overpopulation

Realistically you're going to be seeing a lot of people in the U.S. dropping dead because of all the obesity.

As far as the third world, let them have there wars.

There's my short SHORT remedy.

 

Upon reading your posts they would move to the far ends of the earth to get away from you. I recomend therapy of some sort of drug to counter your mental imbalance.

 

Serves them right for all their false religion?

But what about all the innocent people?

What about all the people who love their children?

People dropping dead because of all the obesity? But that does little or nothing to "control" population growth, because don't many of those people already have had their children, and then they run up a huge medical bill to the medical insurance corporations, draining away taxpayer theft money or their children's inheritances?

Somehow, I don't see much "remedy" in your proposed "solution." Too often "what goes around comes around," takes too long to find out all the guilty people, so use "peer pressure" to discourage obesity (i.e. walk around the block or something to get off their TV couch potato rear end and excercise, or go walking with them), discourage experimentation on humans via shoddy contraceptive use, and encourage faith in God and childbearing.

 

Oh really? So I take it that you agree with me, seeing as you didn't specifically dispute even 1 point of what I said?

Don't worry, the way it's going, there might be pronatalists something like me, or a bit like me, at "far end" or corner of the earth. As the growing population "pressure" rounds out any "corners" remaining. So I have a better idea--adapt and make the best of things.

BTW, I think it a good sign, that I notice women apparently not all that concerned about having just the right maternity clothes, letting their pregnant bellies poof out of their shirts. Yeah, why have to go buy new clothes? It's natural for married people to be getting pregnant, especially as more and more people find out how anti-life and shoddy the contraceptives are. And not all of them are immigrants. Pregnancy ought not to be "shameful" at all, provided one is married and providing for their children.

 

.

 

pronatalist: you may think you are debating, but what you are actually doing is masturbating.

you don't know how to debate. if you did, then you would use reliable references, not kiddy-stuff like cartoons and science-fiction.

regarding the lack of proof for a christian god, you tried to steer me towards some creationist fantasy website, but all you really did there was expose the fact that you have no proof at all.

as long as fanatics like you expect rational thinking people to accept your worldview based on the myth of a supreme being, you will never convince anybody of anything except your inability to think for yourself.

lines like "serves them right for all their false religion" expose your true nature as a hateful individual. you are also ignorant, arrogant and uneducated. nothing you say here has any credibility, and the more you try desperately to get others to take you seriously, the more you expose yourself.

this is not a personal attack, but an honest examination of the situation. nobody on this forum likes you or respects a single thing you say.

 

tut tut...so many crazy people that "know" so many things..

 

don't you love it when opinions become mental illness, and you can just drug your opponent into submission? good doggie...roll....fetch! now stare at the tv...

 

I have compiled a list of a few online business opportunities which really work (many of the programs I have tried in the past were scams) check out the ones which have made me money at http://quickbuckspackage.com/index.php

 

Are you accusing me of being too "repetitive?" Well there's a story I heard, that could relate to that. The people in some town, were stealing the logs that the logging operation/sawmill was floating down the river to the sawmill. There was some preacher there who gave a sermon about "Thou shalt not steal." And the next Sunday, he gave a sermon about not stealing. And the next Sunday after that, same thing. So somebody asked him why he kept preaching about only 1 thing. Well he said he continued to see people stealing the logs. When the people do as he said, then he could move on.

Same thing here. Environment this, environment that. Rarely is there any reasonable consideration among "environmentalists" for the needs of man. All the more consideration for man, as man grows all the more populous. Hence the supposed "repetition." When people "learn," we can move on. Actually, this is the state of quite a lot of societal debates. There are people who really do have the answers, but they aren't heeded, and so we continually have to educate and re-educate, the supposedly "educated" people, about how the issue really is.

Now I do try to give personalized replies, and answer specific questions, but what more can I do?

And so how much are you offering to pay me, to debate according to the "proper procedures of debate?" I debate the way I debate, because I like to. Because I want to make a difference. I am not responsible for the result. People are responsible themselves, for what delusions they choose to believe. If I offer truth and people reject it, is it my fault, just because I supposedly didn't package it, "just the right way?" No, not at all, because why can't these people do their homework and learn for themselves, like I did? Because why professing themselves to be "wise," they really are foolish, and intellectually lazy, confusing repetitive, corporate-media-amplified, pseudo-scientific gobblygook hearsay, for "scientific" reasoning.

And what does "science" have to say, about "the way things ought to be?" Isn't that the stuff of religion or philosophy? Sci-fi examples then are more helpful in telling how things might one day be in the future, or about how things "ought to be," than dry, still-subject-to-interpretation "scientific" reports and statistics. Cartoons and sci-fi are more relevant to today's society, because people watch too much TV and really aren't very well-read on "science" actually. Are the references you seek, more "reliable," just because they are couched in the pseudo-scientific-sounding "language?" Or because they consume huge amounts of government grant taxpayer money? Or are funded by supposedly "biased" corporate oil money?

Save The Earth From The Environmentalists

google.com

Oh well, and they say life isn't fair. Until people are convinced, I shall keep on talking. Didn't Adolf Hitler say that if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. Well maybe it works both ways? Maybe if the truth be told often enough, more people will believe truth? Congress didn't invent the fillibuster for nothing, except on the internet, we all can talk. We can just have a grand ol' talk-fest.

Well God's true prophets weren't vary popular either, as they had an uncanny knack of failing to say the things that the populous masses wanted to hear. They always said "unfun" things, like that people need to turn back to God and repent. So apparently, I am in good company then.

And come on. Just a little "common sense" thinking, should be enough to expose the perverse motives behind popular "environmental" delusions, and merely a long memory would expose how the "scientific" "discoveries" of supposed "environmentalists" tend to come and go and change. How erratic these theories turn out to be, long term.

Well except for some person who sent me a personal message saying about how my post was the first one he printed out, for his wife or something, and I failed so far, to reply, as I like the "everybody can jump in version," rather than an audience of one. I wish he would have shared his complement publically rather than privately. And probably some others too. I have noticed some other people saying things similar to my view, although not posting like some braindead AOL me-tooer, as voiced something to that effect in the lyrics of "The Pentiums" by Weird Al Yankervick.

 

erm... did you check the name of this particular forum?

now look at the names of every other forum: art, music, politics, astrology, philosophy, sex, movies, travel, television...

all seems pretty human-based doesnt it?

humans are, for lack of a better word, obsessed with their own species. this is why we have a forum dedicated to discussing the condition of everything outside of human culture and experience. for example: forests, rivers, insects, birds, grass, clouds, sunshine, wind, flowers, lichens, subterranean deep sea habitats...

when you stupidly consider human culture to be part of the environment, then you will naturally find it hard to think clearly about anything besides our own needs. yes, humans have needs. because our behaviour impacts other species, we can be considered responsible when their natural habitats are destroyed or polluted.

pollution: dirty air. dirty water. makes things die.

not pollution: rap, television, junk-culture, anything immaterial that comes from our collective imagination.

i have no problem with you identifying yourself with the lunatics of the past. you have shown that you are a master of talking, but you don't seem very adept at actually saying anything.

finally, you have a brilliant way of missing the point. a few posts back, you claimed there was proof of a divine god. yet, you were unable to provide us with this proof. instead, you link me (again) to a propaganda website.

so... what is this proof that you speak of?

 

In some parts of this world there are, and if there would be a problem with housing and things like that, there's always room for homeless houses. If people were planting food, building more buildings for the homeless, and things such as that, and not dropping bombs there wouldnt really be this problem. But that's just my opinion.

 

Forum? Or discussion thread? The name of the forum is Hip Forums. What's "hip" to man. A forum only for humans to discuss things on. The name of the discussion thread is "overpopulation." Once again, only the supposed "overpopulation" of man, not the overpopulation of trees or of grass or of weeds.

Uh, yeah.

And what do you find on most every TV channel? People, people, people. Why? Well the animals and plants, really don't do much interesting. They don't tell stories, they don't build cities. Even a "nature" program has people talking, telling about the plants and animals. Even cartoon characters, act pretty much like people, even though depicted as drawings of animals.

How can much of anything be "outside" of human culture and experience? Ever look at the world through the eyes of a rock? Whoops. Seems that rocks don't have eyes, nor any thoughts. Nor any cares at all.

Perhaps you suggest that humans ought not to be "obsessed" with their own kind. Really? Okay then, abolish the unjust income taxes. Abolish the unjust property taxes. Reduce the number of "laws." With less restrictions and less laws, maybe we might have more time to think about things other than human-imposed culture and society.

As I see it, mere animals maybe can have more consideration, when they start talking English, and start paying taxes and voting. Until then, well it's pretty much people.

Humans are so needy, how can there possible be much room, to consider much else? How can there be much concern for human rights or human rights abuses if many people concern themselves with whales and snail darters and spotted owls, which generally have not even asked us for our "help?"

"Be a hero, save a whale. Save a baby, go to jail." What's that about? Well that's a common pro-life bumper sticker criticizing the perverse biases of our society. Why is not a human baby, valued above a mere whale? People are created in God's image. Mere animals are not. Jesus died for our sins, not for the animals. Animals are pretty much, food for humans.

Because humans are so needy, that's a practical reason why I suggest that we not be so eager to send people into outer space, but to send more robots instead. Robots can also serve people, without being quite so "needy." Robots don't expect a return trip, making space travel cheaper for them, nor do they need life support. Robots are also expendible. While perhaps expensive, we can always make more, and they don't have souls, do they don't "care" whether they "survive" or not. I think that telepresense could often be cheaper than putting actual astronauts in orbit. In geosynchronous orbit, I think the "light speed" delay of radio signals, runs about 1/2 second, round trip. That's within the range that remote control virtual reality, should be able to deal with. By keeping astronauts on the ground, we don't need food and air and toilet facilities, and they can work a normal 8-hour shift and go home. So far, the sophisticated computer software needed to allow robots to do even "simple" tasks has been rather elusive, so why can't people wear virtual reality helmits or whatever, and do all the tasks, with the robot mimicking all the movements, and relaying "sensory" perceptions back to the operator. A doctor can go into a small space his hand can't reach, and tie stitches, by such a process. Even though the computer software doesn't know how to do it, by mimicking the actual movements of a skilled doctor, it can still do it.

Death entered the world, when Adam & Eve sinned and got themselves kicked out of the Garden of Eden. Surely you don't think a little "environmental awareness" bandaid can fix that? Dirt is dirty. The earth is made out of mud with grass growing on top. Can you really much clean dirt?

The answer to pollution, is to complete the technology. Pollution is caused by incomplete technology. To do so, will often take time and follow some sort of natural process, not some draconian thing imposed upon people against their will. Part of the problem, is the lack of corporate accountability, in which nobody in a corporation is responsible for anything, and corporations as currently legally defined, are not obligated to serve the community, nor their customers, nor their employees, but to obsess over short-term profits for bigwig stockholders while denying even common smaller stockholders, any say or control at all. Thus, corporations are encouraged to engage in illegal activities if the fines are smaller than the costs of doing it right, or if the laws are unreasonable or unenforcable, and to externalize their expenses, while privitizing all their profits. Part of the problem also is excessive economic disparities by which people are denied reasonable opportunity to work for a decent living or family wage. People with few options, are more likely to pollute, because then getting dinner on the table, is pretty much all that really matters. Would you buy an indoor toilet for your home, if you have no money to pay even a modest water bill?

That cultural pollution, is much neglected from our cultural discussions. And often harmful in many more ways. Yes, I call that "pollution" also. Vibrating the air with noise, in the guise of music, with nothing much worthy to say, is "pollution" also, and so I call it such. It distracts from more worthy things people need to hear. It distracts from and displaces beauty and corrupts and disorders people's minds.

I say quite a lot. If you don't get much out of it, then I would suggest that the problem lies on the receiving end, the listening side of it.

BTW, I really should become a radio talk show host. Yes, I do love to talk about certain things.

All the "proof" in the world, won't convince people who don't want to believe, and refuse to do so. Didn't Jesus say something about those who "seek a sign," that even though one rise from the dead after 3 days, or something or other, they won't believe. Jesus said there would be a sign, and yet people still would choose to refuse to believe. Noah Webster of dictionary fame, said that it was evident that the things around us, could not have created themselves. So what happened then? Jesus's tomb is empty. Christianity has the most rational explanation, and is the kindest to people, and best explains the problems throughout the world, and their solution.

What does "propaganda" mean anyway? Information promoting a certain point of view? Well that's not necessarily always a "bad" connotation, is it? It could be a "good" thing, if that point of view is true.

propaganda

 

Don't call it just your "opinion." That's incorrect. One practical reason that humans seem either unable or unwilling to "control" our so-called "overpopulation," is because so many breeders look all around them, and see all sorts of places where additional people can be put. Well what rational person can argue against that? It's not mere "opinion" but rather obvious fact.

Also, it helps to cite scripture, such as "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," (Genesis 1:28,9:1) because mere "opinion" is too easily swayed by clever lies and corporate marketing.

Often problems aren't solved, because they aren't priority. People don't care enough about other people, or care only for their narrow special interest or corporate stock portfolio, rather than for what is right and for the greater good of all.

War is quite often about evil people wanting to steal, what doesn't even belong to them. But the honest way of hard work, would be all the easier, if the economy wasn't so manipulated by greedy self-serving corporations.

 

How many more poor people might have halfway-decent housing, if only they could get clear title to land? Aren't the laws pretty much made by the rich, to serve pretty much only the rich? Is that moral? People could build themselves nicer homes, if they knew that they wouldn't be bulldozed, as a supposed "illegal" or inconvenient eyesore.

 

Some good points there, Pronatalist. I totally agree about corporate accountability.. it seems to happen a lot with humanly created abstract entities though, once they become large enough they tend to become completely focussed on their own perpetuation. Which is kinda funny behaviour considering they're basically imaginary giants with people living inside them. Hmm.

A nature program includes people talking, yes, but the very fact that there ARE nature programs should indicate that plants and animals do *interest* people, even if they haven't got the time or money to study them in the detail which the producers of the programmes do. With that in mind, I think it has a lot more to do with a lack of awareness, rather than how 'interesting' it is. There are of course people who aren't interested, but I think most apathetic attitudes towards nature are due to the illusion of humanity being able to survive separately from it, never having to interact with it, never needing to pay any attention to it.. you know. Milk coming from bottles, not cows, etc.

It's only when you take the time to look at it in detail that you realise just how much we depend on it and how beautiful it is. Not just like the passive beauty of a flower, but the beauty of the interconnectedness of it all. It's beauty, importance and truth which those who care about the environment wish to preserve. The abstractions of human identity and society are ultimately empty, an instinctive attempt to understand the world which - instead - led to us creating an entirely new and separate one.

I'm not sure I have a point, I just felt like rambling..

 

"One practical reason that humans seem either unable or unwilling to "control" our so-called "overpopulation," is because so many breeders look all around them, and see all sorts of places where additional people can be put. Well what rational person can argue against that? It's not mere "opinion" but rather obvious fact."

Dude...you are an idiot. If you actually believe that dribble, then your are insane, or just stupid. Note: it could be both

 

One reason why nature seems so unable to keep the burgeoning world population "in check," is because nature has no interest in doing so. One reason why "birth control" is so anti-nature, is because if nature could "think," nature would likely prefer for the human race to go on naturally expanding. Because that's what life does, it expands to ultimately fill most every available niche. That's apparently what God designed it to do, to be largely self-perpetuating. See Genesis 1:11, in which God put the seed inside the plants and animals, so that they would naturally multiply over time.

Isn't the track record of increases in food production, to feed a naturally expanding human race, somewhat increasingly "artificial" rather than completely "natural." Well humans should "help nature along," where it benefits us to do so, even if mainly for our own self-interest and caring about our many neighbors.

So how do you know, that in the future ultimately, food might actually "come from bottles," and be sort of a "food replicator" "copy" of what used to, come from a cow.

 

Some people I have explained that to, actually thought that it made sense.

Perhaps the "insanity" is more on your side?

 

you remind me of other preachers i have heard. the arrogant tone in your comments delivers the illusion that you know what you are talking about, when it is obvious by your ignorant remarks that you have a feeble understanding of the nature of reality.

as far as i have ever heard, you are the ONLY person to ever promote the idea that rocks and trees and clouds have thoughts and feelings. that nature could somehow have an agenda. that we could help nature. that the earth and the life that evolved here all have souls. dont treat your audience like they are as stupid as you.

you clearly lack any faculty for concieving of a world outside of human experience. newsflash: the earth was not created in a day for the sole purpose of being our playground. only those with an inflated sense of self would think so. the planet is billions of years old and life has existed here for an expanse of time so great that it is difficult to imagine without resorting to simplification.

when humans evolved, they lacked any explanation for the numerous mysteries surrounding them. what are the stars? how does life start? what is the golden disc that provides lights and heat? etc.

the huge gulf was filled by a belief we call religion. the sun became god. fast forward hundreds of thousands of years, and science begins to show us that things we previously thought of as divine, are actually naturally occurring phenomenon. it seems there is a rational scientific explanation for everything, and we must study every facet of matter and energy to learn more. now, we only know a fraction of things for sure, but they are much more useful to us than notions of divinity, which really explain nothing at all. science shows us that religion answers nothing.

uhh... when i say dirty, i mean toxic chemicals and pollutants that cause death and disease. i am not talking about the good soil on the surface of the earth. seriously, i would expect this kind of response from a 6 year-old.

a virgin birth? the son of god? resurrection? you call these rational explanations? god fucked who exactly? give me a break.

i like how christianity was especially kind to people in the dark ages. anyone suspected of believing another religion (no free thinking, thanks) is burned alive. religions which involve the use of true sacraments (psilocybin mushrooms, peyote, etc) are destroyed because of the terror they inspire in the hearts of the christian priests, whose religion is based on a mere symbol and a myth.

hows this for a rational explanation: jesus died, and the church later published myths about his life, creating a following that has been responsible for some of the great atrocities of history, which contradict the teachings of jesus in the first place.

being afraid of the apparent lack of purpose that science exposes is pretty lame. the thing to be fearful of is human nature, especially when it is misguided by a self-induced belief in some kind of purpose. try to remember that religion was created by humans, for humans. dont apply the delusions of religion to a serious discussion of the varied and beautiful life that surrounds us, even if that life means nothing more to you than something to put on your dinner plate.

i feel sorry for people who are so obsessed with their own idea of things that they cant simply enjoy the incredible diversity of life for its own sake.