> habitat loss, the use of pesticides, disease and the changing climate have all likely contributed to the decline of western monarchs
We can dance around proximal causes all we want, but all environmental roads lead to overpopulation.
Most people associate acting on population with China forcing abortions or tearing down homes, or racist eugenics policies or forced sterilizations.
That's why when I talk about overpopulation, I talk about success cases like Thailand. Or how Mexico's soap operas helped lower that nation's birth rate. These cases brought prosperity, stability, and abundance.
When they say we need more people to create more minds to solve bigger problems, I point out the geniuses have already been born and they said the population was too high. Besides, what was the world population that produced Beethoven and Shakespeare. Einstein was born to a population below 2 billion. Buddha and Jesus lived below 1 billion.
The greatest technologies to solve our environmental problems aren't solar powered planes, thorium, and rocket ships. It's IUD, vasectomies, and other tools of family planning, along with educating everyone about it.
population is an obsessive topic with lots of underlying psychological baggage, so much so as it is almost pointless to start listing. 100,000 caves dwellers versus 12,000 cave dwellers in some proportionally larger area (e.g. New Mexico) would have how much "impact" ? One Chernobyl for 120,000 people versus 1,000,000 people over a proportionate area (Ukraine) has how much effect? etc..
Large topics often bring out more the personal obsessions of the commentors.. therefore, take the time to specifically refute this comment point-of-view...
> That's why when I talk about overpopulation, I talk about success cases like Thailand. Or how Mexico's soap operas helped lower that nation's birth rate. These cases brought prosperity, stability, and abundance.
Can you elaborate on these and/or provide links?
At first thought it seems absurd that telenovelas could significantly impact the birthrate.
IUDs and vasectomies encourage the kind of life that uses created things instead of receives them. Which, counterintuitively, will increase the rate of consumption, not reduce it. Family planning is good when it plans to receive, not when it plans to demand.
The point is to allow those who wish to no longer have children the means to achieve it other than "abstaining" which doesn't work. Specifically for those living at or near poverty levels. The consumption of a new human adds a larger increase in consumption on the world than two existing humans who choose not to have any children.
We can dance around proximal causes all we want, but all environmental roads lead to overpopulation.
Most people associate acting on population with China forcing abortions or tearing down homes, or racist eugenics policies or forced sterilizations.
That's why when I talk about overpopulation, I talk about success cases like Thailand. Or how Mexico's soap operas helped lower that nation's birth rate. These cases brought prosperity, stability, and abundance.
When they say we need more people to create more minds to solve bigger problems, I point out the geniuses have already been born and they said the population was too high. Besides, what was the world population that produced Beethoven and Shakespeare. Einstein was born to a population below 2 billion. Buddha and Jesus lived below 1 billion.
The greatest technologies to solve our environmental problems aren't solar powered planes, thorium, and rocket ships. It's IUD, vasectomies, and other tools of family planning, along with educating everyone about it.