PeponeNRC

Beware of Ecofascism "they will typically argue that overpopulation is the primary threat to the environment and that the only solution is a complete halt to immigration or, at their most extreme, genocide against various groups and ethnicities.[6][7][8]".
To properly adress the subject study it from here instead which is led by scientist and David Attenborough and Jane Goodall:
https://populationmatters.org/the-facts/


“All our environmental problems become easier to solve with fewer people, and harder – and ultimately impossible – to solve with ever more people.”
Sir David Attenborough.

See? It wont solve the problems. Understand the problems, and help us remedee them. Because to be honest... most developing countries aren't the main drivers of the market nor overpopulated.

Europe has a significantly higher population density than Africa, with Europe's density around 187-191 people per square mile (or 109 persons per km² in the EU) compared to Africa's roughly 87-109 people per square mile (or 52 people per km²).Argentina is as big as the Entire EU(European Union). And we have only 45 million while the EU has a population of 450.4 million people. So we are not overpopulating anything and all animals are going extinct here. Because the problems are much more complex than just population density.

Lot of animals got extinct when we were "few".Here is a timeline of animal extinctions by humans in history(lot missing in this list).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_extinctions_in_the_Holocene

Humans caused a major period of animal extinctions during the Late Pleistocene (roughly 60,000 to 10,000 years ago) due to overhunting, followed by another wave of extinction on oceanic islands as humans settled them. Since the Industrial Revolution (starting in the 1800s), extinction rates have dramatically increased and continue to accelerate due to factors like habitat loss, pollution, invasive species and unsustainable resource use.

Less population, just means more time to do the necessary changes. Its not a solution. You should ask yourself why if there is less people per km in africa than in Europe that african species are going extinct and not european ones. Because the habitat is lost in Africa, and not in europe. Primary reason of habitat loss is food and resources production...

CITES helped. With the banning of ivory trade for example.
Chinese medicine market is the DEMAND in capital letters which needs to be stop. Demands stop, offers stop. The global south is extremely poor and corrupt, if there is demand, there will be offer. We try to control offer, but its difficult. We need real help, not blaming and more wars.
For example, habitat loss in africa has been caused by desertification trough unsustainable farming and climate change.

Video about it how desertificaiton is been reversed here by going back in time to african methods(which colonization destroyed):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCli0gyNwL0&t=145s

(that is an example of a solution)

Its a Cambridge bias, preety clear to me now. Oxford does focus on the environmental/ecological problems first and this leads to awareness in other issues such as gender equality,health,education,etc that are needed for reproductive health. Sir david is from Cambridge, i admire and love him, but i think his quote is mistaken as it allows division and hate, i think its better to explain the ecological problems, else this can lead to a complete devaluing of human life.
This organizaiton(which he supports) deals with this in that way:
https://populationmatters.org/

Trying not to take value away of what is a human life in the process, human rights,etc.

Our ecological footprint per capita is actually quite low or the lowest as population matters explain. Specially here in argentina where we are not only few in population density terms(equal to norway kinda), but consume much less.(such official data dismiss bias, statistics are very important!!)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paper proof races do not exist here:
https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article-abstract/176/1/351/6064640

"Our analysis focuses on the frequency, ω, with which a pair of random individuals from two different populations is genetically more similar than a pair of individuals randomly selected from any single population."
So races do not exist. So there is no justification to treat people differently based on that, is just melanine.

Yes, this is racism(you cant do an ancestry test with your eyes):
https://www.instagram.com/p/DJ4B_oGI1aq/


Also, be careful today if you talk about human rights, UN, empaty and international law is the enemy and traitors or something like that and exclude you. And they will call you a globalist. Islamocommunist or something And a huge set of judgement,labels coming your way. Hence, this destroys meritocracy they claim to achieve. Also, they blame you for migrants who are unproductive or have commited crimes, well for everything.

But they won't exclude those who think like this:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SIFYxHhJhJhXKrWMz1-vnA9rzQYFLsELR-0n7Cu-T_U/edit?tab=t.0

Which is good that they don't exclude them...

The problem is the exclusion and undeserved differential treatment. Both in real life and here.


Blood and soil is pseudoscience by the way. There are dumb people here who think of true viking and purity of DNA. Makes no sense and is pseudoscience. There is no-one who is not "mixed" ,civilization exist over for no more than 10.000 years ago. For evolutionary times this is nothing.
That is ideology. And it will destroy freedom.

As kepler said: "I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single educated man to the thoughtless approval of the masses"