What part of global village did you not understand in the statement?
It’s a self-resolving problem, once the resources dwindle to less than requirements, then the mass populations will majoritively die out.
I think it will round off at around 10 billion, as first world economies tend to breed less [like japan actually needs more immigration to sustain current population levels]. Eventually the third world economies will raise up to a standard where they too wont over breed.
Yes, thanks to raising the standard of living making it unaffordable for a majority of the population to simply live let alone raise a family on the part of the ruling international class…
This is a positive development for you around the world?
“Will be”?
I don’t understand your question here.
Unfortunately, there isn’t enough resources for that to occur.
You think they are not already?
Food and carbon 3D printers, will change that. Admittedly if populations don’t level off, it could be problematic to say the least. I could imagine a billion-fold populated cities in the deserts, with large ‘sails’ to capture water vapours etc.
Tbh I’d prefer it if the earth had ancient levels of people [around 1-3bil] , as we know that’s sustainable over long periods of time. …and more aesthetically pleasing, not to mention I am a bit of hermit, so I hate masses of people.
Realistically i think we got around 20 years until a great collapse, unrealistically we’ll find a way to travel to the stars/other universes, or we replace our bodies with robot ones bla bla.
One has to wonder what the people with power have planned, they seem so casual about the whole thing but I am sure they must have plans. Atm they are probably just seeing what will happen, then one day we’ll know what their plans are!
Using the comparison of “military armed societies” and “demographically armed societies” is misleading. Both are “military armed societies”.
If you don’t have the atomic bomb, you can’t be regarded as a serious militarily armed society. Those countries that have the atomic bomb should be regarded as the only dangerous societies. You can’t pose any threat, if all you have is large population numbers. We are not living in ancient times when having a large army meant certain victory.
The term “demographically armed” is an indirect racially discriminatory remark.
Again:
No.
Beschenert!
Did you mean that demographically armed societies are beschenert? Or did you mean that demographically armed societies are bescheuert? 
We all know you are a Nazi Fascist who hates Jews. Your rhetorical deceptions aren’t fooling anybody. We all know what ‘demographically armed’ really means. 
Bullshit.
… well
… okay
… puppy-shit.
[size=124]That is a lie and an ad hom![/size] And you know that it is a lie and an ad hom.
I never said anything about Jews. And Jews are not “demographically armed societies”. Demographically armed societies are societies with a youth bulge. That is known. But it is not known as a fascistic theory but as a globalistic theory. You may call globalists “Nazis” or “Glozis” (as I do) but not me.
I asked a question in my thread: “How dangerous are demographically armed societies?”. This question implies that there are demographically armed societies. And you want to deny that there are demographically armed societies? There are war and terror in almost all countries with demographically armed societies, thus societies with youth bulges. My question does not mean that I am of the same opinion as Gunnar Heinsohn is, but that does not matter at all, because I just want to know how ILP members answer the question how dangerous demographically armed societies are and what they think about Heinsohn’s theory of the youth bulge. That has nothing at all to do with fascism.
We all know that you are a paid troll and that you never know what you are talking about. You do not know what “demographically armed” rmeans. You do not even know what the difference between a virus and a bacterium is. And now you are outing yourself as a racist - a racist who hates demographically unarmed societies.
Are you paid by the military industry?
If you were for world peace and not against it, then you would argue in my way.
So, what should we do with this youth bulge? (a) Put them into a gas chamber (b) Castrate them (c) Drop the bomb
You are thinking in terms of a military vocabulary. Only a militarily trained person would think of a country with an excess of youth as being “demographically armed”. You see population numbers as a threat which needs to be addressed. World threats should be categorized in order of priority first. I would categorize nuclear arms as the most important threat to the world at the moment. Population numbers could ultimately become a triggering device which could cause a poor country to use nuclear weapons as a threat to black mail the world into supplying them with resources.
So you are the Nazi Fascist who hates Jews. Your rhetorical “questions” aren’t fooling anybody. We all know whatthose ‘questions’ really mean.
If you merely want to ask silly questions and to deny problems like wars and terror in all those countries with youth bulges, then you will not solve any single problem of them but probably strengthen them.
Palestinians, for example, have more and more children in order to get the possibility of attacking Israel; Afghans, for example, have increased the number of their children since the attacks and invasion of the USA; the same development in Iraq and in most of the countries of Africa. Those societies increase their youth bulge when they are attacked in order to get the possibility of attacking the attackers.
You opened a thread with the title “Zero population growth”. How do you want to achieve you reach that goal (= “Zero population growth”)?
So what will you do with those who prevent that the number of the population growth can really become zero?(A) Put them into a gas chamber? (B) Castrate them? (C) Drop the bomb?
That is - again - your unconscious self-description. You are the one who is thinking in terms of a military vocabulary.
No. I asked a question.
Again: You are the one who is thinking in terms of a military vocabulary.
What solution do you suggest, my “militarily trained person”?
Arminius - German warrior who defeated Roman army. Say no more! 
Arminius stands for FREEDOM. In order to get freedom, to free his country and his people, he had to fight, to be a freedom fighter. That is right. If he had not lived, fighted for freedom, and defeated the Romans (but he has!), then not merely several German tribes (as it was!) but all German tribes, thus almost all of the then Europeans would have become slaves, the further history of the Roman emprie would have been a very much different one and with more slaves than it already had.
So my username stands for FREEDOM.
I am fighting for freedom, yes, and here on ILP this does especially mean: I am fighting for the freedom of thoughts and speech.
I am fighting against enslavement, yes, and here on ILP this does especially mean: I am fighting against enslavement of thoughts and speech.
What does your username stand for?