But it doesn't population control. It just makes faggots. Look at Africa. Queerest populations on the planet. But the fastest growing.
Faggots are the result of consumption, not depopulation. They're the result of population, not depopulation. When a population gets larger, it gets queerer. Simple fact with mammals. The greater their numbers the more they fuck everything until they get fucked. Literally nature answers back.
Perhaps they're used as another mechanism of dystopia. But consumption is the result of faggots. They spend far more, unless they're Africans.
No they're the product of consumption. The cause of population. Not depopulation. Another service buggering your damn ass, costing you more. Choice. Sex is an appetite. Not reproduction. They also add dystopia. They suddenly need a million laws and rights. Policing you into more taxes.
Simple experiment with mammals. Mice is easiest. Add more numbers than the cage can sustain. 4 but add 8. The mice become queer, and even cannibal, but their numbers grow. Grow until they die of disease or starvation.
Not really. They layer some dystopia controlling the increased population having more services and choices. Eventually renaissance becomes catastrophe. It did with Sodom and Gamorrah, Pompeii, the Mayans, and so many more. But this is from a growing population expanding, and the technology surpassing it, depleting resources quicker, causing a host of geography and geopolitics.
But technically they're not depopulation, they're a result of increased population. Population eventually tips whatever its sexual appetite. The more it grows the greater its problems. Nature eventually answers back, human, conflict is our nature, we are individuals who make our own choices, or planetary, the greater a species numbers the more they threaten the natural habitat. Increased sexual appetites can bring diseases. A case whatever your fetish. But conceptually you're wrong to assume depopulation. Opposite by fact, a result of population.
An easy assumption because they cannot birth, without more services, adoption, surrogacy, whatever. Why did they need too, when there was that increased population having more choice promoting them? Too control it. Yawn. It would gain no matter what gets fucked. Until it tips, no matter what.
Not promoting them, don't care, dispelling that myth. A result of increased population. Otherwise simple fact, they wouldn't sustain. Imagine it in the Wild. There's Ham sent into the Jungle.
But it doesn't population control. It just makes faggots. Look at Africa. Queerest populations on the planet. But the fastest growing.
Faggots are the result of consumption, not depopulation. They're the result of population, not depopulation. When a population gets larger, it gets queerer. Simple fact with mammals. The greater their numbers the more they fuck everything until they get fucked. Literally nature answers back.
Perhaps they're used as another mechanism of dystopia. But consumption is the result of faggots. They spend far more, unless they're Africans.
promotion of people who can’t populate is population control. does not get more simple than that.
No they're the product of consumption. The cause of population. Not depopulation. Another service buggering your damn ass, costing you more. Choice. Sex is an appetite. Not reproduction. They also add dystopia. They suddenly need a million laws and rights. Policing you into more taxes.
Simple experiment with mammals. Mice is easiest. Add more numbers than the cage can sustain. 4 but add 8. The mice become queer, and even cannibal, but their numbers grow. Grow until they die of disease or starvation.
you just explained population control LOL
Not really. They layer some dystopia controlling the increased population having more services and choices. Eventually renaissance becomes catastrophe. It did with Sodom and Gamorrah, Pompeii, the Mayans, and so many more. But this is from a growing population expanding, and the technology surpassing it, depleting resources quicker, causing a host of geography and geopolitics.
But technically they're not depopulation, they're a result of increased population. Population eventually tips whatever its sexual appetite. The more it grows the greater its problems. Nature eventually answers back, human, conflict is our nature, we are individuals who make our own choices, or planetary, the greater a species numbers the more they threaten the natural habitat. Increased sexual appetites can bring diseases. A case whatever your fetish. But conceptually you're wrong to assume depopulation. Opposite by fact, a result of population.
An easy assumption because they cannot birth, without more services, adoption, surrogacy, whatever. Why did they need too, when there was that increased population having more choice promoting them? Too control it. Yawn. It would gain no matter what gets fucked. Until it tips, no matter what.
Not promoting them, don't care, dispelling that myth. A result of increased population. Otherwise simple fact, they wouldn't sustain. Imagine it in the Wild. There's Ham sent into the Jungle.