if they offered people money to get sterilized i see no issue
i had a vasectomy like 5 years ago
Darkman124 posted...
if they offered people money to get sterilized i see no issue
i had a vasectomy like 5 years ago
Good point.
I would like to expand on this concept of sterilisation and suggest enforced sterlisation as an option. Genetic traits that produce burdens on society could potentially be eradicated through well planned government initiatives.
Yes as long as it's non violent. Africa is going to be adding way too many people by the end of the century.
Yes as long as it's non violent. Africa is going to be adding way too many people by the end of the century.
The capacity of the ecosystem is population control. No need to do anything at all.
NINExATExSEVEN posted...
Yes as long as it's non violent. Africa is going to be adding way too many people by the end of the century.
A peaceful genocide, you say?
Now where did I hear that before?
Richard Spencer?
The capacity of the ecosystem is population control. No need to do anything at all.
gunplagirl posted...
NINExATExSEVEN posted...
Yes as long as it's non violent. Africa is going to be adding way too many people by the end of the century.
A peaceful genocide, you say?
Now where did I hear that before?
Richard Spencer?
What no. Limit the amount of children females can have to 1 instead of 5+ like they're having now. China did it and they're about to have a population crisis so we know it works.
People don't realize the gravity of the situation in Africa. In a worst case scenario they could be adding 2 billion people to their population by the end of the century. So that woukd be 3 billion people in just Africa alone. That's unsustainable for them and it would fall on the rest of the world to feed them and clothe them etc.
Not to mention their carbon footprints.
COVxy posted...
The capacity of the ecosystem is population control. No need to do anything at all.
This would be true if humans abided by natural selection, but we don't.
And the carbon footprints of the extreme poor is nothing compared to that of the ultra rich. Millionaires flying private jets every weekend? That's quickly capable of adding up several years worth of the average Americans footprint. And we have the most wasteful society around.
Modern medicines as part of aid relief in many impoverished areas is cheating nature. Emotion driven 'we must save them all' arguments will massively screw us over in years to come.
NINExATExSEVEN posted...
gunplagirl posted...
NINExATExSEVEN posted...
Yes as long as it's non violent. Africa is going to be adding way too many people by the end of the century.
A peaceful genocide, you say?
Now where did I hear that before?
Richard Spencer?
What no. Limit the amount of children females can have to 1 instead of 5+ like they're having now. China did it and they're about to have a population crisis so we know it works.
People don't realize the gravity of the situation in Africa. In a worst case scenario they could be adding 2 billion people to their population by the end of the century. So that woukd be 3 billion people in just Africa alone. That's unsustainable for them and it would fall on the rest of the world to feed them and clothe them etc.
Not to mention their carbon footprints.
And there's been more than a sufficient amount of food and other materials available but rich Western nations would sooner destroy inventory than donate it.
And the carbon footprints of the extreme poor is nothing compared to that of the ultra rich. Millionaires flying private jets every weekend? That's quickly capable of adding up several years worth of the average Americans footprint. And we have the most wasteful society around.
The solution is always going to be
Stop the rich
I would support a politician that's like "stop spitting out babies when you're poor trailer park trash"
I would support a politician that's like "stop spitting out babies when you're poor trailer park trash"
If That was true (idk if it is) how would we give all that excess food to all these countries when most food is perishable? It wouldn't all survive the trip.
If they choose to control population by confronting the social stigma against suicide
Pretty sure that's a good stigma to keep around.
COVxy posted...
The capacity of the ecosystem is population control. No need to do anything at all.
Just hear me out
We EAT the rich
And equitably distribute their wealth
DevsBro posted...
If they choose to control population by confronting the social stigma against suicide
Pretty sure that's a good stigma to keep around.
Not to mention their carbon footprints.
People like you have destroyed the west and the reason the west is facing a demographic cliff.
Pretty sure that's a good stigma to keep around.
Why is that?
Yes
gunplagirl posted...
COVxy posted...
The capacity of the ecosystem is population control. No need to do anything at all.
Just hear me out
We EAT the rich
And equitably distribute their wealth
I'm listening
Life as a human is valuable.
You shouldn't waste it.
Even if you're in great pain, you can still do good deeds with your time on earth. Sometimes in clear suffering, you're even given more chances to accomplish positive actions.
I do not support bs like the human extinction group.
Newhopes posted...
People like you have destroyed the west and the reason the west is facing a demographic cliff.
I think you need to expand on this.
No, some people really are good for nothing.
The concept of the earth being over-populated is a liberal myth.
Literally, the entire population of the earth can fit into Texas. (assuming we destroy everything and have empty land)
What no. Limit the amount of children females can have to 1 instead of 5+ like they're having now. China did it and they're about to have a population crisis so we know it works.
Caution998 posted...
The concept of the earth being over-populated is a liberal myth.
Literally, the entire population of the earth can fit into Texas. (assuming we destroy everything and have empty land)
At least consider the knock on effect though. What does it take to keep everyone suitably housed, fed, employed etc?
We are already seeing adverse effects of unsuitable and unsustainable human populations in many regions.
What does it take to keep everyone suitably housed, fed, employed etc?
Anybody can change at any time.
NINExATExSEVEN posted...
gunplagirl posted...
NINExATExSEVEN posted...
Yes as long as it's non violent. Africa is going to be adding way too many people by the end of the century.
A peaceful genocide, you say?
Now where did I hear that before?
Richard Spencer?
What no. Limit the amount of children females can have to 1 instead of 5+ like they're having now. China did it and they're about to have a population crisis so we know it works.
People don't realize the gravity of the situation in Africa. In a worst case scenario they could be adding 2 billion people to their population by the end of the century. So that woukd be 3 billion people in just Africa alone. That's unsustainable for them and it would fall on the rest of the world to feed them and clothe them etc.
Not to mention their carbon footprints.
And there's been more than a sufficient amount of food and other materials available but rich Western nations would sooner destroy inventory than donate it.
And the carbon footprints of the extreme poor is nothing compared to that of the ultra rich. Millionaires flying private jets every weekend? That's quickly capable of adding up several years worth of the average Americans footprint. And we have the most wasteful society around.
The solution is always going to be
Stop the rich