Once again, you're responding as if population control implies that some people are denied existence. *Population control implies no such thing.*
Birth control, education (esp. women's education), women's rights, and economic development all lead to lowered birth rates, and are all in of themselves desirable things, and do not in of themselves kill anybody (unless you count abortions). The only controversial thing I'd add here is that closed borders are essential to encourage each nation to develop sensible population policies.
Knock yourself out in Africa. Alas, you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore. PEPFAR, courtesy of the American taxpayer, saw to that. Bill and Melinda Gates have also been busy as little beavers supercharging the African reproduction rate (yay maternal health, boo malaria). You're talking out of your ass on "soft" population control. Your "education sessions" and "economic development" are stalking horses for forced abortions and exterminations (by one means or another). Not that there's anything wrong with that—it's just that you're stumbling into this whole thing totally blind to where things inevitably lead.
...have said very little about overpopulation, as far as I know.
"Knock yourself out in Africa."
If borders are closed, then 'we' won't be the ones to enforce anything. The developed world's only role would be to promote women's rights and economic development.
"...forced abortions..."
China tried that route, and eventually found softer methods to be just as effective. Indeed, their population is projected to drop to less than half a billion in the next century, all without enforced abortions.
"...you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore."
That's it, simply insist that I actually have genocide in mind.
"...who exactly represents excess 'biomass,'..."
Once again, you're responding as if population control implies that some people are denied existence. *Population control implies no such thing.*
Birth control, education (esp. women's education), women's rights, and economic development all lead to lowered birth rates, and are all in of themselves desirable things, and do not in of themselves kill anybody (unless you count abortions). The only controversial thing I'd add here is that closed borders are essential to encourage each nation to develop sensible population policies.
Knock yourself out in Africa. Alas, you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore. PEPFAR, courtesy of the American taxpayer, saw to that. Bill and Melinda Gates have also been busy as little beavers supercharging the African reproduction rate (yay maternal health, boo malaria). You're talking out of your ass on "soft" population control. Your "education sessions" and "economic development" are stalking horses for forced abortions and exterminations (by one means or another). Not that there's anything wrong with that—it's just that you're stumbling into this whole thing totally blind to where things inevitably lead.
"Bill and Melinda Gates..."
...have said very little about overpopulation, as far as I know.
"Knock yourself out in Africa."
If borders are closed, then 'we' won't be the ones to enforce anything. The developed world's only role would be to promote women's rights and economic development.
"...forced abortions..."
China tried that route, and eventually found softer methods to be just as effective. Indeed, their population is projected to drop to less than half a billion in the next century, all without enforced abortions.
"...you won't have AIDS working for your goals anymore."
That's it, simply insist that I actually have genocide in mind.