I have had this topic on my mind for a while and would like alternative thoughts. Obviouslly we are overpopulated to the point were recources are running out, one example being water. What are we supposed to do if anything? I have several thoughts but I am curious as to what the rest of you are thinking.
2 Likes
I’m not so sure there’s anything we can do besides let nature rebalance herself. We can’t just go killing people until there’s only 1 human per square mile; other “nonconformists” have tried that and given all survivalists, herbalists, homesteaders, and rewilders a bad name. Countries can enforce regulations on childbearing, but those don’t seem to work very well no matter how strict, and a lot of places (such as the US) still give tax breaks and extra government aid for each child. Any means of population control would require infringing upon the rights of an individual, and I’m as against government-mandated anything as I am overpopulation. I say just keep up your immune system and wait for the plague to sweep through.
3 Likes
Bill and Melinda Gates foundation…philanthropy or mass sterilization?
2012 marked not the end but the period where we entered the golden age of the Yugas (or the golden head of Daniels prophecy in the bible). The future is unknown but there are many amazing possible outcomes. Multidimensional possibilities include multiple earths…one reality where we don’t clean up our act and the Earth does what she needs to to regulate the human population (natural disasters, another ice age being a possibility). There’s also the possibility of mass expanding of human consciousness as the galactic center continues to emit higher and higher frequencies of light. We are evolving rapidly now and an ideal outcome may be a collective shift as humans consciously and physically unite to steward the earth realizing that we are from the earth…and birth homeo luminous, human light.
See our article Discussing why population growth is still ignored or denied https://www.academia.edu/21036219/Discussing_why_population_growth_is_still_ignored_or_denied
The land itself can sustain only a certain number of people. When the number of people grows above this number, they need resources from elsewhere. The more/faster means of transportation, the more food and other stuff can be brought in.
Therefore I think the number of people pretty much anywhere will dwindle when transportation systems slow down, whether because of natural disasters, regulations preventing the spreading of diseases, or whatever.
To try and convince people to reduce their reproduction rate probably takes a lot more effort than reducing the capacity of their connections with the rest of the world, I suppose. Although I agree that the number of individuals walking this planet has grown a bit big, I tend to see this as measurement for the effectiveness of nature conservancy rather than as a symptom that needs quick treatment.
anon26382761
I’m not so sure there’s anything we can do besides let nature rebalance herself.
I agree with this. Seems to be the most natural way to go about it. 
Other things we could be doing:
- stop living in a “civilised” world where daily showers, car washing, fracking for fuel, flushing the toilet, dishwashing or growing lettuces and lawns in the desert, climate-control within 2 deg of 20C, etc are considered normal.
- actively restoring damaged ecosystems we created. Deserts make 1/3 of the land surface and is ever growing. And there are the underwater deserts caused by aggressive over-fishing.
- actively restoring ecosystems that were damaged eons ago. Sahara used to be fertile. It is understood the changes are partly due to modifications in rain patterns. What were those due to? Were there other factors? it is amazing that with so much resource are our disposal this question is not more widely studied, and more importantly what can we do about it?
- expanding our diet further than wheat, sugar and few parts of a few animals kept in unnatural conditions. I mean we should feed on whatever is available locally and seasonally. That way we could grow (better yet, hunt/gather) food in places considered non-fertile currently.
- cancelling the defense budget and spending it on restoring our environment
- allocating half of the health budget to non-big-pharma health solutions
i’m actually curious what our “overpopulation” problem would look like once we take those non-evil-dictator (in comparison of “population control” whatever that mean) steps.
Finally, there is a lot of text all over the internet coming from disreputable source (none of the above posters of course) about how some groups or other plot to “control human population”. I think there is nothing to gain from entering this kind of fear-mongering debate. I’m all in favour of discussing positive solutions to the resource squeeze though
1 Like
If you’ve got a couple of hours to spare I recommend watching this lecture from Daniel Quinn and Alan Thornhill which expands upon Quinn’s theory that the human population explosion has been caused by the excess food production made possible by agriculture:
Otherwise Dave pollard has summarised the argument on this page:
http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2004/02/06/population-a-systems-approach/
Basically it states that humanity is subject to the same ecological laws governing the growth or decline of any other species, ie: population is a function of food availability. Seen in this light the solution is obvious: arrest the growth in food production and start to wind it down until it’s back to a level where it supports a human population that can exist from year to year without causing mass extinctions and toxifying the total environment. It’s not a question of ‘resources running out’. The ‘resources’ are still there on a simple chemical level (apart from those lost through entropy) - they have just been repurposed, stolen basically, from systems which previously supported a multitude of living forms and absorbed into systems which support only a handful of domesticated species, with domesticated humans at the apex. This is why HANNP (Human Appropriation of the Net Primary Productivity which is the work of all the photosynthesising plants across the planet) is currently measured at around 30%. Rainforests converted to soy plantations; prairies converted to pasture for sheep and cattle; 200+ species going extinct every day… Whether it’s possible to actively stop and reverse the 10,000 years of growth inertia in agriculture and civilisation through policy or ‘alternative’ means is another question. We might have to wait until it plays itself out and pick up the pieces afterwards.
cheers,
I
If overpopulation is a problem what is the solution?.. So who would you round up to exterminate? would you volunteer to be on that list? I seriously don’t think so.
I think it’s ridiculous to WANT depopulation
It’s fucking evil and satanic in my opinion. if you feel overpopulated, go somewhere else
Alexander,
Please review and follow our communication guidelines: Welcome to Rewild.com (READ HERE FIRST) If you are intentionally trolling, this is not the right forum for you. If you would genuinely like to participate in respectful conversations, the guidelines will outline the methods and expectations for participation in this forum. Thank you.
I don’t agree with depopulating as a strategy just as I don’t agree with removal of invasive species as a strategy. We need to be supporting life, not destroying it, no matter what form it comes in. Yes, human beings are the worst of the “invasive species” on planet earth right now. But experience shows that you can’t just eliminate invasive species and expect the native populations to return to normalcy. Those invasive species exist largely because of prior environmental degradations. The way we remove invasives, or at least ameliorate their harm, is through the rebuilding and restoration of our native ecosystems. When the forest canopy matures and closes, the invasive multiflora rose begins to die back. When we repopulate our seedbank and herbaceous layer with native roots and herbs, the invasive vines and exotic plants can’t get so much foothold. Recognizing this process, I think a parallel has happened with human beings. We need to heal our own traumas, both internal and external. Our internal traumas are a legacy of oppression, colonization, slavery, genocide, and authoritarianism. Our external traumas are a legacy of bad land stewardship, clearcut forests, poisoned air and water, tilled land and the idiocies of agriculture. In the wake of all this, we’ve lost our own sense of our humanity, and we’ve lost our place, our role, and our very meaning of life within this world. We are the invasive species that does not cooperate with the lifeforms around it but just stubbornly reproduces without limit or control. Experience also shows that those that do not cooperate, will eventually die. Nature connection is one way among many that we can begin to heal our ecological traumas. Good land stewardship and the planting back of native, especially human, habitat is another way among many to heal our ecological traumas. By fixing our relationships with the world around us, we are fixing the root of the problem. Likewise, the way you deal with an invasive species is you replace it with a better one, whether that’s a native or simply a more cooperative species offering real ecosystem services. You fix the broken relationships and open wounds (or niches) in that ecosystem.
As far as depopulation goes, our time for dying is at hand now anyhow. The question is who’s going to survive.
1 Like
Tracie, I am having a hard time comprehending what you mean… I am not trolling…can I not express my opinion,??? the title to the thread itself is literally asking for my thoughts…can i not express them? Who is to decide who and how to depopulate. cough Hitler…I guess you are supportive of killing off massive amounts of human beings.If a majority of Rewilders are in favor of mass genocides I really think I am in the wrong forum and should not affiliate myself with people who literally want to see millions of people die. I completely disagree with sought after depopulation…You know that is basically genocide right???
and I’m serious about what i said. if you feel overpopulated go somewhere else…I can go to the woods literally any time and in any direction not see a single human soul for miles.
If you think I am a troll for being against mass human killings I’d rather be a troll than the next blitzkrieg soldier
I was going to leave your comment alone, Alexander, but since you insist on being persistent in this, and have now attaked a friend who works hard to maintain this website, allow me to explain.
We’re all going to die someday. All of us. It’s a part of nature. I’m not talking about a mass genocide. Rewilding is a slow process that takes thousands of years. I’m talking about people making the decision to have 2 or less children over several generations rather than 13 (I know a family that did this), or adopting kids that need a home rather than pumping out more.
The reason why “going somewhere else” doesn’t work is that the Earth is finite. “Going somewhere else” is exactly what the Europeans did in coming to America, resulting in the “genocide” of the Native Americans, and the eventual overpopulation in the Americas.
In addition, I have known several Satanists who were very nice people and, in fact, not “evil.”
Furthermore, when I asked for thoughts, I was not opening myself up for criticisim. I was asking for advice and help, on something that could make or break whether our species survives or not.
I sincerely hope you understand what I am saying, and hope you have a nice day!
1 Like
Sorry if this is too much Tracie. Feel free to remove my comment if it is out of the guidelines.
Alexander,
I apologize if i jumped to the “trolling” conclusion too hastily. However, going into a hostile style of communication which “attacks” other community members is not acceptable. Differences of perspective or opinions are welcome - but let’s ask questions, explore, and discuss - not attack. This is a legitimate topic for conversation. No one here is promoting genocide. I would encourage you to familiarize yourself with what people have written on the subject for context. The guidelines provide a good framework for interacting with one another when difficult topics are on the table. Please follow them. Thank you.
OK thanks for clarifying. I hope you guys realize that I really like rewilding and didn’t want it ruined (for me) by thinking that most rewilders agree with depopulating actual breathing living humans. I know where you are coming from, but as you said, people die naturally…I am going to have a kid even if true rewilders deem it a bad idea…do you really want to die when you’re 70 or 80 a lonely old person with no one to help you if you fall because you think it’s going to save the world?
I see what humans are doing no different than the animals. All of the creatures in the worlds primary goal in life it to be succesful breeders.
I hope someday rewilders can have just as much compassion for fellow human brothers and sisters just as much as we love the birds, plants and creatures.
I’m not trying to attack anybody on here i just have a HUGE problem with the word DEpopulation…If you think about it, it’s clearly NOT restricted to only controlling how many kids people have. It can mean something more to other people, people in power have depopulated the populations they control before, history repeats itself, i just think of bombs, gas chambers, guns, airstrikes, etc… when i hear depopulation.
first thing that will come to mind with most people is not controlling babies.
Think about how furious you would be if i was talking about depopulating the trees, or the wolves and cougars, or the eagles etc… It dosen’t matter how i proposed doing it ,you would get mad. don’t be so suprised someone on your forum disagrees with it. live and let live and don’t pretend that we have any control over this situation.
by the way lumping all europeans together as world dominators and killers of natives in my opinion is pretty fucked up imo as if they are the only ones that have done terrible things…
Birth control would be a better word to use if thats what you are talking about
If there are too many people, rather than just think of how depopulation can occur in a desired way while choosing to leave civilized living with living in a way that the world cannot support as many doing is not as good thinking as living in what will the most sustainable way. Having things growing, and not depending so much on animals, would be included with this.