overpopulation

When the crash comes we cling to those we love, not those we owe.

 

Well in that case, you could repost this post in a public area. But I usually respond in the thread where a point is raised. There would seem to be a few already relevant threads around here somewhere.

More than one person can benefit from 1 chair. If it's a "buddy chair" then 2 people can in fact, squeeze into it. Or they can take turns. Don't they "hotbunk" in shifts, in cramped submarines? A single bed is shared among 2 or 3 people, but not at the same time. And then how many Christian parties with food, have I went to, where there wasn't enough chairs? Well there's still the option of spilling out into other rooms or outside, sitting on the floor, or standing.

Usually more sandwiches can be obtained. And this training we receive as children, with too much food on our plates, to clear off our plates and not waste food, results in people thinking they have to eat and eat until they are "full," and couldn't that be a major factor in the worldwide growing pandemic of obesity? Maybe not always being "very full" isn't always so bad after all? I ate too much just the other night, at some Church activity, and I was not very comfortable much of the night. Seems I don't easily burb, but I much needed to. People often give me leftovers, because I will eat most anything, and most people have so much food and are so choosy, that they won't eat anything just slightly "old" or that they are done with or tired of, although it's still perfectly fine for me to eat.

I don't at all believe it need mean that more people will go without. No, a more pronatalist world, better promotes a societal mentality, that resources must be developed for the benefit of the populous many, and not merely the elite few. But yeah, if the world is headed to become more "crowded," then that's what I advocate too, as with proper development, even a "crowded" world need not be unpleasant. I often specifically advocate populating the planet more densely and efficiently, because yeah, supposedly the planet isn't getting any bigger they say. Not to confine people into any region, but rather, there could come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people.

In the dramaticized CD version of the Left Behind book series, the "Anti-Christ" scolded the developing nations for letting their populations "balloon." Yeah, sounds like an "Anti-Christ" sort of thing to do. Conversely, what's humane, human-friendly approach? Just that, encourage the various nations to "balloon" their already huge human populations, so that so many women of childbearing age already, can enjoy having all the children they were meant to have, even in a world with so many people alive already. If such "ballooning" of human populations may be destined for humanity anyway, wouldn't it go all the better, if we embrace rather than fight it? Then we should more readily make whatever needed adaptations.

Okay, I will take this as your permission to do so.

[/QUOTE]

 

Well then, isn't it like inflating a balloon? The bigger the balloon gets, the easier it becomes to push in more air. There's now more parents able to birth more babies. There's nowhere for it to "pop" to, because it's not like the ground is going to collapse under our relatively tiny amount of weight.

People are part of nature, so as we become more numerous and dominant, then don't people just increasingly "become" nature, altering nature for the human good?

Reaching such a number, isn't that like a "tipping point" flipping the environment to increasingly serve the needs of people? And this isn't something "unnatural" but a natural and expectable improvement over "wild" and neglected widespread wilderness of the past.

Well that's all the more reason for pronatalistalist, pragmatists, or whatever leaders and such, to be pro-development, to better insure that resources are liberated to serve the populous masses at affordable prices, not merely the rich elite few.

Most everybody around me says there's plenty of oil. High gasoline prices are due to bad development and policy. The oil's not running out, but rather headed towards eventually obsolescence, as people won't want to use it anymore, when we have those nuclear-powered flying cars of the future, as in The Jetsons cartoon. So we best use the oil, while there's yet a use for it.

Come on, not everything that some people claim to be negative, actually is negative. Why don't more people plant food crops and gardens, all the way out to the city curb? We could if we had to, right? No, modern society says, "Don't bother to grow food to feed your families into the winter. Work a job to buy it, and we will take care of it for you." So far, it appears to be working, at least somewhat.

Who's to say how many it "too many?" Who are we, being of no higher moral level, to judge our neighbors thus, as supposedly being "too many?" Most people prefer freedom and don't want to in any way eliminate the supposedly "surplus" population, but rather to adapt to it, somehow. There's going to be a "crash?" Blah, blah, blah. Hasn't some discredited Thomas Malthus, been saying such garbage from some 200 years ago? 6 times the number of people now, and in so many ways, we are far better off for it.

 

I don't think anyone can deny that there are way too many people in the world right now. I'm currently living in one of the most crowded nations in the world-- and almost no one actually owns land.

People mostly live in identical highrise apartment buildings which are thrown up in a matter of months, in anticipation of people moving there due to the demand for space. There are so many in a town that they have to number them or people would probably get lost amongst them. Everyone gets a couple bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen and a living room... the same as everyone else.

Garbage is mostly burned in special incinerators, but heaps of people ust burn it in special drums they have... like garbage pots. They're pretty strict about recycling, but the place is still pretty hazey.

There are also heaps of people growing their food next to garbage dumps where they burn garbage and the smoke fills the air-- but that's more about poor planning than anything else.

 

Sounds like you live in some communist country? Which one? If China, there's not so many people everywhere, and there's lots of rural areas all around. World population continues to grow, so all nations must do their part, to absorb more and more people, especially their very own natural increase, their children. They say you can't stop people from having sex. Well why don't they finish that idea, and say you can't stop people from having babies? When married people have more babies, it promotes the greater good of the many, and so possibly large families should always be welcome worldwide. Well the human body wasn't designed to use any form of bizarre, anti-life "birth control," so as the number of women of childbearing age continues to rise around the world, of course babies should be always welcome to emerge out of more and more birth canals, arriving faster and faster in ever growing numbers, as there's finally getting to be enough parents around to raise so many children.

People have so many compelling reasons to have children, that more and more people would be glad to live, that serving the greater good of the many implies world population should be welcome to grow "nearly as large as possible," most everybody wants or ends up with children, many couples have all sorts of problems or complaints about awkward, anti-life contraceptive use, that babies expect to be welcome to come to life regardless of the rising population levels or natural growth of families, that many people still have "religious objections" to contraceptive use and too weak of "will power" to have less sex during the fertile time of the month when being married and committed to each other means they have God's "license" for unlimited natural reproductive relations.

Yes, housing buildings can be put up in a matter of months, and I have long advocated that people continue to multiply naturally, filling the various towns and cities with dense and vast population even if it means stacking people into highrises or populaton arcologies (vertical city buildings to squeeze more people into less space), if it ever came to that, although world population doesn't appear to grow so fast anymore nor so agressively that most everybody couldn't long live "on the ground floor."

When people welcome their families to grow possibly large, they serve society by doing their part to enlarge human numbers so that all the more people may live. An important purpose of human life, among others, is to produce more human life. What can be more natural, than for a married couple to be pushing out their babies, welcoming them to come as they come? When I add up all the powerful human reproductive urges throughout the world, and all the compelling reasons people have to have as many children as they do, what I get is a globalgoal and nature desire among the populace, to enlarge the entire human race. So it's not such a big deal if the sounds of neighbors mating through open summer windows at night, becomes almost just a daily nightly sound of nature. In poor countries where entire families may sometimes share a room or two, it's understandable that children will routinely see the sexual activity of adults. Being alive is far more essential than lesser things like actual or real "privacy." Privacy can also be virtual, meaning that people have respect for other people and don't talk about what is nobody else's business. Housing can be improved later, while people can't just have their children later, because it would be the "same" child, nor would their be so many children, as human fertility is fragile and quickly fades with advancing age. Having so many people living so close together, probably helps insure that baby booms can persist and spread all the more, as natural desire for babies especially when babies are all around tends to be "contagious."

And which people are the "too many" that are expendable or that we can get rid of? Like you say, aren't the people considered sometimes to be much the same, future and larger successive generations having just as much right as anybody else, to live too? Sex should not be defiled as to be made a carnal selfish act, but should always be left open to the possible transmission of life. Let the human race "outgrow" the earth, if or as it naturally can, because how else does a baby get to be born, but that he or she first "outgrow" the womb? Likewise, couldn't humanity be also entering a new era, to someday if ever, spread to more worlds, or to have all the more people around to worship God and populate heaven?

How can people have all the children they were meant to have, in a world with so many people alive already, except that supposedly intelligent people explore how they can in fact, live and breed in close average global proximity to their neighbors, so that everybody may have their place in a world which they say isn't getting any bigger. Anti-family "population control" isn't the answer, when there's the far better human-friendly alternative, of letting the people populate themselves more densely and efficiently together.

It sounds like you speak of a communist country, because where else are all people's homes much the same, except where the government so much mismanages the economy? Homes tend to be bigger and more diverse, where property developers have to compete among other developers, to seel their housing to people free to buy or borrow money to buy. Do you really live in such a place? That wasn't a "hypothetical" idea was it?

Better to breathe hazy air, than to not breathe at all, because there were too few births.

"World population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born." some internet forum poster

If people don't want the air to be hazy, why not ban those nasty "cancer stick" cigarettes, especially with more and more people around having to breathe the same air?

Poor planning. Yeah, that sounds about right. A more pronatalist society, likely would plan ahead for population increase, a bit better.

I have long suspected that some bizarre and unpractical-to-enforce 1-child policy, wasn't even a Chinese idea. Didn't commie Chairman Mao not long ago, encourage large families, discourage use of contraception, because a "large and growing population" would supposedly make China strong? I suspect the idea imposing limits on births, really comes from overeducated idiot power-mongers in the West, leaning on China to get its "exploding" human population more under "control," lest "as goes China so goes the world." What happens if the most populous country in the world, can't "control" its soaring birthrate? I hear that many Chinese people naturally prefer "traditionally very large families." Well China multiplies its human numbers, and encourages all other nations to also enjoy naturally high birthrates too. Well I don't believe in anti-life birth "control" nor anti-family "population control," and I advocate a more populous world, so that's all the more reason to advocate large and "unplanned" families even in the biggest megacities of China. Let the additional billions to come, live in the obvious place, in between all the people already living. Let cities grow larger and closer and link up and merge into one another in vast conurbations of networks of urbanized regions, if necessary to find or make some space for everybody. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more. There could simply come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Of course it doesn't have to change all that much anyway, within the forseeable future, as human populations already tend to grow gradually and sluggishly, as humans are among the slowest at multiplying of God's creatures.

Evangelist Pat Robertson, as I hear, said that he could see China having a 1-child policy. What if they didn't, and people had 3 or 4 children? They might grow to 2 billion people before long. I didn't hear Pat say that on TV, but rather heard that he said that. What? Mr. Pat Robertson! Aren't you supposed to be a man of God? God can feed a billion people, but not 2 billion? I told somebody about that, and they said that Pat Robertson is getting old, and sometimes says crazy things without thinking. And generally, Pat Robertson seems to be among the pro-life Christians. Well pro-life is more consistantly pro-life, I would say, when also pro-population. What of the deep yearnings of some perhaps 350 or 450 million Chinese women of childbearing age, for more children. Growing to 2 or 3 billion people, would be the obvious and natural and elegant outlet for their powerful reproductive urges, and free up more people to not have to experiment with shoddy, nasty, unnatural contraceptives.

 

post title: Slowing down reproduction is a bad idea, just when so many people are getting to come alive these days.

More people should be "quiverful" or welcoming just as many babies to push out of the womb as the body wants to produce, because more and more people would be glad to live. Large families should be encouraged worldwide, because adding the poweful human reproductive urges up, and considering all the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, results in a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race. Squeezing out babies is the natural function of the reproductive system, and welcoming humans to reproduce naturally, without the potions and poisons of trendy experimental "birth control," honors nature and natures creator God, as human life was designed to become so incredibly abundant, which is why there are so many burgeoning billions now. There's an obvious alternative to anti-people, anti-family population "control." Simply explore how to populate the planet more densely and efficiently, to further the greater good of the many.

Children aren't bad for the planet, but rather as in God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, the earth was made to be filled with people. And since more and more people would be glad to live, and having more babies makes more people to worship God and populate heaven, human populations should always be welcome to naturally grow as God would allow, "nearly as large as possible." Thus huge population size can never be a sufficient reason to arbitrarily restrict natural family growth. Besides, people weren't designed to use "birth control," but rather babies used to happen when they happen. Sex should always remain open to the possible transmission of human life, because that's what sex and procreation is all about, not to "cheapen" sex into some selfish carnal act limited only to people getting their jollies, but to further mankind by naturally expanding the now huge size of the human race. And if sex is so wonderful as society makes it out to be, then shouldn't there be a proper natural outlet for it, that of pairing up, marrying, and producing children, so that there may be all the more people alive to enjoy sex, among other things they may enjoy about living? Perhaps baby booms are fun and "erotic" then, in a manner of speaking, when you think about what makes so many babies.

Humans are created as sexual and social beings, and supposed being intelligent, should be quite capable of both surviving and thriving, even at extreme population densities, if or as need be. So large families should always be encouraged, even in the most overcrowded or cramped living conditions. Instead of robbing poor people of their children, or "their only wealth" as often observed, why not improve the economy to better serve the populace, and expand the housing stock to better support the natural ballooning of the populations of the various nations?

 

Pronatalist, your christian beliefs have led you to hold a highly dangerous, selfish and delusional view of life and humanity. You seem to believe that man is the apex of life on the planet and that it is his apparently "god given right" to multiply and fill the earth with as many individuals as it can hold.

WAKE UP! Humanity was never supposed to reach the numbers it has arrived at today. Certainly, there is space on the planet to hold billions if not trillions of people. But you are forgetting some crucial facts.
Firstly, the earth is not just a vast expanse of uninhabited territory. Do you not realise that those "neglected tracts of wilderness" you refer to are home to an uncountable multitude of birds, bugs, plants, fish, mammals, lizards and other wildlife? Are you really selfish enough to believe that these creatures are expendable for the sake of the "greater good" you believe is humanity.
For the ability of any species to survive, there needs to be a large diversity of other species from which it can feed upon, otherwise, if there is only a handful of various food sources, and these turn out to be vulnerable to some disease or natural catastrophe that wipes them out, the species in question will die out. This same law applies to man just as much as it applies to owls, ants or salmon. Apparently mankind (or should I say the 'civilised') has forgotten this law, and as a result has been multiplying to such an extent that we have gone on to encroach upon other species' habitats to the point where those species are being wiped out at an accelerating rate. I could probably have explained that better, but I think Daniel Quinn, in his novel "Ishmael" does a much better job.

More threatening however is the issue of oil. Obviously the people around you are just as insane as your are to believe that not only are we running out of oil, but that we will soon be flying nuclear powered cars. Have you completely lost touch with reality? All of the so called 'alternative energies' are nothing more than oil derivates at the moment. Oil is the lifeblood of our economy (not to mention civilization) and according to well respected scientists and economists, it is running out. Check out www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net if you don't believe me.

So, my question to you is, when will you realise that humanity cannot endlessly multiply and that to do so with the knowledge with we have is not merely stupid, it is absolutely INSANE. Sure, giving birth to lots of babies now may mean lots of happy people in the short run, but in the long run your only increasing the amount of death, loss and suffering future generations (and most likely ours) will experience.

 

So how is my carefully thought out view, any more "dangerous" than that of the population control freaks? What is so wrong with merely suggesting letting nature run its course, in a human-friendly direction of course. What's the better solution? Kill off "surplus" people so that they don't die? Forcably abort their babies, merely because some people don't agree on how many people the world could be made to hold. Stir up wars of people fighting for "reproductive independence?" How is this "better" or less "dangerous" again? What will people more willingly fight for, but for their children?

And how is what I propose in any way "selfish?" I am a natural introvert. I tend to stay at home, read, and play video games. What use have I for "crowds" of people in more places or whatever? I don't seek the crowds, but then I generally don't fear crowds either, if the people are well-behaved. So what do I get out of pronatalism? To get to have more children, which I have that right already? My basic God-given right to breed, is better protected, by being surrounded by breeders. As they say, there's safety in numbers, and sin loves company. Immoral rebels like to come up with clever arguments, and get people to agree with them, so that they can foist their (anti-population) delusions upon the masses, steal their liberty, and put the people into some sort of police or slave state where there isn't even freedom of speech anymore.

Do you really think everybody is going to go out and breed, just because I say it's a good idea, once they get married? I could wish to be so influential? If I am "dangerous" merely for holding to consistant pro-life views, what have you to say similar, about the Catholic Pope? I am not Catholic BTW, but Protestant. What of the Church up to at least the 1930s? Catholic and Protestant all were against the use of "birth control" thinking it to be some perversion of sex or rebellion against God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

As many people as the earth can hold? When did this happen? When did the earth become "full?" I don't recall hearing the official announcement, nor upon what rationale it was based, nor being consulted to vote in the determination. (As if a "vote" has any relevance in determining truth?) Were all our ancestors who had little or no use for unnatural "birth control" wrong to give us life, or isn't it more likely, that we are wrong today?

Oh really? Then who's keeping you alive? Aren't you also "inflating" the human human population size, by continuing to live day after day? Or are you more "special" than the rest of us, or more "special" than people who happen to be of a different skin color over in those "other" less-developed countries? (Yeah, population "control" is one of the remaining holdouts of racism.) Other than that it happens to be illegal to commit suicide. Why? Perhaps it's some remnant of law morality based upon God's commandments, or the government won't let you go until you have had every reasonable opportunity to pay all the unjust taxes they impose upon us.

"World population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born." some internet forum poster

What numbers was the human race supposed to reach, and who gets to decide that? Why not the billions of reproducing parents, or better yet, God. You see, I trust that all those parents have at least the wisdom level of the population control freaks, which is hardly a stretch of faith at all, because when carefully examined, the population "control" arguments are incredibly stupid and based upon racism and ignorance, for all the "educational" aspects they feign to include.

Man is foolish to not admit to some things that just tend to be somewhat unknowable to man. Hence, population is what it is. A "given" to design around, not something we can "control," especially if as the population control freaks fear, human reproduction is growing to become a mighty force of nature. Why would you stand in the middle of the road or the train tracks, and hope that heavy truck or train can stop in time? Wouldn't it be far easier and more efficient (and safer), to simply step aside and get out of the way?

And lest you try to claim that many people on the contraceptive peddling liberal side aren't exactly population "control" freaks, if you entertain their arguments, aren't you then playing into their power-monger hands, and there are some that won't be content to merely propagandize against "excessive" childbearing, but to hinder the responsibity of all those parents to provide for their children with unreasonable anti-family "fines" or penalties of some sort. And this is not consistant with the idea of people taking personal responsibility for their actions, freedom, nor people being their own sovereigns.

That's one practical reason I don't much care for "lasse faire" don't-care neutrality stances on such issues. Because such a view says little or nothing and leaves it to the extremists to decide. Middle-of-the-road people, rarely make the pivotal needed differences in the world, but tend to "go with the flow" like dead fish being carried downstream.

Well then what's the problem? Problem solved?

Do all these bugs pay taxes, or vote on anything? Do they even "care" about such things far beyond their possible comprehension?

What a remarkable "coincidence" that humans are omnivores, capable of eating almost anything. I wonder why that could be? Perhaps because God knew humans would ultimately multiply into billions of mouths to be fed. We eat plants, grow plants, eat animals, grow animals, and probably are close to perhaps producing cheap synthetic food of some sort.

And man has many needs beyond just feeding, quite a lot of them being emotional, to be loved and to love, spiritual, etc. The Bible says something about not to worry what shall we eat and drink and wear, for the pagans? think of such things. There's far more to life than merely eating and feeding.

Ethanol and biodiesel, aren't oil derivates, but I think plastic is. But there's plenty of oil if enviro-wackos didn't try to block domestic oil drilling every chance they get, which plays into the hands of the greedy gasoline-price gouging oil corporations monopoly. If you want to go google it up, there's people saying that oil isn't even a "fossil fuel" but still being produced today. I think I saw that listed in a list of hoaxes over at the Philippines pro-life forum I sometimes visit. But the days of oil are limited, not due to shortages, but due to customer wrath against high prices and technological obsolesce. If I had a (nuclear) car that never needs refueling, regardless whether it flies or not, what would I do with gasoline? Use it as a cleaning solvent. Oh yeah, maybe I could get a few more years out of my gasoline push mower?

If humans "outgrow" the planet, who's to say that it wouldn't merely help us along to be "birthed" out of this planet, and to go on to spread to more worlds? What happens without rampant anti-life "birth control?" Maybe a "Federation of Planets" Star Trek-style, but then that's probably just one of the suggested many positive scenarios. More people to populate heaven, has got to be good too, and probably a lot more likely.

 

I know it sounds cold, but there are all kinds of people in the world who would probably be better off not having been born. There are children in this world who are dying of AIDS and whose parents have already died, living in corrupt orphanages where they're basically treated as slaves.

There are people so fat that they can't even walk, and are constantly demanding that other people do things for them. People who are always stringing themselves out on drugs. People who have given up on themselves and everyone else. But our society has gotten to the point where we can actually support people who would have ordinarily died out, or would not have ordinarily come to exist... and who have absolutely no reason to live, and the only thing preventing them from actually thinking about it long enough to realize this is a socially conditioned fear of death.

 

Well it is cold. Even if some people were so "worthless" to society as you suggest, at least in many of the examples you cited, there's no way to tell which people they would be, before they are conceived or born.

And haven't the Nazis pretty much discredited the whole "science" of eugenics? Humans aren't qualified to decide who gets to live or die, or breed or not, well unless the individual has committed a heinous crime and brought to trial to account for it, which isn't the case in hardly any of the examples you mention. Is it a "crime" to be a fat old couch potato slob? And sometimes these people "see the light," and decide to cut back on the potato chips and soda, and go walk around the block or something, before they drop dead of diabetes or a heart attack.

Couldn't you be less cold in that hypothetical? example, and tell that fat old slob, to go get his own whatever thing he wants? Besides, his fat old butt probably needs a "rest" anyway.

Perhaps somebody might say something similar of some bad habit you have?

Encourage such people to make something of their lives, not to just end it all. Where's the gain in that?

 

I'm not saying I'm perfect or anything, and I'm not even saying that I'm one of the necessary ones... just that there are definitely too many people.

It's not a crime to be a fat couch potato because the media says that those people are victims of something or other... but really, they ARE disgusting, and everyone knows it... you know it by that feeling you get when you see them-- and don't pretend you don't have it.

If we were still subject to the laws of nature (or the laws of God, for that matter) where the sun sets and there's no light, and you have to find food, and you live about thirty years, and you would burn things for heat that cause pollution worse than anything any car or factory has ever produced if only you could figure out how to make fire... then most of us wouldn't be able to figure out how to make it... and there definitely wouldn't be any morbidly obese people. If we had AIDS orphans, then chances are they'd be the last that the world saw of humanity... because no one would know what was happening.

But honestly, the people who actually lived under God and nature and themselves were completely different from the people who live now.

That's my point, I guess... there's nowhere to go, really... except maybe into space. But there wouldn't be any reason for it.

So I suppose that in that way-- that way that everything is relative and there's no one with any authority to proclaim that the animals are important or that humans are supposed to rule the world and do whatever they want-- everything you say is true. And everything I say is true.

And none of it matters.

 

I think we will have a problem because more forest are being chopped down to build homes and wildlife is being threatened, over a third of people old enough to work have no jobs or only work part time because theres no full-time jobs available, growing more crops and rearing more animals to satisfy greatdemand for food is placing a great strain on the worlds soil, a growing population means that more waste will be produced including sewrage and these wastes will contribute to more air pollution, more resources are being exploited to satisfy more demands for food, clothes, housing, industrial use, etc., and also there will be more outbreaks of disease. I think to prevent these things from getting worse people should become vegetarian because it takes less land to grow vegetables than it does to raise cattle, if your still young you might want to consider not having children but that wont reallywork because everybody wants there own child, you can write to your government and suggest a "one child" policy like they have in china wich means one child per family, recycle more things because if everybody recycled there would be more resources to go around, be water wise so instead of keepingthe water running the whole time while brushing your teeth you turn it on when you spit and rinse and off while brushing, and maybe donate to charity's and funds that try and help people who have low standard of living and/or live in third world over populated countries. I think these things will help byut im sire theres a million otherways to help as well. People just need to be more educated on overpopulation and see how much its effecting our world.

 

Most anybody can look around them and say, that there's place all around to put more people. To which I agree. How can or why would we even want to, try to prevent people from expanding into the remaining gaps between the people? Have at it. Most everybody wants or ends up having children, and so if not us or our children, perhaps those gaps will be filled by other people anyway, assuming enough time, which I think we are about to the Biblical endtimes anyhow. It's not so bad to live in highrises or whatever. I once lived in a college highrise. Aren't college campuses unusually dense with people, BTW? No, people aren't supposed to do just whatever they want, but the right to life is a rather fundamental right. If every person doesn't have the right to live, how can they have any rights at all?

It does matter, and there are places to look to for moral authority. Such as what does the Creator of the universe, have to say about it?

The world is nowhere near full of people. We can't pick and choose which people we think are important or not. Upon what basis? Mere opinion? Would they themselves agree? I find stupidity disgusting, but not everybody is stupid. And sometimes when we take the trouble to get to know somebody and understand them better, those things about them that annoy us can tend to fade.

It bothers me how people depart from that which is natural, and I am not talking about those irrelevant things that the enviro-wackos too typically worry about, recycle-this, environment-that. No, more like making themselves to look like freaks with ugly tattoos and body piercings, directly polluting their bodies with make-me-a-test-rat experimental-guinea-pig contraceptives. They don't even notice that they have a cellphone growing out of their ear? (Bluetooth headset) The cars get uglier and uglier, due to bizarre fashion trends centering around people trying to use their car as some sort of status symbol, and as a handy excuse by manufacturers to jack up prices for useless decorations and non-features.

I find it quite beautiful and natural, the "quiverful" idea of just letting human babies emerge from the body naturally, just as fast as it wants to make more. No need to pervert sex into some complicated and selfish unnatural act. It promotes more human life. It doesn't seek to overly "control" nature but lets nature more run "it's natural course." It doesn't fund the anti-life, anti-people propaganda interests by buying shoddy unnatural contraceptives. It more affirms the sacred value of each and every human life, to not interfere with the creation of human life. To not try to hinder naturally spreading baby booms. Nature wasn't meant to be totally tamed. Nature can also have a curious beauty when it is "wild" and out-of-control, in human-beneficial ways or non-harmful ways of course. It's the way people want to have sex anyway, were it not for the society-induced irrational fear of pregnancy.

But then what does all this gloom and doom ranting about disgusting people, have to do with the population issue? Maybe that's it actually. Maybe the population phobics, just don't like people in general, all that much to begin with? Or maybe they have very shallow minds, not able to begin to understand big words like "billion," and so they feel all befuddled and confused? If more people would take the Christian world view, well at least it would help provide some focus and perspective, as to maybe what this life is all about. Everything is "relative," and everything is true, to those who don't know or don't care what truth is. Those who do have some idea what truth is, can sometimes appear to be a bit dogmatic, holding to their worldview.

There wouldn't be any reason to go into space? Yeah, is there even anything out there worth going to, other than to whiz by with some robotic probe, taking pictures and measurements? Some episode of Twilight Zone, had the guy fleeing in a experimental flying sauce, before the world blows itself up or something, and right at the end, we learn what planet he is headed towards -- Earth. Interesting plot twist, after assuming he was leaving the earth?

I had thought years ago, about how I wished to have my own spaceship, and leave the unjust taxes, crummy jobs, and stupidity behind, but then I would have to bring people with me, or I would go plumb out of my mind from loneliness. But bring people, and they bring all their mental problems, and it all starts up over again.

So what else is there, but to try to see whatever specialness and beauty or love in people, that God must somehow manage to see, in spite of all our current flaws. Something that the population phobics, so full of their clever lies, don't seem to want to bother with.

On some forum or message board, probably just some google-lurking place where I have no account, there was some talk of something or other what it would be like, when there's 60 billion people, and 600 billion people. But why don't people see more clearly. If ever there's 600 billion people, wouldn't it occur, because things had gotten a lot better? Sci-fi stories such as Star Trek, foretell or hope for a future world without poverty and without money. Sounds like fun! Of course they didn't reign in the population all that much, it having "overflowed" into additional worlds apparently and blossomed into the 100s of billions or something. But with all that fancy technology, there wasn't much need for anything anymore on the planet, but human housing cities. What need is there for factories and farms, when they get their food out of a "food replicator?" What need have they for gasoline stations when they have spaceships with "warp drive," helping make it possible to resettle lots of people to additional worlds, if or as need be. Sadly, I don't see it going that way. People are too lazy and selfish to continue to breed to such levels, the current sagging demographic trends suggest. Man can't build "heaven" on earth, but people can improve their sphere of influence somewhat, especially if they seek truth and have Godly vision. And it goes by God's timetable, not by man's vain imaginations anyway.

 

And yet haven't I heard many reports of forests increasing?

Anyway, I advocate bigger cities and new towns in between, growing closer together, if that's what it takes to house so many people and to keep on welcoming all their children. Assuming that people still are loving enough to go on enlarging their numbers, well of course humans have to expand their range and territory to mitagate and prevent overcrowding, and hold down housing costs to affordable levels. Of course people may choose where they want to live. There's lots of smaller towns, and not everybody has to opt for the big cities, especially if the economy worked better for everybody, and not just the rich elites, a reason I advocate eliminating the income tax and property tax for most people and getting government off our backs.

You must be talking of some other country than the U.S. because the government-cooked low unemployment numbers, are much more optimistic than that. Of course they don't measure how many people are "under-employed" or just don't like their jobs. That might be harder to measure, or not result in the political gains they are looking for.

And the soil doesn't know this and doesn't care, because like the rest of nature, it doesn't "think."

And of course I advocate producing plenty of food for everybody out of altruistic and humane reasons, and because I want for people to go on multiplying.

The costs of properly treating the growing volume of sewage, are trivial compared to what each and every human life is worth. It's also well worth allowing the numbers of disposable diapers going into landfills to rise naturally with the growing population. And I have lived out in the countryside with farms all around. And what I recall, is all that animal manure that the farmers spread to help fertilize the soil and grow our food, doesn't smell all that bad and is easy to get used to. It's a rather "natural" smell actually. I remember burning the trash in a barrel, and the smell of burning leaves, until they switched to paying somebody to just haul the trash away. Must of been that cities used to allow people to burn their leaves rather than have them be all blown around by the time the city picks them up now. I kind of got out of the habit of blowing my leaves in the fall, and just mow them into the lawn in the spring.

I rather doubt that there will be more disease, well unless people keep fooling around with people to whom they aren't married, sexually, spreading nasty STDs around. But then that's the sort of behavior that false security in contraceptives and condoms, promotes.

If you think that, then you haven't been doing enough reading. I read on the internet, where eating meat, actually helps buy the human race "food insurance," because farmers then have incentive to produce far more food than it takes to feed all the people, and in times of famine, we can stop feeding animals and even eat the animals. And while I would gladly give up meat in order to better support a denser human population worldwide, it wouldn't help in that regard at all, as with a lot of the exxagerated "environmental" crises, it isn't that dire anyway. In terms of hours worked, food is now a lot cheaper than it has been historically. People used to spend most all their working time, growing food. Now 2% of the U.S. population feeds 25% of the world, freeing up so many people to do other jobs, like producing all this fancy technology that we so often take for granted.

I suggest people marry younger if they are ready, and abstain from anti-family, anti-life, shoddy, unnatural "birth control," welcoming their babies to just push out naturally, whenever they will, and of course, be wise and plan for and invest wisely to better provide for them. Why not more young people grow up and have still more children of their own? Isn't most everybody still having children? Why have a smaller "planned" family of maybe 3 or 4 children, when without the "burden" of awkward "family planning" a couple may have a "bonus" child or two, having the typical 5 or 6 children typical of countries where people still generally don't "plan" their families. It's better anyway, for more children to be born to parents with experience raising children. In a 1-child disappearing society, nearly 100% of parents have no experience. With 5 children or more, only 20% or less of children are born to parents lacking experience raising children. Besides, growing up in a large family better conditions children to both survive and thrive in an increasingly populous world. And many people say that having many siblings, helps guard against children being "spoiled" brats or whatever. Anyway, what's a few more children in a world of billions? Nothing much more "burdensome" to society, but everything to those children born as a result.

Children need hope for the future, which includes the pro-life idea, that it's still okay to procreate, provided they marry first and take proper responsibility to raise their children.

As I think you were saying here, the human population will still increase, whether an individual family has children or not. Why not share in the enjoyment of having children too? I don't expect people to "tighten their belts" so that religious or "quiverful" people like me can enjoy breeding naturally. It's more fair, to encourage everybody else, to do the same too.

The people are probably too smart to go for that, and who wants meddlesome top-heavy Big Brother micromanagement of our lives anyway?

Being more frugal and careful with resources could be a good idea, if not taken to excess or extremes, of the "poverty" religion of "environmentalism," in which "environmentalists" like to pretend that stuff is more scarce than it is, and restrict it to make it more scarce. Sure, to some extend, a more "crowded" world would seem to suggest somewhat the old adage, "Waste not, want not."

Come on, water isn't that scarce in most regions. And so much is lost to resevour evaporation, to industry and farming, tiny token conservation may not really make all that much difference. I don't run the water while I brush my teeth. But some people do, and I have better things to do, than send the water conservation police after them. Already, the "water conserving" toilets tend to waste water, by making incomplete flushes and too easily clogging. Such that the old "water wasting" toilets are often seemingly better. Also, I rarely ever water my grass, because then I just have to mow it sooner.

It's a lack of proper development, not "overpopulation" which implies that each and every human life, isn't really all that important or valuable.

I do help raise money for charity, but look for very conservative charities, like the Pregnancy Care Centers that serve as an alternative to abortion, and do not promote the use of contraceptive, because they are aware of the contraceptive link to abortion and the many failings of contraceptives. I greatly support people's rights to childbearing, and work to discourage contraceptive use anywhere I can, because robbing the poor of their precious, darling children, is not the proper way to go.

As or if human reproduction naturally grows to become a mighty force of nature, humans already being among the most populous of the large mammals, the need is for proper development to better support an increasingly densely settled world, not in attacking people's dignity and rights to live and enjoy having their precious darling children. Urbanize the world to whatever extent necessary as needed.

The proper size for the human race, can't be based upon the past, because thoughout most of history, it was too small compared to what it potentially could be, and was destined to become. We must look forward, to the future, as they sometimes say, "There is no going back."

 

Pronatalist, it's obvious to me now that I alone will never be able to get you to see the plain simple truth in that endlessly populating the earth is not and will never be sustainable. I can only hope that when the crash comes, you will hopfully regain enough of your sanity to not repeat (and encourage others to repeat) the same mistake we have been making since the birth of civilization.

 

Whaaaaaaaaaaat?

Hem... that very sentence made you lose all credibility.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest#Forest_management_and_Forest_loss

If you're gonna repeat the same shit over and over, please back up arguments like this with a minimum of proof... you'll realise the world is as you think it is.

 

I have carefully evaluated the evidence and the issue, and come to the logical conclusion that the population phobics have failed miserably, to back up their claims with logic, of how adding more people supposed "causes" all their dire predictions. They seem to hope and have faith in their population "crash" theory, but they can't properly explain the cause-and-effect relationship that leads to that. Most plausible scenarios run into more problems with the wars stirred up trying to fight everybody and nature too, to impose upon intelligent humans population "control."

People do not have a "parasitic" relationship with the environment, but more of a "symbiotic" relationship. The world is not some "fixed pie" of resources, but rather one makes investments which then multiply, much the same as how the seeds that produce our food multiply. What it does apparently take, is work and intelligence. What do you get with additional people, hopefully? More capacity to work and "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts" expansions of intelligence. Does anybody these days really know how to make a computer? Not really. It's the combination of various components made by lots of different people, that makes computers, the internet, DVD movies, etc. possible.

Let me give you an analogy, as I am a rather abstract thinker at times. On the Star Trek TNG episode "Time Squared," a mysterious vortex appears out in outer space in front of their spaceship. It starts tugging on the spaceship, so they resist. But the more they resist, the more the tug seems to gradually strengthen, to the point that their engines are overloading. Some bolt of energy comes through the hull of the spaceship, from the vortex, and hits Captain Piccard. The Captain, thinking that the vortex was after him, took off in a shuttlecraft, hoping to spare his spaceship. Somehow he got thrown back in time, some 6 hours prior as he saw his spaceship crash into the side of the vortex and be destroyed. Piccard returns to his spaceship, but the shuttlecraft power is dead, and when they try to hook it up to power it up, to retrieve the computer logs, the polarity of the shuttlecraft has been inverted, and so Georde has to fashion a reversed-polarity adapted power cable to make it compatible. The returned Piccard clone, is similarly disorientated and unable to speak. But as the time of the destruction soon approached again, he become more orientated. But he seemed to be locked into the past, unable to adequately explore alternatives. The real Piccard demanded of Piccard, what was the other option?, because resisting the pull of the vortex obviously wasn't working, they couldn't break free, and it was only a matter of time before their engines buckle under the strain. Finally the other Piccard clone who came back in time, muttered something about not resisting, but that was unthinkable, as surely that would mean destruction? The real Piccard knew he had his answer, so he phasored his Piccard clone, apparently hopefully to break the time-loop or whatever, and he ordered the engines shut down, that they were not going to resist any longer. Sure enough, the vortex pulled them inside, they passed through, reemerged into normal space, and the vortex disappeared as mysteriously as it had appeared. (Where was the imminent destruction?)

What does this cute little story tell us? I suppose the Star Trek writers would say, it's just a sci-fi story. But isn't the supposed population situation much like that? What happens if you resist a perhaps "irresistable" force of nature? Do we really want to test that paradox? As I see it, the vortex is the so-called human "population explosion," the resistance is unwarranted population "control" and rampant propagandistic peddling of "birth control," and like as in the story, there is an underlying apparent "intelligence" behind the phenonomen. That "intelligence" already knows where we should go, and the current will naturally pull us in that direction, but the resistance interferes with proper navigation, and invites perhaps certain destruction. Or as they often say, "the cure is worse than the disease." The "path of least resistance" is not population "control" actually, but rather the natural adaptations that can reasonably be expected to occur, if we, at least in this human-beneficial matter, allow nature to run its natural course. Failing to "control" human numbers, even historically has shown that it spurs on innovation and adaptation. Why do you suppose that nature seems to be becoming so "unable" to keep the huge human population "in check?" Because nature has no "desire" to do so, and because while humans are part of nature, people also transcend nature, being created in the image of God, so as we dominate more and more, we "become" nature, we tame nature, and nature becomes more humane and friendly and "controlled" by so many people. What was God talking about anyway, about people being given dominion over nature and other creatures? Is it because we are supposed so "smart" or because we "can?" No, I think a lot of it is that we would have no other option ultimately, due to our sheer numbers. It was an invitation to man to ultimately grow to become among and perhaps the most populous of the large mammals. Maybe that relates to Adam & Eves responsibility to tend the Garden (of Eden). That means, name the various animals and plants, prune and use them, for human benefit. Don't just let the world be completely overgrown with weeds and thorns. Expand the borders of "the garden." Build cities and towns, as those are needed too. Expand human numbers for the greater good of all. Spread "God's image" (people) throughout the world.

Now maybe you think this analogy story is but pure "wishful thinking" or fantasy. But have you considered what sort of people tend to be most prone to multiplying? The selfish feminists and pagans? The nonbelievers of little faith? The people of no vision? No, it tends to people people who love their children, may actually make an effort to spend time with their children and raise them well, those who don't consider children much of a "burden," those who like people seeing that they are filling up their homes with more people.

Now does adding these sorts of people to the world, destabilize the world? Like just piling up the barrels of gunpowder in some warehouse, hoping that there are no stray sparks to set off a most unfortunate chain reaction? Do you know how they stabilized nitro glycerin? They found it could be mixed with clay, and thus dynomite was invented. Adding additional material retained the power, but helped stabilize it. Now the military has explosives that can be molded and pounded like clay, and it's very stable, until it is energized by electricity. Most of the humble people of the poor or of the believers, believing in working for a living. They aren't revolutionaries seeking to overthrow or conquer the world. Many don't even stray far all that often, from their villages or cities. Many of them fear (reverence) God. Who then are the revolutionaries seeking to stir up trouble? It's the "intellectuals." The lofty over-educated idiots up in their reality-disconnected ivory towers of academia, who often have few if any children themselves, who fancy themselves knowing how to run the entire world, weaving clever plots to considate and monopolize the globe into some "New World Order" globalist one-government conspiracy utopia thing, that can't possible work, as where is the accountability and the checks-and-balances to reign in their abuse of power? Where will the refugees go, when it is found to be hopeless corrupt? And what's one of their really big obstacles holding up this impossible "New World Order" consolidation of power? All this freaking population, that we can't control what all these people say and do, and all these people of faith, conveniently asking inconvenient questions, and so much in the way of "progress." But why rush headlong over a cliff, that we don't have to? Why trust leaders who time and time again, show themselves to be corrupt? So pushing out all these babies, it's like the clay, helping to "stabilize" an otherwise "explosive" world.

I hope you understand a bit better now. If not, then maybe it's just not "knowable" to some unbelievers of closed minds? Or to people who really don't want to know, or fear knowing the truth. But funny when I explain my pro-population ideas to simple common folk, people who tend to have faith, they often get it. Perhaps their minds aren't yet so cluttered up with endless secular religious dribble about "resources" and "carrying capacity." Didn't Jesus say something about that one must have faith, like a child or something, to enter heaven? God said we would use the simple things, to confound the wise. Sometimes it's just so simple, that highly "educated" secular minds, just can't grasp it. It's too simple for all their advanced educational training to accept. But doesn't Oscam's Razor (spelling?) kind of have this idea? Often the simplest model that works to explain a phenonomen, is the correct one.

Oh, did I mention, that I don't assume people will be living on the earth forever, since that's not what the Bible says? Luke 20 says that in the hereafter, people aren't given to marriage anymore, but become as the angels. Angels don't reproduce, I don't think. I really like how sci-fi stories have people spreading to more worlds, although I seriously doubt that it will occur like that. I don't think I would really want to spend "eternity" on earth anyway. Surely there has to be someplace better?

 

"Pristine" or "virgin" forests, are largely a distorted myth. Forests are always being shaped and changed by human activities, natural forest fires, floods, etc. They are not static.

And so when counting forests, we must also count scattered trees in cities, and those pesky new "plantation" forests, planted mainly for their lumber or Christmas tree value. Even if they don't meet the approval of some "enviromental" extremists who feign concern for "unspoiled" nature, which of course, means pretty much few if any humans to even see it, lest they somehow change or "spoil" it, in their perverted view.

 

Of course this is a problem.

I advocate an indiscriminate culling of our numbers through artificial pandemics and/or famine.

 

All the pronatalists in the world couldnt wipe out the fact that overpopulation is real and is happening. This planet is being torn apart, destroyed, abused. Thats overpopulation. The amount of tiny children i have to push past here in Britain just to get to where im going. The problem is generally the wrong people are having kids here too, the ones who dont care, arent ready, or have them because theres not much else to do. They dont realise, or think. A hoard of well-educated children would be different, but as it is its not looking good

For me i hink when it gets to a point where theres SO MUCH destruction, so many things getting hurt, its time to take time out, step back, reason about why were having so many kids...i really have no problem with people who are willing to spend all the time needed to educate their children, teach love, respect, all those things. Sadly, in many cases, that just isnt happening. All they are creating is more negativity and consumption.

I plan to adopt