Overpopulation

How should overpopulation be dealt with?

Natures natural adjustment mechanism is disease. But that is being interfered with. People are living longer than ever due to advancements in medicine so much so that it isn't sustainable anymore.

But where is overpopulation a severe problem?

over population is only a problem in the third world.  When woman are educated and have rights, they also have fewer children.  Industrialized cultures with legal protections for women against discrimination +ALL+ have shrinking populations because their birthrates are lower than their death rate.

Simple answer, the solution to overpopulation is to bring everyone else into the 21st century like the rest of us.

War.

overpopulation is everywhere a problem
ok, maybe not for the ulra huge countries like the US, russia, canada and kazakhstan but everyone else suffers from it
nonstop reproducing idiots is why european social systems fail
you can't even get out in the nature here because every patch of land has been idustrialized and is off limits
my solution would be cutting the welfare for all the families who get more than one child and let these leeches die off

>>5
My solution would be putting bullets in assholes like you.

>>6
Why? Because he disagrees with your Marxist agenda?

Nature doesn't have an adjustment mechanism, this implies it was engineered which is a philosophical matter and not a scientific one. If god (or allah, buddha, new age bullshit or whatever) exists then I am pretty sure they have created this universe for the express purpose of us being rational and using science to solve problems, or they would have not engineered it in such a manner as to suggest this, so for the sake of argument we should be investigating it's nature rather than it's creator. It appears human population is affected by an enormous array of factors and we have no one single totalizing theory that can explain it all, we can only identify various trends and look into the main causes to reduce the impact of overpopulation and this is what civilisations have been doing to some extent for 1000s of years.

Disease was omnipresent in medieval societies and famine had to occur before disease had an impact like the black death or the justinian plague, so while your initial observation is not wrong it does not explain everything, other factors include the inclination of poor couples to have large families, prohibitions and poor access to contraception aswell as factors that reduce the ability to supply the population such as drought, war or oppressive regimes using starvation to pacify a population. For the most part a malthusian catastrophe is an oversimplification, of course he did not factor in changes in technology but he also did not factor in the gradual decrease in the rate of increase of food and the varying levels of health in a community which results in increased death rates among the very young and very old as the food supply steadily decreases, however like your idea OP I also accept it as a small factor, a baby boom results in a youth bulge (imagine a population/age graph here) that gets hungrier as it gets older which is indeed yet another factor even if it is neutered by new food production technology.

So what is the most major factor? Technology of course, and the resources needed to utilise it aswell I suppose, sooner or later technological advancement will slow down and resources will be depleted making the opposing factors I've mentioned more and more noticeable which means society will have to focus on the allied factors.

>>2
In 50 or so years there will be more pensioners than working people in the UK.

>>9

Just means the workers will have 2 asses to wipe each while making burgers, collecting rubbish and planning a good euthanasia program?

>>9
That's not an overpopulation problem, that's a social program failure.

>>10
Wishful thinking but current law is against euthanasia.

Btw would you call China 3rd world?

OVERPOPULATE MY ANUS

>>11
>implying any kind of social program can succeed

>>14
>implying
Back to the imageboards, please

>>12

That's why it is necessary to plan and implement.

I didn't make any comments on any nation being any kind of grade lol. China, never been there... it might fit somewhere in the gray?

Yes, if we mean to live developed world standards of living, we are overpopulated by some 3-4 billion people. A large number of those are Africans in imploded countries and Indians(/China, but better managed).

Neutron bombs over Africa and the Middle East would sort a lot of our problems right out. Force India to have a 1 child policy, too

>>17
So edgy! ^_^

>>18
Not really. If we are overpopulated by several billion and those billions will inevitably starve to death because this is a dog eat dog world, it might actually be more humane to neutron bomb them.

Not saying it is the best solution, just saying.

>>19

it seems like 80% of people don't understand cruel sympathy. I'm glad 19 does. Death via starvation and war < Neutron bomb. Like lending more money to someone in debt so they are super fucked instead of half fucked is another. Or telling a girl that a guy actually does like her, just doesn't know how to show it (saves her feelings now and makes it worse later, Cruel Sympathy! Libs love it)

Well the bomb would wipe a slate clean, but it still doesn't get to the ROOT of the issue. Birth.  and this can be controlled with birth control -  forced. via food, water, chem trails or crop sprays, or "medication." Its a big job.  If people aren't able to have kids, the population won't grow or atleast slow significantly. 

Other than that, throw in a new engineered disease once every year with a pricey $$vaccine$$ to cure it and you've got it made.

Start with Africa, minor SE asia, and mid east. but keep China and India, they make all our shit. chinese girls are hawwt too

Birth rates - http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_bir_rat-people-birth-rate

The top tier wealthiest people in the world already have this worked out and its already been implemented.

>>21

Agreed. Killing is cruel--but preventing life isn't necessarily. It still isn't perfectly ideal, but creating a way to make it so many are inable to procreate in a way that doesn't interfere with basic freedoms--this may be best.

the more developed a country = lower birth rate

solution to over population? either develop the third world, or ignore it. i could go either way.

>>23
So global capitalism would be a good thing then.

>>24
Global state controlled capitalism, yes.

>>21

You said that a bomb doesn't go to the root of the problem, but blowing up all those with culture and genetics causing massssss over population would make the world only really hold people who had more reasonable birthrates.

>>25
How would you define what should be controlled or regulated by the state and what should remain in private hands?

>>27
I myself wouldn't know how to make those decisions, but state controlled capitalism is how they're going to do accomplish that. It's also known by other names, corporatism and if one wants to be nasty about it, fascism.

No.  Bad, /pol/, bad.  You do not go around arbitrarily killing people.

>>29
^* /newpol/

And don't worry, we're just a bunch of no-nothings and a couple Stormfags.

>>24
yes globalization is a very good thing. the largest pool in which to trade goods and services will achieve the most efficient use of resources in production.

>>31
You sound like one of those talking parrots that keeps saying that globalization is such a good thing without saying much.

>>32
I've yet to see globalization accomplish any one significant, good thing.

>>33
Free trade.

>>34
Where?

>>34
Haha, that's a laugh. Nothing 'free' about it.

>>35
Everywhere except countries that have tariffs, goods from these countries will be taxed equal to the amount they tax from world trade until they realise it's pointless.
>>36
Yes it is, people would be able to trade how they want without interference.

>>37
No, I mean "where" as in "what nations?"  In what nations do their governments play an insignificant or nonexistent role, neither managerial nor representative, in its trade?

I know. Put mercury and formaldehyde in the flu vaccines, genetically modify the majority of foods as well as putting preservatives and other cancer inducing chemicals in them, such as aspartame and sodium nitrite, put fluoride in the water supply as well as allow pesticides & pharmaceuticals to be in the water, and spray chemicals such as barium salts and aluminum oxides all throughout the atmosphere... oh wait all that stuffs already being done. i got nuthin

>>39
lern2 chemistry

Let's start world war 3. Too many americunts now a days are too fat and thus become easier targets. Too much junk food and video games for you AmeriKKKa. Enjoy your freedom while it lasts ;p

Who says there is overpopulation? We have all the technology, energy, and water it would take to sustain a hundred billion or more Humans and their animals and even much of their lifestyle. The oceans alone are being mismanaged to the tune of trillions of calories annually.

The problem is not 'over-population.'
It is, basically, 'under-education.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdGpIc7fZYg

We have to cultivate, through education, a culture and economy that is stable, sustainable, and growing. As for genetic purity and such, it's all irrelevant. Cultural purity is all that matters. Intellectual purity. And I'll tell you why: in fifty years, we're going to be able to stop dying off and upload our consciousness into synthetic bodies. Believe it; it's inevitable. If not this generation, then the next one. I intend to be among the first Humans to outlive death.

>>42
sustain a hundred billion or more Humansm.
upload our consciousness into synthetic bodies
You obviously don't know much about science or you would not have not made the first statement.

there should be an efficient birth control rate mechanism with world wide range, since more people consume more resources which are become increasingly rare. Will this ever happen? no.

tl; dr: we are doomed.

>>42
I've never met a singularity nut who actually knew anything about science.

If you don't let Africans and Asians run away from their crowded countries, they will be forced to deal with themselves.

China mode for all of them. Gradually fading fascism beats environment raping anarchy.

Eugenics and sterilization.

>>47
Those things are only possible in places with society and government, and the only population problem civilized places have are the hordes of "environment raping anarchists" whining in swarms to replace them and take their stuff because they wanna.

Liberals promote abortion to kill as many white babies as they can. Then, they invite every pregnant illegal alien they can find to come over here and mass produce warfare babies as fast as they can.   

So sad, but I do like tacos.

ITT: retards.

>>50
IAT: retards.

Good point. But some threads run thick with it.

forced eugenics

Genocide the Muslims nations. Deport excess people there. Problem solved.

Kill all the stupid people.  Such as the idiot on the end of the phone who responds to your amending a contract *before* signing it with "That's a legal document, you can't change it!", and crossing out a bit which happens to mention statute with "But that's a statutory thing!"; or the people that, when you've read out a calculation of an account, with all the debits and credits, and they say "but it doesn't work that way", or who tell you "0.02 cents = 0.02 dollars".  For the same of the humanity, those people need to be out of the gene pool, we can't afford the risk that they'll pass their stupid gene onto their offspring.  Then kill all the Brazilians because fuck Brazil.

>>3
>>42
These seem to be the only people that get it.

We need to pull these cave-people into the 21st century. Whether they like it or not. Denying that their tribal-music and denying that their religion exists isn't enough.
Their tribal music and religion must be thrown into the fire.

http://ladyatheist.blogspot.com/2012/11/bill-oreilly-says-christianity-is-not.html

The problem isn't with overpopulation itself, but rather, lack of investment into those new offspring. A civilized white man and white woman would have 1-2 kids, in which they would invest heavily, get them into college, etc. An unruly negroid skank sleeps around, has 10 kids and doesn't give a damn about them.

Africa not only outputs the most population growth, but it outputs the most retarded offspring than any other continent on the planet. Negroids in Africa have average IQ of 70.

I think to address the problem of overpopulation, we must sterilize all negroids with IQs below 95.

Just my two cents on the subject...

>>57
Evolution is the drive to produce more offsprings, not the drive to produce most intelligent offsprings. If you think your IQ gives your advantage, then use it to produce more offsprings than competing species.

So the question is as always: if you're so smart, why are you so poor and your potential girlfriend prefers having sex with niggers instead?

>>56
David Silverman, President of American Atheists
Why do all Jews have names with "Silver" and "Gold" in them?

Sometimes I think Jews are being too honest by admitting "we love only three things: gold, gold and gold".

Then again, how can Jew be an "atheist" and at the same time say "I'm God's chosen and the this land was give to us by God, so we have more rights to it than goyim."

I sense hypocrisy. It's like Ayn Rand opposing altruism and at the same time expressing altruism towards Jewish people.

>>58
Yes, evolution works that way and yes women are attracted to niggers. That's why the future of humanity looks bleak. No more moon landings, no Mars exploration, no more innovation in science... well, unless East Asians get their shit together and do it.

We could have stopped it by deporting all shitskins back to where they came from. In case, we chose a new dark age (pun not intended).

>>60
Judaism is a religion, however, Yids are an ethnic group (or so they say)

>>61
Anyway, this Silverman talks mostly about evil Christianity suffocating all other religions, including his beloved Judaism. I.e. we already have Christfaggotry to deal with and Silverman wants to spawn even more bullshit sect. He will likely support Islam and wearing hijab.

Convincing white middle classes to have less kids won't solve the real problem, the families having 8 kids in third world countries.

It seems odd that you would specifically target white middle classes, maybe you'd like to explain to us the prejudice behind this.

I'm waiting.

>>63
It's obvious that has an irrational hatred towards white people as most people these days (including many whites) seem to. It's just like that time the British media condemned a white family for having 3 kids (if I remember correctly), calling it unsustainable and bad for the environment, while the average Muslim there has about 5 kids.

>>63-64
I don't think a family having three kids is unreasonable, but there's a correlation between how fundamental your religious beliefs and how many offspring you produce, a sizable proportion of the Muslim population hold fundamentalist Islamist beliefs, hence the large families. It was the same (and in some cases, still that way) for Catholics about two generations ago.

All we have to do is let Iran finish their nuclear program. That will solve the overpopulation problem for sure.

>>65
I know right, natural selection will kill off the feminists who die childless in the cities, ex-communist countries seem to have far lower birth rates as swell.

It just isn't right that it had to be the first race to achieve great wealth that was the first to fall prey to decadence and self-destruction, at least the asians and remaining whites won't make the same mistake after the genocide is complete. You can be sure that the future will not be bright, they will not be so compassionate towards the lesser races and they will be looking carefully at what happened to the western white.

>>67
Umm.. okay.

>>68
Resource depletion, climate change, overpopulation, they are all happening.

If you grow old you will see it.

over-population is a fucking hoax! if you believe in it, carry out your mission on yourself faggot.

You've got to wonder when the last time a person who talks about overpopulation went into the country side.

Well overpopulation is real problem only in the third world, so the solution is that those living in developing countries must be exterminated. Problem is that our capitalist system is running by the slave power that is provided by the people living in the third world, so if those people suddenly die, western civilization will collapse.

>>71
Yes, there is a lot of space in the Sahara and Antarctica, why don't we move the excess billions there?

>>70
I'm not the problem, I'm not having 8 kids I can't feed.

>>72
You're joking but it is an interesting thought. Somalia has similar terrain to the deserts of Australia, yet compare standards of living.

>>73
Nice straw man, bro. Also, "billions"? lol

>>76
Remember, you said "HURR THERE IS LOTS OF SPACE IN THE COUNTRYSIDE THERE IS NO OVERPOPULATION" earlier, so it is not a strawman.

This is what you actually believe.

>>77
No, it is a straw man and you should be embarrassed to insist otherwise. The countryside =/= the fucking desert/tundra. Unless you're posting from the fucking North Pole your countryside is probably green hills, ripe for development. And unless you live in India or Japan, you haven't even the faintest clue of what overpopulation is.

>>78
So you think your small brain and soft eyeballs glancing momentarily at the countryside through a car window fully illuminates you to the economic situation and various problems that we will face in the future like resource depletion and climate change.

DURR THAT'S A BIG FIELD IT COULD FEED 50 BILLION PEOPLE

Besides, overpopulation begins at the point when people have to lower their standards of living just to increase the population, not the point where people start to starve. Sure, we could fit 50 billion people on the planet if everyone subsisted on rations of lentils but that would be a horrific dystopia that only some kind of psychopath would actually want.

>>79
You're still putting words into my mouth, resorting to straw man arguments. Please come back when you've grow up a bit.

>>80
You directly stated this.
You've got to wonder when the last time a person who talks about overpopulation went into the country side.

You think taking a leisurely glance at the countryside disproves overpopulation, as though space is the only requisite to preventing overpopulation.

If this is not the case then it's because you can't piece together a logical argument and there is no telling what the fuck you're trying to say.

Let's stop calling it a "over-population" and call it what it really is: Delicious food is expensive and scarce.

>>82
America alone throws away 40% of all food it produces. Food is not scarce, we have way more than we need or use and we've have even more if we could undo the damage of "organic" food lobbyists.

http://www.nrdc.org/food/files/wasted-food-IP.pdf

Diseases are adjusting themselves to deal with our medicine; I think what remains is that sanitary conditions have improved and that is what truly stops the spread of disease.

Overpopulation is an obvious result of longer lives. I see the solution coming via virtual reality. Eventually conscious will be separated and stored on networks. Human bodies may be preserved (the reality is only few would be kept for a long time). It gives everyone the best way out; to have their own individual reality which is equally as hollow and meaningless as what we created.

It's tragic, perfect, and not overly far-fetched.

>>82
>>83
Waste and excess doesn't change the fact that too high populations will result in a reduction in standards of living. They are 2 separate factors.

Anyway, frivolous spending on food which then sits in the fridge until it is past its sell by date is human nature, just like sex, you can't change human nature but you can invent things to compensate for human nature. This is where the difference lies, we have few solutions for laziness but we have solutions for sex, just by getting Africans to use rubbers we could prevent an enormous amount of suffering.

>>8
Nature doesn't have an adjustment mechanism, this implies it was engineered which is a philosophical matter and not a scientific one. If god (or allah, buddha, new age bullshit or whatever) exists then I am pretty sure they have created this universe for the express purpose of us being rational and using science to solve problems, or they would have not engineered it in such a manner as to suggest this, so for the sake of argument we should be investigating it's nature rather than it's creator.
That's another problem, since the religious folks are the ones that are continually repopulating at an increasing rate. How many of them would be fundamentalists and reject rationalism and science, I have no idea, but to be sure it's going to be a rather large chunk of that group.
other factors include the inclination of poor couples to have large families, prohibitions and poor access to contraception aswell as factors that reduce the ability to supply the population such as drought, war or oppressive regimes using starvation to pacify a population.
I'm not sure how much it would cost to produce, but there's environmental factors involved when it comes to disposal of birth control and whatnot. There really doesn't seem to be a way around it. You'll get called a monster if you suggest to cease all aid to third-world countries, which I would not disagree, but this population boom is vastly unsustainable in the long-term.

It sounds like now would be a good time to seriously consider colonizing other celestial bodies in space, and subsidizing national space programs have vastly increased technological advances in the past. There also needs to be a hold on privatization of certain industries as well since that has killed R&D big time.

>>69
Resource depletion, climate change, overpopulation, they are all happening.
Well, of course they are. No person with a sane opinion on the matter is denying that.
If you grow old you will see it.
Only if current trends continue.

It's not really overpopulation per se, it's over consumption which leads to over pollution. Land is plenty, modern farming can make food a non problem. It's western countries that need to downsize their appetite.