Current Events > Would you support a political party that pushed for population control?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Imo, population growth is one the main drivers for a large number of modern day issues.
Such as waste, pollution, housing shortages, human encroachment into natural habitats etc.

A somewhat overall steady reduction in human numbers globally, would be great. Especially in areas largely unsuited for a burgeoning population.
---

Gaypublicans

The largest contributor to pollution, greenhouse gas emissions and shortages elsewhere are the ultra rich. Don't target the poor, target the rich.
---

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.
---

unpleasant_milk posted...

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.

Being white increases your risk of skin cancer

*grins*
---

Isn't that basically genocide pushing? I can't imagine that serving anybody but the ultra rich. Imagine having lobbyists for which group of people the government has to go in and slaughter whole sell just because some corporation wants to build on their neighborhood. Then after the corpses are hauled off to be looted for good organs to sell the corporation just changes their mind and now there's empty land for the government to sell off.
---

Yes as long as it's non violent. Africa is going to be adding way too many people by the end of the century.
---

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.

And where do you think they will look to migrate to when they realise living standards are piss poor?
And why should the west have them?
---

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?
---

Depends on the means in which it's gone about.
---

The capacity of the ecosystem is population control. No need to do anything at all.
---

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
---

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.

Exactly. The Earth has a limit to what it will take. If we add to many people the Earth just knocks us down to an acceptable level
---

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
---

HydraSlayer82 posted...

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.

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.
---

gunplagirl posted...

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.

iirc don't developing nations have the highest carbon footprints?

unpleasant_milk posted...

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.

I agree to a point, though I will say it is rather easy for you or I to say this.
---

I would support a politician that's like "stop spitting out babies when you're poor trailer park trash"
---

gunplagirl posted...

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

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.
---

Irony posted...

I would support a politician that's like "stop spitting out babies when you're poor trailer park trash"

I mean best ways to cut down on that sort of thing is sex ed and making contraceptives readily available.

The trailer park trash usually votes for no contraceptives and no sex ed.

That's the problem
---

Irony posted...

I would support a politician that's like "stop spitting out babies when you're poor trailer park trash"

I would be in favour of sterilising women who can't stop popping out babies like it's going out of fashion.

Irresponsible and fecklass mothers of ferals.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

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.

most food is not perishable

most food is grain

the problem is distribution within those countries--specifically, that local strongmen tend to seize the food and hoard it.
---

Depends on their methods.

Obviously, if they choose to control population by just killing random people, that would be a no.

If they choose to control population by confronting the social stigma against suicide, that would be a yes.

But I'm guessing that realistically, they would gather fines from people with too many kids and use that money to fund baby murder,.so probably no.
---

Considering how abortion and birth control are already around in force, America doesn't need that for a while. We'd dismantle the national parks before that happens here.
---

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.
---

Pretty sure that's a good stigma to keep around.

Why is that?
---

This is the eugenics abortion debate all over again.

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
---

Someone must have watched The Purge for Halloween
---

masticatingman posted...

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.

I think suicide should be a personal choice. Albeit a tragic one tbh.

Preventing large population increases by restricting family sizes regardless of social standing is one avenue worth considering.

I also am in favour of banning overseas famine/drought relief. Let nature readdress the balance.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Not to mention their carbon footprints.

Basically non-existent. The poorest half of the world produces 10% of its carbon emissions.
---

No this is the sort of thing that destroyed the west and the reason it's facing a demographic cliff.

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.
---

DevsBro posted...

Pretty sure that's a good stigma to keep around.

Why is that?

Life as a human is valuable. You shouldn't waste it. I believe in reincarnation so...in my understanding, you just don't get born as a sentient, self-conscious being on every turn of the cosmic wheel.

Even if you're in great pain, you can still do good deeds as a functioning human being with your time on earth. Sometimes in clear suffering, you're even given more chances to accomplish positive actions.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

Yes

I thought you were a libertarian
---

Antifar posted...

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

Okay so like

Bulgogi would probably be the best way to cook them, unless you want soup in which case pho or a stew would work, but a broth is almost certainly going to be your best bet to override the no doubt disgusting texture of human.
---

I do not support bs like the human extinction group.
---

Life as a human is valuable.

Sure it is. So is a nuclear bomb.

You shouldn't waste it.

Hindsight is 20/20. Some living people already did.

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.

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)
---

Offworlder1 posted...

I do not support bs like the human extinction group.

Well, this is actually a discussion about the scaling back of human population numbers, not, the entire eradication of humans.
---

unpleasant_milk posted...

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.

Most of the west is going into massive population especially among the native white populations think Japan but worse it's one of the reason they're shipping in migrants rather than having a controlled border.

Population decline brings with it economic decline and stagnation and the way our systems work IE a hybrid socialist means it's unsustainable which means a collapse will happen.

DevsBro posted...

No, some people really are good for nothing.

Anybody can change at any time.

If you want to be hyper-pessimistic and endorse suicide, go ahead.
---

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.
---

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

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.

Wasn't there unforseen consequences regarding what people did when they got a child they didn't want. For example, with baby girls, during that time period
---

unpleasant_milk posted...

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.

Isn't that more of an argument that people should spread out more to other states and cities, rather than stay in big Urban areas
---

What does it take to keep everyone suitably housed, fed, employed etc?

Less than you think.
---

Anybody can change at any time.

Pontification. Whatever, suppose they can. Why should they? "Hey Mr. Miserable, you can always take out my trash for me. That'll make you feel better."
---

Undecided. I don't think it would be a bad idea for the government to provide vasectomies or tube tying to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
---

gunplagirl posted...

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

The sad truth is, when we provide foreign aid to 3rd world countries they have more kids. Its not working.

And when western countries import millions of 3rd world migrants do you think that increases or decreases the carbon footprints of those migrants?
---