How can we stabilise the world population at sustainable levels without having to resort to an expensive genocide and /...

I like to look at that as specialization. A generalization of Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage. We have merely outsourced breeding.

And just like you need free trade for comparative advantage to work, you need freedom of movement for this system to work. This is why the recent right-wing turnaround in Western politics is so dangerous.

The consequence of your system is that literally everyone on earth ends up as a negro

The reason we are increasing in population is the same why we won't need genocide or anything like that. We can sustain more and more people.

If we get to a point where it becomes unsustainable then those extras will die off.

Okay.

So what?

All that is good about Western culture is in jeopardy, since culture is tied to demographics.

So intelligence is largely genetic and the global mean IQ will drop below 80 while street violence increases due to the population having poor forward planning skills and heightened aggression

...

Well, the future has been bleak several times in the past and it didn't stop people from fucking. Maybe modern euros are just betas.

>I want literally everyone in the world to be black and anyone who objects is a racist
???

Passably meme'd, my willfully ignorant friend.

I don't particularly want it, it's just a neutral side-effect of the system, neither particularly desirable or undesirable.

No one is taking anything away from you or transforming you into an African. You are the one who wants to deny people freedom of movement based on their race.

I should think a genocide would be much less expensive than letting it get that out of hand.

Up to you.

Black Hitler when?

>You are the one who wants to deny people freedom of movement based on their race.
Immigrants are not part of the social contract of a country, just petitioners. A country has the right, and indeed the obligation, to look out for the interests of its own member first and foremost.
African countries are shitholes for the most part, and every immigrant we take in means taking in a bit of the culture that failed to heal these countries or even fostered their failure.
"Freedom of movement" is a joke concept on the same level as Ancap memes.

>statism

I'm not even racist and I think world with 5 billion africans and 5 billion everyone else will definitely, objectively not be a net neutral world, compared to today's world.

Competition for resources will get fucking stupid and Africa-level strife will spread to other parts of the world.

Open borders to totally unencumbered freedom of movement would be fine if there were not such disparities between different parts of the world.

Note that we have never had complete freedom of movement. This is being pushed only today. It would be a _new_ right.

It is looking out for its own members. Without taking in migrants who would pay for their pensions, healthcare and so on as the society ages? The alternative would be to compel Westerners to breed which would lower productivity and depending on the method could be oppressive in itself.

It is an economic issue first and foremost.

I guess that's just a price we will have to pay for not being overrun.

>wrecking your economy because you don't like black people

>who would pay for their pensions, healthcare and so on as the society ages?
Not the migrants, that's for sure. They do not provide, but need to be provided for - it will take several decades until the costs of immigration are amortized and the migrants can be effectively integrated and educated. This argument does not work.

>Without taking in migrants who would pay for their pensions, healthcare and so on as the society ages?
The migrants are typically a net drain on social resources - the state pays more to house, feed and educate them than they do the natives

Sweden's world famous generous social state is on the brink of insolvency and collapse right now because the hundreds of thousands of new friends they invited are not growing the system's revenue

If any economy in the world can absorb the temporary shock of an aging population, it's this one.

As racist as that may sound to normie ears, I think simply letting a race of people become diluted into inexistence would be a massive mistake. Simply because we don't yet _know_ how much of the West's success is nurture and how is nature. I am not claiming, as /pol/tards love to do, that it _IS_ nature. I am saying that this is something we do not _KNOW_

Imagine if east Asian countries allowed a limitless wave of immigration from Africa, ultimately becoming a race of Asian-African mutts. Do you have complete certainty that the fates of Asian countries would be completely unchanged by this? If so, where does this certainty come from?

Just be careful what you wish for

Nothing is without cost. I am not saying the current model of integration is perfect or optimal in terms of costs. It clearly is not and much needs to be done on both sides (the newcomers and the natives) for integration to truly work.

But you have to weigh those costs against the alternatives - housing, feeding, and educating native children would also not be cheap and on top of that it would significantly lower the productivity of their parents (especially the mother).

Are you dense or something?
Taking in millions of uneducated people that worship a stone in the desert won't help the economy in any way. At least 1/3 of the migrants in my country will never have a job that pays taxes. How are they helping the economy?

Contraception and women's rights will stem the tide for a while, but it won't be enough. Religious people will choose not to use birth control and compose most of the next generation who will also have large families.

A complete solution would be unfettered global capitalism. As property is accumulated by the rich, groups whose populations expand to fit the resources available will only have a limited amount of resources to do so and the problem will be contained.

I've long suspected that the very sudden, almost inexplicable emergence of women's rights, sexual liberation, drug culture and all of that are part of a population control agenda.

If this is true, I'm actually all for it. Just look at Japan: it's supereffective.

>At least 1/3 of the migrants in my country will never have a job that pays taxes. How are they helping the economy?

The other two thirds are.

And integration is a two-way street. You can't just lay the blame on the newcomers, the natives also have to be accommodating. If the migrants aren't integrating it's as much their fault as it is that of the native population.

>You can't just lay the blame on the newcomers, the natives also have to be accommodating.
Why?

"Newcomers" are not welcome in Asia, where China ascends to the world's economic leadership with a 95% homogenous population, or indeed even in Africa, where families that have lived there for two centuries are still violently expelled due to their skin color

1/3 will always depend on welfare.
1/3 will constantly change between bad paid jobs that will get automated one day and welfare.
1/3 could be a regular part of the workforce.

Those are government projections. So, maybe, one third will someday contribute something to the economy.
Yes some migrant groups try to integrate and are nearly as or even more successfull than the native population. But others are not. Why should anybody welcome the later?

>If any economy in the world can absorb the temporary shock of an aging population, it's this one.
Sure, but why would be deliberately absorb the shock when we can avoid it altogether?

As to the bit about certainty, there are very few things one can have complete certainty about and yet we must act.

You can't really choose inaction. Whatever you decide, you will be either stopping the migrants at the border or letting them in and having to deal with that, and the results can be chaotic and hard to predict.

But the thing with chaos and making predictions is that it's easier in the short run than the long run. Thus in my view it is better to address near and clear issues like an aging population and maximizing productivity before we address the nebulous racially-charged risks several generations from now that /pol/ keeps ranting about.

We are not China or Africa and are facing different problems.

A system where native childrearing is said to be uncompetitive and that has taken this for granted is deeply, deeply flawed. Think this a bit further. It would mean that Western wealth is obligate on the poverty of other nations, and the fertility that would go in tandem with it (or which at least would not be inhibited by the same levels of wealth we desire). Even if we accept such a state of affairs and "oursource breeding", this would come at the cost of having to keep these regions from attaining the same standards, and creating incentives for their people to emigrate - i.e. political and economic destabilization. *This* is what you're demanding and arguing for.

This is not only deeply immoral, but also inefficient, if not unsustainable. If children have to be born somewhere, it is always most cost-efficient to have them born, grow up and be educated in the same culture. Self-sufficiency is not only good for your own nation, but good for all others. It is the *only* way forward not grounded in misery.

>The alternative would be to compel Westerners to breed which would lower productivity and depending on the method could be oppressive in itself.

What about when automation kicks in? What about all those white working class people that won't have jobs? What about when basic income becomes a thing so all those white people can breed and not have to work? Automation is the savior of the white race, we don't need immigrants we need robots.

Stop sending food aid to Africa. China, Japan, us, Europe are all stabilizing.

Sounds like failing immigration and integration policy rather than low quality of migrants.

It is not necessary to create global inequality because it already exists. Betting on it continuing to exist no matter what is one of the surest bets you can make.

In any case generally speaking nothing is *innately* uncompetitive. It depends on the environment - what the competition does and what it can do. If there were no poorer countries to "outsource breeding" to neither we nor our competitors could do it, so it wouldn't be uncompetitive to not do it.

Finally, I am speaking in economic rather than moral terms.

>Sounds like failing immigration and integration policy rather than low quality of migrants.
Then no country in history has ever devised a truly successful integration policy

Indeed the most prosperous migrant populations in the world are the Americans and Australians who largely destroyed and replaced their native populations rather than integrate with them

>migrants have demonstrably low iq, no language skills, often illiterate even in their native language, no work skills in a western economy

Hurr, yeah, sure sounds like immigration problem to me. Like why the fuck are we paying them to come here.

>Finally, I am speaking in economic rather than moral terms.
Once again, migration on this scale has a net detrimental effect on the economy and social systems.

Immigration can't save Western pensions.

European job markets were already oversaturated by their native populations. Migrants have very little to offer in this environment. And while the population ages and the fraction of employed people shrinks, productivity is still going up. The problem of financing the pensions and social security systems lies in the fact that payments are tied to personal income (which has a shrinking provider base) rather than nationwide productivity (which does not).
Automatization leaves no room for migrants and makes traditional models obsolete. Flooding countries with foreigners to bolster the workforce is not a solution to this problem; reform of taxation is.

I don't see any upside to not taking a hard stance on immigration, economically or from a humanitarian perspective.

Okay guys I was merely pretending to be retarded.

You don't. Nor should you.

We shouldn't be figuring out how to make ourselves more compatible with a limited resources set. We should be figuring out how to leave and find new resources.

Expansion is how we advance.

mass sterilisation

>Expansion is how we advance.

Why do you need to advance?

At some point Earth will suffer a mantle shift, solar disturbance or impact event that will kill everything living on it's surface

If it's surface continues to be the sole place humanity lives then humanity goes extinct

>automation kicks in

Do you want to know how I can tell you are mentally under 25 years old?

>humanity goes extinct

so?

And anyway, humanity will go extinct much sooner than that if nothing is done about the population problem.

>humanity goes extinct
>so?
You don't get to participate in this argument anymore

Well, there's a lot to consider:

- In a developed country, an individual's most valuable resource tends to be education. In a low development country, it's children. Money and capital is accumulated by utilising/exploiting these resources.
- Developed economies are more complex, and as a consequence have higher material requirements. They use more energy, water, land area and so on, and not all of these things renew on their own or have viable alternatives. Is it materially possible for the entire world to have the same level of infrastructure and services as the most developed countries? And if it is, by how narrow of a margin? 'Peak utilisation' of material resources is very vulnerable to unexpected disruptions.
- The _need_ for human labor is perpetually decreasing due to machines, and leads to an increasingly uneven wealth distribution among populations. A growing number of people will do redundant, wasteful and unfulfilling work or become unemployed. Each generation will have a significant number of excess people unless A) humanity runs out of energy and can't power the machines B) machine complexity reaches a hard limit and we are left with tasks that only humans can perform.

> the natives also have to be accommodating
kill yourself traitor
integration across racial lines is impossible

All you are doing is destroying western civilization, IQ's are plummeting across europe

>it's just a neutral side-effect of the system

Yea because when the blacks ethnically cleansed their countries
Or when the algerians ran the whites out of their country
That was just neutral

White people have no right to self-determination, to their own countries, to their very existance
Thats the normal neutral view
:)

What a buncha disgusting hypocritical piece of shits.

The obvious and easy solution is to make everyone rich but good luck explaining that to humanity, people would rather see everyone miserable than everyone happy.

Increase education, increase female standards, increase daily living expenses, increase porn exposure.

All indicate reductions in breeding rates in respective 1st world and developing nations.

>So intelligence is largely genetic

This is true

>and the global mean IQ will drop below 80

This is true only IF the current stock of African-blacks maintain sub-optimal nutrition and non-selection of high IQ within the population.

The 80 IQ average can easily be solved via economic stratification that transforms into a genetic bottleneck. The best examples of this are college bound Nigerian immigrants who travel west and U.S. millitary/ college blacks all three demos being filtered via education and discipline.

But even moderate increases in rudimentary nutrition and health care will do the trick, It would just take longer. We know this is true because of studies done resolving iodine deficiency and prenatal malnutrition raise IQ.

Probably just waiting for the die off to commence. The odds of offspring surviving are better. Also a cultural thing, Africans tend to count on a higher percentage of theirs dying before procreating while the northern ape makes less crotch fruit with the idea most if not all survive to adulthood.

Anyway, there is no need for synthetic solutions to a natural problem with natural solutions in store. Bananas deplete, monkeys die. It's really that simple. Of course synthetic solutions will be offered up and there will be some takers but the brunt of the work will be done by mother nature.

>nobody is allowed to make children
>only a government issued ticket will allow you
>ticket can be bought for large amount of money
>top % intelligent people will get free ticket
>worldwide lottery to win a ticket
Don't know how we would keep people without a ticket from making babbies but eh

So China's one child policy on crack?

Also if you filter by high intelligence you will fall into a similar problem as China in that there are more males than females (because males have on average higher IQ peaks) which will allow women more power due to scarcity.

2 childs per person seems ok enough for me (a couple would have 2, a son counts for the father and the mother)

Sex Robots

you need approx 2.1 to compensate for accidental deaths

Make poor people make less kids
Artificial wombs for the rich

>Bananas deplete, monkeys die.
There's enough food on Africa for the whole world. But most of it is owned by either Europeans or rich Africans who sell it to an enormous profit to feed livestock.

I don't even get why the notion of not allowing somebody to reproduce is even that morally reprehensible. Are some people really so stupid as to believe that their ONLY PURPOSE in life is to have children. Is not being allowed to have kids that bad?

First off such actions would restrict an individual's freedom.

Second even if the individual themself wouldn't mind, the family of said individual most likely would mind.

Third the individuals in question who would be restricted are in fact usually the ones who's greatest value is arguably the ability to reproduce.

Remember the issue here is trying to convince the ones who don't consider their greatest value being reproduction to reproduce more frequently. And to do so you must effectively force everyone else to have less or no kids.

Why does Veeky Forums have such a hard on for /pol/?
>B-b-but
Is not an argument, it is what it is. Food is already flying around into all corners of earth through modern agricultural practices but if you dig deeper you will see there is a problem looming. When it's all said and done we put about 10 calories in to get about 1 food calorie out now. As fossil fuels deplete throughout the 21st century food prices will rise as they already have along with the transportation costs. This will be the check on human population unless we nuke ourselves first, start large conventional resource wars or experience some sort of plague. Maybe all of those but synthetic solutions will pale in comparison to real world natural solutions me thinks.