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

[taxme]

20 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

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.

Then, in order to save the environment than we all know that there must be a depopulation program implemented to get rid of about 4 billion third world people. White people are not the threat to the environment because there is not enough of us to destroy the environment. With a population of approx. 7.5 billion people on earth right now, white people only make up about approx. 6 -7 million white people on earth. The non-whites make up about just shy of seven billion. So, who is really behind trying to destroy the planet with it's population, uhmm? 

[taxme]

4 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

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

So, are trying to say here that Canadians are doing a worse job at trying to protect the environment than Costa Ricans? 

[Robert Greene]

1 hour ago, taxme said:

Then, in order to save the environment than we all know that there must be a depopulation program implemented to get rid of about 4 billion third world people. White people are not the threat to the environment because there is not enough of us to destroy the environment. With a population of approx. 7.5 billion people on earth right now, white people only make up about approx. 6 -7 million white people on earth. The non-whites make up about just shy of seven billion. So, who is really behind trying to destroy the planet with it's population, uhmm? 

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]

Edited December 28, 2017 by Robert Greene

[taxme]

19 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

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]

That should have been 6 - 7 hundred million not 6 or 7. My error. 6 - 7 was roughly the percentage of the white world population.

But here we go again. Bring up anything about white people and quickly up comes the racism and white supremacy nonsense. You do not know me personally, so why would you dare call me a white racist because I have an opinion that conflicts with your liberal way of thinking? It is liberals like you that have caused the problem in the first place. It's come to the point that anytime some white person says something that appears to be racist, then along comes people like you who start throwing the racist card around. Smarten up, will you. 

So, where in any white country do you see as many slums, poverty and hunger like we see in countries like in India, Bangladesh, Egypt, China, Some African, Arab, Central and South American countries where garbage lies everywhere where people live , eat and breath in dirt and pollution. and filthy looking polluted water. The point being made here is that those non-white countries are the biggest polluting countries on earth thanks in part to their breeding programs, and having no environment protection laws. Their populations need to be downsized big time. If you want to get nasty about it and bitch about me telling it like it is well than you can go away and keep your racism and white supremacy bull chit to yourself.

Britain is/was doing just fine with it's 90% white population. Britain is now starting to have a real overpopulation problem because of all those third world immigrants that have been allowed to immigrate to that country by the tens of thousands every year. And that goes for other European countries also where they are having a huge crime wave problem with those third world immigrants. Many cities in Britain are starting to look like and become a third world hell hole thanks to massive non-white immigration and the promotion of multiculturalism. Canada is doing the same and keeps bringing in more non-whites than it can handle, and that is a recipe for big problems in the near future. 

How do you like them for apples, eh? 

 

 

[Robert Greene]

I agree with you 95%, but I had to trigger a response from you. It's not me you need to convince. You're using the wrong sales tactic. I'm saying any policy that excludes whites from having responsibility for the environment, will be seen as racist. All races including white people are going to have to make sacrifices. The majority of the overpopulation problem happens to be with other races, but that doesn't mean whites are excluded from the sacrifice. When you say, it's only a third world issue, you're creative a narrative, that will be crushed by the checks and balances, in the international system. We're going to have to make all countries responsible for curbing population growth, not just the third world. We have to come up with a policy that can be sold. So tone down the racism a bit.

Here's another problem. Some races plan on outbreeding us. I hope we don't have a breeding arms race. Nothing short of eugenics can stop this. A eugenics policy could force other races to have a 1 child policy until there numbers match ours. Until there is a level playing field. I was told all my life, eugenics is wrong. What do we do? It gets complicated.

I rather see the planet survive, even if whites have to die out. We know for a fact that the whites are dying out.

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

Here's a preacher telling Muslims to outbreed the Europeans, in order to expand the caliphate. I don't like advocating racism, but is there a way to get rid of Islam? It's a threat to the world. How do we stop it?

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by Robert Greene

[August1991]

On 12/27/2017 at 3:56 PM, Robert Greene said:

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.

....

Hey, wait a second. If there were fewer people in the world, there would be fewer workers. Wages would be much higher since labour would be scarce. Those lobsters would cost $300.

And there would be fewer teachers to teach children so we'd have more ignorant people. Heck, we'd have less chance to have people like Steve Jobs or Albert Einstein or Victor Hugo born to imagine new stuff.

=========

Robert Greene, if you truly believe the world is overpopulated, then there is the obvious solution.

For everyone else: Does the world have too many or too few people?

 

 

Edited December 29, 2017 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, August1991 said:

For everyone else: Does the world have too many or too few people?

It's really about using up global resources, that's the only limit I can see.

[taxme]

23 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

I agree with you 95%, but I had to trigger a response from you. It's not me you need to convince. You're using the wrong sales tactic. I'm saying any policy that excludes whites from having responsibility for the environment, will be seen as racist. All races including white people are going to have to make sacrifices. The majority of the overpopulation problem happens to be with other races, but that doesn't mean whites are excluded from the sacrifice. When you say, it's only a third world issue, you're creative a narrative, that will be crushed by the checks and balances, in the international system. We're going to have to make all countries responsible for curbing population growth, not just the third world. We have to come up with a policy that can be sold. So tone down the racism a bit.

Here's another problem. Some races plan on outbreeding us. I hope we don't have a breeding arms race. Nothing short of eugenics can stop this. A eugenics policy could force other races to have a 1 child policy until there numbers match ours. Until there is a level playing field. I was told all my life, eugenics is wrong. What do we do? It gets complicated.

I rather see the planet survive, even if whites have to die out. We know for a fact that the whites are dying out.

 

Well, thanks to the stupidity of our white political leaders and their stupid white supporters who have given the third world billions and billions of our Canadian tax dollars for several decades now only encourages them to have more children. Hey, why should they stop breeding when Canada gives them welfare for them to live on and have more babies? It's whitey's own fault for allowing themselves to listen to the liberals that white Canadians need not bother having children. Liberals will say: what can Canada do to increase it's population is to start bringing in hundreds of thousands of 3rd world bums and let's help them out to breed over here. Liberal logic.  Are you starting to get the picture now? If not, well sorry I can't say what I wrote in Russian. 

With your silly multicultural liberal way of thinking and with the help of the rest of the idiot white people out there, there is no doubt that the 3rd world will bring on our white extinction. To keep saying that you could careless if white people disappear tells me either that you are crazy or you just hate white people, and want to see them go extinct just to save your precious environment. Well, here is how I think. Screw the environment, I will fight for white survival, and for less non-white immigration.Racist enough for you, eh?  

[taxme]

14 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

Here's a preacher telling Muslims to outbreed the Europeans, in order to expand the caliphate. I don't like advocating racism, but is there a way to get rid of Islam? It's a threat to the world. How do we stop it?

 

All the Caucasian people of the world may just have to become racists one day in order for them to survive and not be bred out of existence by the likes of that piece of crap in that picture. Pretty much white people will have to make a decision and choice one day as to whether they want to become a minority in their own countries. Either they work to keep their cultures and traditions alive and well or forfeit them over to the third world. So far the people of Europe have become stupid to the point that they have decided to hand their countries over to the 3rd world because most of them refuse to believe that they are in trouble, and that the third world people really do love them. What silly fools. They will say they love us until they become the majority and then that love will start to disappear and the Caucasian people will find out what their real love for us is all about. The writing is on the wall. Better start reading that writing on the wall before it is too late. Just my personal opinion and point of view. 

[Robert Greene]

It takes all these farms to feed the people? What happens when the human population goes beyond 10 billion? The Amazon is just a sitting duck just waiting to be invaded by agriculture, logging, and mining. If future generations could yell back at us, they would scream "WHAT WERE WE THINKING!". We need an international convention on overpopulation, and we need it fast. When the resources start to run out, the prices will start to go up. Don't think more people bring the price of things down. That only happens in mass production. It doesn't happen with nature resources such as food or timber. You're paying $30 for a piece of salmon, because the oceans are running out of fish. If conservatives want to keep prices down, then we need to keep the human population down. Ignore population growth, and look forward to going broke trying to pay for everything. There's no reason to erase millions of years of evolution, just to make room for new farms.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Robert Greene

[August1991]

37 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

It takes all these farms to feed the people? ...

Robert Greene, you haven't answered the question of whether there are too few people...

Link

Edited December 30, 2017 by August1991

[Robert Greene]

First of all, everyone has the right to be a parent. We don't need to go beyond 2 child per family. A brother and a brother, a brother and a sister, or a sister and a sister is fine. When someone has more than 2 children, it takes away from the opportunity for someone to have 2 children without increasing the global population. That is a "Spillover Cost"

The benefits from "Economies of scale" doesn't matter after a certain point to keep price down. A city could be just as efficient with 1 000 teachers vs 10 000 in a larger city. At some point an increase in the number of people, doesn't provide a significant increase in benefits. It's like a business having 5 suppliers to choose from vs 100, The increase is significant, but going from 100 to 1000 doesn't make much difference. As maturity is approached, you enter the realm of diminishing returns.

There are too few people in many small towns. If you live in a town with less than 100, you don't have that many options for dating. You get bored of hanging around the same people. If you move to a city with 100 000 people, you won't run out of opportunities to make new friends. You don't need to move to a city with a million people, just to find a brand new girl to date.

We could live in a world with more people, but there will be severe consequences for the environment. We might be able to feed 50 billion people. Some say we could have everyone eating bugs, but do we want to live in a world where we half to eat bugs as a cheap source of protein, because we ran out of fish? Why push it to the absolute limit. It's better to be underpopulated, and have a safe margin of error. When economic collapse takes place, people will be like "screw the environment" and start logging protected areas. It's not worth the risk.

Also the carrying capacity of the planet right now is higher than it's going to be in the future. The soils are eroding, aquifers are drying up. When the oceans rise, will run out of land. It's better to prepare for the future, by lowering our numbers now. I'm a conservative. I'm happy with people earning lots of money, driving large boats, and owning big houses. If we keep adding to our population, we can't guarantee those opportunities for everyone. I believe in the American Dream, but I believe in the opportunity of the individual comes first. We can focus on increasing personal economic growth per capita, while gradually decreasing the population. We might not get to build cities with 100 foot high skyscrapers, but we can make sure more people have the change to enjoy a decent size backyard, without having to go in debt for 30 years to pay it off. We might get less Sports Stadiums, but will get to keep the Amazon, and a secure food supply.

We haven't even factored in the link between overpopulation and Cancer. Pretty soon 1 in 2 people will die from cancer in their lifetime. Exposure to chemicals is one of the biggest causes. We only have one atmosphere, and when we add more people to the planet, more people are going to die from Cancer. We can ignore population growth, and try and deal with all environmental issues separately, or we can work on them all together, by finding ethical ways to gradually reduce our population. It's easier to deal with the cause, than try and deal with all the symptoms separately. It would take a change in perspective, and awaking to the facts.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Michael Hardner]

5 hours ago, August1991 said:

Robert Greene, you haven't answered the question of whether there are too few people...

Link

A little long, but this person gives a clear and comprehensive view on economics.

People who don't know about such things should listen and learn.

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

A little long, but this person gives a clear and comprehensive view on economics.

People who don't know about such things should listen and learn.

I don't know, I got as far as "love".   When does he get to all the plastic in the oceans?

Edited December 30, 2017 by bcsapper

[Michael Hardner]

36 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I don't know, I got as far as "love".   When does he get to all the plastic in the oceans?

You can fit a lot of plastic in the ocean.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

You can fit a lot of plastic in the ocean.

You "can" do a lot of things.  Doesn't mean you should. 

I suppose the question of too many people or not comes down to what you want in relation to the number.  If we want to increase the mass of the Earth such that we alter the effect of its gravity on the moon, we don't have enough.  If we want them to stop killing each other and all have enough fresh water we probably have too many.

[taxme]

On 12/27/2017 at 2:13 PM, Robert Greene said:

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.

Let's reverse this. If you had to choose between non-white people surviving or the planet surviving which one would you choose? What is your answer?  

[taxme]

On 12/27/2017 at 2:43 PM, Robert Greene said:

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

Well, there are so many third world countries in the world where the people could careless about protecting the environment. So, what do you have to say about that? Just asking. 

[Robert Greene]

44 minutes ago, taxme said:

Let's reverse this. If you had to choose between non-white people surviving or the planet surviving which one would you choose? What is your answer?  

I am white, and white lives are important. I don't have the answer for keeping the white race alive. I think natural selection is replacing us. I won't go as far as Eugenics to keep the white race alive. If we mix eugenics with population policy, the intentional system will stop the movement dead in its tracks. My proposals will do far more to help white people, than nothing at all. It would force countries that have a higher population density to depopulate faster. The majority of overpopulated countries happen to be non-white. All races including the white race have to make sacrifices, otherwise it will be seen as racist. If we put "save the white race" on the label, it's bound to fail. There are too many non-whites in Canada to save the white race. We're not going to go extinct, we're going to become the minority. You should use your energy to fight for a better cause. I respect you for caring about white people, I just can't come up with a policy to reverse Canada into a white majority country again. We can't go to China, and be like you guys need to depopulate, so the white people have more influence in the world. The language you use is important.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

The guy is telling some lies. Start at 6:30 and listen for a bit. In the video hes says' "If there were half as many people, none of these things would exist"

Wrong. If there was half as many people we would still have Chamber Music, Parasailing, Ethiopian Restaurants, and lecture halls. Maybe not as many to choose from, but they would still exist. He's lying when he says critical mass is "hanging by a thread". Critical mass might be hanging from a thread for the space program, and 100 foot high skyscrapers, but I can assure you can find Sushi restaurants even in the smallest towns in Canada.

He talks about innovation. Well if we have less people on the planet, the rate of technological growth would slow down, but it would be a good thing, because it took the planet millions of years to evolve. Things in the natural world happen at a slower place. This is how things remain stable. Technological change is happening too fast. It takes multiple generations to appreciate the costs and benefits of a new technology. We would half to be more patient for technological change, but it would give us more time to make the right decisions.

We need to slow it down, and not be working 9 to 5, spending up to 3 hours in traffic, killing ourselves to compete. Ancient cultures didn't do 9 to 5. We're becoming slaves in our own prison. We should be competitive and work hard, but work less hours. Were building a mental prison for future generations. We need to retake our humanity, and fight for the things that make sense. We're working 50 out of 52 weeks of the year, because the elite want us occupied. 50 weeks is not the critical mass needed to keep a country from going bankrupt. It's the skewed equilibrium we set with our dumb policies. We need to ask ourselves, if we want room to breath, or should we push everything to the breaking point?

 

Edited December 30, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

Here's a picture on the United Kingdom the only critical mass "Hanging By a Thread" is the small remaining forest, you see in the dark green. Biodiversity requires critical mass in habitat size or the species can go extinct. We're humans meant to wipe out 87% of the landscape? These are the warning signs. The Amazon is next, if we don't get our act together. If the solution is to do everything we can, to ethical prevent someone from having a 3rd child, than so be it.

Edited December 30, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

4 hours ago, taxme said:

Well, there are so many third world countries in the world where the people could careless about protecting the environment. So, what do you have to say about that? Just asking. 

I'll say i'm wrong for saying it doesn't matter if whites go extinct as long as the planet survives. You have the right priorities. I made a mistake.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Robert Greene

[bush_cheney2004]

19 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

I'll say i'm wrong for saying it doesn't matter if whites go extinct as long as the planet survives. You have the right priorities. I made a mistake.

 

The planet doesn't care one way or the other...humans are a very temporary infestation.   Mass extinctions are natural and expected.

[Robert Greene]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The planet doesn't care one way or the other...humans are a very temporary infestation.   Mass extinctions are natural and expected.

Environmentalism is very hard. You don't get a personal life. Very few people get it. I feel I have a responsibility because I can pick up on things others can't see. I did 4 years in university. We all talked about Climate Change, and blaming Bush. I only see one solution. We got to get our numbers down. We can't change the system, but we can shrink it. I'm going to write a book and advocate for a documentary to be made advocating for ethical intervention on overpopulation. Some of my ideas like forced vasectomies were wrong. Will get a wide-scale volunteer program going on.

Environmentalist have put all their eggs into one basket. Trying to change the system, well that has failed. Preventing population growth, could be the greatest missed opportunity we're not talking. The only way individuals can use resources without guilt is to lower our numbers. I don't want a future where the World's resources are rationed. I wan't people to live the good life, but not in massive cities. It's going to have to be small cities, and a different way of life, with more freetime. We can start the decline now, or wait for nature to kill us off. I was just on a dating site, trying to enjoy my life, and i'm not going to waste time with women, and unnecessary distractions. I need to focus and get this done.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Robert Greene