What do you think is a viable solution (S) to the overpopulation problem?

So, not only are you promoting unlimited procreation with no regard to social responsibility, but your also opposed to contraceptives? Do you believe in any form of self control at all?
I suppose you'll tell me condoms are a bad idea as well.

 

How do people manage to so badly distort pronatalist ideas?

No, I don't suppose that promoting the supposed "cramming" of more and more people into the same world, to be particularly workable without also promoting also a high degree of morality and social responsibility.

I would imagine that having more and more neighbors increasingly living closer together, is all the more reason to try to love thy neighbor as thyself, as Jesus commanded, after of course, loving God with all our heart, soul, and mind. And conversely, because we try to love thy neighbor as thyself, would be a practical reason why we would of course welcome our many neighbors, to go on multiplying and having possibly "all the children as God gives," as we perhaps do likewise at the same time. Dr. James Kennedy ( www.crm.tv ) said that had Jesus never been born, you probably wouldn't have been born either. Wonder what he might have meant by that? That the world would be a far crueler place, and not near as pro-life or human-friendly, perhaps? That world population could never have grown to the modern huge proportions we see today, without religious or moral guidance?

I promote "unlimited procreation," because of the many signs I see around me, that humans were likely even designed to eventually become incrediably populous. Why fight nature needlessly, when going along with nature benefits us, at least in the area of our own precreation, so immensely?

Most people seem to know little of the evil and disgusting history of contraceptive pushing, and how atheistic and humanistic, are the evil motives behind it.

Yes, condoms are a bad idea, because they promote false security, and aren't anywhere near as effective at preventing the spread of STDs, or even of forever stalling inevitable? pregnancies, as typically claimed. Like most all "birth control," condoms prove by many practical standards, to be shoddy and of questionable effectiveness, and aren't even pro-life. What future human, would have wanted to have been prevented? Each and every human life is sacred, and so we should not seek to interfere with the creation of human life. Sex should always be left open to the wonderful possibility of pregnancy, the obvious main purpose and design for sex. Why bother to use contraceptives, when pregnancy usually doesn't happen "this time" anyway, but more like "next time" or "eventually?" Many people probably aren't even near as fertile as they fear themselves to be.

No, humanity's powerful reproductive urges, are practical incentive for marriage, for a proper outlet for them, and because society needs to know who the fathers are, and to also hold them reponsible to help provide for their own children.

Social responsibility includes the general or biological "duty" and opportunity, for people to pair up and responsibly breed, not merely to barely "maintain" the present large population size, but in time to also enhance and enlarge it, for the great benefit of the populous many. Of course I support all the "social graces" and proper morality, so that huge and growing human populations, can be safe and thrive.

I believe, out of some sense of "societal responsibility," that people should be honest and report all their possibly many children on census forms, provided of course, that they have no reason to fear a government using that to somehow try to impose some form of "punishment" or population "control." As while the main purpose of censuses, according to the Constitution, is merely to provide for population-proportional representive government, censuses may somewhat allow for demographic data to help decision-makers and enterprenuers, better accomodate the naturally rising population growth, better, by locating future highways, water mains, businesses or whatever, wherever they can best benefit the most people, thereby better accomodating, and even encouraging further natural population expansion of the advancing human race.

I also do not believe that humans should practice the more "natural" forms of "family planning," such as Catholic-tolerated rhythm, nor early withdrawal, because it goes against nature, and isn't natural, to try to prevent possible human life. And there of course, are questions of "self-control" and thus whether the more "natural" forms of "birth control" are even effective for many families. Worldly joke about Catholics: What do you call people who use rhythm? Answer: Parents. Yes, I believe very much in self-control, but not to ban sex nor human life, but rather to restrict sex to Biblical moral confines, that of the marriage commitment, for the good of children and society. Marriage is not only a "license" for sex, but more properly, to enjoying having "all the children that God gives." The body (or God) already sort of "know" when to get pregnant, even without our bizarre and experimental inference. In old geneology terms, parents have "issue" of children, sort of as if, God just "issues" them their children, and populations have "natural increase," as if it was completely "natural" to expect human populations to increase over time. Isn't that largely much of the logical reason behind promoting public sanitation, flush toilets, vaccines and such, the natural and necessarily adaptations to an increasingly, and properly expected, populous and modern world?

 

You seem to be forgetting that people cannot live with each other. Your philosophy seems to be that by cramming people together they will learn to get along. By that way of thinking, places like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and any other big city you would care to name, should by rights be the friendliest places on Earth. The fact is, they are not. The big cities have the highest crime rates in the country, including every crime imaginable- murder, rape, theft, vandalism, I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

People need space. When they don't have space, they attack each other.

The crime rates are considerably lower in rural areas even when adjusted for lower population numbers. What I mean is, the percentage of rate of crime is lower. Could it be that rural people aren't attacking each other as often simply because they have enough room to breathe? I can't conclusively prove that point, but that's the way it seems when looking at the numbers.

The fact of the matter is some protection is better than none. While condoms cannot prevent all STDs, you're alot safer with it than without it.

 

And why can't people live with each other? Are all (crowded) college campuses, violent? No, probably not. And if even dumb apes can avoid conflict, as shown by some "overpopulation" experiment that I have heard of, why can't humans? Sure, it might be nice if humans had more planets to spread our burgeoning population among, but we don't. We have to work within what God has provided. The Biblical example is to spread out, all the while going forth and multiplying without nasty, anti-life "birth control." But there is but only so far we can spread out. On a sperical planet, as people perhaps spread out in all directions, eventually growing human populations encircle the entire globe, and run into themselves again. The planet is quite huge, but also "finite" as they say, and so I also suggest that world population needs to populate denser and denser also.

Correlation, does not equal causation. Not all big cities are violent. Isn't Tokyo, Japan supposed to be one of the more peaceful big cities? Something about stonger families or culture perhaps. With more people around, sometimes there are more "eyes" and less dark or "private" places in which to commit crimes. I feel about as comfortable in the big city, as in some more "wild" rural area, and either place, I report most anything I see as being dangerous or suspicious. Not to be some Big Brother government "spy," as I wouldn't dream of reporting any socialist regime tax-and-spend patriot-protestor "tax evaders" or such, but rather only evil people who appear to be up to no good.

I have stayed with friends out in the country, where people didn't even bother to lock their doors and left their keys in the car. Did everybody do that? Well probably not? But what would happen if people tried that in the city? Cars with keys in them, might go missing before long, but a home may go for years or more, before anybody even discovers the doors to always be unlocked. When I was on some "guard" duty in Basic Training in the military, we were to check people's locker locks to make sure they were locked. But who else, goes around looking for unlocked locks? Crime isn't about population density, but rather quite thoughtless crimes of opportunity by people with serious morality issues or drug addictions. Hardly the pronatalist, love-thy-neighbor mindset.

And let's look at another factor. Various neighborhoods within the big cites, are safer than others. How could this be? Probably some of the "safest" neighborhoods, are nearly as "crowded" as most any other neighborhood, but aren't as infested with drugs and prostitution, and families with absentee fathers, as others. The strength of family and Church, probably far more closely tracks how safe communities are, far more than naturally rising population size or density. There must be some 26 or more significant factors, so it is quite unfair to single out but only "population density" to be a convenient "scapegoat" for all the world's ills. Actually it is quite counterproductive, because it detracts from any real solutions, as probably now matter what humans do now, there may never again be any real "shortage" of people?

As I see it, God separated the various nations of people, by geology, by separating the land masses, and again by scrambling the languages, at the Tower of Babel. Not that there was any real "chance" that the people could build their tower "tall enough" to reach heaven anyway. God was not pleased with people coming together in their wickedness, to oppose God. Now we have yet another chance, to in some sense, "come together" into some "global neighborhood." Not into some ultimate tyranny world government, but by the human race continuing to populate itself closer and closer together.

I rather like the idea I heard somewhere, something about how the Mormons in the West, and the Menonites (spelling?) in the East are both into having large familiies, and so as their populations spread and meet somewhere in the middle of the United States, they would do well to work out their religous differences.

Not necessarily. There are other posibilities. Sometimes they learn to get along better. Sometimes they become more passive and less agressive. Sometimes they manage to find some form of "virtual privacy" in the midst of crowds. I believe when people lack sufficient actual privacy, then their "virtual privacy" should be respected, as I need not talk about nor name names, of any neighbors I may hear having sex, through the thin apartment walls. Of course, had my neighbor happened to be married, it would have been more understandable. I also, like any respectable people would tend to do, pretend not to notice nor ever name names, when I have noticed some mother breastfeeding in public. People eat in public, don't they? And if large and growing families are still to be encouraged, well then babies must be welcome to be brought along with wherever their parents might reasonably go, onto airplanes, into restaurants, or even to work or to Church activities. And babies seem to be hungry, most all the time. Breastfeeding in public seems to be "normal" in many developing countries more pronatalist than us, so we can learn a lesson or two from them, whenever what they do, is better than what we do.

I know people need space. But how much? I, years ago, read some wonderful article, in a magazine for large and growing families, read an article entitled, "How to Fit a Large Family into a Small Space." It was a wonderful article written by mothers of growing families. While it didn't pretend that people don't need their space, it wonderfully affirmed the great value of each and every human life, and defended the idea I have long held to, that people may in fact continue to multiply, even when or where they really don't have all that much "space" at the moment. That the great value of each and every person, far exceeds other relatively minor and temporary considerations, such as the comfort of having lots of personal "space." Some mother felt bad that her (many) children had to share beds, until she noticed that was the norm for children to share beds, on Little House on the Prairie, an old pioneer frontier time TV series. The article suggested such things such as that file cabinets make better use of space than night stands. Or that extra sheets can be stored under the mattress. While a larger home might be nice, sometimes the children come along, before all the money for the bigger house. And a child is worth more than a temporary home, that can be upgraded later anyway.

I read in some worldly college textbook, some years ago, that the population "problem" is simple. There are too many people and we are reproducing too fast. And yet was there any honest consideration of the many compelling reasons why there are so many people, and why people actually probably really "want" to be reproducing "so fast?" No. It depicted some UN photo-op of the baby that supposedly brought the world to 5 billion people, and warned that "at the current rate" it may not be long before we all reach "standing room only." How could they get it so wrong? This textbook had the daily growth figure off by a factor of 6, as 1 1/2 million people being added a day, would add far more than a billion people every decade or two, as another graph it showed, depicted, making it even inconsistant with itself, something that any basic math student could easily spot. And yet in a world with so many, many people, where the more people there gets to be, the more people there are who rather like living and probably want to reproduce too, to populate denser and more efficiently, is such an obvious way to find the needed room, to accomodate all the various compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do. They almost had the right idea, to suppose that people might actually prefer to populate ever closer towards the likely rather elusive "standing room only" population phobic scare tactic colorful phrase. This textbook, had some little paragraph buried towards the back, about "technological optimists," and didn't even bother to mention all the faith-based reasons why people naturally tend to prefer often large or "unplanned" families. It's so typical of the way that human population issues are so often, probably intentionally, misrepresented in the liberal, arrogant, self-absorbed, media.

I have estimated that perhaps a typical person, might need some 1000 square feet of space to call their own, a rather "generous" figure, considering that most people live together with their families, in less than that. But of course, it's a rather "arbitrary" number, that can widely vary to accomodate whatever circumstances, such as temporary "crowded" camping facilities, such as a rather "cramped" RV or tent. At 1000 square feet per person, or 100 square meters per person, the world could find space for over a trillion people. Even more, if we consider that not everybody would actually have to live all on "ground level."

Some "environmental" extremists, have advocated high-density housing, to supposed help keep the huge human population out of "wilderness" areas, or reduce the wasteful traffic that "excessive" city sprawl supposedly brings. (too much green and undeveloped spaces within big cities) I also advocate "high-density" housing, but only for those people who want it. It is but just a single tool, among many, to accomodate more and more people throughout the world. I don't imagine high-density housing is for everybody, as urban sprawl is also necessary to keep housing affordable for even the poor, as human numbers hopefully continue to grow and grow. No, high-density housing is for those people who want to live in the "center" of town where the jobs are, or where the urban action and excitement is, or for those people who don't much care for mowing grass or trimming bushes.

I have another idea. People need to procreate. When denied their God-given right to procreate, they tend to become disfunctional, and more prone to attack those attacking their family values. Or more accurately, to be attacked and oppressed by those power mongers opposing families. But I am quite sure that there are many examples that abound, of situations in which people who are "crowded" together, in fact, don't attack one another, and often work together, often even for the public good.

And there could be some 26 factors or so, involved in such correlations. What exactly, causes what? Couldn't it be, that big city anonymity, attracts evil people, who then tend to depopulate the small towns, in which anything that happens, is assumed to be "everybody's business" or gossiped about? Maybe small towns would be more violet too, if big cities didn't lure their undesirable elements away? And small towns can be racist and cruel too. Often in smaller groups, the "pecking order" is more pronounced, and so that there is "less crime" doesn't necessary tell the whole story. Maybe it's also because there is more comformity, and less deviation or variability or diversity (which word "diversity" I mean here in the positive conotation).

They say that good fences make good neighbors, but why can't there be "good fences" in the big city, also?

I have read somewhere, something to the effect that perhaps the huge world population that there seems to be now, requires a "paradigm shift." Well if so, I propose that it would be that with it perhaps taking there to be more big cities to hold all the people, surely the big city must also be an appropriate place for people to enjoy having their "traditionally very large families," and not just the slowly receeding, ridiculously low, rural population densities of the past into which people presumably might find more room into which naturally expanding human populations could obviously spread. Big cities, are already sort of, by definition, "population accomodation tools." I am a rather abstract thinker, so when I see some new apartment complex being build, with all the plastic sewer lines sticking up out of the ground before the building is added on top of all that, I see it as a "population accomodation" tool, of the sort that I am much in favor of. Perhaps an almost unconscious (or is it also conscious?) effort to warehouse more and more fellow people into seemingly limited urban spaces, to better allow the human race to continue naturally expanding it numbers so that all the more fellow human beings may also experience life. Hopefully the natural and expected result of lots of people not bothering to try to prevent possible human life, and enjoying natural sex without awkward contraception, and not merely people depopulating the countryside to move to the "crowded" cities in search of jobs.

I object to the term "protection." It's about as fraudulent, as the term "safe" sex, or "safer" sex. I looked up "safe" in the dictionary. "1: freed from harm or risk : UNHURT 2 a: secure from threat of danger, harm, or loss." "5 a: not threatening danger : HARMLESS b unlikely to produce controversy 6 a:not liable to take risks : CAUTIOUS b: :TRUSTWORTHY, RELIABLE"

Condoms are assumed, by magic perhaps, to be among the "safest" of "protected" sex. And yet they fail, by most any reasonable standard, to even meet the definition of the word. "Safe" sex, is sex within marriage. Ever since "the pill" and the magic condom, were pushed for "safe" sex, we seem to have far more STDs than ever, more adultery and promiscuity than ever, but "it's the thought that counts" apparently, and not the apparent effectiveness. Condoms are known to slip off and break and leak, and yet rather than honestly inquiring as to all the myriad of ways that contraceptives can fail, or even fail to be used, perhaps because they were left at home or ran out, the contraceptive peddlers keep pushing their "magic" contraceptives as the strange and unnatural "cure-all" for all the world's ills. As if human semen was somehow "toxic" or something, and not completely natural.

 

No-one thinks that way, our definition of "safe sex" is to avoid unwanted pregnacies. Most people just don't want to get pregnant until they have the space and funds to bring up their children in the best possible environment. People have the right to choose whether to have protected sex or a large family. Anyway, if condoms aren't as effective as we all believe, wearing them isn't going to make much of a difference, so why advocate against them?

On the one hand it is rather noble to care about one's own species as much as you do, but it's also rather irresponsible to claim that we should dececrate our environment so that we can continue our species. We would need so much more power for our society to continue in the fashion it is now. Nuclear power plants, burning fossil fuels, chopping down forests, 2 cars for every 2 people, etc etc. As a result, we would be hastening and welcoming our own extinction, and inevitably be responsible for the extinction of many other species. While you may not want to acknowledge or feel responsible for it, I certainly would.

Cementing over the desert and freezing over the sea (the next logical step) so we can live there is hardly 'natural' either.

 

The best way to avoid "unwanted" pregnancies, is to decide to "want" and value "all the children God gives." Conversely, the more contraceptive pushing we have had to endure in our culture, the more "unwanted" pregnancies we seem to get, because it's far more about attitude and faith, than it ever was about actual human birthrate statistics.

To reject the human semen, is unnatural, and goes against nature and the way sex was meant to be enjoyed. It makes sex to become awkward and complicated, and seeks to prevent possible human life, of those future people who obviously wouldn't have wanted to be prevented. I love children, and think myself no "better" than my children, so although God puts the parents in charge of providing for the moral guidance and care of our children on loan from God, I would want my children to know why their parents don't practice any means of "birth control," because more children are always welcome, or because we have faith to try to welcome "all the children God gives," or because children are less of a "bother" than contraception would be.

I do not believe humans to be "too fertile" but designed to be fertile enough that our numbers should continue to naturally expand with each successive generation, in accordance with God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That commandment doesn't appear so much an endgoal, as a natural process, and a natural expectation that the world should naturally be welcome to grow fuller and fuller of people, with each successive generation of humans, clear to the Biblical endtimes.

So how did people aquire this "right" to reject a possibly large family that they might have been meant to have? Our ancestors, before all this rampant contraceptive pushing, didn't fancy themselves to have any such right. A humorous book on culture I have, 13th Gen; Abort, Ignore, Retry, Fail? (old DOS computer lingo), says that up until the 1950s, people just had children and didn't count the cost. Of course until recently, children didn't seem to "cost" much anyhow.

I think a common way that many families grow to become "large," is not by "choice" so much, as by "it happens." Many people, after having had their 4th child, still haven't got around to choosing a "satisfactory" means of "birth control," or it may not even dawn on them, that their family is starting to grow "large," as they love their children, and it seems normal or perhaps even "meant to be."

In a world in which people reasonably can expect to live well into and usually beyond the reproductive years, of course it's easy to have possibly more children than the paltry minimal number of 2.1 children per couple, supposedly eventually leading to population "stabilization." (Stagnation is more like it.)

At my forum, I recently posted a topic about that "Birth Control Gets in the Way," outlining at least some of the many problems people are having with "birth control." Well what if they do the obvious thing, and shun awkward, anti-life "birth control," opting instead for the many virtues of the "no method" method? Well if many people do that, surely society must adapt and warm to the idea of more people having possibly large families again, even though in a populous world with more people than ever, alive now.

Until they have the space and funds to bring up their children in the best possible environment? Children don't take up much space, especially small children. What takes up so much "space" in our homes, is all the "stuff" we keep buying, that our ancestors somehow did okay without. Small homes were never much of an obstacle to people having large families, as in the past, the home was more of a place to merely sleep and escape bad weather, as people spent more time outdoors anyway. One reason why we seem to "need" so much air conditioning, is that we find all the more excuses to hardly ever go outside. And I can relate to that, as I am a natural introvert, preferring to stay home and read and play video games. To go to some places, I about need for a friend to come pick me up and take me there, because the alternative of not getting lost, and not having to spend money, by just staying home and reading my books and magazines, often appears simpler.

Funds? Until people started "planning" their families, taxes weren't really all that much, well except maybe for the truly "rich?" It's as if God is saying that he won't be mocked, to our culture. All the money we think we are "saving" by having fewer children or a 2nd wage earner in the home, quickly evaporates to increased 2nd wage earner expenses such as for the 2nd car, the daycare for 2 children or more, eating out because who has time to cook anymore?, and of course all the additional taxes on the additional "income." Is it more important for our children to have $100 Air Jordan tennis shoes, than to be welcome to come alive and to enlarge our families? Does every child really need their own Game Boy Advance or Nintendo Dual Screen or Sony Playstation Portable? Whatever happened to the entire family sharing a video game console? Do our fast-growing children really need expensive designer new clothes, when there are plenty of cheap clothes, often hardly worn, available for almost nothing at yard sales? Or when they can get "hand me down" clothes from their older siblings or relatives or friends? Both my Dad and my sister, like shopping the yard sales, the sales, and the coupons. My sister buys stuff for almost nothing, with coupons sometimes. I hardly know how she does it, as my coupons usually expire or get lost, long before I use them, and yet I think I am frugal with money too.

Because the naive believe in "wishful thinking" contraception, leads to bad, selfish attitude, and then abortion when the shoddy, experimental, anti-life contraceptives, no-surprise, "fail" yet again and again.

Also, I rather suspect sometimes that God gives so many children to the poor (See Ps 107:41), because the "rich" people don't want them.

If the condoms don't much work, then wouldn't that be more like a reason to not wear such unnatural and awkward, aim-to-prevent-human-life devices? Well since pregnancy probably won't even occur "this time" anyway, but more like "next time" or "eventually" or around the time or a few years after, Mom quits having to breastfeed her last baby?

Yeah, God certainly has the ability to "override" all of our selfish, anti-life contraceptive efforts, and give a married couple a baby, even though they might not have even had sex in quite a while, but doesn't God look at the heart, and seek people of faith with "It's the thought that counts" and unselfish attitude and such? Since God commands people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, surely that implies that using "preventative measures" to limit family size, isn't a good idea, as wouldn't that then be "rebellion?" Such a commandment doesn't even specify much how many children to have, but rather how we ought to behave. If a couple is naturally infertile, or they only manage to produce but 1 baby, I could them as being faithful to that commandment, so long as they aren't trying to "limit" their family size. Many Catholics who don't believe in using "birth control," also believe it to be contrary to God's will to seek infertility treatments. I don't completely agree, because Deut 30:19 says to choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. Of course, God can "heal" infertility problems at any time, without people being "obligated" to seek unnatural? infertility treatments. But I also believe humans may in fact, help the procreation process along, since even a "test tube" baby is much the same, and glad to come alive also.

Why do so few people besides me, suspect that the very reason God may have given humans dominion over other creatures and over nature, could be largely that our growing natural "population pressure" would not be a "problem" nor "curse" to us, but more like a great "blessing?" That we wouldn't dominate so much because we are supposedly intelligent, or because "we can," but because due to our sheer numbers we would come to have to. Each and every human life is sacred, and so we ought not to interfere with the creation of human life. As more women come to childbearing age throughout the world, of course they should be welcome to marry and begin procreating naturally also, as baby booms persists and spread and even populations are free to go on booming towards naturally enlarging the entire human race, the common global goal and natural desire our powerful individual reproductive urges and compelling reason for having as many children as we do, all cummulatively add up to. God imputes value to each and every person, and we value ourselves, so each and every individual is just as valuable and precious, no matter how huge the overall population may grow.

Where to put all the additional people, perhaps to come? (Even though most demographers now don't predict more than a few billion more people to come into the world within our lifetimes.) How about where we have always put them? In between all the people already living. There can simply come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. As somebody remarked on some population-related question on Who Wants to be Millionaire? TV game show, human population only seems to go up. Well why not just let the people build themselves more homes, more streets, more cities and towns, to best hold themselves and all their children? Urbanize the planet to whatever extend needed. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land, and so it obviously could be more.

The value of each person, or of each additional person, is immense and incalculatable, compared to the rather trivial expense of the resources they will need to use, or the costs of processing the wastes or disposable diapers and such that an additional person can be expected to produce. And the Utilitarian Principle idea of it often being the best thing to do, that which most benefits the most people, both tend to viewing any "ideal" sized human population, not being pidly and nearly as small as possible, but more like being huge and nearly as large as possible. That means, that people living in the most populous nations of the world, or even in "overcrowded" surroundings, should of course be welcome and encouraged to always let their families grow possibly large, so that more and more fellow humans may also experience and hopefully enjoy life.

Of course, proper use of the technology that human population expansion helps to naturally accelerate along already, can help mitigate most of the supposed "problems" that huge or dense human population may bring, without having to actually "limit" our overall numbers.

Well of course to welcome more and more people to inhabit more and more cities, most anywhere and everywhere, would seem to require that the need for cheap energy, be respected better, and to stop this nonsense of creating artificial or contrived "shortages" to fatten the $400 million golden parachutes that probably undeserving corporate CEOs are giving themselves, like that retiring CEO of Exxon/Mobile. Of course, I imagine the world already has so many people, that we should be developing most every economically viable energy source, until the "technologies of the future" finally come online. Drill more oil wells. Mine more coal even though it's a dirty job that should soon be obsoleted. Build those nifty wind turbine farms, that is if they are really economically competitive, even though rich TV channel owning molgul Ted Turner claims they spoil the view. Of course build more nuclear power plants to power big cities without all the smoke and expense of coal mining. Build more hydro-electric dams.

2 cars for every 2 people? Well I helped my sister to buy a 2nd car, actually a 3-row seating van, and she is still a Stay-At-Home Mom. Even Stay-At-Home Moms often want the 2nd vehicle, so that they can pack up the children into the car, and go shopping for groceries, to have her man's dinner ready at about the time he gets home. Twice as many cars as licensed drivers? Now that would be "excessive." How many cars can I drive at one time? But people in India and China are getting cars now, and they probably has as much right to have cars, as anybody, and people have to be allowed to accumulate the wealth they produce, so that they may properly support their naturally growing families. With which they can obviously choose to buy things like cars. More people, all wanting to buy and consume more? Obviously supply and development then have to increase, and such progress should be assumed then, to be "unstoppable," and so we would be prudent, to adapt.

I already spelled out what I think to be the most risky "experiment." Not in letting human populations continue to naturally expand, but foolishly trying to stand in the way of such a "mighty force of nature" that perhaps human reproduction may be becoming. If you didn't see it, just do a Search for Star Trek's "Time Squared" episode, and how I made the anology that trying to "resist" the growing "population vortex," is actually what "crashes" us into it, rather than passing harmlessly through it. I sense an "intelligence" behind it, as perhaps there was supposedly some "intelligence" behind that Star Trek anomoly, and it's a test or a puzzle, that surely "intelligent" humans should be able to find the correct answer to, that perhaps human populations naturally grow in time, so huge, because human population naturally accomodates itself and finds it own way it was meant to go, when entrusted to God or to good leadership and vision, that the "advancement" of the human race, even in naturally burgeoning its already "huge" population size, probably is a "good" thing after all.

I have also made the point about the "Anti-Christ" in the Left Behind series, scolding the developing nations for letting their population "balloon." Yeah, that sounds like an "anti-christ," cruel thing to say. Conversely, what is the "humane" and kind thing to do? Just that. Welcome the various nations to "balloon" their population size, because how else, can they still have all the children they were meant to have, in a world with so many, many people, already? By all the various nations, all growing more and more dense with people, all at the same time, is the obvious way to find or make lots more room, for possibly the lots more people perhaps to come, in the future.

Well awkward, anti-life contraception, definately isn't "natural" either. Do you suppose that people will just magically tire of sex, when we supposedly have, by some population phobic's estimation, "more than enough" people? If people increasingly don't go outside much anymore, other than to just scurry to the pampered air conditioning of their cars, then what really is so wrong with "cementing over the desert?" Freezing over the sea, doesn't appear very practical nor feasible at the moment. But piling people into highrises or vertical population archologies, or underground cities, could be doable, except that we still have plenty of land that such sci-fi adaptations don't appear much necessary anytime soon. Urban sprawl should be plenty to accomodate the natural increase of humanity, well into the forseeable future.

 

I think this sums up your thought process pretty well. And oh, holy freakin' shit, it's ridiculous. The only reason someone couldn't provide for a larger family is if the father is in school? Some people are poor! Business field? Not everyone has college and business fields! What about third world countries and couples? Populations are generally high there, along with the number of poor. Should they all just pack into inner tubes, come to america, get educated, go home and start a business? Opportunity doesn't knock at everyone's door. Not everyone can afford college. Especially if they can't afford food!

But wait, they can pray? So if they pray, and god doesn't hate them, he might just hold off with that baby he was going to hurl down that birth canal like a bowling ball, huh? Just like he heals people, saves people from hurricanes, and stops tsunamis, right? If god does exist, he's not gonna help you dodge responsibility by saying, "ok, you go ahead and bang, I'll block all the sperm from the egg." God is your condom, huh? I wonder what the failure rate for that is. If your life is going to be shit with a kid, it is your responsibility to either stop having sex or to use BC. You are preaching something that will not work, and if people in this situation followed your advice, it'd be their own fault (and yours), but their life would be shit.

And one thing I keep telling you, but you can't seem to accept, is that there is no waiting list for babies. Babies don't have a line to be born. You aren't killing anyone by wearing a condom. There is not some spiritual well that feeds impatient conciousness into babies. Life is only created if an egg and sperm combine and develop. And really, life wasn't created, since the sperm and egg were both alive, life is only continued.

Seriously dude, your position is so stupid and shortsighted it almost makes me want to go on a murderous rampage just to lower the population a bit. I'll bet god feels the same.

 

Absolute truth!!!!! every ejaculation has approximately 20, 000, 000 sperm cells and yet only one "makes it." Are all the rest sinners? Every woman has an egg a month for approximately 40 years of life (that's about 480 eggs) and yet only has two or three children. The rest don't make it...just like the 19, 999, 999 sperm cells...

 

The folks that argue against intelligent family planning and reasonable birth control methods wouldn't allow termites to multiply without stop in their home. If they did the little buggers would destroy their house. They wouldn't allow their cats or dogs to multiply without stop in their homes because before long the would be up to their eyeballs in cats and dogs.

The earth is my home. Unlike the animals, bugs and pests I know that I have limited space and resources. I have the intelligence to know that if I want the QUALITY of life for my offspring to be high then I can't destroy the limited resources that they will have available to them by wanton over-consumption on my part OR the senseless act of creating far too many of them for the available space and resourcs that they will have. Its called good stewardship and it is the responsible thing to do. To answer them I can say that THEIR Bible says that the Lord is coming to destroy those who would destroy the earth.

 

Well said.
That has basically been the point of my posts on the subject as well. We have to be careful with the resources in order to maintain (and possibly improve) the quality of life.

 

Well maybe the people who might hypothetically be living in some desert area, might rather it be full of houses, rather than to be homeless, or worse yet, nonexistent. Land is obviously worth far more, and put to beter use, when it is filled with people. So human populations can't spread, because we might displace some supposedly wonderful beautiful place of many wild creatures (that few people see or appreciate), and human populations can't spread to some "dead" place either? So where then do we spread to? If we had a dozen planets to spread out to, would we still feel so "guilty" to come to inhabit more worlds? If God had made the moon and Mars "alive" then it would be more habitable to humans, but we then may feel "guilty" to encroach our burgeoning populations into such worlds? Why do we fear "progress" and natural changes that clearly benefit humans?

Good. That's the way I like to think. Rather than manufacturing bogus scarcity, why can't humans adapt? If there isn't enough fresh water, why not make our own, from ocean water? Then it matters less and less, whether we get enough rain, as ocean water is limited only by desalination capacity, which obviously can be scaled and expanded right along with natural expanding human population growth.

Underground houses? That might be a tough sale to a lot of people. What about the traditional windows? Maybe do some "fake" windows connected to outside webcams? While underground homes might be easier to heat and cool, wouldn't seeping water moisture cause problems? But then of course, dual layers of housing among every street, above and below ground, could help enhance the accomodatable population density of growing cities. Eco-friendly houses? That sounds like some tree hugger "green" nonsense. But I do rather like some of the ideas of building more hexagonal or geodesic homes, if they could somehow be manufactured more affordably than "traditional" boxy homes? There's probably a lot that could be done to get the cost of housing down, so that more of the populous masses of developing countries, could move out of overcrowded shantytowns, and into spacious round or geodesic homes? I think square or rectangular boxy homes look "unnatural" but that's okay — nature doesn't "care" if human homes look "natural" or not, if "boxy" homes are among the cheapest of ways to mass-produce affordable housing and not just a "tradition" thing?

I just don't see the point of trying to restrain the natural "encroachment" of human population — other people, throughout the world. It's obviously too much "work" to interfere, with no "benefit" for me or anybody for interfering. If human populations can manage to populate to ever higher levels, so much the better for the populous many. I see it as a potent measure of "progress" for the advancement of humanity anyway. People are amazing and curious creatures, created in God's image, and so long as they behave and are friendly, well of course we should be grateful to God for making humans — that's our kind, mankind, to become so incredibly abundant.

And what's the point of driving through an "empty" desert, when the gasoline prices are so high? Stay at home, and boycott the oil monopoly, enviro-wacko, manufactured scarcity of gasoline, as much as possible. At least wait for the oil monopoly to be broken up, and gasoline prices to fall back to earth, before driving across the desert. And bring lots of water, because cars have been known to break down from time to time, and with no people in the desert to help out, that can become a "survival" situation.

And these days, people don't see the scenery anymore anyway, what with all the portable DVD players people think they need in their cars now? Sure, I think every car should have some navigation computer/TV/DVD in their dash, and that cars should drive themselves to eliminate idiot drivers, sort of like as depicted in the old 1980s TV series Knight Rider, but that is some ways into the future, and why miss all the scenery, to watch a movie, when one can watch a movie at home? And of course we have to bring passengers to watch movies, because the driver is supposed to be watching the road.

And so the people shouldn't go out for a drive, to see scenery or the desert or anything? Just stay couped up in their crowded cities? No, I don't think I agree with that idea. People shouldn't be restrained to only their highly populated areas. People should have the free roam, of mostly the entire planet, except maybe not too many morons going to places Antartica or the top of Mount Everest, lest we have to go and rescue them before they freeze to death. Perhaps it increasingly takes the entire planet, just to hold all the people, so let the people go, most anywhere they want.

And I hardly think the "dead" desert is much worried about a little rubber and smoke. If I was to drive through the desert, I would hope I could drive on pavement, not on wild sand dunes. Sand can't be good for cars. Perhaps camels are good for something after all?

Well of course, the need of the (growing) population may be far greater than the need of a person, in some respects. In order to respect the God-given right and duty of procreation, I don't imagine that a person can have any "right" to live miles from their nearest neighbor, as some people might have enjoyed, or perhaps suffered actually, in the past, as perhaps seemingly "unlimited" human procreation and a spacious planet, would seem to be mutually exclusive. Sure, people may choose to live in rural areas, but they have no "right" to require such areas to not eventually populate themselves up to "urban" densities. If more people come in, or if the people already there reproduce and multiply, of course people may move to other still rural areas.

Some enviro wackos like to make silly claims, such as "whatever your cause, it's a lost cause without population control." Not so. What if one's "cause" is the advancement and expansion of the human race? Then the lack of population "control" helps out freedom and progress, and is the natural order of things and what was meant to be.

I don't subscribe to the notion of excessive "individual" rights. The collective interests also should be given some consideration, but not at the expense of relegating individuals to be pawns or cogs of some socialistic society "machine." But some liberals and feminists may think that how many children they have, is nobody's business but their own. I disagree. What if everybody had large families? Wouldn't society be forced to grow denser? So everybody is affected. If ever how many children people have, was merely a "private" matter, it isn't anymore in today's world of burgeoning billions. My argument for continued human population expansion, isn't just about "individual" rights, but also collective good. It's not going to hurt us, to "scoot over" a bit, and make or find room for the naturally increasing quantity of human life throughout the planet. Most of the effects of human population growth, are largely positive. And the "need" of the general population, can very well be among the reasons to encourage "individual" family growth, as the population in general, does appear to prefer to grow more and more numerous over time anyway. Yes, people do have "individual" rights, including that of natural or "unlimited" procreation, just so long as father stick around and provide for their children and such, but there is social responsibility to consider also. And so society should encourage the needed pronatalism and responsibility and development needed to benefit the many "individuals" within it. I believe much of the technological progress of recent times, to be largely driven by human population expansion. We didn't get much progress in technology, until human populations began to seemingly grow "huge." The correlation appears too remarkable to be mere "coincidence." Collectively, our individual powerful reproductive urges and various compelling reasons to have as many children as we do, adds up into a global goal and natural desire to naturally expand the entire human race. Most countries can in fact, find lots of room for lots more people, and can obviously build more and more communities of people, and modern technology helps people and cities to be able to more comfortably and safely, live and exist closer together than in the past.

How disappointing it is to read in my worldly college textbook, of some probably atheist-based "lifeboat ethic" concerning world population growth. It claims that helping poor countries, may actually be counterproductive. If we give them (or sell them or trade) food and medicine, we reduce infant mortality, increase longevity, and encourage more childbearing, which all serve to worsen their "overpopulation." Nonsense. Humans already naturally want to grow more and more numerous, and so by encouraging the various nations to populate denser and denser with people, we further our own human race, and if God does exist, then God commanded people to multiply anyway, and God can feed 13 billion people as easily as 6 billion.

Yeah, a few overeducated idiots like to hear themselves prattle on about supposed "overpopulation," while even themselves like to cluster together in perhaps "crowded" cities. Seems rather inconsistant to me. Al Gore claims there are too many people in the world, and yet he himself had 4 children? The word "hypocrite" comes to mind. Maybe he considers himself "better" than all us mere "peasants?" On some forum about "global warming," not only did ever sensible objection that I have heard of to the global warming hoax come up, but somebody even called Al Gore a "liar." How can he still be on his insane global warming kick? Why wouldn't people who claim to be worried about supposed "overpopulation," be crazy zenophobic nutcase hermits living out somewhere "in the middle of nowhere," in some log cabin with no electricity? Maybe they are racist? Maybe they like people, just so long as they are of the right skin color, or are fellow "tree huggers" like them? Somehow, I just don't see myself as much different than the populous masses of the developing countries. Aren't we all much the same, in God's eyes? All precious humans, created in God's image.

Well actually, the "majority" rarely decides much of anything. (Well other than the population size of the world, decided in the privacy of marital relations occuring in billions of bedrooms, which more accurately, God should actually decide for us.) Too often it is the elite few, who don't live in the real world anyway. But the majority obviously wouldn't want to be told how many children they may have, and the majority of people grow up to become parents and have still more children themselves. I believe the majority really does want to grow more numerous. I recall reading or hearing somewhere, some "environmental" rant that people reduce, reuse, and recycle, but they keep having babies. But of course! If we didn't reproduce, then exactly who are we supposedly leaving this "cleaner" world to? What would be the point?

While I advocate denser population, I also advocate the needed suburbs and urban sprawl to properly accomodate it. I also advocate people being free to spread out, or populate closer together, wherever they would choose to live, just so long as the human race is free to increasingly spread and naturally fill the world fuller and fuller of people, with each successive generation, as God clearly must have intended for humans to do. I advocate large families in small homes, as being better than small families in small homes, but obviously large families in large homes, would be the ideal. So I would advocate larger homes, for the purpose not of feeding our shopping addictions, but more for having plenty of room for our own natural family growth.

What exactly are sink estates? We shunted the problem down the line by a century at most? Huh? By making room for more people, we solve the problem for only a century? Well good then, for who knows if world population will even grow much more, after a century? Why not do what we reasonably can, to allow "unchecked" world population growth, so that all the more fellow humans may enjoy living too? Far better for people to live in an "overcrowded" world, eventually in some vague, hard-to-predict hypothetical future, than not at all, because there were too few births.

Most towerblocks are overcrowded? In what way? Too many people in every room, or merely the eerie sensation of a nearby huge crowd of people, hidden behind the walls of the building? The former might be a bit of a problem, but the latter really isn't a big deal at all. People can tune into to all sorts of abstract notions, that can in some respects be more imaginary than real. Why don't we feel the presense of "overcrowded" trees or grass, out in nature? I don't see much any problem with hiding "crowds" of people behind multiple floors and walls to accomodate them all better.

Dark and dank? Wouldn't better lighting and air conditioning fix that?

No personal space? People don't really need a lot of "personal space." Such space can often effectively also be shared with family. And increasingly, there is the "virtual space" in which many people in a room, sometimes "isolate" themselves with headphones and ipods, and video games and books.

People always conscious of the people above and below them? So? It's really not going to destroy one's quality of life to hear the toilet in the next housing unit flush at night, or to hear occasional footsteps from the unit above, or to sometimes hear the neighbors having sex. Obviously, many people prefer the awareness of other people around them, to having to mow grass and trim bushes, as they declined the option of buying or renting a house, in favor of a townhome or apartment or condo complex. It may not be for everybody, but it is apparently for many people, their preference for affordable housing or reducing commuting distance or eliminating yard maintainance. And sound insulation in between housing units, can obviously be improved. I knew somebody who builds apartments, and he put in thicker walls in between units, and added fire sprinkler systems, to his buildings, even though he wasn't legally required to do so. I might have preferred to rent one of his 'better" but a small economy apartment, if I didn't already have my apartment before I met him.

With large populations reliant on one or two roads in and out of the estate area? Okay, I can relate to that one. I have been in such nice subdivisions, when I used to deliver pizza. I encountered one day, somebody who was "lost in the maze" and didn't know how to get out. I told the person, just follow me out. I didn't live there, but I knew the way around, as we have a big map of the area, on our wall at the pizza place. I think a lot of people who live there, only want but 1 or 2 roads in and out, to help keep track of or keep out strangers, or to reduce traffic and such. But the "gated communities" are a pain, as we have to learn how the guest admission procedures work. But what if there is a storm, and a tree falls across the only road in or out? We are supposed to drive through somebody's yard, to get out? When I used to bicycle ride as a child, it seems in looking at a map, that "you can't get there from here." Roads and streets sometimes just don't connect, without having to get out on the major arteries and busy roads. Maybe there could be a few more roads, or more of a "grid" of roads, rather than endless confusing mazes in new subdivisions? But roads are mainly designed for cars, not so much for bicycles and pedestrians anymore. Of course if there were more roads connecting subdivisions, that would be more streets on which houses could be placed, and the population, although sparse, could be all the "denser" to accomodate more people.

Dependant upon obligational communal water, electric and sewage supply lines? I would like to be more independent in that regard, especially with electricity supply, since there are almost endless ways to produce electricity, but the central natural monopoly approach, does appear to be the cheapest way to obtain such services. Unlike other businesses, it just isn't cost-effective to run a dozen competing power lines and water mains down every street, so that people may "choose" their utility companies, and centralizing things such as sewer connections, makes it "not your problem" when the septic system acts up.

 

Part 1 of 2:

And so now school is a copout? Gee, humans have so many excuses to forever delay having children. If a couple is married and in school, well of course they may be having babies. As old as people are in college, it really seems a mystery, why there aren't more pregnant women in college. Is there some "law" that says that you can't be married, and be in college? Gee, half the student population already lives off campus. What's that about? They aren't home with their mommies and daddies, like little children not ready to reproduce?

Come to think of it, didn't families used to be larger before we had all this schooling? So how much is all this schooling really benefitting us? We get all this "education," and our expectations go up, and still we often end up with mundane, lackluster jobs, due to a backwards culture that too often likes to view people as mere "numbers" or commodities to exploit, and an overtaxing government.

I like much of what I learned in school and college. And yet much of it is still far beyond what I actually use in life. I use Algebra quite a bit actually, because I love to write computer programs. And yet I am trying to figure out what complex numbers are really, although I will likely never actually "use" them for much.

And why do you need college to run a business? To decipher the maze of human-imposted taxes and regulations? Whatever happened to learning a trade, becoming an apprentice or assistant, or continuing on in the occupation of one's parents? Since when did all non-college-educated people become too stupid to start a business? How many college graduates actually end up working in their major of their degree?

College almost seems to be some antinatalist trick, to reduce the birthrate, or perhaps school in more general. It used to be, the main purpose of school, was to teach children how to read, so that they could read their Bibles! Now it seems to be to turn people into cloned liberals, since the morally-challenged liberals seem to have appallingly low birthrates, not sufficient to reproduce themselves.

Apparently some immigrants think they should come here. Perhaps they get sick and tired of their backwards countries and Marxist dicators that hold them back? The U.S. is just over half the average population density of the world, and since most countries probably have "dubious" or unfair land claims, we might do well to "share" some with fellow human immigrants, not in giving them "free" handouts, but to let them occupy our land and work for a better living than they thought they could earn in "their" own countries. We are "one" human race, not many. We are much the same, so how can we act like we don't care about our fellow human neighbors, contrary to God's commandments?

Well why doesn't opportunity knock at every door? Why don't I get bombarded by commercials on TV, saying "Come work for us. We will give you money." Why does most every commercial in effect say, "Consume more. Buy, Buy, Buy, and then you will be happy. So you can give us more and more money." Gee, maybe I might be more into consuming and upgrading my home or computer or something, if I had a big more money?

Yes, they can pray. Good idea. What? Did you hear some sermon somewhere?

If God doesn't hate them, God might delay that baby he wanted them to have? Huh? Thoughout the Bible, children were always thought to be a blessing.

"They say that children are a blessing and debt a curse. These days we apply for a curse and reject a blessing."

I don't recall where I heard that quote. Perhaps somebody told it to me at Church?

Hurl the baby down the birth canal like a bowling ball? Somehow, I am trying to picture somebody yelling "Strike!" as isn't that the object of hurling a bowling ball? (Apply sound effect of a bowling ball knocking down a bunch of bowling pins here.) I wonder what a "strike" could be? Landing into a crib with a "silver spoon" and growing up to land with a 7-figure income? Or could it be to be born into a family with 12 children already, that loves children so much, that they just don't know how to stop? Or is it merely to be born, alive? Or is it to be like the babies in some anti-population stork cartoon, in which the storks are dropping babies everywhere, and everything is suddenly turning into houses, garages, shopping malls and such, sending the rabbits and deer scurrying away for their lives? Oh but wait, I see rabbits running around my yard sometimes. I guess the stork cartoon is a ridiculous exxageration then? Perhaps the "bowling ball" analogy breaks down quickly and doesn't suggest much useful?

The world makes fun of "good" Catholics, with for example, this joke. What do you call people who use rhythm? Answer: Parents. Perhaps it is similar with prayer. Do you even know what prayer is for? Is it to regard God, as a mere Santa Claus or genie, ready to grant every selfish wish we may have? No, prayer is because God asks us to talk to him, and to better align our wills with God's will for us. God sometimes answers our prayers, and God sometimes seems to take his own sweet time. Sometimes God answers prayers in ways, we might never have though possible. I had a pastor, at an old home Church, who couldn't hardly afford the 3 children he had. He thought he saw in the Bible that he should get his vasectomy reversed. He had 5 more children. But before I met him, he found his niche, his business took, off, and although he didn't like to admit it, he seem rather "rich." He had just built a custom home, with around 6 bedrooms and 5 bathrooms, and in the basement is where our fellowship met. He said that they just don't make affordable homes like that on the market, so he had one built. He later added a basketball court and a swimming pool. And he had an RV that looked like some sort of touring bus.

I think that could be typical of how things sometimes turn out. Often the babies come first, and the money needed to raise them, comes later. If we wait until the money comes first, often we are too old to spend it, and quite likely too old to conceive children anymore. As they often say, life isn't "fair." I think God delights in rewarding people sometimes who live by faith, and dare to dream big. Besides, I would much rather live in a "crowded" home, with children up to the rafters seemingly, than in a big, but "empty" mansion.

To some extent, perhaps it's our own fault that such bad things happen. For when everything is "hunky dory" all the time, people become all the more selfish, ungrateful, and forget God, and become a curse to themselves. Isn't it interesting how communities come together to help one another, after some natural disaster afflicts them all? I don't pretend to understand why "bad" things happen. But God often uses them to bring good, and sometimes to do some "remodeling" perhaps?

I like to ponder some of the moral lessons found in episodes of The Twilight Zone. There was one of interest entitled "Upgrade." It started out in the intro, with somebody doing a "switcheroo" of her dog. That is definately not her dog, and yet everybody appears oblivious to the switch, but her. Even the family photo in the lady's brand new house living room, has been "switched" too. People think she is under stress of upgrading to a really nice home, or is losing her mind. Then her children have also become "too perfect" and they aren't her children. Finally her husband became switched. She confides to a friend, who hasn't (yet) changed, that maybe it's her fault. She wished for a "perfect" family or life or something. She wants her friend to look at her husband, because it isn't the same guy. Her friend, playing along perhaps, advises, let's say all these people have changed. You've upgraded. You've got what you wanted. They come downstairs, and her furniture has been switched. Where's the old 10-year-old couch? She tried to run out of the house, to find that the edge of the universe, only extends slightly beyond the front door. Then, you guessed it, she gets switched, and nobody seems to have any idea what has just happened. Then the camera pans out, and the image digitalizes or pixelizes actually, and we find a girl making changes to her virtual family computer program. Ah, typical Twilight Zone plot twist. Misleading us to think that what we are seeing, is something completely different than what is actually is. But what's the moral lesson here? I think, that "perfection," at least in this world, isn't all it's cracked up to be.

In fact, some preacher on the radio, said that God usually uses imperfect people to do great things in his name, because God won't share his glory with humans. "Perfect" people might be inclined to think they did what they did, by their own power. I remember some years ago, some preacher telling a story, about what it's like, when we weak, frail humans, try to do everything by our own power. Some guy went out and bought a chain saw. A while later, he returns, and wants to return the chain saw. It just doesn't work very well. I have been sawing all day, and only cut down but 1 tree! So the salesman takes a look at it, starts it up, Roar! Roar!, and the poor guy exclaims, "What's that noise?" No wonder the guy had it rough. Cutting down a tree, never having started the engine? Would we get in our cars, and not start them up, pushing them along with our feet like the people of The Flintstones cartoon? And yet, isn't that about what we do, when we wander aimlessly through life, not having read God's instruction manual for life, the Bible?

Actually, I hear that God still does "miraculous" healings in places like Africa, where that's all the people have. But not so often in the U.S., because we rather pay through the nose, putting more faith in doctors, than in God. Sure, maybe God uses doctors to perform healings sometimes, but we should always pray that the surgury goes well, or for tumors to receed and vanish, or that surgury won't even be needed.

I think if more people got fed up, and dropped the overpriced medical monopoly medical insurance, to self-insure, or boycott the increasingly overpriced and unethical medical monopoly, we might start seeing more "miraculous" healings too. Medical insurance used to make more sense, when it was more affordable. But now, merely buying medical insurace, actually causes financial risk, by draining our already overstressed budgets and savings, and then having to sue, to collect any benefits from the greedy corporations. And medical insurance increasingly isn't even pro-life anymore, covering more and more stuff that isn't even "medically" necessary, and taking more part in "birth control," abortion, sterilization, that many people obviously have "religious objections" to, and don't want to be involved in thus "coercing" people to not have their children. And so that I think, was the "final straw" why I gave up and dropped paying for any medical coverage anymore. I don't want to be included in paying for people to not have children, as that violates my religious beliefs. And as long as Americans keep saying "Gotta have it. Gotta have it," what incentive is there for reform, until people get fed up and marketshare starts evaporating away?

Some friends of my Dad's tell me that they don't have medical insurance, and also expect that God can or will heal them, if they get sick.

According to the TV news, the #1 reason why people don't have medical insurance, is low wages. The rising cost of medical insurance, is even becoming a drag on the economy and job creation, according to the news. And some doctor said that doctors don't even get most of the money. Most of it goes to insurance companies buying up other insurance companies.

If you notice that I always call it "medical" insurance, and not "health" insurance, I do that on purpose. Somebody posting on some internet forum, said that health insurance doesn't promote health, and so he called it medical insurance. I happened to agree. Just like I call "public" schools more accurately "government monopoly" schools. Because the proper definition of "public" schools, is where parents get together and hire a teacher, a far cry from the government lackluster, uncompetitive, liberal-controlled, evolution-preaching "monopoly" we have today.

Where did I ever say anything about "dodging responsibility?" My Dad used to say, "If you make a baby, you're responsible." I see to have heard that from somebody else in some discussion of the issues to, so perhaps that's what a lot of parents used to say. That was sited as a reason why somebody else was against abortion. Taking responsibility for one's actions, or something like that. Why do you think the Southern Baptists like to say that "True love waits?" Abstinence until marriage, or marry sooner if ready, I would add.

It may very well be, that God may "delay" any babies until after finishing college, for a newly-married couple, but then again, maybe not. But if a baby comes along, surely a baby is worth even a seemingly major "detour" in life, isn't he or she? I think God favors big families, but obviously not everybody who "trusts God" gets a "huge" family. How many "normal"-sized families are also completely "unplanned" unknown to us? How many people go around bragging that they don't believe in, or don't bother with "birth control," although society seems to expect them to? Oh sure, I might put up a rabbit-baby-announcement sign, announcing to my neighborhood, that I intend to have still more children, but that's me. I don't see the point of the irrelevant stork or cabbage patch. But I suspect that many people with 3 or 4 children, just haven't got around yet, if ever, to selecting a "satisfactory" means of "birth control." As they say, you can't fool all the people, all the time. If they are trying to start or grow their families, of what possible use would they supposedly have, for "birth control?" So they can pay through the nose, for infertility treatments later?

Your words, not mine.

Perhaps God might rather expand my wealth to better care for more children, than so much "limit" family size? But I do believe that God has a purpose and destiny for each and every person, so why bother to "prevent" a fellow human being from coming to life, if reasonably possible? Unlike this rebellious age, I don't "fear" pregnancy, and want to take responsibility for any children God would entrust or loan to me, and so of what possible use could I have for nasty, leaky, prone-to-slip-off-anyway, sensation-dulling condoms? An already occupied womb, is plenty of an elegant and natural means of child "spacing."

No doubt it ranks even higher than the more natural and less side-effect prone methods of rhythm or early withdrawal. But then I would put "failure rate" in quotes, as I hardly think that acheiving a wondrous pregnancy, to be a "failure." It's wonderful that women have an amazing ability to grow yet another precious human being, inside them.

 

Part 2 of 2:

Oh, now it comes up. Stop having sex, or live with the consequences. Funny how most everybody used to know that, before the magic "pill" came along, along with the magic condom, which helped open "Pandora's Box" of abortions, STDs, AIDS, divorce, weak and disfunctional families, and assorted other societal ills? I wonder why sex outside of the proper bounds of marriage, used to be taboo? Maybe for the same reason one makes a fire in the fireplace, and not in the middle of the living room. Why make a mess, needlessly? A nice fire in the fireplace, can be rather romantic and warming. But elsewhere, it can be quite an unpleasant nuisance. Wrecking the carpet, at the very least.

Oh come on. I am no party pooper. I hardly want there to be less sex going on in the world, but rather MORE. But put it in its proper place—marriage. More population = more sex = more people around to enjoy life. Win-win for everybody.

Jesus said, in Luke 23, to the women crying for him, as the time of his crucifixion drew nigh, not to cry for him, but to cry for those who would say it to be a blessing to be barren. What could he have been talking about?, as I have yet to hear a sermon on this passage. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, so I come across such strange passages of scripture. I don't think Jesus was even talking about barreness so much as to the selfish attitude that prefers barrenness, that afflicts so many people today. That women don't even have natural affection for their children or families anymore, but want to be little more than clones of men, no thanks to the misguided modern feminist movement. NOW is a freaky organization, and some say that rather than standing for National Order of Women, National Order of Witches, would be more accurate. But early pioneers of women's sufferage, such as Susan B. Anthony, were pro-life.

How do you know, for sure, that there is no "baby queue?" The Mormons claim that there is. That "spirit children" exist in some mysterious "pre-existence," awaiting bodies to be born to earth. Of course the beliefs of many such cults tend to be hokey, or at the very least, unBiblical. Considering the number of babies being born into many parts of the world, this "Mormon pre-existence" must be getting fairly "crowded," due to all the spiritual equivalent of procreation going on, and all the rampant use of "birth control" these days. Why back up the queues, and keep "spirit children" waiting? But then Mormon beliefs say that people can become Gods and populate their own planets. Just when parents thought they were finally "done" after the birth of their 13th child, they learn that they will have to do it over and over again for eternity? According to the "good" Mormons who claim to believe that crap? Even though it is nowhere to be found, anywhere in the Bible? Luke 20 says that humans become, in the endtimes, as the angels, not given in marriage. Angels don't reproduce, do they? But if there is no "baby queue," as I believe there isn't, then isn't the situation "even worse?" Babies not conceived, never get to live at all? At least with the "baby queue" idea, if they aren't conceived "now," well there's always "later?"

And the Bible speaks of God knowing us, even before our conception, as God knows the future better than we can even remember the past or present. That could sound a bit like a "queue" of some sort, to me. To suggest that humans have no purpose nor "destiny" seems a rather aimless and misguided and even dangerous idea, in a world of some 6.5 billion and growing, human beings, needing to find some proper "purpose" to their lives. I would like for people to have a better idea of for what reason they exist, and not to have so many people wandering around aimlessly, making a mess of their confusing world.

Sure, there's no "shedding of innocent blood," something that the Bible says that God hates. Life "starts" at the union of sperm and egg. Quite a lot of pro-lifers, and doctors, and biologists, can tell you that. But still, doesn't a condom seek to prevent a valuable human life, of an actual person, who would not have wanted to have been prevented?

But then Onan pulling out, and spilling his seed on the ground, in the Old Testament, never was presented there in a very good light. Sure, the sin he did, wasn't so much in failing to cause a pregnancy, but willful disobedience to God. But really what exactly is, the difference?

How is it that sex is "good" these days, but now pregnancy is "bad?" It's a very "good" thing to bring yet another precious human being to life, and so of course, society should encourage any "spare" bedroom, or anybody with a "spare" seat in their car, or anybody with any room in their hearts for more children, to go ahead and have them.

Human copulation and reproduction, were never meant to be separated. Why do you suppose people are having so many problems with the confusing myriad of contraceptive "options" and contraceptive "failures?" Because God never designed the human body to use contraceptives, and God commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and correspondingly, gave humans no contraceptives. Even a secular newspaper, had a cartoon in it, which I should have stored around here somewhere, in a box or something, depicting the serpent in the Garden of Eden, offering Eve a condom, to spoil her innocence. Now if a secular newspaper can figure out that contraceptives were the evil invention of man, not God, why don't more people come to suspect such things?

Had some preacher, way back in the rebellious "Free Love" 1960s of the advent of "the pill," warned that the "choice" to not have children, soon would be bait-and-switched into the "obligation" to not have "too many" children, for the sake of "the environment" or some such nonsense, how many people would have scoffed and laughed at such a claim? And yet along came, almost instantly, Paul Ehrlich's sensational, and largely discredited by now, book of The Population Bomb in which he criticizes "family planning" as a huge "failure," as while it allows individual couples to choose how many children to have, it denies society any control of its burgeoning population size. One couple might choose to have 3 children, and another couple, 7. But in both cases, they add to the population size. So Paul is against "choice" then? And when I advocate large families worldwide, so that all the more people might experience life, people seem to fear, not that I actually might have any power to bring that about, but that many people might actually "choose" to have large families, if the virtues of having large or "unplanned" families aren't kept "hush-hush." How can this be? I would have to say that any such "prophetic" preachers there might have been, warning us of the hidden dangers of contraception, must have been "right" after all. How does "choice" magically transition into "obligation" to not have children, except that it is all based upon deception?

And how do you know this? I hear talk of when exactly does God "add" the spirit to the baby?, in some stupid debate perhaps over at what stage of development, it might be "okay" to "abort" babies. What of the "abortafacient" means of "birth control" that Catholics often worry about? Is preventing implantation of an already fertilized egg, a sin similar to abortion? Some "artificial" means of "birth control" are said to be "abortifacients," while some, such as condoms, obviously aren't. But condoms are still "artificial," and a waste of money and resources, to prevent life, when at least diapers would go towards favoring life, something productive.

I suspect that the idea of God "adding" the spirit to the baby, sounds sort of hokey to me. Maybe spirits multiply right along with the human seed, or maybe that's the oversimplified idea that works best to explain how there can be so many, many people alive, and yet they all have unique spirits or souls.

And I find it interesting that you even suggest the idea of human life being a continuum, and not of having an individual "start," as that analogy works for some stuff I see in the Bible, of God regarding highly the human life, that hasn't even been conceived yet. See Psalm 139:13-16. And even an obvious biological purpose of human life, is to create more human life. Author Charles Provan, in his book, The Bible and Birth Control points out that the natural function of women, is to produce babies. Why do women have breasts? For men to stare at them? Is the natural function of women to cook and scrub floors? No, for men can do such things. Women have breasts and wombs, to produce babies. Most every human, comes with reproductive organs, probably intended and designed specifically for reproduction. That's probably why what populates the planet, feels so extremely pleasurable. It isn't by some cosmic "accident," but by God's design. As God still allows humans to enjoy being constantly "in heat," in season to breed year-round, that would seem an obvious reason to advocate for large families, even in the midst of "huge" populations.

They say that a baby is God's will for the world to go on.

Actually, my position is well thought out, and quite long-sighted. If perhaps world population may yet be destined to grow and grow to perhaps, although seemingly unlikely, enormous proportions, wouldn't it be prudent for society to be pronatalist, to more readily adapt and welcome such wonderful changes, that were meant to be?

Why go on a murderous rampage? Sounds like a lot of effort, with no benefit to anybody. Would you destroy your entire house, to catch a mouse in it? Kind of like that funny movie, Mouse Hunt? What would be the point?

Lower the population a bit? Like what could that possibly accomplish? If human population was meant to grow, wouldn't it just soon rebound, growing larger than ever, as before? Actually, like poverty, stress and conflict seems to trigger people to reproduce, all the more? As I read some stupid "environmental" lament somewhere, not even natural disasters do much of anything to "control" human population growth. If some airplane crashes, or some tsunami hits, all the people lost, are soon "replaced" by new births, in a matter of hours, or a day or two at most.

Human population growth, tend to naturally perpetuate and also naturally accomodate itself, and even the "weight of numbers" argues strongly for "huge" human population size. If a human population doubles in size, twice as many people then rather like living, and probably want to or expect to reproduce too, for only relatively minor "growing pains" that may soon subside or be mitigated anyway. Kind of like how, what is it? the house in gambling casinos, always wins, on average at least. Did I get that saying right? Or was there some better, more applicable saying? Human population naturally rachets upwards, establishing itself, and preparing to spread all the more.

The more populated we get, the better we get at supporting large populations. The more people there are, the more people there are who rather like living, and probably want to reproduce too. If any "ideal"-sized world population could be defined by man, in accordance with the Utilitarian Principle idea that that which is best to do, is often that which most benefits the most people, wouldn't such an "optimal" sized population, not be pidly small, around as small as possible, but more like "nearly as large as possible," simply so that more and more people could be around, to benefit from whatever?

To convert nearly relatively worthless organic matter or food into additional human bodies, human lives of immense and incalculatable worth, is a great "investment," at least philosophically. Food, like a lot of modern population accomodation inventions, say like the modern flush toilet to replace smelly dirty outhouses in big cities, isn't merely for the selfish comfort of those already living, but for being converted or upgraded to forming additional people. That's an obvious purpose for it. So there's some practical reasons why I believe the planet should urbanize more to better accomodate the populous masses who should be actually encouraged to breed prolifically, and why world population should be welcome to naturally populate up denser and denser, well into the forseeable future. It's actually far easier a sale, to find better ways to accomodate so many, many people, than to dupe them out of their, meant-to-be children.

 

Since I am lacking for time at the moment - a brief answer to one or two points.
- sink estates = council estates/private estates that have been overpopulated by policies of moving low/no income families into areas that have little or no facilities, no open spaces and little or no public transport and usually consist of several concrete towerblocks crammed together in vine like footprints (essentially a maze of cul-de-sacs fed off of one street).
- the very act of building a pavement or road destroys a natural area by adding non-indiginous elements, to be driving anywhere in the desert etc whilst on a road requires the destruction of a part of the desert or wherever.
- shunted the problem down the line 100 years or so = the designed lifespan of concrete tower blocks (and some other designs) is usually around 100 years at most.
- to say that towerblocks aren't overcrowded then you obviously have never lived in a towerblock. It is partly to do with the lack of personal space, the enforced communal spaces, the enforced communal facilities (lifts, water, electric etc), and the policy of usually building large no/low income towerblock estates in small brownfield sites and then neglecting to supply shops/transport/leisure opportunities.
There are probably more things I should mention or explain in further detail but I am outa time.

 

You have no idea. You should study some science (like ecology, biology, physiology...) and get educated on the repurcussions and implications of this topic with which you are obsessed. Use stuff that there is evidence for in your arguments, not just imagination and stories.

And find something useful or helpful to the human cause to fill all this time you obviously have on your hands.

Other than that, I have nothing else to say to you. Peace and love.

 

Actually, I seem to recall from somewhere, that the number is more like 300 to 500 million sperm per ejaculation. Obviously not every sperm or egg can become a baby, or the planet simply wouldn't have room for so many people. But the Bible does speak highly of the human reproductive potential, as any crimes hurting that, had a far stiffer penalty in the Old Testament, I seem to recall something to that effect. I don't see anything in God's commandment to humans, for people to try to "rescue" all those sperm and eggs, that were likely never destined to become babies anyway. But what married couples can reasonably do, is to go in deep, hold nothing back, and give the sperm every reasonable chance of making its goal. Hopefully, if not this time, maybe pregnancy might occur next time?

And mothers quite often experience sorrow, and some sense of tragic loss, at the occurance of a miscarriage. Whether the child was "technically" planned or not, people tend to long for an anticipate the arrival of a child "already on the way," or a "bun in the oven."

Even at the natural fecundity rate of humans, human populations grow gradually with women (usually) having but 1 baby at a time, allowing for humans ample time to make the necessary adaptations and preparations for our own natural increase.

The natural rate that billions of fertile human vaginas can push out babies, is already within the realm of managable and predictable natural growth in human numbers. While humans might be said to be among the "horniest" of God's creatures, we also seem to be the least fertile, and to have among the longest lifespan, such that our numbers are designed to steadily and relentlessly creep ever upwards, but at a rather "managable" level, as I see it. Even some of the old terms, such as in geneology of parents having "issue" of children as if God just "issues" us out the children, or the demographic term of "natural increase" as being quite natural for humans, seem quite appropriate for describing the world population situation.

I seem to recall some cover of some worldly magazine, showing a photo of some black woman, probably in Africa, with a baby tied in cloth onto her back, and another baby inside her obviously pregnant belly, and some title below, "The World's Burgeoning Billions." What mystifies me, is why people who study such things, don't more honestly contemplate why so many people keep having baby after baby, and whether there could be compelling or practical reasons behind it. And if so, why not agree with them?, and support more pronatalist thinking, for the great advancement of the human race. I read in some conservative email newletters that I received, that people in the developing world, often won't use condoms, because they actually want children and want to get pregnant. It's almost amusing, if the antinatalist pushing of the world wasn't so sad, to read of children being given condoms to play with as balloons, or of people waterproofing their roofs with them. So they are good for something, after all?

 

Yeah, I lack for time too, so it can easily take me days, to catch up on on the Replies I would like to make, on several active threads on the topic.

Well I actually agree with some various forms of high-density housing, to a point. It's one of many tools to accomodate more and more people into an already populous world.

"It's high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to make an orderly transition to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist

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

"How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers."

I tend to suspect that each child, well at least older children, "ought" to be able to have their own private bedroom. But when considering the great value of each and every human life, and the high cost of housing, to afford each child "their own room" just isn't always practical, and hence we have long had the typical "boys' room" and the "girls' room," and of course the practical invention of far cheaper, bunk beds, or sometimes children, especially younger children, having to "share" beds. It's far better for children to be born into "overcrowded" surroundings, than not at all. Even at the point of apparent "crowding," is not sufficient reason to ration the naturally rising quantity of human life throughout the world. Such issues, can only morally be mitigated, by increasing the housing stock, and by economic reform allowing people to work productive jobs to help pay for better housing conditions, not by pushing anti-life, awkward, human-life-disrespecting "birth control."

I could see sometimes some communist countries like China, building rows and rows of closely-spaced highrise housing buildings, as a practical alternative to some barbaric and excessively-intrusive one-child policy. If they are going to be a population giant, then by all means, be proud to be a population giant. If China wasn't the world's most populous nation, then it would be India, The United States, Mexico, Nigeria, or some other country anyway — by definition. Now I am not saying that people should be made to live in such places, it's just one of many housing options they may choose among. Poor people may have to "accept" for the time-being, whatever is most "affordable" though, unless they want to build their own small log cabin with an axe, out "in the middle of nowhere," with no electricity and probably no jobs? And not even "overcrowded" housing is any excuse to question married people's God-given right, to go on reproducing.

And I don't much mind camping in "overflow" camping areas, and having to share already busy shower houses and such. It's still easy to get in, during non-peak hours and such. "Overflow" camping is still better, than being rejected or being told to make a reservation for next year or whatever. I never go to "get away from it all" anyway, but to meet people, so I always carpool with other people anyway, as why drive by myself to only get lost?

Oh, I agree to a point, with leaving some areas "roadless," and without cutting firebreaks, and without allocating any wildfire fighting resources, since nobody live there anyway, but not to "keep people out," as some "environmental" extremists seem to want, but more due to "lack of interest" or lack of people to develop such wilderness places, out in "the middle of nowhere." And for those people who like to go four-wheeling through the forest, due they even need "roads?" Aren't they going out there, to get dirty and play in the mud? Of course loggers need roads, to get the trees to market, for our nice hardwood floors and nice furniture.

Like I said, I am not so sure I would even want to drive through some deserts. Not when the nearest human being, or most remote gas station, may be over 100 miles away. That's scary. I think above a certain temperature, not even air conditioning is effective. If the refrigerant pressure gets too high, the system will vent and lose it. And of course, one of the first things to fail in a car, when the engine loses power, is of course, the belt-driven air conditioning, while the battery may still power a cellular phone, that is, if there were any celltowers around anywhere? It would be safer probably, to fly over some deserts in an airplane.

Oh it's worse than that. What percent of buildings, really last 100 years? Oh, they usually could, with proper maintainance, but especially in places like Los Vegas, buildings go "out of style" ridiculously fast, and so they set off colorful demolitions, to make way for the next, soon-to-also-be-obsolete, building. And no doubt, some old buildings were designed long before air conditioning and modern data wiring, and while old buildings can often be "modernized," often it's more trendy to just knock them down and start over. They do most anything to make a new building to be the most "happening" place to draw in the customers. Need a building expansion? Just knock it all down and start over? No plans for "adding on" more wings later? Sometimes they knock down old buildings, probably fairly adequate with some minor upgrades for high-density housing, just because of drugs, gangs, or because they "look" gray or "ugly."

I think I actually have lived in some places, something like that. Such as military barracks and highrise college dorms. They expect 2 people of same sex, often total strangers, to "share" a dorm room, with of course our own privacy/security lock on the door, and the restroom, is down the hall, where there is little actual privacy. Yeah, during the latter semester, I moved to a higher-priced private room, but wouldn't have minded sharing, to save a few bucks, had I found a good roommate.

I do think there should be some "enforced communal spaces" actually, in some settings. I expect any place that has lots of people all showering at once, to have a common "communal" shower, as why should I pay more for dues at the gym or fitness club or YMCA, or have hot water usage "cops" rationing the hot water, when a huge communal shower with showerheads along all the walls, is cheaper and easier for janitors to clean, than installing ridiculous numbers of "private" shower stalls? Want "privacy?" Go home then. One problem people seem to have these days, is excessive bashfulness, having been pampered and spoiled most all their life, and young guys worry about what if they pop an erection in some communal shower. Well whoop-de-do. I think most people say nothing, because who hasn't seen an erection before at some time, or had maybe a mile one themselves, in such a place? Maybe there should still be a few "initiations" left to mark growing up, in society. If somebody pops an erection, well it could be their first time there, or maybe those "raging hormones" of puberty. The respectable thing to do, is pretend not to notice, and go about one's business like everything's normal.

I wouldn't be "shocked" to find some old urine trough, in some very populous place, like at some sport stadium restroom. Having a common long trough, helps minimize the 20 urnal waiting lines?

And that old towerblock style is probably fading in popularity anyway. I think many people who design such things, do look more now, at the "whole picture," as overcrowded buildings with minimal facilities, hardly match the "modern" look anyway. How did people ever survive without 2 bathrooms in their homes, and yet you can't hardly find a newer home or apartment, without at least 2 bathrooms?

And why exactly, would somebody need their own "private" lift or elevator?

That reminds me, of an episode of The Outer Limits it probably was, in which some building, set at some time in the future, run mostly by computers, or robotic desk attendants on each floor I think it was, started malfunctioning. It turns out that the computer failed and refused to do its job, because of a logical conflict in its programming. After a guy, suffering some heart attack or something, could receive no help from neighbors, needing somebody to help him take his medication, even though the robotic attendent tried to summon neighbors to help, until the ambulance came, people having isolated or cocooned themselves in their cocoons of technology, refused to take any interest in anybody around them, the computer decided that it was failing in its mission to serve humanity, by allowing humans to become a problem to themselves, in their chosen isolation from other people, and so started malfunctioning and shutting down. And being a network, the "problem" spread to other buildings too. Sure enough, people banded together and helped each other to break through the walls or whatever, to escape their housing units, the computer-controlled locks, and power failure, not working.

Or a more relevant example. Sorry to say, I don't know my community neighbors, near as much as I would like. Oh sure, I try to wave Hi, when I see them, but I don't want to knock on somebody's door to say "hi," for no good nor understandable reason. Often, I am not sure I want to know them, because these days, people are just so weird and freaky. Maybe I would rather not know them. And yet people at work, don't seem so weird and freaky, and yet I say Hi to them, because largely, of "enforced communal" relationships of the workplace.

Lastly, I should point out, that in many of the most "crowded" regions of the world, the people who live there, just don't "feel" crowded. And large families and pronatalism seem to be quite fashionable. It may tend to be a "shock" for some spoiled, narrow-minded Westerners, who come just looking for some excuse to "prove" their selfish opinions about supposed "overpopulation," but it's often quite "normal" to the people who live there, and so it wouldn't occur to them, that maybe they ought not to be adding still more people, by having babies and not practicing any form of "birth control," as they probably love their children as much, if not more, than anybody else.

 

Pronatalist, you should listen to this man. He has it right.

 

War is the perfect culling machine. Its you against them and the best survive