overpopulation

So I sense a globalist agenda, a bunch of luddites wanting to spread "environmentalist" hysteria, junk-science, and rob people of their freedom, but of course, there can't possibly be any evidence of this, but merely something I supposedly made up from my fertile imagination? And no supposed "scientists" ever have any political agenda, and no "scientists" ever disagree with the "politically correct" view? Come on, give me a break. I wasn't just born yesterday. There's too many talking heads out there saying all sorts of contradictory things, for any rational mind to believe them all.

And I have certainly read and researched the issues of which I speak, far more than the average typical "couch potato" American moron.

I remind you of some preachers? So what? Do I have the shill voice of some preachers that I don't much care to listen to? Well who can tell, as you haven't heard my audiable voice. And who would listen to some preacher who spoke with no sense of "authority," in vague and uncertain terms? What a waste of time that would be. But I like to listen to insightful preachers who say things that encourage me to think and expand my understanding. Preachers like Dr. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries.

But if pantheism and nature having some sort of "soul" isn't assumed, then why all the feigned "concern" about supposed "nature's needs?" Do people similarly worry about the "pain" that cars might supposedly endure, having to carry our weight, or the engine get so hot, to keep us in air conditioned comfort? Do most people worry, that in accordance with the Genesis punishment of man for seeking the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that rather than man having to keep earning his bread by the sweat of our brow, now more engines do the "sweating" for us? And didn't I mention something of the supposed "Gaia" spirit or "Deep Ecology" imagined endowment of nature with human-like "soul" characteristics? There's quite a lot of bizarre superstitious religious belief out there, even if it isn't typically referred to as "religious."

Perhaps it was because I was never "reincarnated," and was never anything else, but a human, a common trait of our kind. Other so-called "perspectives" are somehow "undefined" or "indeterminant," and thus not worthy of consideration in a supposedly "scientific" discussion. That would be more the stuff of philosophy or "religion."

Evolved? Evolution refers to "religion." I thought you said something against your apparent or claimed phobia of religion?

"Science" is not as stable and consistant, as many people falsely calling things "science" would often have us believe. Now if people were often wrong on "scientific" matters in the past, how do we know that they aren't sometimes still wrong, now?

Haven't you heard of the "mountain of truth" that "scientists" are endevouring to climb? They labor for year after year, century after century, to get to the top, only to find the theologians have been up there, for quite some time?

So would that be a home-schooled child? As government-schooled children don't seem to be very good at asking the right questions nor thinking logically. Did you know that even plants produce poisons, used to keep other plants at bay? But since they have no souls, and can't experience suffering or pain, their "actions" are amoral, not immoral.

Have you no imagination? Although sex is a really "big deal" in this world, even related to the coloring of flowers to aid in attracting bees, and in reproduction, sex isn't always involved. You have never heard of "test-tube" artificially-fertilized babies?, not to suggest that to be an accurate model of the virgin birth though.

And I really can't compensate for your lack of Biblical literacy, in a mere forum posting. Perhaps if you have questions about such matters, you might find some good answers in some religious forum out there.

Not all people who claim to be Christians, are people that Jesus would know as one of his many Christians. Funny how nonbelievers talk of "hypocrites in the Church," and neglect to mention the huge numbers of hypocrites outside the Church. Maybe more accurately, there are hypocrites everywhere.

Well I am about out of time, so I think I will close. And what of the value of good sorts of "diversity" within the human population? It's hardly either-or, but I expect that lots of other forms of life, will continue along with humans, and a lot of extinctions, aren't necessarily even having anything to do with human activity, but happen naturally anyway, due perhaps to "the fall" of man, or that the universe, left to its own devices, appears to be slowly running down anyway.

 

I agree, you see 100 and 90 year old men who cant walk up straight, cant think straight, cant remember anything, cant hear too well. they should have been dead , probably before some of my friends' fathers were even alive. And when they finally do die, its gonna be because a machien failed them.

 

I believe that human overpopulation is a huge problem. We have people living to 100 years, 90 years, 80 years. On machines. Like NatureBoy93 said, when those people do die, it's because of machines. In my opinion, machines like we have today aren't really natural. I believe that if nature wanted us to drive around in cars, she would have given us cars. If I were nature, I'd be mad at these machines that can sustain people's lives for years. People are meant to die, but it's like people have a hard time accepting it. We are born, we live, we die. Why are people so afraid of death? Personally, if I were to die tomorrow, I wouldn't be afraid of death. I'd simply be helping get rid of the overpopulation problem. And that'd be helping the planet. And right now, the planet needs all the help it can get, what with the human population rapdidly growing and the damages caused by our machines and creations growing greater by the day.

I'm not fond of wars, but I do realize that they take lives, and that can end overpopulation. The more we reproduce, the more people that are born, the more damage is being caused to the environment. We're driving several species to extinction for our own welfare, which isn't right. If every other species on the planet died except for us, we'd die soon after. We need those species, those animals, but people don't realize that either.

Diseases and disasters are hitting heavily populated areas. Maybe nature is saying that enough is enough, the humans need to the population under control. Being healthy is good, but living for 100 years? No thank you. I'd rather not spend the last 20 years of my life being hooked to machines and being drugged up with all sorts of pills that are supposed to make my health better.

 

Its kinda weird that some people would have died at 60 but made it to 120

 

Yeah, the "huge problem" is that supposed human "overpopulation" is one of the few still officially recognized or accepted forms of racism.

And this is necessarily a "problem?" So what then do you claim might supposedly be better? Maybe get rid of everybody, when they turn 30, as suggested in some sci-fi story(s), merely because a culture unnaturally fears turning old? Some old scientist on Star Trek was trying to do research to keep their star from expiring, but his old age "time" was approaching. He ultimately decided to "disrupt" his societal tradition, by living longer than expected, so as to have the necessary time to complete his research. Who do we puny humans think we are, to pretend to be able to decide when other people's supposed time is up? God is the author of life, so shouldn't God decide when a person's time is up? Of course medical science can help with help and lifespan, and it's not entirely clear how much we should intervene. But generally, most patients seem to prefer to pay for medical care, or purchase medical insurance for that purpose. Is it right, for selfish heirs to try to get rid of old people, before their medical care consumes their inheritance? Is it not the people's own money? What if they might actually prefer to go on living, if their family loved them like they should? Why are we Americans so addicted to work, and so unwilling or uninterested in saving some investments for the future, that there's nobody to stay home with the elderly? Why are our households so unnaturally small?

On some episode of The Outer Limits, some selfish old guy, at age 102, a 1.3 billionaire, was living on the penthouse suite, top floor of a hospital, with his own fancy home up there. Funding research for some artificial heart, since his transplanted heart was failing after only about 2 years. He couldn't get another one, because he was too old, and younger people ahead in line due to ethics concerns of why put a scarce donated heart into somebody who's about to die anyway? He had in his will, that if he dies without the artificial heart, then all his research that he bought, is to be destroyed, and nobody gets it. However, if he gets his new heart, he would amend his will so that it may be shared with all these moms with children and such, to the doctor's content. The doctor even called him a bad name, at that pompous revelation from him. Everybody tells him he has had a "full life" and the episode leaves us to believe that his time is up. Well maybe, but such an old person, is hardly the typical example. Should we murder all the people in nursing homes, as "useless eaters?" Isn't a society judged, by how it treats the weak? Should we be selfish, and racist, like the Nazis? "Survival of the Fittest?" Well we would quickly find out, that in such a selfish society, most of us aren't very fit at all, actually.

So the machines fail? But at least we did our part and tried, and tried to give most everybody every reasonable chance to live. God could make it easy, and take people home to their eternal destiny more promptly, but who can explain why God doesn't make it so simple for us? We are complex moral beings, who ought to be able to morally make, complex decisions.

Perhaps, but then, neither are electric stoves and refrigerators? Should poor people in developing countries, continue to have respiratory problems afflicted on them, from burning wood, dung, and trash, to cook their food? The old technology is dangerous, and can cause fires. Modern gas and electric cookstoves, and microwave ovens, are a lot safer, not to mention a lot more energy efficient.

I am for the natural, when it is helpful to man, such as people ought not to use any means of "birth control," because it is anti-life, and quite awkward and unnatural. But surely we also need the artificial too, to better support the huge and growing world population. As more population benefits more people, but more people + more poverty, is hardly the ideal combination.

And if man was meant to fly, nature would have given us wings?

Why would nature give us cars? Are cars natural? No, how about faster legs? Our legs are powerful, able to lift the entire weight of the human body, but not very fast. As if they were designed for force, and not so much speed. Like our legs are stuck in 1st gear. Yeah, I think force is more useful than speed. What's the hurry? What should humans, the dominant creature on the planet, have to fear and flee? If I could design the household maid robot of the future, something like Rosie on The Jetsons, I think I would have to make the robot "walk," rather than have small wheels, because walking really is more useful. Walking robots can navigate stairs, and all the places humans go. And "walking" is really "simple" compared to the myriad of "simple" human tasks we would like for our "maid" robots to take over.

Why should nature, or God, give us cars? What for do humans have intelligence? So that we can build or buy our own cars.

Would you throw out all the "unnatural" machines and computers? Would you throw out your computer and stop posting on these forums? No? Then isn't your argument here, a wee bit inconsistant?

Why? Does nature love death? Does nature "think?" God gave dominion over nature and other creatures, to man. I have a plant that has lived for years since my Mom passed away. I bought it for her funeral. It wouldn't live so long, if I didn't water it around twice a week. How old are many trees? Centuries old. Who are you, or anybody to say that humans supposedly shouldn't have a long lifespan?

Even a "simple" (complex) cell is in some respects, a biological "machine," with lots of complicated parts inside, helping it to live and regenerate a long time. So I rather think that nature is either noncaring or might actually "prefer" some machines, if it could "think."

One of the big problems of life-sustaining machines, is that they are often bulky, awkward, require an inconvenient power source, and of course aren't portable enough. While the body's natural organs are nearly as portable as the walking body. We don't need to be hooked up to a toilet, but merely near one, for example, as the body stores wastes preserving our portability. Diapers do that too, but not as well. Lack of portability of life-support, could change in the future. Captain Piccard in Star Trek, has an artificial heart, due to a fight he got into when a younger guy, and he got stabbed. He apparently has little or no problem with it, and the medical technology around the sci-fi corner, could be artificial organs powered biologically. Meaning that they don't need electricity, but obtain their energy from the body's natural biological energy sources, so that a person would merely eat as normal. Or perhaps his artificial heart has "nuclear" batteries, good for decades or centuries? Hard to tell exactly, as I don't think they specified.

Partly because many people aren't right with God, and haven't accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior. So they are afraid that they might go to "that other place" other than heaven. Also, because people aren't "finished" with their life experience, and have more things they would like to do in this life. They enjoy being around friends, children, and relatives. Also, if death is inevitable, then why rush it? What if there's lots of suffering along the way, but no timely death? What if medical ailments can be treated, and death averted? Why do we eat? Why do we buy groceries? Why do we plan for tomorrow? If life supposedly doesn't matter? Deut. 30:16 says to "choose life ... that thou and thy seed may live."

Well suicide isn't proper nor natural either. "Thou shalt not kill." Not only does God's commandment apply against abortion, but also against suicide. We are not our own, but we have been bought with a price, some Bible verse says. We don't even own ourselves, but we and our children, are "owned" by God. So God, the author of life, the God who commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, is responsible for such profound decisions of life and death, and how populous he would allow the human race to become.

Not living wouldn't "help" the planet, as it is quite natural for life to expand and spread, to fill most every available niche. Behavior is far more relevant. If you think there is problems, then promote the social graces. Hold doors open for people, be polite, don't throw unsightly litter on the ground for other people to see that eyesore, when there are handy trashcans most everywhere. If you like, don't be a corporate low-wage pawn, and buy junk you don't even need. Live more frugally, to live more simply and less stressful, and to have more time and money for yourself or for family or charity. I advocate large families worldwide, for the greater good of the many, but there's no way I can raise all the children who might conceivably like to live, so I encourage everybody to enjoy having "all the children God gives." Surely it's better for more children to be born to "experienced" parents than to newby parents with little or no experience raising children. Would you have fewer children, to leave more room for my flock of children? No, you may have your own "flock" of children too. "The more the merrier" they say.

Wars don't help either, other than to teach people to stop sinning so much. Wars destroy resources more than ending human lives, aggravating apparent or supposed "overpopulation," and cultures under stress actually breed all the more. But promoting justice and peace, helps people adapt more readily to their naturally-rising population.

But such isn't inevitable for heavily populated areas. Poor people tend to breed more, as they say "children are their only wealth." They don't have all the modern "distractions" from breeding as we do. But shouldn't rich people, be the ones, if any, to breed all the more? Surely they can "afford" children, and yet the rich have the most excuses for unnaturally not breeding, so maybe God gives so many children to the poor, because the rich don't want them? The poor are more vunerable to disease and disaster, but rich societies can also be populated quite densely, and fare all the better for it, as human population growth naturally accelerates the technology growth, that also in turn, better supports vaster and denser populations.

 

And there we have a likely explanation of what happened to the dinosaurs. People and dinosaurs didn't get along well, so naturally, the dinosaurs had to go. I think Flintstones, actually got something right. That people and dinosaurs lived together. Some might have even made nice pets. But some wild animals have bad attitude, and aren't easily tamed by man, so man hunts and eliminates them. Most wild animals seem rather scared of people, well except when we foolishly feed them, confusing them. Well that's largely because of the fear of man that God put into the animals, after the Great Flood, I think Genesis said. Why? For the good of humans, and perhaps partly for the good of the animals too.

A mama bear? Well that could be one of many good arguments for gun rights. Isn't that a reason why many people used to keep guns, rifles, shotguns, or whatever? To help tame the "Wild West" frontier, and for defense from dangerous animals. Children used to carry loaded rifles to school, and go hunting afterwards.

Microscopic beings? Oh you mean micro-organisms. Well I think that's why more people are getting toilets, and we use plumbing to keep waste-water and drinking water separate. That's partly why we have a price-gouging medical/insurance industry. To supposedly help keep people healthy, although merely stopping smoking and drinking and experimentation with shoddy awkward contraceptives, could promote health at far less cost, reducing somewhat the need for costly medical treatments.

 

What you're implying, then, is that we should kill every organism which we're unable/unwilling to tame - and that we shouldn't 'foolishly' attempt to tame animals, because it 'confuses' them. Oh, and animals which stay out of our way are ok - at least, until we're 'forced' to remove their habitat.

Let's stretch our imaginations a bit.. think forward to, say, 40,000 years in the future. The evolution of 'a certain species' has drastically accelerated, to the point at which it has developed vastly superior self-awareness/communication skills. The species has had minimal contact with the human race, but when there has been contact they have been, shall we say.. 'unsympathetic' toward the human cause. A predator, if you like. Now, imagine that because of the skills it has evolved, this species can communicate with and identify with humans to a degree. The implication then, is that the species can be reasoned with : we would be able to persuade them that we are not an enemy. We could possibly even 'live in harmony' with this species, although sacrifices would likely have to be made on either side.

My point is (yeah, I have a point this time).. that the situation I have just described is not much different than ours is now. Replace 'certain species' with humans, and 'the human race' with any other species, and the implication is roughly the same. While other species may not be able to communicate, we have the intelligence and compassion to fill in the blanks and realise that any organism which is not a direct threat has the right to respect, even if that means we have to live a little more selflessly. Surely, it's selfish to respect a species right to life only if they're able to provide us with the warmth of companionship?

I'm just trying to open your eyes to the lack of forethought in your ideals : it's entirely possible that a species could evolve into one with equivalent characteristics as humans, or at least, an equivalent awareness. If there is no outside interference then it is, given a large enough amount of time, a certainty. When our actions disregard this fact, it could be said that what we are (arguably needlessly - and it is arguably, people are always arguing about it) doing to our world is effectively stunting the growth of life, in the all encompassing sense of the word, of which we are a part, and which 'god' 'created'. Then again, I'm arguably a spastic. I'm not sure I'm making much sense..

 

No, what I said, was not to feed wild animals. When stupid tourists feed bears or alligators or crockadiles, then the bears break into people's cars, in search of food, and gators come into people's yards, because they are "trained" to associate people with food, rather than to keep their natural fear of people. Obviously, such behavior is not good for people, but then probably not good for the animals either, because when animals become dangerous pests, then people look for ways to get rid of them.

Have we managed to tame all the wild squirrels and wild rabbits and wild birds? But unless one has a garden with wild animal raiders, does it much matter that we tame them or not? Such small critters often pretty much stay out of our way, so we don't mess with them.

Well do said animals, draw up property deeds? Did they "buy" their land? If animals could hypothetically "claim" plots of land, would they leave any land, for humans? Wouldn't most every tree have squirrels and birds? Can humans reasonably build themselves homes, without ever cutting down any trees? Or can we just curl up on a rock, and sleep in the rain?

I believe in neither population "control" nor "birth control" for humans, because didn't God clearly say in Genesis to people, to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth? So what part of be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, do we not understand? If the world population keeps growing more and more, because people understandably love their precious darling babies, and have so many compelling reasons to have as many children as they do, well obviously all those people have to live somewhere. I don't want people to suffer. I don't want people to be homeless, especially as the result of stupid political repression which humans should be able to be more moral and avoid. That means, we should expect that there can simply come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from people. Therefore, there is no other sensible option, than for humans to expand their habitat. Build suburbs upon suburbs. Build more cities and towns, and encourage the various cities and towns to grow larger and closer together, so that there can be place for all.

Animals can't have "human rights," because that really means relegating humans to the level of animals.

Think about how the dog and cat population expands these days. The world is already saturated with plenty of dogs and cats, and I think pets are populated way beyond "natural" possible density levels. There couldn't be so many, because they aren't smart enough to appropriately alter their environment to support more, without the help of man. No wonder dogs are "man's best friend?" Because it is very smart for them, to be so. But I don't think they necessarily "decided" to be so "smart." Rather, like people, dogs also seem to enjoy the company of people. The pet population can expand far further still, but what is needed to do so? More sponsors to "adopt" them. So if pets could understand or care about such things, they would want humans to keep on breeding, because it helps them to multiply further also. But then pets probably don't "think" so much about how much they might supposedly like to expand their numbers, but I doubt that they understand what makes babies, as humans do. It's more likely a "trick" that nature plays on them. Pets have us for "families" so they don't need offspring if their human masters decide there is no need for them to breed, so we are free to get our pets "fixed" if we so choose, besides it helps them be better pets. Humans weren't designed to be "tame" pets, and such matters must morally be decided by "a higher power." For mere pets, we may decide for them, but for humans, humans can't morally be above other humans, so God must decide for us. The same God who commanded us to multiply and fill the earth. I did an informal survey a while back, and most everybody I talked to, said that God's commandment to people to multiply, still applies today. My sister said that God has not rescinded that commandment. Yeah, that's about what I was thinking already.

Why don't more people carefully read the Bible, and ask what might those things really mean? What does it mean, God giving people dominion over nature and other creatures? Should we dominate nature, just because we are supposedly so smart, or because "we can?" No, what's the use to us in that? No, it implies that humans should have dominion, because we ultimately would multiply into so many "burgeoning billions," that we would have no other option, due to our sheer numbers. That is foretold even, in Genesis 24:60 in the King James Version. "Thousands of millions" of descendents, in that blessing of Rebeckah I think it was, is litterally "billions." Although the term "billions" probably wasn't in use so much back in the 1600s, the time of the translation, as the world had yet to reach even a billion people by then.

No, what that is really talking about in the Bible, is that God is inviting or commanding or destining man, to ultimately grow to become among the most populous of the large mammals, to have no choice by to dominate by sheer numbers. How else do civilizations and nations get built, anyway?

That assumption is inconsistant with the Biblical Creation account, and rather an "evolution" religion assumption. Thus, it isn't much relevant, as it is false. The various creatures are, what God has made them to be.

Most all science fiction, tends to show reasonable respect, for sentient, self-aware, developed creatures, similar to man, although it's a bit strange that most all of them pretty much look like humans. Perhaps it has something to do with having to pay actors less, to wear more human-like costumes, than hot and immobile "alien" costumes, or how much humans are naturally obsessed with humans and human culture. On the radio and TV, people, people, people, most everywhere.

Most all people seem to know, as evidenced by their stated belief or at least their human-serving behaviors, that humans are far more valuable creations, than other mere animals, generally thought suitable for little more than farm work, food to feed humans, or for the lofty position, of being a mere pet for humans. Most people wouldn't spend near as much for medical treatment for a pet, as for a child of theirs. Why? One can just go buy another pet, and although they are "attached" to their pets, that attachment usually isn't all that much deeper than their presumed "attachment" to a big-screen TV or car, that ultimately wears out and needs replacing. Pets don't even have all that much long lifespan, so we know that if we are to continue to have a pet, that pet will soon need to be "replaced." I once had a pet turtle, until my sister took it outside and didn't watch it close enough and let it wander off. Oh well, pets come and go. At least I didn't have to feed it anymore.

Often in sci-fi, the "aliens" are actually friendly towards humans, or at least have the good sense, as a lead character in CSI opined, in debunking some "the aliens are going to take us to a better place" scam, to stay far away from us.

The dominion over nature and other creatures, is not something that man can foolishly "give away" to nature or the devil or whatever, without necessarily oppressing people in the process. We were designed to gradually grow all the more populous, and not be subject to supposedly natural population "control." Most all jobs that people do, in one way or another, alter nature to better support more and more people, because most all jobs, in various ways, all serve people. That's why those people want to give us money, in exchange for us serving them.

I am not arguing for "paving over" all the planet, at least not anytime soon. But rather, how else are people to have all the children they were meant to have, in a world with so many people already? Well there is a rather "obvious" way. If supposedly intelligent humans can explore and adapt as to how people can globally live and breed in closer proximity to one another, then there can be found or made, plenty of room for lots more people, on a planet that, as they say, isn't getting any bigger.

Pronatalism helps us more readily make the necessary adaptations needed to survive and thrive in an increasingly populous world. Now isn't exactly the best time to be a recluse or a hermit. But it could be an ideal time to deliberately if necessary, be fond of people, as with so many around, surely it is prudent to try to make them our friends and pursue ideas such as "the more the merrier," as they say. Having more babies promotes the greater good of the many, consistant with some "Utilitarian Principle" idea that often the best thing to do is that which most benefits the most people. Whether meaning to or not, that does rather imply, that if any "ideal" or "optimum" world population size could somehow be defined by man, it wouldn't be pathetically small and pidly, but more on the order of "nearly as large as possible," in consideration of how many more people who could benefit from coming alive. Therefore, I advocate respecting nature in abstaining from unnatural, awkward, anti-life "birth control," and advocate possibly large families worldwide, but also because Jesus said that we are to love thy neighbor as thyself, after commanding that we love God with all our heart, soul, and mind. If I truly try to do that, then what should it bother me, that my neighbors manage to grow so numerous, if they would similar allow my family, my country or whatever, to also do the same? If we are all in this together, as they say, then why not help all nations naturally enlarge their populations, for the greater good of all? All the various compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do + the powerful reproductive urges that most all humans feel much of the time, adds up into a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race. So isn't it about high time, that the rhetoric and logic about the matter, catch up to such practical concerns and consistantly embrace them?

 

You seem to have tossed aside my main point though, which was that your philosophy, while good natured, fails to consider or respect the needs of other forms of life. The subtext of your response is the idea that we are not responsible for the impact of a rapidly expanding populous on nature - in my eyes, that's a very naive stance to take, considering what we know about life.. even if you have no respect or regard for nature, the fact still remains that a lack of biodiversity would be completely catastrophic for human life. Not to mention we know very little about the effects that it would have on our continuing evolution.

Nobody else here has a problem with rampant reproduction, and I'm sure everybody is aware that reproduction is a natural instinct which we avoid at our peril - but it is, for the majority of us, the rules and responsibilities of society which has the most impact on our decision to have children. It is society which stands to gain from it, and it's society which gives us the ability to make these choices in the first place.. which I find rather ironic, because besides pronatalism, society is something you seem particularly attached to as something which will help us achieve your goal. Personally, while I accept good things have come from it, in terms of communication between different areas and forward thinking, we are still in the dark ages. "It" makes decisions which are so naive and detrimental to ourselves and our environment that in the future, people will most likely look back and wonder why we could make such obvious mistakes. Why is it then that you believe that western society is the only way forward? If our society is the cause of your coming here and telling us to disregard it's needs, to stop using contraception, then why support it at all, when it is the only factor which is actively against your ideals? If we got rid of it, surely your fight would be won instantly?

I'd write more, but I don't want to spiral out of control..

 

the concern isnt feigned, but genuine. of course some people/groups claiming to be saving the planet have agendas. equally, many religious leaders throughout history have had similarly sinister agendas. perhaps theirs is a feigned love of god?

the point, though, is that because i express concern for the natural world, that doesnt mean that i believe it has a soul, or feelings, etc. the reason we should preserve the vast diversity of life is so that we can continue to enjoy it, to be inspired by it, and obviously because we depend upon so many other species for our survival. just because you cannot enjoy these things for their own sake, does not mean that others will continue to.

the bizarre superstitions you refer to actually pre-date your own judgemental religion. they dont influence current environmental discussion, but may appear as symbolic of an age in which man had a deep respect for the planet which provided for him. not such a hard concept really.

this is where the preachers have got it wrong yet again. evolution is not a religion. it is a scientific theory about the development of species as they adapt to their changing environment. the term 'accident' only enters discussion when a religious person assumes that there must be some kind of purpose. why?

it isnt surprising that the church would feel so threatened by the theory of evolution, because it pretty clearly puts humans in their place as just another weird mammal who exists alongside other weird mammals.

any realistic scientist knows that there is no limit to knowledge. perhaps the theologians believe they are at the top, simply because they dont possess the capacity to imagine any further. what could they tell us? that god created everything? how does that help, when it clearly answers nothing?

one can have a mystical experience by ingesting a powerful mind-altering entheogen, so the holy men really have no monopoly on the spiritual.

finally, your theory on humans and dinosaurs coexisting is intriguing. perhaps you could enlighten those of us who missed this significant part of history. which ancient human cultural artifacts have supported this idea? i mean, there must be hundreds, nay thousands of ancient paintings, sculptures, stories and documents that depict men and dinos playing together...?

otherwise your theory might seem a little crackpot, and it would be difficult to take anything you say seriously...

 

Everything can't be "priority #1." Otherwise, nothing is "priority." Just because I am a pronatalist, and favor the natural expansion of the human race, doesn't mean I don't water my flowers or mow my lawn. But I'm not going to make pathetic excuses for lack of childbearing, such that a few squirrels might lose a tree, when I perhaps decide to add on additional rooms to my home, to make room for a growing family. Lowly squirrels simply aren't relevant, and yet isn't that typical of a lot of the vocalized, supposed "environmental" concerns?

BTW, thanks for acknowledging that my philosophy is "good natured."

I am saying that the needs and wants of people, have to come before feigned concern over soulless trees and such.

The huge size of the human population alone, should tell us that humans were designed or even destined, to eventually grow so populous. To advocate otherwise, is itself contrary to nature. I often point out, that some of the ideas people have about nature, leave humans too much out of the loop, as if according to "environmental" propaganda that humans are supposedly an "intrusion" upon nature, and yet I can find no such evidence to that effect.

We may be partially responsible for those aspects of "impact" that we can reasonably control, but we are not at all responsible to unnaturally "limit" even rapidly expanding human populations, because God commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That makes it God's responsibility to determine how populous he would allow humans to be or become, not ours.

Yeah, it might be nice if the planet was bigger, or if there were vast untamed frontiers still remaining for the wild and adventuresome sort of people, and blah, blah, blah. But hadn't we work with what there is to work with, and not fantasy or nostagia of the past? Supposedly a few problems might, at least temporarily, until technology and political/economic development can catch up, be a little less, if the world population wasn't so huge already. But that is no excuse to ask people to have fewer children. Do children have little or no value? Of course people's children have great value. Thus, natural population growth should still be accepted as a welcome "given," and not some factor subject to our "control." There's way too many better alternatives, than considering how to foist anti-child delusion or population "control" upon people. How can people go on having so many children in a world with so many people alive already? Simple. Supposedly intelligent people can explore how to populate more densely and efficiently, for the greater good of all. Or more simple-minded or faith-based (not the same BTW), people can explore the natural idea that left to good motives and trust in God, or letting some things run their natural course, it just often naturally works itself out somehow. There's no need for everybody to be population experts, if there's enough pronatalists in the world to keep at bay, the deceptive disparagement of the huge population size of the human race. Human populations are supposed to be naturally tending towards being vast and sometimes rather dense, because humans are social creatures, quite able to both survive and thrive even at extreme population densities if or as need be, and because the planet is such a huge place, almost seemingly with "limitless" horizons.

You talk of effects on our continuing evolution. Well I like the term "development" or "advancement," as I don't believe in the lies of the "evolution" or atheist religion. But if you want to talk honestly of what effects humans becoming so incredibly numerous has on nature, well it tames nature, and makes humans to be all the more dominant. In other words, nature becomes less "wild" and less unkempt, and more human-friendly, more like how Adam & Eve were told to tend the Garden of Eden, for human benefit some Creationists or Christians would add, if it wasn't readily enough clear in the Genesis account. If human reproduction is destined to grow to become or be a mighty force of nature, then humans increasingly are or become what nature then is becoming. Rather than nature being carabou and buffalo herds, nature is increasingly the vast burgeoning "human herd," and our gleeming cities of houses, highrises, and glass/steel skyscrapers. But how is that supposedly "bad" for humans? It's both natural and "good" for humans.

And when you count the vast interior environments of humans, where is there any net loss of "diversity?" Human "diversity," in its positive connotations, counts for nothing?

Should God have made our environment to be a vast barren wasteland, perhaps something like the nearly featureless surface of the moon? So we would feel less "guilty" to naturally, over time, expand our numbers? We then wouldn't be "displacing" something "natural," of supposedly exxagerated feigned value? No, God filled the spaces in between all the people, with plants and animals, sometimes with seemingly vast diversity, much like one might expect to find lots of nice paintings, in a vast art museum. But what is the presumed purpose of all that art? For lots of people to look at. Without the people, and eyes to see, all the art in the world, would be worthless. God created a vast universe, and didn't want to be alone, or so somebody was saying on the radio, so he populated it with people, and God didn't want the people to be alone either, as God created Eve for Adam, saying it was not good for man to be alone.

Yes, there should be rules of personal responsibility. People should marry before engaging in sex. Parents should provide for and love and spend quality time with their children, and train them up in the ways of God. But doesn't the Bible say that he who sows sparingly, also reaps sparingly? That could speak of many things, but if "children are the future," as they say, then why do we in "modern" times, sow so sparingly? Do we not care to "invest" into the future?

Why are people now so society-"scared" out of having possibly "large" families? It was "no big deal" not but just a few decades ago, to have babies as they come. Before all the contraceptive-pushing, there was little perceived "need" for contraceptives among the general populace. A lot of supposed contraceptive "demand" was actually "manufactured" by trendy "family planning" anti-family propaganda.

Well what if the way forward, is to actually go forward? What a concept? I have heard elsewhere, that human population pretty much only goes up. Well maybe that's what it does. To go forward, hadn't we best, embrace that human-friendly idea? Or should I say "ideal?"

Yeah, I am also out of time, at this time, so I shall also likewise close.

 

Ahh, I don't like where this is going... actually, I'm not sure it's going anywhere. Discrepancies in other areas aside, I think we've both made it pretty clear what our positions are : You believe that other forms of life are insignificant compared to humans, whereas I believe the divide between "us and them" is virtually non-existent.

It turns out, none of our opinions or beliefs will change the world - so lets just hope the opposing parties don't find themselves in a position of power any time soon

 

Agree. You could fit half the people in the US in Texas. ha

 

Pro ->

"Yeah, I am also out of time, at this time, so I shall also likewise close."

That's not English my friend. Maybe you should speak in your first language so that we can understand you. You’re an idiot. The fact that people like you are allowed to reproduce is exactly what is wrong with this world today.
And by the way, Gods not real and neither is Santa Clause.

 

I think that it is obvious that overpopulation is a problem, but the only way to solve that would be for the whole world to limit how many children they could have, and that would not be right, so we will just have to deal with it I guess. ( I am aware we could also kill some people on the Earth but that would be evil and cruel, besides I wouldn't want to be involved in desciding who dies and who lives.)

 

"besides I wouldn't want to be involved in desciding who dies and who lives"

That's OK I can hanlde that part. I'll get the ball rolling here...I vote pro off the island.

 

Didn't you see this post up a bit yonder?

Yeah, the world isn't so "crowded," and there's lots of room, or lots of room that can be made or found, for all the additional billions of people that could expectly come along, well into the forseeable future.

And why do you suspect that who lives and dies, is up to a "vote?" Majority rule is no basis for deciding right and wrong, because rarely does the "majority" truly get to "vote" on most things anyway, BTW. Right and wrong are based upon God's commandments. If not, then might not everything be reduced to mere opinion, with no basis to objectively decide truth and error?

Let's say you have hypothetically, 4 wolves and a sheep in the room. Do they really need to "vote" to decide who's to be eaten for dinner? Just because the "majority" may decide something is supposedly "right," doesn't make it so. "Majority rule" might also be the basis for gang rape. If there's but only 1 person in the group that would be oppressed, why should their opposition count for anything? Because there are codes of morality and ethics, that really aren't logically decided by "majority rule" but more by the Bible, legal precedent, logic, things more like that.

But if we are to vote somebody off the island, why not boot off the anti-population whiners? If simply they would stop prattling on, about how they think there's supposedly "too many" people in the world, might not it seem a bit "less crowded" around here? I mean such vague concepts as "crowdedness" aren't really so much linked to reality, but to imagination. People can adapt and get used to it, such that it increasingly seems "normal" that there might sometimes be so many people around wherever.

 

I think the person above me is missing a very serious point. The main problem with population growth is not that we're going to run out of room, it's that the growth of humans has reached such a number that we have thrown off the earth's natural equilibrium that allowed humans a sustainable life. Because of the high number of human beings on the planet (not to mention their increase in numbers), non renewable resources are being gobled up at an alarming rate. What do you think will happen when oil runs out, making it impossible to harvest enough food for the world as well as to be able to ship that food out to people living in cities who can't live off the land under their feet?

The earth's carrying capacity has been overshot by far too many and sooner or later there is going to be a crash (most likely within the century), and believe me, Jesus will not be there to save you when you and your family begin starving to death.

 

Who exactly is saying the natural resources are being gobbled up? The corporations, that think they bought up all they can. Life isn't going to rely on coporations to determine whether or not it survives. In fact organized wealth if a true natural catastrophe hits will be the first ones without a clue.