redpill Loc: Oregon - not PDX

I was sent this link...
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/7-5-billion-and-counting-how-many-humans-can-the-earth-support-/106328/

Quite the provocative subject.  This is one I thought about WAY back, in college, when I was thoroughly liberal, thoroughly stupid.  I believed then and still do today that the issue of over population of the planet is a bad thing.  Back then I consciously decided to have only 2 children.  That actually happened more by luck than by plan.  Now I think the message to parents to limit family size is silly.  The world is not homogeneous in thought, religion, etc etc.  The save the planet by limiting our reproduction is a western thought, perhaps an Anglo thought, perhaps even more finely defined than that thought.  Other groups don't have those same thoughts and many have exactly the opposite thoughts.  The more children the better.


So, will the message and the practice requested be accepted and solve the over population problem?  Absolutely not.  What will happen is that fewer and fewer of the accepting group will exist and more and more of the non-accepting will be born.  The pendulum will swing toward higher birthrate groups.  I would guess that the problem will only increase more rapidly.  So voluntary decrease in reproduction will not work.  That begs the question, Will anything work?


Only two other ways comes to mind.  Human caused forced reduction or Natural caused involuntary reduction.  Natural is pretty harsh.  Something k**ls us.  Starvation, natural disaster, extra-terrestrial event, wh**ever.  Natural reduction would likely be sudden and distributed over a large surface area, though that need not be the case.  It could be slow such as ice sheets covering more and more arable land mass, or limited in area where severe droughts might occur.   Human caused has been the greatest reducer of humankind over history (with the exceptions of natural plagues (ummm spread by human action)).  Wars.  These reduce populations nicely.  They save the planet.  If the population reaches the levels that the article says it will if unchecked, then natural reduction will kick in and that will cause human reduction to react for the sole reason that more resources will be needed by those affected.


So, the only way to reduce the ever climbing population numbers is to continue to have wars.  And if you and your fellow citizens living as a homologous group wish to survive, you had better produce as many of your kind as you can before the war starts.


WOW!?  Was that a bunch of BS or what? 

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Pretty interesting...

And some excellent points...

I always wished for a large family.... Though the one child is all I am likely to have... Others will have to take up the slack...Amen

badbob85037

7,500,000,000 humans divided by 268,601 square miles, the size of Texas that would put 27,920.37 humans per square mile. Which ain't bad when compared to New York, D.C. and other Democrat s**t holes.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

If we all lived with a population density like Tokyo we would only need Japan for the entire world's population...

PeterS

By "work" what do you mean? My wife and I had two children and so far my daughter and her husband have one and my son and his wife have none. I think this choice had nothing to do with saving the planet and more to do with the fact that children are getting more expensive to have and support and for that reason we limit the number we have.

proud republican Loc: RED CALIFORNIA

Agree with you on this one!!!..Shocker!! I also have just one son and so does my sister...I couldnt afford more then one...

redpill Loc: Oregon - not PDX

I was addressing the topic of the article. How to reduce the population. What would "work" to accomplish that goal. My premise is that nothing short of war will do it. So choosing to limit ones family size should be handled exactly as your family did, personal reasons, not Save the Planet reasons, as the authors urged.

Here's another article that I just stumbled on. Referring to the Little Ice Age and some collateral impacts, like the reduction of Mexico's population from 30 million to 3 million due to small pox.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/04/04/the-little-ice-age-back-to-the-future/

billy a Loc: South Florida

..."It's PEOPLE!! SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!"

Radiance3

===================
Democrats have many ways of population reduction, but invite more of those who create population explosion. Democrats abort babies or k**l babies that interfere with their lifestyle. PP has aborted more than 57 million babies since made legal in 1973.

The unfortunate early loss of my husband in Vietnam, deprived us of a child so precious that I wanted so much. Our family is in a zero population growth. Most of my nephews although they reached the highest peak of their careers don't have children.

The fastest growing population now are the Mexicans and Hispanics here in the US. Every time I meet young Hispanic or Mexican women, they are mostly pregnant with many young kids trailing behind.
Pretty soon the population of the United States will explode not of the native or the real Americans, but will be replaced by the Mexicans and Hispanics, or even the Chinese who came to the US to deliver their eggs.

ExperienceCounts

[quote=Radiance3]===================
Democrats have many ways of population reduction, but invite more of those who create population explosion. Democrats abort babies or k**l babies that interfere with their lifestyle. PP has aborted more than 57 million babies since made legal in 1973.

Recently read where in one country [crs don't remember which one] with socialized medicine life saving surgeries for those over 70 are restricted or denied (probably depends on if you can afford to pay out of pocket) since said citizens are too old to be productive and the cost to help them live are prohibitive. IE. Coming to the US near you soon.

Decided quite some time ago to forgo v*****es. If our government will experiment on our troops with v*****es and shots (they did during Vietnam--many died), they'll do it to us.

When the life of a baby is declared disposable (and it has been) how far behind are the mentally challenged, physically handicapped, old, frail.

Then they'll go after overweight, homeless, those who oppose the established political slant or those who believe in God.

Just look at the ruling party wrong, be in the wrong place at the wrong time, not have enough money to grease palms.

You don't think so. Hail H----er!

<Sarcasm Intended>

Wonttakeitanymore

I used to believe in zero population growth! My two brothers and myself only had one child each, sons! My sister didn’t attend the lecture! She has 4 kids! What a wonderful warm family, lots of grandkids and closeness! I think she got it right! I do believe that people should be able to care for their children, not the government! All the children that a village can raise are the village i***ts! Although I didn’t want to provide my son with an entire playground, I wish he would have had a sibling! Family is what matters! Large or small!

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Some good points, let me give you another couple or more. Agenda 21 and the UN's copy, g*******t plan to wipe out 90% of the present population, I think they'll try that one but it's bs. Have us "manageable" so they can feed us. Most have seen peanut butter jars (one example) become convex rather than a flat bottom, bread, milk and many other foods hold less but cost more. We're trying to pull out of neverending wars, one with a time limit? There are some who decide not to have children out of some real bs reason. Others just the opposite.

Radiance3

[quote=ExperienceCounts]

================
That could happen when the democrats take over for a socialized government. They'll remove Christianity cause it hinders their agenda of k*****g babies, the fat, the obese, the disabled, and those over 70 years old. Right now infants born to life, are k**led if the mother don't like to take care.

maryjane

Is it only white western nations that over the past several decades listened to the population folks and began deliberately having fewer children? Obviously none of the African or other third world nations bought into the help your country, your planet by having fewer children. And has there really been much of a decrease in young females (of all races) in the US having babies out of wedlock (showing my age with that word)? With the current tightening of a******n laws by states, do you anticipate that resulting in an increase of American babies being born?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

China?

One Child Policy