Should there be limits on breeding?

[Stellonia]

Right now, the western world is making babies regardless of the environmental consequences, partly because they want to, but partly to compete with Middle Eastern immigrants who are making babies of their own.

Some have suggested that the alternative is to stop taking in Middle Eastern immigrants in the first place. But this would doom them to a life of poverty and war. Why not just place limits on the number of children you can have, regardless of race, so that the Middle Eastern immigrants can't outbreed the locals, and the environment will be better protected from us humans?

The vast majority of reproduction in the West is not motivated by some desire to "compete" with non-whites to avoid being outbred. Currently, that is not a problem, and it is unlikely that persons of Middle Eastern descent will outnumber whites any time soon, even if the birth rates for Middle Easterners do not decline (and they will substantially after a couple of generations).

[Shrive]

Canada (my country) is pretty vacant- but I don't think bulldozing entire ecosystems unique to my country is a solution. However, neither is baby caps.

Maybe we could try better environmental initiatives and space colonization. The Moon, Mars, and the Clouds of Venus have plenty of space. Later on, Mercury and the Gas Giants have space, and if we need to, the Ice Giants and Kuiper Belt are spacious enough and if we get to the point where the entire solar system can't support us we probably have enough people to come up with FTL or even super-fast or arc-style Starships

[Trumptonium]

I guess I should have seen this coming... "muh great replacement" leading people to embrace Maoist reproductive policies.

Great replacement isn't a meme, there are large parts of Europe where demographic trends have non-natives replacing natives within a few generations. Though I don't think this is all due to Middle Eastern migration, but also due to Polish and Eastern European migration.

Nonsensical - Poles have one of the lowest fertility rates in Europe. They do not increase even with emigration to better standards of living.

Fertility rates of Poles in Germany and the UK are actually lower than Poles in Poland.

[Oil exporting People]

Migrant background =/= Middle east.
Maybe watch the video?

How many Poles have Sickle Cell anemia?

[MERIZoC]

Imagine thinking that this is a bigger issue than mass desertification, huge increases in violent storms and fires, and low-lying countries being absorbed into the ocean.

All of those are massive issues, yes, which can also be solved without depleting the human population.

It is highly unlikely. Certainly not if you also want better living standards. We cannot continue to both produce more and grow more.

[MERIZoC]

Imagine thinking that this is a bigger issue than mass desertification

Which isn't happening, for the record. Actually, quite the reverse is.

Complete nonsense.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0034-4

[Valrifell]

All of those are massive issues, yes, which can also be solved without depleting the human population.

It is highly unlikely. Certainly not if you also want better living standards. We cannot continue to both produce more and grow more.

You make it sound as if we're using the Earth's surface to capacity. Which we are not, we could totally settle all of the planet's human population on the planet comfortably, and that would just require re-location instead of mass genocide or one-child policies.

[Oil exporting People]

Complete nonsense.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0034-4

Not at all, as the deserts of Africa are rapidly in bloom and the Outback in Australia has become a global carbon sink due to new plant growth.

[Valdia01]

Right now, the western world is making babies regardless of the environmental consequences, partly because they want to, but partly to compete with Middle Eastern immigrants who are making babies of their own.

Some have suggested that the alternative is to stop taking in Middle Eastern immigrants in the first place. But this would doom them to a life of poverty and war. Why not just place limits on the number of children you can have, regardless of race, so that the Middle Eastern immigrants can't outbreed the locals, and the environment will be better protected from us humans?

The solution is to stop taking in so damn refuges, its not the resposibility of the west to fix everybodys problems

[Kazarogkai]

No

Overpopulation is a myth invented and spread by foreign scum with the aid of Neo-Malthusian crap with the ultimate goal being the destruction of my nation and it's replacement with the foreign enemy who wish to take what we have gained via the right of might because they are too weak and pathetic to do the same. Hence they spread this corruption, this evil through the minds of my people so that while in the process of infiltrating are land it will be far easier to out breed us and ultimately take what is ours via underhanded tactics. All efforts should be done to prevent this from occurring at all costs for failure will mean our extinction. So no, there should be no limits to breeding instead the opposite should occur. Parental leave to allow parents to spend more time with their children without fear of losing their job, government funded preschool and tertiary education to allow said children to reach their maximum potential without having their parents break the bank, a negative income tax provided for families so that no child has to grow up in poverty, an increase in the minimum wage so that people are more able to care for families in the first place, and finally but not least a large scale public propaganda effort to demonize and out these modern neo-Malthusian and "environmentalist" to show them for what they really are; traitors deserving nothing but condemnation and public shunning and potentially if necessary forced reeducation into a higher form of education and thought. This is only the tip of the iceberg for what is necessary to save this nation from the many issues affecting us but for now it will be enough.

Rant complete

*Steps off the soap box and heads home to eat a sandwich*

[Novowarsawianka]

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

Not an option. Sure, the impoverished should have less children for their own good, but we should encourage intellectual and qualified people to breed more. No one should be forced into it, but poorer countries, like India and all of sub Saharan Africa, should really consider forcing a limit.

[MERIZoC]

It is highly unlikely. Certainly not if you also want better living standards. We cannot continue to both produce more and grow more.

You make it sound as if we're using the Earth's surface to capacity. Which we are not, we could totally settle all of the planet's human population on the planet comfortably, and that would just require re-location instead of mass genocide or one-child policies.

I'm not sure how "to capacity" is relevant. Fact of the matter is, we produce far too much carbon to be sustainable. Reversing this requires serious cutbacks on population and consumption.

[Valrifell]

Right now, the western world is making babies regardless of the environmental consequences, partly because they want to, but partly to compete with Middle Eastern immigrants who are making babies of their own.

Some have suggested that the alternative is to stop taking in Middle Eastern immigrants in the first place. But this would doom them to a life of poverty and war. Why not just place limits on the number of children you can have, regardless of race, so that the Middle Eastern immigrants can't outbreed the locals, and the environment will be better protected from us humans?

The solution is to stop taking in so damn refuges, its not the resposibility of the west to fix everybodys problems

No, but it'd be nice to contribute to a better status of the human race as a whole.

If only for bragging rights.

[MERIZoC]

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

Not an option. Sure, the impoverished should have less children for their own good, but we should encourage intellectual and qualified people to breed more. No one should be forced into it, but poorer countries, like India and all of sub Saharan Africa, should really consider forcing a limit.

Poorer countries are not the problem. Those in wealthy countries produce much more carbon per capita. Population reduction needs to start with them.

[Katganistan]

Right now, the western world is making babies regardless of the environmental consequences, partly because they want to, but partly to compete with Middle Eastern immigrants who are making babies of their own.

Some have suggested that the alternative is to stop taking in Middle Eastern immigrants in the first place. But this would doom them to a life of poverty and war. Why not just place limits on the number of children you can have, regardless of race, so that the Middle Eastern immigrants can't outbreed the locals, and the environment will be better protected from us humans?

1) The number of children we are having in the US regardless of ethnicity or race are already below the replacement rate.
2) How Orwellian, placing bans on how many children one can have.

In case you didn't get it from those two snippets: NO.

[MERIZoC]

Complete nonsense.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-017-0034-4

Not at all, as the deserts of Africa are rapidly in bloom

And there is drought in the US, wildfires in Europe. Almost like different things can change in different ways. Some vegetation growth on the outer reaches of the Sahara does not disprove countless projections of acidification.

and the Outback in Australia has become a global carbon sink due to new plant growth.

Which is a complete non-sequitur to the conversation.

[Katganistan]

Well, that would be
1. Hard to Enforce: I mean, are we going to have a single officer in every single house, to see how many times couples have sex?
2. Baby Genocide (Sexist Baby Genocide): Boys would probably be placed over girls, meaning that a whole bunch of babies would be killed
and
3. Crazy: The Human race would eventually die out, because one child, producing one child is a reverse pyramid, where there will eventually be only one left.

1. No, only sterilize after a given number of babies born. Or offer a choice between that and abortion.

2. Only in China. The western world finds little girls cuter than little boys.

3. I didn't say it had to be a one-child policy.

1. Sterilize them? Ugh, just say no to eugenics.
2. Ha. Ha ha ha ha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.,. oh wait, you're serious?
3. It's a stupid policy, and ignores the fact that much of the western world has fallen below the replacement rate.

[Novowarsawianka]

Not an option. Sure, the impoverished should have less children for their own good, but we should encourage intellectual and qualified people to breed more. No one should be forced into it, but poorer countries, like India and all of sub Saharan Africa, should really consider forcing a limit.

Poorer countries are not the problem. Those in wealthy countries produce much more carbon per capita. Population reduction needs to start with them.

Irrelevant, most scientific progress stems from those nations, so they have more rights to continue as they are. On the other hand, Africa will in decades escalate and could hit 4 billion, which would be catastrophic for them.
Western countries already breed in what could be said to be ideal rates, while countries like Mali have a birthrate of 5.0.

[Kenmoria]

You make it sound as if we're using the Earth's surface to capacity. Which we are not, we could totally settle all of the planet's human population on the planet comfortably, and that would just require re-location instead of mass genocide or one-child policies.

I'm not sure how "to capacity" is relevant. Fact of the matter is, we produce far too much carbon to be sustainable. Reversing this requires serious cutbacks on population and or consumption.

I've fixed that for you. There are much better alternatives than enacting an Orwellian policy to tackle carbon output.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

2. Only in China. The western world finds little girls cuter than little boys.

Girls have cooties.

[MERIZoC]

Poorer countries are not the problem. Those in wealthy countries produce much more carbon per capita. Population reduction needs to start with them.

Irrelevant, most scientific progress stems from those nations, so they have more rights to continue as they are. On the other hand, Africa will in decades escalate and could hit 4 billion, which would be catastrophic for them.
Western countries already breed in what could be said to be ideal rates, while countries like Mali have a birthrate of 5.0.

"the rights" lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:CO2_per_capita_per_country.png

Not like this they don't. By the 2011 numbers, an American is more than 160 times more destructive than a Malian. It's clear who the problem is, and here's a hint—its not the subsistence farmer.

[Oil exporting People]

And there is drought in the US, wildfires in Europe. Almost like different things can change in different ways. Some vegetation growth on the outer reaches of the Sahara does not disprove countless projections of acidification.

We're not talking "some", we're actually talking Green Sahara here long term, which has been confirmed by various models.

Which is a complete non-sequitur to the conversation.

One of the world's largest deserts seeing nearly 10% more vegetation growth since 1981 and becoming one of the major global carbon sinks isn't relevant to the question of desertification? Be serious.

[Oil exporting People]

1. Sterilize them? Ugh, just say no to eugenics.
2. Ha. Ha ha ha ha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.,. oh wait, you're serious?
3. It's a stupid policy, and ignores the fact that much of the western world has fallen below the replacement rate.

Sarcasm is not a replacement for an argument, and you should know this by now.

[Katganistan]

1. Sterilize them? Ugh, just say no to eugenics.
2. Ha. Ha ha ha ha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.,. oh wait, you're serious?
3. It's a stupid policy, and ignores the fact that much of the western world has fallen below the replacement rate.

Sarcasm is not a replacement for an argument, and you should know this by now.

Yes, mother. Ignore the actual arguments I already made just so you can scold me for the absolutely appropriate response to a silly statement.

Should I go to my room without supper, or just dessert?

[Novowarsawianka]

Irrelevant, most scientific progress stems from those nations, so they have more rights to continue as they are. On the other hand, Africa will in decades escalate and could hit 4 billion, which would be catastrophic for them.
Western countries already breed in what could be said to be ideal rates, while countries like Mali have a birthrate of 5.0.

"the rights" lol

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:CO2_per_capita_per_country.png

Not like this they don't. By the 2011 numbers, an American is more than 160 times more destructive than a Malian. It's clear who the problem is, and here's a hint—its not the subsistence farmer.

But the subsistence farmer is utterly irrelevant to the human race. All those huge emitters of carbon? All of them are the centres of scientific progress.
If we progress, we might be able to reach such a level where we can reverse adverse effects to nature or leave the planet.