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

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

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.

 

Good luck with that....many people just don't care.

Birth rates decline with more economic development, not less.

 

[Robert Greene]

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Good luck with that....many people just don't care.

Birth rates decline with more economic development, not less.

 

You give the information to those who do care, you play one side off against the other, until the issue is amplied. I think its easier to get wide-scale vasectomies going, than trying to put oil companies out of business.

Activism can be like distilling alcohol. You have to keep redistilling things until it's purified. Will make the information so powerful, it will hit everyone like a tone of bricks. Not impossible to convince people not to have 5 children. It will be harder to stop the establishment from panicking once the numbers start going down.

[Robert Greene]

First chapter of my book is going to be on why i'm a conservative, and why the conservative way of life can be compatible with environmentalism. There is a lot of passionate gasoline out there, you just have to give them the right spark. People care, they just don't know how to turn ideas into action. We're going to retrofit cities to look gorgeous with nature. One empty lot at a time. We're going to get the empty space beside soccer fields into botanical gardens.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Robert Greene

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Robert Greene said:

You give the information to those who do care, you play one side off against the other, until the issue is amplied. I think its easier to get wide-scale vasectomies going, than trying to put oil companies out of business.

 

Enviromentalism is an ideology defined by humans, and it can be supported or ignored by humans, in equal measure.

Artificial interventions would just amplify the problem, not a solution.

 

 

[Robert Greene]

We're stuck inside our homes miserable, not going out to public events, doing things with the community. We become anti-social.

[Robert Greene]

You might not agree with my methods, that fine. It takes a while to figure out what solutions work best. Perhaps we can have a public relations campaign about the need to curb population growth in North American Cities. At least increase population in underpopulated areas. We should ban immigration to the largest cities, and have people move to places like Saskatchewan, that could benefit from an increased population. Canada has room to create new cities instead.

For those who think I'm against human rights, I don't consider abortion a viable option to reduce population. As a conservative, I think abortion is murder. I'm totally ok with contraception and volunteered vasectomies. I won't support abortion as a convenient form of ethical depopulation.

Edited December 31, 2017 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

Seems like they are making some progress in Egypt, but the Islamic religion is against artificial contraception.

https://www.madamasr.com/en/2017/05/07/feature/politics/overpopulation-religion-and-fatwas-on-demand-in-egypt

[taxme]

On 12/30/2017 at 7:09 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Good luck with that....many people just don't care.

Birth rates decline with more economic development, not less.

 

Indeed. In order to try and decline the birth rate in those overpopulated third world countries is for those people to have say one or two children at the most, educate them, and then let those children begin to work on trying to solve their overpopulation problems. That is what has happened with the white race. We are educated, we are materialistic, and thus they have none to maybe three children at the most. It should also work in the third world, and maybe they too will become more materialistic and have less children. Works for me. 

[taxme]

On 12/31/2017 at 2:25 AM, Robert Greene said:

You might not agree with my methods, that fine. It takes a while to figure out what solutions work best. Perhaps we can have a public relations campaign about the need to curb population growth in North American Cities. At least increase population in underpopulated areas. We should ban immigration to the largest cities, and have people move to places like Saskatchewan, that could benefit from an increased population. Canada has room to create new cities instead.

For those who think I'm against human rights, I don't consider abortion a viable option to reduce population. As a conservative, I think abortion is murder. I'm totally ok with contraception and volunteered vasectomies. I won't support abortion as a convenient form of ethical depopulation.

But why would Canada want to increase the population in places like Saskatchewan anyway? I thought your plan was to try and depopulate the world including Canada? Canada cannot depopulate if Canada brings in way more new immigrants than it neeeds. You said that white people should make the sacrifice to reduce the population but yet you are saying that we should ban all immigration to the big cities, and send them all somewhere else in Canada and create new cities. Then if Canada did that, how are we cutting back on overpopulation then?

Or are you saying that whites should just make the sacrifice and go the minority route so as to make room for the third world overpopulation to come here. Of course we all should know by now that the population will only increase in Canada, not fall, if Canada keeps bringing in the third world. You appear to be getting a bit confused on the subject of depopulation. 

 

 

[Robert Greene]

6 hours ago, taxme said:

But why would Canada want to increase the population in places like Saskatchewan anyway? I thought your plan was to try and depopulate the world including Canada? Canada cannot depopulate if Canada brings in way more new immigrants than it neeeds. You said that white people should make the sacrifice to reduce the population but yet you are saying that we should ban all immigration to the big cities, and send them all somewhere else in Canada and create new cities. Then if Canada did that, how are we cutting back on overpopulation then?

Or are you saying that whites should just make the sacrifice and go the minority route so as to make room for the third world overpopulation to come here. Of course we all should know by now that the population will only increase in Canada, not fall, if Canada keeps bringing in the third world. You appear to be getting a bit confused on the subject of depopulation. 

 

 

I'm against hyper-urbanization. Where people value only living in the most crowded spaces. We have lost interest in living in small towns, and smaller cities. The immigrants come from overpopulated countries, so to them moving to Toronto feels like downsizing. I don't think Canada has an immediate overpopulation problem, except for in the large cities. Right now we're poised for a housing crash, just like what happened in 2008. We have unregulated real-estate speculation going on, creating a bubble, while young people can't afford to buy a home. I think quality of life diminishes, when cities become overcrowded. Before Canada starts to decline in population, we should divert the marjory of new immigration to places than can benefit from population growth. Yes it's going to displace white people in small towns, but that's going to be the cost of fixing the issues in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.

As I told you before, my priority is not the protection of white people. Regardless of what ethnicity lives where, the first priority of ethical depopulation should be to reduce growth in cities, and at some point reduce growth in large towns. The only places that should allow new growth is the smaller towns, that need the population growth. I would develop a plan to gradually reduce immigration levels over the next 5 years to the point that immigration doesn't add to the population. During that time I would only allow grow in Smaller Cities, and Rural areas. I would also require new subdivisions to have at least 25% parks or woodlots within 500 feet of any house. So every 10 houses down the street, there is 3 empty lots than can be a small playground, garden, or woodlot.

Ethical depopulation is going to have to be a transition. The first phase will begin with curbing population growth. You can't do it abruptly, or would be too much of a shock to the system. During the same time, I would gradually reduce the workweek down to 32 hours over 5 days, and then suddenly change it to 4 days, while extending mandatory vacation time up to 5 weeks. I would declare that humans should make freetime a priority again. You work to live, you don't live to be working all the time. Humans will appreciate more freetime, as opportunities to connect with nature opens up, during the depopulation.

We then have to figure out how fast can the world depopulate without causing an economy recession. Can we design a controlled collapse in population, while increasing the GDP per capita? I think it would take at least 200 years to get bellow a billion. In a scenario like this Canada might reduce it's population by 50% percent, while India Reduces it's population by 90% The goal is to aggressively, but ethically depopulate overpopulated Countries and Cities faster than anywhere else. If I was running Canada right now, I would impose an immediate 30% cut in immigration, followed by a 5% cut each year until we're under the rate of replacement.

Edited January 2, 2018 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

Many advocates of depopulation have promoted abortions. The say that religious institutions are biased and are trying to control your life. While contraceptives are perfectly ok, Abortion is not ok. Abortion is murder. As soon as fertilization takes place, you're killing another human being. Any policy towards depopulation is going to have to have checks and balances protecting the dignity of human life, and the right of anyone to become a parent. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean abortion is not a murder. We live in a society telling mothers it's ok to kill your own baby. These are the facts. If you disagree, watch this video, and explain why you disagree. Religious establishments need to realize that Increasing the use of contraceptives will decrease the demand for abortions, weather legal in some places or not. Getting vasectomies will reduce the demand for abortions. When the church blocks access to contraceptives, they increase the demand for abortions. They can't have it both ways.

 

Edited January 2, 2018 by Robert Greene

[taxme]

11 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

I'm against hyper-urbanization. Where people value only living in the most crowded spaces. We have lost interest in living in small towns, and smaller cities. The immigrants come from overpopulated countries, so to them moving to Toronto feels like downsizing. I don't think Canada has an immediate overpopulation problem, except for in the large cities. Right now we're poised for a housing crash, just like what happened in 2008. We have unregulated real-estate speculation going on, creating a bubble, while young people can't afford to buy a home. I think quality of life diminishes, when cities become overcrowded. Before Canada starts to decline in population, we should divert the marjory of new immigration to places than can benefit from population growth. Yes it's going to displace white people in small towns, but that's going to be the cost of fixing the issues in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.

As I told you before, my priority is not the protection of white people. Regardless of what ethnicity lives where, the first priority of ethical depopulation should be to reduce growth in cities, and at some point reduce growth in large towns. The only places that should allow new growth is the smaller towns, that need the population growth. I would develop a plan to gradually reduce immigration levels over the next 5 years to the point that immigration doesn't add to the population. During that time I would only allow grow in Smaller Cities, and Rural areas. I would also require new subdivisions to have at least 25% parks or woodlots within 500 feet of any house. So every 10 houses down the street, there is 3 empty lots than can be a small playground, garden, or woodlot.

Ethical depopulation is going to have to be a transition. The first phase will begin with curbing population growth. You can't do it abruptly, or would be too much of a shock to the system. During the same time, I would gradually reduce the workweek down to 32 hours over 5 days, and then suddenly change it to 4 days, while extending mandatory vacation time up to 5 weeks. I would declare that humans should make freetime a priority again. You work to live, you don't live to be working all the time. Humans will appreciate more freetime, as opportunities to connect with nature opens up, during the depopulation.

We then have to figure out how fast can the world depopulate without causing an economy recession. Can we design a controlled collapse in population, while increasing the GDP per capita? I think it would take at least 200 years to get bellow a billion. In a scenario like this Canada might reduce it's population by 50% percent, while India Reduces it's population by 90% The goal is to aggressively, but ethically depopulate overpopulated Countries and Cities faster than anywhere else. If I was running Canada right now, I would impose an immediate 30% cut in immigration, followed by a 5% cut each year until we're under the rate of replacement.

Well, there is your answer. If white people are having less children than there should be no overpopulation problem in Canada. Up your alley, really? It would probably remain constant provided Canada does not bring in the hundreds of thousands of new legal and illegal immigrants every year. And from what I have read lately our dear leader politicians in the liberal government want to bring in even more new immigrants every year.  For the next three years Trudeau and his anti-white multicultural immigration minister has plans to bring in another million more new immigrants. No doubt from you know where.

How is that for fighting overpopulation in Canada. Help out the rest of the 3rd world and their overpopulation problem by bringing them over to Canada. And if that should mean making white people become a minority in their own country, well so be it, too dam bad for old whitey. Let them even go extinct because they do not appear to care anyway if they end up and are added on to the saber tooth tiger extinct list. 

Well, if I were running Canada right now, I would stop all immigration to Canada and for a lot longer than five years. After say ten years I would only bring in new immigrants to replace the ones that have died off. Canadians will survive with a population of thirty million with no problem at all. Some Scandinavian and other European countries with small populations are doing just fine and so could Canada do well also. All we have to do here is to get rid of the aholes that are trying to flood this country with millions of new immigrants that are not needed at all. Getting rid of the pro multicultural and pro third world immigration liberals would be a fantastic start. Canadians need to make Canada great again. We can if we want it to happen. 

[taxme]

8 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

Many advocates of depopulation have promoted abortions. The say that religious institutions are biased and are trying to control your life. While contraceptives are perfectly ok, Abortion is not ok. Abortion is murder. As soon as fertilization takes place, you're killing another human being. Any policy towards depopulation is going to have to have checks and balances protecting the dignity of human life, and the right of anyone to become a parent. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean abortion is not a murder. We live in a society telling mothers it's ok to kill your own baby. These are the facts. If you disagree, watch this video, and explain why you disagree. Religious establishments need to realize that Increasing the use of contraceptives will decrease the demand for abortions, weather legal in some places or not. Getting vasectomies will reduce the demand for abortions. When the church blocks access to contraceptives, they increase the demand for abortions. They can't have it both ways.

 

Doctor Henry Morgentaler was but one of many of those Canadian abortionists butcher doctors that made millions from aborting babies in the womb. I saw a video of a baby being aborted and it was not nice to watch. Doctors like Morgentaler would grab the baby by the head and start to pull and tear it apart piece by piece. You can see that the baby was in pain, and was fighting for it's life. Any woman that wants to have an abortion should first watch a video on abortion as to what happens to a baby during an abortion. It is truly a crime against humanity for women to have an abortion. They are taking part in the murder of an unborn child but still a human being in the making. 

 

[Robert Greene]

Liberals don't think Toronto is overcrowded. They think we need to catch up to New York.

 

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

Many advocates of depopulation have promoted abortions. The say that religious institutions are biased and are trying to control your life. While contraceptives are perfectly ok, Abortion is not ok. Abortion is murder. As soon as fertilization takes place, you're killing another human being. Any policy towards depopulation is going to have to have checks and balances protecting the dignity of human life, and the right of anyone to become a parent. Just because it's legal, doesn't mean abortion is not a murder. We live in a society telling mothers it's ok to kill your own baby. These are the facts. If you disagree, watch this video, and explain why you disagree. Religious establishments need to realize that Increasing the use of contraceptives will decrease the demand for abortions, weather legal in some places or not. Getting vasectomies will reduce the demand for abortions. When the church blocks access to contraceptives, they increase the demand for abortions. They can't have it both ways.

 

While I agree with any move to increase access to contraceptives, and think any church that fights such a move should be utterly destroyed, I have to say I think abortions can go some way towards reducing overpopulation, and ensuring access to such is certainly a victory for human rights.

Edited January 3, 2018 by bcsapper
Trimming!

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

While I agree with any move to increase access to contraceptives, and think any church that fights such a move should be utterly destroyed, I have to say I think abortions can go some way towards reducing overpopulation, and ensuring access to such is certainly a victory for human rights.

 

So destroying churches is a victory for human rights ?   Good luck with that....

[taxme]

5 hours ago, Robert Greene said:

Liberals don't think Toronto is overcrowded. They think we need to catch up to New York.

 

Canada will soon be catching up with the likes of New York and the third world with all the immigrants that they keep bringing into Canada every year. This house looks like it would be a great buy for one of those new third world refugees. They could probably get a loan from the government, I mean taxpayer's, to put a down payment on the house.  Just saying. 

[taxme]

4 hours ago, bcsapper said:

While I agree with any move to increase access to contraceptives, and think any church that fights such a move should be utterly destroyed, I have to say I think abortions can go some way towards reducing overpopulation, and ensuring access to such is certainly a victory for human rights.

Try to visualize what it would be like for you to be the baby during your abortion in the womb? I wonder if you would enjoy having yourself torn apart piece by piece. It may be a victory for human rights but it is for sure that it would be no victory for the poor baby and it's right to live. Show some compassion for the human rights of a baby in the womb. It may not be up and running around but it is still a life that does not need to be treated like garbage. Deplorable. 

[Guest]

7 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So destroying churches is a victory for human rights ?   Good luck with that....

Yeah, I know.  There'll always be someone complaining...

[dre]

On 12/29/2017 at 5:03 AM, Michael Hardner said:

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

And that problem will take care of itself. Humans are arch predators. We fuel our existence by killing almost everything we encounter, and consuming every kind of natural resource. Eventually though the dominant predators run out of prey, and their numbers are reduced naturally.

Most of our population will literally starve out within the next century. Its a certainty... a forgone conclusion. The earth however will be vibrant eco-system for millions of years to come... with or without us.

The "problem" in this case is also the "solution". 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, dre said:

And that problem will take care of itself. Humans are arch predators. We fuel our existence by killing almost everything we encounter, and consuming every kind of natural resource. Eventually though the dominant predators run out of prey, and their numbers are reduced naturally.

Most of our population will literally starve out within the next century. Its a certainty... a forgone conclusion. The earth however will be vibrant eco-system for millions of years to come... with or without us.

The "problem" in this case is also the "solution". 

 

Yep, gotta agree with that.  It would be nice if England could win the World Cup again before it all goes to hell.

[Robert Greene]

I'm what most people would call an extreme fiscal conservative. Extreme because I believe no government has the right to spend any money it doesn't have in times of peace. I think deficit financing is inter-generational theft. I believe the conventional practice of Keynesian economics has failed. I think we need a balance budget amendment to the constitution, plus requiring all forms of government, Federal, Provincial, or Local, to pay off at least 1% of the outstanding debt per year.

I think if we continue to give the government the power to spend money it doesn't have than there's always going to be abuse. I also think the courts should have the power to veto all requests for unnecessary spending.

Governments should be required to cut all unnecessary spending until tax revenue exceed spending.

I think we need to redesign the social safety to improve access to jobs and pressure companies to hire the disabled, instead of overusing welfare checks.

I was a liberal until I realized Obama was running a Trillion dollar deficit. I got so angry, I started listening to conservatives, since they seemed to be the only ones realizing that money doesn't grow on trees. I'm still socially progressive on helping the poor and disabled, but I'm liberal in the sense, we should make sure companies follow the law, pay a decent wage for the work done, and provide safe working conditions. I believe in pragmatic liberalism that doesn't undermine our values, traditions, or undermine the integrity of economy.

Environmentalists believe in protecting the planet for future generations, and conservatives believe in protecting the treasury for future generations.

The government should have an elite accounting branch, that can help them recognize wasteful spending.

I believe when there is a problem, the court system should force us to redesign programs to work more efficiently, not increase the budget out of convince. You either eliminate wasteful programs or reform to be fiscally responsible.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Robert Greene

[Robert Greene]

5 hours ago, dre said:

And that problem will take care of itself. Humans are arch predators. We fuel our existence by killing almost everything we encounter, and consuming every kind of natural resource. Eventually though the dominant predators run out of prey, and their numbers are reduced naturally.

Most of our population will literally starve out within the next century. Its a certainty... a forgone conclusion. The earth however will be vibrant eco-system for millions of years to come... with or without us.

The "problem" in this case is also the "solution". 

 

I don't think were going to starve off. Will start eating wheat, rice, bugs if we have too. I think food shortage won't lead to an significant depopulation. It might come from war or disease. Even if there's a collapse, without a culture of population planning, humans overbreed again, until the next collapse taxes place. The planet isn't going to end for Billions of years, and humans could be around for millions of years. The remaining humans will adapt, to whatever compromised planet is left. Overpopulation should be about maintaining environmental and economic integrity, not preventing humans from going to extinct.

Edited January 4, 2018 by Robert Greene

[Antares]

On 03/01/2018 at 5:11 AM, Robert Greene said:

Liberals don't think Toronto is overcrowded.

 

I've seen this kind of generalization in other discussions in this forum, and it's not helpful. It reads like a definition, but it may be intended to convey a claim about how certain real people actually think. And they are who? Some liberals? Most liberals? All liberals? With no qualifier, the default is 'all'. So, if I think Toronto is overcrowded, am I disqualified from being a liberal?

[Antares]

On 03/01/2018 at 7:24 AM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So destroying churches is a victory for human rights ?   Good luck with that....

Of course, the only way to destroy a church is to convert its followers so there's no congregation left. I'm not sure what human rights are, or why they should be identified separately from other rights, but I don't see why persuasively changing someone's belief would be an infringement of them. And a less religious human population would probably be a less harmful one.