9230 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
It looks like that Gary Kasparov has turned his back on humanity. Bilderberg is attended by people who want to see the world population be reduced to 1 billion, the Bilderberg who are creating the police state in the U.S. and many other countries. Its nice to know where Gary Kasparov stands when it comes to freedom, and humanity. I am very saddened to see his name on the list of Bilderberg attendees, he use to be someone I really respected and admired.
I think that is jumping to some big conclusions. I very much doubt that everyone at the meeting shares the same view about anything...
Anyone who isn't completely insane wants to see the world's population reduced to 1 billion. The way we're headed isn't sustainable, everyone with any clue knows that.
There is really no hope for the future of the planet, not without some massive turnaround. To borrow an expression from Fischer "these people are living in a dreamworld". Sometimes I think it would be better if some virus came and destroyed a huge proportion of humanity.
Take one for the team, True Believer.
How do they propose to reduce the population?
Fluoride, vaccinations, cell towers, zombie apocalypse.
Thank god the Anuunaki are sending an ark for me.
I'm thankful that so many people have seem this post. It is important that we all know where a particular chess player stands when it comes to the sanctity of life and freedom!
Reduce the population of the World to 1 Billion ? These must be the same loonies who also want to set up Colonies on Mars.
& Got in before the lock.
Classic emotionally driven response, completely evades the issue at hand.
If they are trying to get the world population down to 1 Billion, they aren't trying very hard.
At least someone still gives a damn about overpopulation. Back in the 90s with "only" 5 billion people everyone seemed to care, but now with over 7 billion people who consume 1.5 beyond carrying capacity per year it seems no one care as much anymore.
People ignore the problem because it is an unpleasant reality that can be avoided for the time being. Unfortunately this will only make things worse in the long run.
Probably by introducing western living standards or maybe educating women, those tend to drop populations. Or we could hope at least. Many of the good countries such as Japan believe it or not have an underpopulation problem and maybe should be encouraged to have more children, but not enough to mitigate reduced population elsewhere.
Yeah, I know. And crossing this threshold where we consume more than the planet can produce, happened on our watch, in our lifetimes.I guess it's the guilt that keeps us quiet.
If half the people alive now dropped dead tomorrow, there would still be more people alive than when I was born (1960). It would only take about a decade or two off the final reckoning & resource collapse.
It's amazing that so many people are aware of the inevitability of the problems that will be caused by overpopulation and lack of resources, and yet it is virtually impossible, within the context of modern society for anything to be done. Personally I hope the conspiracy theorists are right, even though I think they're insane, because at least then people would be making conscious decisions about the future of humanity and the earth. As things stand humans have virtually no control over their own destiny, and those who realise the consequences can do little but watch it unfold.
ummm I live in a big city and when I walked home about an hour ago, I didn't see a single person down the two long streets I had to walk through to get home.
You're kind of missing the point. How many people do you think lived on those two streets? How much land is required to produce the resources that they consume? If they're living typical Western lifestyles it's a huge amount more than what they own/live on.
That's why the world is having all these revolutions, we live in a time of big decisions, yet aren't making any of them ourselves. Dunking Donuts and Starbuck's have way too many locations as it is, yet they want more. They and other corporations destroy small town charm and have an adverse effect on local businesses. They also receive billions ("They" meaning Wal-Mart, Lockheed Martin, ExxonMobil, etc.) in government money, looks like government money is good enough for some people lol! (I say that because these hypocrites frequently advocate cutting social programs while the corporations beg for government money they don't even need)
I was going to make a topic comparing the 90s to 00-10s in the off-topic, and it's still on the table, but I'll mention one of the points here: people frequently speak of improving technology, while this is a plus on many fronts it's pretty disappointing that an oversized Ipod is heralded as some great achievement of the 00s. I'd trade the Ipad for more local control and greater awareness and preservation of small towns in a second. Is Facebook and its worse by the minute policies (IM and inbox integration, fewer privacy options, interface getting crappier by the year, etc.)
Hell, in many ways Facebook is behind Myspace, which had bulletins you could reply to as private messages (as opposed to status updates that involve everyone, not just the person replying), actual blogs where you could customize text size and such (as opposed to "notes", which are very limited,no one reads and there's no little corner to find such), a cleaner and more detailed user search interface (including height range, age range, marital status, etc.,) whereas on Facebook it's name, location, school, or work only. In other words, even social media regressed since the mid-2000s (except in some areas, such as selling information and undermining privacy). The only thing wrong with Myspace really was that music automatically played on profiles, some people linking too many videos (back in the Myspace days you had 4GB of RAM at the most, not conducive for loading all of that material), and had tacky profiles, but it was still ahead of current Facebook.
What happened to the fun???
by CampoReal 5 minutes ago
Why do women get different medals? WGM or simply GM?
by Gil-Gandel 7 minutes ago
5/23/2013 - The Long Road Home
by jpespano 11 minutes ago
The Lost Chess Set
by SMesq 13 minutes ago
Is there any chance that a 1300 rated player can beat a 2700 rated player?
by bean_Fischer 15 minutes ago
The b3 anti Sicilian
by InoYamanaka 19 minutes ago
Beating the Philodor defense?
by Dee_Bee 22 minutes ago
Computer Analysis says 1...c5 is an Inaccuracy ???
by blasterdragon 25 minutes ago
Why do so few players play 30 min live chess?
by Noreaster 25 minutes ago
Which is better Stockfish or Critter?
by InoYamanaka 27 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com