Is there any reason why the population shouldn't be decreased by 60%?

Genocide would actually solve a lot of problems.

No one likes to agree but the less resources we have to fight for, then the better it will be for everyone else.

Attached: 1554898315703.jpg (400x400, 17K)

>government mandated gfs
fixed that problem for you

>and here's your new gf, Bertha, you will share her 5 other people
the government sucks and always will so good luck with those "solutions"

i never said you would share them, i said that there would a big network of people and the best who best corresponds you would be picked and sent over to live comfortably with you. we aren't degenerates, no polyamory. female ego problem fixed

>thinking you'll get your own
there will be a population crisis, not enough supply for the demand. you will share, go without, or settle for subpar quality.

the genders will remain relatively equal in numbers
so if you aren't the human garbagiest of human garbage currently living, you will most likely get yourself a gf that is handpicked for you

Close, 65% are born sociopath NPCs. You could be one yourself since you posted 2D, sadly. That means you'd have to die. You weren't meant to be a human, anyway, goy.

thats just an s4s meme i found
you seem quite the sociopath yourself

no they wouldn't because doctor assisted suicide would also be legal in this dystopian fantasy and that would lead to far less gfs

thats an assumption
the female ego inflation created today would be completely destroyed, and even give a sense of purpose by helping inflating the global population and a nice living with financial compensation and the high encouragement of starting a business

nah betaboys like you would just have to crossdress to fill in the gaps

why do you say that?
because you cannot ass yourself to muster up a good argument you name call and disagree with what i say with no reason to. have fun getting sterilized in the future

They are already doing that,that is why less and less people are having sex

no, it's just obvious that natural born females would rather die than date a lot of the gross boys that exist on planet

but if they are grossboys they wouldn't be making kids or getting gfs

Good idea. Kill yourself for the good of humanity and the world. Take responsibility

so you're willing to support a system that would invalidate you?

why do you assume that?
projecting much

The more humans are around the less worth any individual life is. Everyone left is actually economically worth more.

The government should just stop giving neetbux and charity to niggers and the problem would solve itself

this guy absolutely gets it

If we reduced the population by 60% or so the world would most certainly be a better place. Personally I think we should start with trannies. Granted they are a small portion and many more would need to go after them, but it would be a good place to start. Fuck trannies. Fuck jannies too, them second

About 52.7% actually.

Source: Google.

They're estimated to only be about 0.3-0.6% of the american population and probably even less worldwide. That wouldn't even make a dent in the total world population.

>trannies
>faggots
>mentally disabled
>physically incapable
>niggers
>everyone who lives in Africa
>Indians and everyone who lives there
>the entire population of China (not Chinese people in different countries but just China. That place is a fucking mess)
>people who don't support the plan

Should come out to around 60-70% of the world's population.

You should probably not include the people who don't support the plan. Would bring the 60-70% up to about 90 I reckon. Everything else looks good though.

the people suggesting depopulation should certainly off themselves first. Otherwise this policy is a complete nonstarter, advocated for entirely by hypocrites.

I would 100% agree to participating in a 60% randomly selected culling of the population. On the one hand I hate people and on the other I hate myself too. Win/win and I'm not a fucking hypocrite.

Attached: come at me.jpg (455x458, 110K)

Genocide sounds like a great idea until you realize you'd be one of those people getting genocided.

I get to fix the world and die in the process. Count me fucking in. Even though the world after a population culling will be better than it is right now, it will take a while for me to go anywhere even with a world population of 3 billion or less. I would rather just off myself and stay true to the spirit of the culling.

no, i think if you're in favor of a mass culling, you can cull yourself, and then those of us who aren't so zealous about population control can evaluate the problem from there.

I don't mind. See this:

every year we should have a mass suicide and build a memorial to their sacrifice. You will be honored for your service.

That wouldn't be fair. Either everyone participates or nobody does. Even Thanos has some fucking standards.

Attached: perfectly balanced.jpg (1486x1246, 139K)

nah, it should be 100% opt in, and the electric jew should promote it. I think that culling the unwilling is no bueno.

The willing already fucking kill themselves... Suddenly telling them it's for the good of the planet wouldn't change a thing for the vast majority of them. It should be 100% forced participation or the idea should be scrapped entirely. You didn't see the Avengers sit down and negotiate terms with Thanos at any point in the movies.

i'm saying that we mainstream doomer propaganda, have a national drink the punch day with a bunch of pomp, fancy memorial to honor the fallen, and a small payout to the relatives of the sacrificed to sweeten the deal.

You can also have similar incentives for sterilization. You don't have to do something so gruesome as round up involuntary murder victims, just remove the taboo around suicide.

These are all good ideas but I think it would lead to the wrong people killing themselves. Most breed-happy idiots are seldom self-aware enough to be suicidal or think their sterilization is warranted.

you need breed happy idiots to keep the species going, and those same breed happy idiots are more likely to be productive and contribute to society. I think the people who can be persuaded by propaganda to end their lives are exactly the right people to remove themselves from the expenditure of our resources.

Breed happy idiots are the idiots that consume the most. You think niggers who produce children out of wedlock and leave the mothers to survive on welfare checks contribute to a productive society? Fuck no. Most people who suffer from depression tend to have a higher IQ and they are the ones that truly matter for the progression of our species. Turing, Pasteur, Einstein, Neumann, Faraday, Da Vinci, Newton, Gauss and a lot of other scientists were each worth at least 100 million regular normal idiots if not more. They were the ones that actually did something other than keep the cogs of the machines rolling.

Attached: Aristotle quote.jpg (850x440, 50K)

there's an easily reversible outpatient vasectomy procedure that you could require as a stipulation to collecting certain welfare programs. That would ensure that the majority of welfare babies would be prevented.

I never said that isn't a great idea. It's just the notion that breed happy idiots matter to society in any real way that irks me.

the good people exist because they were bred. The good breeders also buy homes and stay married long enough to raise their kids in peaceful households and instill good values on their kids. The family units they keep together are the core of society.

You're missing the point entirely. It's breed happy IDIOTS. Not breed happy Einsteins.

you don't need to be a genius to marry a girl before impregnating her and work a full time job to pay a mortgage.

I never said you did but considering how hard it is for you to understand my point you might wanna consider that sterilization treatment yourself.

My point is this: People of average or below average intelligence do not matter at all in the grand scheme of things. They can have children, obey the law and follow all the unwritten rules of their culture/society to the letter but unless they do something that sets them apart from the masses their existence won't have made any real difference. They are literally just a cog in the machine. That is why Newton was more conducive to the betterment of society than at least 100 million normies if more.

i get your point entirely, but
1) we need cogs to run a society, even with automation advancing such as it is
2) smart people are often born from average parents, and every couple able to do child-rearing right has a chance of producing an exceptional individual, so the number of functional nuclear families we have is a good metric for a society

>environmental issues
Not in human control.
>homelessness
el oh el as if
>water
Is renewable wow you're a brainlet.

Back to reality we'd use twice as much and be worse off due to being spoiled.

>gov gf
If there were less people that'd happen naturally faggot. You're taken for granted in this current society, but only halving it is nowhere near enough. You need 90 percent gone to make a real difference.

>we need cogs to run a society, even with automation advancing such as it is.
No we don't. All the worlds facilities and basic utilities could be maintained and produced without the huge population we have today. Even if the population was cut to 1/10th we would still be fine in most parts of the world. The only reason why we "need" all of them right now is because we have to support our entire 7.5 billion population which obviously requires more "cogs" to run the bigger machine.

>smart people are often born from average parents.
I beg to differ. It can happen but it's rare. The apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree and this applies to IQ as well. There are exceptions, such as Beethoven who was born in a family with an alcoholic father and substance abusing mother, but that doesn't happen often.

>every couple able to do child-rearing right has a chance of producing an exceptional individual.
A chance, yes. A big one? No. Unless they are actually intelligent themselves they are most likely not going to raise their child any better than their parents raised them.

>the only reason we need so many people is because we need to support all these people
this argument could be made no matter what population you decide is a good population to have. The argument doesn't address why 7.5 billion is a bad number or why 750 million would be a better one.

>A chance, yes. A big one? No
The point is, even if the odds of an exceptional person coming out of a nuclear family is 1 in a million, then having 30 million nuclear families is better than having 3 million. There's no way to predict which of those households are going to produce the exceptional people.

I'm sure if you looked you could find dozens of family trees that over many generations, have not produced anyone of real historical consequence, and if you magically cherrypicked those lines out of existence, it would be no harm done, but if you introduce a policy attempting to cull them, then it's invariably going to be culling lots of lines that would've otherwise created historically significant people.

>The argument doesn't address why 7.5 billion is a bad number or why 750 million would be a better one.
750 would obviously be a better one from an environmental standpoint which was what this was all about to begin with. The population size is irrelevant if it's not harmful to anyone in any way shape or form, of course!! Where did you get the idea that I thought a bigger population was strictly a bad thing? It isn't if we have the resources and willingness to adapt on a global scale.

>Having 30 million is better than having 3 million.
I wholeheartedly agree. If the planet and our infrastructure could handle that I would be in full support of a population increase.

>The argument doesn't address why 7.5 billion is a bad number or why 750 million would be a better one.
Because we are FULL and would be seriously fucked trying to feed that amount of people we have now if we had no petrochemical fertilizers handy. And instead of taking a cue from that we happily feed more niglets up.

>I would be in full support of a population increase.
Totally disagree there

I think everyone is overlooking that we are not really socially capable of living in tight cityscapes.
Just consider how little time humans have only done that, historically speaking, and I fear It is one big elephant in the room that is so large in our face that we can't even notice it anymore.

We have tribal instincts and often live in metropolitan settings. hell even the comfiest suburb is overrun with people compared to what we were used to even 200 years ago.
Nevermind the population of 2000+ years ago that most of our inner self is still stuck on and capable of managing.

I think that has more to do with our steadily raising rates of mental illnesses, depression and the amount of people who need to swallow mindbenders daily to function than any porn and smartphone craze that we so often blame it on.
We are not made for looking into the faces of strangers every day, of being so overwhelmed by a steady flow of new people that could afriend, could be a foe, could become trusted ally, could become our victim to exploit.
It is what makes us strangers, to eachother and ourselfs

You missed one word in my sentence.

Infrastructure.

That includes such things as living in cramped cityscapes. Personally I think the suburban lifestyle is the best combination of personal space and closeness to the "tribe" (meaning neighbors and other people in general).

Just get rid of jews and the population problem will sort itself out

That would perhaps work physically, assuming you have sci-fi tier unlimited resources to spend.

But there is still the impact of this information age, even if that does being us back to things like the smartphone craze that I waved away one post before.
We still found sort of an access to all those (first world) people, a sort of having them in our lifes even if they mostly flutter by us as anons
I think if you say "okay, we'll have 10x the population since we have all their physical needs filled to house and feed and job them", you'll still potentially end up with 100x the psychological crackpots that we have today.

And honestly stamping the whole earth with Hongkong-tier cityscapes and their assorted suburbs would probably be causing troubles we haven't even considered yet.

we lack people in the west

Thats in first world countries while in third world countries they have eight kids each

I know. That's why I said "if our planet and our infrastructure could handle that". The skycraper hellscape and melting point of the crackpots in the population would have to be taken into account when planning for infrastructure. In other words we have the exact same viewpoint.

lol you mean white people? You're not wrong I just thought that was a funny way of putting it.

assuming we'd remove the bottom 60%, yall would be the first to go

No country on earth has a fertility rate above 8. Fertility rates in Africa have been in freefall for 30 years now and in another 30 years they'll be below replacement rate. By 2100 Africa will be Eastern Europe-tier.

Not while apefrica exists, sorry roastie

I too love making statistics say what I want
"Freefall" after decades of HIV-epedemic and half the breeding capable population storming europe?
Below replacement rate my ass.

Attached: extrapolating.png (461x295, 21K)

>60%
Try 85%. Imagine a beautiful world maintained by faithful custodians, instead of the glorified rats who currently consume and breed without end.

this isn't a very nice post

Attached: eed.png (680x722, 241K)

quantum immortality babe

>but you could die also!
Look up quantum immortality and Schrodingers cat
>but its immoral!
human garbage has lived for too long, without being unchecked they will cause the end of the human race. they are responsible for all the suffering in the world

Attached: 1544415215323.jpg (480x480, 63K)

try 99%

there are almost 7 billion,
a 60% reduction means that it would only be a few decades before we're back to here.

exponential growth is a bitch

This the world needs to be cleansed

Do you genuinely believe that either of those things is a real factor, or even happening the way you describe? Are you that fucking stupid?

it would be nice. but it would have to be proportional. if you radically drop the population of a few regions others will take over. especailly china and africa.

>is there any reason why the population shouldn't be decreased by 60%?
Yes because nobody's willing to die solely to satisfy others unless they're severely fucked in the head, so to carry the plan out you'd need to rely on force -- which will inevitably create rebellion, and not necessarily from the targetted people but also from people you'd assume would be on your side but aren't. The next step is wars breaking out on all scales, and I'm pretty sure nobody wants this either

The loss of ten thousands of lifes yearly , often followed by the starvation of left behind children going on over a multiple decades has no impact on populations figure? Just how stupid are YOU, faggot?
Guess you are too young to remember the bodycounts of the HIV hightimes, but not everyone is.

> decreasing the population = killing people
brainlets

Attached: 43534535.png (1000x703, 705K)

this guy gets it, just fucking sterilise the third world before they have their own industrial revolution and fuck this world even more

"Ecofash"" are hypocrite faggots who want to save (((w*stern """"civilisation""""))) and dont want brown people in their faggot orgies though

user is assuming that he and all who agree with his ideal aren't the ones that get offed

>maybe government mandated gfs

I know how to get these, just cant state it publicly or all hell will break loose, or I could just tell r9k.

If you amuse me enough i'll tell.

is there any reason why the population shouldn't be decreased by 100%?
just imagine how nice it would be

Attached: 1429330953487.png (2658x700, 615K)

so, YKK?

Attached: x5.jpg (730x1100, 403K)