you can list stats and so on blah blah blah. . .

humans are pathetic and we all deserve to die. simple as that.

and im not ever going to be st00pid enough to have children trust me.

check this out:

Voluntairy Human extinction movement

United Nations Population Fund webpage on “Empowering Women”
“Where women’s status is low, family size tends to be large, which makes it more difficult for families to thrive. Population and development and reproductive health programmes are more effective when they address the educational opportunities, status and empowerment of women. When women are empowered, whole families benefit, and these benefits often have ripple effects to future generations.”
http://www.unfpa.org/gender/empowerment.htm

And by status and equality, we’re even including such basic things as being taught how to read! Some girls are prohibited from such basic knowledge!

———————

“most of the rich … could care less about others. ”

No, they could not. Their care is already at zero, and the scale does not measure negatives.

———————

So, are you happy I did your homework for you? Now do us all a favor and don’t have any kids.

You will also note the difference in the terms we use, a difference which further demonstrates your lack of respect for the population situation.

You demonstrate a severe lack of imagination when you claim that “letting/having millions in the third world die now will only make for less suffering over all in the future.” Instead of “letting” these people die, we must stop killing them, and instead give them reasons and support to choose to have fewer children. Given the choice, a lot of people do choose this path. This is already happening, and we could expand these policies.

Unfortunately, many governments do not want women to have equal social status with men. This includes the U.S. government under your namesake, which refuses to fund family planning education abroad.

“The past 50 years witnessed a remarkable reduction of fertility levels in the less developed regions, with total fertility falling from 6 to 3 children per woman. Over the next 50 years, fertility in the less developed regions is expected to reach replacement level in 2030-2035 and fall below it thereafter.”
http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2002/WPP2002-HIGHLIGHTSrev1.PDF

And to reply to some of your specific claims…

A lot of that population data that you use is more than a decade old. A lot has changed in that time.

Here are two sources about the reduction in the world’s population growth rate:

“World population growth ‘falling’”
BBC News, 2004
“The growth rate of the world population has slowed down, according to the US Census Bureau.
“Its report says there were 74 million more people in 2002 - well below the 87 million added in 1989-90.
“The rate of growth peaked 40 years ago, when it stood at about 2.2% a year. The bureau partly attributes the drop to women having fewer children.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3560433.stm

–and–

I am not surprised that your genocidal arguments are not getting you far on this website. Also, your attempt to equate population to pollution is just plain wrong, and I will not fall for this diversion tactic.

Some people consume more than others, and the differences (and inequities) are very obvious if one bothers to look across the world. Today’s inefficient and anti-ecological processes of design, manufacture, marketing, and consumption are intimately bound to environmental destruction at every stage of a product’s lifecycle. Damage comes from every poorly-designed, unsustainably-produced manufactured product’s development, from the resource extraction (for example, mines which pollute waterways), manufacturing (for example, factories powered by coal-fired electric-generating plants), marketing (for example, wasted time and electricity for corporate television advertising), distribution (for example, petroleum-powered trucking networks), and then disposal (for example, hazardous waste from dead computers or batteries). And some products uses are destructive, too, cars being the most infamous example today.

A poor person in an industrializing or non-industrialized country doesn’t have the means to consume as many resources as a wealthy person in an industrialized country. That’s part of what it means to be “poor”. In fact, it takes tens and sometimes scores of these poor, what you would call “Third World” people, to match the consumption of a single inefficient “Westerner”.

To fix a lot of the problems of the world, the rich people of Earth (including myself, comparatively) must (1) live with less “stuff” and (2) when we do need to consume, do so by using products and systems that do no or nearly no environmental damage. Unfortunately, the latter is hard to do since today’s primitive processes ignore environmental effects.

Here is a citation, since you like them:

The Worldwatch Institute cited different rates of energy consumption to illustrate this point back in 2004 (emphasis added):

“Compared with just 10 years ago, for example, Americans are driving larger and less efficient cars and buying bigger homes and more appliances. As a result, U.S. oil use has increased over the decade by nearly 2.7 million barrels a day—more oil than is used daily in total in India and Pakistan, ***which together contain more than four times as many people as the United States does.*** In total, the average American consumes five times more energy than the average global citizen, 10 times more than the average Chinese, and nearly 20 times more than the average Indian.”
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/808

And you can find similar skewed inequities for other kinds of consumption, including food, water, metals, and just about everything else. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/view_reports.cfm?type=1

It’s not just numbers of people, it’s what those people DO.

—————

its the third world that is the problem. the average number of babies a 3rd world mother will have in her life time is 5. that is a huge problem. they allready have problems with overpopulation NOW in the third world, and its only gonna get worse.

letting/having millions in the third world die now will only make for less suffering over all in the future. its mean and cold hearted but its the only rational solution. if we would have tackled this problem in the third world way sooner, say just after wwII, we’d not have to discuss widespread apathy. BUT WE DID NOT, so now we need to consider drasic solutions if we want to see any results worth anything.

we can talk about how humanity is brillant and will allways find a solution, but its all bullshit. we migh as well wait for the easter bunny to save the world with the chocolate eggs of love!

people cant organize globaly at all, and most of the rich (the people how could quickly and meeningfully change things) could care less about others. were all fucked. totaly fucked unless we take DRASTIC DRASITC DRASTIC steps NOW NOW NOW to change things.

this generation will do fine and die fat, medicated, and happy. the next gen. however, if we do nothing drastic now, is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO fucked in every respect.

good luck waiting for humanity to help itself. we did this to ourselves and we will reap what we sew!

Industrialized nations do have declining growth rates. It represents a trend among a certain level of un_civilization. Affluenza is a debilitating disease. Most uppser crust types aren’t as interested in spending years of their life raising children.

‘removing’ people is a very messy task and one that does not go unapposed. And I’m not sure how the extreme existing pollution, as you put it, will be any less with less people. People have the ability to alter the landscape. The ability to cultivate plants that reduce polution. We do have the ability to make another world, it just does not exist on the current path.