Ethical Depopulation Could Save the Planet

In Full disclosure, I have used the alias "Robert Greene" on several internet forums. The content I've provided on this post, is the same as the content, I've used on several forums. If you accuse me of plagiarism, I am only plagiarizing myself. I've held back on talking about overpopulation, because I know it's controversial. I feel it's the biggest environmental issue not being discussed.

And so it begins..

Source: http://www.theindependentbd.com/arcprint/details/122330/2017-11-06

Why are we spending billions on energy retrofit programs, climate change research, environmental consultants, and conservation, when we are spending next to nothing to slow down population growth? We're putting a lot of resources into energy efficiency, but all that goes to vain when we ignore rapid population growth. We can't allow ourselves to go beyond 10 Billion, or there will be severe consequences for our quality of life, and environment. We need a plan for humanity to survive at least another 1000 years, and ethical depopulation might be the solution.

Are we simply going to ignore the issue, and let countries like India and China get over 2 billion? How will future generations maintain a high quality of life, when the resources start to run out? What will the quality of life be like for them, when they can't get access to affordable food, housing and transportation? The people living in mega-cities are becoming alienated from nature. The quality of life diminishes when they spend 2 to 3 hours a day stuck in traffic. We are running out of farmland, and we don't need to watch the Amazon get destroyed, in order to make room for new farms.

By gradually reducing the World's populating, we could start to regrow forests outside cities, providing a beautiful landscape and recreation opportunities for future generations.

How do we proceed with aggressive action on overpopulation that will be ethical, and not interfere with humans rights?

I give you a picture of Mexico City, showing 16 Square kilometers, without a park or woodlot. How do we get nature back in a rapidly growing city?

How do we get environmentalists and mainstream media talking about overpopulation? Whenever you hear a news segment on Climate Change, it usually goes after Big Oil, and the political establishment for not implementing a carbon tax. They work so hard to try and change the system, but why not work just as hard to stop the system from getting bigger. Why not work just as hard to stop population growth?

Should we take money away from energy retrofit programs, and put it towards helping developing countries stabilize their population? I think the ethical solution is to encourage up to 2 children, but provide contraceptives, education, incentives, free vasectomies, after the second child is born. How can we get mainstream media involved in the debate, so we can come up with some ideas that are ethical, and effective? It's OK to have a debate. If 1 in 10 ideas work, than that's better than doing nothing.

Even in Canada, overcrowding is affecting our quality of Life. In the town of Markham all the houses look the same. Why not leave a few lots empty for a small park, community garden, or woodlot? Why not have some mixed used development, instead of massive residential areas? Maybe Canadian cities are becoming overpopulated. We should encourage growth in small towns, instead of adding to the largest cities.

Farming takes up more space than any other human activity. Just look at the State of Iowa. Before Columbus, all of this was forests. In their greed, the pioneers virtually whipped out an entire state, without any second thought about conservation. The remaining forests remaining are small, and insufficient. Maybe we should replant some of the forests for the environment, and to provide recreational opportunities for future generations. Farms are beautiful, but they shouldn't take up 95% of the landscape. Leaving only 5% for nature, is unacceptable.

One of the problems is, overpopulation makes money for the elite. Globalist can outsource jobs to high growth countries, and make billions off an endless supply of cheap labor. Real estate speculators need rapid population growth, to drive up the price of their holdings. Depopulation is going to put transnational corporations out of business. Liberals won't talk about population growth, because they believe it's the 1% telling the 99%, how to live their lives. I don't think anyone needs a family larger than 2. You want a 3rd person in your family, you adopt. We could implement compulsory vasectomies after a father has his second child, but the political backlash would be to severe. So we could spend billions promoting volunteer vasectomies, after the second child. We must encourage as respect family size, up to the second child. Promote personal finance and parenting education in schools.

We need liberal environmentalist to recognizes that "all roads lead to overpopulation". Manmade climate change wouldn't exist without overpopulation. Deforestation would be less severe without overpopuation. The oceans would have more fish without overpopulation. To say that westerners are greedy, and Africans aren't, because they use less energy is false. They would acquire our wealth, and consume, as much as we do, if given the chance. Instead of demonizing personal consumption, we need to slow down and than reverse rapid population growth.

The price of housing and food would go down, as demand decreases. The quality of life for the average citizen would go up, with a gradual and ethical depopulation. In Europe, many countries are making the mistake, of providing incentives to increase their population. Virtually every country, except Greenland needs to depopulation. China and India should talk highest priority, followed by Africa and Latin America. We need to come up with the concept of "Ethical Depopulation". It we advocated for a documentary to be made, as power as "An Inconvenient Truth", it might be a good idea. We need to sell the concept of "Ethical Depopulation". Having a birthrate solution, while have a 2 child global target. If we could reduce the population by 5% per decade, I think the planet would have a chance.

The planet is going to have to support the needs of not the present, but all future generations going forward, for thousands of years. Preemptive ethical depopulation could prevent a lot of misery and death. It might take 50 years or 100 years, until the real economic and environmental collapse happens, but right now were setting up the perfect storm for that to happen. Overpopulation is the Trojan horse, so don't be on the wrong side of history. By preventing unnecessary births, we're preventing miserable deaths in the future, weather it be plague, economic, environmental collapse, or another world war. It's only a matter of time. Maybe the system will stay intact another 200 years, don't bet on 1000 years. The right thing to do is find ethical ways to depopulate, until the planet can support all generations going forward. Mother nature gets to decide who wins.