>Ok, speaking of the third world, what's your position on overpopulation?
It's not a problem, at least not the way leftists have been portraying it since the 70's. The world can support a much higher population than it has now. We can build plenty of housing, we can manage infrastructure needed to provide clean water and other necessities, we're continually improving our efficiency at producing food, etc. The size of the overall human population isn't an issue. Local overpopulation, however is. Especially in regards to local pollution. Look at China, with rivers foaming over with chemicals, the sky blacked out with smog, and the soil poisoned with heavy metals; if there were half as many Chinese people, there wouldn't be nearly as much pollution. Look at India with its 'sacred' river full of trash and corpses; again, if there weren't a billion Indians, there wouldn't be nearly as much of a problem. Africans are set to become a third of the global population within the next century, and yet they're perpetually starving and dying of disease. The only thing sustaining Africa's population growth is white altruism; we keep feeding them and sending doctors to treat their diseases, and that keeps fueling the growth. If we stopped sending aid to Africa and enacted birth control policies on third-world populations that produce the most pollution, we would dramatically reduce environmental damage, conserve resources, and places like Africa and China would have local populations able to sustain themselves without outside help. All population control campaigns have been aimed at reducing birthrates in white countries and only white countries, allegedly 'for the environment', but then they immediately turn around and say they have to replace our aging populations with third-world populations who bring third-world problems such as pollution. The agenda should be clear: when they tell white people, in white countries, not to have children in order to save the environment, and then import people who have seven children on average to make up for the shrinking population in white countries, it's obvious that they don't care about saving the environment, they just want to get rid of whites. Whites, as a group, are the only people who give a damn about the environment, animal welfare, pollution, etc. so if they really cared about protecting the environment, why would they try to eliminate whites and replace them with people who don't give two shits about the spotted owl or an endangered guppy?
>Animal welfare, there's a good one; what's your stance on that?
We have a responsibility to be good stewards to nature and animals. National Socialist Germany passed some of the first animal rights laws in existence. Animals exist to serve us; you won't see eco-fascists throwing blood on scientists doing animal testing, screeching at people for wearing leather or fur, or shouting 'meat is murder!' That's what animals are there for. Humans are part of nature too. Nobody cries when a lion eats a gazelle, why should you shed a tear when somebody eats a hamburger or puts on a leather jacket? This is not to say we should be heartless and exploitative toward animals. We should be responsible and limit suffering. Factory farming of chickens is grotesque and inhumane, for example. Animals raised for meat, leather, milk, fur, or other products (insulin, mink oil, etc.) should be healthy, happy, and well cared for, if only to produce a superior product for human consumption and use.
Would you prefer to eat a chicken that is large, healthy, and lean, raised on a natural diet, and allowed to roam freely within the farm, or a chicken that's been raised in such cramped conditions its bones are misshapen, it can't get any exercise, it's fed an unhealthy, unnatural diet, and it has to be pumped full of antibiotics because it's trapped in its own filth? Would you prefer to drink milk from a cow raised on natural feed, able to move freely and exercise, and kept healthy and happy, or would you prefer milk from a cow that is trapped in a tiny pen, constantly stressed, pumped full of hormones to produce more milk than is natural, and again full of antibiotics because it lives in its own filth? Beyond the simply pragmatic concerns for how animal welfare affects us, we do have a responsibility not to abuse animals simply because it is the humane thing to do. Beating your dog is immoral and reprehensible. But we mustn't become so concerned with animal welfare that it blinds us to human welfare. Saying it is wrong for us to eat animals or use animal products is like saying it's wrong for an anteater to eat a nest full of termites.
