overpopulation

Well gee, if people focused more on good will towards other people, clean and healthy living, wouldn't that help all the more, towards a comfortable and denser world population, to benefit all the more people?

Human populations burgeon, because they are too small, and lots more people could also enjoy living. People go on reproducing, because apparently they are somehow finding room, to add in all their progeny. How can the population phobics be so one-sided, as to consider so slightly, all the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, and how those reasons could quite likely be quite valid?

When I add up all the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, and the powerful reproductive urges that most humans enjoy, and that humans curiously after puberty tend to be constantly "in heat" able to breed year-round, that all adds up to a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race. So if so, then let's get on with it, and make the best of things, and promote the greater good for the many--more human reproduction, within marriage but of course.

 

this mantra of "more people would be happy to be alive" is flawed.
it implies that a non-existent entity is unhappy about its non-existence. impossible.
it also suggests that there is somehow more value in a massive number of humans than there is in an individual.

in an ideal world, everyone would be happy to simply exist. but we live in a world where millions of people are poor, undernourished, sick, abused and at war (you know, some of those "minor growing pains" that actually ruin people's lives). hardly recipies for a default state of happiness.

idealism or realism? virtually all people want to have sex. not so many people wish to be married.

there is nothing shoddy, experimental or arkward about contraception such as the pill. it has been reliably in use since the 1960's and is a symbol of a woman's right to choose if and when she has a child.

it comes down to fundamental human rights, anyone who believes they are entitled to deny people their rights is on shakey moral ground.

 

How is it flawed? That most everybody wants or ends up having children, that most everybody is glad to come alive and be born, that people of course expect not to be "limited" by some idiotic arbitrary quota as to how many children they may have, that parents gain all the more experience raising children the more they have, humanity's powerful reproductive urges for which reproduction is the rather obvious and most natural and elegant outlet, all that adds up into a natural global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race.

Especially in a modern populous world in which some evil or misguided people seek to make the most innocent of all--the children, the handy scapegoat for all the worlds ills, merely for being born "too many" all at once seemingly, there is all the more need for compassion and pronatalism, to remind people how much that "children are our future," and that these needy children need very much to be welcomed and wanted, and a more pro-life and pro-population society or world helps assure such.

How is it that so many people have so much problem with basic logic? If the child is glad to live after the fact, after having been conceived and born, that implies that it must also have been "good" before the fact, to go ahead and welcome more children to come to life, if at all possible, as nature or nature's God permits. To assume otherwise is to assume a contradiction, or to be blinded by looking at things only through linear time, not seeing the future or potential, as God can and does.

Is there more value in having a massive number of individuals alive, all at once? Sci-fi fans of colonizing more worlds, perhaps think so. But what of the rather simple Utilitarian Principle concept that often that which is best to do, is that which most benefits the most people. Well I have not been the only one to notice that that could easily imply massive human population growth, as I have read of that idea on some website somewhere. Simply so that there could be all the more people around to benefit from whatever. Contrary to the evolution-slanted views of the population phobics, the sacred value of each and every individual, is largely independent of population size. Thus, there really is some basis to the simple idea, "the more the merrier." God imputes value to us, and we value ourselves, so every individual is worth just as much, regardless of family or population size. Most any parent could tell you that their 10th child is worth just as much, as their firstborn. It's hardly some "fixed-size pie" sort of situation. But what if we could somehow sum up, the entire value of the entire human population alive? More people obviously implies more value there. To convert relatively cheap matter or food into additional human bodies of immense value, is a great "investment" at least philosophically. Sure, there might be some value in "open spaces" or "pristine" wilderness, but there is quite a lot more value to spaces filled with humans. Most anybody in real estate or development professions, should obviously know that.

An "ideal" world, would be something like the Biblical endtimes millenium reign of Jesus, as King of Kings. Finally a moral and trustworthy ruler! But if there is to be any thoughts of moving the world towards something of a "utopia," which I hear means not only some sort of man-made "paradise" but also "nowhere," how could it be anything other than incredibly populous? What with all the people already alive? How could any "utopia" be possible, if it seeks from the start to exclude most of the people, such that they have no option to oppose it? The idea of many of the population-phobic globalists, seems to be not "utopia" at all, but to enslave the human race, and to allow just enough worker drones to live, so that they can live their wealthy and lazy lives without having to do too much real work. And certainly not to allow people like me to live, to raise "embarassing" questions about the corrupt world which they have delusions to somehow form, were they to have their way. Yeah, the Bible already describes such a world, and calls it the Great Tribulation, a time during which nobody would survive, except that God is merciful enough to shorten those days.

Surely you don't think that having children, is but a priviledge reserved for the filthy rich? The very ones who seem to find the most pathetic excuses not to be "bothered" to breed naturally. I understand a lot about why the poor seem to go on having so many children, and why as I have heard, the places with the least room for more people, seem to get the most babies. Because they say of the poor, that children are their only wealth. Who would dare steal away their only wealth? They also say that the expense of contraception is out of the question for the poor, and that sex is their only recreation. And what really else is there to do, in some third world village, with no electricity in the dark, but conceive more babies?

They say that the rich get richer, and the poor get babies. But who would sell their own children for money? So who really is the "rich?" The scrooges holed up in their vaults, sometimes loney, forever counting their money? Or the friendly people who love children, and think that most every baby imaginable is so "cute and adorable" as they say?

Where is it written anyway, that people must be sick, and at war? I think that the selfish philosophy of the population phobics, directly seeks to devalue human life, and thus encourage all the more "abuse" of which you speak. Couldn't they repent? Couldn't people at least try to love their neighbors as themselves, as Jesus commanded? Wouldn't it be perhaps easier, to convince more people of the need to promote the social graces, as the world naturally populates more densely together, instead of trying to dupe them out of their children and tricking them to use shoddy and highly experimental contraceptive potions and poisons, that seek directly to go against nature and deny human life?

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

Why be a "party pooper?" As I read some years ago, in an article entitled "Supercities: Growing Pains of the Population Crisis," a significant reason for so much human population expansion, is that the numbers of women of childbearing age is larger than it has previously been. Well why not have some compassion, and consider the basic needs of so many people? I can't hardly think of a better reason to perhaps build some more "supercities," than that the numbers of women of childbearing age, perhaps continues to rise. Does that mean that parents should now, love their children less, just because humans are naturally growing so numerous? I should think not.

They say that you can't stop people from having sex. Yeah, humans are so hedonistic or something? Humans seem to be among the most "horny" of God's creatures. And yet we are already naturally among the slowest breeders, usually having babies but only 1 at a time. If there's now more people alive, who of course expect to pair up, marry, and have children, then why can't they enjoy obeying the vital commandment God gave, clear back in the first chapter of Genesis (1:28), and again right after the Great Flood (9:1), to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. What does that commandment then say to do, when the human population ultimately becomes "huge" in the view of some? Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. How about when perhaps the world becomes "full" in the opinion of some population pessimists? Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. It has no expiration clause. Humans are to keep on reproducing, and welcoming all the more fellow people to come alive, to also worship God, for as long as God allows us the ability to do so. It doesn't appear to extend into eternity, as Luke 20 says that people in the hereafter, aren't given into marriage, but become as the angels. God's commandment to humans to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, also implies not only that married people ought not to use "preventive measures" to limit natural family growth, but also that it is God's responsibility to decide for us, matters of family size or when the earth is finally to be said to be "full." So what part of "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" do we not understand?

Now what does the Bible say about proper population management? Look at the example of Abraham and Lot's naturally growing tribes. They made a conscious decision to spread out, as they noticed they were growing more and more numerous, and why have conflict over resources and the grazing of animals, when the land was so vast, and they could simply spread farther apart? Now did they think that would be a "permanent" solution? Probably not, as nothing at all was suggested to "limit" their numbers, and so in time, people would eventually grow to fill all the gaps more in between them, just as much so, even more, than before they decided to spread out. And then people would have to move even farther apart, to restore the old pidly-low population density of the past. Ultimately, since the area of the earth is finite, as I recall reading some poster around here, claiming, spreading out would eventually lead to humans encircling the entire globe, and running into themselves again. What to do then? Well then population denser. People are supposedly intelligent and social creatures, and so people can both survive and thrive, even at extreme population densities if need be. But now we have modern plumbing and dams, and water sanitation plants, and even ocean water desalination, making great and populous cities all the more possible. Back in Abraham and Lot's day, they had wells, and not a lot of population-accomodation technology. But at least some people have faith in God back then, something that modern society seems to be going out of its way, to forget.

idealism or realism? virtually all people want to have sex. not so many people wish to be married.

Have you not heard of "side effects?" Many people have had many problems with various forms of contraception. It makes them nausious, makes them gain weight, damages the reproductive system, etc. You can read of them in more detail elsewhere, as I am not a doctor, but I even recall the rather questional excuse I heard somebody tell me, that her boyfriend is "too big" to use condoms. Well obviously, that could be called into question, but there is the basic problem that quite a lot of people don't like condoms, because they are awkward and dull sensitivity. And condoms are the only form of contraception, claimed to provide some "protection" from STDs, which I call sharply into question, since they also promote risky behavior and promiscuity. And they are known often to slip off, break, leak, and not even cover up everything, as what is it, crabs or something that doesn't even require that direct of contact to be transmitted? Penises do come in an assortment of sizes, and I can imagine that the young and inexperienced especially, can have trouble finding "a good fit." And I find "birth control" not only to be morally repugnant for its selfish aim to prevent possible human life of those who would not want to have been prevented, the very best possible rationalization for so many people to have so much sex to begin with, but to have intimate contact with one's mate, while wearing a "medical glove" so to speak, is to go against nature and love and intimancy, and to create not only a physical barrier to the natural transmission of life, but also some form of spiritual barrier to intimancy, and to go against a proper life of trust and faith in God.

The advent of "the pill" and the accompanying "free love" promiscuity movement against respect for God's ways, did nothing really much towards "freedom to choose" (not to have children) as people already had a very simple way, that almost always worked. (The virgin birth of Jesus, would seem to be the only known exception in history, well unless you want to count modern "test tube" babies.) That method was free, and generally available to the populous masses. It was simply, have less sex. But the obvious "problem" with that method, is that faced with the simple option to go without sex, or have a possibly-large family, most people seemed to prefer to just go on having babies naturally. After all, there was a whole planet to fill, and "farmhands" were needed anyway, or so I hear from people. Now I don't expect people to have less sex, but to pair up and marry and provide for their children. But were it not for the biological and moral "duties" of humans to procreate, it could be called into question, why humans should be so intimately physically bonding, as to share bodily fluids with their mates, which can't really be all that "sanitary" can it be?

I seek to defend people's most basic rights, including the basic right to procreate, even if in an incredibly populous world. What's a few more children, in a world of burgeoning billions? Nothing much to perhaps the population bean-counters of the world, but everything to those children who could be born no other way. It's not just about individual rights, but also about promoting the greater good of the populous many, including defending the right and need for humans to actually be or become so incredibly numerous to begin with.

 

wrong. disease and war may not be encouraged by any human manuscript, but that doesn't change the fact that they are a REALITY. those concerned about overpopulation are envisioning a future where resources are scarce, yet there are more people in need of the most basic resources. the result of this situation would be a war for resources (if you think otherwise then you don't understand human nature). we are advocating the prevention of future wars by keeping our numbers at a sustainable level.

your opinion of contraceptives is noted, but you should note that millions of people use them sucessfully without complaint. those enlightened, intelligent people who don't believe in supernatural beings, virgin births, walking on water, or evil demons, are entitled to NOT WANT CHILDREN (for resons that are none of your business). it's their choice.

let's be clear about this: restricting contraceptive use IS restricting human rights. period. nobody is saying that people don't have the right to procreate, we're suggesting that people not breed irresponsibly, to avoid worsening social/environmental problems (e.g: South Africa). what you are saying, is that people MUST procreate, even if it is against their wishes.

consider this scenario: 14 year old girl gets raped and impregnated in ignorant village. girl wishes for abortion but local priest forbids it because 2000 year old book says so. girl has child, recieves no support from family and is ostracised for having illegitimate child. no support from father, obviously. child grows up in state of poverty with no hope of a decent life. teen mother also has poor life because caring for her baby consumes all her time and money, if she has any.

now, whose rights are more important here? those of the EXISTING human, or those of the embryonic fetus that has no conception of who/what it is. sure, it would be lovely for the baby to have a happy life, but remember: that option doesn't apply. it's a choice between no baby, or two unhappy lives.

let's have an intelligent answer that addresses the problem in less than 50 paragraphs, and doesn't mention the contents of obsolete, superstitious human texts. reality only, please.

 

I know of some ways to rid ourselves of overpopulation, but they're not pretty.

 

Part 1 of 2:

Because of sin.

Well I am hardly responsible for their foolishly chosen false delusions.

What about those concerned about human life and basic human freedom?

If there are more people than beds, why fight over stuff needlessly? Ever hear of sharing? I have shared a bed in a motel room, because I would rather be frugal than rent another room. For some strange reason, women seem to think little of it, but men are more "shy" I guess we could call it. But the way to "share" is to turn towards opposite ends of the bed and pretend the other person isn't there, since the Bible says that man shall not lie in bed with man as with woman. That doesn't mean they can't share the bed, but not in the same manner as with one's spouse.

Some survivor of 9-11 said on national TV news that he missed his brother. "We once shared beds because there was so many of us," he said. Better to share it sounds like, than to have one's own private bed, all of the time.

I am concerned that there be a place for everybody, even it it at times means "scooting over" a bit, or a little sharing for a while, at least until more housing and more cities and such, can be built.

Besides, it's the enviro wackos who most seem to be in favor of scarce resources, by creating phony "crises."

And on a related note, here's an idea I had recently. If supposedly government can be allowed to claim to have any basis to limit natural human population growth, presumably to "conserve resources" as some population phobics like to falsely claim, let's take a look at what that false assumption then implies. That then implies that the government has the right to manage and limit resources, therefore, government can at any time it wishes, restrict resource availability, and create arbitrary shortages, perhaps to fatten the profits of greedy corporations that in turn give bribes -- make that "campaign contributions" to favor their own selfish interests. Conversely, if government has no right to "limit" natural human population expansion, then the government is obligated to allow all the necessary resource development expansion, even if it has to use supposed "out of control" human population growth as an excuse, say like to force people for example to move elsewhere to make room for a new dam, to provide for the greater good of the many. Of course people made to move, in the name of progress or whatever, the Constitutional thing about imminent domain, deserve just compensation for their moving expenses and property losses, so that they can afford to relocate elsewhere. If they are "inconvenienced" of their property rights for the public good, necessarily, then of course, the public to be benefitted, must compensate them.

Come on. Not even all the population phobics believe that nonsense, judging by the bizarre "Mark of Gideon" Star Trek episode. On that planet, because the people were prolific and thought "birth control" to be repugnant, the people (eventually) populated to the point that there was nowhere left to sit down. And yet amazingly, they "forgot" to go to war, and also "forgot" that they could have had more room, had they merely thought to stack people into highrises and skyscrapers. And amazingly, the people didn't even bother to explore how to colonize more worlds. (Perhaps they were too busy breeding?) But then, that was back in the population paranoia time of the "free love" rebellious 1960s, eugenicist and "environmental" extremists looking for an excuse to hawk their nasty shoddy contraceptives, followed by the "me first" Zero Population Growth mania 1970s. Surprisingly, the lady in the story, that earlier had said something about how the people so long for privacy but can never find any, because there is no place anywhere that isn't full of people, then admits how adapted the people are to living in an endless global crowd, with some comment about as crowded as her planet is, she could with for it to hold one more person. How is it that sly ol' Captain Kirk just seems to get all the women? I find "Mark of Gideon" to be a mixed-up, inconsistant attack on the beliefs of people of faith, and of anybody who would claim to be "pro-life," suggesting a bizarre scenario that most anybody informed on the issues must conclude to not be particularly likely, especially within the forseeable future.

Some population website claimed that we are in an era of "weak restraints on growth." Or in other words, as I sometimes like to claim, most anything that could keep our burgeoning numbers "in check" seems to be fast fading away. Even the food supply seems to be trending towards the "unlimited" food supplies provided in those bizarre and almost totally irrelevant animal "overpopulation" experiments. I heard somewhere, that they also did such an experiment on apes, to which the apes, upon becoming "overcrowded" from having more and more apes admitted to the same cage confines, took to grooming each other to avoid conflict. Whoops! They adapted? That wasn't supposed to happen, as the population phobics already knew what conclusion they preferred, to hype how "impossible" it is for highly adaptable humans to make the possibly necessary adaptations, and so we always hear of the dysfunctional rats or mice, and never of any creature with intelligence anywhere close to that of humans? But the author of that website that I came across claiming "weak restraints on growth," worried that limited resources might challenge those weak restraints on growth. Well why do you think I am so pro-development? We already have the needed options, but we have crazy enviro wacko luddites who whine about a little "urban sprawl" here and there, and whine about wind energy turbines supposedly being "unsightly," lest the working poor might be able to find affordable housing and not have to "overcrowd" their homes as their numbers over time naturally rise, and they find themselves having to share, perhaps sometimes with several families, or daughters and sons coming to marry, and having at times, multiple pregnant women under the same roof.

People of faith often tend to believe that God can "sustain" a population of any size that God would multiply our numbers to. Therefore, there is no need of any counterproductive, against-the-many, effort to actually "limit" numbers. People of faith also tend to believe that God ordains a specific purpose, even their destiny, to each and every person, such that there never can be any "surplus" population nor "too many" people globally, although regional "too many" people can obviously be solved or mitigated by such simple approaches as migration and advocacy of much-needed development, which would be needed BTW, regardless of whether human populations grew further or not, since human populations throughout much of the world, are already massively-populated or "huge." And don't you think people denied of their most basic rights, such as to procreate, tend to get hopping mad, and prone to take to "revolution" to throw off the cruel tyrants that seek to enslave them? What more transparent way to show a person that they are a "slave," but to "regulate" how many children married people may have!

Noted, but have you fully considered it?

One thing that really griped me about a recent UN "Population Conference," is their blantant insincerity. There was some prominant statement about promoting contraceptive use, in "culturally appropriate" ways. Oh really? Well what if in many countries, which often happen to be even more pronatalist than the U.S., there are no culturally appropriate ways? Then they are content to let those countries' populations "explode" naturally? Why the deception? If they really just hate people, who often conveniently just happen to be of a different skin color or ethnic group or race, why don't they just say so? If their ideas are so compelling or urgent, why can't they sell them with honesty?

It is hugely embarrassing some of the crazy things I have heard about the rampant contraceptive hawking of this supposedly "modern" and "civilized" age. I have heard that people in third world countries give condoms to their children to play with as balloons. I have read that people use condoms to waterproof their shack roofs. I have read in conservative email newsletters that I receive, that many people won't use condoms, because they actually want children and want to get pregnant. (Surprise, Surprise? They say that in poor countries, children are "old age security.") How is it that medical clinics run short on basic supplies such as clean needles, but have more contraceptives than they possibly know what to do with? That's why I often use terms such as "contraceptive imperilism."

Somewhere I heard of some African village, where contraceptive peddlers were trying to hawk their "family planning." Some "family planning" "worker" warned the people, that at their current rate of growth, they would double their numbers in just 25 years. (Also said to be around the natural rate of human population expansion without any "birth control," I heard somewhere.) To which the people all started clapping. ??? Fascinating! Apparently somebody had forgotten to tell the people, that over-educated Western contraceptive imperilists, consider population growth in humans, to be "bad." Now were these people completely stupid? Do they have no idea what "twice as many" people means? They must not be completely stupid, if they are so well managing to multiply their numbers, even without all the nifty modern technology that they should have had by now, had the world's economic and political systems been designed more fairly to benefit ALL the masses. It means villages growing bigger and closer together. It means more people collecting firewood, and more human wastes in the water, if they haven't yet modernized to better modern plumbing and water treatment plants. It means more mouths to feed. It means more neighbors, living closer together, which of course shouldn't be a problem, provided that the people are friendly and moral. But many poorer people, just have not learn the Western conceits of viewing children to be some "burden." Children help brighten their otherwise dreary lives. They probably love their children, just as much, if not more, than the more developed countries of the world. And oh, BTW, sex feels good and is available to the masses, regardless of wealth or social elitist status. Actually, I think doing one's part to help enlarge the human race, helps make sex all the more exciting and erotic, in a manner of speaking. It's more natural, when pregnancy is a very real and welcome possibility.

Oh really? You must not be very informed on that subject either. "Condoms dull sensitivity." "Condoms are a hassle." For many people, "Condoms don't fit quite right." I had a neighbor who admitted to me, that the condom broke, I think it was. So he married her, rather than pay child support. When I was in the military, I heard of guys supporting children they weren't even sure were their own. I wonder what their "excuse" for not using contraception was. Oh yeah, how about the classic "contraceptive failure" excuse! Even the contraceptive peddlers admit to a miniscule chance of "failure," and their bogus numbers, of course assume that the method is used "perfectly," each and every time, highly unlikely for unmarried teenagers.

I think I even saw a claim of an 85% "failure" rate for the "no method" method, which is blantantly untrue. And that is easily demonstrated. Let's say that out of some "representative sample" of 100 women not using any "protection," 85 of them become pregnant within a year. What's the probability of acheiving another pregnancy, while already pregnant? Remember, over half are already pregnant. And natural breastfeeding is said to often delay pregnancy, but generally not claimed to be a "reliable" method. The people who seem to most "pop" out baby after baby, generally have them at least 1 1/2 year to 2 years or more, apart. That can't hardly be an 85% "failure" rate. And then, to claim 85% "failure" surely must be among the most fertile age group of women, as old women past menopause, rarely ever manage to have a baby most every year, if at all. The most fertile age group, can't hardly be said to be a "respresentative sample" of the general population.

How about this for a married-couple complaint? "I feel like sex, out camping in some tent, but left the contraceptives at home." Wasn't a lot of the whole excuse for "manufacturing" the supposed "need" for contraceptives, that didn't much exist before, that people didn't have enough "self control" to use Catholic-tolerated rhythm? So why should they have "self-control" now, in the privacy of their tent, when their arousal or a natural erection arises? Well why exactly can't babies anymore be conceived while getting "carried away in the heat of passion?" Even some pathetic sex-ed condom-commercial animated cartoon-drawing depiction, showed the guy quickly get a boner, and immediately insert his uncovered penis into her vagina and start pumping. Well that's more like what married people should be doing, assuming the times when they might not want to mess around with all that "foreplay."

I would understand and have compassion I think, were I ever to hear the hopefully-married couple in the next tent, start making love. Such is the "music" or "rhythm of life." Hopefully, we might be a bit more quiet, as we join in with the sounds of their love-making, sort of a naturally-spreading semi-private orgy, or explain what the neighbor sounds are, to our children. I've never heard that happen, but have heard the neighbor through a thin apartment wall, and read of some poster posting of hearing those human-mating sounds, through open windows during summer of some rather close housing arrangements where they apparently lived. And as I have read, long ago in the past, it was probably normal to hear the neighbors "doing it" sometimes, as people (or indians) would have gathered their homes (or teepees) close together, for safety, perhaps from wild animals.

I am quite sure that people complain, and that's a huge contributing reason for why many families tend to grow large, perhaps supposedly "unintentionally," but they usually don't air their complaints publically. Not all large families are "planned." I think what often happens, is that people marry, and next thing before all that long they are pregnant, having babies like all their friends are also having babies. After a while, they have already had 4 children, and still haven't got around to selecting a "satisfactory" means of "family planning," and they may not even realize that if they don't do something soon, their family is starting to get kind of "large." Often they may not care, or may not have given it much thought, as a father of 8 at my Church, told me when I asked why he had so many children. He invited me over for lunch after Church one day, and getting to tour his home, I noticed it to be "full," with not a single "extra" bedroom or bed, but not at all "overcrowded." They had bedrooms all the way up a spiral staircase up into a finished attic. And they seemed a quite functional and beautiful family and home.

I had a friend who eventually confided to me, that they had decided to try for a 5th child. I think it was him, who lived in a double-wide mobile home, and probably didn't "technically" have much room for more children. He neglected to mention whether I had persuaded him in any way. He also, BTW, neglected to mention any of his contraceptive "complaints" that I could suspect that they, like most humans, likely had. (It's unlikely I would have forgot, had he told me.) It could even be, to "try" for a 5th child, as a relief from having to bother with contraceptives. If a 5th child is at least "okay," then contraceptives suddenly become "quite unnecessary," right?, and they can enjoy sex more naturally, like how God intended for humans to enjoy it.

I once had a neighbor, from India, who had 2 babies in 2 cribs, in their living room, in a little 1-bedroom apartment like the one I had. I must have remarked something about how I thought it quite proper, to be having babies, or to let families grow naturally large, even if in a small apartment. But apparently they didn't completely agree, for they soon moved out and moved into a bigger home. Well why not, since they probably had the means to afford a bigger home for their growing family? I suspect they went on to have more children, but of course, never heard after that, as people move on and make new friends.

 

Part 2 of 2:

Reasons that are none of my business? What a laugh. How about the government get their nose out of everybody's business, so that the government can mind it's own business and actually do something right for a change, and then maybe we can become a bit more content to not be nosy and mind other people's business.

And BTW, are we now talking about "population" or about selfish "choice" to reject God's blessings of children, since almost always in these discussions, people love to harp on "population matters" and not much about "personal choice?" As I have said, I don't fancy that I have some magical or charismatic ability to persuade people, such that everybody would go on and have naturally possibly-large families just because I say so, but rather that they might consider any reasons or rationale I state, and then find their own reasons (or excuses) to possibly have more children if more babies happen to happen along. Some might go along out of "peer pressure" as most all their friends seem to be "popping out" the babies, they might as well relax and have some too, as global population "control" may yet prove to be a gloriously futile waste-of-effort.

Blah, blah, blah. You think I am not familiar with the nonsense that various femi-nazis parrot? All their hype about supposed "reproductive rights" (strangely to not reproduce?)

Lest you accuse me of something untoward, I might as well tell you where I stand. If somebody presented me with a petition to ban contraceptives in my community, as some "obscenity" or assualt on the sacred value of human life, I would sign it, because I know far too much about what a huge curse contraceptives have been to the human race, contraceptives pretty much failing on most every promise they would have seemed to make. Contraceptives have done nothing to make children feel more welcome, done nothing to make them more "wanted," done nothing to reduce abortions--actually encouraging the "fix the mistakes that slip by" abortion mentality, promoted selfishness and promiscuity, degraded Western sexual relations almost to the point of prostitution, spread STDs and AIDs, contributed hugely to lack of intimate bonding and the divorce pandemic, .... need I go on?

Of course, BTW, there is no practical way to ban married couples having less sex or no sex, as the Bible doesn't even specify how often exactly married couples ought to have sex, nor how it could possibly be enforced or detected, other than that they probably ought to have sex, whenever either of them feels like enjoying it, lest they become tempted to sexual sin (adultery).

And in the unlikely? event that a community somewhere in the hedonistic Western world manages to ban contraceptives, how could I possibly be "to blame?" If the petition or whatever passed, then isn't it likely pretty much, the will of the people? Don't like the stupid rules of the housing association of some neighborhood? One could always move elsewhere?

To sum up, rather than discriminate unfairly, perhaps I like to be something of an "equal opportunity discriminator." In other words, I will talk bad or of the sin, of various black people (Rap-is-crap), white people (contraceptive imperilism), yellow people (1-child-policy), red people (false religion/devil worship), or whatever, as I imagine God's prophets often did, and for which some people who hate truth, hated them for. Because I want to at least "try" to love thy neighbor as thyself, since Jesus commanded it. Would a loving doctor cover up cancer with a bandaid and pretend it is okay? Or would he tell the patient the truth, and recommend a possible remedy, out of care for the patient, and hopefully, professional ethics?

Well the world has a really strange definition of "breeding irresponsibly." The Bible clearly states that breeding responsibility, is within marriage, and providing for and loving one's children. The Bible does not restrict breeding to any economic class of people, but merely to marriage and work to provide for one's family. Nowhere in the Bible, is there any hint that people have any obligation to "limit" their numbers, but rather the converse, be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That implies a lot of things, including as time passes, we should expect the world to gradually and naturally grow fuller and fuller of people. That's one practical reason why I advocate modern and clean, but also huge megacities populating closer together, even cities coelescing into one another, as I imagine that there's simply not room anymore, for all that many people to live miles from their neighest neighbor. Fortunately, most people have no desire to be miles from their nearest neighbor. Very few people are hermits or xenophones.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=xenophobe (See Definition #5.)

People must procreate, because it is human nature, and God's design. It's a practical and likely reason, why God made what populates the planet, to be so incredibly pleasurable, to remind us not to forget our duty to procreate.

One of the reasons for the peddling of shoddy contraceptives in developing countries, effectively attacking their culture and promoting promiscuity, contraceptives still often being associated with "dirty sex" (i.e. prostitution), is this idea of "The Lifeboat Ethic" popularized I think, by Garrett Hardin. Supposedly, as I have read, the world is like a "lifeboat" that can only hold but X number of people. Add "too many" people, and everybody "sinks." And so it is often suggested, that if we help developing countries with giving (or selling or trading) them medicine and food, we help increase longevity, decrease infant mortality, and encourage more childbearing. All of which, as the hokey story goes, serves to worsen the presumed "overpopulation," and now we have more needy or hungry people than before. Therefore, supposedly, to have compassion or thy neighbor for thy neighbor, is "counterproductive." What a cruel and false world outlook! Conversely, because world population continues to grow, that is a practical reason to expect, even "demand" of the various nations, including China, that they do their part to help absorb the expanding human race, by populating more vastly and densely and efficiently, however they best can, especially in welcoming their own natural increase, their very own children. Thus, it is no "embarassment" for China or India or any nation, to be or naturally become a "population giant," and if they are to be a population giant, or "population billionaire," by all means, be proud to be a population giant. So I prescribe, not nasty, slip-off, flimsy/thin (lest people wouldn't use them) condoms, but more toilets and modern gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens for the developing countries too, as if one must perhaps live somewhat closer to one's multiplying neighbors, it would be prudent to learn to be clean, and since more people now have to breathe the same air, put out those nasty cancer stick cigarettes!

"The developing countries should be more like us, and modernize, to better support their burgeoning populations. We should be more like them, and have more children." Pronatalist

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

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

Okay, rape is a heinous crime, possibly punishable by death, upon conviction. But only the rapist is guity, right? Maybe she is somehow partly guilty (probably not), and surely the baby is the most innocent. So why is the baby sentenced to death, even being denied of a trial? Had it been my wife raped, I would consider the child (Pregnancy rarely occurs due to rape.) to be my child, and not the rapist's. No support from the family? Now is that moral? You suggest that a baby not be aborted due to moral reasons, due to some old 2000 year old book, and don't consider the moral implications for families to help and give encouragement and support, for something that presumably wasn't even their daughter's fault? That's awfully inconsistant. I prefer to marry a virgin, but a child from previous marriage especially if she is a widow, or from rape, is understandable. I never suggested that mothers should have to parent alone. I do believe in holding fathers responsible, and I am not so sure that the "shotgun wedding" was a bad idea, in many cases. "So you got my daugher pregnant, eh? Now I know that you are going to marry her and take care of her now!?" I also suspect that "arranged marriages" weren't always so bad as the Western world makes them out to be. What parent doesn't consider the wishes of their child? I suspect that "arranged marriages" have a better divorce-free track-record, than our Western "serial polygamy" approach we seem to be doing now. For one thing, we get so used to "shopping around" for a mate, that we can't seem to stop shopping, after the marriage, wondering if maybe there was a better sale or deal, somewhere else. In fact, I wonder incredulously, at that song in the movie, Fiddler on the Roof, entitled "Matchmaker, matchmaker make me a match. Find me a find, catch me a catch..." Where are the "matchmakers" these days? The Church seems to almost act, like brides just drop down from the sky, like angels or something.

And have you not heard that abortion is often more traumatic than the rape? Or is that all hush-hush too, just like all those hush-hush contraceptive complaints? One reason that people don't complain more about shoddy contraceptives, is because they have been deluded out of their children. What person likes to go around and brag to everybody they know, how some con-man has robbed them of all their life savings? Often after something like that, people feel stupid and guilty, as to let themselves be so suckered. And to consider the "no method" method of "family planning," can be scary, because then only "prayer" might work, and then what becomes of this modern notion of "reproductive rights?" A huge waste of effort and time? Family size still is practically "uncontrollable" as it was thought to be, in the past? People don't like to believe that they might have been previously deceived, so it is difficult to let go of their anti-life, contraceptive/abortion mentality brainwashing. After all, if so many people believe contraceptives to be such a hot idea, can they really all be wrong? And yet, what of the nearly half of the world population, who still don't much want to bother with awkward, anti-life contraceptives? Can they all be wrong? What of our ancestors, who had little or no use for contraception? Could they all be wrong? What of the Church, both Protestant and Catholic, that was pretty much all against "family planning," at least up until the 1930s, and at least somewhat up into the 1960s? Could they all be wrong too? Or are we wrong now? Tell me, which is more likely?

What about adoption? What about giving life a chance? Why the assumption of "unhappy" lives? The embryonic fetus may not yet have conception of who/what he or she will be, before conception, but how is it in any way "fair" to a baby, to put so much effort into quickly growing, to become able to survive and have a life outside the womb, to suddently snatch it all away? After conception, even the baby has a current "vested interest" in the matter. But the fetus will have conception of who/what he or she is, after conception, and especially after birth. By that bit of non-logic, let's say I knew you were going to inherit $million, but you didn't know it yet. Okay for me to steal it away, since you aren't aware yet? If not, then do you cede that I win this point? Knowledge of one's future, isn't a prerequisite of basic human rights. I don't consider myself "better" than my future children, merely because I got here or alive first, and so I don't believe in creating barriers to their possible conception. If it so be that future generations tend to become larger and more populous, like us, they don't know how to be "less numerous" either, and so I think they really do want to be more populous.

"One of the best things we can do for future generations is to have lots of children. How else can they be born?" Pronatalist

I made it! Only around 40 reply paragraphs. 40 is less than 50. Too bad I didn't make the character limit for posting.

 

Gee, sometimes I actually manage to post a short posting.

Ha! I can think of one. How about we get rid of the Green Nazi overpopulation-whiners? While it wouldn't remove many people, it least it wouldn't seem so "crowded" around here, without liars like Al Gore, telling us to have fewer children, while he hypocritically gets to keep his 4 children?

Not that I would necessarily favor such an approach, it just seems such a logical place at which to start eliminating the supposedly "surplus" population.

 

How about we just get rid of all the dumb ass christians who beleve in things that don't exist (like god)?

 

yes, only 40 paragraphs (practically nothing), yet you still manage to miss the point.

some people don't want children. their reasons are their own, none of my business, none of your business. though their reasons might be: starting a career, can't afford it, in an unstable relationship, aren't ready for more responsibilities, don't like children... i know couples in each situation who all sucessfully use contraceptives for their designed purpose.

now, you would label them "sinners", but who are you to judge them? if you would deny them their right to choose their own future, on the basis of your own superstitions, then you are supressing a human right.

your knowedge of contraceptives is laughable. you attribute social problems to them, but fail to realize that they are merely a tool. guns don't kill people, people do. you also wrongly attribute things to environmentalists. we aren't interested in holding back technology or progress (this is a joke coming from a bible basher: remember how galeleio's discoveries were recieved by the church?). we realize that unspoiled nature has priceless value. if protecting that results in a loss of profits for an already rich corporation, then screw the corporation.

humans need a healthy environment to be healthy themselves (physically and psychologically). by caring for the environment, we are really caring for people today and the generations of the future.

would you share your bed with ten people? because your idiotic analogy will inevitably lead to that.

you contradict yourself all the time. you talk about how insensitive the condom pedellers are to foreign cultures, yet you routinely criticize non-western cultures ("equal oppourtunity discriminator"???).

in my rape scenario, the native culture shuns an illegitimate child. therefore there is no family support. hard to adopt out because everyone else has enough children on their hands. see how the options for this baby become more and more limited? this isn't an isolated incident, and the child could well be resented by its own mother, leading to poor self-esteem, possibly resulting in the child growing up to be a rapist of the future. the cycle of poverty.

okay, take my million dollars. remember that i don't know about it, nor will i ever know. in my mind i've lost nothing.

you should think about condensing your posts. the point (if there is one?) is usually lost in the giant block of text. like most religious propaganda, it simply collapses under its own weight. your ramblings are scattered all over the place, going from star trek episodes, to things you "maybe remember reading somewhere" to some dusty bible passage. stick to the point! or better, have a point!

all the words in the world won't change the fact that this is a very simple argument: is it wrong to deny people the right to choose? i say yes, it is wrong.

 

Agreed. How about the other dumb religions?

 

I got the point. Did you? I know all about how people believe delusions, based upon clever but false arguments, and excessive pseudo-science hearsay. But there is a better and more logical explanation, that deserves a more popular and fair hearing.

Some people don't want children? Gasp! And yet when they end up with children anyway, they usually do want and love them, after the fact. Now how can this be? Maybe some people just don't know what they want. Do people always get exactly what they want, for Christmas? No? Is that "bad?" Why must humans always have exactly what they think they want, exactly when they think they want it?

Starting a career? Is it right for careers to be so anti-family-friendly? It used to be, not even a century ago probably, that families worked together more. Then the industrial revolution stole away the father from the home, and then the men went to war, and the mothers went to work, and then they too much stayed there. I suspect one reason how China gets away with oppressing the people with a 1-child policy, is because they have too many working married women, who tend to expect the government to pick up the daycare tab or something for raising their children. Fortunately, the U.S. has had some buzz about many women wanting to be or become stay-at-home Moms, and the population phobics probably don't like that, because stay-at-home Moms tend to breed, since children are less likely to be seen as an "obstacle" to one's career ambitions.

Can't afford it? See? There is evidence right there, how hostile our society is to childbearing. Our homes are getting bigger in square footage, like most everybody by now has the big screen TV and probably a few uncessary frills like an RV or a boat, homes have more bathrooms than ever, and yet we claim we can't "afford" children? But what I observe is that the more money people have, the less able they seem to be to "afford" children. That just goes to show, that our priorities are all mixed up. That we seem to be too busy to be "bothered" with children. And then we have the gall to blame the developing countries for breeding "too much," since they apparently still love their children, well probably more than we do.

Unstable relationship? What? You mean like "shacking up?" Marriage, almost by definition, is supposed to be stable. Since the family nest is already pretty much there, it's a great time to go ahead, relax and let nature take its course, and enjoy breeding.

Aren't ready for more responsibilities? Okay, how about we abolish the unjust income and property taxes. That should leave more time (and money) for raising children.

Don't like children? See? People are getting much too selfish these days. And yet we were all once children ourselves. Don't we "repay" our parents for having children, largely by having children ourselves? To say, "Well I'm alive, so what does it matter if anybody has children anymore," is really selfish and self-centered.

I know it's a lot of work to raise children, and so I have thought, I don't really want to "try" for children, nor seek infertility treatment if my future wife proves to be infertile, but I also don't want to go against nature and reject God's blessings of children. The economics of "birth control" just doesn't make any sense. Why would I pay, to not be blessed? Shouldn't I instead maybe pay, for that which benefits me? Thus, buying diapers is always a far better deal than condoms. I believe the door to life should be left open, so as to not debase God's main purpose for sex, among many other reasons.

Yeah, people put contraception potions and poisons into their bodies, trying to hinder the natural reproductive function, for whatever purposes or excuses, as if God "goofed" and made them too fertile, and then waste $1000s on infertility treatments, desperately trying to get pregnant, before it is "too late," as I read of some woman in Glamour magazine article doing. She said it was like her diaphram was laughing at her saying, "You probably didn't need me anyway." Author Mary Pride, said in her book, The Way Home; Beyond Feminism Back to Reality, something graphic about those nasty condoms and spermicide, that if it be God's will that a couple only have 2 children, they can have but only 2 children, without any bother at all of the contraceptives. I believe God has a purpose for each and every person, so why tamper? Although it probably helps that I think I would like to have 15 children, I don't think God would give me that many, and do I really know just how many children I would want anyway? If God gives me 4, then that's probably fine. If God gives me 13 children, then I can adjust and deal with that too, and I would love them all, and never be able to choose which child I wish I hadn't of had.

But maybe I am not speaking so much to the selfish couples who already have their "purposes" to not have many, if any, children, so much as to those, who really wouldn't mind having another or a 5th child, but are a bit "scared" by society's anti-family propaganda against "excessive" childbearing. I want to say to them, go ahead, relax, enjoy having all the children that God gives. Some guy I once worked with, said his wife wanted 6 children, but he wasn't so sure. Of course I encouraged him to go ahead and have his children. It's better than sleeping on the couch, or whatever I might have said. And if he did have 6 children or more, it's highly likely that he wouldn't regret it, especially if they are still married. In fact, some religious people claim that marriages become more stable, as a result of intimate bonding and breeding together.

Well if not "sinners," than at least "potentially foolish."

How am I denying anybody of anything? I am not in their bedroom to make sure they mate the "right" procreative way.

What about the right of future generations to be born? Or we were here first, and so what does anybody else matter?

Perhaps you would prefer more graphic descriptions, of all the ways contraceptives can fail, and of all the nasty side effects?

A tool with no useful proper use. Sort of like nasty cancer sticks. What are they? Slow suicide "tools?" Actually, I actually did see a use for a cigarette butt, as somebody stuck one in the missing plastic button thing on a desktop phone.

Guns have at least a couple of proper uses, so the comparison is invalid. Guns are useful to defend against evil invaders of your home. They are also useful against dangerous wild animals. (Is there much difference?) They are also useful and expected as a last resort against evil government. Don't think so? Read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution carefully and consider its context. It was to keep the federal government, from having all the power. If ever the government was to try to take away all our guns, why should they ever have another election? How do they think we would contest it, if ever politicians just decided to become dictator, and abolish elections?

And yes, I agree with your phrase there. Another good one is "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." Outlawing guns does no good, because people can kill one other with pencils and pens, or with stones. There's no end to the number of things that humans can fashion into weapons. And criminals prefer easy prey, so crime abounds in areas with "gun control." And a victim can be dead, long before the police can arrive.

Yes, you environmentalists are. Don't tell me that environmentalists haven't heard of things like "unintended consequences." (Or more accurately "intended consequences.") I simply do not believe, that especially the most vocal leaders, don't know of all the anti-business, anti-freedom consequences of their actions. Check out the writings of an "environmental" defectionist, who left the Sierra Club, disgusted with their anti-business actions. Ecology Wars by Ron Arnold. Now no doubt there are "good" environmentalists, like there are "good" Catholics, who have 5 or 6 children or more. Who want to make sure things are clean and safe for their many children. But that is more like the exception than the rule, and "environmentalist" has become such a bad name, as to be almost synomus with "enviro wacko" or "eco-freak" for putting things like trees, before the many needs and interests of people. "Environmentalist" is such a bad word, that one should expect to distance themselves somehow from the evil "environmental" movement, to avoid being thought bad things of, for being an "environmentalist." Out in some battles in Montana, they were even being callled "green nazis," so intent were they on violating people's property rights and shutting down business.

Galileo's discoveries rejected by the Church? Don't you mean a corrupt leadership within the Catholic Church of long ago? I simply don't see what that has to do with me. I am Protestant BTW, as I agree with the Protestant Reformation.

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

 

Let's keep sending humans into space without oxygen, this will accomplish two objectives:

We'll begin to adapt, and then we would be able to travel through space using our bodies

And

Solves overpopulation issues!

 

Sending humans into space without oxygen would kill them. There would be no time to adapt. Furthermore, they would have to survive in order to pass on the trait that allows them to survive longer without oxygen. Seeing as they wouldn't be able to pass this on (being dead and all), what it basically amounts to is murder. Unless you can make people think it's cool to launch themselves into space and die (what I'll refer to as the "lemming effect"). If successful as a movement, this would accomplish two objectives: Solving overpopulation, and decreasing the amount of complete conformists in society. Of course I wouldn't suggest this, because... well, it's crazy.

By the way, I've noticed that you have odd (and quite often pie-in-the-sky) solutions to stuff...

 

lol. I knew that btw my site will be back up, currently integrating it with some other software.

 

Damn dude you replied in like 30 seconds hahahaha

 

lol I'm quick .. well, not quick in THAT way, but you get the point

 

That's what she said

Damn you edited before I could say it.. oh well hehe

 

Finishing up...

What exactly is "unspoiled nature" when humans are a part of nature, so much of what we do, our cities it takes to hold so many of us, are all part of nature, and thus "natural" also? And in a world of over 6.5 billion human beings, just how much of "nature" can really be set aside away from humans? Even some National Geographic article, something or other about national parks, admitted that making much of nature or parks or whatever, not accessable to humans, isn't practical in a world of over 6 and a half billion people.

If "protecting" that results in a loss of profits for an already rich corporations, then "screw" the corporation? Huh? So I suppose you have conveniently checked, to make sure you have no stock invested with said corporation? Corporations, in theory at least, are business collections of the resources of many people, so when you say "screw" the corporation, it would seem that also implies to "screw" all the stock owners also, people who are likely a lot more like you and me, that you seemed to suggest here. Somehow, I doubt that you were talking about the poster child of what's wrong with corporate America, greedy, got-to-buy-up-everything and drive-down-wages, Wal-Mart?

Then what are you doing to get rid of the cultural pollution, such as all the stupid immoral sitcoms and idiotic "reality" shows on TV? I have heard that the TV is connected to the sewer, and spews sewage into one's living room. (And yet since then, there's a TV in every room? At least computers seem to finally be displacing some of the TVs.)

Yes, I would gladly share my bed with 10 people, if I happened to live in some 1 or 2 room shack, in some developing country, with no automatic heating system. That's about what people used to have to do, just to stay warm in the winter. But since I live in a developed country, sharing my bed with maybe 1 other person, actually very seldom, is more of my everyday reality.

While I do believe that parents should go on having children, even thought their home might already be "technically" full, with a child in every bed and bunkbed, and I agree with the mother in the article "How to Fit a Large Family in a Small Place," who no longer felt bad that her many children had to share beds when she noticed that to be the norm in the old frontier-life era TV show of Little House on the Prarie, I was using the bed sharing as merely an analogy of what humans should expect to do, when their numbers manage to grow faster than the housing stock, due to stupid governments or economic problems, which can be solved and reformed eventually. BTW, I hear that China is making a big expansion in their housing stock construction, so I would add that they should have all the more room then, for the natural increase of their billion+ people. I meant the bed-sharing figuratively, but also litterally if or as it is needed, to suggest the broader "crowded" schools, high-density housing, urban sprawl, or whatever might be involved with supposedly intelligent humans "scooting over" a bit, to find or make room for their naturally expanding numbers.

I criticize all cultures, for departing from God's ways, and refusing to use the intelligence that the good Lord God gave to us.

I also respect foreign cultures, for often being more pronatalist than us, and routinely allowing, even expecting mothers to be free to breastfeed in public. Cultures that value children, and have so many children as to have youthful, burgeoning populations, probably have so many babies, that why have to go hide or cover up, just to nurse one's baby, when most everybody is having babies, most everywhere? I also respect cultures, for seeming to be "contraceptive-phobic" or whatever, not wanting the anti-life intrusion from the West, that ultimately will encourage sex to become more "dirty" and promiscuous, rather than life-giving in procreating human life. I am glad that throughout much of the world, it's still quite popular to have large and "unplanned" families, as that helps keep the world friendly and faithful, and helps keep the family and the family values strong, the family being the basic building block of society.

But if I can promote a more pronatalist, child-friendly, more relaxed-breeding culture, then why can't I promote compassion for the child of rape? Blame the rapist for the illegitimancy, not the child who had no choice in the matter, but would want to live regardless. In a more pronatalist society, there is more family and society support, more for all humans, thus they seem more unable to "limit" their numbers by rational decision, but more by "natural law" of what God must have predestined or ordained or caused to be.

Actually, a more pronatalist society is more willing to adapt or welcome even seemingly "excessive" childbearing, and even "overcrowded" homes, so often even parents of families already seeming to be "very large" would out of compassion for the children, take in even other people's children, especially if there is some family connection or something. "Enough" children hardly means that room can't be found or made, for even more children.

Why dwell on the negative? Conversely, children that grow up in large families, are better conditioned to both survive and thrive, in an increasingly populous world. And many parents of large families, especially those who have many children out of deliberate choice and purpose, do make special efforts to do special things, with each of their many children, and to spend both quantity and quality time with them.

So when you find out, I can present a transcript of our dialog, as legal proof of your "permission?"

My point is the advocacy of the sacredness of each and every human life. What's your point? The usual tired-old population phobias of decades ago, that have already lost much of their shock value?

Many of my points are philosophical, to which I can refer to Star Trek, The Jetsons, "maybe remember reading somewhere," or whatever. I don't want to merely opine that the natural conversion of relatively cheap organic matter (food) into additional human bodies each of immense value, is a great "investment," but also cite the context and source, if there is one other than my own thoughts, that I can recall. After all, it's not just me, but there is much in culture, that is actually pronatalist, encouraging of childbearing.

It is I, who am most protecting the right to choose life. It is I, that try to open people's minds into exploring more options, such that the huge world population may continue to find and make more room to grow into, for the greater good of all.

 

Humans aren't anywhere near ready to expand into outer space. It costs far too much to send people into outer space. Even the moon is almost too far away. We need an enormous increase in global population to help naturally accelerate the already population-driven technology growth, before we can ever become Ready, if ever.

And hopefully, humans are intelligent enough to not go somewhere, from which people don't return and we don't hear from them again. Actually, it takes very little oxygen per person, because presumably, the oxygen would quickly be "recycled" for rebreathing by humans, by machine.

Currently, the technology is converging, not towards the so-called "final frontier" of outer space, but towards a more immediate "final frontier" of populating the planet, more densely and efficiently with people. With the frontiers vanishing, I believe humans should grow into that "final frontier" of adapting to populate more densely and efficiently, as well. There could simple come to be, more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people, so that people may go on, having all their precious darling little babies, that they were meant to have, or that God told or gave them to have, and respecting all their compelling reasons to have so many children as they do.