/sci/ - Science & Math

industrialization of culture leading to greater wealth and education of the individual.

or secret sterilization campaigns.

<span class="math">\bf[SPOILER]
%Kill yourself[/spoiler]

With medical science keeping the elderly alive for longer than they can stay mentally stable, I suggest a mandatory death age. Hit 80? Time to be euthanised.

OR

Child limit. Heavy taxes for families with more than 3 children, kill any over the 7th child

Holocaust

HIV

Chaos?

>>2618716
>industrialization of culture leading to greater wealth and education of the individual.

This is all that will actually be necessary.

>>2618721

In places that have real problems with overpopulation, hardly anyone lives to 80 anyway.

>>2618730
>HIV

A disease that takes years to kill if it does at all and doesn't prevent reproduction in the meantime. Great idea!

World of Warcraft.

>>2618748
This

Population growth is controlled naturally. Overpopulation will lead to shortage of resources, which will lead to the deaths of the people that aren't able to access resources that are necessary to their survival.

>>2618716
Committing euthanasia implies consent; call it murder or don't bother suggesting it.

don't. just what comes naturally (sex) and if we die out then so be it. The universe wasn't made for us anyway. What does it matter if we're not here. We soon won't be and for the most part we never were.

Don't worry yourself about these environmental problems. Just live whichever way you see fit. Next generations can suck my balls

Public sterilization campaigns all over Africa.

Or maybe just let AIDS do it's work.

>guns
>food prices
>child taxes

Magma.

>>2618829
best suggestion so far

Dramatic increase in living standards, education, and positive attitude toward birth control across the world.

Also when senescence treatments come 'round mandatory sterilization for those that want the treatment.

Also needs moar terraforming

>>2618833
>Terraforming

>>2618839

>>2618841
We could easily start terraforming within our lifetime with enough funding and interest.

I'd ask why we aren't, but I know the answer to that. Shit sucks hard man.

You guys should read some stories about Haviland Tuf. He sterilizes an entire world because they're irresponsible about birth control.

>>2618848
The Technocratic Republic, a nation where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, Where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, TRS can become your country as well.

Thailand was able to drastically curb its population growth just by having a program for distribution of contraceptives and condoms. I really don't think population growth is *that* big of a problem. Even if you don't have any targeted programs, just improving the overall standard of living seems to lead to decreases.

>>2618839
>>2618848

>>2618712
>Implying population growth have to be controlled

>>2618848
because there's no profit motive?

Throw resources into a black hole.

>>2618857
nah its just because of all the ladyboys all the male population is gay.

>>2618864
It's simple. We kill the system.

>industrialization of culture leading to greater wealth and education of the individual.
This. With the unusual exceptions of Israel and Saudi Arabia, developed countries tend to decline in birth rate.

>>2618871
No it's even more simple, we leave it alone because we don't give a fuck.

>>2618862

>>2618864
Pretty much. People that are rich like to stay rich. No care about anything else but money.

>>2618873

fucking jews and muslims. i knew they'd be the death of us!!

>>2618862
>>2618848
>>2618833
>They really think terraforming is viable
You realize the Earth has taken BILLIONS of years to get to the state it's currently in, right?
Methinks you place too much faith in the might of mankind.

>>2618877

>>2618857
One word: Catholics
aint gonna help them.

Also the herp derps who will do anything to "feel better."

...pic relateed

>>2618878
there would be enormous profit incentive . real estate for one thing. The truth is its not possible and probably never will be . we arrived on this planet completely by accident and were never meant to leave :(

>>2618880
>space-faring droids with inbuilt molecular mills and molecular assemblers latch onto Phobos/Deimos
>use the asteroid to make highly reflective material, shoot back toward robots orbiting Mars in polar orbit
>oh hey, if you keep reproducing robots to do this a massive orbital mirror could be constructed within 50 years easily.

>>2618881

>>2618893

>>2618896

>>2618899
OC here.

>>2618889
>I watch too many hollywood sci-fi movies

>>2618880
If we're capable of causing significant negative affects on our planet, why aren't we capable of causing significant positive ones?

>>2618900
Hmm, I thought I had more terraformed Mars pictures.

I seriously want to punch people in the face when they're like, "I WANT THREE KIDS HURR DURR AND ALL OF THEM HAVE TO BE MINE BECAUSE I WANT US TO LOOK THE SAME"

But we should make abortion less taboo, have a death age for the old, and in the bigger metropolitan areas, have contraceptives handed out/cheapen birth control pills.

>>2618915
>death age for the old
Controversial, but it would be a good idea to introduce something painless. All the diseases you get when you're older is a sign that you need to die.

>>2618910
Actually I want to slap their shit because of the huge scientific inaccuracies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Mars#Carbon_dioxide_sublimation
>There is presently enough carbon dioxide (CO2) as ice in the Martian south pole and absorbed by regolith (soil) around the planet that, if sublimated to gas by a climate warming of only a few degrees, would increase the atmospheric pressure to 300 millibars,[citation needed] which is comparable to that at the peak of Mount Everest. While this would not be breathable by humans, it would eliminate the present need for pressure suits, melt the water ice at Mars' north pole (flooding the northern basin), and bring the year-round climate above freezing over approximately half of Mars' surface. This would enable the introduction of plant life, particularly plankton in the new northern sea, to start converting the atmospheric CO2 into oxygen.

We only need to do a tiiiiny bit of warming to Mars before it enters its own runaway greenhouse effect. However it won't become anything like Venus.

>>2618889
>Space debris starts damaging mirror
>Ablation cascade reduces it to dust before it can even be finished
>Low orbit over Mars left too cluttered for safe spaceflight
Cool engineering disaster, bro.

>>2618918
>>2618915
No, fuck you. If we're going to kill off the old, let's go the entire way and kill the crippled, the retarded, the morally impaired. I refuse to acknowledge the right of the many to take the life of an individual for any reason.

what we need to do is make euthanasia legal

no forced killings

>>2618929
Then there are two other solutions:
- Seed it with a slow self-replicating nanobot that's only job is to separate some oxygen from the soil, as well as being a very dark colour to decrease Mars' albedo even further.

- Smack Phobos into it.

>>2618913
>why aren't we capable of causing significant positive ones?

Lots of reasons. We're capable of causing change, just not specific, desired change. Since potential bad changes spectacularly outnumber potential good changes, we're pretty much only capable of making things worse.

>>2618939
>Apply humans' past track record to Mars
>instead of passively warming the planet, try your fucking hardest to do so
>oh hey, a semi-habitable planet

>>2618939
[citation needed]

>release a bioweapon
>suddenly a sterilising STD errywhere
>sexually irresponsible can no longer breed

>>2618896

whats that from?

>>2618947
>>2618853
Haviland Tuf does this, except with FOOD.

>>2618944
>Mars
>solution to overpopulation on Earth

fullretard.jpg

>>2618949
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/living-on-mars/

>>2618954
>a new planet
>not a solution

>>2618954
Not solution, we should do it anyway. Eggs-in-one-basket.

>>2618935
>Seed it with a slow self-replicating nanobot that's only job is to separate some oxygen
>Endothermic process
Yeah, good luck with that.

>Smack Phobos into it.
Now we're talking.

>>2618945
<[citation needed]

About what?

>>2618960
Pic related, however I have been informed by Colonel Coffee that it would require something on the order of at least 100,000 nukes.

>>2618959
>Not solution, we should do it anyway. Eggs-in-one-basket.

Agree. But why are we talking about Mars in a thread about overpopulation?

>>2618962
You think humans are incapable of bringing about specific, desired change.

>>2618968
also answers
>>2618966

>>2618913
We're not capable of causing TRULY significant effects either way. Our negative effects, in the grand scheme of things, are actually pretty miniscule. The same would be true of any positive effect we could achieve.
We are but men. It is not our place to create or destroy worlds.

>>2618972
>>2618945

>>2618972
>We are but men. It is not our place to create or destroy worlds.

>>2618968
>You think humans are incapable of bringing about specific, desired change.

In the climate, with our current knowledge. Yes, of course I think that.

>>2618971

What? How are those two even related?

>>2618982
I understand that you think that; you were asking why I said [citation needed].

>>2618985
Terraforming mars would be an example of specific, desired change.

Oh my god can you people think of a decent NON-terraforming idea? It's time to get your head out of sci-fi, because do you have ANY clue how expensive and unrealistic it is off paper?

>>2618992
>Implying we've already terraformed Mars.
>Implying that is the same as terraforming Earth.

>>2618965
>Initial requirements
>Ship with artificial gravity . . . to hold the nukes
Stopped reading.

>>2618994
>applying late 20th century economics to a early 22nd century problem
>unrealistic
>[citation needed]

>>2618999
>implying you can't create artificial gravity

>>2618994
There were a lot of reasonable ideas mentioned at the beginning of the thread.

>>2618994
Okay.
Colonize oceans.
Selectively exterminate other species to make more room in the biosphere for ourselves.
Streamline agriculture from top to bottom.

If that doesn't work, I'm sure another World War or two will happen and everything will sort itself out.

>>2618999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotating_wheel_space_station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct#Scheme
>This vehicle would take some six months to reach Mars. During the trip, supporters of Mars Direct have suggested that artificial gravity could be generated by tying the spent upper stage of the booster to the Habitat Unit, and setting them both rotating about a common axis.

>>2618996
I didn't imply either of those, you erroneously inferred them; you were the one who said that you agreed with the prospect of terraforming mars.

>>2618999
>DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Need a virus spread throughout the world that kills the fertility of every human being.

Antidote only given by authorities which then regulate growth. Step 1 would be to reduce mankind slowly to a solid 1 Billion pop.

>>2618988
>you were asking why I said [citation needed].

I still am. Earth is a spectacularly complex and chaotic system of interconnected biomes, and we don't understand it very well at all. That's why we probably can't cause a specific change.

Every living thing and all civilization is adapted to its current environment. That's why any change is likely to be negative.

>>2619005
Wasn't implying that at all, sir.
The qualification that you somehow need artificial gravity to carry nukes in space is what I was referring to.

>>2619023
>solid 1 billion population
>picks arbitrary number at random
>earth can support far more than this
>asshat detected.

>>2619024
>Earth
>Millions upon millions of species with a fairly fragile climate and biosphere
>Mars
>A lifeless rock with a thin atmosphere that also could be quite Earth-like if the temperature was raised a little bit

>>2619004
DURRRR THERE IS NO CURRENCY SYSTEM IN THE FUTURE. EVERYTHING'S FREEEEEEE

>>2619027
Read the bit about it preventing bone loss in the crew.

>>2619038
That's how it is in star trek.

>>2619038
>DURR I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF A MOLECULAR ASSEMBLER MOST LIKELY MAKING SHIT A UTTER FUCKTON CHEAPER

Also, brb food

>>2619024
Are you also claiming that we can't make specific negative changes?

>>2619034

Yes! That's why terraforming Mars is a better idea than terraforming Earth.

However, terraforming Mars is not in any way a solution to overpopulation, so I don't know why it's being discussed ITT.

Get it now?

>>2619030
Earth can support far more than this? Sure it can. It's the humans that have proven they cannot do it.

What fucking reason is there NOT to reduce the overall population?

>>2619054
>Are you also claiming that we can't make specific negative changes?

Sure. Why?

>>2619062
What reason is there to reduce overall population?

>>2619041
>>2619014
Why the hell are you carrying a crew at all, anyways? There's no reason whatsoever for this mission to be manned.

>>2619062
humans have proven they CAN do it.

>>2619062
>What fucking reason is there NOT to reduce the overall population?

The overall products of the arts and sciences are proportional to the size of the population that produces them, more or less.

What reason is there to reduce the overall population?

>>2619066
Either you're a competent troll, and incompetent person, you we have different ideas of "specific change". What is a nation to you? Desertification?

>>2619066
Either you're a competent troll, an incompetent person, or we have different ideas of "specific change". What is a nation to you? Desertification?

>>2619079

I don't know what you're referring to with "a nation."

Desertification I call a good example of unintended consequences.

>>2619067
>>2619075
Earthly resources?

>>2619090
A nation as in a bunch of buildings and lighting littering an entire continent.

>>2619074
Lightspeed delay makes remote controlling the operating infeasible/dangerous

>>2619095
So you address the problem of scarcity by killing off the consuming population?

>>2619104
*operation

Propagate a sexually transmitted disease that causes infertility in both men and women. The first patients can be scanky, stupid women who are already infertile.

>>2619108
Nobody is killing off anybode here. Well, humans are. But my proposal would be slowly reducing population by a controlled (negative) growth rate. It would be just that more people die than are born within a certain time interval.

>>2619119
*skanky
and how can they be the first patients if they are already infertile?

>>2619049
>Implying molecular assemblers are more likely to exist than time machines
>Implying even if it was invented BY THAT TIME, it would still make Terraforming both monetarily and logistically possible

laughinggirls.jpg

>>2619075
I think "do it" refers to "safely and efficiently come to a state of dynamic equilibrium with the system in which they live", but apparently /sci/ is fucking retarded.

Also, to you mars lovers: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17476-ion-engine-could-one-day-power-39day-trips-to-mars.html

>>2619140
>comparing the construction of a time machine with the construction of a molecular assembler
What the fuck are you on?
>Implying even if it was invented BY THAT TIME, it would still make Terraforming both monetarily and logistically possible
All that would be needed is the initial automation/assemblers to disassemble large asteroids/Phobos into more of themselves to create whatever the fuck they want, bypassing the need for money after the initial shit. As for logistics, you have to prove why it is impossible.

>>2619127
1. Humans are a valuable resource in of themselves.
2. It would be much easier to produce the resources necessary for a larger population than it would be to effectively and reliably cause infertility in a given portion of the same population.

>>2619146
Already know about it, cool shit. FUND IT

>>2619140
Well shit broski, if we get molecular assemblers AND time machines a lot of things become possible.

>>2619150
I don't think it will be easy to produce said resources. Take Iridium or any other rare-earth. Also, just consider that the huge majority of humanity isn't on a living standard as we are. Once these people will want to have the same luxurity we have, there be a massive shitstorm a'brewin. And if we survive that shitstorm, the question is whether we have enough resources to feed 10 billion people like we feed an American, produce as much shit etc.

>>2619164
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
>At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Earth_Objects#Near-Earth_asteroids
>As of May 2010, 7,075 near-Earth asteroids are known,[14] ranging in size up to ~32 kilometers (1036 Ganymed).[16] The number of near-Earth asteroids over one kilometer in diameter is estimated to be 500 - 1,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_sea_mining

>>2619158
In fact, a molecular assembler will take so much time to assemble something, one should use a time machine to send the end product back in time, so it can be used instantly/

>>2619147
Molecular assembler is similar to the time machine in that they're both stuck in the science fiction realm.

>Implying disassembly/modification of asteroids is all that it takes to Terraform
>lolwut

Plus, the whole premise that, "If we go through this process, everything will go through perfectly and nothing can possibly go wrong" is ridiculous in this thread.

MAYBE paraterraforming seems slightly more likely in that time. MAYYYBE. Still doubtful.

>>2619164
I wasn't aware that the encroaching iridium shortage would be the end of mankind, but if you say so. There's no reason why eventual industrialization of the entire world can't happen, and it is the reason we enjoy our current standard of living. Malthusian catastrophes can always be solved innovation.

>>2619164
I wasn't aware that the encroaching iridium shortage would be the end of mankind, but if you say so. There's no reason why eventual industrialization of the entire world can't happen, and it is the reason we enjoy our current standard of living. Malthusian catastrophes can always be solved by innovation.

>>2619174
The cool thing about science fiction is that the reasonable stuff has a habit of coming true.

>>2619174
Science fiction.

You're right, it's crazy. In fact, it's even worse than that, it's nuts. You wanna hear something really nutty? I heard of a couple guys who wanna build something called an airplane, you know you get people to go in, and fly around like birds, it's ridiculous, right? And what about breaking the sound barrier, or rockets to the moon? Atomic energy, or a mission to Mars? Science fiction, right? Look, all I'm asking is for you to just have the tiniest bit of vision. You know, to just sit back for one minute and look at the big picture. To take a chance on something that just might end up being the most profoundly impactful moment for humanity, for the history... of history.

>>2619193
Except it isn't reasonable.

and if it WAS magically invented by the Hand of a Nonexistent God, it wouldn't be this perfect piece of technology. It would take ages for it to do anything and the notion of it altogether is quite silly

>>2619199
I mean, there's nothing wrong with having vision or imagination and pushing towards something (such as Mars voyages and the likes), but a molecular assembler? Really? :\ I just seriously doubt it

>>2619104
If that were true, soft martian landings wouldn't be possible.

Automation and instrumentation is plenty effective enough to lay some nukes on the South Pole of Phobos and detonate them. Hell, if ICBM reentry vehicles can judge their altitude precisely enough to maximize ground destruction, I'm sure a similar vehicle could achieve much higher precision on Phobos or Deimos where velocity would be much lower.

And another thing; low altitude plane change maneuvers are extremely inefficient due to the higher velocities and thus delta-V to make that 90-degree change. Does the plan call for bumping Phobos into a high elliptical orbit first? Perhaps Deimos would be easier.

>>2619201
>and if it WAS magically invented by the Hand of a Nonexistent God
Eric Drexler actually gave a talk to my old school on nanotechnology. Seems pretty damn feasible.
>It would take ages for it to do anything
[citation needed]
And if this was true, you could print off one molecular assembler. Then from those two, print another 2. 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 etc

http://www.futuretimeline.net/21stcentury/2060-2069.htm#2062

>>2619174
Except that for a molecular assembler, the physics is somewhat there, just not the chemistry or the engineering. For time machines, on the other hand, there is no physical basis whatsoever upon which they could function.

>>2619212
I would think Deimos would be a great base; extensive use and launches from Phobos might degrade its orbit just slightly too much, causing it to eventually hit Mars anyway.

>>2619226
Phobos is an order of magnitude more massive than Deimos. Phobos has considerably more orbital energy. It'd take more to bring Phobos down than to bring down Deimos.

On top of that, Phobos has greater, more useful gravity then Deimos, which has advantages for a base. That said, the disadvantages of operating from the low-gravity surface of EITHER of these moons seem to vastly outweigh the benefits.

>>2619288
Low gravity has its advantages. For one thing, the rockets you need to achieve escape velocity are much smaller. For another... er... actually, that's pretty much the only advantage. But it's a big one.

>>2619303
>Less than 5 m/s difference between the two moons
Really nitpicking here, are we?

Hell, with my current, Earthbound muscle mass, I could probably jump with my own two feet and escape either of these bodies into Martian orbit.
Talk about a difficult environment to work in.

The ideal solution would be one that could decimate the human population, without harming the environment and other living beings.

The Earth and other animals aren't responsible for our corrupt and consuming ways and should therefore not be punished for it.

If we could reduce our population to 500 million people, preferably only high-IQ'd whites, we'd be able to live sustainably and relatively peacefully with a very high quality gene-pool for future generations.

>>2619150
>1. Humans are a valuable resource in of themselves.
No, humans only consume and invent more sophisticated means to consume and then consume some more.
>2. It would be much easier to produce the resources necessary for a larger population than it would be to effectively and reliably cause infertility in a given portion of the same population.
It would be even easier to eliminate a large portion of said population base if we can stop pretending that people are equal and dispose of the bullshit that they are of any worth whatsoever.

>Control population growth
If by that you mean forcing a decline then I'm all for you.
We don't need more people we need a great deal less people
This is but one of the many effects we've had on nature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
I can't wait for our civilization to collapse just so that I could tell people that I was right all along.

industrialization/ eliminating the state and thus welfare programs (subsidizing poverty, and poverty is strongly correlated with birth rate)

if you're going to talk about any kind of genocide, you're stone evil and ought to be shot in self defense.

>>2619366
You have an odd idea of progress.

>>2619366
Kill yourself or shut the fuck up; you value human life.

Disease.

>>2619389
I really don't value human life.
I'd gladly kill myself if that would mean that I could take the rest with me.
But I'm not going to let go of a mind such as myself to when countless idiots roam free through Holy Terra.
I'm only alive in the hopes of accomplishing this.

>>2619378
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch
How nice of nature to tidy up the ocean for us and keep all our garbage in one spot.

>>2619384
We all have our own definitions of what we call progress.
This is mine. Deal with it.

>>2619411
And this is exactly why I don't value human life.
4/10 by the way, for the effort.

If anything we need to increase population to maximize the chances great technology and great science will be done, and leads to even greater profit and quality of life. Seriously, the entire world should be a city, metal and plastic everywhere. We need to rid ourselves of the notion that the environment is somehow worth saving as an end itself and not simply a tool for our survival. Asteroid mining and fusion are the future. We need a hyper-individualistic society that encourages you to live as long as possible so you continue to put money into the economy even longer.

Humanity IS an end unto itself.

>>2619409
You're human filth. Everything you do, even the things that are well-intentioned, will always have negative consequences on the Earth. What makes you think that, as an incompetent human, you're able to solve the problems of this world? The best thing you can do is kill yourself, doing otherwise is hypocritical.

>>2619381

>industrialization/ eliminating the state and thus welfare programs (subsidizing poverty, and poverty is strongly correlated with birth rate)

Elimination of welfare programs are hardly likely to be the solution to global population problems, seeing as the countries with the highest birth rates and greatest population growth (most of which are in Sub-Saharan Africa) don't exactly have very extensive welfare programs.

"Industrialisation" isn't a very good answer either. How do we help Sub-Saharan Africa industrialise. It seems to be common on /sci/ to claim that the West is conspiring to prevent Africa from industrialising for some reason, but this is not the case; we've been trying to help them industrialise for years and it hasn't worked. Leaving them alone hasn't worked either.

And Africa probably needs to have its birthrate lowered before it can industrialise; it can't be very easy to get an education if you have to leave school to look after your 12 siblings, and the cost of feeding large families when one doesn't have much money in the first place means that third-world countries with high birthrates have trouble developing any kind of consumer industry.

Three words: one child policy.

China is the closest of all countries to what could be called a technocracy. Their one child policy has succesfully prevented hundreds of millions of births.

>>2618712
Round up all the Malthusians and use them as a power source.

holocaust

>>2619433
Oh look, a straw-man argument.
First, I'm one of the most Earth-friendly organisms you'll never meet.
While I'm living on the bear necessities, others disgustingly use as much resources as possible for their own benefit. There's a huge difference between me and others.
Second, I don't think I'll be able to solve Earth's problems. Not by a long shot.
I will however be on the helping side rather than the more destructive.
In the end, I'm the lesser of many evils.
So no, I won't kill myself seeing as how that would detract from my ability to reverse the situation.
So I'm not being hypocritical in the slightest.

>>2619505
>bear necessities

>>2619482
this. /thread

Poison everything in Africa, have drug wars in South America, help China extend the one-child policy to all of Southern Asia

It's impossible to terraform mars for human life, retards. Better to genetically modify organisms to survive on mars or develop some kind of sapient civilization of machines which can easily colonize space.

>>2619884
>It's impossible to terraform mars
[citation needed]

>>2619893
Not with anything that we currently have or will have for the far far future.
K?

>>2619806
>Implying that ordinary bears aren't necessities too

>>2619882

Actually, I think China's policies should be transported to Africa rather than Asia. The whole continent would benefit not only from one-child but also from communism; communists, for all their failings, can sometimes be quite good at turning very shitty countries into only slightly shitty ones (see Russia). They just aren't very good at turning slightly shitty countries into decent ones.

Kill all the blacks/ jews.

Vaccinate intelligent people and then 'accidentally' release a biological weapon and kill everyone else.
Result: An intelligent species that will be able to excel in scientific progress without the problems of overpopulation or stupid people.

>>2620141
> And have geniuses ask you if you want fries with that.

>>2620827

>implying smart people will still live in a monetary society.

>>2620849

lol didnt mean to put sage =x

>>2620849
And how will you mediate supply and demand?

for the retards

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/population-growth-explained-with-ikea-boxes/

>>2620899
with intelligence
it says a lot about the state of the world that I have to spell that out

>>2619884
You haven't read the thread, have you? It's okay if you haven't, I just want to know.

Ok Ok.
First off, IS there are population problem or not?

What experts say about the IDEAL world population?

And.
Tbh, America, Europe and Few Asians countries (japan, south korea, small part of china, etc) are the only countries contribute to the world in decent ways.

What am trying to say that if Africa disappeared the next day not a single fuck would be given that day or some countries of latin america.

Europe ~700m
North america ~350m
Useful Asian Parts...say ~200-400m
Australia 30m
~50 or so in South America
Few mils in africa

And you get 1-2bn population and experts say that 2-3 are ideal.

But we have now 7bn pop.
that 5bn are garbage people that feed of our resources, our effort.

And those 'people' fuck in the streets like animals and their population skyrockets.
While Civilized countries are declining in population.
We dont have overpop prob, uncivilized countries have.

And they eat our space, money, resources etc.
They come to our countries and fuck it up.

I might sound racist or smth like that but just talking sense.
Its not about skin color or money, its just they are fucking useless and that is too obvious.

>>2620042
Kill the Jews and you have no science.
Moron.
Lrn2HistoryofScience

By recreating society from zero

Everyone shut the fuck up, theres no science in this shit.

Allow healthy and or intelligent people to have 2-3 children

Allow others to have 1 child

If disobey then shoot

When would be the best time to preparing ourselves for any of the systems listed above?