Orcka

I have uploaded music from the greatest video game of all time on my YouTube Channel (why is it the best? cause its got my kind in it! duurrr). Enjoy!

I come to these forums specifically to make sure I will never have to see western cartoons again.

1.) "Socialism is bad because it's against human nature." - White 16 year old who just finished a high school US history course. 2.) We shouldn't overthrow the feudal system, I heard that our lord's son has interesting ideas about crop rotation, we should give him a chance. 3.) 4.) Democrats are the pinnacle of progressiveness! 5.) Ima change my profile picture to the French flag, that will show them! 6.) I AM A SPOOOOOKY DOCTOR AND I HAVE FILLED ALL THE VACCINES WITH AUSTISMOS, BECAUSE REASONS! MUHAHAHAAHHAHAHAAH!!!!!!

Saya it is then, after that, ill just flip a coin for either Katawa or Yumemiru. Tanks 4 da inpooot guies.

You know the writer who did Saya also did..... If that ain't moe I don't know what is......................

Did somebody say MOE?!

Since I was too lazy to list the VNs I have read and not read on my laptop, here is a screenshot of my desktop: The VNs on the top I have NOT read yet, while the VNs on the bottom I have read. All VNs are English translated and are all 18+ editions (some are even unrated). I want to know which Visual Novel to play next or in which order (and why). I will eventually read all of them.

"I'm so progressive, I'm helping people half the world away by changing my profile picture overlay!"

Just trying to give him/her something similar in setting geeeeeezzzz

Step 1: Uninstall Sakura Beach Step 2: Install Koisuru Natsu no Last Resort Step 3: Use this walthrough

As the saying goes; the soul-mate of romance is horror:

I find this offensive to my kind. You don't see us writing about how to eat humans bit by bit!

11/10 would kill

Spending generations developing a political philosophy found on every continent is the epitome of childishness.

Seems like a vague question. I see it as beneficial for everyone in general. Everyone will not be entitled based on who is superior to them and will be able to act on their lives freely (as long as it doesn't effect the lives of others). But a lot of Bourgeoisie wont like it since they won't be able to hold private property anymore. I guess it's based on perspective, if you're a rich bastard, you are obviously going to find it distasteful. But to me that is like saying that the abolition of slavery is a "bad thing" to slave owners.

Ther u gow bebe gurl:

After many hours of studying and referring to the subject. I have finished a completed analysis of my perspective of the “overpopulation myth” and why it is not a justification towards poverty and famine (and the idea of depopulation/restriction of fertility). I will also refer to how poverty CAUSES the social issues that we call “overpopulation”, and not the other way around. I also worked with my friendly neighborhood green anarchists (historical definition on what “green anarchism” is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_anarchism) who have provided citations and connotations from biologists and population analysts. As an Anarchist I do not believe in the idea of “privatized literature”, but I do think it is important to set credit where credit is due, so again, I thank them for providing me detailed information and allowing me to use it for my own work. Please note that I did the majority of my editing on a google doc file, so I apologize if certain aspects didn’t copy correctly onto the thread post. So without further ado, let’s get started: Malthus reasoned that human population tends to grow at a geometric rate, while our ability to produce subsistence increases at a merely arithmetical rate, and so we find ourselves in an ever deepening spiral of suffering caused by overpopulation. In Malthus's view this process could only be slowed by the "preventive check" of decreased fertility (presumably attained through zealous spiritual devotion) or, the "positive check" of increased mortality. The Malthusian theory was once thought to be, pretty much, relegated to the status of a curious footnote in the history of economic thought. Henry George's chapters on poverty and subsistence in “Progress and Poverty” stand as the definitive marshalling of the abundant logical ammunition against it. Toward the end of the 20th century AD, however, an influential crew of neo-Malthusians brought the theory back. Also, modern Malthusians such as Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown and the happy fun guys that called themselves the Club of Rome have added a wrinkle, claiming that subsistence can only keep ahead of population growth at the cost of an unsustainable level of environmental harm. Seven plus billion people is a lot of people, no doubt about it. Is it too many? The neo-Malthusian view seems reasonable, especially when fortified by such statistics as these (published by the Population Institute): >An estimated 680 million chronically hungry people. >As population and hunger increase in the developing world, water availability for irrigation is declining. >The FAO estimates that by 2020, 135 million people may lose their land as a result of soil degradation. >Of the 20 countries that rank highest on the 2011 Failing States Index (published by Foreign Policy magazine), all but one have a total fertility rate of 3.5 or higher. >Between 1999 and 2011, the world’s population increased by 1 billion. Indeed, these statistics show that there is plenty of poverty. But do they indicate overpopulation? We must not let ourselves be overzealous by numbers. A hundred million people is an increase of roughly half a percentage point. The Earth has the capacity to absorb such numbers. Today, vast capacities of the earth's resources are unused. Still more arable land is being destroyed by unsustainable farming or settlement practices (this goes back to what I stated about the “raping” of colonial lands by the European powers). And even more of the earth's "carrying capacity" is being used to make weapons, or toys, or crops for export, all manner of things that, despite the wretched poverty of so many of the world's people face, no one needs for survival. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates the earth has the capacity to grow food for about 33 billion people (this falsifies your original statement of 4-16 billion). Critics will protest that such tremendous yields would require the dubious efficiencies of monoculture, petrochemical fertilizers and genetic engineering and that is probably true. Yet it is also true that, in all likelihood, we'll never need to grow anywhere near that much. Current UN estimates project a plateau population of around 9 billion people about midway through this century (and it's worth noting that every time this top figure has been estimated, it has been lower based on new information). Modern "industrial" farming techniques make it easier to run large-scale, remotely-managed corporate farms, but they are not needed to create high yields of nutritious food. The total arable land in the world today, according to the CIA World Factbook, is 3.84 billion acres. The definition used is land that is under cultivation, or temporarily fallow (for less than five years) but it excludes abandoned land resulting from shifting cultivation. Enough arable land exists in India to give each person in the country approximately half an acre. In famine-ravaged Ethiopia, each person could have three-quarters of an acre of arable land. Africa, the poorest continent, has 20.2% of the world's land area, and only 13% of its population. North America has a whopping 2.1 acres of arable land per person. While it is true that many regions have experienced frightening rates of deforestation and topsoil loss, these problems result from land hoarding, not overpopulation. Around the world, deforestation and desertification result from peasants pushing into sub-marginal land while high-quality farmland is either held out of use entirely, or used to grow export crops. In Brazil, for example, the situation became so acute that squatters have been massacred for occupying remote, unused areas of privately-held ranches. Another example can be seen from the Guatemalan fruit company; the peasants are not allowed to cultivate any land belonging to the privatized institution, and the majority of the fruit cultivation is exported to other countries (the US buys 40% of its fruit from Guatemala). A large, organized movement has grown around the peasants' demand simply to be allowed to use land that others don't feel like using, just now. Two factors consistently correlate with high birth rates: poverty, and poor education. It has long been known that when living standards rise in a community, birth rates tend to decline; this widely-documented phenomenon is called the "demographic shift" (Henry George referred to it in 1879). Recently, however, another kind of demographic shift has been observed. Where women have had access to education and media, birth rates have showed significant declines even when income levels had not increased. It is instructive to note, in the table below, the correlations between lower life-expectancy and literacy figures for women, and the standard measures of poverty. The most distasteful part of the recent spate of neo-Malthusian diarrhea has been the notion that irresponsible poor people should be forcibly stopped from procreating, lest their hungry numbers start to wrest control of the resources held by more "civilized" people. In an economy where more energy and resources are spent in taking pictures of children than are used to feed children in the rest of the world, such advice is preposterous. It is true that the developing world cannot raise its standard of living to "Western" standards, using the same wasteful methods, without causing horrible damage to the natural environment. However, "Western standards" are by no means the only game in town. The long-term trend has been for more human satisfaction to be provided with less pollution. Environmentally sustainable technology for industry, food and energy production is available today. The reasons why it is not used extensively have more to do with politics and economics than with technical feasibility. (It could be that the rise of truly global environmental dangers, in the form of climate change, will accelerate these trends.) It remains an unfortunate fact that the world's poorest, most corrupt, most disorganized and environmentally endangered nations are the ones with the highest birth rates (of course, they have fairly high death rates as well; Africa's population actually decreased in the 1990s). The neo-Malthusians identify genuinely dire problems. But it is time we got it straight: poverty is not caused by overpopulation. The syndrome of social problems commonly called "overpopulation" is actually caused by poverty. Therefore, the problem cannot be solved by forcing people to restrict their fertility or by population purging with famine. Our world still has sufficient resources existing to feed every new child but those resources are held idle, or devoted to frivolous uses, or controlled by privatization institutions to monopolize the global market. Works Cited: Brown, Lester, et. al., Beyond Malthus: Sixteen Dimensions of the Population Problem, Washington, DC, Worldwatch Institute, 1998 Elliot, Herschel and Lamm, Richard, "A Moral Code for a Finite World", Chronicle of Higher Education, 2002 George, Henry, Progress and Poverty, New York, Robert Schalkenbach Foundation Lappé, Frances Moore and Schurman, Rachel, "The Population Puzzle", In Context, Spring, 1989 Lutz, Wolfgang, et. al., "The end of world population growth", Nature, August 2, 2001 Sen, Amartya, Development as Freedom, New York, Anchor Books, 1999 Shah, Anup, www.globalissues.org, Website containing extensive discussion of population and world hunger, including chapters from Lappé, et. al, World Hunger, 12 Myths, 2nd Edition www.npg.org, Website of the organization Negative Population Growth, Inc.

The reason why I am giving you the sources, is because in the last 3 posts we have traded arguments on is just you denying all of my statements and proposing your own conclusions without much back up statements. For example I have stated multiple times why capitalist enterprises only benefit progress if it benefits the market, thus stagnating important innovations like renewable energy. And yet, you stated twice that this is false with no explanation to back up your statement. Another statement that seems to be repeating itself is your argument for the overpopulation hypothesis of Malthus. Once again, you do not provide evidence on how this is true. To me, the only way the hypothesis can be proven is if we conduct a global test in which every person on the planet is given a needable amount of resources to survive, and see if whether or not their will be any left over resources. However, this is not the case of the world now is it? A few individuals have a horrendous amount of resources, more than they even know what to do with. This skews the resource statistics heavily into a few individuals. To extend this, you constantly defend the rich, as if they are a "necessity" without providing your own burden of proof. I have stated multiple times that it is the workers that are the reason why you all of the commodities in your life. And you still think, that the rich somehow play a "significant" role simply because they privatize the means of production. Is it not possible for the workers to own the means of production themselves? Or maybe this is a foreign concept to you, because you never have suggested this to be a possibility. If your going to defend capitalism, at the very least explain why privatization is "better" than worker's control. The reason why I provided these links, was because that I felt that nothing I was saying was not getting thru to you. Perhaps I could provide the words of another author, someone who is better at explaining these kinds of topics, perhaps then something would click inside of you, regardless if you agree with the argument or not. It is not my job to "convince" you that Anarchy is the most justifiable way for all of humanity to follow, this you must decide on your own, it is not my right to define what you believe in. I am here to provide with you a new perspective, a new way of viewing the world. You may then do as you wish with it, either reflect or forget about what I have stated. I have stated that their is no justification for indirect/direct genocide IF their is any way we can prevent it. My opinion is that it is more important to save the lives of as many people as possible, even if it costs us marketing/progressive benefits. In other words, the lives of everyone comes first before the idea of "progress" (this is me being generous and saying that capitalism ALWAYS chooses progress over conservatism, which is not true). Of course, you might have a different perspective on this, and that is fine, but understand that simply because YOU think that your argument is sound and rational doesn't mean that it will become as easy to understand for someone like me. You must provide sources, evidence, examples, ect.... Or I will not consider your arguments. You can't assume that your arguments are always "common knowledge", perhaps to you they are but to me they are not. That being said, the articles are simply there to provide another perspective, one that may or may not help you understand the topic at hand. Because to me, it seems that you are not understanding anything I have stated so far. And no, I am not going to spam articles towards you, the only reason I would give you another link, is if the topic shifts into a different direction (from overpopulation to the cold war, for example).

If you think this statement is true, then you shouldn't have any problems refuting the arguments of the two authors I have posted.

I will have things to do until Thursday, so I won't be able to respond thoroughly until then. However, many of my arguments are parallel with this article: https://libcom.org/library/%E2%80%9Coverpopulation%E2%80%9D-letting-capitalism-hook-manchester-no-borders In short it states this: The "overpopulation" myth has never truly been indicated or proven by scientists. In short, it is simply an excuse to provide alteration motives. You must understand that "overpopulation" is only a problem under the capitalist system, because less and less resources can be horded by entrepreneurs, the higher the population is. We would not have problems with "overpopulation" if we effectively shared and preserve important resources like food and energy (this is of course equivalent to my ideology of socialism). In fact, your argument is is basically "Neo-Malthusian" the philosophy based on the works and writings of Thomas Malthus a Eugenics philosopher who considered things like famine, war, poverty to not only be justifiable, but a NECESSITY for the survival of humanity (you probably are unconscious of this, but because of how impactful his writing were back in the 19th century and even today, you ARE probably using his argument based on popular media). Seems ironic that "overpopulation" was first introduced by a cleric of the Church of England and not by an actual scientist. I personally consider the "overpopulation" argument proposed by Malthus to be extremely outdated and is countered by many other social factors like immigration, the development of things like agriculture and medicine, and how resources are funneled into the hands of a few individuals. If you wish to learn more, please read the article, it provides many references and citations to uphold it's argument. It also goes into detail and counter arguments against Malthus. Another writing that also goes against the Malthus philosophy is from Murray Bookchin (this one goes into more extensive detail both historically and socially, so be warned, it is a MUCH longer read, in other words an extensive and more detailed version of the previous article I mentioned) his arguments are also very compelling: http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/murray-bookchin-the-population-myth