The Overpopulation Crisis

8
291


Scientists, economists and environmentalists are all seriously concerned about the explosion in the earth’s human population. With every new birth, there is a detrimental impact on the earth and on the standard of living of others. Economists worry about the depletion of natural resources, while environmentalists are concerned about the impact on climate change, over-industrialization and pollution.

Climate change is already threatening thousands of natural habitats with the melting of the ice caps and ocean acidification, in addition to terrorizing developing countries with a range of natural disasters such as droughts, floods and hurricanes. With every new human on this planet, our yearly output of carbon dioxide increases, accelerating the damage to our planet and bringing us closer to a global catastrophe.

Natural resources are also being depleted at an alarming rate. Many species of fish are rapidly going extinct due do overfishing, while deforestation continues to shrink global forest cover, and the amount of habitable land is rapidly diminishing as humans continue to relentlessly industrialize.

The global population currently sits at over seven billion people, and global population growth is only accelerating. The United Nations predicts that if we do not intervene, global population will increase to an alarming eleven billion people by 2100! The impact this number of people will have on the planet would be so calamitous that the earth may not be able to sustain subsequent generations. We must act now with bold and decisive social policy, such as one child policies and financial penalties for families. If we fail to do something soon, there may no longer be a planet to save, and there will be nothing for our children to inherit, however many we have.

jfb

Elect Hilary

trav777

This is very dangerous talk, a dog whistle for racism.

People of color have the highest reproduction rates, by far, on the planet. Nigeria’s population is expected to rise to 1B people by 2050. This heralds a change in the way resources are apportioned, with less going to whites and more to POCs, especially sub-Saharan Africans. Scientific racists are alarmed, showing how global IQ is now decreasing, but who can even listen to these Nazis anyway?

These Africans will become refugees, heading to Europe for a better life and Europe must absorb them. After Europe is full, the United States and all other white countries must absorb them. Their reproduction rate doesn’t slow when they reach the West either, so eventually, Africans will become a dominant demographic everywhere.

This is progress!!! We’re returning to pan-Africanism…what does this mean for you? It means a return to them bein kangz n sheeit and flying mind controlled pyramids, as afrocentric studies teach. Africa everywhere! A beautiful rainbow of diversity, tolerance, and peace, just like W. Africa.

The West already has defacto small family policies for whites, who are below replacement rate. It’s almost like someone could construe this as a racial genocide program, but whatever…those people saying that are probably Nazis who think the white race has a right to exist or something. They probably want to kill 6 trillion more jews.

MillionDollarBonus_

Well yes, I agree that these demographic changes are desirable in order to fight white privilege. We do however have to look at how to reduce the human population’s impact on the planet. Maybe the solution is for whites, who consume the most by far, to reduce their standard of living to sustainable levels. Maybe a return to a peaceful cooperatinve economy like the Native Americans would solve the problem.

Black Lives Matter

Overpopulation is a crisis that impacts PEOPLE OF COLOR more than anyone else. Hillary said it right in the debate yesterday when she provided that Trump is a racist. We need population control; otherwise, people of color will suffer the most.

That means open borders, more vaccines, free reproductive health services, fewer whites, and, yes, global governance. It’s the only way.

Hakey Bauker
Hakey Bauker

I believe all families should be limited to one child only. Except Muslims, they face enough discrimination as it is.

Hillarys Server
Hillarys Server

The science of population mathematics has shown an inverse correlation between family income and number of children.

Higher income means less children.

For example, non-melinated European families have few children and high income. And citizens of color have lower income and many children.

Given this inverse correlation, the most effective way to decrease the birth rate of citizens of color would be to leverage this mathematical relationship and transfer the high income of non-melinated European households to households of color.

Gregg Miklashek, MD (retired)
Gregg Miklashek, MD (retired)

Compared to our hunter-gatherer ancestors, we are 1233 times more, in numbers, although they had half the lifespan that we do, which is another piece of the overpopulation problem. My researches have identified population density stress as the cause of all of the top ten diseases killing modern men and women in urban Western societies. Contemporary hunter-gatherers have none of these non-communicable diseases. It’s all in my free online book, “Stress R Us”, just Google the title. Gregg Miklashek, MD (retired)

Sugarlock
Sugarlock

I acknowledge that I don’t have any scientific credentials. But I think that we can accommodate those extra 4 billion people by opening the borders of the United States, thus relieving the crowding in the rest of the world. We need at least 7 more Statues of Liberties, at least 2 on each border, welcoming the “tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of other teeming shores.”

Secondly, I propose fourth, fifth, and sixth trimester abortions. We are rapidly evolving as respects our moral enlightenment. We Americans didn’t understand that abortion was a woman’s right till 1973. Now we are talking about late-termination abortions. We might as well recognize the direction this is heading. Ten or twenty years from now evolved and enlightened progressives will realize that a baby is still part of its mother’s body, so to speak, through the fourth, fifth, or sixth trimester. So birth certificates won’t have the baby’s name till the baby is perhaps one year old. At that time the mother will have finally decided that the baby is not just an unwelcome tumor from her body that cries and pees and poops, and she will give the baby a name and complete the birth certificate. Then the baby will be a human being. If the mother decides that the one-year old tumor is unwelcome, then she will go to an abortion clinic operated by highly-trained professionals, who will perform a procedure.

Anyhow, that’s what I think. And if I’m mixed up, please, somebody straighten me out.

wpDiscuz