you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 0 insightful - 1 fun0 insightful - 0 fun1 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant general world population. The places with the fastest population growth would require population reduction much more than areas that do not. Assuming that consumption and pollution has drastic global effects, the idea would be to have less people in these rapidly growing and consuming places to begin with.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The places with the fastest population growth would require population reduction much more than areas that do not.

Assuming that consumption and pollution has drastic global effects, the idea would be to have less people in these rapidly growing and consuming places to begin with.

Yes, but taking them from poor areas with low resource usage/pollution per capita, and moving them to rich countries with much higher resource usage/pollution doesn't seem like a particularly good idea either

[–]JapsDoEverythingRiteBlack Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You're correct, that's a terrible idea. Which is why things like birth control is required in those poor areas.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You're correct, that's a terrible idea. Which is why things like birth control is required in those poor areas.

I'd also point to the financial and food aid we insist on providing populations that have exceeded their productive capacity for the population. We have known for decades that doing so only increases the population growth in these countries, but the bleeding heart liberals don't like to face the reality of this particular kind of 'green science'