Overpopulation

people say there are too many deer. But there are also too many humans--and too many humans that like to build and squash the deer into tiny forests and then get mad when one hits their car and dies and also when they eat their hastas.

 

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

We can't help that we are so numerous. Humans are supposed to be the dominant creatures on the planet.

People are more important that deer, so some of the deer will have to go.

"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

Let the world blossom with human life.

 

Are you kidding? You think that humans are supposed to be the dominant animals? I don't think we should embrace killing off the rest of the species...

 

I read in my Bible, that God gave dominion over other creatures and over nature, to man. What could this possibly mean? I believe it also implies an "invation," even a commandment, by God, to man, to grow to become among the most populous of the large mammals, so that we would come to dominate, not merely because we are supposedly intelligent, nor because "we can," but out of necessity of sheer numbers.

And where did I say anything about "killing off" the rest of the species? That's the sort of crap that radical "environmentalists" too often concoct. Ever since Adam & Eve began having children, those children needed someplace to live, and so humans were probably displacing other plants and animals. But the plants don't "care" because they don't even have nervous systems and can't "think," and the animals probably don't care either, because other animals are more a threat to them these days. Most humans, tend to be rather harmless, if they keep their distance.

And animals don't usually have a very long lifespan. They can't understand the changes going on. If humans encroach into formerly wild territory, animals don't just keel over and die. Rather, due to loss of territory, when they do expire, they simply aren't replaced.

Nowhere in nature, I think, do we find "static" population sizes. Life will almost always expand into most any niche it can find, as God create life, especially human life — his masterpiece creation, to be abundant. See Genesis 1:11, about God putting the seed inside the animals and plants, so that they would naturally be abundant, and quite often "plant" themselves. Many creatures even coexist well, living in different niches. Such as all the squirrels and birds who also live in our populous cities. They don't appear to be much "bothered" by humanity's huge numbers, and seem to do fairly well to stay out of our way. I even see rabbits running around in the yard, in the city.

To convert relatively cheap organic matter or food, into additional human bodies of immense worth, is a great "investment," at least philosophically.

Maybe I just don't care if it happens to be "unthinkable" to population phobics, but to populate denser and denser throughout the planet, is the most humane and kind and fair way, to welcome people to enjoy having all the children they were meant to have, in a world with so many, many people. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more. There could simple come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. It's not like I can somehow make the planet any bigger, nor suddenly make colonizing more world feasible, but I can suggest that humanity use the many options available already, to populate densely and more efficiently, for the greater good of ALL.

 

It's not because she said that that it's true. Flowers don't kill each in greedy wars, pollute the environmnet and use all natural ressources.

 

You are analysing it in the wrong way. You are taking a simple concept, and trying to make it needlessly complicated.

Once, when I used to deliver pizza, I thought I could "feel" the eerie "population pressure," of some new college housing development, in which the apartment buildings were positioned "too close" together. As if I was in the presence of a great human crowd, most people conveniently hidden by walls all around. But then of course, being both pro-life and pro-population, I may have been more in tune than most people, who are too busy with their busy lives, to even notice any such thing.

But funny thing about this "pressing crowd." They didn't seem to be killing each other in greedy wars, I don't recall noticing any pollution problem, nor were people outside just sucking up everything left of nature. How could this be? It merely seemed like some people were talking nearby and stuff.

I think many of the "crowded" places of the world, are much the same way. The people develop "crowd tolerance," and in most such areas, they aren't at each others throats, or anything like that. You know when people behave the way they ought to, well that's sort of "ordinary" and rarely makes the news.

A more pronatalist society, is also a more generous society, a society that better understands why it is so "necessary" that they grow so dense with people, for the greater good of ALL. Such a society would have more faith, more creativity, and much more readily adapt to their growing numbers.

The people who live in "crowded" regions of the world, aren't the ones who think they are "crowded," but rather the spoiled Westerners who visit them, understanding practically nothing about their culture. Such an example I am thinking of, would be population pessimist Paul Ehrlich's disappointing visit to India, where he made sure he could find what he was looking for, evidence of "scary" "overpopulation." Of course, being a spoiled Westerner, he was too "good" to dirty his hands, by staying long enough to get used to the crowds, nor to try to understand the culture, nor emphasize with the people. Now why would a population pessimist look for "overpopulation" in the most crowded slums of the biggest city? Why not look in the most spacious countryside, to see if it is "pervasive," and not just a curious urban clustering anomaly? Because such people aren't looking for truth, but to pretend like they find "evidence" for whatever nonsense it is they want to prattle about, trying to convince the world how smart they are, and their "solutions" are the only way to go.

Mother Teresa's quote is simple and elegant. Since people are obvious worth far more than pretty flowers, and more beautiful too, if one can see them in a sense of love for fellow humans, more like how God sees people, then people deserve to be capable of populating themselves even to "crowded" levels, so that all the more people may enjoy life. Of course more proper development and infrastructure expansion, can remove most all the apparent "crowding" without actually reducing numbers any. Overcrowded shantytowns of people, can always be housed in spacious housing units of new highrise buildings, even without having to expand the amount of land they are spread over, assuming maybe that the entire country might be, well sort of "crowded?"

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." Yeah, that sounds like a cruel, "anti-christ" sort of thing to do. Conversely, what's the humane and kind thing to do? Just that. I encourage all the nations to "balloon" in populaiton size, because how else now, can people have all the children they were meant to have, in a world with so many, many people already? It's okay. Keep on enjoying having "traditionally very large" families. I am quite sure we can "scoot over" a bit, and make room for ALL, for the greater good of ALL. There can simple come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. More cities and towns can be built, in between all the growing cities and towns. That actually will work, well into the forseeable future, as cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land, so there's huge room for expansion, as the world is nowhere near "full" of people.

 

OKAY i'm just starting to get really pissed off. Why the fuck are you even on the environment forum? You obviously have no love for nature, and you don't appreciate walking through forests and breathing clean air. All you fucking want is cities, houses, people. Death of everything else. Then you back yourself with bullshit crap from "my good ol bible". You're making me dislike Christianity, and I really never have ever thought that way about it. I never was a true Christian, but somethings I liked about it. And this God you speak of is obviously bullshit. No God is a "he" or a "she". The God I believe in has no human-like qualities at all. It has no human-like gender, and it does not simply fuel our world for our consumption only. The death of humankind will be caused by our own stupidity.

 

Wow! What judgemental accusations!

Why am I on the environment forum? Well let's see. That's the most relevant topic area, isn't it? I didn't name the thread. Somebody long before me picked the title of "Overpopulation." Now any honest debate, probably needs a diversity of views, especially the "true" view in there somewhere. Hence, here I am.

You think you know something about me, but apparently you don't. I am naturally an introvert. I tend to stay at home a lot, and read books and magazines, and really don't much care for going out, spending money, getting lost, and sharing the roads with moron drivers who don't use turn signals. So of what possible use, could I have, for more and bigger crowds throughout the world?

Why do you think I want for there to be nothing but cities, houses, and people?

I have no love for nature?

I grew up in Boy Scouts, and my Dad took me and my friends hiking and camping, and sent me to summer camps.

It's not an either-or proposition. More people in more cities, doesn't mean there won't be forests, but merely, possibly more people going along the hiking trails, from the growing nearby cities, during the peak times of the year. But I never go, to "get away from it all," but carpool with people or a Church group, to meet people and to do something different. So why should it bother me if people pass by every few minutes, or like to let their well-behaved dog run the trail unleashed, along with us? As long as the people are friendly and no threat. Aren't people a "part" of nature too? So what should it matter if people happen to be incredibly numerous, by God's apparent design?

I seek an alternative to the selfish and snobbish attitude of liberals and feminists, or society telling us to "Use birth control! Use birth control!" Hello! "Birth control" isn't natural, and it seeks to prevent human life, of those who wouldn't want to have been prevented. Those who could of been. Those who should of been. More population is more people to populate heaven. And what about those people in China, who still want their "traditionally very large" families? Or do children not matter much anymore, just because of some lofty bean counters in some irrelant ivory towers of academia, who claim that the world doesn't much have any use for still more people, by their own shallow estimation?

I presume most of the population increase will occur "elsewhere" and not in my backyard. Those additional people added to my yard, will likely be my own children, so of course that's okay. More people in my city, is fine, because if the suburbs push outwards farther into the countryside, before I lived in the city, afterwards I live in the city. What really has "changed?"

Then I back myself with "religious" reasons? Well why not? "Religious objections" rather tend to lead the long list of compelling reasons why quite a lot of people don't want to bother with nasty contraceptives. Religion already has quite a lot to do with the huge population size of the world, and why we haven't already self-destructed. Most religions, for various, usually faith-based reasons, encourage large families. Most religions, seem to think of humans as being much higher creatures, than other mere animals, well except maybe for atheism and "environmentalism." And even some atheists are pro-life and pro-population, as they think it furthers the human race.

We can talk "religious" reasons, or we can bash each other back and forth with our mere opinions? There's also the science involved in accomodating more humans, and the philosophy to discuss also.

I don't really naively think that people are going to just grow breed more children, just because I say so. I'm not famous enough to gain such a vast audience anyway. The powerful reproductive urges God has given humans, probably have a much more potent effect, than I could hope to by my many words. What I expect, if for people to give more honest consideration of the pro-life, pro-family, pro-humanity side of the issue, and then find their own reasons to have their own children, as they likely do anyway.

Then you mention the death of humankind. Well I have another idea how that could presumably come about. On an episode of Star Trek; The Next Generation, entitled "Time Squared," a mysterious vortex appeared out in outer space and quickly begun to tug at the Enterprise spaceship. They used their engines to resist, risking overloading the engines, and their attempts to break free, only seemed to tighten the grip of the vortex upon them. Some bold of energy struck Captain Piccard right through the walls of the spaceship, and so to save his crew, he fled the spaceship in a shuttlecraft, since the vortex seemed to have a "personal" interest in him. In the shuttlecraft, he saw the Enterprise destroyed as it crashed into the side of the vortex. But somehow, he also got thrown back in time, 6 hours prior, to only have to see it happen again? So the "duplicate" Piccard rejoined the Enterprise, and his shuttlecraft took some time to re-energize, as mysteriously, it had been reversed phased or something, as if it had been "flipped" through some 4th dimension? And the duplicate Piccard was disorientated, and unable to speak for a while. But as the time of the disaster approached again, he adjusted, and I think he wanted to repeat the same endless loop, and escape from the spaceship again. But the real Piccard demanded of him, "What is the other option?" The "duplicate" Piccard didn't wan to say it, because is was apparently "unthinkable." But the real Piccard had to know, because what they were doing wasn't working. It was only a matter of time before even their warp engines overload and burn up in trying to avoid the pull of the vortex. Finally the duplicate Piccard admitted that the other option seemed to be to not resist, but that was unthinkable, because it meant certain destruction. The real Piccard must not have seen it quite that way, for he phasored the "duplicate" Piccard to break the endless loop, and when with his apparent "2nd chance" shall we call it? He ordered the crew to shut down the engines, to which the vortex soon drew them into it. They soon emerged on the other side, and it vanished, just as mysteriously as it came, leaving them in normal space.

I am a rather logical and abstract thinking so I see a possible lesson in this. What if the "population vortex" is "inescapable?" After all baby booms do tend to be "contagious," and children from large families may still tend to prefer large families themselves. What if it is a mighty force of nature, that simply can't be stopped? What if population "control" is opposing God? What can we hope to accomplish, in resisting then, but to crash into the "wall?" Alternately, what if more people were to relax and let the world's burgeoning population tighten its grip on the planet, and naturally find its own way through? What if people had more faith, to dream, and let thing they can't figure out, sometimes sort themselves out?

It's not the so-called "population explosion" that is destructive to humanity, but rather resisting what must be. Thus, it really should be "good news" to see the baby booms persist and spread, because people are investing and hoping for the future, and working such that things can work out after all. The population grows bigger and bigger, because people simply aren't all dropping like flies, like the population phobics predict and hope they would. On the "other side" may be a more populous world, but a world that is far better adapted for its still huger population size, than we could very well imagine now. In fact, the Revelation description of the New Jerusalem, a city not build by human hands, but by God, does sound rather "huge."

And if you don't like what I have to say, well I am probably in good company then, because many people didn't much like what God's prophets had to say either.

But I refuse to judge against people I don't even know, being allowed to naturally come to life, just because of some trendy negative interpretations of dry population statistics. It's simply not enough justification to debase the incredible and sacred value of each and every precious human life.

Perhaps if I was but just one of those "technological optimists," relegated to some little paragraph near the back of one of my college textbooks, then my pro-population views would be easier to accept? Never mind than an honest look at the many reasons why the human race has grown so huge, are not merely "problems" that might be fixed, but actually quite compelling with no logical basis for opposing?

 

Well after those much words, I thought of a rather elegant summary.

Although I obviously could be reading more into it that the authors originally intended, couldn't "Time Squared" be a metaphor for "birth?"

Could you imagine a baby resisting and being terrified of his or her own birth? Perhaps that's why newborn babies often cry, but they have very little ability to resist, what must be.

 

I repeat what I said. Humans, unlike flower, kill themselves ingreedy wars, pollute the environment and use all ressources.

Now, you say I make needless complicated argument! You posts are lenght 500 words each! Plus you completly deviate from what I said!

Pronatalist, I'd like to hear you make a pro-natalist argument WITHOUT using GOD or anything related. Just ONCE.

 

By the way, Star Trek doesn't count.

 

Well humans could obviously behave themselves better, in a manner more appropiate for the populous world in which we find ourselves living in.

And isn't that what the pronatalist mindset, seeks to achieve? To make the best of the situation? What kind of "party pooper" refuses to celebrate life, or remark at how cute a baby is, just because the world, in some respects, may at times seem to have "more than enough" people already?

Humans are better than flowers. Humans are more curious and interesting than flowers. But it is not at all a "given" that we have to behave nastier than flowers.

Here's another quote:

"Pro-life is more consistantly pro-life, when it is also pro-population." Pronatalist

 

Yes, humans could behave themselves better, but they don't...

Overpopulation is mainly a problem in the poor countries.
Imagine a family with 15 children, they've got to divide the food, money and space into 15. Also, women have to be always in the house! They spend their there live taking care of their children, they can't work, so they are financially vulnerable and dependant of their husband.

You say I'm a party pooper, but what kind of party would it be if you had ten times more people, ten times less space to move, ten times less food to eat, etc.

By the way I don't beleive humans are better than the earth's other creatures, they are different.

I think you just don't want to understand. Your ego and your love of the human race blinds you. It's no use.

 

And why not? Do you have something against Star Trek fans?

And I will have you know, that man first went to the moon, in the comic books, so don't write off science fiction as mere science fantasy.

One thing I really like about much of the science-fiction, is it's naturally assumption that humans will ultimately "fail" to much "control" their numbers, but that humans will adapt instead and come to be quite comfortable with sharing a single planet with perhaps 100s of billions of other people.

Humans do seem to need some optimistic, positive things to hope for. Too much cynicism, isn't healthy, nor productive.

How about this:

world happiness = average happiness per person * number of people

Or how about the Utilitarian Principle, that suggests that often the best thing to do, is that which most benefits the most people. How can the huge benefits of huge human population, be missed here? Surely more population helps, by having all the more people around, to benefit from whatever.

If world population doubles yet again, then twice as many people then are experiencing life, for the small "cost" of some minor "growing pains," that ultimately come to be fixed or eased over time. The "weight of numbers" pushes heavily for perpertual growth, even though it does tend to be gradual, as most of the compelling reasons for people to have as many children as they do, remain the same regardless how huge the overall population may grow. Sex still feels as good as ever, most every child is glad to come to life, the majority of people aren't finished having their children, no 'birth control" is simpler and more natural than interfering with unnatural contraceptives, large families tend to encourage their children to also have large families, and no matter how large overall populations grow most everybody rather likes living and often like to reproduce too. Even land is worth far more, when filled with people, than when left empty, with few people to even see or appreciate the beauty. Those aren't exactly "religious" reasons, nearly so much as they are philosophical or practical? Then there's also the natural or "rhythm of life" outlook. What could be more natural, than the semen, or the human seed, pulsing or shooting naturally into a woman's vagina, where is was obviously designed to go? You don't want for "too many" people to have fun? The sexual climax and orgasm, appears to be linked in such a way as to insure that the human seed gets sucessfully transferred, reminding us of the main and vital purpose to sex, the natural enlargement of the entire human race. They say "everybody does it," and so why should there be no huge results from "everybody doing it?" Why is that any different than our blood pumping, or people eating, etc.? And don't women seem to "glow" when visibly pregnant? One obvious purpose of life is to create more life, and I do, as many people do, think that pregnancy looks "sexy," as it is a very positive thing to bring forth human life. What about the idea of "progress" and furthering the human race? That isn't just "religious," but the common "cult" of the day, found in economics and scientific exploration and most everywhere.

Another reason for pronatalism in an increasingly populous world, is the consideration of the collective. Often, the God-given right of pro-creation, is viewed in terms of individual rights. Too many liberals or feminists may think that how many children they have, is nobody's business but their own. If that was every true, it isn't anymore. What if everybody had big families? Wouldn't society be forced to grow denser? Then our reproductive activities, although at the moment private, affects everybody around us. My point is, that these effects are largely positive. The huge size of the world population is largely responsible for a lot of this modern technology that we enjoy and take for granted. Either that, or God has given us such inventions, in order to better accomodate today's huge populations and welcome them to go on growing. Take your pick. It would seem to be at least one or the other, probably both. But when I add up all the powerful reproductive urges of so many individuals, and all the compelling reasons people have for having as many children as they do, I don't at all get any supposed "need" for ever more population "control" to supposedly keep things from getting out of hand, but rather a collective global goal and natural desire, to enlarge the entire human race, for the collective benefit of ALL.

There was some pro-life prime minister of the Philippines, maybe she's still in there, who said that the growing population of her island nation was no big deal, because the rest of the world is growing too. While some people may dismiss such claims as the wishful thinking of some naively religious Catholic, I consider such a claim to be surprisingly wise. If the entire world was just the Philippines, and they just keep multiplying their numbers naturally, there might be some danger of overrunning the island with "too many" people. (As I see it, it increasingly may take the entire planet to hold all the people, not just a few islands, so humans should be welcome to live most anywhere and everywhere.) Or if there be other countries too, but only the Philippines grows, while no other nations grow, then would the Philippines at some point try to aggressively acquire more land for their burgeoning millions of people? But Arayo, or whatever her name was, was wise to consider that a growing world of people, tends to naturally self-accomodate its growing numbers, and that humans transmit learned information very efficiently, and so they can expect to import whatever technology they may need, to better and more comfortably and safely populate themselves denser and denser. As it is with large families, the human race, better learns how to best enlarge its numbers, by so doing.

Religion is needed in there somewhere, just to explain why humans exist, and why humans are entitled to exist in such huge numbers, and where it is to, that we are likely headed. "Science" just can't explain all such abstract things. Religion also promotes morality and responsibility, and helps keep the populous masses in line and working together, for the common good of all. Even Karl Marx I think it was who said, that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Somehow, he must have missed the point though.

 

Mine is the BOLD, Pronatalist is the non-bold.

Pronatalist: [One thing I really like about much of the science-fiction, is it's naturally assumption that humans will ultimately "fail" to much "control" their numbers, but that humans will adapt instead and come to be quite comfortable with sharing a single planet with perhaps 100s of billions of other people.]

Really? That's nice. I don't think, or many in this day in age, would adapt to that very well.

[How about this:

world happiness = average happiness per person * number of people]

nah. Maybe for you and your bible-thumping companions, but not for me.


[Sex still feels as good as ever, most every child is glad to come to life, the majority of people aren't finished having their children, no 'birth control" is simpler and more natural than interfering with unnatural contraceptives, large families tend to encourage their children to also have large families, and no matter how large overall populations grow most everybody rather likes living and often like to reproduce too.]

yeah maybe. So why don't you just go out yourself and fuck alot, then you'll have this big family you repeatedly talk about.

[Another reason for pronatalism in an increasingly populous world, is the consideration of the collective. Often, the God-given right of pro-creation, is viewed in terms of individual rights. Too many liberals or feminists may think that how many children they have, is nobody's business but their own. If that was every true, it isn't anymore. What if everybody had big families? Wouldn't society be forced to grow denser? Then our reproductive activities, although at the moment private, affects everybody around us. My point is, that these effects are largely positive. The huge size of the world population is largely responsible for a lot of this modern technology that we enjoy and take for granted. Either that, or God has given us such inventions, in order to better accomodate today's huge populations and welcome them to go on growing. Take your pick. It would seem to be at least one or the other, probably both. But when I add up all the powerful reproductive urges of so many individuals, and all the compelling reasons people have for having as many children as they do, I don't at all get any supposed "need" for ever more population "control" to supposedly keep things from getting out of hand, but rather a collective global goal and natural desire, to enlarge the entire human race, for the collective benefit of ALL.]

We were also given such a thing called a brain. We do not rely solely on fate (maybe some, but not completely). And we do not live solely for fucking.

[As it is with large families, the human race, better learns how to best enlarge its numbers, by so doing.]

Remember what I told you? You keep talking about it, then just get out there and start fucking yourself! God! You're all words.

[Religion is needed in there somewhere, just to explain why humans exist, and why humans are entitled to exist in such huge numbers, and where it is to, that we are likely headed. "Science" just can't explain all such abstract things. Religion also promotes morality and responsibility, and helps keep the populous masses in line and working together, for the common good of all. Even Karl Marx I think it was who said, that "religion is the opiate of the masses." Somehow, he must have missed the point though.[/QUOTE]

You say every single person's worth something, but all you refer to is the masses.
Some things I see what you're saying, but most I just can't agree with. You should really start forming some of your own opinions, instead of sucking of the Christian leaders. And the Bible. And Star Trek.

What, Pronatalist, did you just come on to hipforums to piss off all the hippies or something? Did you know you would get opposition here, so you came to spread your "cause" and try to poison our minds?

 

Overpopulation is mainly a problem in the poor countries? Well that's what a lot of Westerners think, until we read the propaganda of certain self-appointed population phobics, who complain about how much more resources that richer Westerns use, and say it is us then who most "overpopulate" the planet, for using some, pick a nice sounding round number here that the gullible masses might believe — 30 times the resources or having 30 times the environmental impact of, pick some icon of some poverty country in the world here — people in Bangladesh.

But we have families with as many as 15 or 16 children, here in the United States. That's what can sometimes happen to parents who love children and decide to reject the trendy, experimental, bizarre contraceptives, that are rampantly peddled these days, although for most all of history, humans did well without them. I see nothing at all wrong with a family having 15 children, as the 15th child is just as valuable and essential as the 1st child. The 15th child could not have possibly been born into a more "reasonably" smaller family, because it wouldn't be the same child, nor would there be so many, many people in the world, had all families on average, been smaller. And then we probably all know that what populates the planet feels so incredibly pleasurable, that some families giving birth some 15 times or more, is just the most natural and expected thing.

What I say needs to happen, is that the developing countries need to be more like us and modernize, to better support their burgeoning populations, and we should be more like them, and have more children, and welcome women to also breastfeed in public, and not be embarrassed to have even "all the children that God gives."

The world is growing way too dense with people, for people in developing countries to just keep peeing in ditches and streams and dirtying their rivers and pooping in their drinking water. But as people can gain wealth, enlarge their shacks to more modern housing units, and gain indoor flush toilets, and gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens to eliminate millions of smoky cooking fires from growing cities, it becomes quite possible to have lots of clean and big cities, in order to house all the people already here, and more to come. And if "environmentalists" really cared about people, as they should, then they would be more interested in promoting modern plumbing and clean water delivery systems around the world, and in greatly expanding the number of basic public sanitation essential toilets and such throughout the world, and stop flinging condoms in people's faces, as if they shouldn't love their children enough to have many, like the depraved Westerners.

I found it appallingly fraudulent and rude, at some recent UN Population Conference, to hear of them wanting to rampantly peddle ever more contraceptives in some "culturaly appropriate" way. What in the world is that supposed to mean? Don't they know that many cultures are too pronatalist to even have much any interest in contraceptives? I have read email newletters, claiming how people won't use condoms, because they want children and want to get pregnant. Whatever happened to "choice" and considering what people "want?" People think that outsiders are trying to promote "contraceptive imperilism," to attack their family values and promote sexual immority. It wasn't long ago, that contraceptives were associated with "dirty sex," such as prostitution. It's still much that way, but we don't like to admit it. Every since "the pill," STDs, AIDs, divorce, abortion, heartbreak, has grown to pandemic proportions. Since communists were into promoting chaos to weaken their rival countries, they were also into the "free love" concept, because who is this "God" who wants to bind us with "rules" to proper sexual ethics, such as marriage and love and commitment? So if there is no "culturally appropriate" way to promote contraceptives, do these UN power mongers content themselves to let countries "explode" in human population naturally then? If not, why the lies and deception, in trying to talk out of both sides of their mouths? Why don't they admit that they hate people and want to "cull" off some of the "excess" human population, like that nutcase in the news who says that it might be good for some disease to eliminate 90% of the people in the world? (And not many of us could hope to make the 10% cut?)

I am for women's rights to a point, but many of the original leaders of women's sufferage, such as Susan B. Anthony, were pro-life. They weren't looking for rampant contraceptive peddling, to later hurt women leading to imbalances in China with more boy babies living than girls who get aborted. They just wanted to vote and stuff too, as if they were people too. And obviously many Stay-At-Home Moms, aren't abused by their husbands, but the cooperative teamwork, helps make the family even stronger. People used to buy life-insurance, to protect against the vunerability of having but 1 wage-earner in the family, and when the market wasn't so glutted with now largely the 2-wage-earner families, 1 wage would actually pay the bills and buy a nice house. Now with more "money" we get more "inflation" and more taxes, and so we got pretty much nothing. Why stop with the 2-wage earner family, to fatten the stock portfolios of rich corporate CEOs and the tax-and-spend leeching of America? Why not put the children to work too? (sarcasm) Obviously, we also need to crack down on some men who abuse and beat their wives.

And don't forget, men can cook and change diapers too, and the older children often help out with the younger children, in large families. It's actually good for the older children to help with the younger children, because they mature faster, and don't think it to be the "end of the world," when they end up pregnant with their first baby, and discover that babies are "work" and not always "fun and games," even though many actually do happen to be married already by that time.

I've been to a few parties like that, and it really isn't that bad. People don't have to get 10 times as crazy, and there shouldn't be alcohol or nasty cigarette smoking at parties anyway. Sometimes they have to open a few windows or turn on the air conditioning, from all the body heat. I don't mind sometimes sitting on the floor, due to a lack of chairs and couches. I've got fold-up chairs I can put in my car, for Church picnics and such. When there's "too many" people at the party, they spill into other rooms, stand around the kitchen, and spill outside sometimes. But its still fun, and there's still plenty of food, especially when people bring food with them.

And we can do with somewhat less space to move, because, at least American households, are often too small anyway. What sense does it make to have 3-bedroom homes with multiple bathrooms, and only a person or 2 to occupy them? About the only reasons I can think of, is for to have a big house as a "status symbol," or to store all the stuff we accumulate from our shopping addictions, or perhaps wisely to plan for future family growth.

Some "environmentalists" seem to call for higher population density, perhaps to reduce sprawl or something. Do cities really need to be so spread out, with people having to drive long distance to everywhere? Perhaps so, where's there's lots of land, and people prefer to spread out. But it is a question that does come up.

Talking about space to move, in a program I watched, trying to confuse children about the human population situation, something that they shouldn't even need to worry their little head about just yet, "A Popular Little Planet," they depicted a door, into the planet, that a "new person" would symbolically be knocking on, when it is their turn to be born. So a child plays that role, and somebody answers the door, to an eeriely disturbing amoung of comotion going on behind the door. It seems that there is a massive crowd of 5 billion people, all trying to have a party at once. (The world has grown some since then, apparently.) "Please can I come in?" "Well it's getting kind of crazy in here, why don't you try Neptune?," and the boy slams the door shut.

Interesting metaphor, but it does little to promote human-friendly solutions. I have a soft heart, and I try to love other people as myself, so I recognize that no other planets are obviously accepting humans at the moment, so I would say something like, "Sure, come right in. We have billions. What's a few more?" Or, "Quick get in here, before somebody sees I am helping you." And just hold the door open, and welcome more people to come in, well since people need to live somewhere.

What I see in this metaphor, and in many other examples, is that it is the population phobics, who are creating most of the problems in accomodating more people, who could otherwise be absorbed more naturally, almost without hardly being noticed, by making an issue of it, and stalling needed improvements and reforms in favor of "one size fits all" contraceptive peddling.

If more and more people keep coming to "the party," there may be a need to build more cities, or maybe eventually to stack more people into highrise buildings, so let's start training the constuction engineers, and get busy then. Let's look to the future, and stop trying to hide in the past! If that's where it may be going, then let the growing cities naturally pull together and coelesce, let the baby booms persist and grow naturally, and let's concentrate more on "the party" than being needless "party poopers." Nature already sort of self-regulates, but not always the way we want, when our priorities are misplaced and poorly educated. The human race already grows gradually, although seemingly also steadily and relentlessly, and by the time there are 10 times as many people, we ourselves probably won't still be around, and it won't seem any less "normal" to our descendents, already born into such a populous world, than 6 or 7 billion people in the world, seems today. Increasingly, it seems that "overpopulation" is far more about vague feelings of possible, future feelings of "crowding," than anything "real" such as survival. Rather than hunger, obesity is more the world epidemic now, as more mouths to feed, brought more food and better food storage and distribution technologies.

Somebody on another forum, discussing the minor "announcement" of when the human race "suddenly?" hit the magic 6.5 billion mark, said that censuses displease God, because they lead people to worry about population issues. I liked that view, as he appears to be onto something. Well in the Bible, God was displeased with a census King David did, I think it was, because he was trying to count his strength in soldiers, rather than in God, and there was a punishment for that. I rather like censuses, if they aren't abused, in order for their Constitutional purpose of population-proportional representative government, rather than allowing pro-abort, tax-and-spend, socialist DemocRATS to cheap with "estimated" numbers inflated to benefit only their own special interest group. And for perhaps the demographic statistics that would help some civil engineers best and most efficiently plan where to add new roads and freeways first, and for entreprenuers to know where to locate their businesses and stores for a better chance of success. Properly used, censuses could perhaps be used to accomodate and encourage the natural increase of humans better, and never ever to actually try to "control" numbers.

On an episode of Captain Planet, an apalling cartoon of junk-science proganda that was never funny, nor appropriate for children to watch, as it would worry them needlessly, entitled "The Population Bomb," Captian Planet remarked towards the end I think, that "if we keep growing like we have been, there soon will be too many people everywhere." Wow! Nice way to make my day? How do they get it so backwards? That statement even seems to imply, that deep down inside, and also overtly, humans really do want to keep growing like we have been, regardless that the overall population is growing so huge. And I actually see largely, how that can be quite possible, if humans can simply give up the ridiculously low population densities of the past, and move ahead into the future, and seek to make the best of things, to benefit ALL people as much as reasonably possible. If we keep growing like we have been, it's quite likely because we have very good and compelling reasons to do so, and so as to allow for whatever "enormous" populations may be to come, if God leaves us that much time left on the earth, of course people should spread out, and ultimately come to live "everywhere," if ever need be. But if people could live "everywhere," then who's to say that it would be "too many" people? And of course the idea of expanding into outer space, doesn't occur to them in that episode, but in some other episode. How convenient to omit, over half the options in order to make a fraudulent point? So what was I doing watching Captain Planet anyway? Because I am not a naive optimist. I actually do study both sides of the issue. I want to know what lies, the enemy is telliing, so I can better my arguments to address and counter those lies. And I study my Bible first, for the standard of truth, and to keep me on track.

Well that's part of the problem, and what causes so much confusion. If humans aren't better than other creatures, then why can't you just live in a doghouse, or build yourself a big bird nest to keep warm? Properly thatched roofs of grass, shed the water and keep the inside quite dry. Why not do like the animals? Crawl into some little hole to sleep, and wear a coat all day, spending all day outside, since God didn't give humans much hair or fur to stay warm. Sometimes I have thought, if birds could "think" on a more human level, surely they would wonder why humans build themselves such big boxes to live in. What for do they need so much space to sleep in?

Jesus commanded people to love God with all your heart, soul and mind. And to love thy neighbor as thyself. Either we try to love one another, or we fight and end up killing one another. Which do you think would be the better model for today's populous world?

In a world of some 6.5 billion+ people, it's rather hard and impractical to not view the world in an athropocentric way. There's at least some 6.5 billion "reasons" for world population to be so incredibly huge as it is now, and even more "reasons" for it to be huger, should it manage to expand further. And it's not just me that points that out. What of all the people? People, people, people, on practically every TV channel, people singing on the radio and CDs, cartoon characters on TV acting like people, and pronatalist TV ads usually trying to sell more product, but also sometimes also selling pregnancy and population expansion?

"The world is getting smaller. Smell better." an old Hugo cologne commercial

Exactly what did they mean by that? Go ahead and breed, since we have bathtubs and cologne?

"The Pacifica. With room for 6, or 12, depending on how you look at it." a commercial for a minivan, depicting 6 visibly pregnant women getting out of it, and telling the valet to "be careful with our baby" (the van apparently)

What exactly is the message here? That if 100% of women of childbearing age were pregnant, that sales for vans suitable for large families, would likely increase? Actually, I like that vehicles with 3rd row seating, seem to be on the increase. Wasn't "carpooling" supposed to be a "good" thing that the "environmentalists" liked to promote? Well how many people can you get, into a little dinky tin can car? Even Rush Limbaugh was making fun of some poor "environmentally" deceived guy, in some song about a guy who buys a little Yugo, and gets creamed by a truck. And it ends with something about a guy across town, buying — you guessed it, a Yugo.

Well I like such commercials, because they are cool, and because I believe the human race rather curiously likes, ever expanding its numbers. We need hope and optimism, and to look for the fun or "lighter side" to things sometimes. And if persistant continuing population increases are yet to come, a more positive attitude about it, will do loads to help us make any needed adaptations.

 

Thanks for the explanation, but I find that a consistant style, making my replies to look somewhat different than the quote-backs, suffices to make it self-explanatory.

There is an old maxim, "Grow or die." What do you make of that one?

I don't think humans will ever colonize other worlds, but I really do think we should dream of such, in sci-fi stories. Humans are curious, and love to explore. But in practical terms, it's a lot easier to "cram" several planets' worth of people onto the earth, than to build "spaceship" like buildings on other worlds, nor to teraform other planets to become more human friendly. In exploring outer space, ironically, we probably learn how to populate our home planet more densely and efficiently.

And humans could adapt very nicely, if it wasn't for all the "overeducated idiot" anti-population naysayers and luddites, to try to value trees over people, confusing the issues.

And so why can't you be happy? Because you need to be Saved, or because you can't be happy when other people are happy? Or because you don't want to share in somebody else's joy and congratulate them on having a baby?

Well that's exactly what I plan to do, once I can find a wife and get married. Marital relations are largely about reproducing, and also serve to relieve an important human need or desire. The most natural and elegant outlet for humanity's powerful reproductive urges, is of course, reproduction.

Oh, how many times have I heard, that God gave people a brain? (to use contraceptives, which he didn't give us?) No, God gave people a brain, so that we need not be subject to the biological "carrying capacity" nonsense that holds mere animals back, into little, almost insignificant niches, because animals don't know much about things like preparing for the future or building tools and libraries.

And we do not live solely for fucking? Well gee wiz, and how did you figure this out? Sex = babies = more mouths to feed = washing dishes = dishwasher sales. It does appear you are right. You may be onto something here?

So I read my cryptic computer programming books, to teach myself how to program computers, so that I might someday further my employable skills, to get computers and machines to do more of our work, so that people can spend more time with their families, and perchance find more time for things they like doing, say like fucking. Most jobs, in some way or another, eventually serve to allow us to fuck all the more, and bring more children to life. Doesn't the Bible say something about that a person is worse than a heathen, if they don't provide for their children? Was it sex that makes the world go round? No, I believe the saying says that love makes the world go round. And love, is of course a reason, why people often actually want to get pregnant.

Well of course I plan to do that, when I have the proper opportunity. Of course then, I may be too busy with family duties, to spend much time on the internet forums?

Some time ago, I read some article in The Plain Truth, the free magazine that the Worldwide Church of God, I think it was, was promoting and giving away, before their more recent reform away from being such a cult, at the change of their leadership or something about "Supercities: Growing Pains of the Population Crisis." It said something about the numbers of women of childbearing age, are now larger than they have been, and how more and more cities are growing to 10s of millions of people. And then there was some blurb near the end of the magazine about "Future Baby Blast?" depicting a line of baby carriages. And it said that contraceptive use must increase from 50% to 75% to "stabilize" (stagnate) world population size. What a shame to see supposedly "religious" people adopt the worldly opinions of the world. But what are some better alternatives? Many of the people soon to be having children, tend to come from large families already, in developing countries that tend to be rather pronatalist. They may not be particularly interested in doing their part to meet some rather arbitrary target of 75% contraceptive use, and so why not have various baby booms around the world increasingly converge into some form of "global baby blast?" More and more people would be glad to live, so why not have some lines of baby carriages somewhere, now that we finally have billions of potential parents all around to raise so many? I would think that in a world with now over 3 billion penises, and over 3 billion vaginas, steadily populating themselves closer together, surely there ought to be a lot of fucking going on. Far better for people to be loving one another and having fun, than fighting amonst themselves for no good reason. Having children helps people be less selfish, more responsible, and more conservative, for the sakes of their children. Having children gives people something to do, to keep them out of trouble. And many people, are actually quite good at reproducing and raising children. It's something that most people appear able to do, and get better at, as they do it more.

I don't believe the excessively gloom-and-doom bad reports of the population phobic Malthusians. If God can feed 6 billion people, then God can feed 13 billion or 30 billion people. Because the people actually are being fed, is part of the reason they are growing so numerous, so that's very good news.

And I mean no disrespect by that. I try to both consider the needs of the many individuals, and also the collective, something that quite a lot of "special interest" groups, don't balance very well.

Am I picking up terminology, having read from too many "worldly" sources? Should perhaps I get a little more "religious" and "preachy?"

I do forms my own views. While of course I listen to people I respect, to inform me on the issues, and their views, I have spent years forming my views and making them more internally consistant. It is a fairly common consensus, like it or not, that in the future, the size of the human race could easily be "bigger" than it is now. Then why not look to the future for the standard in this, since looking to the past, goes back to pidly small population sizes that are no longer adequate for maintaining all the technology of today's complex world. Even if the so-called "population explosion" is over, can they really rule out "population creep," in which human populations continue to accumulate, although at a more slow and leisurely rate than in the past? And of course a growing runaway "birth dearth" could turn out to be a growing problem of too many elderly people wanting to retire all at once and not enough young workers to keep countries moving ahead.

Well who comes to forums to "preach to the choir?" Opposition from a forum? You don't say? How could this be? Gasp! I am shocked! (Not)

Do you think I should have picked a less conspicuous, less provocative, sceenname? Instead of "Pronatalist," I could be "just another guy" and blend in better with the populous masses? But whatever for? I know my views aren't always the most popularly accepted. I think people want to believe what I say, but they are scared about all the "what ifs." But sometimes I like to "blend in." I live in a fairly "ordinary"-looking house and drive a fairly "ordinary"-looking car. Just because I may be a pronatalist, doesn't mean I seek fame, and the lack of privacy that brings. I prefer that people "copy" my pronatalist ideas, because I don't even necessarily want all the credit, and I want for more people to be proclaiming them, because I think that the "runaway" population growth that "rosy predictions" of the likes of authors Julian Simon saying that we have no real population problems or that in time population problems solve themselves, may tend to lead to, would be very beneficial to the many, many humans.

 

Oh, I forgot to say, about that remark about "hippy" forums:

Wasn't the saying, "make love, not war," a "hippy" saying?

Uh, doesn't "making love," make babies?

Have hippies already forgot their own sayings?

 

Yes

No, making love isn't equal to making babies. Have your heard about condoms? Contraception pills and stuff like that are made for people who just want to make love.

 

But if more people would simply enjoy making love, without any of those nasty, awkward contraceptives, there could be all the more people alive in the future, to also enjoy making love.

Geesh! Why do something only but halfway?