How Do We Deal With Overpopulation, While Respecting Human Rights?

[blackbird]

5 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yeah but you guys actually look forward to this so why all the doom and gloom?

No, I don't look forward to the possibility of nuclear wars or other wars in the meantime.

[blackbird]

8 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you're doing this to reduce impact, you should sterilize Canadians at 5X the world average.   This came up a few pages ago when a kindly Canadian felt that sterilizing Bangladeshis would solve his garbage problem.... somehow.

Sterilizing people against their will is a crime against humanity as far as I'm concerned.  I think this was done by government in Alberta 50 or 60 years ago for people who had mental problems.  But it could have been done to other people as well, any that some bureaucrats or politicians deemed as undesirables.   I don't think a lot of people are aware that this actually went on in Canada, the great paragon of virtue and peace.   Haven't heard any politicians apologize yet for this.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Sterilizing people against their will is a crime against humanity as far as I'm concerned. 

Just don't tell them.  Say it's a vaccine, or something.

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

Just don't tell them.  Say it's a vaccine, or something.

Bad plan. Enough idiots already think vaccines are bad for them, without government actually sneaking anything bad into them. Unless a polio epidemic sounds like a good way to address overpopulation to people here, I guess. 

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

No, I don't look forward to the possibility of nuclear wars or other wars in the meantime.

Well I know but to paraphrase Woody Allen, Christians aren't afraid of the Apocalypse they just don't want to be there when it happens.

Probably better to rise from the dead after the fallout has settled.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Bonam said:

Bad plan. Enough idiots already think vaccines are bad for them, without government actually sneaking anything bad into them. Unless a polio epidemic sounds like a good way to address overpopulation to people here, I guess. 

Flu shot?

[Michael Hardner]

17 hours ago, Bonam said:

Methinks you don't understand how overpopulation works. You don't get a lot of results by sterilizing people who are on average gonna have only 1 kid anyway. 

If you follow the math - take the birthrate times the per-day waste generation.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/302341468126264791/pdf/68135-REVISED-What-a-Waste-2012-Final-updated.pdf

Using Bangladesh birthrate of 2.14 and Canada 1.6, the impact for this country is more than 2X that of Bangladesh.

'Having a kid' isn't the issue, it's the environmental footprint of said kid.  So somebody on this thread has decided that sterilizing foreigners is a good idea but somehow neglected to realize that sterilizing himself would have a far greater impact.  This, in a nutshell, is the problem with seemingly objective solutions across cultures.

[Robert Greene]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you follow the math - take the birthrate times the per-day waste generation.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/302341468126264791/pdf/68135-REVISED-What-a-Waste-2012-Final-updated.pdf

Using Bangladesh birthrate of 2.14 and Canada 1.6, the impact for this country is more than 2X that of Bangladesh.

'Having a kid' isn't the issue, it's the environmental footprint of said kid.  So somebody on this thread has decided that sterilizing foreigners is a good idea but somehow neglected to realize that sterilizing himself would have a far greater impact.  This, in a nutshell, is the problem with seemingly objective solutions across cultures.

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.

Edited December 26, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, Robert Greene said:

1) 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. 

2) First of all we need a decent population to efficiently run the economy and supply resources to the world.

Your post is at the outer edge of ridiculous.

1) It's commonly accepted that better economies have lower birthrates.  But you are going to go to another nation and 'pre-emptively' reduce their population so the Earth's climate could be better in 100 years rather than reduce Canada's environmental footprint today ?  Your idea is a comical combination of offensive and impractical.

2) Then you top it off with this smug assertion that Canada needs to prioritize its economy.

 

1 hour ago, Robert Greene said:

 

3) 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.

 

3) While there are better places to mine than others, you have already established your priority as economic nationalism over the environment.  Without any cites I don't trust your assertions.

 

1 hour ago, Robert Greene said:

4) 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. 

5) 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.

6) 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.

4) How would you achieve your de-urbanization program.  It reminds me of something Pol Pot would enact.

5) How ?   You state things that are far from obvious, and don't back them up with a link to support it.  

6) Well, did you already forget WHY you are heading to poor countries with your vasectomy kit in tow ?  It's to reduce environmental impact, you said.  Even with birth rate considered, Canada is more than 2X more culpable. 

I think you posted a bunch of stuff out of your head, and now are doubling down rather than concede what is transparent here: your ideas aren't well thought-out.  

Have a happy boxing day.

[taxme]

On 12/15/2017 at 4:17 AM, Robert Greene said:

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.

You make a lot more common sense and logic than most around here. Reality and truth does not appear to be their forte. Just saying. 

[Michael Hardner]

Posted after I have replied with logic and cites, nice.

[taxme]

On 12/24/2017 at 1:54 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

A real, but politically difficult solution is a world-wide program to randomly sterilize 2 out of five babies at birth but not let anyone know who was sterilized. That way, fewer fertile people would actually mate with another fertile person and the population would decline in a few generations. Once we get down to under a billion, we can re-adjust the numbers to stablize the population. That is about as likely as me agreeing with honourable friend, Taxme again.

 I have to agree with you. Whatever it takes to get their numbers down will work for me. It is the most common sense and logical thing to be doing is getting those numbers down to decent levels. No more foreign-aid welfare tax dollars for those countries that want to keep breeding babies. It's called tough love, baby. Enough already. 

[taxme]

17 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Flu shot?

Apparently, that is what big pharma is doing to North Americans these days is that they are putting in some kind of sterilization chemicals into those flu vaccines. Hey, for those who do not want to have any children than go for a shot of chemicals that will help you to stay clear of having children. It's free too. No more need to go out and spend anymore money on birth control pills. Save money, why not? 

[Michael Hardner]

On 12/15/2017 at 11:05 AM, Bonam said:

So how come when someone posts that we need to limit immigration rates (which is the driver of our population growth), you are like, "but we need population growth to sustain our economy!"?

I think that I responded to this with a cite request.

[Michael Hardner]

22 minutes ago, taxme said:

Apparently, that is what big pharma is doing to North Americans these days is that they are putting in some kind of sterilization chemicals into those flu vaccines.  

Who vaccinated you against cites?

[taxme]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who vaccinated you against cites?

So far, so good. But those elite special interest groups would love to be able to do so. You know, the morons who want to ban patriotic nationalist conservatives from expressing their opinions and points of view on the internet. They work every day in trying to keep the internet only available to liberals and communists only. But you would not know anything about that, right?  Just asking. 

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

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.

It is not Canada that has an overpopulation problem but it is the third world that has that overpopulation problem. Canada has started on the road to overpopulation because our whacked out politicians keep bringing in more immigrants than the unemployed Canadians really need. Canada needs a moratorium on immigration for at least ten years, and then Canada can maybe start bringing in more new immigrants if require . Canada has too many lineups in stores, hospitals, and on the highways. Our environment and infrastructures and medical and social services are going broke because of all of this massive third world stupid liberal immigration policy of ours, and their catering to the globalists who want this cheap labor to be brought over to Canada. Liberals want those votes too. The main stream lieberal left wing media will offer sweet dik all. The Canadian media needs to discuss the issue of massive immigration and overpopulation in Canada. But instead the Canadian media appear to prefer to endorse more immigration, not less. Between the liberals and the liberal media,  those two are trying to destroy Canada, and giving it to Canadians up the rear. Unfortunately, the majority of Canadians are not being told the whole truth about what is going on with our present day immigration policy. That needs to change, fast, or else. 

[cannuck]

Canada has a large per capita environmental footprint for several reasons:  First, it is incredibly cold here.  Now, if we all lived in igloos, that would not be a big issue, but being a very wealthy place, we almost all live in very large, detached dwellings.   Being incredibly resource rich, we piss away a LOT of energy supplying those resources to the rest of the world (as we add so little value within our economy).  Then, there is the BIG one:  we are a very large country.  Think of the energy we waste flying supplies into hundreds of remote Northern communities.  Then think of the energy we waste moving piles of raw materials from somewhere in the middle of the country to tidewater (best example, heavy crude oil).   And, on it goes.  Instead of measuring out environmental footprint per CAPITA, maybe take a look at it per dollar of economic activity.  I suspect it would be a very different ranking vis-a-vis developing nations.

[Robert Greene]

23 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If you follow the math - take the birthrate times the per-day waste generation.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/302341468126264791/pdf/68135-REVISED-What-a-Waste-2012-Final-updated.pdf

Using Bangladesh birthrate of 2.14 and Canada 1.6, the impact for this country is more than 2X that of Bangladesh.

'Having a kid' isn't the issue, it's the environmental footprint of said kid.  So somebody on this thread has decided that sterilizing foreigners is a good idea but somehow neglected to realize that sterilizing himself would have a far greater impact.  This, in a nutshell, is the problem with seemingly objective solutions across cultures.

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.

Edited December 27, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Michael Hardner]

2 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

They want us focused on blaming "Big Oil" for Climate Change, as a form of controlled opposition for the environmental movement.

I already responded to most of the points above and I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

As for the MSM and 'controlled opposition' code words - they are often used by people who don't have a lot of information about how the world works, and are jumping into our debates with information from some blog or other.  'Political correctness' is not a big issue to anyone, but the environment and economy are.  'Liberalism is controlled opposition' and so forth are just simple slogans for simple thinkers.  Simple thinkers shouldn't advocate eugenics or sterilization for people in other countries and think this is a reasonable or practical next step.

[Robert Greene]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

I already responded to most of the points above and I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

As for the MSM and 'controlled opposition' code words - they are often used by people who don't have a lot of information about how the world works, and are jumping into our debates with information from some blog or other.  'Political correctness' is not a big issue to anyone, but the environment and economy are.  'Liberalism is controlled opposition' and so forth are just simple slogans for simple thinkers.  Simple thinkers shouldn't advocate eugenics or sterilization for people in other countries and think this is a reasonable or practical next step.

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.

Edited December 27, 2017 by Robert Greene

[dre]

20 hours ago, taxme said:

So far, so good. But those elite special interest groups would love to be able to do so. You know, the morons who want to ban patriotic nationalist conservatives from expressing their opinions and points of view on the internet. They work every day in trying to keep the internet only available to liberals and communists only. But you would not know anything about that, right?  Just asking. 

Is this a comedy act or something? I get the feeling that you are a hard core left winger thats using a proxy account to make conservatives look stupid... Is that what this is about?

[Robert Greene]

4 minutes ago, dre said:

Is this a comedy act or something? I get the feeling that you are a hard core left winger thats using a proxy account to make conservatives look stupid... Is that what this is about?

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

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, dre said:

Is this a comedy act or something? I get the feeling that you are a hard core left winger thats using a proxy account to make conservatives look stupid... Is that what this is about?

I think that's too much effort for a smart person to go to.  it would be easier for a person to post naturally, and have their true selves emerge from their posting.

As for whether this person represents conservatives in any way - I doubt that.  I have conservative friends and they are able to provide evidence for their assertions for one.   

[dre]

1 hour ago, Robert Greene said:

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.

If you want to solve this problem, then instead of dropping hundreds of thousands of bombs on the developing world, drop porn, alcohol and western TV. Westernize them... make them too lazy to have big families. Pump them so full of SSRI's they cant get a hard-on any more. Make is so they would rather jerk off on the internet than screw their wives.

Their birth rates will plummet just like ours have.