overpopulation

Room for both of what? "Jungle" and "feedlot"? What about its usefulness in providing a home for countless species of animals and plantlife? It may not be of direct use to humanity (other than converting over some of the oxygen we breathe), but think of how valuable it is to the Earth as a whole.

I'm not here to argue about overpopulation, only to remind everyone that there must be some balance. It's not about how many people we can fit into this world, it's about how many people this world can reasonably support without imploding.

 

Your arguments are 100% logic and 0% compassion. My question to you is, why do you tread so hard on the values that truly make us human? In my mind I'm following your logic to the end and the homeless, mentally ill, all "unproductive" members (gays, artists?) of society die as well. You can't be selective about the value of human life. Otherwise the list of "valuable" gets narrower and narrower as each generation shaves off the outside "unproductive" class of it's time until we're stripped of all creativity and progress as well as criminal elements.

 

Opinion. Prove it. Quantify it. Do something.

To benefit from whatever? Try not to be too convincing there.
No, having more babies creates many areas in the world where we have slums, children starving to death by age 10, and endless cookie-cutter housing developments ruining what was once pleasant rural landscapes.

So you theorize that parents who want to have babies are...duped somehow...into using contraceptives?
Nonsense.

God equation again.
You believe humans have souls and trees don't because of your particular religious views. I see them as two seperate living things. Obviously very different, but my analogy remains viable.
A fetus has no 'desire to live', it simply grows. The same can be said for a seed sprouting and struggling to reach sunlight. To deny that seed the chance is the same as denying that fetus the chance. Why? The tree will live much, much longer - and thus statistically isn't that life 'worth' more by your logic? Also, the tree will be a home for any number of other living things...and it will help create oxygen for those things, while taking nothing but sunlight and rainwater.

God Equation. It is babble and has no place in a serious debate of this sort.

Actually, in good ol' America, obesity is reaching epic proportions.
We do naturally push out babies when they come, but have the means to make them never exist in the first place. By your logic, this is the same as not eating a sandwhich in order to prevent having to go potty later. Would that also be a terribly unnatural thing to do?
Again, you annul yourself with the God Equation.

If people want to make babies, thus far there is little stopping them. Your 'desire to see future generations larger' is personal opinion, so it has no more place here than your numerous god equations.

Humans invented tilt-stearing, not the planet. The earth is not going to invent some way to support an endless horde of overconsuming humanity - if anything, it will find a way to wipe out the mass. An epidemic, a chain of natural disasters, or even simply waiting until we collapse under the weight of our own idiocy.

God Equation. Nonsense.
The God I worship says we shouldn't reproduce. Ever. My belief is just as valid as yours, and my God says your God should stay out of arguments and keep trying to make rocks so heavy he cannot lift them.



You're clearly a gimmick account/troll. While I appreciate someone on these forums who can debate with more than two sentences of babble, you are proving that quantity does not equal quality.
I'm done here, because God told -me- that you're wrong and like you say - we can NOT interfere with his divine plan.

 

The truth is, the larger the overall population, the more lines of division we draw. The more things / people we consider unnecessary because they're not like us. The more chance there is of increasingly horrendous war (due to the need for more advanced / savage methods of killing large numbers of people). The easier we are to control, as we begin to control ourselves. The less freedom we have. How do I know this? Well.. I'm a loner. You learn these things. (and the proof is in the pudding if you disregard my words as tish based on that fact alone).
​

To put it another way, as a population grows, the more suicidal it becomes as a whole. Contraception is a sign of that, although maybe it's more to do with faith in our identities being completely detached from those of our children, just because our consciousnesses are separate. Maybe that's why we're always calling abortion "murder" instead of "suicide", and looking for keys / doors to eternity (immortality) that we already possess. The human race on the whole is very naive, although I may just be a crackpot

 

Dude, I LOVE pudding.

Chocolate, tapioca, butterscotch, bring it on!

I's doesn't gives a phuck!

 

Everything needs to be bigger and better in this world or so it seems...well its gonna fuck us, and fuck us hard it will.

These new TV commericals for some surburban "you can fit a basketball team in it" so it says. Common....

This problem can be looked at so many ways.

Examples

Couples keep getting girls so they fuck fuck fuck away tell a boy can take there name.
People have sex w/o a brain.
More kids makes you closer to god.
People enojy being broke.

Lots of reasons but really it doesnt matter to me. People never listen.

 

The fact that we take away so much away from the rest of the world's living organisms means we're already overpopulated in terms of what the world can handle.


Mmmm sometimes I get so frustrated and angry with humanity.

I mean, it's not about how much we fuck, it's about the balance of nature.

 

This is why abortions make sense. This is why homosexuality makes sense. We should all be homosexuals and only get artificial insemination if, and only if, we are really dying inside to have a child. I got my hands on some of my dad's old Mother Earth magazines, and this one particuarly from August of 1969, something said something about, "If you reproduce, please limit each parent to one or two children". And they really emphasized the point on being absolutely sure you want children. I also don't think people should have children until they are in their late twenties/early thirties. This is my opinion. I can't wait to have kids, and I love children, an infant's smiles/giggles/dimples can cure my rainy days. But I will do this transition sensibly and rationally.

 

What doesn't make sense is the idea that human life is somehow more precious than any other life.

Our ability to manipulate the world does not make us gods, we are yet another product of the earth, and we should recognize that fact.

 

That's because we founded laws to support our very fragile human ecosystem. Laws protect us from nature. If a bear were to come and kill a person. That bear would be shot dead in a matter of nano seconds. On the other hand, animal activists would beat down the system, saying there could have been another way, the bear needn't have died so cruely. Humans have an advantage, however cruel that may deem to be. We just should do away with laws and let nature pause it's course. Leave it to nature.

 

We can't make the rules, nature dictates the laws to us. The laws were around long before man.

Killing a bear that eats a man is culture's way to begin mourning. We require this false sense of justice. It's not a law, and it definately does not protect us from nature.

The laws of humanity are only moral pathways. The laws of nature dictate life at its core.

 

Oxygen? There's no shortage of oxygen. Endless atmospheric oxygen contributes to the problems of humans thinking they need to control forest fires. Although supposedly "natural," forest fires are increasingly inconvenient with more and more people living most everywhere.

Oxygen is also produced by trees within cities, by grass, by plankton in the oceans, etc.

I have a bicycle and its tires are flat, as I haven't ridden it for over a decade. Seems it doesn't have enough power, doesn't get me to work on time, and doesn't keep me from sweating--Sweating strangely not permitted by our spoiled society, that is if one is to smell properly bathed and not sweaty at air-conditioned work, in an air-conditioned everywhere society.

Although I have called for such protests against the runaway gasoline prices, caused by deliberate contraction of supply for profit or to appease enviro wackos, as driving slow on the freeways, and allowing bicycles on the freeway because the gasoline price is unreasonable, even Buy No Gas day or whatever. April 15th seems an obvious date for such protests, to protest the unjust income taxes also.

And do bicycles really solve parking problems? Maybe, but don't let them build any bicycle racks at colleges or whatever, or next thing you know, the politicians/beaurocrats/educrats will actually expect people to use them, ending being able to park "wherever." Gee, if I can't lock up to the nearest lamppost, right by my college class, but have to go find some far away bike rack, well I might as well walk half the remaining distance from some far away car parking lot? What's the difference? Oh yeah, maybe the difference is the lack of parking fees, until some moron gets the idea that parking decals can be affixed to bicycles too.

And of course, in China, where bicycles are still everywhere, they never have any "parking" problems now do they? Ha! I imagine they do. When have commies ever run anything right?

Want less customers or shopping malls? Stop shopping then. But somehow, I don't imagine most people want to be shoulder-to-shoulder, in just a few stores for an entire city. And I think there is a reason that the inner city downtowns are atrophying and suburbs are booming. Could it be the big parking lots? Who wants to go downtown, and drive around for an hour, bewildered with one-way streets, trying to find the closest empty parking space or parking garage to park in? I don't need the "closest" parking space, as it takes less time to park and walk than to drive around waiting on a close space to clear, but I do need free parking in a handy place, otherwise, why even shop at all? After all, look at all the shopping websites on the internet. Those don't need "parking."

And most people rarely traveled far from the town they were born in, and had almost no stuff in their tiny homes. Not that that is all bad, but not having a car, is just too limiting to most people. You can't carry your stuff, you have little choice in jobs if they must be within walking distance, lower income, less global perspective of the huge world.

Well I like Chick-fil-A, because they close on Sundays.

And who are these liberal junkfood police, who think they can tell me what I may eat?

Well when the city becomes big enough to have buses or subways stopping at every stop at least every 10 minutes, then I will consider public transporation a more viable alternative for use by some people. But tell me, how exactly do you carry 10 bags of groceries, on a public transit bus? Or can one carry home a medium or big-screen TV, on a bus? And how does one carry their camping gear, having not enough money to vacation in some pricy hotel or motel?

Pseudo-science hearsay, is far less than convincing, no matter how many educated idiots may be duped into parroting it.

Cars don't produce ozone? What? You don't watch much TV news do you? The explanation is, that there is "good" ozone and "bad" ozone. The "bad" ozone is down here, from cars, and the "good" ozone is up there, where it shields us. And apparently the atmosphere isn't all that connected after all, such that it might mix or something? Does it make much sense? Of course not, but then widespread American gullibility has emboldened enviro wackos to make up even more frightening propaganda, which they can't prove, but of course.

Well after you have convinced some 6.5 billion people to stop littering, then I figure we can move on to teaching people to separate their "recyclable" trash into 3, or 30 different catagories, in some vain hope to actually pretend to make "recycling" finally profitable.

BTW, at counting a person a second, it takes 30 years to count to a billion, working without ever a break, 24-7. So I figure that duping all the people to stop breeding so much, is even more pointless. Good thing that neither you nor I am God, huh? Could you imagine having to listen to millions of people praying at any one moment, 24-7? Bruce Almighty (movie) hardly scratched the surface of what trying to "play god" would be like for a mere mortal human. I liked that line where Bruce says, let all prayers be arranged as computer files, to which his computer suddenly has some 1.53 million unread prayers.

If God didn't command that there shall be so many people, then it would be less clear why we supposely may need so many people to be alive. Because "God said so," is very much relevant, and is quite often cited by the breeders, as a main reason why they go on breeding so much. Like it or not, religion is very much relevant to procreation.

And yet some educated idiots, want to go against nature, and deny one of the best aspects of the human-animal nature? They want to make human reproduction to be some medically-sterile, genetically-engineered, designer-baby, Brave New World chore, rather than something rather fun, even if seemingly at times, human birthrates may seem to some population phobics to be "uncontrollable?"

If society makes sex out to be such a major thing that people just seem to be obsessed with and crave, then why not have all the more people alive to enjoy reproducing? Some time ago, I think I recall some HBO program remarking about there being some 2 and a half billion (human) penises in the world. Now it's more like 3.3 billion. Don't you want a curious amazing growing world, rather than a dull world?

No, our natural increase isn't "ruining" the planet, but merely altering it, most notably to be more human-friendly, and to be able to more comfortably and safely support all the more people. And if human reproduction is growing to become a mighty force of nature, so much the better, for humans at least.

Why do population phobics assume that our population size is even much a subject for debate? Which people do we get rid of? Which people do we allow to breed, and which don't we? Isn't that the sort of non-logic of the Nazi-eugenists? "We need room to grow." Adolf Hitler, 1937, according to some quip by Captain Kirk in some Star Trek movie. Apparently we don't need so much room to grow after all, since world population has tripled in size since then, and quite many people are actually doing better in many respects.

See how "religious" they are about evolution, as to pretend it is "science?" So how do the "know-everything" "scientists" get to be our "high priests" anyway? In the movie, Supernova, the "scientists" tell us that the sun is about to explode. But Whoops! The leading "scientist" put in a plus sign where there should of been a minus sign, so the world isn't about to end after all. So typical. And yet we still trust most everything any wacko purporting to be a "scientist" claims, even though it often makes little sense?

And is such sin anything new? Go back to the first few chapters of Genesis, and see how well humans got along with each other, starting with the first 2 people, the first 4 people, etc. Seems Eve listened to the distortions of a speaking serpent, and got humanity in trouble, and Cain murdered his brother Abel. Will you then try to tell me that "overpopulation" was the problem, way back then too? Or was it something else, all the while?

 

That was an amazing display of your inability to put together a cohesive or convincing argument, and your inability to realize that God has no place in this debate.
It also showed you were unable or unwilling to read the end of my last post. Here it is again for those of you playing along at home:

 

The Earth is the Lord's. Psalm 24:1, I think is where the Bible says that.

Therefore the earth is for God's purposes, such as God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

Parking lot? What for do I need a parking lot, in the future when we finally get The Jetsons cartoon flying cars? I was think more along the lines, that the "rainforest" could be cleared out, to make room for my mansion. Or more precisely, the mansions of some 30 billion people or whatever the future brings.

 

Hmmmm. Let me see if I can understand the non-logic in that. Population phobics are for real, but anybody who argues the other side of the issue, that human life is something special or sacred, can't possibly be for real?

Surely you don't really think that I am a johnny-come-lately troll? Would a mere "troll" devote an entire forum almost, to the subject?

Check out my home forum, which I have hosted for years.

Why am I a pronatalist? (or why be?)

a discussion thread at Innovation Station

 

So if the world had 0 people, would everybody be equal, or would their level of equality be indeterminant?

A baby strains its mother's body, even pushing body organs aside as her belly swells to make room. So should everybody just stop having babies, and let the human race go extinct?

They say you can't stop people from having sex, so let's discuss somewhat realistic options. That means that babies of course will continue to be born.

Whether or not the ecosystems might be said to be "strained" under the supposed weight of so many people, the planet can far more easily bear or withstand the rising human population "pressure," than weak, frail humans can be expected to struggle with awkward, unnatural "birth control."

I figure that if human populations grow most everywhere that people live, the rising population "pressure" sort of "cancels out," becoming less apparent, "equalizing" in some manner similar to the heavy weight of the atmosphere bearing down on us. We generally don't notice it all that much, since it presses equally in all directions, and our bodies are mostly water and thus not all that compressable. Actually, it's a good thing, lest wouldn't our blood "boil" in the vacuum of outer space?

The struggle of the underpriviledged? Actually, that is another reason to advocate natural human population expansion. For things don't just happen in a vacuum, not affecting other things. If a society is more pronatalist, then it must logically also tend towards the many things needed to accomodate better so many people. If people say "keep on having babies," then wouldn't many people also say, "Build more homes." "People need jobs." "People need rights." "People need respect and dignity." "People need worker's rights and some form of minimum wage." "We need to designate more land to have room for so many people." "The poor need clear title to land so that their shacks aren't bulldozed and so they can build them better." Etc. It's the trying to "control" human population growth, that leads to other endless abuses. "Problem solved," many liberals would think on some level, and efforts at real reform would wane and lose steam. Why build more housing if the population is declining? Eventually, there might finally be enough old, delabitated, falling apart houses to house all the people with plenty of space for all their stuff. That is if the old leaky roofs don't leak in too many places.

That is a complex subject, and a lot of that problem is caused by huge greedy corporations (i.e. Wal-Mart) thinking too much of short-term greed of bigwig stockholders over the good of workers and the community, rampant advertisements for stupid junk on TV, and of course the disturbing societal trends of materialism over freedom and personal responsibility.

Presumably, each person benefits somehow by being alive. Now multiply that times billions of people, and that's an enormous collective benefit. More population helps quite a lot towards that. It's not even about what supposed "contributions" each person might or might not make to society, but rather acknowledging that society benefits, just from so many people being able to enjoy being alive.

Overly industrialized? Perhaps, in some way. But I think that such a huge world population as there is now, requires some of that industrialization now, just to adequately support it.

One of the big things that people in developing countries need, is not "An Inconvenient Hypocrite" liars like Al Gore, trying to drive up the cost of gasoline, but abundant cheap energy. If presumably, humans are growing so incredibly numerous, that due to various societal-economic constraints, not all people can easily acquire enough land to farm to feed their growing families, or don't want to, then that means more people will live closer together in cities, and cities require energy to run properly. If people earn their bread by working jobs, then surely they don't want to be limited to mainly manual labor, without the help of energy-using machines. People in developing countries are having respiratory problems from burning wood and dung. What they need is gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens, to do their cooking, and furnaces to heat their homes, so that they won't be cold and sickly. And that requires more development, or some level of "industrialization" as you call it.

Like the internet, I believe in some way, expanding human populations does tend towards "leveling the playing field," and having to acknowledge that all those people actually are important after all. Human populations growing seemingly "out of control," perhaps aren't easily controlled, which should be a good thing, as "self-control" and personal responsibility, are virtues anyway, that ought to be promoted. And surely it is fun to toss a "monkey wrench" into the wicked plans of the globalists. They are even more clueless how to build their unworkable global tyranny utopia, with so many people everywhere always getting in the way of their wicked schemes.

 

I'm not going to respond to all of your points right now as I'm busy getting trashed and I just got done posting a shit ton in another thread. I'm surprised that I agree with one of your paragraphs, though. hahah

As a response to the question you first ask: I will say that if there are no people, obviously the equality of people does not exist. When I talk about more babies leading to more blah blah blah, I'm refering to an active society, not some rhetorical jargon.


My point of even posting anything in this thread is to say that it's not the problem that people keep having kids or that the population increases, it's that:

The population is severely out of touch with the reality of it's surroundings. They do not wish to live as god intended them to--they have eaten from the tree of knowledge and now they enact the idea that they can control life and death. The problem is not with having a high population and it's not with our technology or ease of living. The problem rests with the inability to live in a manner which does not have such a profound affect on the tender balance of life. In turn, it's going to affect us very much so.

 

People. Overpopulation has no religious ties to it whatsoever. So, get back to the subject and leave the Jesus gestapo parked at home where it belongs.

 

So really then, the conclusion that everyone seems to agree upon is that overpopulation isn't a problem as such - it's the decadent way of life that we've come to accept, and how overpopulation would accentuate the problem that the natural balance of the world faces because of it.

Putting that aside, a huuuge problem we face with an increasing population is housing everyone. Even if we bulldose everything and use every bit of available land, the problem won't go away.. our population cannot infinitely grow, we'll still need places to live. Also consider that if global warming does occur - which it MAY do - that sea levels will rise, meaning even less space for housing. (oh, and just for Pronatalist's sake - even if there ISN'T a flood, the end result will still be the same. We ARE going to run out of space eventually, so please, no "you're just listening to the fundamental environmentalists who don't fit in with my rose tinted view of basic geographical concepts"..)

Personally - I think the only solution that could possibly work, is to live in harmony with nature. That is, to scrap our whole infrastructure, or live like savages, if you like. It's the only possible way that our numbers will be kept in check. That may seem heartless, but the simple fact is - we have lived apart from nature for so long that we have forgotten that we ARE a part of it. The world we live in now is not a result of intellect, but instinct. The fear of death is what drives us to this build this concrete womb. The sad truth is that the longer it goes on, the more we're blinded from the reason behind it. Can anyone really claim to know WHAT our big wide world is for, apart from sheltering us from our inevitable deaths (fates which, incedently, we don't understand).. enabling us live in comfortable ignorance while the rest of life vanishes around us? We evolved (if you believe in that.. in the traditional sense, I'm not even sure that I do) through living like every other life form, and NO-ONE can claim that the sharp contrast between that and living like we do now WON'T have an effect on it, seeing as our environment is a key factor in the process. Whether that will be positive or negative is entirely speculatitive, but we got to where we are now through it and seeing as we love ourselves and our 'superior intelligence' so much, wouldn't it be awful seeing it messing up completely.. (maybe we'd just turn binary)?

oh, the horrible irony.

anyway, I guess my point is, we fucked up big time. and because we're so far down the line, unless absolutely EVERYONE understands the nature of our world, people will cling to their lifestyles and nothing short of a natural disaster will change it.

sorry if none of that made sense.

 

So the problem isn't really the "overpopulation," but merely the common supposed effects of the "overpopulation?" Is there really all that much difference?

What? Must we appease both sides of the debate, by every once in a while saying, "You may have a point there?"

I heard something on TV, some little series about supposed supposed building-buildings-green nonsense, that China is undergoing a huge building housing expansion. Hmmmm. Well isn't it about past time for that, considering that they are the world's first "population billionaire" nation? Of course building more housing helps to make all the more room for people to add their precious darling children to the burgeoning population size.

The answer to the question of "living room" in a growing world of people, is so incredibly simple, why don't more people more vocally proclaim it? The planet isn't getting any bigger, but the human race is growing bigger still. If that keeps up, then supposedly intelligent humans can learn to and adapt, to live and breed in closer proximity to other people. On the global scale at least, all the while our homes may gain in square footage and number of bathrooms, and remain just as far from our neighbors as before, but the countryside slowly fades away towards urban densities throughout more and more of the world. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Cities can grow bigger and closer together, and additional cities and towns can form in between the various growing cities and towns. There are 3 perceptional dimensions into which humans can yet multiply into--outwards, inwards, and upwards. Expanding into suburbs upon suburbs or spreading into formerly rural lands, infilling underutilized city land or increasing household size sometimes, and obviously highrises or population arcologies. That's plenty to take care of all the people to perhaps naturally come along, well into the forseeable future. Cities only occupy currently but around 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more. Surely it's worth expanding human territory and range for the sakes of our precious darling babies?

Well if humans are supposed filling the planet, and if this is supposedly such a "problem," then isn't that all the more reason to expect all nations to do what they can to help absorb the growing world population? And of course, that starts at home, welcoming the natural increase of their very own people. Sure, civilized people should be free to migrate, or emigrate to other countries, but they shouldn't be forced out, but rather leave if and because they want to. So it is irresponsible for countries like commie-thug China to export their growing human population, by creating refugees fleeing forced abortions. Let the people of China breed their "traditionally very large families" in China. Also in other countries, should they want to become foreign students, to emigrate, to join family in other countries, etc., but because they want to, not to have to go elsewhere to find basic freedom and dignity.

Humans can in fact, populate more densely and efficiently, and isn't that likely related to humans being social creatures, already quite capable of both surviving and thriving, even at extreme densities if need be? If China is going to be a population giant, then be proud to be a population giant, as all those people have to live somewhere, so why not in China or wherever they already live? Americans perhaps like to point the figure at China's human rights abuses, and get moralistic about abortion and not coercing people to use "birth control" against their will. So let's say China was to respond by saying, "But you don't have over a billion people within your borders. We do? What would you do then, if you had over a billion people in your country?" The correct answer then, is that we should still be pronatalist, still encouraging people to have their possibly big families, and go ahead and have all their precious darling children. We should then, if that's where it might be headed, also be quite willing to populate ourselves, and encourage other countries to also populate into the billions of people, and change our environment as needed to populate more densely and efficiently with people.

A big part of the problem, is that people don't want to humble themselves and trust God, that God has some way for it all to work out, and that we don't actually know it all, like we sometimes like to pretend.

With over 6.5 billion people on the planet, I think some of that "living in harmony with nature" stuff, is no longer possible. So live in harmony where we can, advoid the ugly bizarre tattoos and body piercings, don't smoke nasty cancer stick cigarettes with more and more people breathing the same air, and especially avoid the nasty experiment potion/poison/devices contraceptives designed to rob us of our precious darling children.

I am for living more simply and frugually, where possible, but not that the "environment" cares, but for the sake of less stress and saving money and time. Use the technologies that work for us, and shun the technologies that add stress and make money mainly for greedy corporations. And obviously, not everybody will be persuaded to live more frugally, and with human numbers on the rise, more of everything will have to be produced anyway, which produces the jobs people need anyway.

A part yes, but God gave man dominion over nature and other creatures, so remember that as well.

And you really don't expect me to give up my air conditioning, refrigerator, and home furnace do you? I don't want to be that much "in harmony" with nature.

Our environment is also the political and economic and social, and that needs to be build up as well.