Dear Canem Malum,

«I suspect that Yuyutsu's comment was more due to mental shorthand.»

Or perhaps, patience?

So long as we start in the right direction as early as we can and as long as Nature does not overtake us, we can achieve the necessary correction without too much pain.

If you want to minimise the pain, you need to think out of the box.
You cannot for example assume and rely on the continued existence of today's power/control structures, those same structures which we aim to no longer require once we achieve the reduction in population.

We also have no need to increase lifespan: rather try to have it not decrease by too much while increasing the happiness and fulfillment so we die contentedly once the years of life we do still have are over.

Come, come CM, no need to be coy. You accuse me often enough on this forum of being a Communist, I consider you an extremist as well, but in the other direction. I imagine you to be a disciple of 'Eugenics', loaded with all sorts of racial purity theories and beliefs.

You said; "Obviously a relatively small core group of women (and men) of breeding age from each culture would need to be maintained in order to prevent genocide of families and cultures"

As I've never heard you espouse any culture as being worthwhile, other than the white Anglo Saxon culture I assume you would preserve that culture at the expense of all other. Your mention of INDIA springs to mind.

You go on to say; "This sort of practical thinking about population is uncomfortable for many of us- but this problem is unprecedented."

No, not for a person of your persuasion, its not uncomfortable at all. It was a popular notion from the late nineteenth, to almost the middle of the twentieth century, in fact some thought of it as absolutely necessary. One such person you would be familiar with is Heinrich Himmler, believing in a sort of NAZI world wide revelation, creating an elite super race of human beings.

Your idea of reducing the birth rate through intervention by 10% or 20% is laughable. To maintain the population at its present level, with no increase would require a minimum of a 60% reduction in births world wide. Of course for you the Anglosphere would be exempt, to maintain worthwhile culture, and those superior movers and shakers. No doubt the burden of population control would fall on the hapless blacks and coloured's of this world.

I think that sums you up on this population control. As I said you are free to put up your method to achieve the stated target of 200 million or about 3% of the existing population, as yet you have declined to do so. Why is that?

Paul1405 said- "Your idea of reducing the birth rate through intervention by 10% or 20% is laughable."

Answer-

Speaking of laughable.

If "Births match Deaths" and "people start living 10% longer" per generation then if you "reduce the birth rate by >10-20%" per generation then the population reduces. Quick back of the envelope approximation.

In some nations "births don't match deaths"- they would need to reduce their birth rate more. India is tracking to become the most populous nation on the planet within a few years. From memory India has 2.4 births per woman (50% population) so everything else being equal presumably would require 10.2% birth rate reduction maintaining current levels- 20.2% might be appropriate given the massive increase from 50's to 00's. Reducing India's population at 10% per generation- much slower than the rate of growth (about 35% per generation). I believe this is what is known as a soft landing.

It's a start- see how the population adapts to the new legislative regime- the main thing is that things move in a more sustainable direction.

As for the 200 Million world population- it was Yuyutsu that mentioned that figure most recently- though I did mention his figure- the Georgia Stones figure is 500 Million- similar orders of magnitude. Anecdotally is closer to long term stability figures according to a number of sources- I think some have quoted figures as low as 30 Million.

I haven't "accused" Paul1405 of being a Communist from memory- I think I've said that "I suspect Paul1405 of being a Communist"- usually I give reasons for my suspicions- if I have accused Paul1405 of being a Communist I withdraw the accusation as I only have corroboratory suspicion not hard evidence- I leave it to others to judge for themselves what they believe Paul1405's sympathies are.

As for Paul1405's accusations and statements I'd have to look into them.

Is Paul1405 trying to distract from the point of the discussion "how to deal with overpopulation". At this point Paul1405 seems to be a sort of population-denialist/ Trotsky Permanent Revolter- or someone who can't make a decision.

Canem Mallum said- "If "Births match Deaths" and "people start living 10% longer" per generation then if you "reduce the birth rate by >10-20%" per generation then the population reduces. Quick back of the envelope approximation. "

Answer/ Correction- There appears to be a subtle logic error here.

In order to match births to deaths- accounting for the case of people living 10% longer (lets say 7 years)- would need to stop the births for 7 years (or similarly equivalent policy)- or reduce births to below replacement rate for a factor of 7 years. Again quick back of the envelope calculation.

Admittedly population modelling can be resistant to back of the envelope calculations and can produce surprisingly complex problems.

The reason I've brought up the case of humans living longer is because I remember that Paul1405 previously mentioned this as the driving factor of population increase due to medical technology- and denied that birthrate was a factor.

Population control (and national responsibility) seems to be simply a matter of "matching number of births to deaths" and taking action when it doesn't. Seemingly a matter of decisiveness.

____________

Paul1405 said "Of course for you the Anglosphere would be exempt, to maintain worthwhile culture, and those superior movers and shakers. No doubt the burden of population control would fall on the hapless blacks and coloured's of this world."

Answer- I think that in the Anglosphere at least the US has a lower population density than countries such as India, China, Africa, and Mexico. Many nations in Europe appear to have been affected by mass immigration so this may be a factor. It seems that extreme population densities may be a factor in world immigration pressures.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density#Most_populous_countries_by_density

On this point I wonder if Paul1405 equates nations massive population growth to their poverty due to scarce per capita resources and why or why not- and why he doesn't lobby these nations for population control in the name of global equality.

Paul1405 said- "I imagine you to be a disciple of 'Eugenics', loaded with all sorts of racial purity theories and beliefs."

Answer- I suppose Paul1405 has his own views on genetic manipulation and enforced impurity.

According to Dostoevski Proto-Communists were Tabula Rasa/ Blank Slaters they seemingly extended John Locke's idea of the global liberal order to see like Marx that culture was some sort of elitist class warfare against the workers and farmers- he called it "False Consciousness". The communist ideological academics claimed that they were the saviors of the workers and farmers and promised equality. It seems that in the contemporary era that the very colour of the skin, sexuality, and sex is seen as a part of class warfare and it therefore is the responsibility of the ideology to remove it from the earth.

This Tabula Rasa logic has issues on a number of levels- and it's own eugenics policies.

In China my suspicion is that Mao believed that if the genetics of certain people contained the seeds of counter revolution and these people could be killed- then counter revolution could never occur- many town square struggle sessions killed tens of millions of people.

I suspect that Paul1405 doesn't see the full picture or origins of the ideology that he presents- I'm sure we all don't- Traditionalist ideologies seem safer than others given their history.

Eugenics perhaps happens all the time in society- relatively humanely- dogs breed for character/physicality- hiring and firing based on character is a form of genetic manipulation- increases survivability of offspring- character partly genetic. When Dawkin's talked about The Selfish Gene he talked about eugenics occurring across society.

All societies create some balanced social competitive pressure to prosper but there also needs to be cooperation and teamwork. Ethnic cultures have different systems- that's their right- but they may not be able to work effectively in a team without harming those rights- something breaks- I believe we should keep the cultures- others believe the cultures should be destroyed in favour of the "nihilist-cultural" teams- but will life have meaning.

When Paul1405 says that he suspects that I have eugenic beliefs does that mean that he doesn't? Or is he saying that I may have murderous or genocidal beliefs? How does he define these? If a community sets themselves up as a black community- is this genocidal? What about a white community? Isn't enforced mixing also a form of genocide?

The literal meaning of the word genocide seems to be the killing of genes- if no genes are killed does that mean that genocide doesn't occur?

What's the literal meaning of the word eugenic?