"An Unpopular View" - Global Human Carrying Capacity

[Antithropocentric]

I'd say this is only "unpopular" among growth-obsessed industry pushers and religious fundamentalists. It's very popular among people who've taken time to understand the world beyond their own petty wants (maybe 1/4th of the populace).

Birthrates tend to drop on their own when women aren't treated like dirt and people realize the folly of religious/supernatural beliefs and face the physical limits of the Earth. Cheap oil has made a lot of people ignore the latter, but that's ending already.

[earthwizz]

overpopulation is caused by poverty. Our rich societies are at minus growth, the apparent increase is due to immigration. Solution; universal prosperity. A market-led path to this using sustainable practice is at livingsystems(dot)com(dot)au

[EnigmaticWolf1]

Anyone who would claim that the world is overpopulated should really take a drive through Texas.

[diegoadelgado]

this is why the asian guy started a hostage situation at discovery. they portrayed over breeders in a good light. terrible. more birth regulation

[kemlo]

well, the question to be asked is,are there to many people on the planet at this time. if the answer is yes, then perhaps the best way to reduce the pop. would be to only have one child per family until further notice. that to me, would seem to be the most tactfull solution. it would help solve so many food and pollution problems. respectfully yours, kemlo.

[blaziermissy]

With an economic and social system that is designed around sustainability and efficiency, elevating humanity and education, we could have astounding quality of life afforded to all.

Thevenusproject (dot) com

[earthwizz]

@blaziermissy Precisely. Overpopulation is caused by poverty. The solution is universal prosperity. A market-led path to this is at livingsystems(dot)com(dot)au

[trakkaton]

How much longer can we afford the rich?

[cuteblackchick1]

Nope, not becoming a breeder. I think global incentives to not have kids is a good idea.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Yogi -

Please actually watch the video before commenting or trying to threaten people.

This relates to free voluntary global birth control.

[yogiudo]

Population management? I don't think you have any ability to exercise any influence on natural rights. And even if you tried to other people could still do what they want. If you tried to stop them from exercising their natural rights, they might decide to stop you from exercising some of your natural rights such as living.

[gntwrk]

I'd be extremely careful with this subject. I have to agree with ddh.

[LarkaSojourn]

Do you want a provable answer that provides desired the results? I have it.

[dardraa]

Solution? STOP FUCKING!!

haha jk

just use condoms :3

[p717]

Definitely no children for myself and my spouse...married 16 years. I just wish my siblings would have had only one child...

[dianaandjackiejfk]

I'm not having them either. There is another one down. I don't really like children either.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Thank you for your decision. You've done more by your "not doing" than by recyling, driving a Prius, conserving water, etc. You've prevented the consumption and waste of your children and their children and their children...

[HundredMilTechnology]

Also, have to ask... Do you live in the U.S. or other "developed" nation? Would you accept something like $4,500 in cash, goods, and services as a gift for your decision? (I don't have it to give you--wish I did--but that is how the program is designed, were it funded.) That's right, up to $4,500 over and above the free tubal ligation...maybe even more for wealthier regions (such as the U.S.). Wondering if people here would actually jump on such an offer (I would).

[ddhboy2]

To elaborate, what we must do as a society is to continue to strive for efficiency. How do I fit x amount of people in y amount of space? How do I produce this amount of crop? How do I get to this place by using the least amount of energy. Population reduction is just a simple answer for a difficult question, and is an abysmal idea. We will continue to grow and expand, and we will innovate due to necessity. That is how we have come to the point we have today.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Your stance is that population will infinitely continue to grow and expand. This is impossible, irrational, ludicrous, specious, and demonstrates a total disconnect from reality, ecology, nature, and natural law. Don't take these seemingly harsh comments the wrong way. This stance is widely held and you are merely verbalizing what many believe.

Here's an exercise: Get 40 acres of land, and keep adding cows to your herd every year until you reach infinity. Observe and ponder.

[ddhboy2]

It is irrational for us to attempt such a feat. Remember China did the same thing, and what happened then? People would have back alley abortions with wire hangers, countless girls aborted because the family preferred a boy. What we need to do as a civilization is to continue on trying to make things as perfect as possible. That is what makes us great. It is our problem solving abilities that make us more powerful than any other creature on this planet.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Try actually reading the material before commenting on it. We are talking about global voluntary free birth control PLUS paid incentives. Your analogy is irrational.

[ddhboy2]

Oh, and who would be greatly affected by this? Obviously the world's poor who are using the least amount of resources. They would be the ones to take advantage of being paid to not have kids. Meanwhile, the world's wealthy will continue to expand, using most of the world's resources, solving nothing. The only thing population management in that manner will do is eliminate the most endangered.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Who do you think SHOULD benefit from the sacrifice of one's fertility? The rich? Actually, understand that both sides are sacrificing. One is sacrificing their fertility, their hope for the future. The other is sacrificing resources. This program is cheap compared to the alternative (environmental collapse) but not cheap. The program is open to all, and many even in the U.S. would jump at $4,500 for not having kids. (I would.)

[HundredMilTechnology]

The benefits can be regionally corrected for local economies, to make them more desirable for more affluent regions.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Please understand this is designed as a global program available to anyone, not a particular group.

Another point is that no, the wealthy will not continue to expand if the world's population is decreasing. Rather, the world's population will continue to improve their lot. The average global standard of living will increase. The children already here will receive better care. Hope Now.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Check out the prvllc place. The spreadsheet suggests that even a village of 1,000 w/400 participants would realize a program benefit of $800,000+ USD. For: medicine, food, shelter, clothing, agricultural tools, electricity, clean water, education, transportation, etc. This is a great GIFT and the poor are NOT being victimized by helping them!

[HundredMilTechnology]

Another point is that it is specious to believe this will not reduce environmental exploitation, by getting global human population within carrying capacity.

Remember, the affluent are sacrificing their resources. Humans whose needs are being met have low reproductive rates, and since resources have been sacrificed, there will be contraction rather than expansion... There is a redistribution of wealth. Low-consumption/high-tech societies.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Where do the high-consumers get their exploited resources?  From the poor around the world. The poor exploit their own lands, and export their products cheaply so that their over-populated numbers can survive. Humans under stress tend to have high reproductive rates in the hopes that a few will survive, and they then lack the resources for proper care. With proper care, repro rates go down, and the necessity of exploitation of natural resources is reduced. But there's more.

[HundredMilTechnology]

So, there are fewer and fewer poor willing to exploit their resources. If India or China for example had populations of 200 million each that would be some 1.6 billion+ less hands about the business of exploiting the Earth's resources. What happens with greatly decreased supply? Demand greatly increases and so does price. Consumption goes DOWN greatly.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Please understand even in affluent countries that population will go down with this program available to all and regionally adjusted. But even if it did not, with far fewer poor countries to exploit, the appetite would be curbed. Basic economics.

The only way your logic would be true is if affluent consumption only occurred within their own country. It does not! It _mainly_ occurs in other countries, out of their desperation.

Exercise: Visit so-called 3rd world countries.

[ddhboy2]

Please, the wealthy will not give up resources, that option has always available to them. Also, on your point of China and India, those are large populations of small resource users. Of course the amount of resources will pile up to a large amount. Still, the resources that China currently use are still not on par to that of America. That said, I hardly say that stunting the growth of the developing world will "save" us. What will save us is simple conservation and greater efficiency.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Please understand that the poor are kept poor so we can exploit them. If we transfer wealth from us to them, we are no longer wealthy...that is our sacrifice. They are no longer poor, and so are harder to exploit.

Please understand that without legions of poor to exploit, we cannot consume at our current levels. They are what enable our consumption. They are the machine that feeds our economy. Smaller machine = smaller consumption.

[HundredMilTechnology]

There are a couple levels to answering this. The wealthy may not have a choice. For one, there are far fewer wealthy because of the redistribution of resources. For another, the goods simply cannot be procured because they do not exist in quantity anymore and what does exist is pricey. This is the cost of living within carrying capacity: exploitation (living beyond our natural means) is not possible.

Comfortable quality low-consumption/high-tech lives are possible w/fewer people.

[HundredMilTechnology]

The other level is that as population numbers go down (NOT reducing the rate of growth, but rather reducing gross numbers through attrition), then demand can catch up with supply and reach a new equilibrium point. A nice car will be more expensive than now because fewer are made. But driving that car will be tolerated by the environment because the pollution and consumption of the much fewer number of them can be absorbed by the environment.

[HundredMilTechnology]

The actual percentage of people driving the car may not change that much (but likely will be somewhat lower) since there are simply less people.

[HundredMilTechnology]

You are right that the wealthy don't want to give up their resources. That is why they want the poor to stay poor. That is why they don't want this program to happen. And the poor don't want to give up their fertility either! Politically, this program is guaranteed to fail. The point here is simply that for the record, a way did exist for us to "fix it", and solve the global environmental problems before full-scale collapse. Simply note that we CHOSE not to. Why would we choose thusly?

[HundredMilTechnology]

Because of things to which we cling. We do NOT want to give up our self-importance. How can we be self-important without elevating ourselves above others, making ourselves rich while making others poor, making others work for us in involuntary servitude? How can we be grandiose without all the shiny baubles of materialism and over-consumption? We must also raise ourselves above Nature and objectify Her.

[ddhboy2]

There will never be a world without poor people, there will never be a Utopian society, and anyone who thinks that the rich will voluntarily give up their resources, and that pretty much killing off the world's poor as a poor understanding of world economics, and nothing more than a dreamer.

[HundredMilTechnology]

*geesh* Please take the time to read the info. Also, because we can never reach perfection, should we then cease to try to improve our situation? In this case, what you are talking about as "Utopia" is merely us getting within carrying capacity--something every other creature on the planet HAS accomplished.

I don't understand when you talk about killing off the poor?!? Please help me see what you are trying to say...surely you are not seriously advocating this.

[dianaandjackiejfk]

I am afraid I am slightly lost on how population control harms the poor. Please explain? Do you mean that if we paid people to not have children that poor people would need the money...? I am slightly confused.

[odakueffect]

There is enough room and recourses on this planet to last for an internity. The only problem is the governments don't get involved in control of the recources and the polution produced. Your idea is completely flawed. If you feel like doing something worth while for this planet, lobby governments to take action in the mentioned above.

[HundredMilTechnology]

That is an irrational stance. Only some resources are renewable. Eternity is a long time; the sun will not last that long. Remember the pyramid of life on which the human species is capstone. We cannot exist when it is damaged to a certain point. It is mathematically irrational to think population can infinitely grow and long-term exist at levels above carrying capacity...by definition. It is irrational to think the government can do anything magical or solve all societal problems.

[odakueffect]

A program I'd propose? A complete change of governmental policies. For example a complete ban on Coal use in say 10 years. Once that is in place there is always someone ready to jump in with an alternative to make profit.

Same with a polution. Make the product clean or get out of business. I go shopping and see they even make an egg cartons from plastic now. There is nothing wrapped in paper anymore, it's all plastic and is encreasing. Things like need to be hard line stopped.

[HundredMilTechnology]

There are some basic concepts in ecology that unfortunately are not common knowledge. Carrying capacity is a simple yet profound concept. Imagine 100 acres with 10 cows, and that is all the 100 acres will support. Everything is interconnected. If you want to keep adding more and more cows each year, it won't work to say "A complete change of governmental policies". You have to revamp reality.

[HundredMilTechnology]

One could say, "Develop a super plant for the environment that will support more cows". But that changes everything, since everything is connected. Fifty cows in an environment that supports ten will need much more water too... Along the lines of your "Use something besides coal" strategy, one could say, "Put in wells to support the stream water". But that removes groundwater.  Further, the waste (pollution) from 50 cows affects the native plant populations. See the folly?

[HundredMilTechnology]

And lastly, you have given no specifics. "...lobby governments to [control resources and the pollution produced]..." is no answer. If you take the time to read the info, you will see that at some level (but starting with the individual) that is within the intent of the proposed program. Give specifics of what you propose for a program. ???

[odakueffect]

I'm not tying to start some silly argument, you believe you're ight and I believe I am right, so I'm only giving my own view.

Yes some natural resources will eventually run out but there are and will be alternatives. Basic examples are Petrol, Coal etc. We don't need those as there are alternatives but aren't used because the makers aren't prepared to change in fear of someone else making a profit.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Hey this is not a silly argument, and more than "belief" is involved here. You have a tiny understanding of ecological principles. Run a ranch for a few years, do some reading, and see if your "opinion" does not change. Don't think I am picking on you, because soooo many in our society are disconnected from the natural world. You voice common but specious "opinions" that unfortunately are part of a culture which is ruining the biosphere.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Please try to defend your "enough resources to last an eternity" statement. I'm concerned that you were not merely exaggerating to the extreme to make a point but that you actually and literally believe that. Many people DO! It is mathematically insane and irrational but would love to hear you 'splain it. Said with genuine respect and friendliness...free speech respected here, friend.

[ratexla]

Just YT being slow... :p Anyway, it's not really a sacrifice for me since I'm not a big kiddie fan! :D Hopefully I can set an example to others...

Thanks for the addy, sounds good. Maybe you could put some links in the video description if there's any room left?

[HundredMilTechnology]

Heh guess so on the slowness... *geesh* Will try putting link in the video info.

[ratexla]

Thanks for this vid! I am childfree! :)

[HundredMilTechnology]

Thank you for your sacrifice. You may want to check out the website at prvllc and then a dot and then an org. Describes a program that could facilitate great environmental repair in ONE DECADE.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Thank you for your sacrifice. You may want to go to the prvllc place. It is an ORGanization that describes a plan capable of dramatically reducing environmental stress in ONE DECADE.

[Yiggyski]

Populations in the West including Japan and Russia is actually stable or declining. Too fast a reduction would be undesirable as we need young people to support the elderly.

The real concern is Africa, the Middle East and also India. North East Asian countries are following Japan's route and having smaller families. Africa is now exporting it's surplus to Europe with illegal immigration.

Unfortunately it is the lowest tier of societies are breeding - we need some quality control, eugenics.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Please also understand that the argument that "too fast a reduction is undesirable as we need the young to support the elderly" is specious for many reasons.

Nature and Natural Law do not care about such matters. If you ponder it carefully you will see that the young are not _really_ supporting the elderly now in western culture. In many nations, the young cannot even if they want to, because their basic needs of food, shelter, and clothing are not even being met.

[DBVPSlayer]

You would think that looking around at the flux in our pantry would make people say... "Hmmm... maybe we should slow down bringing more people into the house." We're like children who take no responsibilty for this great house we've been given on a golden platter. I think we should all adopt a one-child policy, and adapt a worldwide effort to educate on the prospect of a terrible war that's imminent with the resources thinning, and the population growing.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Thank you. It's amazing, this One Thing that is destroying us, yet almost universally is this great denial. People get hot over the very mention of suggesting a limit on the size of their families or that self-sacrifice on everyone's part is needed. Wish could give the direct website, but that seems to be blocked by YouTube. DubbaDubbaDubba _P_opulation _R_esearch _V_illage dotcom?

[DBVPSlayer]

Thank you for addressing the REAL issue on this planet. It's the biggest one out there. I view it like we live in a house. In this house we have renewable and non-renewable resources that if managed correctly will allow us to let some people live there. But, in this house of ours it's getting cramped and though we have resources now, it's clear that we've already lost the capacity to enjoy some of the resources we once had.

[HundredMilTechnology]

You may want to check out the website for Population Research Village! (Use the cap initials plus a dotcom.)

[tanerofies]

"As a child decades ago, it was clear to me that human population management was the key" Ditto, it's not rocket science. Personally, I thought that countries would shrink their populations as they became wealthier, but didn't count on them actually importing folks to keep their populations growing. Seems insane to me, but considering that at least half the world's population is below average, I reckon it's not surprising.

[coolfoilhatman]

we could start by eliminating china, they got alot of people there. that was sarcasm.

Truth is the plans are implemented and various.

wars, global empires, armegeddon will all help.

but the big one, not usually mentioned is the looming global economic collapse, billions will starve. at which point the types of solutions you propose must be implemented to maintain earths population at about two billion.

[HundredMilTechnology]

I don't believe you have actually read any of the proposals or you would not suggest any linkage. Please reread.

The fact is, that we can do things the voluntary way where we manage our own destiny... Or we can do things the hard way where Nature manages it for us, and that is what you allude to.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Or... Are you saying that we cannot implement these strategies now because we humans simply have to experience the disaster first-hand before we will change our ways? Maybe _I_ misread your post? That is an interesting point... Perhaps the strategies will be meaningless to us until after a big collapse, and then the survivors will "get it".

[nathantkennedy]

Big surprise, they didn't ask this one. Few politicians will touch overpopulation with a 10 foot pole.

And when they do count on them to skirt the only ways that exist to actually manage population growth.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Sad but true. The U.N. does not even want to hear from the general public (only "scholars").

As a child decades ago, it was clear to me that human population management was the key. Naively, I believed everyone else was aligned; there was birth control classes, and it seemed that small families and ecological consciousness were "in".

[HundredMilTechnology]

But something regrettable happened. I _assumed_ the problem was understood and the fix was being implemented globally. I left the cause in the capable hands of everyone else, left it on autopilot.

Guess what? The cause was forgotten, like moon exploration. Further, regions of the world (and some demographic groups within the U.S.) seemingly capitalized on our low birth rates and the resources the sacrifices of others "freed up"...and reproduced themselves into political might.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Now we are in a crisis that even the global warming folks don't seem to understand. Tens of thousands of plant/animal species estimated as going EXTINCT every blessed YEAR.

And indeed, the politicians cannot be forced to even make a noise with their mouth that sounds like "population management".

[swirlingturtle]

No...not ''we''. Derrick Jensen says not to lump oursselves in with the evil-doers. But still. more humans still means more earth-rape. mostly by a small few, and by extension many, many innocent, or not.

by the way...there is a good website called VHEM (voluntary human extinction movement)

[HundredMilTechnology]

There is a beautiful epiphany embodied in the global voluntary paid sterilization strategy... How to lead people to it? It is a massive transferral of wealth from the "have's" to the "have nots"... hope for the present life in exchange for their legacy. But even bigger than that, it could only happen if we as a species decided to put the Earth first, above our societal and individual needs/desires.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Er, it is the Yahoo group for VHEMT. You can also get the file by writing directly here. It includes a spreadsheet that describes a simple and VOLUNTARY way for drastically curbing the global human population in ONE DECADE.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Here it comes... The Powers-That-Be have put a test before us. They have given us at least one way out, but it requires that magical key that many have tried to show us... Self Sacrifice. What remains to be seen is our final choice...can we take that quantum leap of consciousness as a species?

These tests are final and absolute.

[HundredMilTechnology]

You may want to check out the file on the VHEMT website, called, "Presidential Candidate Eludes Fate". Great piece about some radical political views that might be the answer.

[swirlingturtle]

What plans? I plan not to have kids. I want to work with/for other species. And possibly adopt a human child. It's gotten to the point where when someone says they are having a child/want one/are preggnant I just feel like ''oh great, another human animal to add to the rape of the planet''. I know that may seem inhumane of me...but honestly. Look at what we've done.

[HundredMilTechnology]

We have no kids, would like to adopt but unfortunately the lawyers have to make money off of the sale of kids, so we cannot afford to adopt.

We have many quasi-friends popping out kids one after another. Several are in dire straits for various reasons (drugs, illness, poverty, etc.) yet unthinkingly pop out kids... The System makes sure they don't starve...the moms seem to be using the kids as a source of income.

[HundredMilTechnology]

I too, when I see a kid, wonder how many acres of wood must go, how much coal must burn, how many pounds of heavy metals must be mined, how much waste will be generated, what impact that one child will have on a local ecosystem... (Have seen one child wipe out the frogs and snakes from several miles of creek.)

[jeanstealer]

Ok, I agree that population control is the single most effective way to stop environmental damage. What I don't see is how to tell this to greedy corporations and governments, for whom more people equals more profit. IMO what is ultimately needed is for human reason to triumph over the greed inherent in human nature. So, education is the most important thing - my favourite example is the history of Easter Island, a completely remote society that destroyed itself by poor environmental management.

[HundredMilTechnology]

There is a three-pronged strategy: voluntary measures (global voluntary paid sterilization); involuntary measures (tax dis-incentives, removal of existing tax incentives for having kids, etc.); education. All three are important on a global scale.

[HundredMilTechnology]

You don't conquer greed directly...this is our "cancer culture" where cancer is unbounded growth. The three-tiered attack can do it. Remember, to those who choose sterilization, you are converting their sacrifice to an exchange...they lose legacy in exchange for hope for a better now...you transfer wealth from the have's to the have-nots to a large degree.

[HundredMilTechnology]

The bottom line is that it is rapidly becoming cheaper, in the sense of personal SURVIVAL (global warming, and many more aspects all converging at the same time) to control human population and protect the environment.

[HundredMilTechnology]

The cost of global voluntary paid sterilization, for example, when shared amongst the developed countries, can be shown with simple and reasonable assumptions, to be much cheaper on a per annum basis than the war in Iraq has been to date.

[violetblue22]

That was my favorite example as well.

[roidroid]

If you goto the 3rd world with talk of anti-fertility treatments, you may cause a penis-panic (google it).

I don't think attacking the (3rd world) supply of OUR (1st world) decadent lifestyles is the answer. That's like suing Macdonalds for making you fat. If it's really worth doing we should lead by example.

[HundredMilTechnology]

This has been discussed previously. Solutions need to be applied GLOBALLY to work (see Prisoner's Dilemma video in this channel).

Aside what has been said in previous comments, please also understand that this is a way of turning a sacrifice (one's legacy, etc.) into an exchange. As far as so-called 3rd-world countries are concerned, it is a way of transferring wealth from the haves to the have-nots.

[HundredMilTechnology]

If you do the math, with reasonable assumptions, (an example is given in other comments) you will find tremendous resources being transferred to areas that need it most.

[johnny2020vision]

and now because of the consequences of the modernity we brought to them, they overpopulate because of the resource surplus that our industrial methods provide; so we now want to kill them off? does that make sense? this doesn't make us look like good people.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Who wants to kill off people? Not sure what is meant by that?

[johnny2020vision]

this is the tremendous moral dilemma that we are facing. tribal societies, although primitive, don't overpopulate. what we call 3rd world nations now, are only because of what our ancestors did to them

most of those 3rd world countries would've never have been overpopulated if it weren't for some form of European intervention or colonization...essentially making them slaves for their resources for our benefit

[johnny2020vision]

a woman who has a child in Malibu - that child will have 800 to 1000 times more negative impact on resources than a child born to a woman in Bangladesh. We're crazy to preach limited reproduction to women in the 3rd World when, if you convert one woman in Malibu to the idea of not having a child, it's like converting 1000 women in the back streets of Dakka.

[HundredMilTechnology]

This point has already been discussed in previous comments. In a nutshell, programs must be done GLOBALLY to be successful (see Prisoner's Dilemma video). Additionally, the numbers you cite are incorrect because they do not factor in the exploitation effect...that is, we (developed nations) can only consume so ravenously world-wide because of the masses of humanity in underdeveloped nations whose labor and resources we exploit.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Without their ability (through their numbers and their poverty) to cater to our desires, our consumption would be far less.

[HundredMilTechnology]

*There are a number of voluntary ways a species can manage its own population. Besides self-control, there is also GLOBAL voluntary _paid_ sterilization, which is discussed herein (more info available on request).

*For humans, there are some non-voluntary ways, too, such as through legislation (tax dis-incentives, removing tax incentives for having children, etc.)

[HundredMilTechnology]

*Carrying Capacity is hard to define mathematically, but abstractly here is how you will know when a given species is within it: 1) To lower that species' population anymore will not significantly improve the vitality of any other native species in the ecosystem, and 2) To lower that species' population any more actually would reduce the vitality of that species and one or more other species (of plant or animal) that depends on that species for competition to keep itself strong.

[johnny2020vision]

I'm not accusing you of this, cause I don't know much of your position. But whenever I hear someone talking about "population management" (euphuism for killing off masses of people) usually the first target is poor people in various 3rd world countries. Which is stupid cause it's 1st world countries that destroyed this planet...and our logic is to kill off the people who are not responsible and who are merely victims of 1st world dominance. This is what I have a problem with.

[HundredMilTechnology]

No worries, mate. Appreciate you taking the time to watch the video. Check out the other comments too, and feel free to write to the channel for more detailed info.

A few logical premises: *For a given species, resources are limited, there is a set carrying capacity that is dynamic from moment to moment. *The species can manage its own population, or forces of nature will manage it, when the number exceeds carrying capacity.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Also, no one wants to get rid of the poor because as long as they are poor we can exploit them and coerce them to exploit their local resources! That's the real reason why no one wants a program like this: the poor quit being poor and we quit being rich and hence seemingly more important/better...

[ddhboy2]

Under your plan, the poor would quit being poor because the poor would cease to exist via sterilization. Thats why its a horrible plan, because your plan views people mearly as statistics. Your plan puts the poor in the position where the one thing they have, their family, would cease to exist. Your plan manipulates those who are the most venerable, and your plan ultimately will fail as the highest population centers would still be the highest population centers, solving nothing.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Again, please read the info. The plan budgets about $15 Trillion dollars USD over 10 years. About half of that is paid out directly in program benefits of cash, goods, and services. This is a wealth redistribution which raises the standard of living of those who choose to participate, giving them, their families, and their communities, Hope Now. Again, for the last time, anyone globally can participate and benefits can be adjusted regionally.

[carolinejazz]

It is shocking and scarey to think the world has twice as many people living now than only back as far as the 1960's...the true cause is greed and cheap labour...One thing is certain! A big horrible disease in on the way...and like the plague will wipe out anyone rich or poor.Something has got to give,and mankind in not up to sorting this out i'm afraid!Nature will get involved and that will be that!

[HundredMilTechnology]

There is the easy way (where we take control of our own reproduction) and there is the hard way...where Natural Law is invoked. Can't predict the future! But...my money (too) is on Natural Law. Alas, the facade of us being above and beyond the (other) animals is again revealed for all the world to see.

[HundredMilTechnology]

We are dictated by instinct, irrational urges, self-gratification, and socialized values even to the demise of our species. We cannot control our own actions, not nearly, to the degree we would like to project.

[HundredMilTechnology]

What I have read (but not researched to independently confirm) is that an estimated 27,000 SPECIES PER YEAR ARE BECOMING EXTINCT...because of US. This is thousands of times the historical geological rate.

Perhaps the most disappointing part of it all is the extent to which we collaterally affect these other species. Right? One thing to destroy our own habitat, but thousands of thousands of others?

[HundredMilTechnology]

Yes, there are political, religious, psychological, and operational (fraud, quality control, administrative, etc.) obstacles to implementation...but the basic technique and the math behind it is simple...and effective.

No one wants to hear that diet and exercise cure obesity...but often the fix is simple and effective if one will only do it.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Do this example, and figure out how much money would the village receive? How many villages of that configuration could take advantage of the program in a decade? In two decades?  Contact the U.N. and other governing bodies. Get involved.

TO ALL:

WRITE TO THIS CHANNEL TO REQUEST MORE INFORMATION.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Try changing the number from $1T to $5T. If massive volunteering occurs, perhaps 70% of the money could go those receiving the service.

If you assume a constant annual population growth percentage (you pick the number), you can make a gross estimate as to what the world's population would be for each year, 1 through 20. Try it. Be amazed.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Try a math example, you will be amazed to do the math on this simple example: a village of 1,000; 600 of reproductive age; 300 men and 300 women; half take advantage of program; men get paid 1 year's wages, women get paid 2; operating budget is $1 Trillion U.S.D. per decade (amortized and spread amongst developed countries); half of money goes to operating overhead.

[donnadecember]

I'm sorry - I'm afraid I'm coming across as overly negative. It seems we agree 99%, and are debating the other 1%. I think this is such an impotant issue, and I'm glad you posted it on YouTube! Thanks!

[HundredMilTechnology]

No worries. Part of the problem is this medium is not appropriate for detailed answers. Much more info is available to anyone that requests it. 

TO ALL:

WRITE TO THIS CHANNEL TO REQUEST MORE INFORMATION.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Also, should note that this is a way to transfer money from the haves to the have-nots. It is actually a good thing that it targets the poor. Do the math, and in a village of 10,000 with reasonable assumptions it can bring in millions.

[HundredMilTechnology]

Always a negative perspective possible. Put the money where it is needed (mass pop explosion and starvation). $3K is actually a fine incentive even in the U.S. (I'd do it). The affluent do not need to be pursuaded as that is not where untenable growth occurring.

[donnadecember]

Why do you need to wait for a payment of $3k to become sterilized? I didn't.

Also, it is the affluent who consume the most and contribute the most to environmental destruction: "For example, in terms of energy consumption, when a North American couple stops at two it's about the same as an average East Indian couple stopping at 60, or an Ethiopian couple stopping at more than 600." (google "VHEMT")

[HundredMilTechnology]

You may wish to visit afflicted countries. There are other issues than direct consumption. Also, as the world's (exploited) population of poor is reduced, so is the overall impact to the environment, at a far greater rate than what those unborn poor would have consumed.  Do you see? We consume so much because we exploit the world's masses and the services and products they export. If they are not there to exploit...

[HundredMilTechnology]

Currently, people have to pay to be sterilized. (See the video about the "Prisoner's Dilemma" to see why must be global.) Even if it was free, people in poor countries would not take advantage of it...there are vast psychological and sociological barriers.

Part of overcoming the barriers is to transform it from being a sacrifice to being an exchange. If they receive a relatively large sum of money, then they are receiving hope in exchange for sacrifice.

[stepsfreak]

Finally, it's being addressed. We need more visibility ... this is a serious issue!