• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!

Overpopulation

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,110
28,880
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
In straightforward terms, the modern concern of "overpopulation" is the idea that the current (or near-future) population of the human species exceeds the carrying capacity of planet earth. Wikipedia describes it:

Human overpopulation occurs when the ecological footprint of a human population in a specific geographical location exceeds the carrying capacity of the place occupied by that group.

Do you believe overpopulation of planet earth is a valid concern? Is overpopulation something we can or should curtail? How do we determine when a region (or a planet) is overpopulated?

Most importantly, do you believe we will acquire ways to sustain and support the higher number of humans on Earth in the near future?

I put this into Politics because even though the topic itself is fairly apolitical, related topics like government intervention, climate change, and ethics of population control are going to quickly make the thread political, and that's okay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: juliotendo

juliotendo

Member
Jan 5, 2019
1,093
1,968
535
Mexico
It probably is a concern just because Earth is a small planet.

But the Earth has always been self correcting.
 

somerset

Member
Apr 15, 2019
443
622
420
If Man applied his current tech to the planet, we could trivially sustain way more than *ten times* our current population. The maximum Human population density possible in theory would blow your mind.

To get a clue, go use Google Earth.

Of course a planet with a vastly greater popualtion would have vastly different social systems. The system supporting Human life would be everything- in efficiency, predictability, and stability. It would be essential to remove a say over most elements of the system from the dumb dumbs- no more 'majority' rule. It would have to be rule by experts.

Today our population is low vs our current tech capability, which is why in many areas the population rate is exploding. However, it should be noted that the eugenic movement, lead by monsters from the USA like Bill Gates, constantly preach that the elites only need a *fraction* of the current population to serve them, so its time for a war to cull us 'useless eaters'.

Stuff like The Walking Dead- implying a post apocalypse scenario- is actually eugenic propaganda. Classic grooming via fairy-tales to normalise what the elites desire next. What if most of us dropped dead?

PS when ordinary people are asked to comtemplate a concept by the mainstream media, it ain't because *anyone* values the opinions of uninformed dumb dumbs. No, it is the common abuse of 'democracy' when the mob is weaponised by successfully propagandising the mob with some message or other.

Ask yourself this- when was the last time the mainstream media asked the dumb dumbs to form an opinion about sewerage systems. Never- cos, of course, we expect such highly important aspects of our daily lives to be handled by experts.

So when the mainstream media does speak to the masses, like I said it ain't because anyone values their intellectual abilities.
 
Dec 3, 2018
3,310
6,381
685
Stuff like The Walking Dead- implying a post apocalypse scenario- is actually eugenic propaganda. Classic grooming via fairy-tales to normalise what the elites desire next. What if most of us dropped dead?
I thought The Walking Dead was a direct copy of a movie which was a direct sequel to another movie which was a direct copy of a book written in the 50s by a guy who wrote a few somewhat noteworthy Twilight Zone episodes. I don't think it is competent enough to groom anybody for anything.

Also, did you skip your medicine today?
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,559
5,488
830
Brampton, Ontario
Anything more than 10,000 people living in the same area is too big for me.

I don't know how anyone can stomach the idea of cramming millions of people and forcing them to live together.

Like, it still shocks me that the island of Sri Lanka is actually home to 21 million people.

For reference, Australia has about the same population, but the country is far larger.

 
Last edited:

Kenpachii

Member
Mar 23, 2018
2,218
1,708
540
Anything more than 10,000 people living in the same area is too big for me.

I don't know how anyone can stomach the idea of cramming millions of people and forcing them to live together.

Like, it still shocks me that the island of Sri Lanka is actually home to 21 million people.

For reference, Australia has about the same population, but the country is far larger.

It's what you are used towards and grown up with.
 

crowbrow

Gold Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,674
2,168
550
A finite space and finite resources can't handle unlimited growth. This is logic 101, so yeah overpopulation is a concern, specially if the idea is to strive to raise the standard of living to the majority of people which automatically increases consumption and waste.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
39,667
15,095
1,395
overpopulation isn't a concern, we are trending toward 2 children families all across the world

read more pinker, he's great at this stuff

you could safely stack all of the world into a few US states as it stands, we have sufficient room to grow
 
Last edited:

crowbrow

Gold Member
Feb 28, 2019
1,674
2,168
550
overpopulation isn't a concern, we are trending toward 2 children families all across the world

read more pinker, he's great at this stuff

you could safely stack all of the world into a few US states as it stands, we have sufficient room to grow
Even though I don't disagree with Pinker entirely, there has been several well argued refutations to his, in my view, overly optimistic outlook. Like this one which uses actual statistical data: https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/transformation/steven-pinker-s-ideas-are-fatally-flawed-these-eight-graphs-show-why/
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
39,667
15,095
1,395
Last edited:

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
6,822
8,854
640
Do you believe overpopulation of planet earth is a valid concern?
no. i remember this same shit came up in the '70s. people were claiming "oh yeah fossil fuels are going to crash, humanity will be overpopulated by the year 1999, we must prepare to make sacrifices" somehow the world didn't collapse, even the oil supply is still going strong. i never put my faith in soothsayers.

honestly it's sickening. fake techno corporate benevolence. concern trolling on a global scale.

amazing how you never see anyone proposing "how about we use less?" that is because "we must continue on this path, even if it kills people" is the platable corporate response. thus it gets mainstream traction. how many articles did we see that asked "Is Thanos right?" as if genocide is a good excuse to continue consuming without consideration.

shameless, shitty, anti-human theory.
 
Last edited:

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,110
28,880
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
no. i remember this same shit came up in the '70s. people were claiming "oh yeah fossil fuels are going to crash, humanity will be overpopulated by the year 1999, we must prepare to make sacrifices" somehow the world didn't collapse, even the oil supply is still going strong. i never put my faith in soothsayers.

honestly it's sickening. fake techno corporate benevolence. concern trolling on a global scale.

amazing how you never see anyone proposing "how about we use less?" that is because "we must continue on this path, even if it kills people" is the platable corporate response. thus it gets mainstream traction. how many articles did we see that asked "Is Thanos right?" as if genocide is a good excuse to continue consuming without consideration.

shameless, shitty, anti-human theory.
Personal responsibility and responsible entrepreneurship -- a pair that the Climate Change bloc of politicians seem to hate -- will provide a way out.

But the keyboard warriors would rather blame others (avoiding personal responsibility) and wait for corporations to make a so-called "eco-friendly" version of the same products they love (avoiding the opportunity to create the product themselves and enrich the world around themselves).

Not unexpected. Instead of the world crumbling, their world will crumble as thriftier people climb over them and make a lot of money quietly solving the problems that the ideologues are screeching about while doing nothing.
 

Super Mario

Member
Nov 12, 2016
1,292
1,495
415
We are absolutely overpopulated and it's going to get worse. It is one of the biggest reasons why the climate change discussion is a joke. Even if we cause it, us existing on a mass scale isn't reversible. The problem isn't Trump, needing more taxes, and straw reduction. Just think, where you live now, was likely once a forest. Now it's a resource consumption hog. We're only going to keep doing it, on top of all of the other stuff we consume, destroy, and waste.

This is one of the reasons why I stray from Conservatives on abortion. In what world does American NEED 40 million more babies? Let alone unwanted children who are far more likely to bring additional adverse effects to society
 
Jun 25, 2018
651
324
480
Personal responsibility and responsible entrepreneurship -- a pair that the Climate Change bloc of politicians seem to hate -- will provide a way out.

But the keyboard warriors would rather blame others (avoiding personal responsibility) and wait for corporations to make a so-called "eco-friendly" version of the same products they love (avoiding the opportunity to create the product themselves and enrich the world around themselves).

Not unexpected. Instead of the world crumbling, their world will crumble as thriftier people climb over them and make a lot of money quietly solving the problems that the ideologues are screeching about while doing nothing.
Personal responsibility will only be a thing if people admits there is a issue.
its wishful thinking, So instead we need law enforcement to correct some of our bad habits.. and perhaps later we can roll those back again. But believing that individuals would be able to do that on their own is a utopia scenery.

At the very least everyone should be educated with the knowledge before they even get allow--ed.
i still believe its possible to deal with overpopulation in a humane way. but right now we are not doing that, instead we allow a single small group of people to exploit and escape from all responsibility.

Without those small procent of people leading, either by law or example then it will all just be wishful thinking or methane air.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,110
28,880
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
Personal responsibility will only be a thing if people admits there is a issue.
"People" -- as in a public group of people -- admitting it as an issue might never happen.

But individuals who see the opportunity will reap a huge profit. Furthermore, they'll enjoy the moniker of being a "savior of the earth" and a "environmentalist" and so forth.

its wishful thinking, So instead we need law enforcement to correct some of our bad habits.. and perhaps later we can roll those back again. But believing that individuals would be able to do that on their own is a utopia scenery.
Individuals already are "doing that on their own". That is kind of the point: rallying the disinterested corporate/social forces has failed to address climate change. But individuals are still proceeding forward all the same, without the help of government or regulations or social approval.

At the very least everyone should be educated with the knowledge before they even get allow--ed.
i still believe its possible to deal with overpopulation in a humane way. but right now we are not doing that, instead we allow a single small group of people to exploit and escape from all responsibility.

Without those small procent of people leading, either by law or example then it will all just be wishful thinking or methane air.
Do you think things will get worse gradually or suddenly?

If suddenly, then we are screwed anyway. Better prepare as best you can and learn how to take care of your family and friends in the event of economic/ecological collapse.

If gradually, then the market will take care of it. There is profit to be made in "fixing" this issue, just like there was absurd profit for those who jumped into corn ethanol fuels and carbon credits (both of which were a flop and caused more issues than they solved). If our situation worsens, do you expect there won't be even more profit in solving it and providing alternatives compared to the things we've tried so far?
 
Jun 25, 2018
651
324
480
"People" -- as in a public group of people -- admitting it as an issue might never happen.

But individuals who see the opportunity will reap a huge profit. Furthermore, they'll enjoy the moniker of being a "savior of the earth" and a "environmentalist" and so forth.


Individuals already are "doing that on their own". That is kind of the point: rallying the disinterested corporate/social forces has failed to address climate change. But individuals are still proceeding forward all the same, without the help of government or regulations or social approval.


Do you think things will get worse gradually or suddenly?

If suddenly, then we are screwed anyway. Better prepare as best you can and learn how to take care of your family and friends in the event of economic/ecological collapse.

If gradually, then the market will take care of it. There is profit to be made in "fixing" this issue, just like there was absurd profit for those who jumped into corn ethanol fuels and carbon credits (both of which were a flop and caused more issues than they solved). If our situation worsens, do you expect there won't be even more profit in solving it and providing alternatives compared to the things we've tried so far?
I believe that we are in a gradual process of decaying our earth from life. as such i believe the issue of overpopulation will be a gradually worsening effect. that will speed up as if two cars driving towards each other with increasing speed. 0-100

Your right, that people admitting the issue will try as much as possible to create solutions and hopefully bring in capital rewards for those that succeeds. some of them could be more damaging as we become more desperate in our methods to try things out.
 

Trojita

Rapid Response Threadmaker
Feb 9, 2009
37,082
2,815
1,600
There's no overpopulation concern. There is still plenty of land out there.

The problem that is going to rear its head is if places projected to have increased population growths can't sustain those numbers without help. Bill Gates was discussing the need for family planning in Africa and was met with reactions that he was being a eugenic monster. Populations on the continent are expected to grow. The population growth is aided by charity that has brought in medicine, resources, and technology. One of the main arguments about the effect climate change is going to have will be on these countries. Most first world countries, as long as they stay economically and socially stable, will be able to ride the wave. Will it be annoying in those first world countries dealing with the heat? Yes. But the effect in less well off countries could end up catastrophic to human life. Heat exposure deaths will increase. The biggest issue will be if animals and plant life can't adapt to even warmer conditions. A ballooning population needs an ever increasing amount of food and procured water. Then you add in the potential for crop diseases rearing their ugly head (There's already currently a big worry over bananas). Technology developed within the next century could help with these issues (new ways of farming and resistant crops through biotechnology) but those developments are of course an unknown.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
15,110
28,880
1,260
USA
dunpachi.com
I believe that we are in a gradual process of decaying our earth from life. as such i believe the issue of overpopulation will be a gradually worsening effect. that will speed up as if two cars driving towards each other with increasing speed. 0-100

Your right, that people admitting the issue will try as much as possible to create solutions and hopefully bring in capital rewards for those that succeeds. some of them could be more damaging as we become more desperate in our methods to try things out.
I prefer to take the hopeful outlook, but it's definitely true that we could use methods that are even worse for us, increasing the speed at which we destroy ourselves.

Consider that many of our practices are killing us directly -- especially in the realms of physical, mental, and dietary health -- and therefore will reduce the "bad practices" naturally. I'm not trying to be cruel or crass, but obese diabetic patients will die off by the millions long before the waters start lapping at our ankles, so to speak.

The rate at which our practices kill us must necessarily be lower than the rate at which our practices irreparably damage the planet itself, which then turns around and kills us, but that isn't the case. We are killing ourselves just fine, and I wager a guess that we will destroy "chunks" of civilization and bring things back into balance long before the planet itself is pushed past the point of repair.

I think there are a few more emergency release valves between our current circumstances and The Point Of No Return, one of which is total human population. I think that is why this topic gets brought up in climate debates, because we know it has a huge impact.
 

WaterAstro

Member
Oct 27, 2015
8,861
1,664
500
Overpopulation, at least for thousands of years, can be solved by correcting the inefficiencies of our food productions, but we're too addicted to these inefficiencies that it's going to take great effort and willpower of humanity to fix.

So little of our farmland are actually growing vegetation for human consumption. The rest goes to livestock, and beef is the most inefficient use of that resource. But who is willing to give that up? Not enough will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thurible
Oct 26, 2018
5,185
4,472
460
The Earth is not overpopulated.

The world is so big, there is TONS of room and resources The issue is a lot of people crowd in cities, and there's lots of people who don't have the skills, or governments with lousy infrastructure which leads to super crowded slums and starving people.

So it looks like people are in shitty situations due to overpopulation. But to me, it's more about not enough productivity in those areas.

It's like a having a big 20 room mansion with a family of 12. If everyone chips in their part, spread out across all bedrooms and does chores. It's nice even if there's 12 people. But if all 12 people want to do bunk bedding in 2 bedrooms, some reason 14 rooms are locked and off limits and half the people want to sit around doing nothing while the others have to spend time doing all the chores, it'll feel like there's too many people.
 
Last edited:
Aug 29, 2018
1,594
2,345
420
34
Bartow, Florida, USA
With the virtually unlimited clean power fusion will hopefully provide in the next few decades the Earth could support a truly ridiculous population. Energy-intensive farming methods such as aquaponics can produce a truly staggering amount of food compared to it's footprint, even more if you go vertical.

I saw a video of a farmer who ran a single level aquaponics farm that spanned a single acre. He made more food than traditional industrialized farms 25 times the size, all without any form of pesticides.
 

MrTickles

Banned
Feb 22, 2018
3,215
4,180
660
Anything more than 10,000 people living in the same area is too big for me.

I don't know how anyone can stomach the idea of cramming millions of people and forcing them to live together.

Like, it still shocks me that the island of Sri Lanka is actually home to 21 million people.

For reference, Australia has about the same population, but the country is far larger.

Yeah but 100% of Sri Lanka is habitable. ~10% of Australia is habitable.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
39,667
15,095
1,395
so after looking at that democracy data, it seems we need more people to fuck, not less
 

spandexmonkey

Member
Dec 17, 2009
1,847
683
910
Memphis, TN
I personally doubt overpopulation will be as big a deal as some think it is. As first world countries progress their populations will decline. Third world populations will fill the gap, but as they reach the same level of success they too will face a decline.

 

Alfen

Member
Nov 12, 2018
303
352
280
Anything more than 10,000 people living in the same area is too big for me.

I don't know how anyone can stomach the idea of cramming millions of people and forcing them to live together.

Like, it still shocks me that the island of Sri Lanka is actually home to 21 million people.

For reference, Australia has about the same population, but the country is far larger.

Agree with this.
Technically, we could fit the whole human population into the state of Texas; anybody who thinks this is okay has never stepped foot in Hong Kong.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,559
5,488
830
Brampton, Ontario
The earth is not overpopulated.
In terms of living space, sure. But what about in terms of human impact?

We could technically have 100 billion people, but that also means a 100 billion mouths to feed. Where all these resources going to come from to support an infinite population on what is a finite planet?

Also, there's a huge difference between overpopulation in 3rd world countries vs overpopulation in first world.

A billion people living in the USA would require a shit ton more infrastructure to support, which would mean more oil and electricity being consumed, which would also mean more pollution being released into the air.
 
Last edited:

Panda1

Member
Jan 12, 2010
1,130
613
940
Any talk about population will inevitable lead to Africa, , India and China, which means its impossible for any western country to solve and if you are white you are racist for bringing it up.
 
Jun 25, 2018
651
324
480
I personally doubt overpopulation will be as big a deal as some think it is. As first world countries progress their populations will decline. Third world populations will fill the gap, but as they reach the same level of success they too will face a decline.

Here is just my take on it,
The mouse experience is missing some key features to be a correct experiment on a utopia for the mice. The mice grew bored and depressed without purpose. they needed something to do.

The captivity is limiting them from exploring, they can't play or feel any purpose. they don't have to fight to secure their food. If they had included some things to play with perhaps the experiment would had run better.
 
Jun 25, 2018
651
324
480
Any talk about population will inevitable lead to Africa, , India and China, which means its impossible for any western country to solve and if you are white you are racist for bringing it up.
That's a bit honk honk talk. You can argue they are homo sapiens traitors.
But ehm.. We are just interested in keeping earth as diverse as possible instead of destroying our only home by thinking 'me, me and more me'
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
18,559
5,488
830
Brampton, Ontario
I think the term "overpopulation" is a bit of a misnomer.

When people argue there are too much people, I don't think it's about running out of space on the planet.

For example, we know there are other animals with bigger populations than humans. Ants number in the trillions. But they are also spread out on several continents.

Now imagine you put all the world's ants in one apartment? They would consume everything until they all die of starvation.

So what overpopulation should really mean is "how many resources can we support at a given time"?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Panda1

Rran

Member
Jan 2, 2013
777
370
505
amugsblog.blogspot.com
This is one of the reasons why I stray from Conservatives on abortion. In what world does American NEED 40 million more babies? Let alone unwanted children who are far more likely to bring additional adverse effects to society
Not to bring this thread too off-topic, but the problem with this line of thinking is that it's willingly picking and choosing which lives to destroy over others. Aborting 60 million human lives a year (worldwide) is wholly different than simply preventing those lives from existing. Once the egg is fertilized, a human individual now exists where one didn't before, and using overpopulation as justification to extinguish that life is--to a pro-lifer--no less abhorrent than using overpopulation as justification to extinguish the life of a toddler.

I dislike how it seems that everyone concerned about overpopulation and culling a group of people to be extinguished never include themselves in that group. I'm not trying to make a snide "go kill yourself" comment here or whatever, but rather pointing to the double-standard of people saying "There are too many people" but somehow they themselves are not part of the problem. It's always someone else that should lose their chance at life.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RSB and Thurible

#Phonepunk#

Member
Sep 4, 2018
6,822
8,854
640
If you say “we are overpopulated” you are pretty much saying “I would rather other people die than to curb my consumption”. It’s an illogical, territorial, selfish worldview
 

Thurible

Member
Aug 15, 2018
1,350
1,407
610
I think resource management is a problem, not human beings for existing. There is nothing wrong with being alive or being fruitful (heck if I marry I would probably have a lot of children comparatively). We just need to properly alocate resources. I remember hearing someone say that while we do have more than enough for everyone it wouldn't allow everybody to live a comfy first world lifestyle. Sadly poverty and hunger will exist till the end of time. Though I believe in time technological improvements can help alleviate this problem (lab grown meat for example or better gmos).
 

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,387
4,104
570
On one hand a lot of our problems would ostensibly be solved by having less people. Most of the environmental damage done by humans is done thanks to increasing demand. Less people means more job opportunities for those currently unemployed, more land/housing/living spaces, etc.

On the other hand, the idea of population control brings up a lot of moral, ethical, and social problems. China’s policies regarding having children worked in curbing population, but can be seen as trampling on human rights. It also created more problems, China’s surplus of males is greater than the entire population of California.

And if more civilized countries try to enforce these kinds of policies on the developing areas/countries where people have tons of kids without a care, it will spun as “oppression” or “colonization” or what have you.
 
Oct 26, 2018
5,185
4,472
460
IMO, Earth isn't overpopulated with humans. There's only 7 billion of us.

The reason why it seems cramped is because most people seem to gravitate to cities where it's small homes, traffic grid lock and wall to wall people at the mall. If people spread out more into smaller towns, it would feel like there's not enough people.

Also, there's lots of people starving. It's not lack of food. Companies can grow and manufacture shitloads of food. Problem is those poor areas don't have access to it, can't pay for it, can't store it because they don't have a fridge, and many of them don't have the skills or live in an area so they can work and have a roof over their head.

It's like someone saying there's too many cars in the world..... which would come from someone living downtown with constant grid lock. But go into a small town and roads are empty because there's way too much concrete roads built for the number of vehicles owned in that location.
 
Last edited:

Whitesnake

Member
Jan 31, 2018
1,387
4,104
570
I think resource management is a problem, not human beings for existing. There is nothing wrong with being alive or being fruitful (heck if I marry I would probably have a lot of children comparatively). We just need to properly alocate resources. I remember hearing someone say that while we do have more than enough for everyone it wouldn't allow everybody to live a comfy first world lifestyle. Sadly poverty and hunger will exist till the end of time. Though I believe in time technological improvements can help alleviate this problem (lab grown meat for example or better gmos).
But what would that actually look like? Are you suggesting first-world countries just give developing nations a bunch of food and materials? Something tells me not many would want to do that, and it would only superficially solve the issue.

The idea of taking any surplus goods and giving them to those in need sounds like a good idea, but I have trouble thinking of how that would work in practice. Does the government take unsold shipments and have them shipped to developing nations? Would the government buy those goods, or seize them by force? Do you make tax incentives for companies that let their surplus be shipped elsewhere? Etc.

Just outright giving them stuff would keep their people alive a bit longer, but those nations will not actually grow or prosper, and may come to expect and depend on foreign aid. “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you’ve fed him for a lifetime”, etc.
 

Taxexemption

Member
Oct 11, 2011
197
229
595
When it comes to population we should look to Malthus. Why was he wrong 200 years ago, and we are right now?




Explain why he was wrong and you are not. As far as I'm aware Malthus was the last intellectual that brought up original ideas as to whether overpopulation would lead to our eventual demise. His predictions proved wrong. I'm sympathetic to his views, but the fact of the matter is that there are several complex interrelated things that make population levels and whats possible impossible to predict. He imagined that technological changes in agriculture would only produce small gains in overall production, when the opposite was true. Small advancements in our knowledge of agriculture produced huge gains allowing for greater populations. Its possible that with greater population comes a greater chance that we will advance technology, which will allow for greater possible population. Where this ends, and what will be the result may be completely impossible to predict. When I was taught Malthus views in an economics class I was convinced they were correct, now I'm not.
 
Last edited:
Jun 25, 2018
651
324
480
But what would that actually look like? Are you suggesting first-world countries just give developing nations a bunch of food and materials? Something tells me not many would want to do that, and it would only superficially solve the issue.

The idea of taking any surplus goods and giving them to those in need sounds like a good idea, but I have trouble thinking of how that would work in practice. Does the government take unsold shipments and have them shipped to developing nations? Would the government buy those goods, or seize them by force? Do you make tax incentives for companies that let their surplus be shipped elsewhere? Etc.

Just outright giving them stuff would keep their people alive a bit longer, but those nations will not actually grow or prosper, and may come to expect and depend on foreign aid. “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you’ve fed him for a lifetime”, etc.
You cant fish if All the fish are exported to Europe. You cant fish if your living place is a dead zone. If we can start turning those areas of dead zones into healthy places again then your end quote,works, not before though.
 
Last edited: