Overpopulation

Discussion in 'Ecology & Environmentalism' started by Valvar, 12 October 2013.

  1. So, here's an important topic that I think will (and does) attract a lot of conflict and controversy in nationalistic circles.
    The issue is that of overpopulation and reducing population, which as I see it is absolutely necessary on all levels (both nationally and internationally, and including all major ethnicities). Of course, we will all probably agree with the sentiment that reducing the population of certain ethnic groups, especially those from/in the middle-east and Africa is important, but the more caustic issue is that of reducing population within the own ethnic group. Unfortunately (in my view, please put yours forward) a lot of nationalists seem to think that abortions and birth control, if applied to their own ethnic group, is somehow undesirable (and sometimes religiously/abstractly immoral, but that is another case). It's a reactionary sentiment, due to the fact that other ethnic groups are rapidly outpacing us within our own countries. While this is of course extremely problematic, increasing the biomass of the white population is to me neither a solution nor desirable. In my opinion, more stress should be put on making sure that the populations of other ethnicities are limited and possibly in the future (hopefully) reduced with similar or (of course idealistically) greater proportions.
    I'd like to hear what your thoughts on this subject are, and if you think there are any realistic ways to reach, regardless of to what degree, better population levels in the future. This is not only an ecological issue, but an issue of land - if we want to return to an agrarian society, we simply won't have enough land. If we were overpopulated a thousand years ago, what do you think we are now? The cities and modern trade are our damage control, but what do we do without them?
    One obvious way of keeping population down is child policies and licenses - similar to the Chinese model. Healthy parents with good relationships and civic status would be granted several licenses, while others might only be granted one or none at all. The problem is that such policies are very totalitarian in character, and I don't think it is pleasant when the government has that much control over the personal sphere. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this.
     
    • Interesting Interesting x 1
  2. Kratoarchist

    Kratoarchist Member

    There already is a natural form of population control, it's only a matter of time before it manifests: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe

    Of course liberals think this is the worst thing in the world, and we should do everything we can to prevent it, but the fact is this is exactly what humanity needs. It's ultimately inevitable, and trying to fight off its effects will only increase the number of people who end up starving to death or being killed in the wars.

    As populations increase, and food production levels off, we're going to have more and more immigrants laying siege to first world nations, and we'll either have to physically fight them off to defend our borders, or be dragged down with them. We don't need abortions, we don't need contraception or eugenics, we just need enough bullets and explosives to protect our "life rafts".
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Interesting Interesting x 1
  3. Stormraaf

    Stormraaf Junior Member

    I just might contend that increasing the biomass of the white population is a desirable stopgap solution, meaning it can at least buy European civilization some time to revitalise.

    One problem with the advocacy of family planning, in consideration of ecology and sustainable societies, is that it finds Europeans (at 8% of the world population and declining already anyway) a receptive audience while the other ethnicities, those putting demographic pressure on our living space, couldn't care less (or even think it their destiny to have as many offspring as possible), and this while the sheer numbers of non-Europeans are being wielded as a weapon against us. This is especially true in (modern) democratic societies since (modern) democracy rewards groups innately resorting to the r-selection strategy.

    So while I also believe a smaller population should be desired, I think attempts at concurrent reductions of all population groups would be self-defeating. I would argue that we can only reduce our numbers without repercussions after we have obtained secure, self-contained, racially homogenous spaces, after some future Reconquista, when being outnumbered by people outside our borders doesn't factor into our losing territory.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Superb Superb x 1
  4. Saesenthesis

    Saesenthesis Senior Member

    I think you need not much child policies in civilized countries. Many women shift their focus on other things in life and some don't want children anyway. (White countries, Japan.)

    I don't think white countries are the place for this practice yet. Definitely not. Even leftist are acknowledging our low birth rates and using it as an excuse to import immigrants by hundreds of thousands.

    African population is about to quadruple by 2100, though I've read that forces that be may already have some sterilization programs - e.g. 'polio vaccine sterilization myth ' Interestingly, Serbia has higher sterility rates after US bombing.

    This is always advocated in white countries. It's yet another extension of 'white guilt'.

    The most important thing for Europeans is not to force women to fornicate and abolish abortion completely, but assert the reasons behind abortions. 'I'm not ready for the challenge/have no money/father left' are the most common reasons. We need to address the problem maturely and lay grounds not just for any family, but a healthy European family. What good it is even if those women/men single parents have children and then leave them fend for themselves - become drunkards, engage in racial mixing etc.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. It has proven very difficult to boost the birthrate of 'desirable parents', but curbing the flow of the amount of people who cannot take care of themselves ( let alone their children) seems very simple to me. No permanent birth control? No financial assistance!
    This is a soft-eugenics- solution to both the most undesirable class of indigenous people as the non-western population growth.
    That way, all the brakes on unsustainable childbirth would be voluntary. People can choose to have children anyway, but they will not get any support from those who have taken some care and consideration into providing for their offspring.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Bun

    Bun Member

    If "undesirable" couples were forced to adhere to a one-child policy, we would see a a reduction in undesirables births by 50% every generation (20-25yrs) and 50% living persons generally within 100yrs, assuming a liberal lifespan estimate.

    It would also increase social utility to encourage those who weren't the most fit parents, but still had no major genetic defects, to have one child: they would have a stake in society, be more likely to care about it's future, and adopt lower time preferences.

    As far as current solutions: White couples should have as many children as possible, even if it means having to go on welfare. It's false virtue to not take advantage of the system and "get while the gettin's good", the lumpenproles certain have no objections.

    I have mixed feelings about the number of young White single mothers with White children I see on dating sites like PlentyOfFish. On the one hand, at least some Whites are still having kids, even if unintentionally and unoptimally. On the other, obviously, more single moms means less desirable dating options for single guys like me.
     
  7. Huginn ok Muninn

    Huginn ok Muninn Senior Member

    Who gets to define "undesirable?" And do you really think people defined as "undesirable" and relegated to one child will not be extremely resentful, causing far more problems than it solves?

    I contend it is a good idea to promote pro-family values generally, but to emphasize them to pretty, intelligent women, who might otherwise decide that they are more interested in a career than procreation.

    I also think it's going dangerously in the wrong direction to mention ANYTHING about overpopulation and how people are a plague upon the earth to any of our own children. As Stormraaf said, when we are the only people listening, we die out and others take over.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. Pangloss

    Pangloss Senior Member

    I think we would want to avoid a Malthusian disaster, also a smaller population I believe will be beneficial in terms of unemployment (especially when coupled with a sensible immigration policy), and when it comes to public services and the environment (ironically, the most anti-immigration in Switzerland at the moment is their green party - as the actually realise the environmental damage that mass immigration entails). If we encourage smaller families, I think most of us will enjoy a higher standard of living.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Bun

    Bun Member

    It would likely phrased it in a less offensive fashion. Politicians are good at bullshitting.

    Also, their resent (feelings) would be essentially irrelevant in an hierarchal and "authoritarian" national order. Even in 21st century America, there are tons of guys (e.g., Asian-Americans) who, due to the decline of monogamy, almost never get laid and who likely aren't ever going to pass on their genes, if only because women find them creepy or something similar. And yet, these beta males, at the present time, posess no revolutionary potential that threatens the status-quo. If anything, they're likely liberal and support feminism and other such bullshit. Quite ironic.

    Look at South Africa: a proportionately small number of Whites ruled over a large number of Blacks, who, had the international community (see: liberal cancer, "tribal" interests, etc) not clamped down, would still be in power.
     
  10. Manu

    Manu Señor Member Sustaining Member
    1. Norden
    2. Knights of the Iron Cross

    I basically believe that only the best third or so of white europeans ought to live on this planet. Ideally. One way or another, that is how I think it will end. It won't until Earth is no longer contested, and we will not have peace until then. There should only be one race on one planet. When we are one, then we are done. Call it lne of many trials we will have to undergo.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice