Ethical Depopulation Could Save the Planet

The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic.

monckton wrote:
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours." - Anne Coulter, making references to Dominionism and Genesis 1:28, on Hannity & Colmes....

litesong wrote:

monckton wrote:
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, "Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours." - Anne Coulter, making references to Dominionism and Genesis 1:28, on Hannity & Colmes....

Ah.... the gospel of Anne Coulter. Its not that all humanity gets to rape the Earth. Its only the most virulent & egotistically rich who get to pillage the Earth & who will NOT examine the non-sustainable methods of wealth production that is destroying LIFE production.

GasGuzzler wrote:

The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic.

...and yet so many millions CHOOSE to live in the city. I lived in the city for 25 years. I CHOSE to get out. I built a new 1750 sq ft home in 2005 on 5 acres and my total expense was $135,000. FAR cheaper than the same house in town. I'm 20 minutes from a city of 150k people. It is NOT affordability issue. It is a CHOICE. Some people love the city. I don't.

I suspect you feel trapped in a large city and feel like a few thousand people should die to give you some elbow room. No?

Into the Night wrote:

litesong wrote: Ah.... the gospel of Anne Coulter. Its not that all humanity gets to rape the Earth. Its only the most virulent & egotistically rich who get to pillage the Earth & who will NOT examine the non-sustainable methods of wealth production that is destroying LIFE production.

I guess that's why the population is increasing, eh?

GasGuzzler wrote:...and yet so many millions CHOOSE to live in the city ... It is NOT affordability issue. It is a CHOICE. Some people love the city ...

Robertgreene3 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic.

...and yet so many millions CHOOSE to live in the city. I lived in the city for 25 years. I CHOSE to get out. I built a new 1750 sq ft home in 2005 on 5 acres and my total expense was $135,000. FAR cheaper than the same house in town. I'm 20 minutes from a city of 150k people. It is NOT affordability issue. It is a CHOICE. Some people love the city. I don't.

I suspect you feel trapped in a large city and feel like a few thousand people should die to give you some elbow room. No?

I never said we should murder people. I'm talking about ethical depopulation. Finding ethical ways to lower the birthrate, and letting the old people die out.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
Adults choose to be in cities, but their children don't. Children have a right to nature.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
While mom and dad are stuck at work, the children come home after school, and are stuck in mega-suburbs.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
The developers got greedy. They built hundreds of houses without a park in sight. It's easy for the parents, to get in a car and drive to a nice park. The kids are left on their bicycles, trying to find a nice spot to hang out.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
This is the environment, we force our children to grow up in.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
Children deserve access to nature.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
Instead of letting them play in nature, we give them video games to keep them busy.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
We need to reforest the cities, in as many places as possible.
There should be an empty lot with trees, on the end of every street.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
We need to start retrofitting suburbs for future generations.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
Suburban parks should have botanical gardens, not just empty soccer fields with a swing set.

litesong wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

litesong wrote: Ah.... the gospel of Anne Coulter. Its not that all humanity gets to rape the Earth. Its only the most virulent & egotistically rich who get to pillage the Earth & who will NOT examine the non-sustainable methods of wealth production that is destroying LIFE production.

I guess that's why the population is increasing, eh?

So, when I mention LIFE production, "badnight" assumed I meant only the humans.... & NOT the humans which ARE decreasing in parts of the world.... like kids who die because they live too close to clogged & diesel blowing stop & not-go freeways (what a misnomer).

monckton wrote:
It's highly flammable?

Tent Cities Full Of Homeless People Are Booming In Cities All Over America As Poverty Spikes
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-12/tent-cities-full-homeless-people-are-booming-cities-all-over-america-poverty-spikes

I don't know why you're calling me a liberal.
I might think Trumps an idiot but I'm glad he won because Hilary would have been worse.
There's only two types of politicians in the US, good liars, and bare-faced liars.
Like Trump and the Republicans.

You know where you are with a bare-faced liar.
But a weasel like Clinton or Obama, same shit but everyones smiling.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whinier badnight" bluffs, bellows & buffaloes: Nobody dies because they live close to a freeway, dumbass.

Into the Night wrote:Possibly because you are advocating for more government and ignoring a republican form of government. Since the United States is organized as a federated republic, what you are advocating is discarding the republic for your utopia.

monckton wrote:

Into the Night wrote:Possibly because you are advocating for more government and ignoring a republican form of government. Since the United States is organized as a federated republic, what you are advocating is discarding the republic for your utopia.

Sometimes people need to get organised and the coordination and will needs to come from the top.

monckton wrote:
We are currently, in what many are calling, a climate emergency.

monckton wrote:
Think of it as launching a ship. The ship has started to move.

monckton wrote:
The only adequate response to the situation will require a level of international cooperation and yeah, to be honest, in some ways sacrifice (stop chasing the dream), that we have not seen since world war 2.

monckton wrote:
But don't worry, I can't see it happening.

monckton wrote:
And hell, I might be wrong along with thousands of scientists and the majority of public opinion, and its all a Chinese plot, the PR firms, paid to lie, were right all along.

monckton wrote:
Jesus Christ I may as well wear black robes and carry a scythe.
And I'm not talking Amish preacher.

I think it's too late for any policy to take effect quicker than nature will itself.
Population blooms are well understood and we have bloomed.
Sure maybe we can carry on for a while, 10 billion, 15 billion, living in a world where there's 10 of you round the dinner table taking turns sharing the family spoon handed down through generations.
A real wooden one, pre-internet!

Yes worse than Mad Max, a post apocalyptic dystopian dreamworld, still able to offer a one man one spoon minimum standard of living.

Think of something clever to say, useful to future generations.
Chisel it into a stone, and bury it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7lMlz3DX_Q

Tim the plumber wrote:
You are stupid and evil.

There is no reason why we need to reduce population.

The best way we can ensure that humanity is rich and sucessful is to ensure that the world has lots of economically involved, educated people in it not being told a load of lies by deranged idiots with a doom cult fixation.

monckton wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
You are stupid and evil.

There is no reason why we need to reduce population.

The best way we can ensure that humanity is rich and sucessful is to ensure that the world has lots of economically involved, educated people in it not being told a load of lies by deranged idiots with a doom cult fixation.

Well round them up and get them to post here.
Coz there's f**king nobody on this forum haven't you noticed?
Just a skeleton crew of denial squatters batting bullshit back and forth.
There's barely enough for online poker.

And furthermore...

PURE EVIL if you don't mind.
I'm putting work into this!

Tim the plumber wrote:
Genghis Khan put work into it.

Did not stop his killings being evil.

That you are incapable of looking at the maths of the situation, that you are incapable of saying what it is you think will actaully cause problems and backing it with actual science means you are just posting your wish list.

Your wish list is to kill off most people on earth. Evil.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
Ethical depopulation has nothing to do with murder. This debate should be about finding ethical solutions that can help lower the birthrate, while the old people naturally die off...

monckton wrote:
I'm with you, but good luck getting any sensible engagement here.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
Ethical depopulation has nothing to do with murder. This debate should be about finding ethical solutions that can help lower the birthrate, while the old people naturally die off. Condoms is a form of ethical depopulation. Education is a form of ethical depopulation. Wide-scale vasectomies could be a form of ethical depopulation. Depopulation can be gradual, so that in 1000 years humans use far less land. Large-scale reforestation can take place over time, as demand for food decreases. No more mega-cities with 20 million. Sustainable living on a smaller scale. Why not be creative and add to this list?

Here is Richard Nixon talking about overpopulation of cities in 1967.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KG_K3hWEwU

Robertgreene3 wrote:
The modern Canadian suburb. Is this luxery or million dollar jail cells?

Here are some quotes you can hold dear to your heart:

1. "But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."
-- Interview with John Parsons, 1947

2. "The most merciful thing that the large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
-- Woman and the New Race, Chapter 5, "The Wickedness of Creating Large Families." (1920) http://www.bartleby.com/1013/

3. "We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population..."
-- Letter to Dr. Clarence J. Gamble, December 10, 1939, p. 2
https://libex.smith.edu/omeka/...

4. "I accepted an invitation to talk to the women's branch of the Ku Klux Klan... I was escorted to the platform, was introduced, and began to speak...In the end, through simple illustrations I believed I had accomplished my purpose. A dozen invitations to speak to similar groups were proffered."
-- Margaret Sanger, An Autobiography, published in 1938, p. 366

5. "I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world, that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically... Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they're born. That to me is the greatest sin—that people can—can commit."
-- Interview with journalist Mike Wallace, 1957

6. "The most serious evil of our times is that of encouraging the bringing into the world of large families. The most immoral practice of the day is breeding too many children..."
-- Sanger, Margaret. Woman and the New Race (1920). Chapter 5: The Wickedness of Creating Large Families. http://www.bartleby.com/1013/5...

7. "Eugenics without birth control seems to us a house builded [sic] upon the sands. It is at the mercy of the rising stream of the unfit."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1919) Birth Control and Racial Betterment. The Birth Control Review.

8. "As an advocate of birth control, I wish to take advantage of the present opportunity to point out that the unbalance between the birth rate of the 'unfit' and the 'fit,' admittedly the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between these two classes."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda. The Birth Control Review, p. 5. http://birthcontrolreview.net/...

9. "The most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1921) The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, Birth Control Review, p. 5
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

10. "No more children should be born when the parents, though healthy themselves, find that their children are physically or mentally defective."
-- Sanger, Margaret. (1918) When Should A Woman Avoid Having Children? Birth Control Review, Nov. 1918, 6-7, Margaret Sanger Microfilm, S70:807.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

11. "A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 3, 27 Mar 1934.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

12. "No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, and no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 4, March 27, 1934.

13. "Permits for parenthood shall be issued upon application by city, county, or state authorities to married couples, providing they are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and, on the woman's part, no medical indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 5, March 27, 1934.

14. "No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth..."
-- Margaret Sanger, "America Needs a Code for Babies," Article 6, March 27, 1934.

15. "Apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring."
-- Sanger, Margaret. "My Way to Peace," Jan. 17, 1932. Margaret Sanger Papers, Library of Congress 130:198. https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

16. "... these two words [birth control] sum up our whole philosophy... It means the release and cultivation of the better elements in our society, and the gradual suppression, elimination and eventual extinction, of defective stocks -- those human weeds which threaten the blooming of the finest flowers of American civilization."
-- Margaret Sanger, "High Lights in the History of Birth Control," Oct 1923.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

17. "Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease..."
-- Sanger, Margaret (1922). The Pivot of Civilization.

18. "My own position is that the Catholic doctrine is illogical, not in accord with science, and definitely against social welfare and race improvement."
-- Margaret Sanger, "The Pope's Position on Birth Control," Jan. 27, 1932.
https://www.nyu.edu/projects/s...

19. "All of our problems are the result of overbreeding among the working class... Knowledge of birth control is essentially moral. Its general, though prudent, practice must lead to a higher individuality and ultimately to a cleaner race."
-- Margaret Sanger, "Morality and Birth Control," Feb-Mar 1918.
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/sa...

20. "Feeble-mindedness perpetuates itself from the ranks of those who are blandly indifferent to their racial responsibilities. And it is largely this type of humanity we are now drawing upon to populate our world for the generations to come. In this orgy of multiplying and replenishing the earth, this type is pari passu multiplying and perpetuating those direst evils in which we must, if civilization is to survive, extirpate by the very roots."
-- Margaret Sanger, The Pivot of Civilization, 1922
https://www.scribd.com/documen...

21. "Birth control itself, often denounced as a violation of natural law, is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives... If we are to make racial progress, this development of womanhood must precede motherhood in every individual woman." -- "Woman and the New Race," 1920

You can show your great and marvelous morals and ethics because you like all liberals believe that it is the responsibility of others to die and leave you more room.

Robertgreene3 wrote:

Here are some quotes you can hold dear to your heart:

1. "But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."
-- Interview with John Parsons, 1947

...*snip*...

You can show your great and marvelous morals and ethics because you like all liberals believe that it is the responsibility of others to die and leave you more room.

I understand there are some sick psychopaths using overpopulation as an excuse to commit mass murder and genocide. I appreciate your concern here, because it's the very same concern I have. These elites undermine ethical efforts to deal with overpopulation.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
There are other elites who want rapid growth to exploit cheap labor,

Robertgreene3 wrote:
and undermine local manufacturing.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
It's a very complicated issue.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
I think we need to find ethical ways of gradually reducing the worlds population as a whole, without singling out any race or ethnicity, but giving priority to highly overpopulated countries first.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
We shouldn't be afraid of discussing overpopulation, just because these concerns arise.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
We need to separate the ethical from the unethical solutions.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
I am also not a liberal.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
I'm a conservative

Robertgreene3 wrote:
with an environmental background.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
I'm against deficit financing, because its stealing money from future generations, so insiders can become rich.

Into the Night wrote: The Chinese government also broke the 'iron rice bowl', or their pension system. There is nothing there for those retires except for what they save for themselves.

Into the Night wrote:

Robertgreene3 wrote:

Here are some quotes you can hold dear to your heart:

1. "But for my view, I believe that there should be no more babies."
-- Interview with John Parsons, 1947

...*snip*...

You can show your great and marvelous morals and ethics because you like all liberals believe that it is the responsibility of others to die and leave you more room.

I understand there are some sick psychopaths using overpopulation as an excuse to commit mass murder and genocide. I appreciate your concern here, because it's the very same concern I have. These elites undermine ethical efforts to deal with overpopulation.

Whether you kill people or force birth controls, there is no ethical way to do it.

Population is not a problem. The Chinese imposed birth controls to try to 'reduce the problem'. The result wasn't a reduction of the problem, but the creation of one. China now has a work force that is approaching retirement age and there is no sufficient labor pool to keep the Chinese 'miracle' going. The Chinese government also broke the 'iron rice bowl', or their pension system. There is nothing there for those retires except for what they save for themselves. The result is a nation where money velocity is extremely low, and the expatriation of wealth by any means (legal or otherwise) is rampant.

China is in trouble...big trouble...all caused by their birth control laws.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
There are other elites who want rapid growth to exploit cheap labor,

Growth raises the cost of labor. The cost of labor is set by price discovery, same as any other item in the free market. Minimum wage laws do what all price control laws do...they create shortages. Price controls never work. They have never worked for wage, for any commodity, or for the price of money itself.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
and undermine local manufacturing.

Manufacturing often requires materials not available locally. For example, rare earths used in electronics. We do have the materials, but government laws prevent the mining of them here.
Other government laws have essentially outlaws certain industries in the United States. It is so expensive to conform to those laws that those industries left the United States completely.

There are currently no manufacturers of resistors, capacitors, inductors, crystals, most transistors, and most chips anywhere left in the United States. It was government regulation that did that, between 'environmental' regulations and price controls on labor. These are the basic components of any electronic circuit. The result is that the United States is some 30-40 years behind the state of the art, and it's growing worse.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
It's a very complicated issue.

It's actually a simple one. It is not the government's business to regulate population size. Population is NOT just a liability. It is also an asset.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
I think we need to find ethical ways of gradually reducing the worlds population as a whole, without singling out any race or ethnicity, but giving priority to highly overpopulated countries first.

And how are you going to do this? There is no world government. The U.N. certainly isn't one.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
We shouldn't be afraid of discussing overpopulation, just because these concerns arise.

We shouldn't be afraid of killing people or forcing birth controls??

Robertgreene3 wrote:
We need to separate the ethical from the unethical solutions.

What ethical solution??

Robertgreene3 wrote:
I am also not a liberal.

You are suggesting a world government to control the population by force (that's what it would take to implement anything). That's a liberal.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
I'm a conservative

I disagree. You are advocating massive new government controls, even on a world level.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
with an environmental background.

I have my doubts.

Robertgreene3 wrote:
I'm against deficit financing, because its stealing money from future generations, so insiders can become rich.

No, it's because it binds the government's options and causes the money itself to devalue. If they don't watch it, the money could turn rapidly worthless. What happened in 'banana' republics CAN happen here.

If it does, the 'insiders' will suddenly be totally invested in worthless paper. So will a lot of innocents. The last time this kind of thing happened on an international scale, the result was WW2. The United States was in the rare position to pick up the economic pieces from the other nations. They are not in that position today. The United States is broke. No one wants to admit it yet. We are also not the only nation in this position.

No one knows what form the currency of international trade will take, but it will come. Too many major economies around the world are embroiled in the same idiocy we've been doing. The dollar already isn't the international trading standard it used to be.

What goes on in international trade affects every citizen of the nation that is trading. Shutting down international trade is not a great option. Manufacturing in the nations concerned would all but die.