While I share the goal of reducing human population, I do not accept their way of getting there, or the racial selectivity of it. White "People" have no special claim on North America, "we" stole it by force after European diseases did the bulk of the work.* That we remain here is a grace my ancestors enjoyed greatly and me so far.
(*To be clear, my ancestors were not at all part of the original theft, but accepted immigration through the regime of the thieves long later, which was greased by the thieves further for internal occupation purposes, which my ancestors should have been smart enough to understand. Also, there is no such race as "white race," it's an imaginary construct wrapped around many different ethnic traditions, and race in general is a social construct invented tailored for social control. The correct answer to "Race?" is "Never!" The correct answer to "Sex?" is "Not enough recently." The correct answer to "Religion?" is "Not if I can avoid it."
Ideally, the required future global population reduction is achieved across all races (and ultimately nations) by the correct combination of carrots and sticks. Education and empowering women in saying no is first, combined with free contraception and abortion. From there, I'm not sure about the correct carrots, but I think the deals regarding retirement and guaranteed income be slightly better for 0, 1, 2, and 3 children respectively. After two children, you are advised to get sterilized (male and female). After 3 children, it's mandatory. Combined with the greater support and endorsement for a childless life. I've already calculated the optimal rate of childbirth: 0.5 children per person. That would produce fast enough population reduction to considerably assist in reaching a sustainable society without total collapse. Even then, it's only one of many almost unthinkable but needed changes. I'm a zero childbirth producing individual myself as are many of my friends. It's not hell, some say I have it much easier, which I do. But still, I feel society is misdirected in many ways that affect my needs too. Single people need less short-term-profit and/or religious institutions to hang out in, unhindered access to recreation drugs, and regulated prostitution. All the kinds of distractions traditional societies prohibit to direct the tribe to growth above freedom.
I'm dreaming, of course, because the last thing the ruling class wants is population reduction. They want growing income from a growing number of serfs and slaves. But they don't much care about social liberals. They can all be lonely singles, while religion keeps the right wing expanding, or at least producing enough victims before they defect from it to keep from collapsing.
Update: It has recently been reported how May Scaife made a gradual progression from ecological mindedness to nativism. Of course, it should be remembered, the Scaife family was wealthy and very very conservative.
Even some not so conservative voices have argued for restricting immigration on the basis that immigrants would have more children than they otherwise would have. This is the best somewhat fair minded argument, not that I like it one bit.
A much less fair minded argument, is that Immigrants will have a larger environmental footprint by coming to the USA. But is that their fault? The USA should be a model of low environmental impact. We have the area to be completely powered by sun and wind energy. If that is NOT true, it is our fault, and not the fault of newly arriving immigrants. If we had done our job properly, immigrants would lower their enviromental footprint by moving here. And possibly, more immigrants might help us build the sustainable society we need to build.
Meanwhile, we have no "right" to be fossil burners, carbon polluters, desertifiers, extinctionators, etc., that needs preserving by preventing immigration.
In my mind, overpopulation is mostly a global issue, and nativism should have no part of it. In some cases, regional overcrowding and related issues needs to be prevented by immigration planning, but other than that, there is no fair ecological argument I like for restricting immigration.
(*To be clear, my ancestors were not at all part of the original theft, but accepted immigration through the regime of the thieves long later, which was greased by the thieves further for internal occupation purposes, which my ancestors should have been smart enough to understand. Also, there is no such race as "white race," it's an imaginary construct wrapped around many different ethnic traditions, and race in general is a social construct invented tailored for social control. The correct answer to "Race?" is "Never!" The correct answer to "Sex?" is "Not enough recently." The correct answer to "Religion?" is "Not if I can avoid it."
Ideally, the required future global population reduction is achieved across all races (and ultimately nations) by the correct combination of carrots and sticks. Education and empowering women in saying no is first, combined with free contraception and abortion. From there, I'm not sure about the correct carrots, but I think the deals regarding retirement and guaranteed income be slightly better for 0, 1, 2, and 3 children respectively. After two children, you are advised to get sterilized (male and female). After 3 children, it's mandatory. Combined with the greater support and endorsement for a childless life. I've already calculated the optimal rate of childbirth: 0.5 children per person. That would produce fast enough population reduction to considerably assist in reaching a sustainable society without total collapse. Even then, it's only one of many almost unthinkable but needed changes. I'm a zero childbirth producing individual myself as are many of my friends. It's not hell, some say I have it much easier, which I do. But still, I feel society is misdirected in many ways that affect my needs too. Single people need less short-term-profit and/or religious institutions to hang out in, unhindered access to recreation drugs, and regulated prostitution. All the kinds of distractions traditional societies prohibit to direct the tribe to growth above freedom.
I'm dreaming, of course, because the last thing the ruling class wants is population reduction. They want growing income from a growing number of serfs and slaves. But they don't much care about social liberals. They can all be lonely singles, while religion keeps the right wing expanding, or at least producing enough victims before they defect from it to keep from collapsing.
Update: It has recently been reported how May Scaife made a gradual progression from ecological mindedness to nativism. Of course, it should be remembered, the Scaife family was wealthy and very very conservative.
Even some not so conservative voices have argued for restricting immigration on the basis that immigrants would have more children than they otherwise would have. This is the best somewhat fair minded argument, not that I like it one bit.
A much less fair minded argument, is that Immigrants will have a larger environmental footprint by coming to the USA. But is that their fault? The USA should be a model of low environmental impact. We have the area to be completely powered by sun and wind energy. If that is NOT true, it is our fault, and not the fault of newly arriving immigrants. If we had done our job properly, immigrants would lower their enviromental footprint by moving here. And possibly, more immigrants might help us build the sustainable society we need to build.
Meanwhile, we have no "right" to be fossil burners, carbon polluters, desertifiers, extinctionators, etc., that needs preserving by preventing immigration.
In my mind, overpopulation is mostly a global issue, and nativism should have no part of it. In some cases, regional overcrowding and related issues needs to be prevented by immigration planning, but other than that, there is no fair ecological argument I like for restricting immigration.
No comments:
Post a Comment