overpopulation

Contraception ISN'T murder, it's *suicide*. There's a huge difference.

Pronatalist, are you aware that there are other ways to categorise living systems ( like nature, which is an all encompassing term ) besides how closely they resemble humans? Climbing a mountain whilst completely ignoring the fact that we are the result of all of these organisms / processes is probably not the best course of action, although I suppose that advice is a little late now that WE're at the top.

 

post title: Human population growth naturally accomodates itself.

If the population of the earth continues to rise, it will alter nature to populate humans more densely.

If it's not a major problem at the moment, then why do you expect it will be over the next century? Have you not heard of the "birth dearth?" A spreading pandemic of non-reproduction among humans, induced by selfishness and rampant contraceptive peddling.

If the current 6.5 billion+ world population isn't "too many," then why would 9 or 30 billion people be "too many" later, after population-driven technology has allowed for all the more options for humans to adapt?

But humans are much different than mere animals. And the natural equilibriums of nature, aren't decided intelligently by nature, but rather more like how a machine works, designed by an intelligent Creator, for some profound purpose. God gave man dominion over nature and other creatures, a pretty good explanation of why nature appears so unable to "control" our rising numbers, all the more reason why we shouldn't bother to either. The more populated we get, the better humans get at supporting huge populations of people. The main restriction on how fast human populations can grow, is the limited number of parents to raise all the children. As the number of women of childbearing age rises throughout much of the world, even that "restraint" fades in time. With most anything to limit our numbers, fast fading away, well of course we should expect human population sizes to rise. After all, isn't that pretty much the idea of God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth? That means we should expect each successive generation to grow larger and more populous than the previous.

So face it, it's an increasingly human world. Good thing we are human then. Win-win for us.

And yet human lifespan has increased, as population has increased? Seems to be a snafu with that theory. People have immune systems, plus sanitation systems and medical treatments and vaccines. People can study diseases and find their weaknesses. Many diseases have been erradicated from most of the globe. So maybe the "plague" to sweep the globe, is a plague of cars, but then people learn to look before crossing the street, and cars are being designed safer. Ultimately, I think moron drivers will have to be eliminated, by turning over driving to the computers, once we can get MyCrudSoft virus-magnet chaos OSes out of the computers.

 

post title: A "pregnant" planet pushes towards "birth," not to destruction.

No, we are not a "disease" because diseases are destructive, while humans are constructive. We build things. We are alive and glad to be alive. We plan for the future.

We do contribute to the environment. We help nature produce our stuff and process our wastes. The relationship then is more symbiotic, not parasitic. It's exxagerating, lying "environmental" extremists who like to claim humans are parasitic to the environment. And what's an "environment" for anyway, but a temporary place for people to live, until we can move on to heaven. This world is like being underground, a seed struggling to push up into the sunlight, before it perishes. It's hard to see the whole picture, while yet buried, not fully seeing what we humans shall become, people to worship God for eternity in heaven, well at least those of us who aren't growing upside down, pushing off in the wrong direction.

We have no natural predators? Really? How do you figure? I would figure that our predators are greedy liberal politicians and the IRS. Oh, and make that huge greedy corporations too, at least some of them (i.e. Wal-Mart, MyCrudSoft, etc.) See the Corporation DVD documentary, to see what I mean. Oh, but wait. Maybe these "predators" don't count, as they often like huge human population, as it can be viewed as more customers, more taxpayers, or more victims for their selfish greedy schemes.

"Survival of the Fittest" is a corrupt evolutionary concept, which never did apply to humans well, as as some silicone-based lifeform called us on some episode of Star Trek; The Next Generation, we are "bags of mostly water." Live that way, and people soon find that none of us are all that fit. Any culture that doesn't care for its weak, is soon branded as "uncivilized" or barbarians, and soon to become extinct. Human babies are always "helpless," probably by God's design so that we would actually have to spend lots of personal quality time with them, as part of their upbringing.

While we should always have compassion on, and love our young, and care for the elderly, I would like to see more firm punishments on inexcusable crimes, like shooting the looters and rioters, more death penalty executions, more restitution, and less idiots caged like animals in jail, burdening society under ever rising social tax-and-spend taxes extortion.

Well pretty much, as the result of contraception is similar to murder, well except there isn't the shedding of innocent blood, well depending on whether the method is a simple bizarre "barrier" method, or some Catholic-criticized "abortifacient" method. If people are taught not to love and value their children, pretty much the whole idea behind contraception, doesn't that really mess up the society?

The "problem" has never really been a "population" problem so much as a sin/behavior problem. It's far easier to accomodate rising human population growth, than to somehow ban it. Weren't we all babies not all that long ago? "As a former fetus, I oppose abortion," or so the saying goes. Well as a former fetus, can't I also not be so fond of contraception either? Aren't they both of the same selfish mentality, the same selfishness that undermines marriages?

Nope, wrong anology. No, as I see it, the planet is becoming "pregnant" with people, and pregnancy leads usually, not to disaster or "correction," but to a wonderous "birth" of some sort. If humans ever manage to "outgrow" the planet, then why wouldn't we naturally spread to some better place? To heaven, or to go on and colonize more worlds, if only in the sci-fi stories?

 

.

 

.

 

yes i think its possible

 

We build parking lots. On rain forests. So yes, when the planet is concerned, we are destructive.

Please present me the statistic showing we help the environment more than we hurt it. I'll kindly point you toward things like nuclear radiation, industrial waste, ozone depletion, and other obvious things we have done to destroy this planet.
As far as the God argument goes, it has no place here. This isn't a debate on God or what he thinks about how we're doing, it's about overpopulation.

I do not recall hearing about the IRS or any politicians chasing down someone and eating them. We have humans who treat other humans like shit - we do not have natural predators.

Survival of the fittest ensures that the most apt specimens of the species endure. In many segments of our current society, there are more cultural benefits to being inept. Again, the God argument has no place if you want to have a real debate about the benefits and drawbacks of our current swelling population.

Wonderful. I'd prefer to drop a bomb on a Nascar race. We do keep too many criminals alive at too great a cost, but the number is insignifigant compared to the swelling population numbers.

The result of contraception is nothing like murder. Preventing a birth from happening is not murdering anything, because there never was murder. By your logic, you are killing trees every time you do not plant a seed somewhere where one could grow.

I see nothing selfish about saying "My current life situation is unable to support a baby properly, and thus I will not allow that situation to happen."

Ah yes, you believe the planet earth is pregnant with humans and after we decide there are too many of us we'll just send the extras to heaven. That's much more reasonable than accepting an overpopulation problem.

 

yes, yes we do. we just can't see them.

What about Bird Flu? Viruses, diseases, cancer? These are probably the most prominent predators of the human race.. I'm sure more of us would consider that to be the case too if they were 800x bigger but had the same effect on us.

I must admit, I've toyed with the idea too.. but it's just as likely that it's a deep seated desire/instinct which propogated itself when we were sperms..

I think some people misunderstand "survival of the fittest" too. It doesn't neccassarily refer to strength / intelligence, it encompasses all environmental threats. If you try to kill all of the worlds bacteria with a certain chemical, a small percentage will have a mutation which renders them immune to it. The remaining 1% will reproduce, meaning most of the next generation will be immune to that chemical. That implies then that survival of the fittest depends mainly on genetics rather than what society deems as good qualities. I have heard some arguments suggesting that it's not the case because you're likely to drown or burn yourself if you're not intelligent, but I believe it's far more a question of instinct. Even if you're a puny weakling, if you can run away or avoid something all together then you'll live to reproduce another day.

 

You preach compassion yet criminals are an exception? Just because they soil your perfect world doesn't mean they don't deserve the same respect as everyone else. A lot of these guys are potentially scientists, good people or have something to contribute, they've just been dealt a bad hand in our society of inequality. Some just don't have the ability to see the world through other peoples eyes. But these individuals aren't "evil", all these things have root causes that can be tackled..

I also find it so ironic that you support the death penalty considering what you are preaching.

 

I was with you up till I read that Pronatalist, but I won't ridicule you for it, lots of people have imaginary friends, they usually just grow out of it.

 

Bingo Trix. And that pick of you on the far right is just ridiculous. I'm sure you make some 18 year old guy a very happy man indeed.

 

Surely humans can value humans?

But isn't whether parking lots or rain forests are better, a subjective judgement? A rain forest isn't very useful, for providing convenient space for me to park close to where I need to go. And I really don't go all that many places, other than home, work, Church. A business without parking space, might not attract all that many customers. Isn't that why shopping malls and strip malls attract a lot of business, while the downtowns of cities atrophy? Well what place has the better parking? And it isn't even either-or. Currently, there is room for both. Actually, agriculture displaces more "rain forest" area than do parking lots. Who would build a big parking lot, out in the country, "in the middle of nowhere?"

And in the very few places were land availability is a bit tight, there is such a thing as the parking garage, with multiple levels of parking.

What "ozone depletion?" Don't believe those enviro wacko lies. Lightning produces ozone. So too I think, do cars. Nuclear technology is not yet fully developed. Hydrogen fusion might one day produce harmless helium, in small amounts BTW. The sun already does that, but obviously we would want to do it on a small scale, in a very safe way.

One of the biggest "pollution" problems I notice, is litter, which is easily remedied, by convincing litterbugs to simply use the proper trash receptacle. Most people in developed countries have learned to use the toilet, rather than just relieving themselves anywhere, so what's the problem learning to use the trash can?

God is very much relevant, because a world designed by God to be populated, likely could support quite a vaster and denser human population, than a happenstance evolutionary-created world, having together by a thread or by chance. Religious belief is very much at the heart of the matter, why people breed or not, whether you like it or not. So it's rather hard to avoid the religious component of the issue arguments.

Maybe these things happen for a reason. Maybe God put us "at the top of the food chain," without natural predators that we couldn't eliminate or control, for the reason that our population growth would be more natural and "unchecked" rather than so limited as the small-minded population phobics might claim to prefer. But isn't it their unbelief, that is a huge part of the problem? Just because they don't well understand, or want to understand, how a world of burgeoning billions of people can thrive, doesn't mean that it can't work that way.

There you go, bringing up evolutionary "religion" into the debate. People are more fit, when they work together, and more people benefit by being alive and experiencing life, when their populations are "swelling." Growth is a lot more exciting and interesting, than atrophy or death, so why not "celebrate" so many births--so many fellow humans coming to life?

But such huge crowds can well co-exist, with proper social graces and behavior. It's the criminals that are the problem. When people are well-behaved, then it tends to be quite okay if they happen to live densely populated together. "The more the merrier," they often say. Especially if the thin apartment walls filter some of the sounds of the neighbors.

Out of time. I'll have to finish this later.

 

No, it isn't subjective. Rain forests are vast ecosystems vital to the survival of countless species and the continued production of oxygen. Parking lots are asphalt. Get a bike, or walk, and your parking problem is solved. As for businesses having less customers - I think our society could stand a few less shopping malls with two-acre parking lots.
Cities atrophying? Maybe, or perhaps we'd find a more civil and natural way to carry on business. Cars and the lots they are parked in are pretty new additions to the world - and we somehow managed for a couple years before their invention.
It's true most rain forests are bulldozed for farms, not parking lots. But not traditional farms - they are bulldozed for vast cattle ranges so we can continue to have Big Macs.

There are also public transportation vehicles, bikes, and your own legs.

You're right, there's no ozone issue. Just don't google "ozone layer depletion" or you might get a headache. And cars don't produce ozone.

Yes, convincing 6 billion people to respect the planet by not littering. I'll start knocking on doors, but I think it's gonna be a while.

No, God is not relevant in a debate about overpopulation. Whereas the current population numbers are a fact, God is not. I'm not an atheist, but I also don't need to cram the God Equation into every argument.
And people are animals. Animals breed. Birds don't do it because God told them too, nor do bison or ants. They do it due to the biological urge to propogate the species and their gene line. People do it the same way, like it or not.

God Equation again. You're annulling any chance this can be taken seriously. Our population growth, be it natural or unnatural, is still ruining the planet- and that alone is the issue here. Not why we're growing so fast, not if God, Allah, Odin, Xenu, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Shiva, or Cthulhu wants us to do so, just if it is or is not damaging the planet. It is.

Evolution is not religion, it is science.

Our population does not co-exist well. At all.
Darfur, Iraq, Israel, WW1, WW2, Vietnam, Slavery...need I go on?

 

It seems that what we're missing here is the idea that the Earth does not belong to humans. It's not ours to rape. We share it with all other organisms and we are at the mercy of the same laws as the other creatures. We must live with the Earth, not against it.

This pronatalist guy must be a joke, suggesting that the rainforest would be more useful as a parking lot.

 

At this point I am pretty sure Pronatalist is a troll, trying to bait people and get a reaction. He had me at the begining, but too many slip ups lately. Go back to troll school man.

 

noo... he's way too good for that, make it the school for gifted trolls

 

More people benefit from our population being "swollen," than from it being pidly small.

Having more babies promotes the greater good of the many, since there are more people around then, to benefit from whatever.

Continued:

It is similar, in that a human is denied life. Often to parents rather willing to have more children, especially in the case of rampant contraceptive peddling or trying to "manufacture" a supposed "unmet" need for contraception, where little existed before.

Bringing in trees, is like comparing apples to oranges. Trees don't have souls, and so have no desire to live, nor any desire not to be cut down to build houses, apartments, hardwood floors, or furniture. And the planet is far more densely populated by trees than by people, so why little talk of the "tree overpopulation" problem? Or are overgrown, neglected forest, forest fires desirable?

Each and every human life is sacred, and so we ought not interfere with its creation, but welcome human populations to multiply naturally as God intended.

We also don't put quotas on how much a single individual human may be allowed to eat, and yet we don't see many people so fat that they get on Jerry Springer and they have to cut the side of their house off, to get them out of it. It makes far more sense for humans to breed prolifically, than to be overweight, as there is not "more" of a person then, being overweight, to enjoy life. We breathe naturally, eliminate wastes, eat when hungry, why not also naturally push out babies when they come? Why deny life to others, now that we are alive? Isn't that selfish? Why have "empty" bedrooms or empty seating in our cars, when it could be filled with children? In a manner of speaking, world population might be said to be "out of control," but then that is freedom, and there are other things that control it, but not nearly so tightly as the population phobics might claim to prefer. It's in God's control.

But if only "perfect" parents had children, the human race would have become extinct long ago. Of course people should build the family nest, work some productive job, get married, spend time with their children. And if some people aren't yet prepared for childbearing, what of those who are, who supposedly just keep adding to the supposed "surplus" population? What of their rights and duties? What of the natural desire of future generations to be larger and more populous than previous generations, since people don't know how to be "less numerous" without somehow ceasing to exist?

Yeah, the planet is "pregnant" with humans, in a manner of speaking, as an anology to try to explain to the population phobics, why we actually do need to be so numerous. The pregnancy metaphor I find useful, as it naturally expects further growth, it expects accomodation in the form of preparing for the baby to be born and maternity clothes, and that it understands that some "bulging" is necessary. I don't suppose that more and more people can be added to the planet, and people just keep living the same old way. No, more people can be added, as people naturally adapt. I hear that tilt-steering was invented so that pregnant women could drive cars too. Well why can't there be similar adaptations to a "swollen" world population, to better welcome it to swell all the more, for the greater good of the many?

But in no way do I mean to suggest that a planet "pregnant" with people has "too many" people, but rather, that I understand that some "bulging" may be necessary, in order that people remain free to enjoy having all the precious darling children that God gives them, in a world with so many people alive already. Why rob God of his "harvest" of souls? Why seek to steal from our neighbors, what we so crave for ourselves? Life. Why are we any more worthy to live, than other people's children?

 

Check out Genesis 9:6, in support of the death penalty. The death penalty, and justice in general too, all help the human population grow larger, by getting rid of the undesirable, incompatible element.

Yeah, these people have "potential," but they have demonstrated that they choose to waste it, and they had their chance. And I am talking about serious offenders, not "technical" offenders because of corrupt "laws"--the mischief of man framed in the guise of a law. People convicted of heinous crimes. Why should society pay the debt for people's own deliberate actions? Why free room and board? You think that the criminal deserves another chance? Well let him do restitution and pay for his crimes. The softer the libtard evil judges go on crime, the more crime we can expect to occur. Is that maybe what you want? An anarchist society in which nobody's liberal, life, or property is safe?

Some things are just plain "evil" and a society that is so religion-phobic as to shy away from words like "evil," is not going to be able to come up with adequate means to deal with such troubles of the soul.

Those who are willing to show compassion, and adapt and perhaps "scoot over" to make way for a naturally-growing world population, are the ones most worthy to be welcome to go on enlarging the rising human numbers. What does it really matter if one's neighbors are numerous and nearby, if they are all friendly, and no threat at all? Perhaps even cooperative and helpful in most any way they can reasonably be.

 

No, having more babies contributes to the inequality of the many, the struggle of the underpriveledged, and the strain on our ecosystem.

More people alive does not equate to more people benefiting--and truly, what would they be benefiting from, anyway? In our overly industrialized way of life, we are never satisfied with what we have. The American Dream is a blatant lie, believed by many, achieved by none.

 

Uh, that isn't what I said at all. There's room enough, for both. Actually, if the "rain forest" jungle would be more useful as something, more likely it would be more useful as a human feedlot farmland, as some population phobics like to worry us about. There just aren't that many cars yet, to need so much parking.

BTW, they used to call the "rain forest," overgrown jungle, and so I like better, the term "jungle."