Johhny Electriglide wrote:
The dilemma is there is no "ethical" way to depopulate. I've been writing and talking about it since 1967. Nixon addressed Congress on it in 1969 and they chickened out. So did everyone in power since. It looks like catastrophe is the only way, and that is mass death, with not much positive selection of survivors. There is a very good possibility there will be our own extinction, along with most other species we take down with us, even without a methane turnover event like the Permian or equatorial superrotation developing like Venus and Saturn, Jupiter and Neptune. It could well be that the present existing open ocean effect runaway is already into Arctic methane release runaway. A very large aerosol event like Toba might stop it, or Divine Intervention. I pray for God Himself to stop the destruction of the biosphere.
Here is a blog about overpopulation that may interest you;
http://www.californiaforfigu.org/blog/overpopulationOne of the problems is, overpopulation makes money for the elite. Globalist can outsource jobs to high growth countries, and make billions off an endless supply of cheap labor. Real estate speculators need rapid population growth, to drive up the price of their holdings. Depopulation is going to put transnational corporations out of business. Liberals won't talk about population growth, because they believe it's the 1% telling the 99%, how to live their lives. I don't think anyone needs a family larger than 2. You want a 3rd person in your family, you adopt. We could implement compulsory vasectomies after a father has his second child, but the political backlash would be to severe. So we could spend billions promoting volunteer vasectomies, after the second child. We must encourage as respect family size, up to the second child. Promote personal finance and parenting education in schools.
We need liberal environmentalist to recognizes that "all roads lead to overpopulation". Manmade climate change wouldn't exist without overpopulation. Deforestation would be less severe without overpopuation. The oceans would have more fish without overpopulation. To say that westerners are greedy, and Africans aren't, because they use less energy is false. They would acquire our wealth, and consume, as much as we do, if given the change. Instead of demonizing personal consumption, we need to slow down and than reverse rapid population growth.
The price of housing and food would go down, as demand decreases. The quality of life for the average citizen would go up, with a gradual and ethical depopulation. In Europe, many countries are making the mistake, of providing incentives to increase their population. Virtually every country, except Greenland needs to depopulation. China and India should talk highest priority, followed by Africa and Latin America. We need to come up with the concept of "Ethical Depopulation". It we advocated for a documentary to be made, as power as "An Inconvenient Truth". It might be a good idea. We need to sell the concept of "Ethical Depopulation". Having a birthrate solution, while have a 2 child global target. If we could reduce the population by 5% per decade, I think the planet would have a chance. Work with dozens of researchers, put your best information together, and get this documentary made. We need to put all our best arguments forward.