / subatomic level to become carbonbased lifeforms, there would simply be nothing left to stand on.

ALthoug oxygen would probably run out before rocks to stand on. So if you look at it that way population CONTROL is nothing but inevitable in order to survive.
No need for genocide, nature will fix itself anyway, you can not fight supply and demand and the inherent drive of all things in the universe to come to balance.
Call it equilibrium, the exchange of energy to the middle point, or whatever mystical name you have for it. Its frankly pretty much how the whole thing works (gravity is but one of the phenomena of that as planets don't rotate, they "FALL" towards , i think the universe is portrayed in a wrong manner, it should be more vertical with everything constantly falling, not revolving, but thats hard to picture i guess.
And that's just core laws of the universe to which all humanism, good intentions and even the mighty paper law (probably even blockchain-tek) are subservient without much choice in the matter.
Other than that, the problem with food wouldnt be ability, it would be lack of fertile soil. Not just erosion but in places full of humans there simply is no fertile soil. A bit like zerg colonies ... another fact of life.
Ask some people from china who live in big cities on the delli (daily) what they think of it .. or India maybe ..
Its not about genocide, its about if you dont then you simply condemn future generations to misery , poverty and crime levels are directly related, hungry people don't adhere to eloquent reason very well either.
And ofcourse, the water scarcity (which is already showing) which might turn a gallon (liter?) of water more expensive than a human life

(o wait ... thats mostly already so heh)

it goes a bit deeper than "does global warming exist" as global is no longer something to prevent, but something to control the damage of, as is all the rest ... 1 kid per 2 people (not per couple) actually 1 KID per 2 PEOPLE for a decade or more might barely

barely fix some of it, after which theres more to spread over fewer people which means less crime since less poverty ... and maybe something closer to the sixties without the need for the nazis to rise again

(check out hungary btw where homelessness would be "unconstitutional" and the homeless would be put in labour camps ... is that not a sign of too many humans in one space ? )

or one could act like a UN dude in a suit and talk about "how it shouldnt be" ignoring human nature and the fact that very little has evolved in the past 100.000 years except for Turings machine to iThings

well then, its been a while since i saw musing but i REALLY didnt know what to post today, problem is here i always come out with popular opinion as i dont really do that political correct nazi or hippie crud
and i dont really like the attention (but i'll take the upvote if you have one lol .. i gotte eat too and i know

it's not about the money ....
(if you got six figures in your account)
El Gato

the sig is getting a bit old, tsk ... if you dont believe me i can always links a few googles but im sure you can find those for yourself , i know i'm right

you know i'm right
stop breeding, save the planet :p
1 kid per 2 people, or none at all , for quite a while, maybe your grandkids will still be able to see an actual cow instead of protein cubes rationed by the men in black then
woaw ... there i went again

no i'm not saying one should shove the second kid back into the mother if its already there and im not saying people who rely on "kinder geld" as its called here should be deprived of it. If you think that please read again.
But i am saying a strict one child policy (o dear now i done it ...) should be globally enforced (even more so can copyrism O M G, the new black !) and kinder geld should be abolished from ... from like tomorrow except for everyone who already gets it

fair ? what's that ? something from a movie , talking survival of the planet here