How do we deal with overpopulation?

whatever we do, overpopulation is not to be addressed in first world countries. third world countries? yes.

magical idea here lads.
>make humans undying cyborgs
>make them sterile

Kill all white males

Why stop there? Kill all males.

more aids

We could start building colonies in the ocean.

It's not about living space, it's about energy and resources.
Unless you mean building and mining on the ocean floor, but that's not remotely practical.

youtube.com/watch?v=VOMWzjrRiBg
its not about overpopulation, its about exponential growth and its energy requirements.

No no, you got it all wrong. It's definitely true because there are always hot deserts.

China is case example on how governments can directly put a stop to overpopulation. The one child policy was effective in reducing the country's population, although it did skewer the gender ratio a bit.

Stop all foreign aid to Africa and other 3rd world regions.

Introduce populations of said places mentioned above to anime and vidya.

Abolish the welfare state.

Implement stricter immigration laws and enforce them rigorously.

Build walls.

White people who are at fault for this wreck of a world.

Humanity's not meant to be that advanced.

We aren't ready yet.

>How do we deal with overpopulation?
stop feeding shitskins

stop importing them, too

education of women correlates with reduced birth rate

greater quality of life correlates with reduced birth rate

It is a general challenge for a single human or even a group to change how reality is. The human reality for the most part. On a universal scale, we have to push past the great filter. A nearly impossible task. I know we will do it, Because humans have a will, to survive. Humanity will destroy itself because we place feelings before logic. Soon only the elite and money filled will have access to the provisions necessary to survive in an overpopulated world. My personal advice is to prepare for the collapse of things. Even if it does not occur. The skills that you learn and provisions you acquire will aid you if you ever need to escape. I would say don't just collect books, exercise also train your body. So that you can take more damage and be able to fight more. Become a superior version of your average human. In doing so, you almost ensure you will be able to survive in a world of overpopulated roaches. Aquire provisions and valuables. When overpopulation boils over you will be ready. Prepare for that time.

one-child-policy is alright but make it illegal to kill a first born daughter

we need to arctic forests and amazon in order to breath.

big open sandy deserts reflect more solar radiation back into space, than darker human developed areas. helping to keep the planet cooler.

economic incentive to not have children.

anyone over 35 and childless should be given tax breaks. if they adopt, then even more.

IQ test, if you have less than 130 then you can't have kids
also, moral tests pls, we don't need 180IQ psychopaths

One child only policy and
Anyone caught illegally having children is sentenced to life imprisonment in the rape chamber

Veeky Forums, where good/reasonable posts get ignored and every shitpost gets multiple replies

>education of women correlates with reduced birth rate
>greater quality of life correlates with reduced birth rate

And in combination, they result in a birth rate below replacement levels.

Now tell me: Do we wish for a world where everyone lives like in the West? Can we afford to?

>Do we wish for a world where everyone lives like in the West?

that is literally the goal of globalist liberals.

We have to put policies in place to regulate our reproduction.

For every white person born, two mulatto children must be born from the seed of Tyrone.

What's so bad about our current global policy?

>for every brown child born, another brown child has to be born

What's the point of moral tests if anyone with more than 80 IQ know they can lie?

climate change isn't caused by over population
the average Brazilian produces a tenth of the CO2 produced by the average American
the problem is capitalism and can only be solved by a radical transformation of society.

>that image

those buildings aren't even bad, it's just that capitalists are too frugal and won't make them both functional and aesthetically pleasing by exploiting different areas or orientation, or the government won't let them. either way there are many other layers at work here.

Your implying anybody with the IQ of 130 are even sociable enough to get laid

You can't stop it, you can only channel every fiber of your being into becoming part of the wealthy elite who only feel the negative effects in their stock portfolio.

If you could witness the horrors to come you would be highly motivated to get off Veeky Forums and go study, then when you have some sort of career read SEC filings, live beneath your means and build up capital to invest plus maybe dabble in starting a business if you know what you are doing.

I used to always think this way too about the climate change especially, but then recently I started to question whether the monstrous achievements in the evolution of social darwinism would ever let it?

basically, we are learning so much faster every day than we did when nietszhe was studying it.

A reliable pension correlates with reduced birth rate

Overpopulation is a self-regulated problem. It's really not much more to it. Any respectable population growth-model stabilizes or oscillates about some mean.

Surely global warming depends on population levels but then the problem is really that CO2 per capita, or some other gas, is to high.

Let's put this another way: the problems of overpopulation are self correcting, because they only happen in total shit holes where life is cheap to begin with. We don't have to worry about those surplus people because they'll suffer and die until those backward nations get their shit together. At which point population growth will tend to level off. There is no overpopulation in developed nations with stable infrastructure and food supply. Everybody else is on their own.

Happy?

>Socialists concluding socialism is the sole problem to global warming
This is one of the reasons people have hard time believing in global warming since there are socialist lobbyists everywhere.

Wouldn't prohibition of any emission globally prevent global warming? That wouldn't be socialism.

kill third worlders, it's not like they are happy anyway
then copy china and institute one-child policy
of course to do this we need to go full hitler first

>Abolish the welfare state.

Why would you do that?

One child policies fuck up future demographics by skewing the population pyramids

Why stop there? Kill all non-transgenders

it doesn't matter when we have virtual waifus

This, someone needs to go full hitler/stalin and begin to kill off people but no one has the balls to do so.

Of course it's a terrible thing to even think but we really need less people and more green technology to save our species and environment.

Keep putting people in the midwest until it reaches the population density of Belgium. Then glass India and China.

Kill yourself shillfaggot.

Don't have kids - or have less kids. You'll save money and the one kid will have a better quality of life.

>Can we afford to?
yes actually, if the global population was 500 million

>go full concentration camp
>round up 3-4 billion subhumans
>have them tear down the human infrastructure they once occupied
>recycle all the material and replant forests
>when it's done kill them all off
>grind their bodies and use as fertilizer for the new forests
>all burning of fossil materials stops at the end of the heating season
>spend half a year to outfit everyone with sustainable heat sources for the next winter
>cradle to cradle is the new bible
>spend next couple of years tearing the rest f human infrastructure down
>rebuilt it with fully recyclable parts

After a couple of decade the environment should start to heal and return to it's former glory.

The next step would be populating other planets and systems.

What good does telling them about anime and video do?

All social interaction stops and thereby babby making.

Just educate the third world and make them live better lives.
Too bad this won't happen in our lifetime, too many interests in keeping them poor and stupid.

>s/he thinks capitalists would agree to that
lmao, never happening
you need to abolish capitalism first

>kill third worlders
the colours here are based on CO2 emission per capita per year per country (2000 data)
from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:CO2_per_capita_per_country.png
the first world is the problem.
killing people from non-industrial nations will do literally nothing to prevent global warming
I mean I'm not in favour of killing anybody but if killing is your solution you need to kill the white westerners

your picture is NOT overpopulation, it is just high population density

overpopulation means that humans exceed the carrying capacity of the environment

a wealthy city by definition cannot be overpopulated since it can support its inhabitants very well

real overpopulation is present only in poor areas mostly in Africa and middle east

adjust those per capita numbers for GDP and then we can talk

high CO2 emissions can be excused if productivity is high

unless your goal is to keep the world in poverty in order to decrease CO2

in which case get fucked

...

Per capita kinda skews things... China already emits more than twice the CO2 the U.S. does and India emits 5x more than Canada.

>adjust those per capita numbers for GDP
why?
we're all going to drown because of the CO2 emissions, not because of the $$$
>high CO2 emissions can be excused if productivity is high
who cares if we all drown, as long as productivity is high, right?
>unless your goal is to keep the world in poverty in order to decrease CO2
poverty or drowning
hmmmm
>in which case get fucked
rude.

What is Brazil's secret?

>we're all going to drown

Nope.

Then it's called underutilisation you retard

>Per capita kinda skews things
How is it skewed? we're talking about killing people in order to prevent global warming, so surely you want to kill as few people as possible for the maximum decrease in CO2 emissions.
unless you value Chinese lives less than American lives I don't know

AHAHHAHAAHAH

Can you elaborate on that?

Sure.

Global warming does not mean we are all going to drown at all, that is complete BS.

obviously ability to utilize resources must be considered in the definition of overpopulation

cant utilize resources well yet have 4+ birth rate leading to exacerbated poverty = overpopulation

Impressive. I don't think jews even care about being found out anymore. They are really throwing money at this

What I meant by that was billions of people are going to die because of global warming. People in low lying areas due to flooding, wars over diminishing resources, desertification and so on.
I didn't mean everyone was literally going to drown. Happy?

That is just a disgusting thing to post. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

If they had less people they'd still have the same issues of equal extent.

most of those are trolls

at least I like to think so

Ashamed of myself because of my opinion ?
Killing white people is never going to solve the problem of overpopulation and you know it.
I'd rather you suggested killing white people on the grounds that you hate them instead of hiding behind a ridiculous and obviously flawed concept.

I wish user

Ashamed of yourself for making an irrelevant hateful and anti-Semitic on the internet. Those trolls whom you responded to have absolutely nothing to do with Judaism, yet you're ascribing their comments to Jewry.

>skewer

Stick to words you understand, champ.

I need to remind you that you are on Veeky Forums. Now fuck off

I wouldn't have minded borrowing 15 degrees from the south of Europe this summer, in the Nordic countries it was cold, in parts the coldest for 26 years. And it has been raining about every other day.

So the "global" warming is only regional and only "global" is perhaps you average everything. Perhaps. We were promised ice free North Pole many years ago but the ice is still there.

I need to remind you that you are on Veeky Forums not /pol/. Now fuck off.

>What I meant by that was billions of people are going to die because of global warming. People in low lying areas due to flooding, wars over diminishing resources, desertification and so on.I didn't mean everyone was literally going to drown. Happy?

First let me say that mostly people in poor overpopulated areas are going to die. So in a way it is their own fault. People who are not irresponsible and dont shit out kids with no thought for the future can afford to cope with global warming.

I am not going to choose to destroy modern global economy just to save a bunch of overpopulated useless eaters.

Second, it is the developed world that is crucial both for solving global warming (through advancing green technologies) and for keeping billions of third worlders alive (because billions are going to die anyway if you tank the global economy).

You are basically proposing to cure the disease by killing the patient here.

This.
I don't expect people would even choose to continue reproducing if they were undying cyborgs, but if people are really worried about this, just tell everyone that you never could figure out how to make them fertile cyborgs and have done.

>First let me say that mostly people in poor overpopulated areas are going to die. So in a way it is their own fault.
Huh what? the richest countries produce the most CO2 per capita. For instance the average American produces 41 times the CO2 that the average Bangladeshi produces, yet Bangladesh is one of the most at risk countries due to climate change.
Global warming is not their fault and yet tens of millions of people will die due to flooding in Bangladesh.
You have a really chauvinist perspective here. It's largely the developed world that is causing climate change and all you can come up with is calling the people in poorer countries "useless eaters".
>it is the developed world that is crucial both for solving global warming
As I've said, it's the developed world that caused this crisis, the problem wouldn't exist to begin with if it wasn't for the developed world. Also, green technologies won't be enough to avert the catastrophe we are plummeting into.
>billions [of people in the third world] are going to die anyway if you tank the global economy
The global economy is based around extracting wealth from developing countries through cheap labour and exploitation of natural resources and importing them to rich western nations. The third world sees the least benefit of global capitalism, and would likely benefit the most by a transfer to global socialism.

>Global warming is not their fault and yet tens of millions of people will die due to flooding in Bangladesh.

Tens of millions will die because Bangladesh is heavily overpopulated. A lot less would die if it wasnt.

>As I've said, it's the developed world that caused this crisis, the problem wouldn't exist to begin with if it wasn't for the developed world.

If it wasnt for the developed world, there would not be billions of third worlders in the first place. The only reason why they are alive in the first place is because of developments in science, technology and economy that occurred in developed world.

Sure, no development, no global warming. But then why even bother? As I said, it is like curing the disease by killing the patient.

>The global economy is based around extracting wealth from developing countries through cheap labour and exploitation of natural resources and importing them to rich western nations. The third world sees the least benefit of global capitalism, and would likely benefit the most by a transfer to global socialism.

Communist BS. If anything, it is the other way around. Developed countries would be mostly OK without third world. Third world would undergo mass die offs without developed world, with billions dead.

>Tens of millions will die because Bangladesh is heavily overpopulated. A lot less would die if it wasnt.
And no people would die if the developed nations stopped producing CO2.
You didn't even address the point I was making. The central point is responsibility. The responsibility lies on those who contribute most to global warming to cease their production of greenhouse gases.

Your argument is like saying to the woman who's been raped that she's responsible for it because she shouldn't have gone out at night, while completely ignoring the guilt of the rapist.
>Developed countries would be mostly OK without third world
Who makes your clothes, builds your computer, makes your phone and your TV?
It's not people in the developed countries it's workers being paid very little (a tiny fraction of the wealth they produce) in developing nations
the developed nations do nothing but exploit the labour of the third world with unequal trading relations.
>Communist BS
now that's just name calling, I've kept it civil and I would like you to do the same.
You didn't address my point here either, just asserted that developed nations would be okay despite their reliance on cheap foreign labour. The poorer nations benefit very very little from the developed nations.

I know what skewed means. What you saw was a typo.

shrink down hslf the population

>And no people would die if the developed nations stopped producing CO2.

Millions would die if they did it through decreasing productivity.

>You didn't even address the point I was making. The central point is responsibility. The responsibility lies on those who contribute most to global warming to cease their production of greenhouse gases.

Developed countries have the highest productivity per CO2 emission and also the most support for green technologies. So they are already taking the issue very responsibly. Now if only undeveloped countries also did their part by not shitting out endless supply of kids, that would be great.

>Who makes your clothes, builds your computer, makes your phone and your TV?

China. A second world, global middleclass country with low fertility rate and high economic growth. Growth you would love to stop and reverse, judging by your posts here.

Third world is Africa and middle east.

>China
>Low fertility

China has fertility rate of only 1.57 and had since the 90s. That is very low and well below even replacement level.

China gets ZERO credit for its forward-thinking two-child policy. People have the nerve to lecture China on energy and carbon, when they're the only country on Earth that has created legal frameworks to control population growth. They even had the sense to change from one to two children to eliminate the male preference causing a sex imbalance. On top of it, they have a fine system for additional children, which basically means only wealthier (higher IQ) people can afford to have more than two children, thus neutralizing the IQ shredder effect of cities.

War and disease.

You guys eat the bait harder than redditor refugees do on /pol/
holy shit what the fuck are you doing

It's not about population density, it's about resource consumption. If everyone in the world were to consume at the levels Americans do, the world would be fucked.

Lmao good meme ,user is fake like you sexual life

interstellar expansion