Robert Greene

You nailed it! You explained what I couldn't put into words. Please continue with the posts. You're really intelligent. I think the discussion peaked back in the 1960's, but the liberals turned it into an issue about wealth distribution. In a way "Climate Change" has become a topic of controlled opposition. If you pay attention to the mainstream climate change narrative, you won't pay attention to all other environmental issues. All eyes on "Climate Change", and you won't be paying attention to the ageing nuclear plants, and other serious environmental threats. The carbon tax thing, is going to be scam. Look at the electricity prices in Ontario. We know big wind was a scam, they could of expanded hydro plants in Quebec, and promoted green manufacturing in Ontario, with lower electricity rates. I'm a fiscal conservative. If we want to save the environment, we should respect peoples money, so at least we have credibility. When you go to the supermarket, and try and buy a decent sized piece of wild salmon, it's going to cost you $40. The fish stocks wouldn't of depleted without overpopulation. Overpopulation has made life unaffordable. Just look at your grocery bill, or mortgage on your house. You're paying the price for the Liberal stupidity of past generations. Listen to John Lennon speak about overpopulation back in the 1960's, as if he had the moral high-ground.

I don't have all the answers. I have the basic concept. We need to wake up other environmentalists, get them talking about overpopulation again. We need to come up with a large list of ethical solution's, that would be easier to pitch to mainstream media, and perhaps get a documentary made. You can help by repeating the information in other forums, and waking other people up. If we offer some answers, it will be easier to get new conversations going. If your a student, I suggest writing an essay on overpopulation, or asking your professor to teach a class on it. Have a debate over the ethical solutions, that can make a difference. Lets ask ourselves why the environmentalist stopped about overpopulation.

We could lower the global population by 2 to 5% per decade, over hundreds of years.

I want the Amazon to remain in 10 000 years. I think ethical depopulation provides the best chance of that happening.

I'm not a racist. I think people should have the freedom to move anywhere in the world they want, but maybe we prevent immigration to overpopulated cities. I think Canadian men should get a vasectomy after the second child. My focus is on lowering the global birth rate, not on banning all immigration.

If you disagree with wide-scale vasectomies as a solution, what other ways would you ethically deal with overpopulation? What direct action could make a difference?

If you had to choose between the Vasectomy, or watching the Amazon be cut down, what would you choose?

We can't be satisfied with a reduction in growth. We actually need to gradually reduce the World's population, as citizens obtain more wealth, and use a larger footprint.

It's a priority in rapidly growing overpopulated countries first. They can't afford to run out of resources to sustain their economies. They have a better chance of developing like Canada, if they stop population growth.

Third world countries have the right to use as many resources as we do. If given the opportunity,, they would own cars and large houses. Why should we become like them, when they aspire to be like us? Ecological footprints, would be less of an issue, if we gradually reduces the World's population. Less people, means more resources per person, meaning more economic wealth per capita.

The planet is going to have to support the needs of not the present, but all future generations going forward, for thousands of years. Preemptive ethical depopulation could prevent a lot of misery and death. It might take 50 years or 100 years, until the real economic and environmental collapse happens, but right now were setting up the perfect storm for that to happen. Overpopulation is the Trojan horse, so don't be on the wrong side of history. By preventing unnecessary births, we're preventing miserable deaths in the future, weather it be plague, economic, environmental collapse, or another world war. It's only a matter of time. Maybe the system will stay intact another 200 years, don't bet on 1000 years. The right thing to do is find ethical ways to depopulate, until the planet can support all generations going forward. Mother nature gets to decide who wins.

How do they get money, when there are limited resources to support a rapidly growing population. By stabilizing the population growth, they can get access to more resources, and expand economic growth, with less impact on the environment. More people means more destruction of the environment, needed to sustain quality of life over multiple generations. By giving that father a vasectomy, after his second child, maybe he can continue to afford to feed his 2 children, instead of having to ration resources between 7 children. Those 2 children might have a better chance to going to school, and providing for their community, leading to economic development. Rapid population growth keeps wages down, leading to the poverty, we want to see end in the world. If your priority is political correctness, supporting someones right to have 7 children, instead 2, than you are on the wrong side of history. 2 Children is a decent family size. You want more, you adopt.

I have an ethical solution to overpopulation. Instead of sponsor a child, it's called "sponsor a vasectomy". The most racist thing we can do to the third world, is ignore it, and let them breed at unsustainable levels, while the globalist continue to exploit their endless supply of cheap labor. If $100 could pay for 50 vasectomies, i'd give that money in a heartbeat. As third world populations start to stabilize, wages would start to go up, and their quality of life, and environment would improve. I'd only have one condition, the vasectomy can only be performed after a fathers second child. We have to respect the dignity of a normal family size. I think that's an ethical compromise, that still encourages parenthood, at a reasonable level. I would also refuse to pay a carbon tax to environmental scammers, until the agree to use that money to pay for ethical solutions to fight overpopulation. We shouldn't tolerate the hypocrisy. Take this conversation to other forums. And sell the concept of "Ethical Depopulation" as a solution to the environment, climate change, and quality of life, for the world's citizens. Let's lobby for wide-scale vasectomies programs to be paid for by governments, and charities. Start a research pool, and get documentaries made. Demand that media cover this issue. Overpopulation is the number one cause of climate change, but their are ethical ways to slow it down. Do not compromise on political correctness, but be as ethical as possible.

One of the problems is, overpopulation makes money for the elite. Globalist can outsource jobs to high growth countries, and make billions off an endless supply of cheap labor. Real estate speculators need rapid population growth, to drive up the price of their holdings. Depopulation is going to put transnational corporations out of business. Liberals won't talk about population growth, because they believe it's the 1% telling the 99%, how to live their lives. I don't think anyone needs a family larger than 2. You want a 3rd person in your family, you adopt. We could implement compulsory vasectomies after a father has his second child, but the political backlash would be to severe. So we could spend billions promoting volunteer vasectomies, after the second child. We must encourage as respect family size, up to the second child. Promote personal finance and parenting education in schools.We need liberal environmentalist to recognizes that "all roads lead to overpopulation". Manmade climate change wouldn't exist without overpopulation. Deforestation would be less severe without overpopuation. The oceans would have more fish without overpopulation. To say that westerners are greedy, and Africans aren't, because they use less energy is false. They would acquire our wealth, and consume, as much as we do, if given the chance. Instead of demonizing personal consumption, we need to slow down and than reverse rapid population growth.The price of housing and food would go down, as demand decreases. The quality of life for the average citizen would go up, with a gradual and ethical depopulation. In Europe, many countries are making the mistake, of providing incentives to increase their population. Virtually every country, except Greenland needs to depopulation. China and India should talk highest priority, followed by Africa and Latin America. We need to come up with the concept of "Ethical Depopulation". It we advocated for a documentary to be made, as power as "An Inconvenient Truth", tt might be a good idea. We need to sell the concept of "Ethical Depopulation". Having a birthrate solution, while have a 2 child global target. If we could reduce the population by 5% per decade, I think the planet would have a chance. Work with dozens of researchers, put your best information together, and get this documentary made. We need to put all our best arguments forward.

Farming takes up more space than any other human activity. Just look at the State of Iowa. Before Columbus, all of this was forests. In their greed, the pioneers virtually whipped out an entire state, without any second thought about conservation. The remaining forests remaining are small, and insufficient. Maybe we should replant some of the forests for the environment, and to provide recreational opportunities for future generations. Farms are beautiful, but they shouldn't take up 95% of the landscape. Leaving only 5% for nature, is unacceptable.

How do we get environmentalists and mainstream media talking about overpopulation? Whenever you hear a news segment on Climate Change, it usually goes after Big Oil, and the political establishment for not implementing a carbon tax. They work so hard to try and change the system, but why not work just as hard to stop the system from getting bigger. Why not work just as hard to stop population growth? Should we take money away from energy retrofit programs, and put it towards helping developing countries stabilize their population? I think the ethical solution is to encourage up to 2 children, but provide contraceptives, education, incentives, free vasectomies, after the second child is born. How can we get mainstream media involved in the debate, so we can come up with some ideas that are ethical, and effective? It's OK to have a debate. If 1 in 10 ideas work, than that's better than doing nothing. Even in Canada, overcrowding is affecting our quality of Life. In the town of Markham all the houses look the same. Why not leave a few lots empty for a small park, community garden, or woodlot? Why not have some mixed used development, instead of massive residential areas? Maybe Canadian cities are becoming overpopulated. We should encourage growth in small towns, instead of adding to the largest cities.

Why are we spending billions on energy retrofit programs, climate change research, environmental consultants, and conservation, when we are spending next to nothing to slow down population growth? We're putting a lot of resources into energy efficiency, but all that goes to vain when we ignore rapid population growth. We can't allow ourselves to go beyond 10 Billion, or there will be severe consequences for our quality of life, and environment. We need a plan for humanity to survive at least another 1000 years, and ethical depopulation might be the solution. Are we simply going to ignore the issue, and let countries like India and China get over 2 billion? How will future generations maintain a high quality of life, when the resources start to run out? What will the quality of life be like for them, when they can't get access to affordable food, housing and transportation? The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic. We are running out of farmland, and we don't need to watch the Amazon get destroyed, in order to make room for new farms. By gradually reducing the World's populating, we could start to regrow forests outside cities, providing a beautiful landscape and recreation opportunities for future generations. How do we proceed with aggressive action on overpopulation that will be ethical, and not interfere with humans rights? I give you a picture of Mexico City, showing 16 Square kilometers, without a park or woodlot. How do we get nature back in a rapidly growing city?