What to do about overpopulation

Once you get past the silly propaganda on the lamestream media, the declared purpose of most of the criminal and bizarre policies of evil Western regimes over the last 40 years has been to combat overpopulation. The trouble is that once you see a flourishing human population as the enemy, you get to an ethical standpoint where good is evil and evil is good. Hence it becomes an imperative to fuck up everything about society.

On the other hand, if the human population were not subjected to the depredations of the elite over the last 40 years - 2 billion abortions, pervasive birth control, females inducted into sterile corporate whoredom etc. - then we would be lacking a bit of elbow room about now. One might argue that with theoretically available technology the world would still not really be overpopulated, but if everyone had the amount of children they wanted, then at some point in the future it inevitably would be.

So is there a way to limit the human population without ruining everything? Traditionally the way to do this was with water contaminated either with pathogens or heavy metals. However, that would probably not fly now and wasn't so great anyway. I can't really think of a good way. Perhaps there will be some natural disaster like a comet event that will preferentially kill off stupid people, leaving smart people to rebuild civilization on a clear field. That would seem about the best hope.

I think the solution is to allow people to breed but let their children die. This would allow irresponsible people to breed beyond what they can support without discouraging reproduction for everyone. The children who belonged to irresponsible breeders wouldn't be supported like in modern society though. So you wouldn't fight the instinct to procreate but you would pull the safety nets. One safety net you can eliminate is free health care so that poor mothers don't get adequate prenatal care and die through complications. This scenario would allow for a net decline because both the mother and fetus die. Intelligent men would only have children when they knew they could afford them.

A society where births are limited by people being too poor to breed or the kids dying from poverty doesn't seem very utopian to me. It would require wealth to be somewhat equally distributed to not result in extinction. In current society it would be largely only the tiny parasitical elite and their whores that could afford to breed. It would also be dysgenic in that some children of poor and stupid people would survive, while many poor and intelligent men would choose not to breed. Such a society would probably share some of the dysfunctions of the current one, such as females waiting a long time to marry and using contraception, resulting in them becoming sluts and fucking dirtbags. In any case, a reasonable number of children coming through is critical for the social fabric. Ideally it would actually be economically beneficial to have children. Perhaps periodic culls of stupid and dysfunctional people and cultures would be the way to go. Perhaps there is no good solution to the problem.

This is one of those questions that isn't worth worrying about because there is nothing we can do about it and because humanity really isn't our problem.  Our problem is how to make our lives better.  And the current members of this forum aren't exactly a group that is threatened by overpopulation.

Of course speculation is always fun, and my speculation as to the course of this issue is that as civilization declines, there will mass starvation and plagues that will drastically reduce the world's population.

Under the current scenario you have (a) intelligent middle class and wealthy that breed at capacity levels (2) or below capacity level (1). (b) Intelligent poor people that don't breed (0). (c) Stupid poor people breed beyond capacity levels (+2). Stupid poor people are subsidized by middle class and wealthy people through welfare and other programs. If subsidies were cut I think the birth rate would remain the same for (a) and (b) but the post natal deaths for (c) would rapidly increase.

To improve the situation for (b) would require subsidizing. I'm reading a book right now and this is exactly what was done. Karaits overall didn't hold together very well but in some periods they had an internal welfare system that paid for food, school, health care, ect. If you watch A Life Apart you will also see an internal welfare system done by Rabbis.

(b) can survive but they need to join a community that will subsidize them.

fschmidt wrote

This is one of those questions that isn't worth worrying about because there is nothing we can do about it and because humanity really isn't our problem.

The interesting thing about this question is that it is how the PTB would justify outrages like feminism once you get beyond the surface layer of propaganda for the masses. To the complaint that feminism was destroying society, they would reply that of course this was true, but that feminism reduces the birth rate, and without it overpopulation would have destroyed society to an even greater extent. On the face of it they have a point, but maybe there would have been a less destructive way of achieving the same ends.

I am skeptical about conspiracy theories.  I have a hard time believing that Jamie Dimon and Lloyd Blankfein spend their time worrying about overpopulation.  I think they spend most of their time trying to figure out how to rob a few more hundred million for themselves.

There may be some elite intellectuals who think about these things, and there are a lot of reasons for the elite to support feminism.  But the elite certainly has no interest in justifying themselves to people like us.

Dealing with overpopulation is the officially declared policy of the elite articulated as such by the Rockefeller report on population control 1971, UN Bucharest conference on population control 1974, UN Agenda 21 etc. There is no conspiracy theory needed. Certain aspects of the implementation of the policy, e.g. chemical castration with fluoride and BHPs, may be conspiracy theories, although fairly well establish ones. However, the basic policy of reducing global population and the social means of doing it are openly stated. Of course you don't hear politicians on the campaign trail declaring their constituents to be a pestilence they intend to cull back, any more than you hear the Coca Cola marketing people declaring their product will make you fat and rot your teeth. That doesn't mean they are in a conspiracy to hide those facts. They just keep them out of their press releases.

 

Drealm wrote

I think the solution is to allow people to breed but let their children die. This would allow irresponsible people to breed beyond what they can support without discouraging reproduction for everyone. The children who belonged to irresponsible breeders wouldn't be supported like in modern society though. So you wouldn't fight the instinct to procreate but you would pull the safety nets. One safety net you can eliminate is free health care so that poor mothers don't get adequate prenatal care and die through complications. This scenario would allow for a net decline because both the mother and fetus die. Intelligent men would only have children when they knew they could afford them.

Why does this seem more palatable to you than just say...killing them outright?  Do you really think society won't be affected by starving people in the streets and all this would bring with it?  One thing our species is good at, these days, is killing each other - why the need for suffering first?  We all know the human animal is ruthless in its drive to survive.

Ember wrote

Drealm wrote

I think the solution is to allow people to breed but let their children die. This would allow irresponsible people to breed beyond what they can support without discouraging reproduction for everyone. The children who belonged to irresponsible breeders wouldn't be supported like in modern society though. So you wouldn't fight the instinct to procreate but you would pull the safety nets. One safety net you can eliminate is free health care so that poor mothers don't get adequate prenatal care and die through complications. This scenario would allow for a net decline because both the mother and fetus die. Intelligent men would only have children when they knew they could afford them.

Why does this seem more palatable to you than just say...killing them outright?  Do you really think society won't be affected by starving people in the streets and all this would bring with it?  One thing our species is good at, these days, is killing each other - why the need for suffering first?  We all know the human animal is ruthless in its drive to survive.

Only one generation would starve. So I don't see this as cyclical problem. I wouldn't want to preemptively kill people because some of them will die without becoming restless. If they choose to starve in peace, then I see no reason to inflict further pain on them. There's also the possibility that some would want to convert to a good community and survive off their welfare. I do agree that most people would becomes restless, in which case self defense restrictions should be laxed.

Drealm wrote

Only one generation would starve. So I don't see this as cyclical problem. I wouldn't want to preemptively kill people because some of them will die without becoming restless. If they choose to starve in peace, then I see no reason to inflict further pain on them. There's also the possibility that some would want to convert to a good community and survive off their welfare. I do agree that most people would becomes restless, in which case self defense restrictions should be laxed.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what area of the world you're targeting.  In places where people already starve to death then I don't suppose there would be an increased ruckus.  In the first or second world countries, I rather expect there wouldn't be anything peaceful about it.

Ember wrote

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what area of the world you're targeting.  In places where people already starve to death then I don't suppose there would be an increased ruckus.  In the first or second world countries, I rather expect there wouldn't be anything peaceful about it.

I don't see most middle aged people and elderly people becoming violent. Youth gangs would probably form though. In any case those who want to survive the purge just need to build a wall around their house or community. This seems to be how rich people do it in the third world. I would rather build a wall than kill people.

Another question related to this is that if you were a benevolent dictator and could cure diseases like cancer, would you? It is pretty clear that the establishment has known how to cure most cancers for decades. The problem would be that if people could just go to the doctor and be cured of diseases like cancer and heart disease, then the average person would live well past 100 years, being non-fertile and non-productive for much of that time. This would impose an intolerable burden on the rest of society and likely ensure our extinction as available resources went to maintaining old people rather than raising children. So on the face of it, the apparent evil of the elite may be necessary.