Should there be limits on breeding?

[Novowarsawianka]

Not to forget, while you measure the tiniest changes to the environment, overpopulation is a way worse problem for Africa than just a slightly bigger carbon emission. Resources are scarce enough there, they will only get worse if they keep up the trend. The climate isn't favouring them either, so you will see not just even less resources, especially food, but more conflict.

That's their business; only if they impact the climate will they be making it ours.

And I'm not going to condemn them for what they might do to the climate in the future.

Instead of being an authoritarian who wants to limit people from breeding, rather help those who truly need help and help protection and sexual education, or rather, education in general, to reach them.

Education doesn't always convince people to have fewer kids, as western couples with several children have demonstrated.

Instead of going crazy over the sea levels rising for a milimeter, or so, rather worry that millions of children will grow up in even worse conditions than they do now in those places.

They wouldn't have grown up in those conditions if they were never born.

Also, it's not just "sea levels rising for a milimeter," it's droughts and floods and hurricanes.

We need more children growing up in develop countries to continue development, while the underdeveloped world is stabilized. We can reach the technological level to reverse or adapt to any changes, or even begin space colonialization

We've been promised that for decades now, and still haven't gotten it.

But you wish to condemn Western children for things that have no happened? Actually, the current birthrates mixed with clean energy and so on, already ensures a cleaner future, your entire argument is invalid.

That a few educated people have a lot of kids is not an argument either, it is a minor divergent from the trend of having less kids. I'd wish that they did, because those people can give more to their kids, kids with a better childhood will have more chances in life and ensure a better future for the rest of us. A wealthy person can support 5 children with ease, a poor one can not. The trend should at best be to have only as many children as you can afford to send to college and not even this should be enforced, as you'd want to do your thing, but rather proposed.


As for: "They wouldn't have grown up in those conditions if they were never born." You do realize I was talking about children in third world countries which are and will be the greatest victims of overpopulation there, right? So, what, you agree with me?
Like I've said, you going all despotic and lowering the birth rate in developed countries by force won't change much, but sending help, by means of free sexual protection and education on the matter to underdeveloped places will improve the situation drastically for them over time.

But, do enlighten me, how would you go on with your despotic measures? How do you wish to harras the parents of the developed world who already have birthrates below 2?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

In theory? Yeah. In practice, governments also pollute in dictatorships for reasons other than pandering to customers.

Note the context of my caveat.

Democracy isn't the best, but it's the best we have and what we can manitain.
Also, FYI, the biggest polluter is China, NOT a democracy.

And they pollute to sell goods to democracies.

[The Conez Imperium]

That....actually is a fair point.

I mean, it just seems weird to, on one hand, say the state has no business deciding who can have consensual sex while simultaneously thinking the state is the body that should legislate who can and cannot consent to sexual activity. It just seems very contradictory; a person should either hold both of the viewpoints or neither.

Well if we're talking about modern Western democracy. The judiciary, legislative and executive are split. The state isn't the judiciary in my belief. Moreover, the legislative and executive are directly responsible to the people so on principle, the state's prerogative is aligned to the citizenship's power.

[Kramania]

You're all f'd up. To put it simply: Europe for the Europeans, REMOVE KEBAB!!!

Counterpoint: Europe for the kebab, REMOVE EUROPEANS

You can eat kebab. You can't eat Europeans.

Yes you can.

[Kramania]

And no. Maoist policies don't work.

[Kramania]

Population reduction is one of many necessary things if we are serious about tackling global ecological disaster. Global 1 child policy pls.

Tell me, what happens to any extra children who are born?

[Valrifell]

Population reduction is one of many necessary things if we are serious about tackling global ecological disaster. Global 1 child policy pls.

Tell me, what happens to any extra children who are born?

Launched into space in groups of several thousands to kickstart space colonization, duh.

[Kramania]

Tell me, what happens to any extra children who are born?

Launched into space in groups of several thousands to kickstart space colonization, duh.

That doesn't conform to muh anarcho-primitivism.

They must be sent into the woods with only a knife and a day's worth of rations.

Whoever survives has earned their right to live.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Launched into space in groups of several thousands to kickstart space colonization, duh.

That doesn't conform to muh anarcho-primitivism.

They must be sent into the woods with only a knife and a day's worth of rations.

Whoever survives has earned their right to live.

>a knife

That's a product of civilization.

[Kramania]

That doesn't conform to muh anarcho-primitivism.

They must be sent into the woods with only a knife and a day's worth of rations.

Whoever survives has earned their right to live.

>a knife

That's a product of civilization.

My mistake.

A club made from a tree branch, then.

[Alvecia]

That doesn't conform to muh anarcho-primitivism.

They must be sent into the woods with only a knife and a day's worth of rations.

Whoever survives has earned their right to live.

>a knife

That's a product of civilization.

A particularly pointy stick?

Edit: Oooh, or just a rock. Can't go wrong with a nice rock.

[Minzerland II]

Population reduction is one of many necessary things if we are serious about tackling global ecological disaster. Global 1 child policy pls.

Tell me, what happens to any extra children who are born?

They are abandoned somewhere in Madagascar.

[Kramania]

Tell me, what happens to any extra children who are born?

They are abandoned somewhere in Madagascar.

Or they are hunted for their body parts like Albinos.

[Minzerland II]

They are abandoned somewhere in Madagascar.

Or they are hunted for their body parts like Albinos.

Sounds like a reasonable solution to the multiple child scourge to me!

[Luziyca]

In theory, it sounds like a good idea. But in practice, even if we imposed a single maximal limit on the world population, we all know the Sentinelese will respond to any attempts to enforce it with javelins and arrows thrown towards the enforcers' way.

[Torrocca]

Unless it's utterly detrimental to the environment, nah.

Also, what's this nonsense again about "Europe for Europeans" n shit?

[Katganistan]

It's ironic that he uses the two as synonyms when the message that ANYONE can be saved was a core tenet of both Christianity and Islam.

I never equated Europeans with Christianity in my original post. Again, putting words in my mouth. I do agree with you on that point, however. As for Islam, the sick man who founded this sick ideology married his 9 year old niece, thought that something that was choking him was an angel from God, and founded a violent ideology that spreads through lies, misinformation, enslavement, terror, and violent conquest. Read history and also the news for at least the last 20 or 30 years. The Koran states that if there are disagreements between earlier parts and later parts of the book, that the later parts trump. The later parts of the Koran are more violent than the earlier parts and encourage Muslims to deceive non-Muslims in order to further the cause of Islam. With all that in mind, I don't care if the evil Koran states that "ANYONE can be saved" because what they really mean is that ANYONE can be enslaved to this wicked, violent, false religion.

You can say pretty much the same about the Bible. Which was used to justify colonizing all over the continent of Africa and causing a great number of the problems there, by the way, and as justification for going into the Middle East and starting a number of wars called the Crusades.

Crack a history book open. You may find enlightenment.

[Donut section]

Personally we should stop the welfare state paying for poor people's kids. Stop importing people from failed cultures too.

[Valrifell]

Personally we should stop the welfare state paying for poor people's kids. Stop importing people from failed cultures too.

Importing people from "failed cultures" softens the problem tho. Since having more children isn't a neat cultural trick, it's more one that occurs in developing nations, the same thing happened during the Industrial Revolution in the West. So by leaving the "failed cultures" in their hovels, you're making the "problem" of overpopulation worse, not better.

Also, it's weird how you can find something as nebulous as "culture" to be something worth losing your shit over.

[Oil exporting People]

Importing people from "failed cultures" softens the problem tho. Since having more children isn't a neat cultural trick, it's more one that occurs in developing nations, the same thing happened during the Industrial Revolution in the West. So by leaving the "failed cultures" in their hovels, you're making the "problem" of overpopulation worse, not better. Also, it's weird how you can find something as nebulous as "culture" to be something worth losing your shit over.

We could take in 10 Million immigrants a year, and not make a dent in third world poverty but would succeed in wrecking our own standard of living in the process. The way I see it, either shut them out completely and let the Malthusian pressures work upon them or still keep them out but make colonial markets out of them again.

[Valrifell]

Importing people from "failed cultures" softens the problem tho. Since having more children isn't a neat cultural trick, it's more one that occurs in developing nations, the same thing happened during the Industrial Revolution in the West. So by leaving the "failed cultures" in their hovels, you're making the "problem" of overpopulation worse, not better. Also, it's weird how you can find something as nebulous as "culture" to be something worth losing your shit over.

We could take in 10 Million immigrants a year, and not make a dent in third world poverty but would succeed in wrecking our own standard of living in the process. The way I see it, either shut them out completely and let the Malthusian pressures work upon them or still keep them out but make colonial markets out of them again.

Well, any major population shift like that would reduce the standard of living for everyone, even if they were Norwegian, so that's a pretty moot point ya got there. The other two points don't really advocate for a "brotherhood of mankind" and, as such, I'm all against it. Plus, again, it doesn't solve the core problems being raised in this thread, developing nations will continue to pollute the shit out of the planet.

You seem confused, too. Developing nations can usually afford to feed large swathes of their populations, and are the ones contributing mostly to overpopulation (these are nations that are transitioning into an industrial economy), these are your Brazils, Chinas, and Indias of the world, and would continue to be like that after you do what you propose.

The places were most refugees come from, aren't nice places developing their economies. Their children aren't likely to live all that long, and aren't too likely to contribute. These are the nations collapsing by doing what you propose.

[Oil exporting People]

Well, any major population shift like that would reduce the standard of living for everyone, even if they were Norwegian, so that's a pretty moot point ya got there.

It's not a moot point because you admit it's factually correct; bringing them into our nations solves no problems but creates new ones.

The other two points don't really advocate for a "brotherhood of mankind" and, as such, I'm all against it. Plus, again, it doesn't solve the core problems being raised in this thread, developing nations will continue to pollute the shit out of the planet.

Allowing Malthusian constraints to work upon will reduce their population size, making it easier for them to adapt if they can and reduces overall pollution. Turning them back into colonial markets also gives them the ability to increase their living standards and thus reduce birthrates.

You seem confused, too. Developing nations can usually afford to feed large swathes of their populations, and are the ones contributing mostly to overpopulation (these are nations that are transitioning into an industrial economy), these are your Brazils, Chinas, and Indias of the world, and would continue to be like that after you do what you propose.

No, they typically can't as evidenced by the levels of food issues expressed by high levels of food insecurity and malnutrition. Furthermore, the typical transition into industrial economies simply isn't going to exist within a few decades, so you're back to square one. To this end, going the colonial market path is probably the best, as it allows them to skip Industrialization and go straight to Services after the colonial period ends.

The places were most refugees come from, aren't nice places developing their economies. Their children aren't likely to live all that long, and aren't too likely to contribute. These are the nations collapsing by doing what you propose.

What?

[Shazbotdom]

You want to be some sort of dictatorship that limits the number of kids a couple can have, do it on an uninhabited island in the middle of the ocean, thank you very much.