Oh, ffs. I did not mean it literally that we "take out" the Third World as in destroying or removing the Third World. I was talking a hypothetical removal of Third World society.

Realistically, the Third World needs a drastic cut in their birth rate. A cut of more than half their birth rate before we see any signs of the Third World populations going backward. If the Third World societies had women averaging 3 children each, then we would not see a population explosion going on in African, certain Middle Eastern and some Asian societies.

War, famine, disease, and overcrowding would fade away if women made or were allowed to make the tough choices in Third World societies to not have more than 3 children. War, famine, and disease already make quite a dent in population numbers. However, women having more than 6 children each in African societies still force their numbers higher.

When I say something like "take out the third world to reduce it to 4 billion", do you SERIOUSLY believe that I meant removing the third world numbers by way of killing them off some way? I did mean "take out the third world" in terms of focus our attention on reducing the third world numbers.

Gordon wrote on Jan 29^th, 2018 at 9:58pm:


Some days I just look at the news and wonder how well a few nuclear detonations would go for the world if they took place in the third world. Then I come back to reality and wonder if they are ever going to change their ways. Increased standards of living will only happen through women having the right to say "no". "No" to having large families. "No" to being raped. Then their menfolk will have to accept the answer.