Robert Greene

I want multiculturalism to work. If we can keep extremist out of Canada, there will be less racism towards the good immigrants who come here. There has to be compromise on both sides. The whites in Canada are starting to feel displaced, so we do need all cultures getting along. When you're an immigrant, you convert to Canada, you don't try and get Canada to convert to you. We should be able to tolerate skin colour, as long as they respect the official language, and tolerate our culture. We need to include natives in the Canadian identity, and we need to give them long distance jobs. They should be able to work in Call Centers, graphic design, publishing, and marketing.

You can't unthread multiculturalism in Canada. We should be able to tolerate diversity as long as they don't take it to the extreme. I would ban the Burka in Canada. I would ban non English signs on stores. I would ever go as far as banning people from speaking any other language, but English or French in public places. I would force all immigrants to accept the official languages and respect Canadian Traditions. I would protect their right to practice there own culture, as long as doesn't undermine public safety, or insult Canadian traditions. You're not going to get non-white people out of Canada, but you can make sure immigrants respect our values. Immigrants should also be put on probation, if they mess up, they get deported. Reasonable citizens from all races, should be welcomed into Canada. We should only allow enough immigration to keep our population from declining too fast. We shouldn't allow immigration to increase our numbers. It seems like Canada is in a race to increase its population, as the world increases its population to be competitive. This is a recipe for environmental disaster. Canada should limit population growth, because were a northern country, and can't supply as much food as the United States.

This is the stupidest thing you ever wrote. White supremacy is a recipe for disaster. There are 850 Million white people. Not 6 or 7. No race is exempt from environmental responsibility. All races are going to have to make sacrifices. It has to be an international shared commitment. I don't need a white supremacist supporting the cause. Be reasonable or no one will take you seriously. You can't have everything you want. Prioritize what's important. If your worried about some elements of multiculturalism, that's fine. Use some discretion, and be diplomatic about it. Don't put all the blame on non-white people, otherwise you're a white supremacist. Don't undermine you're legitimacy, by being a racist. We're not going to have an overpopulation policy that says whites are exempt, while only forcing non-whites to depopulate. It would never gain momentum, any attempt at ethical population control would fail. Great Britain has a serious overpopulation problem, and it's over 90% white. Depopulation has to be based upon a countries population density, and not ethnicity. White people Total population (850,000,000 + 11.5% of the total world population (world population of 7.5 billion).[38] (not counting partial European descent)) Regions with significant populations United States 223,553,265[39] Russia 125,000,000[40] Brazil 92,636,000[41] France 66,000,000[42] United Kingdom 65,000,000[43] Italy 60,000,000[44] Spain 46,000,000[45] Ukraine 42,000,000[46] Argentina 38,900,000[47]

Those non-white people in Costa Rica are doing a far better job at protecting their environment.

That's why reducing population frees up resources, so we don't have to kill as many jobs per capita. Smart environmentalism could be allowing more mines to open in the desert, than in tropical countries where there could be 500 tree species affected. Let the tropical countries have ecotourism, small scale logging, big pharma collecting medicine. Let them make money from the rainforest. I was a liberal environmentalist, now i'm a conservative. I'm not going to abandon environmentalism. I'm going to try and make it compatible with conservative values. No way i'm going to watch the Amazon get destroyed to raise GDP. Overpopulation is the biggest destroyer of jobs. Australia has a small population, but enough mines open to provide a $18.29 an hour minimum wage. Ethical depopulation could provide economies based upon resources and disposable income. Conservatives should get behind ethical depopulation, because we could cut a lot of regulations as the population decreases.

It would be amazing to have both, but if I had to choose between white people surviving, or the planet surviving, i'll take the planet. How could we sell ethical depopulation, and then say whites should be exempt, because of low numbers. It gets really complicated.

Environmentalist believe in ecological sustainability. Conservatives believe in financial sustainability. Environmentalist don't have to be liberals.

I understand that the whites in Canada feel like the new natives. Driven out of cities, being forced to be move to small northern towns. We just can't fight overpopulation with racism. We can't reverse multiculturalism and save the planet. I rather work with a bunch of nonwhites, then see the environment get destroyed. As long as the human race survives, it doesn't matter if the whites die out. Although I want to see white people survive, I just don't know how it can be done without eugenics. It gets too complicated. Racism could also lead to political instability and war.

Ok careful with the racism a little bit. We can't sell the idea of ethical depopulation, unless we show some maturity towards all cultures. If we're perceived as racists, the depopulation program wont be able to advance.

Third world depopulation should happen 10 times faster than Canada, but Canada needs to depopulate as well. We need an international agreement on overpopulation.

I have respect for some Liberals. I like the progressives that are trying to end sweatshops. I don't like idiots complaining about Gender rights, when Mr and Mrs isn't enough. I don't like the idiots saying the government is cheap when the cut services, so they don't have to us further into debt.

Even if we only reduced the Worlds population by 20% over 100 years. It would have a massive impact.

If the Worlds population was reduced to 100 million in 1000 years, Canada's population needs to be reduce to 1 or 2 million.

Say if a virus wiped out 95% of the human population. The dumbest thing governments could do is encourage large families to repopulate. Ethical population control has to be maintained for thousands of years. It would take international cooperation.

Canada is overpopulated. We need to de-urbanize and move people to smaller towns. Canada should depopulate 10 times slower than India's. All nations need to decrease population size.

Personally I think the idea global population should be 100 million. I want all poverty on the planet to end. People could enjoy buying furniture from the Amazon, without worrying about massive impacts. The world could supply more, with less demand. The price of resources would go way down. Imagine paying $3 for Lobster instead of $30. Future generations could live in an affordable world. We just need a system that can stay intact during the decline. We can't have de-urbanization lead to urban decay. We should demolish one section of a city at a time, and turn it into a park. Don't leave abandoned buildings around. Maintain house prices at a certain level, by demolishing old homes. We might need to create a law that converts all private land into a lease after 50 years, because the government won't be able to buy back private property to restore ecosystems. If we only allowed 10 year leases, we could force people to move out of their home, when we decide the bulldoze entire subdivisions. Don't allow the permanent ownership of land, or ugly subdivisions could remain indefinitely. Once a subdivision is bulldozed, we could allow new property lines to be drawn. Allow for bigger lot sizes.

I'm not perfect. Sometimes I write something that sounds ridiculous. I think good debate comes from mutual respect. Sometimes we get things right, and sometimes we get things wrong. We can't have a discussion on overpopulation without making mistakes.

It seems a little far fetched, but you should read his other posts. Very smart person.

You make really good points. I disagree with Canada needing to depopulate faster than other countries and you call me eugenicist. A eugenicist selectively targets individuals. It says certain individuals need to be sterilized based on mental fitness, and so forth. What i'm talking about is lowering an entire countries birth rate. Even if we imposed a 2 child policy, it would be imposed on everyone equally. It wouldn't be eugenics, because it wouldn't be selecting certain individuals over others. You think Canada needs to depopulate faster than India. Well the problem is far worse in India, so don't call me simple thinker, if I want them to reduce their population, so their future generations have a chance to become wealthy, without ruining the planet. United States is overpopulated, so they need to depopulated as well. Ethical depopulation will lead to a better environment and economy. Now if you have serious concerns about population control, don't call me a "simple thinker". Talk about the mistakes of China's one child policy. Talk about overpopulation programs that went wrong, so we have a chance to learn from their mistakes. You can talk about sterilization in native reserves. Bring up the bad stuff, so we can be aware of the mistakes. We want all countries to have the same or better wealth than us. There are currently 7.6 billion people in the world. If everyone lived like a Canadian, we would need 5.5 planets to be sustainable. So the World's population would have to be reduced to 1.4 Billion. But why put it just under the absolute limit? Imagine being 190 lbs, and hanging from a rope than can only support 200 lbs. To feel safe, you would want the rope to hold at least 3 times your weight. So lets reduce the population by another 3. You get 450 000 million. We should reduce the Worlds population to at least 500 000 million over the next 1000 years.

Canada doesn't need to depopulate faster than places like Bangladesh, just because we use more energy and resources. This is a terrible mistake. Canada's population is 36 Million. Bangladesh's population is 163 Million. We have 10 million square kilometers of land. Bangladesh only has 148 Thousand Square Kilometers of Land. Canada has a population density of 3.4 per square kilometer. Bangladesh has a population density of 1118 Per square kilometer. Bangladesh's population density is 329 times greater than Canada. If all countries are going to depopulate, Bangladesh needs to depopulate way faster than Canada. Canada should focus on gradual deurbanization, and stopping population growth. All countries need to depopulate, but Canada needs gradual depopulation of cities. We still need to retain a decent sized population to run our economy and infrastructure. Bangladesh needs rapid ethical depopulation, in order to give future generations a chance at prosperity, with less impact on their environment. If they don't get their numbers down, there not going to have the resources to lift everyone out out poverty. The globalist want them in poverty, so they never have to pay a Canadian for making a pair of jeans. The last thing the bankers care about is overpopulation. They need an unlimited supply of desperate people, who don't have the power to demand better wages or better working conditions. They want us focused on blaming "Big Oil" for Climate Change, as a form of controlled opposition for the environmental movement. They don't want us paying attention to everything else. The system is rigged. Mainstream media controls cultural thinking. Liberalism is a form of controlled opposition. They get us worried about political correctness, so we don't pay attention to other issues. The solution to climate change is ethical depopulation, and not some carbon tax rigged for the bankers.

You're thinking of overpopulation in 2017. In a 100 years, and a lot of these poor nations with high birthrates, are going to have better economies. We can preemptively reduce their population, so that in 100 years they will have less impact on the environment, once their energy and resource consumption increases. To think Canada should be the priority for depopulation is a mistake. First of all we need a decent population to efficiently run the economy and supply resources to the world. When we export timber and minerals, we decrease the demand for timber and minerals in the tropical regions. It's better to have an open pit mine in the Boreal forest, than in a tropical country, where the biodiversity can be 50 times greater. A mine in Canada might affect 10 tree species, but a mine in the Congo might affect 500 tree species. The tropical regions should take priority in ethical depopulation, so they don't expand clearcut the rainforest for minerals and timber, to sustain their economies. Tropical counties should focus on ecotourism and sustainable development. I rather expand logging in Canada, if we can reduce logging in the Congo, to satisfy the words demand for timber. Canada's overpopulation problem is in cities. Its disconnecting people from nature, and affecting our quality of life. We should get people out of the cities, and move them to smaller towns that need a larger population. This would reduce traffic and increase home affordability in Canada largest cities. We also need countries like Canada to play a significant role on the international stage. Reducing the Canadians population, without a reduction in other countries would be a mistake. It would shift the global balance of power toward politically unstable regions. You shouldn't use affluence as a metric for deciding who needs to depopulate first. It should be based on a countries population density and its birth rate. China, India, Brazil, and Africa need it the most. We should lead by example, by gradually reducing the population in our largest cities. It would require a international convention on overpopulation, where all countries set their own limits. It would require cooperation from all countries. They couldn't force people to get sterilized, but they can set population targets, and provide ethical programs to meet their goals. We need mainstream media providing education about overpopulation. We won't figure out the best solution, if were too afraid to talk about the problem.

The vaccine solution should be considered a crime against humanity. When we refuse to have a public policy on overpopulation, the elite will use their own solutions, and keep it hidden from us. These chemical solutions not only reduce fertility in humans, they reduce the fertility in other animals as well. Even a compulsory vasectomy method is more ethical, than secret chemical solutions that are probably increasing the risk cancer and other side effects. Don't think the elite don't have the power to mess with the food and water supply. When we refuse to allow public conversations on overpopulation, we create a void, where the covert takes place. How do we force mainstream media, such as the CBC, to cover the consequences of overpopulation? We need to realize that there are big money interests behind the rapid growth of Canadian Cities. I believe a large scale real estate ponzi scheme is taking place, making it harder for the next generation to purchase homes. Corrupt real estate speculation is behind overpopulation in Canadian Cities, and overpopulation in the world. Home ownership equals debt, debt equals dependency, and dependency can be controlled. Here's a documentary on overpopulation in Manila. Give it at least 5 minutes of your time.

Let me ask you this. If you were a paid policy adviser, and you were asked to come up with solutions to deal with overpopulation, that are ethical, what solutions would you recommend? I rather hear the difference of opinions on the solutions to overpopulation, than only debate on weather or not it exists. If you disagree with a wide-scale vasectomy method, what other ideas do you have, that could be ethical, and get meaningful results? I want to see links, articles, ideas, and concepts, showing things that are actually being done to fight overpopulation in 2017.

Good luck with that 100 million. If you hovered this close to someone else, you might get charged with sexual assault.

This is what the Liberal government wants to do to Canada, so they can retire rich off real-estate speculation. They don't care if university graduates still live in their parents basement. Lets do everything we can, so the next generation either can't afford a home, or becomes homeless. I'm sure they want most of them in cities, to drive up real estate as high as possible, while small towns in Canada, could use more people. Finance Minister’s key advisers want 100M Canadians by 2100 https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/10/23/finance-ministers-key-advisers-want-100m-canadians-by-2100.html