Should we start reducing the human population right now, and keep a sustainable number? How?

Although the language is sophomoric and melodratic, this poster has correctly characterized the ontology of human survival, whereas this other poster has not.

What is really essential to human survival are a satisfactory environment, which entails food, water, air, some space to move around, and capacity to influence the environment to whatever degree, to amuse one's self and one's friends and family. Although this does imply labor, or the expense of some effort, this is of course not necessarily the same thing as "a job" in the modern sense, as this other person has intended it. "Having a job" is not an ontological necessity of human survival, whereas having food is.

>i'm afraid of something that might conceivably happen two centuries from now

Prior to the industrial revolution, there was barely enough food to sustain Europe's population. Then the industrial revolution happened. Bam. It's now easier to grow food. When was the last time you heard of a famine in a developed country?

Today, food shortages are not an issue. The major issue is waste; waste generated by economics. Farmers throw food away because it's cheaper than shipping it or storing it.

If electricity was cheaper, we could just keep food frozen forever until someone wanted it. If fuel was cheaper, b-grade produce could be shipped to market without being a loss of profit.

And finally, if people weren't so fucking picky, they wouldn't get offended at the concept of eating a tomato with a bruise on it.

I don't see the first two issues being a problem if technology continues to develop, as it always has. And I don't see the third issue being a problem if things actually DO get bad. If you're hungry, you cut the damaged parts off of the apple and eat it anyway. If you're hungry enough, you eat the whole damn thing.

>Negro's in sub sahara Africa with an IQ of 60 should not be having 8 kids on average

people in an agrarian society with no access to medicine need to have a shitload of kids

imagine if the European gentry got upset that illiterate hicks 6000 miles away in America were having 3-4 kids with their own family members. Oh wait, they did. It was just as laughable then as it is now, and nothing bad came of it, except West Virginia.

>two centuries from now
More like 50 years

>need to
nope

You people have a serious problem with thinking evolutionary biology defines some imperative to behave a certain way.

It's not wrong for a population to die out.

Evolution does not universally select for intelligence, or the sharpest fangs, or the stickiest suckers, or the deadliest venom. /Evolution selects for those organisms which are best adapted to their environent/. Evolution does not care for your cultured sensibilities of "the best attributes", where you would like to impose your own pol-tier will on things. And I write these things as a person who also likes intelligence in principle. The system will keep churning along, in any event.

If there are a few very smart yet-very-dumb white people who will support an exploding brown population, then why should that brown population not explode? It is being supported by do-gooder whites and the odd chinese developer, after all. The brown people adapt to their environment and therefore thrive, as best as they can, anyway.

if it's not wrong for a population to die out then why are you arguing in favor of some higher imperative to 'save' the entire human race by controlling the birth rate?

Why would you be alarmed that our 21st century technology and economic structure isn't capable of supporting a population of x billion people eating themselves into oblivion?

>why are you arguing in favor controlling the birth rate
different user

you must be new here

No we should not. Most sustainable number would entail shitloads of people being incubated and fed through dialysis.

There's no need to reduce the human population, the dynamics of population growth ensures that it will stabilize. You could argue that there can be some cusp-catastrophe, if population levels aren't controlled, but I don't see that happening.

Nor is there a biological or evolutionary imperative to not just kill them off and be done with it.

Well I think we can at least all agree that the breeding of Africans on the African continent needs to be stopped. completely.
I don't care how you solve it, just get it done.

create a meme called terrorism

use meme as excuse to paint one or more people groups as subhuman

systematically destroy subhumans while taking control of their resources

Literally an economic corporativism problem.

>instead of protesting and trying to change the laws of my country, let's do something more difficult, like making everyone copulate less!
I know which board you are coming from. This ignorance-arrogant combination only means you are from one of the 3 big shitposting boards.

Go back to

> your world views don't fit mine which means you belong elsewhere
fuck off retard .

Yet you didn't disprove anything I said. kek
Take your ad hominem circlejerk to

Fuck off shitposter

go away dumbfuck. I don't need to disprove your argument that is coming from pure shitposting

>economic corporativism
>shiposting
And you demonstrated you were never an enterpreneur.

how did the japan do it?? Does this confirmed that Japanese is in fact waifu aliens?

The question only has meaning within the context of ideology.

That said I personally think we can still live comfortably if we had infrastructure in Russia, Africa, Mongolia, -stans. Lots of space there. This could even help the environment there if settlers are responsible, clean jobs and energy could stop poaching, dumping toxic waste, destructive mining etc.

if every fuckin couple who are thinking about making a baby did only have 1.. yes fuckin 1 baby, we will reduce the population of earth to half in one generation. how's that?

We can look at the situation this way.

Sophistication of technology apparently leads to comfort of some: and what happens when humans get so comfortable, so much to the point where robots start developing themselves beyond humans and taking over everything? Considering that robots clearly classify as living organisms that need energy to survive and execute tasks, and are only a few steps away from self awareness and dominating everything and implementing an irl Skynet, this means that humans have to hurry up if they want to stand a chance and literally go beyond.

It's important to find calm and contact your self within. you may have as little as 7-9 years to achieve this.

And what is the link between this "beyond infinity" idea and the job problem?

External economic factors have made it extremely difficult for Japanese couples to consciously choose to have children.

Holy fucking hell I was at the 25th episode of NGE.
Fuck you.

That's a warning so you all can be ready. No one will have to worry about "jobs" once we are all dead and buried and the entire planet has become a fabric for robots.
And if you are wondering
>do you have any evidence
Yes. Just look around and see with your own eyes if you are brave enough. Take a good look at your computer and see.

The truth no one wants to hear and see is that we're close of developing perfect organisms, once our "tools",that will kill us, and all of this because humans were too scared to do anything about it. They wanted to hear everything is going to be okay and they created lies to believe and let their worries and tasks engulf themselves.

If you want to survive you all already know what to do. Train hard. Gather maximum knowledge. Thats all for now.

>Fuck every single myopic piece of gutter trash on this planet. I won't say kill 'em, but it'd be grand if they learned to see the bigger picture or shut their stupid mouths.

No user, let's kill them all.

Every child should be disgusted at their parents for birthing them into this civilization.

So you were from /x/.
Fuck off with your tinfoil mental masturbation.

You're joking, aren't you?

>depopulate all of the rich western countries
>let the third world breed like rabbits
surely this will be a good idea with no negative consequences.

We should go to places where HIV AIDS is huge and offer men and women with it treatments, but only on account that they be sterilized.

>Considering that robots clearly classify as living organisms

No, they don't.

People breed, when offspring is an insurance that they there are enough hands to do all the work to get food on the table and there will be someone to care for them when they are old.

Birth rates go down automatically when the is security of
>food
>shelter
>medicine
>education

Raise the living standards of countries with high birth rates to a level that nobody needs to be afraid of starving any more.

That means for industrialized countries that we have to stop exploiting their resources, land and labour and make a strong effort to help them improve their living standards.

Then wait a few generations and the population goes down to sustainable levels automatically.

The population is stabilizing already.
The growth is now happening is mostly "great fill-up" (age pyramid turning into an age tower) and is unavoidable.
Population will grow to 10-11 bn no matter what.

If you are serious, three things have to happen.

1) Cut down on consumption (climate change, pollution etc.)
2) Improve women's rights and education (contraceptives)
3) Get pension funds going in the 3rd world
(that's why parents have so many kids, to have support at old age)

youtu.be/ezVk1ahRF78?t=10m

Wrong.
More people isn't just more workers to satisfy demand, but also more consumers to create demand.

We can just wait for global civilisation to inevitably collapse and result in pandemics and famines since we exceeded planetary carrying capacity years ago. People think active effort is required but they don't understand anything.

And you didn't provide evidence for your claims.

Not him, but I don't think it's that easy. Often the number of workers required to satisfy demands decreases with the scale of production. It's easier to automate when you need a large number of copies, and in extreme cases like entertainment (books, movies) or software, a constant number of people can satisfy an arbitrary need.

Not that poster but get out of mothers basement once in a while, maybe travel the third world. Most of humanity lives in poverty, misery and ignorance. Religion is rising indicating a dark age is inbound. Oil - energy shocks, famine, disease and pestilence will define the 21st century for humanity. Maybe by 2100 the dead wood will be cleared out and the project of civilization can try again. Black Death spawned the reformation and general enlightenment since people actually had to think for themselves again - or die. Natural law is the best law, the clever monkey will never self regulate itself, that would be unnatural.

Again, no evidence for your claims.

>Often the number of workers required to satisfy demands decreases with the scale of production.
Of course it does. It's the very source of human welfare. An isolated society of just a thousand people doesn't have the economies of scale to let some people develop computers or aeroplanes. Almost all of them would be needed to produce food and clothing.
It's no coincidence that there's an almost perfect correlation between the world population and the world's average per-capita GDP. The more people there are the better off the individuals are.

because the Japanese people are mostly smart.
unlike the rest of the degenerate idiots living on this planet

The ideal number of humans is zero.

>that we have to stop exploiting their resources, land and labour and make a strong effort to help them improve their living standards.

Some people is trying to help, and look what happened.

It's already ongoing in the west, women of childbearing age do not have children and that amounts to displacing themselves. It doesn't work so well on the religious insulars that you are meaning to reduce however and they will move society as they can influence.

Ummm... NO!
This is one of the BIG myths... First world nations suffer an UNDER POPULATION problem... birth rate is BELOW sustaining level. Right NOW world population continues to increase (Africans are going at it like rabbits), but as the entire world eventually get richer and safer, the birthrate will decrease and the underpoulation problem will become universal.

The best solution is to start giving LARGE incentives to young people to have children. Even that may not be enough we may need to look at artificial wombs to help maintain a growing population as mankind expands outside of earth.

Not everywhere has a high population growth rate. The most developed countries have very low, almost below replacement levels.
It obviously wasn't always that way.

As other parts of the world continue to develop,their growth rates will slow the same way. It already has in some developing countries.

The only confounding variable is religions that encourage childbirth despite one's circumstances.

So... is Africa doomed?

black people will rull the world

KUNGZ LIVEZ MATTA

What if they run out of cops?

Overpopulation will automatically sort itself out once we run out of the resources to sustain countinous growth.

fuck you racist white bitch
cant wait til yall minorities

keep waiting ;)

industrialized countries are systematically exploiting natural resources from poorer regions.
"foreign aid" and the "humanitarian" efforts of a few organizations don't do shit.
it's an issue of the system we are running.
we have to find ways to distribute remaining resources equally and transform every country on this planet to a point, where we don't exceed the ecosystemal carrying capacity of our home world.

it is a really big challenge and we will have to put a lot of work into it. there is actually a lot of people working on it right now. the question is, whether it will be enough and if we are not already to late.

if we don't succeed we WILL have a BIG number of people dying one way or another.

decreasing population is a good thing.
>more resources
>more food
>more houses
>more nature
>less waste
>less pollution
>less urbanization

we will have a lot of old people for a while
then we can maybe hope to reach an equilibrium, where there is a sustainable number of humans

>14 billion
5 billion of niggers
2 billion of muslims and
3 billion of indians

Kill off all the atheists

The worst thing is that we allow the child-shitters to invade the West without sterilizing them, e.g. "refugee" crisis.

At least some of them drowned before they could shit out more chilldren.

>we will have a lot of old people for a while
Simple solution: Don't pay for them once they're over 75.

Legalize euthanasia so they have a nice drug high and then a painless way out.

source on said hentai?

Daily reminder that white people and east Asians are dying out, blacks and Hispanics are the ones reproducing rapidly, and their IQs are the lowest in the world. The USA and Europe will be 20% white socialist welfare states full of shantytowns by the year 2100 if current trends continue.

>year 2100
I'm not planning to live that long senpai.

Finally someone who gets it.

They can kill each other at that point.

>not embracing your shitskin overlords
>current year

I actually give a fuck. Also, it makes sense for blacks and Hispanics to support whites. The ones already in the USA and europe have it good. If whites all die off, who will provide the handouts? Look at South Africa and Venezuela.

>when i realized that humans are the monsters

congratulations, you finally "made the realization" after being constantly programmed to come to this conclusion through pretty much every media source in the western world.

wow you sure are smart.

>east asians are dying out

you wat? thats got to be the stupidist fucking statement ive read on Veeky Forums in a long time, you obviously havent been to China since ever.

Just got back from Beijing two days ago. I can attest, its goddamn swimming in east asians.

how can they not be? the 1 child policy was enforced subreplacement rates that only got lifted last year. Their population is top heavy like the rest of the world, and there is a sexual imbalance due to the bias against female children, now they are left with a bunch of sexless betas that have nothing better to do but uprise.

Sex robots. Ones that look ****able. Men won't
be surprised by kids they don't want. Population wil stabilize.

it will also make biocunts behave as sex is no longer with leverage. Feminists are already poising to kibosh it.

...

Stay behind the wall rapefugee filth

The countries that would be able to afford sex robots already have replacement or sub-replacement birth rates. Or do you have a plan for distributing sexbots to the world's shittiest, poorest nations?

>Feminists are already poising to kibosh it.
We need to move to Mars, quick.

i live in Germany and i have found the majority of refugees i've met far more pleasant people to talk to and engage with than the constantly angry "MUH CULTURE BRING GERMAN REICH BACK" revisionist flatearthers.

suggestion: why don't we create an area, like a state or something, where we contain all these retards? people would be free to move there and live there and institute a government and everything, just the way they want. /pol/and, if you will, so they can't complain about being forced to live in this so so horrible country.

the same goes for Trumptards in the US.

This is true but I think the idea is to lower the population so humanity has resources to maintain industrialized civilization.

On our current course, most of the 3rd world will be depopulated to agraian sustainable levels when oil scarcity causes food prices to rise forever after.

It'll sort it'self out. Market forces will promote smaller birth rates in the 3rd world and less consumption in the1st. Humans will basically never go extinct so long as the planet or some portion of it is marginally habitable.

I'm sure the fine women of Cologne agree with you, cuck.

>How?

Build a time machine, go back in time and save this guy.

If I was a refugee giving up on my own country and fleeing, landing in some foreign land with free gibmedats, I would be really friendly too.

I think the point of reducing population is to have a high material standard per capita. Subsistence survival is not a benefit.

The birth rate in Germany is below replacement. You need to take care of the old people somehow - they obviously shouldn't have banned euthanasia - but after that, you don't have an overpopulation problem.

Unless of course you import child-shitting cultures that will push population to the point of malthusian subsistence again. I mean, sure, if these were all highly valuable contributers to society and the economy, more of them would actually be better. But many people really aren't.

>create an area. like a state or something, where we contain all of these retards?

wew lad that's a very German way of dealing with people who you don''t agree with

>But many people really aren't.
That's irrelevant. "Many people" means nothing.

You need to figure out whether the average additional person provides marginally more benefits than costs, all factors included.

The old people often worked for decades and provided a net benefit to the economy.

Stay on you containment board, shit for brains

Yes.

It needs to be pointed out that capitalism is the entire reason for the population explosion and capitalists are the main ones pushing for continued expansion.

It will only be fixed by removing the promoters of capitalism.

>/pol/and

We should go to places where HIV AIDS is huge and glass the entire area with nuclear force.

stay behind the wall loser cuck

Ahmed pls...

>buttblasted /pol/ brainlet detected
Watch out there is a jew behind you!
kek