Forums - Politics Discussion - United States should downsize the population by ending all immigration and creating incentives for having fewer kids.

Should united states downsize it's population.

Yes 14 18.92%
 
No 58 78.38%
 
Maybe 2 2.70%
 
Total:74

YES!



steve

Around the Network
Chomanno said:
FormerlyTeamSilent13 said:

I actually agree with the first part (ending all immigration) and disagree with the second part. I support an immigration moratorium, and tax incentives for having more children. I would basically tax higher single men and women and apply credits to families with more children. 

This is exactly what we have in Germany. Still, the native population keeps shrinking.

So the politics is raising immigration, in the worst possible way. Uncontrolled.

There's no legal way to stop it.

Germany is bound by EU law (like every other EU state) so they can't just ignore freedom of movement. The majority of immigrants come from other EU countries (mostly Eastern Europe).

Same is true for the right of asylum.



"Downsizing" the U.S. will not make it better. You will still have KKK members, neo-nazis, and alt right conservatives living here

Last edited by PortisheadBiscuit - on 17 June 2020

haxxiy said:
The US doesn't have tons of "empty space". Just about 5% of the lower 48 are wilderness untouched by humans. And the less is said about the UK and Europe, the better. Unless you mean urban sprawl creeping into rural areas, but then that'd mean some other stretch of land is going to be ruined elsewhere unless productivity increases enough to compensate for it (and even the green revolution is a dubious achievement long-term, considering the effects of top-soil degradation, imbalance in the phosphorus-nitrogen cycles and climate change).

Of course some people would be quick to jump in and defend Europe claiming forestation has grown in the last decades etc. but... I don't think Europe used to be a monoculture of symmetrically planted Norway spruces before humans. Ideally, you would want a population density similar to that of Australia, Finland or the Baltic countries to actually achieve a sustainable, zero growth civilization. But maybe it could be more as long as we develop quality artificial meat and opt for vertical farms.

It’s pretty wide open in my state of Utah.  Almost half the state is blm land... pretty much the same with all the surrounding states too... so depends what part of the country you are talking about...



gergroy said:
haxxiy said:

It’s pretty wide open in my state of Utah.  Almost half the state is blm land... pretty much the same with all the surrounding states too... so depends what part of the country you are talking about...

That is for certain. Unfortunately, we as a species tend to cluster in coastal areas and highly fertile, humid plains, both of which are biomass and biodiversity hotspots. And we also got everywhere instead of living in just a few dense regions.

If we all decided to build cities in deserts and also grow our food there, our ecological footprint would be several times smaller. Plenty of cheap solar energy as an incentive too.



 

 

 

 

 

Around the Network
PortisheadBiscuit said:

"Downsizing" the U.S. will not make it better. You will still have KKK members, neo-nazis, and alt right conservatives living here

And your Antifa, communists, and liberal rioters.



vivster said:
NightlyPoe said:

A pimple isn't a unique and irreplaceable human.

Every pimple is exactly as unique and irreplaceable as an egg cell and a sperm cell. The human body is magical, it can just constantly produce new things and just as easily destroy them too. Not sure why something that can be reproduced without effort within a month would be called "irreplaceable".

A pimple is not a unique and irreplaceable human.

And the probability that a woman would remain fertile afterwards does not negate the intrinsic rights of a fetus to life.



NightlyPoe said:
vivster said:

Every pimple is exactly as unique and irreplaceable as an egg cell and a sperm cell. The human body is magical, it can just constantly produce new things and just as easily destroy them too. Not sure why something that can be reproduced without effort within a month would be called "irreplaceable".

A pimple is not a unique and irreplaceable human.

And the probability that a woman would remain fertile afterwards does not negate the intrinsic rights of a fetus to life.

A fetus isn't a human, that's why it's called fetus. It's a bunch of cells mushed together that literally any of the 7 billion humans can create out of nothing. It has no brain, no conscience and consists of less human cells than a pimple. I refuse to use that kind of low bar to define something as "human". It is a potential human, but so is every single sperm or egg cell. And we don't arrest all men for slaughtering trillions of potential humans on a regular basis.

Side note: Being unique doesn't make a thing suddenly essential to be preserved. So you can safely stop using that meaningless attribute to try and make your case seem more important than it is.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Yeah.
Immigration in general it's not the actual problem, but overpopulation is.
The equation is really simple: more living beings in a restricted space = less resources for each one.



vivster said:
NightlyPoe said:

A pimple is not a unique and irreplaceable human.

And the probability that a woman would remain fertile afterwards does not negate the intrinsic rights of a fetus to life.

A fetus isn't a human, that's why it's called fetus.

That is a scientifically false statement.  It is called a fetus because it is a certain stage of development, not a denial of humanity.

Again, denying humanity, this time via wordplay.

It's a bunch of cells mushed together that literally any of the 7 billion humans can create out of nothing. It has no brain, no conscience and consists of less human cells than a pimple. I refuse to use that kind of low bar to define something as "human"

Whether you refuse or not, it is factually a human.

Furthermore, even if I were indulging the idea that size and development process matters, you would still be factually incorrect.  Abortions are routinely performed on humans that have already formed brains and are larger than your pimple.

It is a potential human, but so is every single sperm or egg cell. And we don't arrest all men for slaughtering trillions of potential humans on a regular basis.

Again, factually inaccurate.  A fetus is a human organism.  Gametes are not.

Side note: Being unique doesn't make a thing suddenly essential to be preserved. So you can safely stop using that meaningless attribute to try and make your case seem more important than it is.

It does make it essential to preserve if it is a unique human.