Is Man killing the environment??

I don't think it's even a question if we're harming the enviroment, and rather fact. The proof is vaild and in our face. However, would earth be better off without us? No.

It's more a matter of managing our technologies. The planet suffered during the industrial revolution, and we're just starting to realize it and attempting to reverse the effect. The problem is the governments. Not all countries will or can do what enviromentalists would like. Unless we let the UN take over and created a single government to manage the population, whom is really "green", there is not much you can do besides the little things and hope your country takes steps to help the planet out.

The problem isnt us, it's the political aspect that controls what happens.

 

No. Nature doesn't "think" and so isn't "bothered" by humans, nor could "care" just how populous we may get.

And it isn't our "environment" that we pollute anymore, near as much as our culture, with our stupidity and immorality.

Stop suburban or urban sprawl, I see in the signature of the previous post? Where where else would we then put the human population increase, of our own children? Out in the faraway countryside somewhere, away from the jobs and shopping malls, with longer commute distances? Urban sprawl is a very good thing, if it is population-driven, and not just building usually empty buildings, to run up the cost of living.

Large families should be encouraged worldwide, as more and more people would be glad to live.

To do the most good for the most people, human populations should of course be welcome to grow nearly as large as possible.

More and more people would be glad to live, most everybody wants or ends up with children, most every child is glad to come to life and be born, and the planet isn't getting any bigger. Why isn't the answer more obvious? Humans then, need to populate up denser and denser and more efficiently.

Most all the discussion of supposed "overpopulation" assumes there is no God to provide for us, and reeks of socialist engineering of society, against the obvious wishes and rights of the people.

"How can there be too many people? That's like saying there are too many flowers." Mother Teresa

"It is high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to make an orderly transition, to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist

Where to put all the hypothetical additional people, when not all that many more billions are expected soon? Simple. In between all the people already living. There could simply be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. There's that example of "everybody could live in Texas." It could be more. More cities and towns and suburbs on top of suburbs, can obviously be built, by people needing jobs anyway.

It better show our children, how much they are wanted, when they understand why their parents don't use any awkward, experimental, anti-life means of "birth control," because more children are always welcome, or their parents have faith or the openmindedness to accept "all the children that God gives."

The most natural and elegant outlet for humanity's powerful reproductive urges, is of course, marriage and REPRODUCTION. An already occupied womb, and normal breastfeeding, is the most natural and elegant means of natural child spacing. The body (or God) already sort of "knows" when to get pregnant, even without our help.

Each and every human life is sacred, so we ought not to interfere with its creation.

 

How do you know that. How CAN you know that? How can you claim to believe in god, and then be so blind about what has played such a HUGE role in sustaining our life? How can you be so blind as to claim nature doesn't "think", and at the same time assume that there is an invisible entity which DOES think and whom will protect us, no matter how irresponsible our actions? If we walk off a cliff, god will not save us!

What if there is a connection between the quality of our environment, and our culture, stupidity and morality? Why is it that so many people DON'T feel they need religion or a god now? At a glance people may say it is simply because we have found answers which contradict God's existance, or are so unaware of the consequenses of their actions that they feel morality is a useless concept - they will not be judged no matter what they do. Actually I believe our lack of morality and faith has more to do with the lifeless evironment in which we live, one which leaves us disconnected from our origins, numb to the suffering of the planet (after all, our houses don't die), and blind to cause-and-effect. We live in a world where the flick of a switch can eradicate millions, and that saddens us and scares us, yet cutting down trees and destroying our environment doesn't? Something which will yield the same consequences as that flick of a switch?

and you assume that god WILL provide for us? can you hear what you are saying? I have no intent of insulting your beliefs, but when has god EVER provided for us? It is NATURE that provides for us! That is a truth NO-ONE CAN DENY. And nature cannot provide infinitely, nor can she sustain a population much larger than ours is now.

Why don't we concentrate on extending the lifes of the people who are dying every day because of our greed and stupidity, rather than being greedy, stupid and irresponsible by fucking everyone we feel attracted to and then in turn not being able to provide for them? You realise if you have a large family then you will spend then rest of your life not living but simply providing for them?

You mentioned before in one of your posts, that animals feel lust, not love. Well we are animals too, and while we are capable of love, most child birth is a result of lust. That is unquestionable, and yet you say that animals are 'soulless' because lust is all they feel? I'm sorry, but if you think that, then it follows that you must think that most of humanity is soulless and lacking in feeling.

Do you really think we understand ANYTHING about life? We have NO IDEA. You are making a shed-load of assuptions about it's nature. What you are doing is selectively using evidence/religion which is by it's very nature 'unquestionable' that proves that your ideal is possible, while ignoring the evidence which really IS unquestionable, which proves that overpopulation IS a problem. Saying 'god wants it to happen' is not good enough.

I am beggining to question the motives behind your ideals..

 

The UN doesn't much care about the environment or freedom, but mainly only about their corrupt lust for more power. Nature is resilient, and can last through quite a lot of these things, even without a corrupt government's "help."

The technologies will improve and become cleaner, as more of the world's burgeoning billions, are welcome to gain wealth, and no longer shut out of the growing global economy.

"It is high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to make an orderly transition to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist

 

Part 1 of 2:

Well you should tempt God or whatever, by walking off a cliff.

I seem to recall something about some story I heard a while back and vaguely remember. Some mountain climber slipped, and fell off the side of the mountain, and was dangling precariously by his safety rope, in the cold of night or something. So he prays out to God, "God, please save me! God, please save me!" So God answers him, and tells him, "Cut your rope." But he's too scared to do what God told him. The next morning, rescuers found him frozen, hanging on a rope, just 6 inches from the ground.

I would guess that this was a fictional story some preacher wrote, just to illustrate a point, about how important it is for people to trust God. Somehow I find it hard to imagine God would let somebody die out of fear, just 6 inches from safety.

I am not saying to be irresponsible. It's probably not a very standard practice, to go out mountain climbing alone, at night.

My point about that nature doesn't "think," is to argue against this athropocentric idea people have about nature, as if nature had a "personality" and was out to get "revenge" back at humans, for having supposedly "overpopulated" throughout too much of the planet. As nature doesn't "think," how could nature possibly "care" just how populated people get? Nature may tend at times to be a bit "wild," but isn't out to get us.

The Malthusians are just plain wrong, and overly pessimistic. If humans don't control their numbers, neither will nature. We will somehow have to get along, with even all the more fellow humans all around us, a practical reason to work a lot more on our social graces, than on "controlling" our naturally burgeoning numbers.

I heard some story somewhere, about the mad scientists, and their crazy experiments to see what might happen if humans continue "overpopulating" the planet. So they put some apes in some cage or something, with plenty of food I think, but kept putting more and more apes into the cage, to simulate what the naturally rising human population might be doing to the planet. The apes behaved in a shocking and disturbing way. They began to groom one another, and avoid conflict. Whoops! Not quite the result they were looking for. That might suggest that humans are quite capable of populating themselves to "frightening" population densities, and adapting and making the best of things. And so we don't hear of the more relevant ape experiments, but only of the even more irrelevant disfunctional rats or mice experiment.

Surely humans are even more intelligent that some dumb apes?

Yeah, I'm like that too. I seek the moral and peaceful way out. If on some carpooling trip somewhere, I find that there are more people than beds in the motel room or whatever, well then we can share. Duh? Or I can sleep on the floor. I like the company of the group in the overcrowded car anyway, and would much rather go on a "cheap" trip, sharing resources and being with the group, than drive alone.

While I tend to be at times, cynical about the corrupt rich people that make most all the decisions in society for us, I also tend to be a natural optimist or idealist, as there are far too many depressed realists in the world already. What the world needs, is more idealists with vision. As if a realistic, dreams and hopes for nothing, a realist then accomplishing 100% of what he dreams, is less accomplishment than the idealist accomplishing 10% of what he dreams as the idealist actually dares to dream something.

Oh there is, but probably not quite the connection you were looking for here. While "overeducated idiots" waste time and promote distraction trying to calculate our "ecological footprint, we neglect to clean up our cultural or societal environment. While "environmental" extremists worry their little head about parts per billion of some supposed pollutant, they do nothing about all the polluting mind-rot garbage on TV and radio.

That much of what's wrong with the world today. Didn't Jesus ask when he returns, will he still find people of faith?

Actually, isn't our "disconnect" from the "wildness" of nature, one of the factors that leaves human populations free to go spiralling "out of control?" While of course I favor the "natural" when it comes to proper marital relations and welcoming couples to have possibly big families and enjoy natural sex, I also promote the "artificial" means perhaps increasingly necessary to support a human population so huge as we are getting. I care about people, and the sacredness of each and every human life, so of course, develop all the economically viable resource that the populous masses may need, as there is getting to be so many, many of them, people who need the jobs that development and infrastructure expansion will likely bring anyway. Let the people build themselves ever more homes and more cities and towns, so that they may enjoy growing ever more numerous and yet have proper and affordable housing. Make homes out of anything abundant and cheap that will withstand the weather. Whether it be wood, plastic, metal, concrete, brick, or whatever. Drill more oil wells, build more dams, build more nuclear power plants to power great and populous cities without all the smoke of coal-fired power plants. Build more cars, so that the people of India and China can get their cars too, and be able to drive to better jobs.

So that means we need to have more global accountability for basic human rights, and take out dangerous dictators who destroy their own people, and seek dangerous weapons of WMD.

Developing needed resources to better take care of all the people, doesn't "destroy" the environment, but alters nature to better hold all the more people. I am much in favor of logging, because humans have good uses for all the wood, such as more housing for expanding populations, furniture, jobs, etc. Far better to use the resource, before nature wastes it anyway, in the next drought-induced naturally sweep through forests every now and then.

I believe that especially the "environmental" leaders who promote these bogus theories of "overpopulation" and various forms of gloom-and-doom environmental degradation, don't really care much for the environment as they claim, but use their propaganda and lies to further their own insane lust for power over people's lives. Ever hear of the "watermellon" environmentalist? "Green" on the outside, but "red" on the inside. Inside, really they just wear a "green" covering to hide that inside they are communists wanting to control everybody and shut down business after business and freedom. When I see "environmental" publications stating opposition to human population growth, that only helps to confirm, that they really aren't into serving people, but have some other anti-people agenda.

They have some saying, "Population no problem? How dense can we get?" How can they miss the answer right under their noses? That is the answer. If human life gets to enjoy growing more and more abundant, then we shall have to populate denser and more efficiently, well at least on the global scale. Especially if humans truly try to love their neighbors as themselves, like Jesus commanded, then surely there can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people, at least the few more billions that demographers expect to come along in the next few decades, due to the youthfulness of the huge world population called "demographic momentum," and the additional time it is expected to take to dupe more of the masses into the new trendy contraceptive sex, that humans still aren't al that much used to yet. Humans have very good and compelling reasons for multiplying to become so incredibly numerous, as God designed humans to become a "dominating" kind of creature, to become among the most populous of the large mammals. Or was God only joking when he promised Abraham to make his descendents so numerous and uncountable, as to be like the grains of sand of a beach, or the stars of the sky for multitude?

And now I notice that the world population has indeed become nearly "uncountable" in many respects. Nobody is quite sure, just how huge the world population already is. There's so many people, and they won't stand still long enough to be counted. Some people suspect that we could already be over 7 billion people due to all the undercounting and uncounted people in various countries around the world. And did they think to count babies already in the womb, as pro-lifers might insist upon counting as "people" too? Also, I can never "count" to 6.5 billion people. Counting at 1 person a second, 24-7, it takes 30 years to count to a billion. Or 195 years, to count all the people in the world, by which time, hopefully, there will be a lot more people by then?

The world saw 1 nation, China, balloon into a shocking "population billionaire." And now another one, India also. 1/3 of the people of the world, now live in a country with over a billion other fellow humans within their borders. Both times, the world went on, and didn't end. I believe the world could similarly go on, when there are dozens of "population billionaire" nations. The "everybody could live in Texas" example, isn't a model of how we should live, but merely an example of just how "uncrowded" the world still is, compared to what it could potentially be, if ever need be. Of course today's "burgeoning billions" should be no "shock" actually, had people actually been reading their Bibles. I find in Genesis 24:60, some mention of Rebekah being blessed to have "thousands of millions" of descendents, it litterally says in the King James Version. That's really curious, because that would directly translate into the "burgeoning billions" of people today, foretold, all the way back in Genesis. I would love to hear some preacher preach on all these curious Bible verses I come across, in reading the Bible from cover to cover, that they usually seem to skip by somehow.

And scary to say, to the population phobics, I really do believe that a far larger population than we have now, can be made to fit into the world. Cities can push out suburbs upon suburbs, to hold all the people, and populate closer to one another, absorbing more and more of the countryside, to make way for naturally expanding human populations. Yeah, there's need for some "paradigm shift," as I read somewhere, but how about a human-friendly one. As human populations grow and more people come to live in cities, surely now, the big city must also be a suitable place for people to go ahead and enjoy having their "traditionally very large" families also, as cities by design, tend to serve to house more and more humans, in less space with greater efficiency, that the more spacious countryside of yesteryear.

I am much disgusted by some of these extreme enviro wackos, who suggest absurd nonsense, like that French Coustau (spelling?) guy, who suggest that we somehow need to kill off some 400,000 people per day, to get our population "under control," or that nutcase in the news with his bizarre proposal to somehow, perhaps by some disease, eliminate 90% of the people. Now what's the odds, that both you and I, will make the 10% cut, and get to bury the other 9 to 1 person left, dead people? In comparison, my obvious pro-human solution, to just welcome people to populate denser and denser, and do what humans seem to be so good at, adapt, seems quite "normal" and tame.

"It is high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to make an orderly transition to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist

"How can there be too many people? That's like saying there are too many flowers." Mother Teresa

Come to think of it, I never practice any flower "control" in my flower bed. It's only the overly agressive ugly weeds, that I ever need to try to "control." Similarly with people. I have no desire to seek to set any "cap" on the number of people that can be alive at once, because people are beautiful and curious creatures, made in God's image.

 

Part 2 of 2:

Most pro-lifers would want to do both. Pro-lifers also oppose euthania, because it isn't pro-life, and there's a very sinister element behind the idea, and the problem of "slippery slopes" such that nobody could long expect to remain safe. Better not plan on getting old?

And I respect that people have very good and practical and faith-based reasons to enjoy fucking their wives without any bother to use "birth control," in order to naturally expand the human race. Our powerful reproductive urges and various compelling reasons to have as many children as we do, collectively add up to a global goal and natural desire to naturally enlarge the entire human race, for the good of all, and so I advocate large families worldwide, so that all the more fellow humans may enjoy life also.

I believe that God designed sex as a beautiful thing for a husband and wife to enjoy together, to bond them together spiritually even, and not something to be profaned by sick pornography and "overpopulation" rhetoric. I want for there to be more "fucking" going on, and to better help people "wait" for marriage, of course I would welcome more people who think they are ready, to marry younger, as many people can be mature enough young, to start a family, and it provides more time for them to enjoy having even more children together.

The most natural and elegant outlet for humanity's powerful reproductive urges, is of course, reproduction. As more women come to childbearing age, they of course too, should be welcome to marry and come join in the naturally expanding worldwide population boom.

In the dramaticized CD version of the fictional Biblical endtimes book series, Left Behind, I heard the "Anti-Christ" scold the developing nations for letting their populations "balloon." Sounds like an "anti-christ" sort of cruel thing to do. Conversely, what is the humane and kind thing to do? Just that. Welcome the various nations to "balloon" in human population, as it is now increasingly the only way that people may enjoy having all the children they were meant to have, in a world with so many, many people already. So why can't there be more cities and towns full of people, spaced closer together than in the past, so as to find some place for so many, many people to live? We can't make the planet any bigger, and colonizing other worlds doesn't appear feasible anytime soon, but humans can learn to and adapt to living and breeding, closer together among other humans, than in the past, especially the few paltry billions more, that the demographers predict to come along in the next few decades.

I have been meaning to go dig up a quote about the proper and natural outlet for powerful human reproductive urges, some profound statement from Martin Luther. I guess now is as good a time, as any:

For this word which God speaks, "Be fruitful and multiply," {and fill the earth} is not a command. It is more than a command, namely, a divine ordinance [werck] which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore. Rather, it is just as necessary as the fact that I am a man, and more necessary than sleeping and waking, eating and drinking, and emptying the bowels and bladder. It is a nature and disposition just as innate as the organs involved in it. Therefore, just as God does not command anyone to be a man or a woman but creates them the way they have to be, so he does not command them to multiply but creates them so that they have to multiply. And wherever men try to resist this, it remains irresistible nonetheless and goes its way through fornication, adultery, and secret sins, for this is a matter of nature and not of choice.

In the third place, from this ordinance of creation God has himself exempted three categories of men, saying in Matthew 19 [:12], "there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Apart from these threee groups, let no man presume to be without a spouse. And whoever does not fall within one of these three categories should not consider anything except the estate of marriage. Otherwise it is simply impossible for you to remain righteous. For the Word of God which created you and said, "Be fruitful and multiply," abides and rules within you; you can by no means ignore it, or you will be bound to commit heinous sins without end. Martin Luther, from the book, the Bible and Birth Control by Charles D. Provan

ARE THESE THE LAST DAYS?
http://www.ldolphin.org/3699.html

Muggeridge has gone even further. In a speech given right here at Stanford's Hoover Institute last summer, he delivered an almost prophetic foreview of the collapse of Western civilization. I would like to share these closing words of his message with you:

So the final conclusion would seem to be that whereas other civilizations had been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions and providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania; himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down. And having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer, until at last, having educated himself into imbecility and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over, a weary, battered old brontosaurus, and became extinct.

Uh, duh? What? Is that supposed to be "scary" or something? No doubt, I may even be providing lots of free babysitting for grandchildren too, if my children move away but still live close by.

I love children and believe each and every human life to be sacred, so I can't imagine why I should want to "limit" the number of children God might allow me to have. I am not a Catholic, and so I don't find even their still trying to prevent human life, more "natural" method of rhythm to be practical either. I would want to enjoy sex naturally during the most fertile time of the month too. In countries were people still pretty much don't practice "birth control," family size tends to average around 5 or 6 children, versus maybe 3 or 4 for "planned" families. I would much rather have a "bonus" child or two, that have to bother with awkward anti-life contraceptives. It's good for children to have siblings, or so they say. It helps keep them from becoming spoiled, and I would add, it better socializes them to both survive and thrive in an increasingly populous world.

And yet most parents, very much love their children, even if "unplanned," by the time the baby comes to be born.

Most parents don't regret having had "too many" children, after the fact, as their children "grow" on them and they get used to having so many, and learn how to raise a large family, mainly by doing, or having had grown up in a large family themselves.

Society already expects husband and wife to lie together in the same bed, which I heard somewhere provides the maximum temptation and opportunity for sex. Why do we do that? Because I believe, the human race really does want strong families, and to much enlarge its numbers, for the greater good of ALL.

I want to see the human race advance, and so of course the populous masses should be encouraged to do what at least most people tend to be good at, mating and parenting.

Also, what do you suppose might be a practical reason for God to have made what populates the planet, to be so extremely pleasurable? I believe, it was largely because it is so vital that humans not merely "maintain" their population size, but expand it, so that all the more people may come to life. So humanity's powerful reproductive urges, help naturally enhance and enlarge humanity's "life force," if that could be a good thing to call it? So people need not feel "guilty" to allow sex to feel all the more erotic, as they leave sex open to the wondrous possibility of pregnancy, to enjoy also doing their part to help naturally grow the entire human race. Nor to feel like they have been "caught" in the act, if their children forget to knock and walk in on them, and then later ask innocent questions about why daddy was on top of mommy.

Well if humans are going to be such a dominant kind as we are becoming, maybe we ought to act more like it. We should more eagerly celebrate any official announced that we have added the 7th or 8th billionth person, to the world, as great progress for the human race, and humble ourselves and give our thanks to God for multiplying us so greatly. I really like, that sci-fi stories tend to almost "welcome" the possibly enormous human populations of the future, and explore the concept of humans spreading to inhabit more worlds. As it does us good to dream and think "outside the box." And then if ever humans could expand to more worlds, I predict that enomous population increase must preceed the necessary development of the technology, and they say it's good to "not put all your eggs in one basket." I doubt that humans will ever spread to more worlds, but if ever we reasonably can, we should.

Perhaps world population may continue to expand, whether or not we may claim to want it to or not. Wouldn't it be prudent to embrace the needed changes that were meant to be, and be more pronatalist, to more readily adapt and make the best of things, rather than counterproductively kicking and screaming all along the way, like some spoiled-brat immature little fussy kid?

I just want the best for everybody. In a world where many children are welcome, I think I shall also be welcome. But in a hostile world that hates its own children, I fear I would be rejected too, as I am a rather logical and abstract thinking person, who naturally tends to ask questions that make leaders with evil agenda, nervous for being found out. If the world starts to not have room for my children or my grandchildren, I fear there won't long be room for me, either.

And of course, I think it to be fascinating and magical, to stand by and watch human reproduction to continue growing to become a mighty, planet-changing, force of nature, as the human race wonderously blossoms and eagerly fills the planet, rather than to live in some backwards, faithless world, of cynical, unimaginative, and thus more cruel, people. I don't fear the natural human population growth, that is quite natural and was meant to be, but rather, any more powerful force that could dare to try to "control" such a wonderful and "wild" force of nature, as human procreation, and rob people of the most basic of their freedoms. It's the population "control" freaks that I find to be "scary," and a more "uncontrollably" growing world of people, threatens the power base of evil people who shouldn't have any power to begin with. So having large families, helps protect people's rights to go on having large families, well into the future.

Large families is all the more people to populate heaven, I read over at www.quiverfull.org or somewhere.

 

I think you misunderstood. Suburban sprawl is the sprawl going out into the countryside, with Walmarts and highways. I'm opposed to that. Urban sprawl is dense innercity 'sprawl'. Build up, not out.

 

But I support smarter growth, not at all a cessation of growth.

If people were to multiply as much as I advocate, they may have to build both outwards and upwards, and even inwards. Presumably, outwards is the first choice, as people rather like to be numerous, but might prefer to not be "crowded."

I don't want to build lots of usually empty buildings, because one way or another, we end up paying for them. More Wal-Marts is less money that could have been raises for existing workers in more "crowded" stores. I want for their to be more buildings, but I also want them more full of people, so that I need not pay more, in various society economic costs, than for merely the home I live in.

 

Yes, I think Earth would be beautiful without us (or at least those damaging the environment). But you must see, we are a part of Nature too. But, if we disrespect our Earth too much, it may not hurt us too much at first, but eventually it will bite us in the ass. After all, we're our own worst enemy.

Yes, I am a predominant recycler and a picker up of trash and the type of person who gets upset when people don't do the same. I think I have this emotional bondage to Earth--I get really upset when I see Earth being hurt the way I may feel if my mother was being hurt.

 

Nature doesn't "care" if people litter or not. I see the weeds and grass come up among the litter, and soon hide and absorb it, as if it wasn't even there. The reason to not litter, and to pick up trash, is out of respect for other people. Why create a needless eyesore, when there are trash cans most everywhere?

 

Litter harms our environment. We bury harmful toxins and we contaminate the ground and the air with fumes, harming our world, along with ourselves and animals. What you are saying is if you can't see something, it's not harming you.

Then why needlessly build countless citys when nature could just as easily provide for us?

Look.. People ARE nature. We are a part of it like our eyes are a part of our bodies. Many people DO care that we litter, because like plume7reaction said, we are harming our mother.. we are harming LIFE. If you continue to believe that the only thing that matters in this world is the human race, if you don't care if everything else goes to shit, which it logically will, why don't you just go live in a sealed box which contains only humans, instead of harming our world and everything we rely on just so you can say you've done well in the eyes of god?

Really, this isn't about god, or the beauty of human life... this is about you and your identity. What you want is to feel you've done something good.. you want to feel as if you've lived up to your idea of "god's" expectations.. but you have spent all this time trying to justify gods word, because you don't want to believe that something which you feel is so good could have such dire consequences... all I can say is I have felt the same way... but sometimes you need realise that desires can be a part of something deeper within yourself.. that they can be the product of what you really want, which is to accept yourself in god's eyes, in your own eyes.. if you cannot accept that your beliefs could be wrong, you will never learn.. you will simply spend your time trying to justify them.. and ANY belief can be justified with religion.

 

it's not a question of aesthetics. we are altering it in such a way as to diminish it's ability to sustain ourselves. to speak of an environment as dieing is a bit ambiguous.

but are we doing things that will ultimately prove harmful, both to and beyond ourselves? certainly. could we do better. yes also.

do enough people understand in their gut why it matters?
i'm not too sure even most of us who claim to care do entirely.
enough to adjust our priorities accordingly.
and if we can't, what can we expect from the generality of the population?

there are policy issues that are important. where we get our energy, what we use for transportation, how we build our houses, and on what scale we reproduce, these four are the primary factors, and to a large extent these are matters of collective policy rather then individual choice. but our individual priorities do create the incentives that motivate policy makers, along with everyone else including each other.

they create them with our purchasing habbits and even with how we live our lives, and most especialy in all the little ways we least often think about.

=^^=
.../\...

 

Nature pollutes itself. What about natural wildfires and volcanos? We can't stop the volcanos, but often we can redirect wildfires away from human interests. But if it wasn't for the inconvenience to man, what reason would there be to interfere with nature's wildness? Forests that burn, soon replant themselves and grow back even more diverse than before, even without man's "help." God gave man dominion over nature and other creatures, so of course we may intervene, when the cost-benefit analysis determines that we ought to.

If human activities are supposedly "causing" "global warming," well so what? We can't fix it. There's now too many people wanting cars and automatically heated homes, to worry about all such minor supposed "needs" of nature. The new and improved energy technologies of the future, just aren't ready, and there's still too much poverty in the world, that would be aggravated by any attempt to "fix" "global warming." Now I don't believe in reckless experimentation. Burning all these "fossil fuels" is not "experimentation," because we need the energy, and we need it now! But trying to "fix" "global warming" is reckless "experimentation," because it would be a hastily-conceived scheme, with very questionable and uncertain results, the very example of a boondoggle sort of investment. Surely all the money it would take to "fix" "global warming," can be put to some better use, like eliminating the socialist income and property taxes. It's also an "example" of the trend to use "environment" as a mere cover to steal people's freedoms.

"Litter" usually refers to paper and styrofoam cups and such. Now I know that enviro wackos have attacked such things as styrofoam cups in the past, perhaps for being like plastic, that takes too long to biodegrade supposedly, or for being formed with CFCs that supposedly burn a hole in the ozone layer, and so we should just all walk around carrying our ceramic mugs with us? But that's just not realistic. Obviously, restaurants and fast food places, wouldn't sell near the amount of drinks, if they could only sell to those who remembered to bring their mugs, and pointed to the drinking fountain for everybody else. So for cheap disposable cups, there seems to be 2 types. Wax paper, and styrofoam. I can't stand wax paper, because it isn't "water proof" for more than 24 hours. When people put wax paper cups in the refrigerator at work, they get forgetton and soon start leaking. As least the styrofoam cups never leak and make a mess. There's also solid thin plastic cups, but restaurants don't seem to offer those for some reason.

"Ozone depletion" is a fraud anyway. Lightning produces ozone. How arrogant humans are, to think of themselves as "gods" that can create or destroy the earth. And styrofoam probably isn't even made with CFCs anymore. I almost always ask for ice water, in restaurants, because they charge too much for their drinks anyway. I can drink my soda at home, where I do reuse the same cup over and over. But if I did carry home a drink, I definately do not want a leaky wax paper cup. At least make it styrofoam.

Such litter doesn't harm the environment, near as much as the eyesore it creates when thoughtlessly discarded. Things like banana peels can simply be tossed, slightly off the beaten path, in the woods and not in somebody's yard, because they rots so quickly, while man's trash tends to linger longer, and so it needs to go in a trash can. If world population was sparse, and not so dense as it is now, then maybe people could just toss their trash off the side of the hill, but now that would be inconsiderate to our many neighbors.

It also disgusts me to see people litter, but let's list the right reasons for not littering, because there's so many other people around, to think of.

Why build more cities? Well let's see. So we don't populate ourselves out of our current cities. As I explained before, each and every human life is sacred, and while humans don't multiply all that fast, we are designed to produce more children than the pidly average 2.1 children per family that supposedly, eventually leads to population "stabilization" (stagnation). In accordance with God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, that obviously implies that each successive generation is supposed to grow ever larger and more populous, than the previous. We can't logically limit our numbers, because that only eliminates possible beneficiaries, so that is counterproductive. Out of respect for human life, the human race must be welcome to naturally enlarge and increasingly fill the earth. Now I do believe that large families can fit in a small space, because even a single child is worth more than an entire, rather temporary or replacable, home. Children, especially small children, can share beds for a while. The real reason for big homes, is not lots of children, but to store all our "stuff" we keep buying and accumulating. But there is some limit of just how many people we can reasonably stuff into each and every housing unit. While 10 family members might do quite well living in the same home, of a nice size, can 100 people live n the same home? I believe in neither population "control" nor "birth control," as I don't want to prevent sacred human lives, and so if we live in a world with billions of other people free to reproduce as much as they can or want, obviously before too many decades, more billions of people may be added. Do you want those additional people to move into your home? Want to adopt a fellow human being/roommate, in need of a home? No? Well then, we shall have to build more homes then. Or let the people build or buy their own homes. And they have to go somewhere. Have you some room for more homes on your street? No? Well maybe we can build some more streets near where you live? How about that? Hows your roads? Can they handle a bit more traffic? Well ultimately, then, there's many things that can be done, but the rising "population pressure" is likely going to require some additional suburbs and cities. I already remarked somewhere around here, that I am not much interested in building lots of usually empty buildings, because somehow, that translates into increasing the average per capita, cost of living. But lots of additional buildings or homes, all filled with people, don't add to the cost of living, because the cost is divide among ever more people, who pay for their own homes.

Nature could just as easily provide for us, rather than building more cities? Whatever are you talking about? Obviously 6.5 billion people and growing, can't all live in the trees and caves. (If we stuffed that many people into the caves wouldn't you get overpacked suitcase syndrome, in which the suitcase just won't close and snap shut? You'd have people piled up all the way out of any air portals in the roof of the cave up and spilling out onto the ground above.) Some people can live in the countryside, but just to hold so many people, takes lots of cities, and since people seem to like to cluster in search of jobs, some rather huge cities too. Perhaps you know of something I don't, about nature's provision? I have heard of "tree houses," but never a "house tree." Is there some tree that just magically grows houses on it, for people? And do these "house trees" have electricity and modern plumbing?

 

No, no, no, NO NO NO!!!!!!!!!

The problem is that you think the human race is superior. IT IS NOT!!! We are only one of the many species of the earth. We arn't here since the beginning of time and someday we'll disappear!!! The day you understand there IS NO HIERARCHY WITHIN SPECIES, you'll understand the rest. Until then, all you say is bullshit.

 

Humans arrived on the scene very early on, for God created all the creatures, within the 6-day Creation period.

Someday we will disappear? So you believe in the Rapture of the Church view too, before the Anti-Christ can be revealed? Wait. That's not the disappearance of all the people, yet though. So where will humans go? Mars? Another star system? Heaven?

There's "pecking orders" within species, so how can you say there is no hierarchy? Humans outrank every other lifeform found on earth, well except for God and maybe angels.

 

I would love to live that way, but I don't think alot of people could

 

Uh, I don't think tribal people had books, computers, electricity, and not much if any money.

Are you ready to give up your computer, and to grow your own food, since with no job, how would you buy food?

And I rather doubt that tribal people know much of such things, as how to best support a growing world of 6.5 billion people and rising.

I like things natural and simple and elegant too, but only to a point, as I like many of the modern technologies too, some of which can also be simplified better, and be mass produced more economically, so that more of the populous masses may use them.

 

I would be happy to give up computer and such. Don't use it for much anyway. Besides, I travel to certain in which there is no electricity or toilets (outhouses--the innovation of the future!) and I love it, and know I could live that way since I have experienced it already. With everyone as tribal people, our world would be better, anyway. And this world, this society you speak of, is most likely going to CRACK soon anyway so you better get ready, or tell your many children, Pronatalist, to do so.

 

Well I suppose that human wastes can be said to have a nice aromatic "natural" smell to them, but somehow I expect it would be a bit "overwhelming" with a line of outhouses down the backyards of every city street. Although if I happened to live near a sewage treatment plant, I wouldn't get that NIMBY syndrome, as obviously some days the wind would blow the smells away, and one gets used to it. They have to build those things, somewhere obviously.

And about your idea that society is headed down the toilet anyway, that's not much a reason to reject technology in general, but to go more "independent" wherever reasonably possible. Maybe build those wacky solar cells and windmills, and whatever, and try to make them actually be more useful than past experiments in which people played with them, but it didn't do much for them. Perhaps with some major forklift batteries and some fancy invertor/convertor wiring, you can run your TV and stuff, all night, while the sun doesn't shine or the wind dies down, until the next day or so?

I have read somewhere, that there still is some manufacturer of karosene refrigerators in the U.S. somewhere. A karosene refrigerator needs about a gallon a week, or a 55 gallon drum, for a year. But I don't think it maintains constant temperature as well, and needs careful continual adjustment? As long as the electricity supply is reliable, electric seems to be the simplest though.

The electric compressor refrigerator/air conditioning technology, if I understand it right, is about the least efficient means of cooling. There's other technologies that are more efficient, sometimes used in rather large buildings. So why do we use electric compressor cooling? Because it is the cheapest to mass-produce, and the simplest to operate.

Pay off the house and car and cancel unneeded monthly bills like "idiot tube" sateline or cable TV. Why pay to watch junk on TV, when you can watch junk for free via an antenna?

Maybe invest in some alternatives, in case the corrupt Federal Reserve System decides to spring another "Great Depression" on us, such as tools to fix your own car, or maybe one of those new nifty backup natural gas powered household generators.

Maybe by the time the economy crashes again, I can have my "army of robots" ready to build for me everything I need, and I won't have to buy anything? Or at least, one can dream?

The Mormons still say to stockpile a one-year food supply. I think that's overkill, as people with little money living in a litty dinky apartment, aren't going to find that to be very practical. But maybe something like a one-month stockpile? As why be fighting over the last loaf of bread in the store, just before a little minor snowstorm? I have heard that cities only have but enough food in the stores, to last but 7 days, in the event of any situation that could delay the truck shipments. Somehow, 7 days, doesn't seem to be quite enough.

I can't imagine giving up the computer though. Whatever for? I love math, and computers are a "magical" tool that unlock many of the wonders of math. And in the past, computers supposedly would be this Big Brother tool by which governments would manipulate the masses. But instead, the masses got the computer, and the computer helps "level the playing field" somewhat, giving most everybody a "voice" now, allowing most anybody to "publish" their views and websites and such, with the ever-growing internet "blogosphere" increasingly rivaling the corporate/government-controlled TV giant channels for influence in society. Computers used to occupy an entire room and cost a fortune to operate. So many vaccuum tubes needed air conditioning to avoid overheating, and a tube may burn out, every 5 hours or so. Now computers are so cheap and portable, that most anybody with a job can afford a few computers. Computers are even cheaper than cars, so many people "trade up" their computers now, more often than their car.

 

I would have no problem giving up the computer, and my dream would be to live simply, yes grow my own food and probably sell my hemp and stuff to make a little money