Overpopulation is not a problem

^ wholehearted agreement from purplegel.

 

in at most a thousand years from now, the earth will be covered in cities and humans. alot of earth's animals will be depleted/extinct.... then when global warming takes place it will be one enormous genocide for those who cannot take off in a spaceship...

 

Well I am much in favor of a natural expansion of world population up into the 100s of billions or whatever. The likely "growing pains" are actually quite minor and temporary compared to the enormous benefit to the many of all the more people being able to live and enjoy life. But much of the colorful scenarios of population phobics, are almost totally irrelevant. Should we perhaps plan for a world of 200 billion people? But before there can be 100 billion, there first must be 10 billion, and even 10 billion is quite doubtful, no thanks to rampant contraceptive peddling. Therefore, it's "premature" to worry much about the next population levels, beyond the "forseeable future" anyway.

Hasn't anybody around here heard of the so-called "demographic transition" (brought on by rampant experimental shoddy contraceptive pushing), and the growing "birth dearth" decimating places like Europe, where people apparently don't love their children very much anymore, judging by how few those selfish or preoccupied people are now having? Why aren't more people showing some concerned about possible "underpopulation" or missed opportunities? What of all the people who might have liked to have more children, but were scared away from their better destiny by society's selfish mantra, "Use birth control! Use birth control!" ? Isn't that like a huge opportunity lost? That promotes more cynicism and weakend the basic building block of society--the family.

Well whenever the world is covered in cities and humans, at least my descendents will still be alive. Better to share a "crowded" world, than to have never been born at all, due to too few births.

What "global warming?" What do you think air condition was invented for anyway? One obvious use, would be for vertically and horizontally stacked human housing units, many of which in some places, may not have any windows to vent summer heat or electric appliance building heat-build-up. Windows used to be more important, in the days before automatic heat and air conditioning systems, and before the invention of electric lights. But honestly, due to modern technology, windows have already become sort of "optional," almost like the increasingly obsolete fireplaces that more and more homes sometimes lack.

 

If it's what I think then yes/no. I skimmed the transcript. What an educated idiot the author is, to assume that we the public, don't have any idea of the nature of "exponential" growth. Some of us do, but also have faith in God, and don't assume we know so much as the educated idiots fancy themselves to know, but don't.

I know the planet isn't getting any larger, that's why I advocate that humans populate more densely and efficiently, as the population-driven advancing technology is making more and more possible already. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people, so that people may go on growing more and more numerous, even though we have no way yet, of spreading people to more worlds. More people can obviously live at the same time, if supposedly intelligent humans can learn and adapt to live and breed in closer proximity to other people.

I read somewhere that a "paradigm shift" is needed. Well if so, how about advocating that the big city is also quite a suitable place for people to enjoy having large and "unplanned" families, as obviously most people can no longer live miles from their nearest neighbors. The answer isn't to go against nature and to deny the most basic of human rights, but rather to explore the true "final frontier" of populating more densely and efficiently for the greater good of the many. If people haven't noticed, the big cities, and even apartment and condo complexes, are a mild form of "population archology" that seeks to stack and pile the people closer together, for their mutual benefit, as or if they choose to live there, so there can be room enough for all, no matter how numerous they may eventually grow.

You doubt that resources grow exponentially when human populations are free and welcome to expand exponentially as they were designed to do? Then why do we have a growing worldwide epidemic of obesity? Even the dogs in China are becoming obese, said a recent news report. One population theory I read of on some internet forum, says that we have too much food, not too little. At least in the animal kindom, an abundance of food encourages "wild" population growth. Gee, could the population phobics please make up their minds which we should worry our little minds about? Too much or too little food? Seems like one might cancel the other out or something? Also, square footage and number of bathrooms in homes, is on the rise. How can this be, given the Malthusian religion of gloom and doom and faith in scarcity? Must be that the pessimists, as they often are, are wrong. There is more potential than their tiny little minds are too lazy to explore.

According to the small-minded Malthusians, we should have all starved to death by now. The planet shouldn't be capable of even holding an incredibly huge 6 billion and more people. And yet I am still alive. How can this be?

 

pronatalist, most people cannot afford to continually have children. never in your ranting posts have you addressed this crucial issue.

you don't seem to grasp the fact that it's hard to take seriously the opinions of people who base their beliefs in bronze-age myths, instead of modern science. believe what you like, but don't expect rational people (who believe things that can actually be proven) to care.

 

pro-look outside of the richer countries. much of the world is suffering-due to lack of resources, because countries like ours believe there is enough for everyone, so we consume as much as we can-to the point of carrying as much as 100lbs. of extra food as fat. (really, some carry much more.) if the resources grew exponentially from god's love, we wouldn't have so many people dying of starvation right now. we are already overpopulated-it just isn't showing so much where there is wealth. limiting factors will continue to arise if we don't adress this issue. BUDHA-i don't think you have to worry about the world being covered in cities. if it were, there would be no room to grow food. these limiting factors will eventually level things out, but it will not be very enjoyable for the general populace. by no means will overpopulation alone end our race. it may, however, lead to such dissatisfaction and damage to the homeostasis of the planet in general that it leads to one or many great catastrophes that do. i don't think the world is ending, but i do think it is a bit ill right now. i don't think there is any one strategy that will "cure" our planet. it is probably best for all of us to start living more healthy in all aspects, and allow it to heal itself.

 

Did u ever watch that video? Over population is a huge problem and just because you are in a more priviliged country and you dont see that we are taking up all of the resources from the rest of the world doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Just because Malthusian religionists, as you say, complain about the problem, doen't mean that it doesn't exist. I'm not very religios and neither are the scientist who prove that over population is a problem and the are pounds of evidence that supports over population a the main cause of extinction in animal groups and over crowding of cities.

 

I think it is a mistake to take the postings of anyone on this forum as "proof" that religion is anything. The religious impulse leads people in many directions. Pronatalists assertion that God will provide for his children (ProN, forgive me if that summary is inaccurate) also leads to caring for those gifts that God has given us. (aka. religious environmentalism). I hesitate to condemn anything that causes people to look beyond themselves and see that they are part of a greater whole. Whether it is trembling in fear of the (Falwellessk) God that hates sex or standing in awe in the face of the Nature spirits worshiped by Pagans, the awareness that wisdom is more than self interest is nessesary if we are to pass through the overpopulation crisis.

Either through inovation (petroleum was useless to the Romans, I wonder what we have no use for, but our g.g.g.grandchildren will depend on) or through population control or through emmigration (read some SF for a hopeful future), humanity will make it. (We're the sneakiest species that nature has come up with, we'll make it.)

However, our awareness that the individual is not the all (aka religion) is one of the tools that will get us through this to the next crisis.

 

Do you really think, that everybody is just going to go have naturally large families, if they can, just because I say so? Gee, you flatter me, to suggest that I could possibly have so much influence? I expect people to read what I say, or parrot it again to their friends and peers, and then find their own reasons to breed and be hopefully more friendly, relaxed that some things can work themselves out after all, and more pronatalist.

But nearly half the world still does not practice "modern" methods of "birth control," more often than admitted, because they don't want to, and actually do want to get pregnant and have children. Who is defending their rights?

I read somewhere some claim that if contraceptive use can't be increased to 75%, the world faces an impending future "Baby Blast." Well it looks like to me, that most people would actually prefer the natural "baby blast" over any of the apparently alternatives.

They say the world has now a billion teenagers. And that what those teenagers do, will shape the demographic future of the planet. But many of those children likely came from large families and may very well prefer "traditionally large families" also. Why are we so afraid of what perhaps must be? A growing world of people is a lot more interesting and exciting, than a backward, "stabilized" (stagnant is more like it) world population size. Let the baby booms persist and grow. Let the various regions of the world enjoy their "birthquakes" and add all the more people. What really is a lot of this naturally population-driven technology growth for, but to accomodate all the more people, if or as need be? Unlike with other creatures, human population growth, especially when coupled with faith and freedom, naturally accomodates itself, and so there's a logical reason not to worry excessively about it, and to trust that "nature finds its own balance," even if without the supposed Malthusian checks of disease and starvation. If ever many people really thought the world to have become "too crowded," presumably they would always have the option to "not breed?" But I reject the notion that it is a "Tragedy of the Commons" problem, because parents do most of the work of raising children, while society gets most of the benefit, when their children grow up and join the workforce. Also, it should be noted, that it people's own homes that they are first populating, which are always more confining than people's communities and society. So I agree with author Julian Simon, that if anything, parents are prone to have too few children for the good of society, not at all "too many."

 

There is an often abused saying, that Americans only consist of 5% of the world population, but we use 25% of the world's resources. Huh? Is that 25% of what is being used, or 25% of what is available? Huge difference, as one implies "overpopulation" while the other implies a "lack of development" problem.

I am both religious and logical and scientific. I am very pro-development, as there are so many people needing so many things. More population means more of most everything, is needed.

I believe the planet can much more easily bear the naturally-rising human "population pressure," than humans can be expected to struggle with awkward, anti-life, shoddy contraceptives. I believe each and every human life is sacred, and so we ought not to interfere with its creation. If nature could "think," nature would consider humans part of nature, and welcome humans to multiply all the more, as natural increase is quite natural, and an obvious benefit of supposed human intelligence, is its apparent great ability to allow humans to greatly expand their range and numbers, which nature would go along with, if it could. Nature doesn't "think" and so can't be "out to get us." God gave dominion to man over nature and other creatures, probably primarily so that we would be encouraged and able to grow to such incredible numbers, that we would have no other option but to dominate, not so much from supposed intelligence or because we can, but because of our sheer numbers. Don't think so? Then what was God talking about when God promised to multiply Abraham's seed so much, as to become nearly uncountable, as the grains of sand of the seashore or the stars of the sky? And in a few respects, we are becoming so numerous, as babies are born now, faster than most people can count. They say a baby is born every second in India, but I think that's probably a slight exxageration, as it's probably more like a baby every 2 or 1 1/2 seconds.

And I would much rather live in an "overcrowded" city or world, than to never live at all, due to too few births, so the answer then isn't fewer births, but encouraging natural population-driven urban sprawl, so that growing cities filling with ever more people, don't become excessively "crowded." More development. Build more cities and towns and suburbs, to more comfortably and safely hold all the people. Encourage the cities to populate larger and closer together, as obviously there could come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people.

And then what of compassion? I imagine that "overcrowding" in some regions of the world, leads to people becoming more aware of the sexual activity, or the sounds of such, of their parents or of neighbors, when they live in overcrowded jammed-together shantytowns. As I have read in somebody's blog posting that sexual arousal is contagious, sort of like yawning, the option of "having less sex" perhaps becomes less available, and why not have more babies, when everybody and their brother is having babies too? Perhaps it could be a factor in the claim that the places with the least room for more people get the most babies? Well then, spread out, or stack people into more spacious highrises. Don't knock their existence nor their children, as that is very counterproductive.

 

pronatalist-i agree with you that the earth will create a natural balance. the problem is, disease and starvation, among other things, are the means through which this balance is created. they are called limiting factors-very basic high school biology taught me that. we have the option to create our own limiting factors that will cause less suffering to the world populus. why wait until nature is forced to slap us into submission? it is obvious people want to have a bunch of kids (or rather, a bunch of sex)......that's why we are in this situation. i don't see how, if you consider yourself scientific, this can appear to you as a logical argument to keep increasing population. the opinion of the majority is rarely the most logical in relation to its survival, thus the extremely flawed and disgusting, yet necessary, systems of government that have sprung up.

 

There is "natural balance," the problem is, that the population phobics seem loathe to honestly consider that there could be alternative scenarios to their colorful gloom-and-doom scare tactics.

"Either humans control their numbers, or nature will." eco-freak Malthusian mantra

Wrong. If humans don't control their numbers, neither will nature. Because God gave dominion over nature and other creatures to man, a likely reason why nature seems so unable to resist the natural human population expansion.

I have seen a similar idea suggested in even a secular textbook, that I bought secondhand somewhere, with a chapter title, "Infinite Population: The End of Evolution?" What's the nonsense about talk of "tipping points" concerning the globalist "Climate Change" fraud? If there can be such "tipping points" that nature can't moderate, in spite of the total lack of evidence for such "environmental" extremist theories, why can't the human population size have its "tipping points?" The bigger the human race gets, the more easily it can grow, and maybe we are far beyond "the point of no return anyway?"

The "natural balance" then, is the time it takes for human populations to expand. It's a form of natural control, but it is far more fax, than certain got-to-control-everything globalists would prefer. If human populations were to mushroom "overnight," there wouldn't be enough food in the warehouses and farm silos to feed everybody. But what if human populations were to mount ever higher, gradually. The increase would be highly predictable in the short-term at least, and there already is much potential to drastically increase food production, water treatment production, water desalination, whatever is needed. But it takes at least a few months or a year or two, to plant larger amounts of crops in anticipation of growing demand (and profits).

I have confidence, that there is very little risk, that I could wake up one day, to world suddenly overrun with people, because it isn't that easy to "pop out" another billion babies. Not only does it take time, but quite a lot of work on the part of parents is involved. Humans have been accused of adapting too well to their environment. But because our numbers rise gradually along a fairly predictable pattern, and because humans are supposedly intelligent, and because God designed the planet to be inhabitted by naturally-multiplying humans, it is reasonable to suspect that nature is like a balloon being inflated, the stretching rubber increasingly unable to resist stretching further, as the air pressure swells the volume, but the rubber can only increase its area, a situation of N^3 versus N^2, and so it should be obvious which will win. There is nowhere for the "balloon" to pop to, as the ground isn't going to collapse under our weight, the weight of the entire human population being quite trivial compared to the huge mass of the planet.

Limiting factors? What? Like socialism and manufactured poverty? Stupidity?

People suffer less, when they are free to procreate. There is much room that can be found, or made, for rising human populations to spread or cluster into.

Conversely, I say that civilized people must go on developing more resources and innovating, and be free to migrate or cluster most anywhere they deem best for themselves, as apparently, perhaps the entire planet shall be needed just to comfortably hold the entire human race. If could ever naturally "outgrow" the planet, then we should, as wouldn't that be a necessary earlier step towards developing the technology to colonize more worlds, if ever?

It won't, as humans are much different than other creatures. It is humans, who by sheer numbers, are forcing nature to submit. And I rather think that nature, if nature can be said to have any preference, often likes it. Aren't humans part of nature, and so too then, must be the growing cities needed to hold us all. God put the seed inside the plants and animals (Gen 1:11), so that they would naturally tend to be abundant and self-replicate to fill most every available niche. Since natural increase is quite natural, if nature could have its way, it would multiply us all the more, as I hardly tend that nature "resents" human caretakers than can better manage often nature, than even nature can. As they say, a garden looks better than overgrown jungle. A more careful look at the evidence, suggests that nature has no phobia of perhaps human reproduction over time, growing to become a mighty force of nature.

Since humans tend to pretty much produce their own resources, there's no danger of "running out," well unless we let the insane (eco-freaks) run the assylum?

And that's how you and I came to be alive, so why "bite the hand that feeds you," so to speak?

Star Trek; The Next Generation had an episode, that I find to be a great anology, being a rather abstract and logical thinker. It was entitled "Time Squared" I think. Out of nowhere, a vortex appears in outer space, tugging relentlessly at the Enterprise. Of course they resist, but it only seems to help it tighten its grip, and their engines start overloading/buckling. A bolt of energy struck Captain Piccard, right through the walls of his spaceship. Thinking it something "personal" and after him, he fled his ship in a shuttlecraft, to spare his ship and crew. He witnesses the destruction of the Enterprise as it crashes into the side of the vortex, and he somehow is thrown back in time 6 hours prior, causing servere disorientation and somehow reversing the polarity of his shuttlecraft. Of course they want the date from the shuttlecraft, but it is dead upon being tractored or something back to the Enterprise. Sparks fly upon trying to connect a charging cable, and the problem is found to be a mysterious polarity reversal of the entire shuttlecraft, and so an adapter is hastily fastened to compensate. The Piccard "clone" from the future, seems trapped in the past, mumbling something about another option, which seems unmentionable, which he refuses to tell the real Piccard of the present time, as the disaster approaches again. Finally Piccard coaxes it out of him, even though the "clone" insists it is undoable. The other option was not to resist. The real Piccard knows his answer then, because what they are doing, clearly is not working. He orders the engines of the Enterprise to be shut down, and that they are not going to resist. Obviously, the pull of the vortex not being opposed anymore, it quickly draws the Enterprise into the vortex, into the scary unknown. They come through, on the other side, into normal space, and the vortex disappears just as mysteriously as it came. Was there "an intelligence" behind it, as Piccard seems to have suspected? That question is never answered before the episode close. Who knows? It certainly could appear a valid interpretation. Perhaps it was a "test" of sorts. Sometimes the best movie scenerios, leave such open questions, such as the obvious dual interpretation suggested in the movie Total Recall. Was it "real" or was it all a "dream?" Either interpretation seems to fit the movie storyline, and so we are left guessing.

In case you didn't see the metaphor, which I doubt that the Star Trek writers actually intended, the "vortex" is the "worldwide population explosion." The "resistance" is either population "control" or more comprehensively, "birth control." The "crash" is what I expect to happen, once the globalists find some way to impose it, and it is not the population growth, but the "resistance" that causes the "collision." The solution is to "relax," shut down the "birth control" engines, and let nature run its natural course. There is an "intelligence" behind it, that already "knows" where it must go, and our "resistance" only complicates matters. Let the human population growth tighten its natural grip on the world, and let people build more cities, larger and denser, whatever is needed to accomodate and welcome however many people there may come to be. Welcome mothers to breastfeed in public, since they have an obligation to provide for and love their children, and besides, as they say, don't people eat in public? The "emergence" on "the other side" is "birth," the wonderous arrival into a new and better era. What exactly? Sci-fi buffs would say of course, it could be colonizing more worlds, or some "Federation of Planets." Christians of course would say that "emergence" would be into the millenial reign of Jesus as King of Kings, and also heaven. "Emergence" or "resolution" of the supposed "population crisis," doesn't leave the world at pidly population levels of the past, but more populous than ever. But the people hardly realize they have become so populous, as they have successfully adapted to what must be. In another episode of Star Trek TNG, this idea is suggested again I think, as when some con-artist decided to play games with his spaceship to trick the people of some world that he was their "god" as foretold in their prophecies, or should I say legends, and Captain Picard puts him on trial and exposes his fraud, and finds his cloaked/hidden spaceship, part of the debate was a question about how the world used to be "overpopulated and polluted." But the people themselves (no thanks to God of course, Star Trek being humanistic in nature) solved the problem. Come to think of it, I recall no mention at all, of them ever reducing their population to more "sustainable" levels. Rather, they more modernized their technologies to better match the populous world that they had become.

In another episode, in which some human colony, had crash-landed on some world that wasn't there's, Captain Picard helps to "excuse" the perhaps mildly "embarassing" population growth that that small crew underwent in a period of around a century. (Perhaps without any working food replicators, their tiny stash of condoms ran out very quickly?) The dilemma is, that the planet had an atmosphere, that severely distorted the transporter image, such that anything transported came out grossly distorted. Was it the Sheliak race, that themselves were coming to colonize the planet, and didn't want to share with the humans, which they likened to some sort of infestation or something like that. If the people didn't leave, that was fine, as the Sheliak would just exterminate them. The Sheliak wanted their planet vacated in just 3 days, so they they could set up operations to colonize their world themselves. From a dozen or so survivors, or was it 70, they multiplied quickly to something like 12,000 people. There was just no way, that 12,000 people could be vacated, in the few small shuttlecraft on the Enterprise, within just 3 days. Too many return trips. The transporter could do it, but the transporter didn't quite seem to be working there. To remove the people via shuttlecraft, would take 3 weeks! Picard's crew poured over all the legal documents on file, looking for any loophole they could exploit, being not so prone to violent solutions as the old maverick, Captain Kirk, of TOS. (The Original Series) They finally found one. They could call for a neutral arbitrator in the region, who just happened to be in hiberation for the next 3 months. Now may I have my 3 weeks? Well he got his needed 3 weeks, and they perhaps never did, figure out how to compensate to get the transporter working. Funny, there was no mention, of how "crowded" the Enterprise must have become, with a normal crew compliment of a small "city" of 1,000, when it was suddently increased to 13,000, until they could drop the people off on whatever handy alternative planet. Maybe they just stuffed the people into some cargo and shuttle bays, and didn't ask the crew to share their living quarters? Why would they not do everything, to rescue some fellow humans, now discovered? After all, they are human.

Now which is better? To be pulled through the vortex, or to be destroyed by it? And wasn't it much the same, when we ourselves were babies inside the womb? Would it have done us any good to be growth-phobic, and not put on the needed pounds towards birth? Is there any good from resisting the pull of the vortex, the vagina that once welcomed the sperm, not insisting upon pushing the baby out, to enjoy its life in a far bigger world? Could the baby have stayed inside the womb, where it is dark and warm and cozy (and cramped), where it could not much longer survive, it already cramping the organs of his or her mother? Well the baby has no choice, and the baby itself probably triggers the birth, by "outgrowing" its womb. Similarly, I hardly think that the human race can be a "baby" all its life either. It must also "grow up" and become bigger.

That's why I resort to logic and what God says, and not the vague and fading population phobia fears of the masses, not-so-pronatalist-anymore society.

 

And they wouldn't be hungry every time they have a little local famine or some war skirmish, if they had money to buy food. So it is an economic/political problem, not a "population" problem.

And it is really foolish that we are so hedonistic, that we have fun eating to the point of having to lug 100 extra pounds of fat everywhere we go. Actually, it was almost funny, were it not sad, to see some TV news program tabloid, ask the question, "Are we getting too big for the planet." It wasn't about population, but about those poor overburdened cars just struggling, to push some lard-butt fat person up the hill. What a waste of gasoline, although the weight of the human isn't really that much compared to what the car weighs. But come to think of it, I can feel the more lag-prone acceleration, that occurs when I have several adults in my car. So even the mighty and powerful car, "feels" our weight.

And isn't really, honestly, a big part of the "population problem" that "not enough" people are dying of starvation or whatever? At least according to the popular propaganda. Conversely, we seem to be headed in the other direction, that of "unlimited" food supply, that supposedly causes "wild" population growth, at least in the animal kingdom. We need some "self-control," but not in having fewer children to have fewer people around to enjoy life, but rather some renewed emphasis to exercise or eat less, and work some of those pounds off. Pregnancy is a great excuse to gain some weight, but what of the rest of us? What's our excuse? It's not healthy to be so overweight, and it's running up our medical costs as a society. We need to change that "eat until you are full" tradition of the past, and that "eat until your plate is empty," if parents are going to load up their childrens' plates with far too much food. Yeah, that worked in the days of sweating farmhands out in the field, but we should eat leaner, for the more sedentary lifestyle of sitting in chairs all day, playing video games and watching TV in air conditioned comfort. If we like reading and watching the computer screen, rather than exercising, then at least have the sense to eat less.

Oh really? Then welcoming people to accumulate more wealth, must be a big part of the answer then. If "overpopulation" can be moderated or mitigated by intelligent use of technology, then it isn't "overpopulation" anymore. Yeah, maybe we are getting too "overpopulated" for the old smelly outhouses anymore, so I am glad I don't have one. High-density housing and encouraging urban sprawl to reduce urban overcrowding, are also other useful options that have some potential to help.

Nonsense. If ever humans could become so populous, don't you think all those creative minds, would ultimately figure something out? Food would become increasingly synthesized, leading perhaps to the Star Trek "food replicator," that ultimately allows people to directly "eat" the planet, and convert all the more matter into additional human bodies. What for do people in the Star Trek era want to "copy" food for? Maybe because there is no longer enough room to grow it by slow and sloppy and iffy aggriculture, and so as they say, "Necessity is the mother of invention." So maybe the population phobics are right on one matter. Given enough time, in some improbable scenario, maybe the world actually can become completely covered in cities, although I don't see it going so far. People these days seem too breeding-phobic or selfish or preoccupied anyway. But I would say this much, if ever we don't need farms anymore, I would gladly give the land to growing cities, and not, never to be returned to nature. In fact, I don't really like the trend of people depopulating the countryside to move to the big city in search of jobs or excitement. Why can't more people work meaningful jobs, wherever they happen to live already? The internet and telepresense is making such wonderful ideas, all the more, at least conceivable. I would think it so cool to see people move back to the countryside, but now at more urban-like densities, as there gets to be just so many of us, that we have to expand our range and territory.

"The world is getting smaller. Smell better." an old Hugo cologne commercial

Well that's a rather positive way of looking at things.

And if the population grows bigger, then doesn't that mean that my prospective jobs and the stores I shop, can grow closer? Whatever to reduce commuting times and make things simpler.

Yeah, so many movies, so many forums, so little time. What dreadfully misery that is. (sarcasm)

It looks to me that quite a lot of people are enjoying the many "consequences" of our supposedly "unchecked" natural increase.

So many people benefit from any gain in world population, that couldn't live otherwise, it's a practical huge "conflict of interest" for humans to even want to limit their numbers.

Or couldn't it more likely, be the follies of population "control" that more quickly dooms us?

Of course the world is ill, that's the consequences of sin. And how exactly is the world "ill" of which you speak? Maybe the planet is "running a fever" in the strange globalist power-monger view of the "Climate Change" theorists? Well if you go to a party, and there are so many people in the room, that the room grows stuffy, does that mean the room is dying? Ha! Adjust the air conditioner, or open some windows. Or imagine that you live in the hot tropics, and what does a little sweat really hurt anyway?

Perhaps a point upon which we can agree, depending on what you might be implying here?

 

It's not so much me that wants to put the planet to a "test," but rather the world is already being put to some test. But the greater "exeriment" is not to do what humans are well used to, multiplying our numbers, but rather the fearsome power that could presumably stop the human population growth. Aren't humans almost addicted to growth? Stopping growth and advocating stagnation could send economies into spasms, and cause huge disruption, not to mention aggravating the prospects for war. People needs something to do to keep them out of trouble, and marrying and reproducing, actually qualifies quite well. People tend to become more conservative when they have children, and to give much thought to planning and the future.

Past propaganda, has depicted the earth as a ball jammed with people wall-to-wall on every continent, called the ball the "population bomb," and shown scissors inscribed with the words "population control," positioned to cut the sparking fuse cord, as the presumed one-size-fits-all (non)solution. I think that was some early form of Paul Erhlich's "Population Bomb" book cover. But they didn't much account for the so-called "demographic transition," the spreading "birth dearth," nor for the intelligence of billions of parents, to actually sometimes make wise decisions to benefit their possibly many children. The proganda has it all backwards. The real danger is the scissors, and not the "population bomb" which it's natural function is to "explode" naturally. Or do people think that God was only joking when he commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth?

On the Philippines pro-life forum I sometimes visit, somebody pointed out, that an "explosion" is where something grows to 100 times its original size, in a fraction of a second. Yeah, a world growing, peaking at 2% annual growth, and sagging to what 1.2% now, hardly could be an "explosion." And as I have pointed out, human populations already naturally grow gradually enough to allow ample time for humans to prepare and adapt for our natural increase. So such shock-and-awe demographic terms, as have been abused in the past, are at best, huge exxageration. At worst, a huge globalist conspiracy for world domination under a tyranical world government, leaving no place for the refugees to go.

Let's not do the draconian scissors "experiment."

 

Sorry, if I seem to be posting too much. Merely trying to catch up with some replies to me. My fingers are slightly tired, so I have have to give it a break.

 

consider: what if we don't develop all of this "star trek" technology? you seem to be putting far too much faith in replicators and our ability to find another planet like this one-or even being able to get there.


consider: if you put a male and female rat in an area from which they cannot escape-and let's suppose they do have an unlimited food source-they will eventually fill the room through reproduction. they will begin to fight over space, kill each other at an equal or greater rate than they are being born, and provide a perfect breeding ground for diseases to thrive and mutate. these are limiting factors. they have been tested.

i don't think you are someone that i can logically debate. your responses have only made me wonder what it could be like to be you. i don't hate you, but i don't respect you either. i'm completely done with this conversation.

 

heh, that was smooth yyyesiam

 

We are almost sure never to develop such technology, if humans somehow ever manage to "stabilize" (stagnate) our population size, because as they say "Necessity is the mother of invention." If we don't really need it, we might not even much explore the options.

I don't put much stock into the idea of humans ever colonizing any other worlds. It seems rather unlikely, given that I don't see that in the Bible. But it does make for fun sci-fi stories. God designed this world to be inhabitted by humans. So far, it appears to be the only one, that we know of yet, suitable. The prospect for colonizing other worlds, appears a lot greater, when we toss aside the idea of a "Class M" earth-like world, especially since there are none nearby. As I picture it, a human colony on another world, would be much like a land-based "spaceship" of sorts, with housing units stacked against each other like a beehive. The environment outside is hostile, so why not choose a shape to maximize interior volume and minimize exterior hull area? And given that, why bother with the possibly even more difficult problem of how to move billions of people to other worlds, when we could already build population archologies here on earth, were there any need for them.

I was listening to the ideas on the Special Features DVD of Star Trek 3, that it is unethical to consider that we can wreck the earth, and just move elsewhere. Maybe so, but maybe we fill figure out how to move elsewhere, after it is already too late? And what of all the lost "real estate" value? But it is really pathetically sad, to hear these supposedly intelligent people, talking about how easily (magically?) we will teraform Mars, when we don't even know how earth works.

Then hadn't you get a bigger room? Why use a "room" anyway, when nearly the entire planet could be made to hold people? And why rats? They breed too fast. Humans breed far slower. And rats aren't intelligent enough to adapt, so they are irrelevant. And didn't I somewhere already point out the invalidity of the rat "test," not to mention how it was rigged to produce a predetermined result, and that the ape test could possibly be somewhat more relevant? But they don't like to talk about that test, because the apes adapted and groomed each other and sought to avoid conflict. One possible factor in that, is that more intelligent animals such as dogs, accept humans as their "pack leaders" and so if we humans overcrowd them, they accept it as the will of their pack leaders, who they dare not question much. I think that's also why pet dogs and cats, often actually do get along with each other.

And what exactly does "eventually" have to do with anything? Will current trends last forever? "Eventually" is far beyond the "forseeable future," more within the puny range of human predictive ability.