>>3385502

yeah.. but sit back down on your couch and think about why your life sucks. And besides, you'll be gone in a few decades so why even care?

>>3385511
Because there's lack of natural resources already and I'll live for at least 30-40 more years.

kill all white americans

problem solved

As most Americans barely fucking leave their state, let alone their country (which is the most fucking stupid herpderp thing) at least they won't be spilling their shit directly into other countries with population storm

It's about time the world's nuclear stockpile is used for a good purpose. Scorch the continent; save the world.

Set off all the American nukes thus destroying them once and for all

Get your alarmist European ass the fuck out of here.

>>3385527
But America already is spelling their "shit" over to other nations. Where do you think all the meat you eat comes from? You've already almost completely deforested your nation, and even California is lacking on water. So your companies are outsourcing business to rain forests and poor nations doing the exact same faults you've been doing in America, just to cover your needs of meat and chicken consumption that is 7 times higher than that of China and 40 times higher than that of India.

Overpopulation? Motherfucker, have you ever been to the midwest? What a fucking waste of the internets.

If other countries could do what we do, they would. But they don't because they can't. This is the way the world works.

>>What should we do about the overpopulation in America?
>>What should we do about the overpopulation
>>do about the overpopulation
The answer is obvious.

>>3385502
10/10

I salute you, Sir! Great trolling!

>>3385563

Om Nom Nom Nom

I liek chickenz

I love all the foreigners complaining about America being too awesome and wanting to destroy our rights and lifestyles yet their country is too pissweak to do anything about.

This is the stupidest thread ever

it's starts from the premise that Americans consume to much per capita (we have so much consumption from our relatively small population). Then it concludes that the problem is overpopulation! What kind of retarded leap that takes is really beyond my comprehension

but I think you mean to say that our lifestyle is fucked up, not that we are overpopulated (because we are clearly not)

Let Africa die off.

Seriously, they're not even trying to pull their own weight any more. Successful farmers are getting ousted by people who "inherit" a farm that they don't do shit with.

Nuke california.

Seriously, you get to eliminate liberals, republicans, gays, hollywood, nigras, any kind of scourge.

>>3385629
I agree. Nuke the SHIT out of California.

Or let it succeed like the Emo kid it is, then declare war on it and THEN Nuke the shit out of them.

How do we measure this "per capita"

Do we use our estimated actual population, or do we use the census?

Because I'm not sure the census would count non-citizens, but the consumption research would be more practical and focus on consumption.

America is not overpopulated, retard. Most of the rest of the world is, but not us. We are just the most wasteful and most consumerist culture.

To solve the problem of us taking far more then our share of resources, we'd need to change the culture at large to a post consumerist one and all live much more meager or at least more efficient lives. America is obsessed with buying things and greed over any other values.

>>3385637
>>3385629


Good fucking idea, these, yes.

Nuke it, nuke it all away.

>>3385549
>>3385548
nukemind

>>3385629
yeah
it's only one of the ten largest economies in the world

>>3385656
>>3385625
Africa's population density is equal to that of America. The only difference is that Africa HAS the natural resources and land to cover all their needs, too fucking bad they have to wage war on each other.

America hasn't, and when you can't cover your needs, and your needs also cause harm to the environment of other nations, you can talk of overpopulation.

Why the fuck does the OP abbreviate "per" - a 3-letter word - with "pr"? It's one fucking less letter.

As much as I feel that overpopulation is one of the world's most pressing problems, and that we really need to stop treating babies as sacred/special and start treating them as nuisances, I can't get into an OP that does this kind of shit.

You ever been to India OP?

>>3385713
We do this in Norway, a country that cover all it's energy needs with hydro power, and a population density only 33% that of America's.

Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor
by Garrett Hardin, Psychology Today, September 1974

Environmentalists use the metaphor of the earth as a "spaceship" in trying to persuade countries, industries and people to stop wasting and polluting our natural resources. Since we all share life on this planet, they argue, no single person or institution has the right to destroy, waste, or use more than a fair share of its resources.

But does everyone on earth have an equal right to an equal share of its resources? The spaceship metaphor can be dangerous when used by misguided idealists to justify suicidal policies for sharing our resources through uncontrolled immigration and foreign aid. In their enthusiastic but unrealistic generosity, they confuse the ethics of a spaceship with those of a lifeboat.

A true spaceship would have to be under the control of a captain, since no ship could possibly survive if its course were determined by committee. Spaceship Earth certainly has no captain; the United Nations is merely a toothless tiger, with little power to enforce any policy upon its bickering members.

If we divide the world crudely into rich nations and poor nations, two thirds of them are desperately poor, and only one third comparatively rich, with the United States the wealthiest of all. Metaphorically each rich nation can be seen as a lifeboat full of comparatively rich people. In the ocean outside each lifeboat swim the poor of the world, who would like to get in, or at least to share some of the wealth. What should the lifeboat passengers do?

First, we must recognize the limited capacity of any lifeboat. For example, a nation's land has a limited capacity to support a population and as the current energy crisis has shown us, in some ways we have already exceeded the carrying capacity of our land.

We can't do anything. We already have the required momentum to run to our doom. We will continue until critical point and then regret not having acted sooner, etc.

I'll dump the rest of his essay, it's a good and provocative read.

Adrift in a Moral Sea

So here we sit, say 50 people in our lifeboat. To be generous, let us assume it has room for 10 more, making a total capacity of 60. Suppose the 50 of us in the lifeboat see 100 others swimming in the water outside, begging for admission to our boat or for handouts. We have several options: we may be tempted to try to live by the Christian ideal of being "our brother's keeper," or by the Marxist ideal of "to each according to his needs." Since the needs of all in the water are the same, and since they can all be seen as "our brothers," we could take them all into our boat, making a total of 150 in a boat designed for 60. The boat swamps, everyone drowns. Complete justice, complete catastrophe.

Since the boat has an unused excess capacity of 10 more passengers, we could admit just 10 more to it. But which 10 do we let in? How do we choose? Do we pick the best 10, "first come, first served"? And what do we say to the 90 we exclude? If we do let an extra 10 into our lifeboat, we will have lost our "safety factor," an engineering principle of critical importance. For example, if we don't leave room for excess capacity as a safety factor in our country's agriculture, a new plant disease or a bad change in the weather could have disastrous consequences.

Suppose we decide to preserve our small safety factor and admit no more to the lifeboat. Our survival is then possible although we shall have to be constantly on guard against boarding parties.

This is the basic metaphor within which we must work out our solutions. Let us now enrich the image, step by step, with substantive additions from the real world, a world that must solve real and pressing problems of overpopulation and hunger.

The harsh ethics of the lifeboat become even harsher when we consider the reproductive differences between the rich nations and the poor nations. The people inside the lifeboats are doubling in numbers every 87 years; those swimming around outside are doubling, on the average, every 35 years, more than twice as fast as the rich. And since the world's resources are dwindling, the difference in prosperity between the rich and the poor can only increase.

As of 1973, the U.S. had a population of 210 million people, who were increasing by 0.8 percent per year. Outside our lifeboat, let us imagine another 210 million people (say the combined populations of Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Morocco, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines) who are increasing at a rate of 3.3 percent per year. Put differently, the doubling time for this aggregate population is 21 years, compared to 87 years for the U.S.

The harsh ethics of the lifeboat become harsher when we consider the reproductive differences between rich and poor.

>>3385713
>>3385744
I'm pretty sure there does not exist a nation on earth that worships babies more than the US.

I think we need to start selling reproduction licenses. Take a test to prove you and your spouse can be halfway decent parents and provide, and you can have up to 2 children(exceptions only in cases of triplets, quads, etc.) Fines for whoever has an illegal child.

Also, stop paying niggers to make babies.

Now suppose the U.S. agreed to pool its resources with those seven countries, with everyone receiving an equal share. Initially the ratio of Americans to non-Americans in this model would be one-to-one. But consider what the ratio would be after 87 years, by which time the Americans would have doubled to a population of 420 million. By then, doubling every 21 years, the other group would have swollen to 3.54 billion. Each American would have to share the available resources with more than eight people.

But, one could argue, this discussion assumes that current population trends will continue, and they may not. Quite so. Most likely the rate of population increase will decline much faster in the U.S. than it will in the other countries, and there does not seem to be much we can do about it. In sharing with "each according to his needs," we must recognize that needs are determined by population size, which is determined by the rate of reproduction, which at present is regarded as a sovereign right of every nation, poor or not. This being so, the philanthropic load created by the sharing ethic of the spaceship can only increase.

mootblawx?

The fundamental error of spaceship ethics, and the sharing it requires, is that it leads to what I call "the tragedy of the commons." Under a system of private property, the men who own property recognize their responsibility to care for it, for if they don't they will eventually suffer. A farmer, for instance, will allow no more cattle in a pasture than its carrying capacity justifies. If he overloads it, erosion sets in, weeds take over, and he loses the use of the pasture.

If a pasture becomes a commons open to all, the right of each to use it may not be matched by a corresponding responsibility to protect it. Asking everyone to use it with discretion will hardly do, for the considerate herdsman who refrains from overloading the commons suffers more than a selfish one who says his needs are greater. If everyone would restrain himself, all would be well; but it takes only one less than everyone to ruin a system of voluntary restraint. In a crowded world of less than perfect human beings, mutual ruin is inevitable if there are no controls. This is the tragedy of the commons.

One of the major tasks of education today should be the creation of such an acute awareness of the dangers of the commons that people will recognize its many varieties. For example, the air and water have become polluted because they are treated as commons. Further growth in the population or per-capita conversion of natural resources into pollutants will only make the problem worse. The same holds true for the fish of the oceans. Fishing fleets have nearly disappeared in many parts of the world, technological improvements in the art of fishing are hastening the day of complete ruin. Only the replacement of the system of the commons with a responsible system of control will save the land, air, water and oceanic fisheries.

blox

In recent years there has been a push to create a new commons called a World Food Bank, an international depository of food reserves to which nations would contribute according to their abilities and from which they would draw according to their needs. This humanitarian proposal has received support from many liberal international groups, and from such prominent citizens as Margaret Mead, U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim, and Senators Edward Kennedy and George McGovern.

A world food bank appeals powerfully to our humanitarian impulses. But before we rush ahead with such a plan, let us recognize where the greatest political push comes from, lest we be disillusioned later. Our experience with the "Food for Peace program," or Public Law 480, gives us the answer. This program moved billions of dollars worth of U.S. surplus grain to food-short, population-long countries during the past two decades. But when P.L. 480 first became law, a headline in the business magazine Forbes revealed the real power behind it: "Feeding the World's Hungry Millions: How It Will Mean Billions for U.S. Business."

And indeed it did. In the years 1960 to 1970, U.S. taxpayers spent a total of $7.9 billion on the Food for Peace program. Between 1948 and 1970, they also paid an additional $50 billion for other economic-aid programs, some of which went for food and food-producing machinery and technology. Though all U.S. taxpayers were forced to contribute to the cost of P.L. 480 certain special interest groups gained handsomely under the program. Farmers did not have to contribute the grain; the Government or rather the taxpayers, bought it from them at full market prices. The increased demand raised prices of farm products generally. The manufacturers of farm machinery, fertilizers and pesticides benefited by the farmers' extra efforts to grow more food.

Grain elevators profited from storing the surplus until it could be shipped. Railroads made money hauling it to ports, and shipping lines profited from carrying it overseas. The implementation of P.L. 480 required the creation of a vast Government bureaucracy, which then acquired its own vested interest in continuing the program regardless of its merits.
*Extracting Dollars*
Those who proposed and defended the Food for Peace program in public rarely mentioned its importance to any of these special interests. The public emphasis was always on its humanitarian effects. The combination of silent selfish interests and highly vocal humanitarian apologists made a powerful and successful lobby for extracting money from taxpayers. We can expect the same lobby to push now for the creation of a World Food Bank.
However great the potential benefit to selfish interests, it should not be a decisive argument against a truly humanitarian program. We must ask if such a program would actually do more good than harm, not only momentarily but also in the long run. Those who propose the food bank usually refer to a current "emergency" or "crisis" in terms of world food supply. But what is an emergency? Although they may be infrequent and sudden, everyone knows that emergencies will occur from time to time. A well-run family, company, organization or country prepares for the likelihood of accidents and emergencies. It expects them, it budgets for them, it saves for them.

*Learning the Hard Way*
What happens if some organizations or countries budget for accidents and others do not? If each country is solely responsible for its own well-being, poorly managed ones will suffer. But they can learn from experience. They may mend their ways, and learn to budget for infrequent but certain emergencies. For example, the weather varies from year to year, and periodic crop failures are certain. A wise and competent government saves out of the production of the good years in anticipation of bad years to come. Joseph taught this policy to Pharaoh in Egypt more than 2,000 years ago. Yet the great majority of the governments in the world today do not follow such a policy. They lack either the wisdom or the competence, or both. Should those nations that do manage to put something aside be forced to come to the rescue each time an emergency occurs among the poor nations?

"But it isn't their fault!" Some kind-hearted liberals argue. "How can we blame the poor people who are caught in an emergency? Why must they suffer for the sins of their governments?" The concept of blame is simply not relevant here. The real question is, what are the operational consequences of establishing a world food bank? If it is open to every country every time a need develops, slovenly rulers will not be motivated to take Joseph's advice. Someone will always come to their aid. Some countries will deposit food in the world food bank, and others will withdraw it. There will be almost no overlap. As a result of such solutions to food shortage emergencies, the poor countries will not learn to mend their ways, and will suffer progressively greater emergencies as their populations grow.

Population Control the Crude Way

On the average poor countries undergo a 2.5 percent increase in population each year; rich countries, about 0.8 percent. Only rich countries have anything in the way of food reserves set aside, and even they do not have as much as they should. Poor countries have none. If poor countries received no food from the outside, the rate of their population growth would be periodically checked by crop failures and famines. But if they can always draw on a world food bank in time of need, their population can continue to grow unchecked, and so will their "need" for aid. In the short run, a world food bank may diminish that need, but in the long run it actually increases the need without limit.

Without some system of worldwide food sharing, the proportion of people in the rich and poor nations might eventually stabilize. The overpopulated poor countries would decrease in numbers, while the rich countries that had room for more people would increase. But with a well-meaning system of sharing, such as a world food bank, the growth differential between the rich and the poor countries will not only persist, it will increase. Because of the higher rate of population growth in the poor countries of the world, 88 percent of today's children are born poor, and only 12 percent rich. Year by year the ratio becomes worse, as the fast-reproducing poor outnumber the slow-reproducing rich.

A world food bank is thus a commons in disguise. People will have more motivation to draw from it than to add to any common store. The less provident and less able will multiply at the expense of the abler and more provident, bringing eventual ruin upon all who share in the commons. Besides, any system of "sharing" that amounts to foreign aid from the rich nations to the poor nations will carry the taint of charity, which will contribute little to the world peace so devoutly desired by those who support the idea of a world food bank.

holy copypasta, batman!

Sterilize the bottom 90% of human population by IQ. There you go, population problem solved.

As a Britfag, I can't point fingers.
I read a study that said we'd need ten earths if everyone lived the UK lifestyle.

>Should they start doing population controls like that of China?

I'm an American, and I say yes. Mostly because I'm sick of religious fags and breeders have vaginas that work like revolving doors, while people with common sense have little or no kids.

Maybe not one child per household, because the #1 thing I don't like about China is that they don't have any girls, and I hate to see America become a 9/1 ratio of males to females.

America is NOT overpopulated.

300 million men, women and children in a section of land that contains VAST tracts of fertile land and ample technology and willpower to cultivate and produce huge yields of crops and agricultural products.

America produces MORE THAN IT EATS. It can do this, and even more considering the extreme inefficiency of American agriculture (relative to nations like Japan and New Zealand who take farming seriously due to smaller land mass).

The problem is not America. The problem lies in countries like India, and all the shitty, disease ridden third world nations of Africa and Asia. They are the problem.

Explosive population growth combined with extreme poverty, widespread lack of education and MOST IMPORTANTLY a lack of fertile land to cultivate means WE, the FIRST WORLD, end up supporting these freeloading maggots who think they have the right to bear children.

Has anyone seen predicted population growth in countries like Somalia, Pakistan, India and the like? Countries where birth control carries heavy social stigma and formal education is a myth will EXPLODE in the next 50 years. You can bet your ass there will be famine, there will be war and there will be suffering.

The question is what will WE do about it? I say fuck 'em.

>>3385929

It was nice knowing you sir.

>>3385993
Har har, but i meant sterilization by removal of ability to have children. Not by removing my left testes mind you, but removal of sperm ducts or something like that.

>>3385964

They don't have girls because the parents of the son get to keep getting looked after by the son/daughter in law and the benifit.

Since America doesn't have those cultures, there wouldn't be an issue.

I don't know why people eat so much meat. The only thing I can think of is that vegetables are inordinately expensive, and cooking is a lost art in america. I eat better than most people I know, I spend $100/month on food, and because I can cook, I usually make an awesome dinner w/ leftovers.

The only downside is that I can spend a couple of hours on one meal. But I love cooking, so it doesn't matter.

>>3386014
there's actually a program to do that now, the gov't will pay you to get a vasectomy or tubes tied if you fall under a certain income

>>3386014
sterilization? That's some 1984 shit right thur. Why not just start taxing parents for each third, fourth, fifth, sixth, etc. kid they have?

>>3386014

Your plan's still pretty shortsighted. Society as we know it would completely and totally collapse once the current generation died.

Well, that's even assuming you could somehow get 90% of people to agree to being sterilized.

>>3385989

Actually, yes America is overpopulated. We're consuming natural resources at a much faster rate than they can be regenerated while generating more pollution than the environment can effectively dispose of.

A quick example is all the cattle we raise in the midwest for beef. The inefficiency of raising so much cattle is that we must first grow feed to feed them--which requires water--and then we must provide water for them to drink. This is very rapidly depleting the midwest's groundwater. The groundwater is the midwest's primary source of water for animals, crops and people. When the water is depleted, people will flock to the coasts in droves and overpopulate the coasts, leading to a rapid depletion of the resources in those areas as well.

So yeah. Population control. We need it. Or, people need to learn how to live in a way that won't eventually fuck everyone else over.

>>3386043
>vegetables are inordinately expensive

You must buy organic veggies or something. Fruits and vegetables are always the cheapest stuff on my shopping list.

>>3386066
Isn't water the Earth's most renewable resource? I don't get how the midwest can just dry out.

>>3385989
If you produce more than you eat, why do your companies burn rain forests down for the sake of cattle that's exported to America? Here's a few fun statistics guys:

>On average, one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese (why can the Japanese spend less oil than you per capita, it's equally developed), or 6 Mexicans, or 13 Chinese.

>The population (of America) is projected to increase by nearly 130 million people - the equivalent of adding another four states the size of California - by the year 2050.


>Fifty percent of the wetlands, 90% of the northwestern old-growth forests, and 99% of the tall-grass prairie have been destroyed in the last 200 years.

>An American eats 44 kg of beef a year compared to the average of 21 kg a year per capita in ALL industrial nations.

>>3386071

I actually have a bit of a garden/greenhouse, so most of my veggies are free-ish. For some reason it costs $5 for fucking peppers. Three bell peppers for 5 dollars is rather bullshit.

>>3386086
It isn't, he's full of shit.

>>3385563
>Where do you think all the meat you eat comes from?
Gee, I wonder what all these cows and pigs around here are for.
>You've already almost completely deforested your nation
0/10, please try again. Try using believable lies next time.

Why not offer couples and singles a check of $1,000 per month as long they don't get pregnant?

Better than forced sterilization.

>On average, one American consumes as much energy as 2 Japanese (why can the Japanese spend less oil than you per capita, it's equally developed),

Outside of major cities you can't work in the US without a car. Japanese can and do.

>>3386232
And who's fault is that? America has developed an economy based on using massive amounts of energy and resources, and now that the future of that energy is looking bleak, you've dug your economy it's own grave.

>>3386232
That is a huge problem. Your government should develop a well functioning public transport system. Not only in the big cities.

>>3386298
>future of energy is looking

LOOKING LIKE ITS NOT NUCLEAR
WHY?

Selective breeding.
If you want a child, you have to report to some sort of authority. There you will have to take a series of tests, such as an IQ test along with your partner, and if you have a combined score of say 210 (very flexible number) you pass.
Other tests such as stress handling and economic inspections would be good too.

>>3386043
Damn, man. My food budget is $100/month as well, and that includes quite a bit of meat. I'm quite a decent cook, myself. Vegetables and fruits are quite cheap. If I ate more of them, I could probably shave another $20 off of my food budget.

>>3386298

It's not MY fault that cities were built like that, I just happen to live here. So if I need to drive 20 miles a day to get to work, so be it, as long as I can pay for it, which I can. I'm not happy with the amount of pollution that we are creating, but I'm not about to sacrafice my job for some preachfag who lives in a small country where he doesn't need to drive as much as I do.

>>3386316
That's easy to say except the fact that America is fucking huge, so having mass transit systems that run to every small town and village is simply impossible.

>>3386298
It's because our country isn't as small as most of the rest of the countries in the world. For fuck's sake, the total area of the U.S. is almost as much as all of Europe combined. A lot of our states are bigger than most countries.

>>3386316
It's just not practical. As stated above, it'd be like building a single public transportation system that services all of Europe.

>>3386298

Well for starters, it's a lot easier to put train lines across a country the size of the state of California then it is one the size of the U.S. By the time it was contemplated the automobile pretty much killed the railroad. Back then it seemed like a reasonable solution; it probably is still today if you switch to hydrogen or something equivelent.

And I hate to break this to you but no, the future of energy is no where near bleak. If nothing else the U.S. has enough coal for the next 250 years and plenty of off-shore oil to boot. The oil shale recovery processes are also promising. You know what's stopping us right now? Fucking green hippies. We could build plenty of nuclear power plants is well if it weren't for these assholes. These problems aren't insurmountable; there just isn't the public will to deal them yet; though with the looming depression the fucking hackey-sack crowd may find itself getting it's ass kicked by the public at large.

>>3385989

Tragedy of the commons basically states to stop using welfare to mitigate a problem and instead use the same resources to fix it. I also proposes quite a bit of regulation.
>>3386086
Fresh water is far from being infinite. As for the midwest drying out haven't you ever heard of the Dustbowl? It was a combination of ignorant farmers and a decade long drought.

>>3386401

Metropolitan areas were created basically just so people can get away from the polluted cites but still have access to them which in turn makes the surrounding areas just as nasty. So urban sprawl continues to spread and spread with the pollution following shortly behind them.

Do me a favor OP. Download google earth. Did you do that? Good now look at the coasts. Do you see all of the cities? I'm assuming you are. Now look more inland. How many cities can you see? Not very many right? OF COURSE! Because most of this continent is empty! We have huge cities on the coasts which happens where the majority of people are. Thus "OVAR POPULATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" The trees are winning idiot.

While I will agree wholeheartedly that we in America waste a lot and could do better, this other shit you have typed proves that while you are proficient at reading, you have never been to America.

Deforested? Fuck, there are trees everywhere around me for miles and miles. Huge fields, lakes, rivers, eagles, cranes, fish, plenty of livestock to eat and we are a food surplus country that feeds the rest of the world in many fruits and vegetables that are grown only here.

Yeah we pollute, and we could do more to curb waste, but so could you faggots.

And for a bunch of queers that constantly complain about how Americans never leave home and know nothing of the world, it is obvious when you douchers post that you know jack and shit about America.

There will indeed be a lot of problems in the near future concerning fresh water availability. You know the saying that California is 10 years ahead of the rest of the country in total societal and economic collapse? Well their lack of water falls into the paradigm too.

One of us doesn't know what "overpopulated" means. And I'm guessing it's you.

>>3386573
umm no?

wat a fagfucker

>>3386650

major cities aren't near the coasts by accident dumb ass.

>>3386668

>SHUT UP I DON'T WANT TO LISTEN.

>>3386680
then don't, tard. also, stop posting.

>>3386688

Is English your first language?

I'll tell you what I always tell people who start talking this kind of shit. MURDER SOME BITCHES! Come on, you're a big man! Get to it!

We eat so much meat because it is fucking good. if you faggots could afford any, you would too.

>>3386668

wat? What is he said is actually true. Urban sprawl is driven by people wanting to the leave the city and don't give a fuck that they have to drive half and hour each way to get back there to work

>>3386650

Overpopulation usually has nothing to do with population density unless you're bitching about traffic jams. The availability of fresh water has usually been the reasoning behind where cities start and grow. That's why they're near coasts a lot of times.

>>3385502
America is nowhere near over populated. If anything it is underpopulated.

>>3386944

Overpopulation is a relative term. Are we suffering from overpopulation more than other countries? no.

Are we too overpopulated for maximum functionality? Yes.