Do we need more people?

>What are the arguments against enforcing birth control in countries with high population grow?
google.com/search?q=sovereignty
google.com/search?q=autonomy

see also: pic related

Irrelevant if all the growth is concentrated in Africa,that has less arable land than North America alone.

>If anything, "overpopulation" comes from first world countries, not third world countries.

If everyone lived like people in Ethiopia, population would grow until we hit a catastrophe of some kind.
If everyone lived like people in the U.S., population would be about 1 billion and dropping.
Plus, we've got indoor plumbing, EPA, Superfund, etc., all of which are good for the planet.

>TLDW: We either control birth rates or be plagued by infertility and all sorts of death
Go home, Malthus, yer drunk.
Population growth is half what it was in the early 1960's, and if current trends continue, total population will start declining later this century.

>Irrelevant if all the growth is concentrated in Africa
[citation needed]

>that has less arable land than North America alone.
>"less arable land" than the world's breadbasket, oh noes!

Y u racis tho?

It's simple math, really.
Humans have a simple rate of fucking.
The more humans, the more fucking.
Which means, if there was no limit, we would follow the exponential curve.
Even the fact that we don't means we're experiencing more infertility/death than should be normal.
Actual population decline, without it being a decision, means A LOT of death. Genocide style death. (200 000 new humans everyday on Earth)

I know that North America is fertile,the difference comes when Africa huts 3 billion people,with fewer agrucultural resources than North America with a combined population of 400 million. This situation would lead to millions of Africa refugees,that no one in his sane mind would take

Overpopulation is a myth. If anything we should be concerned about birth rates falling below levels needed to maintain our population.

Isn't that nature's way to tell you you've reached the limit?

The real problem is energy usage. tell hose fat fucks to stop eating and waddle their way to work instead

start by killing yourself

You will be eradicated alongside with ebola. It's time we get rid of this stubborn filth.

We need more PEOPLE and less shitskins

Whites have invented/built everything of worth on this earth, and our kind has been declining in number for 50 years, all our countries are being flooded by shitskins

Africa has tons of agriculture, its just that they are africans so they don't develop it

>that no one in his sane mind would take
Liberals have never been sane

we need more people
we need fewer shitskins

funfact: people can't make babies without food.
While people still reproduce, it means there are enough ressources, even if they're not by your standards.
This is evolution at its best, and you're trying to undermine it.

>economic gain is the only possible objective function
>shitskins

How does profiting from slavery treat you ?

>africa has tons of agriculture
huge parts of africa are desert or jungle, which are shit for agriculture and require large investments to make any sort of profit. As soon as China and the US stop being able/willing to invest in africa the standard of living in most african countries is gonna go back to what it was in the 60s

>Africa has tons of agriculture
True,in some isolated places like Nigeria or South Africa. Most of it has no arable land. The continent as a whole has less arable land than North Africa.

There are none, the world isn't sustainable as it is.

>a basic human right to breed
>like cattle
fgt pls

Why? What is wrong with the world population stabilizing at 1 billion?

Instead, the West, the countries with lower birthrates, are intentionally flooding in high breeding immigrants to force population higher.

What reasoning is there to push USA population toward a billion, when a stable 100 million population level would allow fixing nearly all environmental problems? And why are environmental groups unanomously in favor of high immigration?

>Why? What is wrong with the world population stabilizing at 1 billion?
first because it's not stabilizing, it's decreasing.
second because if the population is 30% retired, the rest has to pay for their retirement, taking a heavy toll on the income of the working people.

On the other hand, if the retired population (in proportion) is smaller, the contribution of each person is smaller to pay for the retirements.
That allows everyone to have more comfort.

Seriously people like you who don't know basic geography/economy/demographics/etc shouldn't be allowed to vote and should be lobotomized.

>Do we need more people?

Genitals everywhere say yes

Evolution doesnt take into account sustainability m8.

it does

No, it is the idiocy that this will happen in 10 or 20 years. Stabilization would take the rest of this century, if not longer.

And, according to your logic, mankind must continue to increase to Malthusian problems because of demographic issues. We increase population to pay retirement, causing larger numbers of retirees in 30 years. Then you, the demographic, economics and geographic expert , decree that population must be increased again. Repeat until death.

7th grade level of thinking.

Evolution is pretty random.It really does nothing on how to preserve the planet.

>wishful thinking
yeah guise, everything will be cool amarite ?

>and you're trying to undermine it.

Retard detected.