Global Warming Scam

earth4man.com

"An Asian peasant who labors through all of his waking hours, with tools created in Biblical times—a South American aborigine who is devoured by piranha in a jungle stream—an African who is bitten by the tsetse fly—an Arab whose teeth are green with decay in his mouth—these do live with their 'natural environment,' but are scarcely able to appreciate its beauty. Try to tell a Chinese mother, whose child is dying of cholera: 'Should one do everything one can? Of course not.' Try to tell a Russian housewife, who trudges miles on foot in sub-zero weather in order to spend hours standing in line at a state store dispensing food rations, that America is defiled by shopping centers, expressways and family cars." — AYN RAND






​

"...observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for 'harmony with nature'—there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears..." — AYN RAND

​

 

"Sustainable" is one of those words perverted by "environmental" extremists, to mean, only what they say it means. Nothing is "sustainable" unless they claim to like it, or so it seems.

Humans were never designed to use any means of "birth control." Why do you think that they are forever coming up with ever more a bewildering array of contraceptive "options?" Because every method so far, has proved to be crappy. Because God commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Therefore, our reproductive systems are not designed for the use of contraceptives, but to reproduce. That doesn't mean that everybody will have "big" families, but rather to welcome the prospect of a possibly large family, and to welcome fellow humans to come to life, as God would allow.

And considering that there is now billions of women of childbearing age, that produces a huge need for people to be having litterally "tons of babies."

They say that you can't stop people from having sex. Oh really? Then why don't they complete the idea, you can't stop people from having babies. Copulation = reproduction, or that's the way it was supposed to be. Without the reproductive aspect, one could question just how "sanitary" exchanging bodily fluids is anyway? Why not have a society of a bunch of prudes, afraid to become sexual intimate? Why is the human body's reproductive system, so shamed? It has a rightful function, and that is spreading/passing on the marvelous gift of life, to future generations. Most of the body's systems operate pretty much naturally, so why not also the reproductive system? Whatever happened to babies happening when they happen? Whatever happened to giving thanks to God, for the blessings of children?

 

Pronatalist, the problem is not too much oxygen, it's too little. When you have a low oxygen concentration in the air, you can't breathe properly and you die. When you burn oil, you put carbon dioxide in the air, lowering the oxygen concentration. This is why continued oil use at our current rate will eventually kill us. There's a lot of air out there, though, which is why it takes centuries to happen. Also, 'sustainable' is not just a word used by environmentalists to mean whatever they want it to. An ecosystem can only hold so many organisms of a certain species until the population becomes unsustainable, although some environmentalists tend to underestimate human ingenuity when it comes to sustainability. We're not like other animals. I personally don't think it's really a problem. Sustainability is something that works itself out naturally.

 

Forests don't burn because there's too much oxygen. What a silly thing to say. Driving cars reduces forest fires? The two come from different sources, my friend, and one does not affect the other. What we have accomplished with our dumping of carbon into the atmosphere (sequestering oxygen in the process) is brought the levels of CO2 to nearly double. And most of that isn't even cars, it's coal burning power plants and the like.

The way to reduce damage done by forest fires (without sending legions of workers to clean forest floors) is to refrain from expanding into areas prone to them, and to let them burn smaller and more frequently. What makes them so dangerous is that we interrupt a natural cycle by which the forest cleans itself of flammable little. Small fires that would clean it out are extinguished immediately, and that allows litter to build up so that when there finally is one big enough to be out of our control, it's much more dangerous and causes much more damage.

Environmentalists have no desire to stop progress and innovation. Medicinal advances, health, the common good, etc are better served by protecting the environment than by willy-nilly anything goes pollution.

Some people say that, I'm sure. If you look at the environmental movement, however, it says nothing of the sort. We don't need to be on the level of sea urchins or polar bears, but we need to respect that we live on the earth, and if we pollute it, it hurts us as well. You might be interested to know that men born more recently are considerably less virile than men born before 1950. It's not because of Britney Spears. It's because we live now in a different environment than we did then. Ayn Rand chooses to make her arguments by exaggerating her opponents to open them up to ridicule, and to actually follow that and think it makes sense is ludicrous.

Sustainable means living in a manner which can be sustained indefinately. The manner in which we live now cannot be sustained. The manner of living that you advocate is even less sustainable. What that means is that your perfect society would fail, or collapse on itself, sooner than would today's society, which will fail, or collapse on itself sooner than would a sustainable society.

You make it sound as though there is a line for birth, with an infinite number of concious people holding tickets. Our reproduction systems are made for reproduction. Of course. Contraceptives are used so that people can enjoy the physical pleasures of sex without having to worry about the physical, financial, social, and emotional stresses of parenthood. And they obviously aren't that crappy, or there would be no reason to oppose them.

In addition, hate to bring the god debate into this, but you do not know whether or not there is a god any better than the other 7 billion of us. Your argument will only be convincing to one who has accepted your religious views to be valid. I do not. There is no god taking tickets for conception, no god designed the womb, and no god will rescue the human race when our world is a dump.

A need? I think you're misusing that word. There is no need. Granted, it will happen. If, however, the human population dropped to 1 billion or even less, the planet and quality of human life would both be better for it.

Who are you to dictate how things are "supposed to be?" Copulation is supposed to mean reproduction? Says who? If that's how it was supposed to be, wouldn't that be how it is? Wouldn't there be no way around it? If it was planned that way by god, doesn't he have the power to put the necessary safegaurds in place? Babies put tremendous strain on lives. That is why contraceptives are used, and that is why not everyone can always handle a child. I'm not really sure what the rest of this paragraph is saying.

 

Let's not bring God into this debate. It only makes a semi-civil debate degenerate into name-calling and insults. Some people believe in God, myself included, but some people don't and we should respect that, even if you don't agree with it. Or like it. As it is, using God in an argument only works if the other person believes in God too, and global warming isn't a religious thing, anyway. It's scientific, and since science can neither prove or disprove His existence, what God said or didn't say shouldn't have a place in this sort of debate. Also, it makes other religious people look insensitive.

 

Why not? Consider

earth4man.com

Not only does such a website refocus on the true purpose of the environment, for now at least, but isn't that a rather "religious" statement? Earth for man. Says who? Says God. Without bringing up the matter of religion, then what do we have? My opinion is bigger than your opinion?

It makes religious people look insensitive? Already, "religious" people seem to be more prone to worship God, than to worship nature, well except for the "religious" eco-freaks. Aren't we "religious" people already accused of such things as supposedly being "insensitive?" Also, most religions are into promoting big families too. Religion does have a big place in saying what is the purpose for man, and then less directly by implication, and also more directly by Biblical commandment and references, something about how many of us there should be.

 

You seem to be forgetting that the number of days of "fossil fuel burning" are numbered. Not due to natural shortages, but rather due to technology obsolescense. What happens when we stop burning fuel? Doesn't that free all the more oxygen for far vaster and denser human populations to breathe? BTW, there is no oxygen shortage. And if there were, why couldn't oxygen be remanufactured, synthetically? Don't they do something almost like that, on submarines and spaceships?

Since humans are social creatures, and supposedly highly intelligent and adaptable, humans should be quite able to both survive and thrive, even at "extreme" population densities. BTW, since we tend to be "religious," we are both sinful and moral creatures. We give a lot of thought as to how what we do, affects other fellow humans. But we do need to revisit promoting the social graces, as too many Americans are too rude these days.

 

So how does nature maintain a proper natural oxygen balance? What uses up the surplus oxygen? Animals and people breathe it, but animal densities are rather low due to their inefficient use of resources, and hunting gathering rather than agriculture. (And animals and people burn their energy so slowly, that it's hard to keep warm in winter.) And forest fires. Also natural rot of decaying materials. Forest fires used to consume many more millions of acres per year, than they do now, due to man's "interference."

I suggest that driving cars may actually reduce forest fires, by providing an alternative use for the oxygen build-up. I have heard that if the oxygen percentage, now 21%, was merely as high as 25%, forests would burn "spontaneously." No, that doesn't sound quite right, as surely an ignition source (i.e. lightning) would still be required. But what that assertion may have meant to say, is that once a forest fire got going, there would be no stopping it until the entire forest was consumed. Already, forest fires can grow so big and hot, that they stir up their own weather, and draw in their own wind and oxygen, speeding the spread of the wildfire. Let's say that the enviro-wackos somehow, magically eliminate all the burning of fuel, supposedly to reduce their fashionable worries over supposed CO2 buildup. Aren't they increasing the chance that oxygen percentage could creep up to 25%? Especially with people living in more places, so that the old forest fires of old, not so many can run their natural course anymore? Now tell me, what's wrong with my theory logically, other than that a lot of eco-freaks aren't parroting it yet, the basis of what delusions so many people believe, how many times they have heard it. Adolf Hitler said that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. Unfortunately, a lot of what people believe, has little basis in fact or logic, but in who's side found the better funding to get their views published.

Now I am not saying to go out and drive cars, to reduce forest fires, especially when the gasoline prices are jacked up so high, due to enviro-wackos blocking development and greedy oil companies/government restricting supply to boost profits. What I am saying, is that the supposed "bad" effects of driving, aren't really so bad after all, net effect speaking. There is much good that comes from driving, notably, perhaps a thriving economy. Don't you suppose our economy would go down the toilet, were everybody to just stay home all the time, whining about that they can't afford gasoline? There wasn't so much available to buy, back in the days of walking and horse-riding.

But human population is expanding throughout much of the world, and so of course we must expand our range and territory to keep from getting overcrowded. Now I could agree to a small point, that if one wants to build their home out in roadless wilderness "out in the middle of nowhere," then they could find themselves "on their own" in combatting the inevitable forest fires. Just not cost-effective to fight forest fires where the population is too sparse to get any reasonable cost-benefit to the effort. Smoky Bear seems to be a part of the problem, by villianizing all forest fires.

"Only you can stop forest fire fighting." what Smoky Bear would have said, had be been free, or so claimed some website

But I hear some countries cut firebreaks, which could be an effective solution for some regions. A good combination of logging and public safety measures.

I do think we could fight forest fires smarter, by letting nature run its course more, when not too inconvenient to the interests of people. It often takes far less effort to steer forest fires away from populated areas, than to fully contain them, and forest fires could be more intelligently managed without necessarily being fully "controlled." I do think that "controlled" burns is overrated, because nature doesn't need our "help" to be more natural, and because they also consume money, and there's a lot of liability for any "controlled" burns that get out of hand. "Pouring on tax payer dollars until it rains," and then man taking credit for a wildfire that naturally rained or burned out pretty much, hardly seems the best strategy to me.

Ultimately, as human populations expand, nature needs to be tamed more, but it takes larger human populations to pay for all that effort, so there are some places left where nature can still be left, largely wild.

Then there's a huge disconnect between what leading "environmentalists" claim they are for, and the anti-freedom, anti-property-rights policies that they promote.

You do know that all those good things you mention, help burgeon the population size of the human race, which of course I say is a good thing to advocate anyway, since more and more people would be glad to live. A growing world of people, is sure a lot more interesting, than a dull stagnant world of selfish population-phobic people.

Could it be largely that men are marrying later, and that people are damaging their reproductive systems by their use of shoddy, highly-experimental, potions/devices/poisons/contraceptives? Our modern diet may also leave some room for improvement, judging by the growing obesity pandemic.

But often the way people now live, can be "sustained" well into the forseeable future. Just because some enviro-wackos may claim not to like the way we live, doesn't constitute proof that it isn't possible, especially with the substitutions likely to come, into the future, as technology naturally progresses.

It is illogical to base as one's frame of reference, the population size of the past. How far back should we look? The original 2 people that God created? Could that possibly be "enough?" No, the more logical frame of reference, is the population size of the future, as that is more the "norm" for the future time. Well that's probably an obvious circular reference, saying that the population size then should be, probably pretty much whatever it is. And yet most thoughts of supposed "overpopulation" seem rooted in the past, even though some aspects of the past are increasingly irrelevant, as they say somewhere, "there is no going back."

Out of time. I will have to finish this later.

 

If you do not cease and desist with the use of terms such as "enviro-wackos" to describe people with my point of view, I shall be forced to refer to people with your point of view as "fucking morons."

Here is why your religious view are irrelevant: Not everybody shares them. Bringing your god into the debate only ensures that it will be restricted to "my opinion is bigger than yours," because religious views are unsupported. Hence the faith part. If you can't support your opinion with valid science, logic, and reason, then you need to take a serious look at it, because it does not make sense.

In addition, you have thus far offered a lot of speculation in response to the conflicts I've raised with your thoughts. Do you have any data to suggest that decreasing virility is caused by the things you mentioned?

 

It is completely asinine to think that humans are not a factor in global warming - which is a reality people. FACE IT.

Yes the earth warms and cools in natural cycles, however, we are warming faster than any other point in recorded history. So fast that scietific computer programs cannot track the polar ice melt effectively at this time. It's melting twice as fast as predicted 10 years ago.

Polar bears are drowning because of the lack of polar ice. Llamas are freezing to death in Peru as a result of a perpetual El Nino effect, Ethiopia didn't have a monsoon season this year so the Nile will not have it's annual flood and will dry up by next year. In 30 years, the last Tibetan glacier will melt and leave millions in China without water. An entire Inuit village had to be relocated because their Alaskan island is being lost to the Bering Sea. Not to mention the permafrost is melting in Alaska causing co2 and methane to be released into the atmosphere - causing an even warmer planet. Plus the fun addition of insect outbreaks and mass eradication of forests in Alaska. Predictions for Europe is another hot and dry summer, even warmer than the terrible 2003 summer. In Mexico city, the air is so polluted that the rich wear oxygen tanks while the poor can buy "shots" of oxygen from street vendors. And now you can fly direct from Maryland to Greenland to watch global warming in action. And the locals in Greenland are loving the revenue despite the fact that they are predicted to lose half of their ice sheet within the next few years. When half of Greenland melts, many islands will disappear. When all of Greenland melts, you better move if you live along a coast anywhere in the world.

But global warming is a scam. Just like the rest of the life, the environment is here to give, give, give to the human race without any consequences. Because nothing else in life has consequences, right?

 

I gave up long ago being political about an issue that demands urgent action - there can be no more debate - only people who understand the problem and that it demands urgent action should be in power - the rest are greedy fucking morons !

 

And do you know for a fact, that there is no such line? How would you know, one way or another, that is, if you claim to know?

Every minute around 300 babies are born, somewhere throughout the world, or litterally a ton of babies a minute. (Although a fictional construct, much like the legal entity, the corporation, as all these babies aren't "lining up" all in one place.) That doesn't sound remotely like "a line" to you? Mormons claim to believe in a "pre-existence" or some sort of "holding area" for "spirit babies," "waiting" to receive a body and be born. Hokey yeah, as I don't see any such "pre-existence" in the Bible, although God knows us before we are born, because God knows/causes/influences/shapes the future, to some huge extent. But what if there is no such place where people "line up" "waiting" to be born? Isn't that all the more reason to advocate large and "unplanned" families? As surely, for most people, existence is far better than non-existence. Presumably, if there was some "holding area," then why worry about it? Perhaps all those people will regardless get their turn to be born, eventually?

Then denying that function, goes against nature.

Losing the society-induced irrational fear of supposedly untimely pregnancy, would be a far more effective way of eliminating such worries. Do you think that people who actually want children, or who might be somewhat open to the prospect of having a possibly large family, need worry that this might finally be the time, that they acheive a pregnancy? Pregnancy is supposed to be a "good" thing, bringing another precious human being to life. Even if it happens litterally every day, it's still a wonderous miracle.

Wouldn't it be easier for more married couples, to just let their babies push out as they come, were they to live in a more pronatalist, family-friendly society?

I read somewhere, where some woman posted, about how much more friendly they are towards having children, in Israel, than in the U.S. "Too bad you didn't get a girl this time," somebody said. As if, her last child would likely be her last. But in Israel, "you'll get a girl next time," was more the common view. That's more like how I think. I plan to have children, "until they just don't come anymore." So I don't have to worry about how old is too old to have children, as I have no intention of even having to make that decision. I would of course name some trusted guardian or family member to take over, lest I pass away before my children are raised. They are still better off, than had they never been born at all.

I strongly object to the societal premise: "Here's some shoddy contraceptives. Now which method will you use, or why aren't you using them?" Huh? Back that cart up a minute. Has anybody yet offered me a satisfactory reason, why I would want to make myself a guinea pig to try out these side-effect ridden contraceptives? What if I actually want children? Just because I can waste money to buy some nasty, unnatural, have-sex-with-a-balloon, condoms, that hardly means I would or should, want to. I think that the "risk" of pregnancy, and thinking of doing my part to help enlarge the human race, makes sex all the more erotic. It's not then just a little temporary "pleasure" thing, but a more profound and lasting and worthy, endeavor. It's more natural and respects nature, in allowing nature to more "run its natural course" in a very human-beneficial way.

My Dad used to say something about how much stress it supposedly is, for a woman to have many babies. That's a very negative carnal societal way of looking at things. But not for all women. There are women who want to breed too. Some guy I once worked with, said his wife wanted 6 children, but he wasn't so sure. I of course told him to go for it, that he wouldn't be sorry. Most parents love all their children and could never choose which child they wish they would not have haved to be born. To which I respond, about how much stress it is on women, to be burdened with having to consistantly use contraceptives. Might a husband and wife more closely bond to each other, if they can more often relax and enjoy "getting carried away in the heat of passion?"

Whether or not you claim to believe in God or not, the mere fact that the world has somehow managed to find or make room for 6.5 billion+ people, suggests the distinct possibility, that it could somehow find or make room, for quite a lot more. Obviously, that could seem more likely, to the religiously-minded, but there are even atheists who claim to be pro-life, and even pro-population, believing that an even more enlarged human population, will somehow help the human race progress in some ways, all the more. Even Star Trek may admit to enlarged population helping to lead to the invention of the "food replicator" and other nifty Star Trek inventions, and ultimately to their sci-fi fantasy of "The Federation of Planets." What? One planet no longer enough, for all the people?

So the womb just created itself?

It will happen? For no good reason at all? There's no chance that the reasons it happens, couldn't be compelling, or because that's what the people really want?

The planet and quality of human life would be better for it? I seriously doubt it. First of all, what was life like, back in the 1800s? Back around 1830 or so, when there is said to have been only but a billion people alive at once? It was often miserable and brutish. What was the cure for sickness? Lots of bedrest and prayer, as there wasn't a whole lot that doctors could do. The log cabins that the pioneers build for themselves, were rather small and often cold. Wood fires die down very quickly if not constantly tended, and most of the heat goes up the chimney. That's one reason right there to have many children, more boys to chop the firewood.

Another problem with the view of the population phobics, is that they obsess with numbers they don't fully understand, and discount all the hidden contributions people make. As if people were but mere "numbers," and of no special intrinsic or sacred value. If we could somehow "get rid of" all these supposedly "surplus" people, how many people could we spare, until there just aren't enough people around that can design efficient factories, write better computer programs, fix my car, or even have big enough markets to provide lots of choices of what model of car to buy or to spur competition and innovation? Stuff would start falling apart, long before we atrophied to a mere billion people. Besides, economies seem to be addicted to growth, and so a cessation of growth could lead to severe economic spasms, exxacerbated all the more, by foolish economic decisions constantly being made by leading decision-makers. Population growth even allows somewhat more room, for the greedy growth of corporations, and helps force in new competition, in the gaps that corporations often just can't fill in their insane race to devour all the marketshare. Might we be even more vunerable to monopolies and bad decision-making, in a stagnant population size society?

And then of course, people have a natural resistance to the bizarre notion, that they somehow should be fewer in number? How? Who are we going to get rid of? Who is not going to be so welcome to be around anymore? Might people become less nice, and less understanding? Do we really want to become more negative and cynical?

Come on, face it. It's "too late" for a world population of merely a paltry billion. Shouldn't we move forward, not backward?

Says who? How about God. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. So what part of "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," do we not understand? Need I spell it out? Again?

Says Catholics, well at least many "good" Catholics. Says Mormons. A pamplet I picked up, advocated large families, as many children as they can afford, and talked something of warm fuzzies of some "church" leaders own experiences. Says most religions. Says both the Protestants and Catholics, at least up until the 1930s, when the Church started turning more liberal. Says nature. Says our genes. Says the obvious design of our bodies. They call them reproductive organs for a reason. Breasts aren't for men to stare at, they are for feeding babies.

So who are the contraceptive peddlers, to dictate how things should be? Who are they, to go against tradition?

It may come as a shock to many people, but God does not need our "help" to limit the size of our families. According to author Mary Pride, writing her book The Way Home; Beyond Feminism Back to Reality, aimed mostly towards women, God may give you but 2 children, even if you don't sheath your husband in rubber and slime. I think that's about how she put it, although using more words than I repeated here.

Why were people in the past, apparently more able to handle larger and more "unplanned" families, with less resources and less technology?

 

Enviro-wackos is actually quite descriptive. It points out how they claim to be concerned about the enviro-nment, although perhaps a feigned concern, and that they are "wacko" in their extreme obsession on it, to the point that the needs of people apparently aren't counted for much. While "blank morons" is but mere empty name-calling as I see it, but if you want to throw non-descriptive names around, well I guess that's up to you, but I think they may reflect more upon you for you use of them, than on the people you are supposedly describing. Here's a clue, if you name-call, use more descriptive names, not common name-calling that could mean almost anything.

Of course some people think that most all "religious" people are "morons" anyway, so how is pointing out the obvious, really adding anything to the debate?

And am I really the "official representative" of all people of my point of view? Somebody at my Church has 8 children, so I asked him why he had so many, to which he said, they didn't really think about it. Huh? That's how it is with a lot of people I think, they hardly even notice or don't care, that if they don't "do something," their family is starting to get a bit "large." But he isn't so vocal as me, and yet we probably share much the same point of view. Will you blanket call him a "moron" too? Is that fair?

Uh, duh?

So is opinion-bashing, anything "new?"

Just because you don't understand it, does not mean it doesn't make sense.

So I should engage in a lot of reseach, and upgrade opinion-bashing to "my study is bigger than your study?" Who can't find some statistic or supposedly "scientific" study, to prop up any flimsy theory? Even "scientists" can be highly opinionated and political too. Some even try to prop up their hokey theories, with religious atheism. Hardly the "scientific" approach.

But I do know from what I observe, or what people tell me, that not all people show any symptoms of decreased virility. Some guy at some Christian leadership class I went to, said he hopes sex is okay for pleasure too, as he was still enjoying it with his wife who was expecting their 10th child. Is but just 10 children, below the historical norm?

 

That only shows, that the "environmental" rhetoric is out of control, and needs more people to challenge it.

What, the scare tactics are losing their shock value, so let's make it even scarier?

That doesn't even begin to make sense.

And animals never died from bad weather, before now?

And when this dire scare tactic fails to materialize next year, the enviros will give up and admit that they had been lying all along?

So now we have to wait another 30 years for this "global warming" scam to be dropped?

And yet we allow you to breathe and make your own CO2 contribution too?

And there can be but only only possible cause of this supposed occurance?

I predict that most "summers" will tend to be hot. Maybe that's why they call it "summer?"

Too bad we are getting so soft and spoiled and pampered and used to air conditioning, that we just think we will just melt, at the slightest normal, natural warming spell.

Yeah, that's so scary and dire, like we never had summers before?

And what "environemntal" rag did you read that in? Didn't I just see some Miss Universe Pangeant on TV, held in of all places, Mexico City. Maybe it wasn't quite so bad, after all? (If I lived in Mexico though, I might want to live in a slightly smaller city, well at least until the technology improves some more.)

You mean it isn't just some mere photo-op, of the spring thaw?

Predicted? Like enviros are the only ones who can make predictions? I have a prediction. Dire predictions will continue, because bad news sells. That it often isn't true, often is beside the point.

Bummer. That way, the next couple of hurricanes won't wash away all those beach homes, having become already submerged? I thought if one lives right on the coast, it's only a matter of time anyway. That's why smart people who build houses hanging over the ocean, rent them out to tourists. To get their money back out of it, before the ocean inevitably claims them. Even the Bible warns the wise man, to build his house on the firm rock, and not on the sand, that easily washes away.

And more people are waking up to what a huge scam it is, each and every day, as people are finding alternative sources of news, other than the corporate-controlled, liberal lying sensationalized, gloom-and-doom, liberal "news."

 

I think the burden of proof is on you here, pal. If you're going to make outlandish claims with no evidence, it's all on you to provide the proof.

Existance is not valued by a person until they exist. If less babies are made, nobody will "miss out." It is unreasonable and irrational to believe the things quoted above, because there is no evidence for them. They are just thoughts.

Nobody denies that reproductive systems are made for reproduction. Noone "denies that function." People just repress it. It goes against nature? What does that even mean? Doesn't medicine go against nature? Insulin shots, organ removal, shaving your legs...whatever else...would be considered "going against nature," because they "deny the function" of the things they are associated with.

Many worries stem from the stresses caused by children. In many cases, they can hinder financial/political success, and they require a lot of attention that cannot be given if both parents wish to have a carreer.

Only in the short-term, and only in that you wouldn't worry about contraception. Nothing else would be easier, unless I suppose parenthood is your goal in life.

Apples and oranges. They are not better off because the two are not comparable. You can't compare two things unless they both exist.

Contraceptives are hardly experimental. If you look for actual studies, there are plenty. They don't just loose random drugs on the market. And people aren't obligated to use them either. You're encouraged if you are having sex and not fully prepared to be a parent. You seem to misinterpret the world you live in.

Some people want to have kids, sure. But having 6, or 10, or 17 is not only ridiculous, it's harmful to the world we live in. Especially if you homeschool them to keep them from learning actual realities about the world.

There ya go, relying on futuristic technology to save your ass when you mess up the planet.

In a way, yes. Internal fertilization is mainly a property of mammals, although some other species use it in different ways. But not all wombs are equal. Only the more evolved primates have periods.

Like I said. A want and a need are two different things. One does not make the other.

What a stupid argument. Life wasn't more difficult because they had less people. It was because they had less technology. It takes time to evolve into advanced forms.

Some how, they seemed to manage it up to now.

Why would people be less nice and understanding?

There are two ways to do it:
1. Eugenics...Kill people who have evolutionarily poorer traits. Not humane, not desireable.
2. Reproduction limitations...Do this one. Unfortunately, most of the people that actually like to use their brains and think about this will be far more conservative about having kids than the unthinking masses, and evolution may roll backwards a bit.

What if forward means less people? Why do you associate moving forward with increasing population. There will come a point, by your plan, when the resources of this world are not enough. The poor will be many, and the comfortable will be few. That's when deaths by starvation and disease will roughly equal the birth rate, and the human population will stabilize. I don't want to reach that point.

Prove it.

Did he tell you this directly? How full does he want it?

Nature doesn't say this. Neither do our genes. Neither does the design of our bodies. Again, if it was "supposed" to be like that, why are we able to overcome it?

1- They don't dictate anything. They offer options.
2- Tradition? What makes this imaginary tradition of yours so desirable? Did you know that in the 17th century there were condoms made out of animal intestines?

Try relying on that.

"Fucking" means two things...first, you must engage in sex before you can have many babies. Second, it's an expression of magnitude. A fucking moron is a very moronic moron. "Moron" means a stupid person. A person who refuses to think about the consequences of their actions, look beyond the short term, or even educate themselves on the matter.

Nobody is a moron <i>because</i> they're religious. They're morons anyways, and religion is usually both a product and a contributor to that. Usually. Not always.

If you don't notice or don't care, I will indeed cover you with that blanket, and yes, I think it is quite fair. I'm not saying he's a jerk. He would be a jerk if he thought it through, knew the consequences, and went ahead anyways. If you're just ignorant, you're a moron. At least in this realm of discussion.

You cannot bash opinion without evidence. If it is purely opinion, one is not better than the other. If one side has evidence or rationale for why the other is wrong, then that side is stronger, more based in reality, etc.

Oh I understand it. I grew up with, dated, and debated many religious people. Don't get me wrong, I know a good deal about it.

Scientists may be highly political. But if it is in their studies, their studies don't get published. I'm not talking about an internet poll or something like that. An actual, scientific, peer-reviewed study. I can show you mine, but you don't have any, 'cause you made all that stuff up.

Of course not everyone has decreased virility. But generally, yes, we do. Take the average across the board, and we do, and not by any miniscule amount. How old is this guy? I'd be willing to bet that if the same man had been born in pre-50's years, he'd be more virile than he is, in terms of testosterone levels and sperm counts.

 

Pronatalist - everything I said is true and backed up by environmentalists. I saw a documentary on Mexico City and their air pollution. Polar Bears ARE drowning because they go for a swim looking for the next ice patch to find some seals and never find the ice. You're an idiot if you can't do your own research. I refuse to be ignorant any longer - even President Bush realizes the problem now and he is the biggest jackass on the planet!!

Why don't you do some of your own research if you're in such disbelief?? Google Nancy Pelosi and Greenland. Google polar bear drowns, or llamas freeze to death. I'm not making this shit up - I study it for crying out loud!!

It's clear that some people will never believe humans could possibly do anything to tip the balance of Mother Earth. We are innocent pawns caught in a streak of bad luck, huh? God wants us to overpopulate and consume til there is nothing left for the next generation? That is the craziest thing I've ever heard! Jesus said love your fellow man and it would be hard to love your fellow man if you're fighting over scarce resources just to keep your family alive. If you don't believe in global warming, then at least have something to back up your opinions. I have heard nothing on this thread that is a plausible explanation for what is happening to the world other than human conditions speeding up the natural cycles of heating and cooling. Those who keep voicing your opinion that this is a scam have NOTHING to back up your reasoning and I'm sorry, but you really remind me of people pre-Columbus who swore the world was flat.

 

Yeah...why does sometrhing have to be in immediant effect to us for us to step back and say, "Geez, maybe I should go a little easier on the Earth and other living creatures because I am not the single most important being alive and I share this Earth with many."

*Everything might not be spelled right so don't bother pointing that out, it makes you look petty.

 

I am not going to direct this to anyone in particular but in a debate, ; since not not everyone shares your religious view, use something other than God or the bible to back your statements up. Once again not directed to anyone in particular, so don't make this statement a huge debate or anything because I have better things to do besides argue.