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

[Robert Greene]

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.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Michael Hardner]

You haven't acknowledged my points, and have gone back to a general approach.

Of course population control is essential, but the wealthy countries are a priority.  Population growth is slowing on its own anyway, did you know that ?

 

http://blogs.worldbank.org/futuredevelopment/rapid-slowdown-population-growth

Quote

Even though we are still growing at a high rate the slowdown has already started and we will never revert to the high speed we had in the past. We have already passed two historical peaks of global demography a few decades ago:

• In 1968, we reached the relative peak in global population growth rate. Then, the world grew at a record 2.09 percent – adding 73.2 million to a world population of 3.54 billion. This historical peak was part of a seven-year high-growth period – from 1966 to 1972 – and the only time in recorded history when the world’s population grew above two percent. I was also born at that time.
• In 1988, just before the fall of the Berlin wall, we reached the absolute peak in global population growth (i.e. in the number of people added). The world gained almost 93 million people and since then world population growth has been declining also in absolute terms.

Today, the world is adding 81 million people a year, which is still significant and similar to the size of Egypt or Germany. But the relative growth of the world population is almost in free fall. It is expected to decline to 1 percent in 2020 (adding 76 million to 7.6 billion people), the lowest rate since the 1950s. Moreover, this trend is set to continue: by 2050, the global population growth rate will be below 0.5 percent (see figure), bringing us back to 17^th and 18^th century figures.

 

[Robert Greene]

13 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Cite, unasked for:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/canadians-produce-more-garbage-than-anyone-else-1.1394020

So the WORST nation on earth gives itself a 'C' grade !  'C' for Canada, I presume.  Or 'C' for complacent, corrupt, culpable on climate change.

This is our shame.

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.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

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.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

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.

[Robert Greene]

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

[Robert Greene]

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?

[Michael Hardner]

17 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

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.

'Become like them' - only in terms of lower ecological footprint per capita.  Why ?  You said it yourself.  
You seem to be missing the point with this statement. "Less people, means more resources per person, meaning more economic wealth per capita."  We need to reduce OUR population to have the biggest impact.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Robert Greene said:

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?

Why are you not proposing zero immigration and mandatory vasectomies for Canadian men ?

[Michael Hardner]

14 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

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.

They are the same thing.  A reduction in growth leads to zero growth, which leads to reduction, which is a gradual reduction.

I keep having to clarify points to you over and over again.  I think you should read my posts, learn from them and go do your own research.

Thanks for discussing with me.

[Robert Greene]

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.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

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

[Robert Greene]

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

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

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

 

Amazon is the problem...not the solution.

[Robert Greene]

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.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Bonam]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You seem to be missing the point with this statement. "Less people, means more resources per person, meaning more economic wealth per capita."  We need to reduce OUR population to have the biggest impact.

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!"?

[Bonam]

2 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

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.

Environmentalists aren't just environmentalists. Everything became extremely politicized over the last 15 years in a way that it wasn't back in the 90s when environmentalists were talking about overpopulation. Nowadays, if you think of yourself as an "environmentalist", then you're on the "left", and if you're on the "left", then you're overarching worldview is based on "social justice" ideology. And the primary concerns of social justice ideology are about what they perceive as racism and sexism, with environmental concerns far down the list. Even when they do talk about environmental issues, they mostly talk about "climate justice", which mostly means transferring money from rich white people to poor non-white people as a way to punish white people for having polluted more in the past, rather than doing anything to actually reduce environmental damage. And any mention of overpopulation is inherently considered deeply racist, since overpopulation is primarily a third world problem, whereas social justice ideology teaches that third world cultures are perfect and all the world's problems come from the white man. Therefore talking about overpopulation is anathema to social justice people, and by extension to modern environmentalists. 

To get environmentalists to talk about overpopulation again, you have to do a lot more than just remind them about it. First, you'd have to turn the modern reality of society up side down, breaking down the way that people have sorted themselves into broad ideological camps, and allow individual issues to decouple from the overarching identity politics that has taken over society. In other words, not gonna happen any time soon. I don't know what will drive the next major cultural shift that gets Western civilization out of its current fall into social justice ideology, but so far we are still falling in deeper, not yet climbing back out. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bonam

[Robert Greene]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

Environmentalists aren't just environmentalists. Everything became extremely politicized over the last 15 years in a way that it wasn't back in the 90s when environmentalists were talking about overpopulation. Nowadays, if you think of yourself as an "environmentalist", then you're on the "left", and if you're on the "left", then you're overarching worldview is based on "social justice" ideology. And the primary concerns of social justice ideology are about what they perceive as racism and sexism, with environmental concerns far down the list. Even when they do talk about environmental issues, they mostly talk about "climate justice", which mostly means transferring money from rich white people to poor non-white people as a way to punish white people for having polluted more in the past, rather than doing anything to actually reduce environmental damage. And any mention of overpopulation is inherently considered deeply racist, since overpopulation is primarily a third world problem, whereas social justice ideology teaches that third world cultures are perfect and all the world's problems come from the white man. Therefore talking about overpopulation is anathema to social justice people, and by extension to modern environmentalists. 

To get environmentalists to talk about overpopulation again, you have to do a lot more than just remind them about it. First, you'd have to turn the modern reality of society up side down, breaking down the way that people have sorted themselves into broad ideological camps, and allow individual issues to decouple from the overarching identity politics that has taken over society. In other words, not gonna happen any time soon. I don't know what will drive the next major cultural shift that gets Western civilization out of its current fall into social justice ideology, but so far we are still falling in deeper, not yet climbing back out. 

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.

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Bonam]

30 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

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. 

Right. Almost no one talks about deforestation, habitat destruction, over-fishing, species extinction, water pollution, and the like anymore. And yet all of these issues are ongoing, and in many cases are more pressing in terms of the timeline to address them than climate change. In some cases, we even make these problems worse as part of (usually flawed) efforts to reduce CO2 emissions. For example, vast areas of forest have been destroyed to make room for fields to grow corn for use in bio-fuels (which don't actually reduce CO2 emissions, they just pretend to). 

Here is the Borneo rainforest, home to thousands of unique species found nowhere else, many of which are going extinct every year:

When's the last time you heard about that in mainstream news?

Edited December 15, 2017 by Bonam

[Robert Greene]

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

Edited December 15, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

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

[dre]

Population will be controlled naturally. I predict that by the end of this century there will only be about 1/2 a billion people left. And the real killer is not something people even talk about. Within the next hundred years there will be no farming, and no crops because we will run out of dirt about 60 years from now.

[?Impact]

On 12/13/2017 at 4:48 AM, Robert Greene said:

We could implement compulsory vasectomies after a father has his second child, but the political backlash would be to severe.

Two children per male (or female) is a move towards depopulation and not population sustainability.

9 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

Preemptive ethical depopulation could prevent a lot of misery and death.

Ok, that is your goal.

4 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

This is what the Liberal government wants to do to Canada, so they can retire rich off real-estate speculation.

Finance Minister’s key advisers want 100M Canadians by 2100

I am not sure that is a "Liberal" goal, it seems all governing parties have followed that goal since our country was founded. The problem is that we listen to "economists", who are nothing more than bankers with a self interest who create models that further their wealth and then convince our politicians to follow that model. We need to recognize that the "economy" is purely an artificial construct, and we need to look at the real world (e.g. natural resource consumption, pollution, etc.) as the major drivers.

51 minutes ago, dre said:

Population will be controlled naturally. I predict that by the end of this century there will only be about 1/2 a billion people left. And the real killer is not something people even talk about. Within the next hundred years there will be no farming, and no crops because we will run out of dirt about 60 years from now.

Yes, we will run into some natural barriers but what they are an when we run into them is hard to speculate. We have relied on technology solutions ever since society has evolved from hunter/gatherer. The obvious technology solution to your immediate limitation will by hydroponics, but that itself might be obsoleted by future developments we cannot envisage today.

[Michael Hardner]

6 hours ago, 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!"?

What is the most recent post where I said that?

[dre]

20 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

 

Yes, we will run into some natural barriers but what they are an when we run into them is hard to speculate. We have relied on technology solutions ever since society has evolved from hunter/gatherer. The obvious technology solution to your immediate limitation will by hydroponics, but that itself might be obsoleted by future developments we cannot envisage today.

Yes things like hydroponics could sustain a tiny population. But that will not compensate for the fact that traditional farming and organic growth that have kept both humans and livestock alive for thousands of years will not be possible in another 60 at the current rate.

All the dirt will be gone, and it will take thousands of years for it to return.

Heres an interesting article about it. SE is 10 thousand times the threat that terrorism, or global warming  will ever be, yet most people have not even heard of it.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/only-60-years-of-farming-left-if-soil-degradation-continues/

The could be our "near extinction" event. 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by dre