Fox Fire

Bullcrap. According to the United Nations they sound pretty unsure of the future relationship between humans and the environment in their report, but they do seem to agree that population will indeed be a future issue. Nearly all of our environmental problems are our own fault. This is the most recent report from 2001: We are facing an environmental apocalypse, basically. Everything on the planet is dying because we're killing it. Our oceans are filled with all sorts plastic and misc garbage that's wiping out life. Our forests are disappearing and the animals along with them. I'm pretty sure the experts agree that the Holocene extinction event (the one we are in now) is caused by humans. And you're trying to convince me that the very clear indicators of overpopulation do not indicate overpopulation? We are using most of the planets land. That means it's likely not being used by wildlife. This is with 7 billion people. But you think we will be A-OK with 10 billion just because we can prop up some hydroponic farms? I wonder how much forest will be left by the time that becomes completely normal in South America.... All of the optimistic predictions people throw out for the future are based entirely on some faith that technology will save us. However it's completely ignoring that fact that for one, it doesn't exist now. Or the fact that world hunger is rising. Or the fact that everything is dying. Or the fact that new technology deployed in developed nations is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound. We are overpopulated now, not tomorrow. Tell me how proven wrong I am. Nobody knows for sure how many PMCs were in Iraq. They spend quite a lot of money on them though and it's all hush hush. Nobody even knows if they're dead or deployed unless you know them, or the company decides to release that information (which they usually don't). The government is pretty quite about them. The primary controversy behind their use is accountability and the fact they were involved in several war crime scandals. PMCs may not have fancy things like a navy or air force, but they have money and skilled fighters. At the end of the day, it's people on the ground that make the difference in a war and politics in actuality is usually influenced by money. Political connections and monetary interests are important for any PMC. They are basically lobbyists. I'm not saying some particular PMC is going to take over the world or anything, but large corporations basically run the worlds economy to a reliant extent. Now militarizes are being privatized with nothing particularly preventing them from potentially building that to a reliant extent. The idea of having people that do not even represent our nation or even operate on our own standards making up considerable portions of our military in a war is unsettling. Our governments encouragement of it, is even more unsettling.

Population: You can talk about increases all you want and IDK who Malthus is. The fact I've just pointed out is that the current population is already unsustainable. So in 100 years, it doesn't even matter how much it increases. We can all agree it will increase. The global water crisis is only expected to worsen, not get better. California is in a drought for example. You say there are ways to cope with this, but what? Coping with something isn't exactly fixing it. The drought in California is expected to spread. By "cope" do you mean we just "deal with it"? The world is running out of ground water, which I speculate could have something to do with all these recent sink holes. Desalinization is not a very feasible method of supplying the world with water at this time. As for land, we are already out of land. You have to consider how much is already being used and the fact that we rely on untouched land to survive. Agriculture alone has destroyed 1/3 of the earths forests. Usable land can become unusable through many different processes. At least half of the cultivatable land is already being used. Improved agriculture techniques could help solve this problem, although that doesn't restore land that is already destroyed, people would have to make lifestyle changes on a global scale, and most deforestation is happening in areas where more high tech farming is much less likely to happen. Climate Change: Really? There is a technological solution that we aren't using for some reason? And actually, a 2 degree increase in temp could be catastrophic. Mt. Tamboras eruption in 1815 caused a global decrease in temp by about 1/2 degree which caused snow storms on the east coast of the US in the middle of July, crop failures and killed about 90,000 people. Fossil fuels are not the only thing contributing to climate change. Our mere existence is changing the climate, deforestation is changing the climate. The ice ages tend to go hand in hand with mass extinctions. The dinosaurs did not evolve and adapt to their changing climate. They all died. It's not like animals just change into something else and go on living during a mass extinction. They die. Plain and simple. We are a species that is very reliant on biodiversity. We aren't talking about "oh the poor polar bear is dying off" here. We are talking about a global event that humanity has never once experienced. And event that paleontology has shown, generally signals the end of most of earths complex life forms. We are a very complex life form. PMC's: In the Iraq war, most of the soldiers fighting were PMCs (You didn't look at any of my OP citations, did you?). The concern here is that people who are actually good at fighting are all joining PMCs and PMCs are beginning to replace ground forces. Who's to stop a PMC from forming their own foreign policy? Perhaps one that is not that of the US/West? The point is, they fight for money, not a nation, not a system, not anyone's laws. Just pure, raw money. Give a bunch of self interested people guns, and they will pursue their interests. So who's to say that nations, as we know them, will not just become a show? Like the same way that the federal government in Mexico is a show and the nation in reality, is governed in accordance with the interests of the cartels. Who's to say we are not already in this position? Why did we invade Iraq again? I'll have all the sex I want. However I think that bringing a child into this world would be selfish as !@#$. I'd love to have a child, but I wouldn't want them to grow up in this world the way things are going now.

The hell is AQAN?

Something like libertarian socialism (not anarchy). Though I don't see how that's relevant.

Ana anarchist capitalist society doesn't need government to monopolize. In fact, it's easier to monopolize without government. Places like Mexico and El Salvador are anarchist capitalist societies or the closest you can get to one. The cartels have their hands in everything and the government is nothing but a puppet to protect their investments. It's the best modern example of anarchist capitalism. ^Cartels: Done ^Cartels: Done I mean anarchist capitalism in general is a self defeating idea considering anything, including human, life can be capitalized and regulation is simply competing entities, you end up with war and all along you've always had a hierarchy leadership in place. That's just silly.

Inb4 competition and blah blah blah. Who cares? I know I'm not going to be on top so why try? I can sit quite comfortably on the lower tiers with a shit ton of cities and wage war for almost nothing. "So change all the formulas for cities around so that people with tons of cities have less advantage!!!" My response to that is: "!@#$ me, is this game ever consistent? I seriously can't be bothered to keep up with it's monthly !@#$ing mechanics changes, so who the !@#$ cares anymore? Not me I say. It's far too often I say. God forbid anything is consistent I say".

I'm already to the point that I have no intention of ever getting larger because the cost to rebuild is.... Well simply put; !@#$ that. So sure, increase nuke damage. IDGAF, really.

I don't feel like digging. I haven't been here in a while as is. However, I'll give you this: http://alexandrapaul.com/activism/overpopulation/ You don't have to read the whole page (though I recommend it). I would suggest watching that video that comes up there. She basically covers all the basics and I agree with everything she says there and more. TBH, she only scratches the surface, including the rest of that website. I think the most recent case I've made is in this thread starting here: https://politicsandwar.com/forums/index.php?/topic/10599-the-6th-mass-extinction/?p=191729

No, I actually left that part out because I had this whole thing thought out last night but was too tired to write it. So when I did write it, I was half asleep and I just completely forgot to add that bit. Was thinking of adding it, but then I started drinking.... In any case, I've made arguments about overpopulation on here before. You should have some idea of what should have been there. Actually, touche on that. I was waiting for someone to ask. I might add it when I'm sober but that will be 2 days from now at least. A bit too late if you ask me... Good for you. Do you mean you're going to bomb the poor with drones?

Random thoughts: I never thought anarchy was possible, other than anarchist capitalism. However, this defeats the entire traditional idea of anarchy. Proponents of anarchist capitalism like to claim some kind of freedom. "Free markets = free people" or some garbage. The reality is that anarchist capitalism means that anything can be capitalized. And in order to capitalize, competition must be eliminated. Allowing competition in capitalism is only allowing your own future downfall. It's a "survival of the fittest" game through and through. At the end of the day, this means that even human life is literally nothing but a price tag. We can already see that now. It's the future of politics. As migrants flood into Europe and as more and more people join PMC's money is replacing nations and ideas are the food behind that money. I've argued against leftist anarchism for a while now because I'm 100% sure it doesn't work. But perhaps "anarchy" itself does work in terms of pure, raw human nature. Let's take a look at drug cartels..... Who literally runs southern America? Governments? Or people with money?

All of our brothers and sisters play. I have 16 of them. They all play.

Thanks for copying the example I always use.

The world is running out of water, almost everywhere on the planet. The areas we see people migrating from are areas running out of water. Oddly enough, most young people generally leave my state after high school. Still, the population is the fastest growing in the area mostly from illegal immigration and people coming here and destroying our wildlife so they can retire in some fancy mountain home. In any case, yeah, it's basically over population.

Actually, it's entirely theoretically possible to travel instantaneously or even fast forward your experience of time. For example, someone traveling is experiencing time at a slower rate than a person standing still. Objects in space can and do, seemingly move faster than light. Though this is due to spacial expansion happening beyond light speed, rather than actual objects moving faster than light. Example: the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light. This shows that the "speed of light barrier" does not apply to space itself. Don't argue cosmology with me. You'll lose and that isn't the topic.

I disagree. This type of debate is what fuels a solution. Without this debate, there will be no solution. No stars. I'm also highly skeptical of the idea that we can effectively live on another planet or in space. We as life forms are inherently part of this planet. Not just something on it.

I didn't even mention ISIS. Though I did point out the fact that the world is running out of water. This includes Syria, where just before the war, people were moving into the cities and abandoning their farms because there was no water. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/is-a-lack-of-water-to-blame-for-the-conflict-in-syria-72513729/?no-ist

Developed nations will experience a steady stream of migrants from undeveloped nations (who reproduce is large numbers) as they leave lands that are drying up. We can clearly see that happening in Europe right now. The mountains around where I live are getting a steady stream of Californians setting up houses as water wells are constantly being drilled up there. A couple thousand years you say? I think things are happening a hell of a lot faster than you think. The rate of change is ever increasing, I might add. Here's what to expect where I live: http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts/northwest.html 2 million years ago, it took the earth 5,000 years to warm by 5 degrees. The earth today, is expected to warm by about that much in less than 100 years. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

People think they don't have to worry about climate change (it's called climate change), because it's a slow process that does not immediately effect them. In fact, it's so slow that it surpasses their brief experience as an individual life form. I think the biggest issue is that this disaster is a slow process. It's not an issue that people are experiencing in a direct or even linear manner, but a cyclical one on a scale that overshadows a human lifetime. The modern mass extinction is entirely the fault of humans, more specifically overpopulation. The world you leave behind is the world your descendants will grow up in. So you can act like it's a joke if you want. But it's actually more disturbing than watching ISIS cut peoples heads off. It's pissing in the face of all life itself.

Make a serious comment or GTFO.

As we should all be aware of, the world is an ever changing place. Nothing is static. Today, humanity faces many great challenges. One of those challenges in particular is a changing climate, primarily due to human activity. We are also in the midst of the worlds 6th mass extinction, also due to human activity. No doubt these things are related, but what's being done to solve them? Well, aside from a climate meeting in Paris where nothing significant was agreed on, basically nothing. Most of what was agreed on in Paris appears to be empty promises by governments regarding future production with no penalties or pressure for not honoring their agreements. Meanwhile, pollution in China has already reached apocalyptic proportions several years ago. At the same time, energy companies, specifically oil companies, seem to have little interest in advancing to clean energy without having it in their pockets first. We may have had far more fuel efficient vehicles if not for a mysteriously convenient murder for oil companies. Nowadays however, oil companies seem to be accepting the inevitable; that their product is drying up. Thus, they seem to be putting much more investment into clean energy, because you know, they can't stop making money. Big business can't fail. Not even when people protest oil leaks destroying their land. In fact, that tends to get them killed. So it's safe to assume these massive companies, or at least the people leading them, will be around for a while. With or without oil. Which brings me to the next topic: Politics. The politics of the future could become a very vague place, where nations and borders become obscured by money. Anyone with money can hire a very well equipped and trained military these days, known as Private Military Contractors or PMCs. These PMCs do not represent a nation, only their own desire for money and war. With arguably the worlds best trained military soldiers joining PMCs in disturbingly large numbers across the world, are we reaching a point where corporations and companies have or are gaining more projection power than an entire modernized nation? When it's all said and done, Americans at least, seem to be unconcerned with climate change or our impacts on the environment. Something they are heavily concerned with however is warfare and security. A business that is very much booming all over the oil rich area of the middle east. Perhaps the future of mankind is to slowly dissolve this age old notion of politics in favor of raw business. A world where even superpower governments are absolute puppets of corporations, the global environment is a poisoned wasteland and only the strong will survive at the pure expense of the weak. A polluted, hostile, nearly uninhabitable world of anarchist capitalism held hostage by the simple currency system we invented so long ago. Perhaps we are already there? After all, there is no money in clean energy that may not even work. But there is plenty of money in war and that business is growing. This is why I don't have children. Discuss. TLDR: The world will become an "anarchist capitalist" society where the large majority will be living in squalor and filth left over from all other capitalizing generations.

"At least until the election is over" Pfft. So basically we can look forward to more stupid ads next month.

Can you please drop infra so I can raid you?

TBF, Aleppo has never been a strong spot for ISIS.

Of course. We all just smoke a blunt, then suddenly generations of cultural conflict melt away and we all have gay sex...... "Send in the stuff and blow em up, even though we're already doing that and being called baby killers because people die in war. We also must make sure you accept the millions of refugees migrants that our economy cannot mathematically cope with because such mass migrations have always been well known for producing societal stability and cooperation!! Yay liberal make believe land!!!" No, I agree with Harms. You don't understand how this works. In fact you seem to not grasp the sheer complexity and sensitivity of the issue.

OMG! I was just waiting for you to mention Deir ez-Zor. It took you long enough. The funny thing is that Deir ez-Zor has held out this whole time, being surrounded and the only reason ISIS takes it now is because of their losses in the north, the east, and stalled advances in the west. They're supply lines are being heavily targeted, destroyed and taken and need to open new ones. I've said it once and I'll say it again, ISIS has reached an expansion limit, at least in the Levant/Iraq. They are losing ground. They are fighting a war of attrition which is statistically impossible for them to actually win. They can drag it out for as long as they want, but so can we. In the end, nobody wins. We all just end up as hate filled !@#$ who forget all sense of reason.