overpopulation

I only played his game. That is all. Corpses on sticks mean nothing to me :]

 

Well, no, I am not dictating how you should live. I'm just offering the only solution which I believe is viable, I really don't expect - or indeed believe - that anyone will do what I suggest.

One of your recurring arguments runs along the lines of "we are too far along" or "we are too used to this way of living" to "blah". Then you contradict yourself by stating the fact that we are able to adapt in backing up your other arguments. Do you see the contradiction there? You only *want* your central heating, fridge, etc. All these things make our lives far more comfortable, I agree, but since when has happiness been measured by the amount of comfort we can afford? We CAN do without these things, indeed, you wouldn't be alive now if we couldn't. Your arguments are subtly pushing the way of life you're clinging on to. Sure, it's an issue for everyone, but it's not the only viable way forward. If we're prepared to make sacrifices then we stand to gain in the long run.

I think we both agree on one issue : that life must be preserved - but you, rather selfishly in my opinion, seem to have created a heirachy of how much life is worth, and unsurprisingly, you consider yourself to be at the top. Is that blind faith, or is there something that runs deeper? Wasn't Noah's goal to save every animal?

Well, I think this speaks for itself.. but just in case - you can easily equate all these things with what our actions are doing to the planet. Tatoo's and piercings to cities and mines, smoking with car and power exausts.. I shouldn't even have to explain.

That could be subject to quite a bit of speculation. We have no need for economic expansion, and the truth is what many of us are saying, that endless economic growth in a finite world is impossible. You can just as easily replace 'economic' with 'population' too. We choose to selectively ignore that and it could just mean the end of us.

 

We don't need contraceptives to kill our children, starvation should do the trick quite nicely.

 

Why is only your solution viable? Population "control" either assumes global tyranny, or that everybody will just magically "agree" to "limit" their family size. When does everybody ever "agree" on anything? Why would everybody "agree" to go bizarrely against nature? As they say, "You can't fool all the people, all the time." How is a non-realistic non-solution in any way viable?

"Natural" is teeth green with rot. I am for "natural," but it all depends on what that "natural" is. I am not for the "natural" that harms man, or that mocks God's purpose for man. In that sense, contraception is quite unnatural, in more ways than one. Obviously, I am not for the "natural" of teeth green with rot, and so I am for dentistry, so long as it is affordable and done properly. But I am for the natural of not spoiling God's design of the human body, with ugly tattoos, bizarre body piecings, and not directly poisoning the body with nasty cancer stick cigarettes or highly experimental contraceptive potions/poisons/devices.

I don't even suggest that people give up their electricity, or vaccines unless they don't trust them, nor cars, as surely people ought to have their electricity, so that they can see to change their naturally-born many babies' diapers at night and such. I don't want to see people suffer, so of course we should have easy ways to preserve our food to insure that there can always be enough food for everybody, so the electricity to run all those people's refrigerators should keep flowing affordably, no matter whether it comes from nuclear power--powerful enough to power so many central air conditioners of the big city, or from supposedly "renewable" wind energy turbines, solar heating mirror tracking, hydroelectric dams, burning coal or fuel, etc.

But I do suggest that people consider being more frugal, and more often refusing to buy all the junk that the greedy corporations keep advertising hyping. Not every TV show is worth owning, so why are so many stupid TV shows out on DVD? One of the reasons our homes are getting so big and adding square footage, is not for all those children we don't seem to be having, but for all our accumulating stuff. Often stuff we don't need or rarely use anyway. We buy stuff we don't want, to impress people we don't even like, with money we don't have, or something or other the quotable line goes. Stuff takes time to buy, time to use, time to store, time to fix, time to get rid of. Gee I wonder where all our time goes.

I am not complaining that we are "too far along." With the benefit of hindsight, had I been able to give advice in the past, when it supposedly might have made a slight distance, I would still say to advance the technology and swell the world population size. Actually, the two are more interconnected than many people seem to think. A lot of the modern technology just wouldn't have worked, without huge population, huge markets to help drive it forward or make it economically viable. I am talking more of a natural progression, towards accumulating world population, and how beneficial that is to man. But yeah, we are "too far along" to push the baby back into the womb. As I have read, supposedly a major reason for the existance of huge cities or "supercities," is that there are more women of childbearing age now. Which of course I must count as being for the greater good of the many, so why would I complain about that. I might suggest that God didn't command that people all live on top of one another, so perhaps some people could explore how to use technology or to lead, to help make it more possible for people to work meaningful jobs where they already live, rather than crowding into the big city, that could grow fast enough already, just from the natural increase of all the people already living there. Time has to flow forwards, not backwards, so adjust. As they say, human population seems to only go up, so adapt accordingly.

The contradiction is only in your apparent misunderstanding of my position. Sometimes I say, that we can't just go adding more and more people to the world, and keep on living the same way. (i.e. There might not be enough room anymore in the world, for "everybody" to live like the primitive Amish?) But I am not down and depressed about that, because we can keep adding more and more people to the world, by adapting and living in some different or better ways. I don't advocate draconian changes that people wouldn't want, but the more sensible adaptations that people should naturally want anyway. Such as more of the world having modern indoor toilets. Natural gas or electricity piped into people's homes, so that they can heat and cook without the smoke of wood or dung that causes them respiratory problems. Disposable diapers to help make it easier for parent to relax and welcome their families to grow possibly large. High density housing, for those, some people who want to live close to the jobs or the center of town, or who don't want to mow grass and trim bushes anyway.

I suspect that we may actually "need" central heating, because couldn't cold homes be a factor in the shorter lifespans of the past? It puts stress on the human body to be perpetually cold. How long do you think people would last in the nursing homes, if we lowered the heat, so that we could supposedly "conserve energy?" With over 6.5 billion human mouths to feed, don't you suppose there might be some advantage to reducing food spoilage? Yeah, you can leave your bread out on the counter, but won't it last longer, in the fridge? Because the huge world population is growing denser and denser, isn't that all the more reason for people to "need" automatic home heating systems and refrigerators? Of course with the cheap and affordable energy we should be developing and spreading throughout the world, that leaves electricity availability for many "wants" too, such as the big-screen TV, especially important for old people who can't hardly see or do much else, and central air conditioning too. With all the ways there are available to produce cheap and abundant electricity, there really isn't much need to be "miserly" about electricity consumption, well unless the economy is so unfair to the vast majority of the world's people, that they are compelled to exist on no more than a few dollars a day?

Actually, excessive comfort can be a form of bondage. It would not be "good" for me, to rob God of useful service I might be able to do, if I feel I can't picket an evil abortion clinic, because it's just too hot and sweaty outside. Not having enough time for everything, might be a better excuse than mere "comfort" issues. Likewise if there is something important I should go to, and it is raining outside. Well what for, were raincoats invented? Seeking comfort or pleasure excessively, may lead to things evil, but neither is it required, that people continually torture themselves either. Even a fast from eating to seek God, has an "expiration time" to it. Usually for most people, not more than a day at a time. Actually, being a (fat?) "couch potato" is quite unhealthy. At least go for a walk around the block regularly, if one doesn't receive much exercise in the work and stuff they do. Especially when old, I think that people's muscles seize up, and bones get brittle, if they don't keep using them, coaxing them to keep working.

Yeah, we can do without some of these things, for a while. A person might even survive in the vacuum of outer space, for what? maybe 20 seconds? But what would be the purpose?

I am not willing to "sacrifice" my potential future children. The Bible speaks very much against the pagan practices of the past, people "sacrificing" their children to devils, Molech, or to abortion clinics, as the Bible says that God hates the hands that shed innocent blood.

Or maybe you were speaking of making less drastic "sacrifices" like putting us into the dark?, like so many of the enviro wackos seem to want. Yeah, maybe I could turn off all the lights when I am watching TV, but why? A dark room with a bright TV in the middle, strains the eyes, and I want to see other stuff, as I often don't just sit and watch TV. I also try to process my mail or do some reading at the same time.

I didn't create that hierachy, but rather God did. Jesus died for the sins of humans, not for the animals. Most humans consider themselves to be at the top, especially, presumably, if they still eat meat, although I think that abstaining from meat does very little actually, for the supposed "good" of the animals. If people didn't eat cows, we would get rid of them, because of what use then are cows? So the Star Trek "food replicator" likely wouldn't be kind to cows. Yeah, I would much rather have a free "copy" of a steak, than the "real" thing having to pay for it, but where is the supposed "benefit" to the cow?

Why do environmental extremists feign concern about the "environment," when there is the more close personal/social environment to consider, that affects us even more.

Well replace "economic growth" with Star Trek "food replicators" if you want. Put the greedy corporations out of business, and end time-robbing jobs, if we can or you want. But there still has to be "growth" in material possessions or something, if so many babies keep coming along. Which seems to be God's will, BTW.

 

Sigh. OK, first off, do these kids have green, rotting teeth?



I can understand your belief that lack of dental care or flouride in water equates to green teeth. Like I said before though, it's because of our diet.

Population "control" may imply global tyranny or a certain family size, but my point - which you seem to have completely skewed beyond recognition - is that we are ALREADY going against nature, and that not sheltering ourselves from it as much as we do now would NATURALLY limit population size. Like it said before, it sounds heartless, but it could be and most likely is a more humane solution than the war or starvation which will inevitably result from a world with twice or more the population there is now. That is, at least, if our economic and political systems remain the same (which they undoubtedly will do unless there is a huge shake up).

Our population CANNOT keep growing infinitely, we do not have infinite resources, these are the basic facts you are failing to acknowledge. Before you think of an argument to defend yourself or fall back on god's unquestionable word, think about WHERE these things will lead.

Oh. Well there you go. I am all for different beliefs, however different (I have a few of my own, I admit). Please don't think I am patronising you because I'm not, but if your admittedly good-natured campaign eventually leads to this outcome, I'm not so sure how seriously I can take it. If this is your only solution to the very real problem of where we'll end up if we follow your plans, then you are putting your faith in an ideal which is magnitudes more unrealistic then the ones you are disagreeing with.

Look at it this way : every other species population is balanced through natural means. There are strict laws on taking certain animals and plants into certain countries precisely because changing that balance could lead to a disasterous boom / decline in a native species, crops being devoured, etc. We, on the other hand are not subject to any kind of balance, not because we are "better" than nature as some would like to believe, but because we have seperated ourselves from it. Therefore the responsibility lies on us to keep our population in check, not only for the sake of our own species but the sake of others who may stand to lose out if we destroy their environment. That requires an element of self control and also a certain amount of good judgement on our part. The real question in our situation is this : is there a reason why this balance exists, and if so, what is it? I believe the answer to that question is also the answer to our overpopulation problem, hence the solution I suggested.

Now, no matter how far away you perceive it to be, no matter how much we prepare, no matter how closely we live together, we WILL run out of food or resources unless we radically change our way of life. The larger the population is, the closer we are to the threshold where these things are not sustainable. Natural gas/oil will run out exponentially faster as the population grows. The more nature we destroy, the less oxygen there will be for all the people in the world (and the delicate balance of the climate, which may as well not exist in your world).

No, not nearly that minor. I'm talking about abandoning this way of life altogether, something which most people never consider doing, and which the very utterance of probably makes me sound crazy - this is, until you see that thousands of other people can live like it and have no less of a meaningful existance.

I'm not talking about "conserving energy" though. I'm talking about the problem of overpopulation. Truth is, yes, as single identities we probably do have less chance of survival without these things, but that is precisely the solution to overpopulation I suggested. Heartless, maybe. Impractical, not at all. In fact, it's the perfect solution.

Ask yourself the question : why am I alive? Most of us have / are / will be giving the majority our lives away to a machine which enables more people to be born so that they can give the majority of their lives away to the machine so... (oh, and also gives us entertainment so we can waste the rest of our time.)

Humans don't like searching for things that may not exist, but what if there really is a reason, a humanly understandable one, for our existance? What if that reason isn't to simply reproduce? What if death isn't "a horrible fate" and something to be avoided at all costs, like we consider it to be now? If it was, then why does it happen to every living thing? If our society, our machine, and what it is doing to the world is completely oblivous to this reason, even actively against it? These are very real possibilities, because we really don't know. Through history we have failed to consider the future, in the present we forget the mistakes of past, these are the mistakes which have cost us the most. Maybe laying millions of tonnes of concrete on the earth and removing the possibility for life wasn't such a good idea?

 

Perhaps partly, but how do their teeth look when they get old? I didn't say that all poor people have green teeth, but that is merely an example of how not everything "natural" is "good."

No, our natural increase does not go against nature, but merely against a religious "environmentalist" skewed definition of nature. It's quite natural and to be expected. Even God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, logically implies that as time passes, the earth is supposed to be growing fuller and fuller of people, for there is no "expiration date," other than the obvious Biblical endtimes and something about people becoming as angels, apparently not able to reproduce anymore in heaven? See Luke 20.

Humans were given intelligence for a reason. We were never designed to be subdued by nature, but to tend and subdue nature. Don't believe those lies of the devil. Why are there more insects and creatures and rodents and birds, per square unit of measure, outside, and not inside our homes? Because humans naturally prefer clean and artificial environments, well at least most of the time. Even our dogs, that so much like to be around us, like to go out for a walk, "in nature" every so often.

To not "shelter" people from "nature" is cruel. Who wants to see people suffer or starve? Who wants to see people freezing in winter, since "nature" for some reason, didn't give intelligent humans natural fur coats? Actually, you may want to check out a few recent posts on this discussion thread on another forum, that suggests perhaps a far more likely explanation of what the rhetoric about "overpopulation" is really about. And check out his webpage link, about the Orwellian ideas of producing stuff without distributing it, and using "overpopulation" as a flimsy excuse to maintain the same corrupt social hierarchy.:

Read the post by TheCounterpunch

BTW, those children in the photo, look rather happy. Perhaps Western materialism, isn't everything, in their view?

Who are you, or who is anybody, to say that twice as many or more people, shouldn't be allowed to live, especially if they have very willing parents to "sponsor" a place in the world for them? How dare I go and tell my neighbor, not to have so many children? Am I his father? Or his God? If my neighbor is nice and civil, wouldn't he merely say something about "See that fence right there? I live on this side, you live on that side. What is it to you, how many children I have?" Well maybe I have to hear his children outside playing, but then I like children, that's merely a hypothetical example. The humane solution is to let human populations grow naturally.

Somewhere, on another forum, I read of the theory that the world has "too much" food. In the animal kingdom at least, supposedly too much food leads naturally to "wild" population growth. Hmmmm. Will the population phobics please make up their minds, which to worry us about? Is it too little, or too much food? Wouldn't the one cancel the other out? No, I propose an "unlimited" food supply for humans, as I don't want to see people suffer needlessly. Human population shall have to be regulated some other way, say by the natural time it takes human populations to grow. No, I don't believe God made people too fertile. Nor do I believe that "evolution" or "nature" "wants" humans to be fewer in number.

Sure, I believe human populations should be "controlled" too, but I favor the very lax control I see in the Bible. Get married first, and provide for and love one's children. What more natural way can there be to "space" children, but an already occupied womb, and of course, natural breastfeeding until babies can move on to more solid food and cow's milk, as apparently that is how God intended for most human babies to be fed. I do believe that all married people have the basic right to push their babies out naturally as they come they come, as family size used to be thought "uncontrollable" before all these trendy shoddy contraceptives. If human populations manage to grow "rapidly," then the demographic shifts towards a high percentage of the people being too youngful to breed, a "self-limiting" factor, although obviously not "self-limiting" enough for the selfish delusions of the population phobics.

And yet I predict that massive world population growth must first preceed any invention of the Star Trek "food replicator" or the development of technology to later colonize other worlds, if ever. Why keep all our eggs in one basket, so to speak? The baby must put on weight, and "outgrow" the womb, in order to trigger its "birth?" Likewise, it should be good for man, to naturally "outgrow" the earth, if ever we naturally can.

I have thought quite a lot about where it could lead, and Malthusian gloom and doom, is but a tiny fraction of the myriad of possibilities to consider. Remember, humans are the only creatures that I advocate seemingly "unchecked" population growth for, as other creatures aren't intelligent enough to adapt, and there is God's will and purpose to consider. Extremists like to say that if humans don't limit their numbers, nature will. Wrong. Nature won't. Nature doesn't want to be bothered to "limit" our numbers. Nature would consider us part of nature, if nature could "think," and multiply us all the more. Why do you think there's so many of us now? Because "nature" has been "asleep at the job" or something, or simply doesn't "care" how populous humans might like to become, because nature isn't against us and doesn't "think." No, if humans don't limit their numbers, they can be expected to adapt, as humans already are adapting, and are accused of being too good at adapting.

While I may question whether humans are "progressing" near as much as the evolutionist/athiests like to pretend, human social development, and technological development, isn't static. Rising human population "pressure" actually does have some really wonderful benefits and helps to accelerate/propel technological advancement, which in turn helps better accomodate "larger than ever" population sizes.

Out of time. Will have to finish this later.

 

.

 

Says you. But do these other species, which you imply that you supposedly care so much about, pay taxes? Do they vote? Do they even tell you what they supposedly want? Then how can they possibly be on a par with the precious darling babies of people, perhaps yet to be born?

Humans multiply much more slowly than other creatures, we are commanded by God to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and we apparently already have some means by which to do so. And so who are you, or anybody, to say we shouldn't? I meant to say before, that it takes a "higher power" to make population decisions, so profound and important are they. The government isn't a "higher power," because they are people the same as you or me, or "my neighbor" as I expressed in a previous post. For pets, their masters/owners are their "higher power," and so we are free to get them fixed, if we so choose. We are more intelligent than they, pets don't have "human rights" (to breed), and besides, it helps them be better pets anyway, not being subject anymore to natural reproductive urges. And our pets have us for "families" so what need have they of offspring? But humans weren't designed to be "pets," and God, our "higher power," has already specified that human populations should go on growing. Now who do you think we can trust to make such decisions? There is no "we" that can get together and decide what the population level should be, nor any moral nor practical means by which to enforce it. Most intelligent people, would suggest that the billions of reproducing parents, are the most natural and moral ones to make the population decisions, or better yet, God. Now if parents have made their decision to breed, then who are you, or anybody to second-guess it? That's like those libtard DemocRATS, who when they lose by some close margin, they don't like to accept defeat, they don't accept the apparent will of the masses, and demand recount after recount, until they get the result they want. I think the applicable term is "sore loser," the sort that isn't much fun to play games with.

If most anything that supposedly could keep human populations "in check" is fast fading away, isn't even that a potent signal in favor of natural human population expansion? A signal that in many respects, the world is growing "underpopulated" compared to what it potentially could be made to hold.

I find nothing in my Bible saying that humans have any responsibility to keep their naturally-burgeoning populations "in check," but rather God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, suggests just the opposite, that successive generations should go on growing ever more large and populous than the previous, and that the responsibility to determine just how populous mankind may become, is God's, not man's.

When humans breed animals, do the animals question whether there will be enough resources then? Aren't humans supposed to be smarter than animals? Then why all the "what ifs?" Sure, it's good to question things, but don't presume that all people should share the same lack of faith of the over-educated who deny that there is a God. Doesn't the Bible say that the fool has said in his heart that there is no God?

I am all for self-control and personal responsibility, but doesn't that also imply some level of self-determination? If people are to have self-control, shouldn't they also make some of their own decisions and live with the consequences? It's people's own homes that they are first populating, always more confining than their communities or world, so if they can possibly find or make room for their children, why can't their communities and the world?

I am for good judgement, that's why I call for expanding resource development and the building of infrastructure. But it is the population pessimists that aim to trap people in poverty, conveniently blaming most all the world's ills on "overpopulation," a rather convenient cop-out to circumvent actual real reforms, which would be needed anyway, because even if everybody in the world could magically be convinced to give up the pleasures and intimancy of sex, the population would remain huge for quite some time. But to "limit" human population size is counterproductive, as that only limits possible beneficiaries. No, efforts are much better spent at accomodating natural human population growth, not at all trying to "control" or "limit" it.

I think it was the book, Ecology Wars by Ron Arnold, a defector from the Sierra Club, that pointed out the folly of putting too much faith in the conservation of resources supposedly made possible by more "limiting" our population size or passing draconian "environmental" restrictions. So we run out of oil or copper or whatever resource, in 2060 rather than 2050? Big deal. The "running out of resources" argument has largely been discredited. Even the Club of Rome has had to backtrack on previous statements of resources supposedly running out.

But if we assume that government supposedly has some role to limit population to supposedly conserve resources, have you even considered all the folly that that could imply? If government can steal away people's precious progeny, to conserve resources, then does the government "own" the resources, thus they can manufacture artificial "shortages" any time they want, say like to boost the profits to the oil monopoly corporations? Why actually promote the scarcity that you claim to fear? Shouldn't we be drilling more oil wells, and building more hydro-electric dams and such, to insure that there will be enough, even for the working poor? When rich people try to drive up prices, supposedly to promote conservation, do you really think the rich will consume less? Ha! They already have the money to pay the exorbitant prices, and may even want them to go up more, so that their stock dividends will soar. It's the working poor that have to do without, and when most of the people have to work to have nothing, well that's the sort of thing that leads to revolution, as people will not forever put up with having nothing. Now how much resources will there be to go around, when the revolution comes?

Somebody on TV said that 1% of the people in the world, own 1/3rd of the resources. The next 9% own the next 1/3rd. The remaining 90% only own but 1/3rd the resources of the world. Now people aren't forever going to accept having nothing, and so that leads to revolution. He didn't think the revolution would come right away, but rather eventually. Now do you prefer a peaceful resolution of world problems, or do you want them to fester until things explode in violence? I prefer the peaceful approach, and so I advocate the sort of reform I expect a more pronatalist world to promote.

Some "environmental" extremists have come out saying, that they prefer high density housing for humans, supposedly to keep them out of all those regions of the world that they are supposedly trying to "preserve." That's not what I advocate, as the Biblical solution to population growth, was to spread out, as indicated by Abraham and Lot's growing tribes choosing to spread out to reduce potential conflict over grazing animals and the sharing of water wells and such. But was it about "controlling" population growth? Not at all, but rather putting off its consequences until later when more options should become available. For their tribes, and everybody's tribes, continued to grow in numbers, and as the earth is a finite sphere, obviously humans would ultimately spread to the ends of the earth, and start pressing closer together again, in greater numbers than ever. Well what are cities for? For allowing more people to live in a given space. Spreading out I would presume to be the first logical option, but there are others obviously. High density housing, apartment complexes, highrise buildings, building suburbs upon suburbs, more small towns and cities but more closely spaced, etc. Let people live where they want, but people have to live somewhere.

Most people don't want to live the quaint and primitive lives of the Amish.

Out of time again. Finish this later.

 

The most prominent pressure for technological advancement is war. I'm not scaremongering, that is what the past teaches us. More efficient ways of killing, hiding information, brainwashing the enemy. Not just technological, but economic advancement is greatly propelled by the buisiness of war (why else do you think America has invaded at least one country every two years since the second world war..)? I do see your point, and I do believe we will, at some point, have the technology.. but if we do develop the technology to colonize other planets in the future, it will be the rich who benefit from it. Considering something like 5% of the worlds population holds 95% of the total wealth, how much do you think that is going to help the problem of overpopulation? Revolution is something which the poor want and the powerful (rich) will do anything to stop.. as the divide grows, the chance for peaceful revolution decreases. When will this supposed revolution happen? In 30 years, there will be another 4 BILLION people on the planet. Christmas day 2037, the estimated population will be 10,446,438,355.

Nature is not a person, and if the only way you can understand something is by humanising it then I'm not suprised that you don't care much for it.

Nature is a process by which all things grow and evolve, it is our environment, it is a very far reaching term. To attach an identity to it is a pointless excersise as there is no "ME". If I filled the sky with dust and the sky didn't "care", does that mean that it considers dust a part of itself? If I never reproduce and live in a dead box of concrete which nature can't reach, does that mean that it was a natural thing to do? Or how about, I sew up my mouth and I can't eat anything. You could say that when I die, it's because nature wanted me to, that nature was punishing me for not eating. You know it's not that way at all though, it's just that my body is part of a system, if I break the rules, then I die. Your idea of endless procreation is just the same : it's just that our binary logic dictates that the opposite of something bad (not eating) must be good (eating). That's not the case, you eat too much, you get fat, your heart stops beating. You mess up the balance of the system.

Let's turn it round shall we? If you (nature) have a cancerous lump in your throat, then do you consider it a part of yourself? No, you attempt to limit it's growth because if you become overpopulated with cancer then it will destroy you. Unlucky for you, there's no way for your body (nature) to get rid of the cancer itself, so you die. But maybe that's what nature (you) wanted?

How about another scenario : in the future, we have the technology to explore other planets. On one planet we discover a species with vastly superior intelligence to our own. The species then invades our planet, destroys our homes and build their own. Pretty soon we're distributed throughout their homes. They cut off our testicles and cut out our wombs and only breed the humans that they think are 'pretty'. We have a little tray in the corner which we shit in while they watch. They laugh at us when we have arguments (chasing tails) and put chains around our necks to choke us if we try to escape. Would that imply that god "wanted" it to happen? If they're more intelligent does it imply that this species are closer to god than we are, and that therefore they are 'allowed' to limit our reproduction for the sake of their own convenience?

 

Continued:

But aren't you conveniently forgetting that most people actually do want to live? And oh, BTW, most people don't want to be told how many children they may have.

God created the way that God created. Who are you, to suggest something different? Human population has been growing and growing, ever since Adam & Eve started having their children, and of course before long, their children began begatting children. Apparently, God intended for the ability to reproduce to be heredity. To be passed on to our children and to their children. Exponential growth of the human race, was God's idea from the start. Since presumably, it would be too much work, for Adam & Eve to birth billions of babies themselves.

Don't you know? You "pay back" your parents for raising you, by having children yourself.

If death is like no big deal, as you suggest, why don't you just stop eating? Hunger must be no big deal either, and what's wrong with your last previous meal being your last? Why pay bills, if you don't expect that living is all that important? Why go to work? Why even get out of bed? Where is the meaning in such an empty philosophy?

Now maybe you might agree with me, that medical insurance has become overpriced for the working poor, and thus we have to draw a few lines and boycott it. But surely food and electricity, are still worth it, if one can find a job somewhere?

Removing the possibility of life? Huh? Doesn't grass spring up through the cracks in the asphalt or cement? How is the possibility of life removed? There's nothing wrong with favoring human life over other less important life. Plants and animals do it all the time. When an animal eats another animal, isn't it favoring its own kind? Don't plants "poison" other competing species of plants? Although obviously in that case, it's amoral, not immoral, because plants have no soul, feel no pain, and can't care one way or another. Plants are the most like "biological machines" in comparison with animals or people. Well except for microbes.

 

You don't think I know that? But war causes suffering and destroys infrastructure and property, thereby aggravating so-called "overpopulation," not reducing it as some naive people think. There has to be a better way, and there is--procreation. Adding more people to society, requires more of most everything to be produced, as people want or need most everything, and that too is good for the economy, for business, and for innovation. And of course, for the jobs that the additional people will presumably need.

And why do we need some "crisis" anyway, to innovate stuff? Why not the desire to explore? To put a man on the moon. Some guy tinkering in his garage inventing stuff. Isn't that about where the Apple personal computer came from? Some guy tinkering in his garage?

You know something else that drives (computer) technology? Video games. They have been a driving force pushing computers to go faster and boost memory capacity. The "need" for fast 3-D rendering to make video games more fun and "realistic"-looking. Perhaps that is a form of "warfare" although peaceful (in the real world that is) virtual warfare.

No, that would be more for the money in war business. Haven't you watched stuff like 1984? Who blows up stuff, just for the technology advancement? Come on, get your conspiracy theories right.

Why has America invaded? Let me take a wild guess? Uh, because the world is corrupt, and dispicable dictators come out of the woodwork, especially when powerful nations take an outdated isolationist world view, as what helped contribute to World War 2, and perhaps also World War 1. Oh, and as some say, because we supposedly sold the corrupt dictators their weapons. Whoops. I actually think we do have good motives to intervene, well at least some of the time.

But could the evil people of the world please take a break from their problem-puking, so that taxes might finally go down a little or something?

What a bummer. Maybe we should stop inventing things, because it's so unfair that the rich get them first? Did you see the movie The Island. Isn't it so "unfair" that the rich get those "persistant vegetative state" clone "insurance policy" clones first? I guess us working poor don't need "replacement" organs now do we? Yeah, the rich get richer, and the poor get babies, as they say. But isn't it interesting to note all the things that "poor" people in America often have now. Air conditioning and cable TV. Electric or gas cooking stoves, or at least a hot plate. At least a small or old refrigerator. No doubt it will be the rich who will be first to buy space flight tickets to Mars, so they can junk it up with all their litter? But you have to start somewhere.

Well when people don't have money, why not breed? As they say, for poor people children are their only wealth, the cost of contraception is out of the question, and sex is their only recreation. Or sometimes they say. But having money in one's pockets doesn't magically sterilize the reproductive organs. The demographic transition is a distortion that doesn't like to readily admit to all the rampant contraceptive peddling underlying it. Wealth doesn't really decrease all the abundant sex going on throughout the world all that much, but rather offers excessive distractions from the joys of having children. Wealth offers people far more options to more effectively deal with dense or rising human populations. With wealth, beautiful gleeming cities can be built, to comfortably and safely house better the world's burgeoning billions. And if people can't have their reasonable share of good jobs to try to get some money, well at least allow them their children. We can take our children with us to heaven eventually, but not our money anyway.

I know all about the population statistics, so surely you don't think you can impress or shock me with that, do you? I have been doing population spreadsheets since years ago. But unlike some educated idiots, I know that dry numbers don't really tell all that much about what life will be like then. Although the world is no longer empty, people having lost maybe 1 in 100 of great reasons to procreate, that to fill an "empty" world, leaving 99 great reasons remaining, neither is it anywhere near "full" either, so of course I advocate that world population double, and redouble, and so on, for as long as God would allow. Of course I do hope that it will be the good loving Christian parents, most prone to breed the most, which I think is the general trend anyway. People probably love their children already, a prime reason for procreating so much, so already the "best" people are likely having the most children. See why I like the "natural" methods so much sometimes?

As I see it, there's maybe 3 main categories that perhaps the myriad of great reasons for humans to procreate can be placed: There's the social adaptation category in which pronatalism helps promote the greater good of the many and push through necessary constructive reforms. Then there's the biological imperitive category, in which a perpetually growing world population goes along nicely with humans enjoying being constantly "in heat." And then of course, there's the spiritual/divine category, in which people procreate by faith and because God said so.

Out of time, have to finish this later.

 

Maybe I should have worded that differently. What I wrote didn't imply that *life* wasn't important, simply that death is a part of it. Remains of dead organisms are catalysts for the growth of other organisms. flowers, grass, trees, worms.. our food. If we didn't die, none of these things could live (incidentally, this is why I think pouring concrete over the earth is such a bad thing).

Isn't it remains of prehistoric organisms which are millions of years old that we are using for our fuel? These reasons are what I imply by saying death is not a horrible fate. The philosophy is only empty if you believe that you will forever be alive, as us humans define it.

I agree completely, but if nature is the one deciding then people are not being told how many children they can have. In fact the majority of people will *choose* to have more children as they're not tied down by the limits that our society places upon us. The more we shelter ourselves from nature and death the more we forget that it is a necessary thing, for all of us. Soylent green is people.

What on earth gives you the right to say that other forms of life are less important than our own? Do you actually know, are you just putting all your faith in a book written by humans, or are you working on the basis that they are not like you? Do you even consider the possibility that their existence may have been / still is the catalyst for our growth? Plants and animals may favour themselves over us but that doesn't mean that they have any chance of overtaking us, does it? Nor do they have the capability for compassion and intelligence that we do. If there ever was an animal which did something for someone out of the goodness of it's heart, if it lost it's life in favour of ours, surely then we'd consider it important and much better than all the other animals? Why then does that not work the other way round? Why is it stupid to give your life to save an animal?

And yes, concreting over the earth is removing the possibility for life. Two or three blades of grass appearing through the cracks is nothing compared to the millions which would occupy the space if we hadn't have been so selfish. I'm sure if you regarded them with an ounce of the importance you direct towards the clones of yourself, you would also consider it removing the possibility for life. It's especially disheartening considering there is no reason why our numbers would be any less if we hadn't concreted over it.

 

Guys you need to understand that our friend Pronatalist is incapable of holding a complete debate without filling it with Christian Dogma. He doesn't understand the concept of seperating your beliefs from a logical debate regarding something that has nothing to do with which divinity you happen to worship.

It's either a gimmick account, a troll, or someone very misguided whom you'll never break through to.

 

He might as well be worshipping the Tooth Fairy and considering a comic book 'God's word'.

 

Continued:

Blah, blah. Demographic predictions are all over the place. Some computer screen snapshot I captured from some website pictures some years ago, on a rather old, my first "internet capable" computer, predicted maybe "12 billion?" come 2042. We were supposed to have some 6 billion people by 1995 I think it was, according to some old book on famines I bought somewhere secondhand. Looks like we were 4 years "late." BTW, your prediction has way too many significant digits. The uncertainty in such a long-range demographic prediction is so great, that it should be stated more as 10 billion by the year 2040.

Anyway, I plan to "celebrate" any official announcement of "baby 7 billion," "baby 10 billion" or whatever, even if he or she comes along sooner than "expected," as it's all the more valuable people to experience life. Like author Julian Simon, I would also consider people to be The Ultimate Resource or whatever. Each and every human life is sacred, and so we ought not to interfere with the creation of human life, other than to naturally help it along.

Me "humanizing" nature? I would have thought it to be the cartoons, and the enviro wackos, to be so guilty of "humanizing" nature. No, just the opposite, I say that nature can't be "out to get us" because nature doesn't think. Nature is more a "machine" than intelligent, and so nature has no "plans" to "limit" our population numbers. The natural increase of the human race, itself is a natural process, that if nature could "think," nature would not take kindly to us tampering with, as humans, while we transcent nature, are also part of nature. Pregnancy is also a natural process, and as human populations swell, I think it a useful metaphor to consider perhaps the earth to becoming "pregnant" with people. Why? Because pregnancies swell, all parts of the baby grow, it's necessary, it leads to "birth" or similar wonderous "improvements"/developments. And it's quite "okay" for pregnancies to "show." No need to be "embarrassed" to be so numerous, as we humans simply can't help being so numerous, since we all pretty much rather like living.

I have a pretty good idea what nature is. Romans 1 says something about wicked people worshipping God's creation rather than God. Most people have a very fuzzy idea about nature, as if nature was some sort of "person" or "spirit" and could somehow "care" what we are doing to it. But such a view is flawed. The weeds don't "care" about human-thoughtlessly-discarded litter. They just grow around the litter and obscure it. Eventually, most anything made by humans, rots, or becomes overgrown by the jungle, making even stone remnants hard to see from any distance. The reason people shouldn't litter, is out of concern for the eyesore it creates for the billions of other fellow humans they must share the planet with. Also a good reason to give up smoking nasty cancer stick cigarettes, that have no redeeming purpose. And to respect nature by not making themselves to look like freaks with ugly tattoos and bizarre body piercings. What's so wrong, with the natural look and coloring that God gave our bodies? Of course wear clothes and comb one's hair, but keep it simple and avoid all the stupid "natural" looking makeup and high heels. Of course women can wear pants (or dresses), as gardening or whatever is easier in pants than dresses.

We are to tend to nature, not to "worship" it. Why? For the human good of course. So that people can do as God commanded and be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. We are unable to tend to all the wilderness places, many being so remote and vast, a practical reason to let more "natural" drought-or-summer-induced forest fires burn themselves out naturally, out in unpopulated roadless regions, to conserve firefighting resources to where they are more needed to protect human interests.

That's not very "natural," as why do humans have reproductive organs, women have breasts and womb, and powerful reproductive urges? Must be for some reason, not some cosmic "mistake" or divine "goof." While the Bible does mention eunichs, these are the exception and not the rule. Most people were meant to pair up, marry, and reproduce, especially if they manage to live to a past-puberty age.

Sounds like an episode of Tales of the Darkside in which some woman took the vegetarian idea too far, and imagine that her bananas and apples or whatever fruits were talking to her, not wanting to be eaten.

No, that's sounds rather bizarre or sick. I would think, if being on a human dinner plate isn't "heaven" for an animal or cow, then perhaps it could be something like that, for plants. What tree wouldn't want to be preserved for a long while, as a hardwood floor or a piece of antique furniture for the use of humans? What's the alternative? Being pecked on by woodpeckers, being eaten alive by insects, being ravaged in "natural" forest fires? Imagining that soulless trees could even "care" about anything?

God is the author of life and death, and so it is God who should number our days. I imagine that God was incensed at all the killing before the Great Genesis Flood, and so God said that he would end the misery and put all those wicked people to death, since they seem to like killing so much. Genesis says that it grieved God that he had created man. What could that mean, since God obviously knows the future, and knew all that would happen? And now those wicked people are being punished in hell? God isn't pleased with man trying to usurp the role of God, this becoming a "sticky" moral issue, as medical science helps to preserve the lives of old sickly people, and perhaps their suffering. Do we just murder the elderly to control costs? Get rid of the "useless eaters" in Nazi-style eugenics? What exactly is a "natural death?" How much treatment must we supply or be allowed to withhold, especially at the patients' expressed wishes? Surely we should feed them, but perhaps cardiac resuscitation? (spelling?) CPR. What do you think of DNR? Do Not Resuscitate orders?

God commands people "Thou shalt not kill," so doesn't that also include a ban against suicide or refusing to eat, especially if not a "hunger strike" for some political cause?

There you go, overemphasizing some "environmental" extremist mis-definition of the word "balance." If you push too hard and "mess up" the balance of nature, nature doesn't "care" but establishes some new equilibrium or new balance. The world reaches a "tipping point" in which it transforms itselt to be more human-friendly and to grow more and more heavily populated by humans. Humans aren't parasitic but rather more symbiotic, nature also benefitting from the increasing human population load, perhaps even "depending" on humans for its better management, as with the swollen dog population of cities, impossible without intelligent humans better managing the food supply for all those rising density pet populations. So in net effect, nature's "balance" isn't upset at all, but the rising human population size was a "natural" thing, meant to be.

Yes, humans should multiply something like "cancer," villages expanding into towns, towns into cities, cities into supercities, especially more from natural increase and not economic problems pushing people into already "overcrowded" cities and scarce housing. Freedom means that all humans should enjoy an "unlimited" basic/natural right to procreate, which presumably may eventually preclude any presumed "right" for everybody to live miles from their nearest neighbor, as the two would seem to be mutually exclusive, as world population density inevitably over time has to rise to accomodate so many. But "cancer" is the wrong metaphor, as when all areas of human population expand more-or-less equally, that isn't like a cancer tumor, but much more like a "giant." And not all giants are mean, like David and Golliath, but could be "nice," like that giant on DragonTales. The better metaphor is that of a "pregnant" planet, which I explain previously.

Out of time, catch you later.

 

I think its life expectancy rather then reproduction...More of a combonation of the two...

 

Continued:

Cancer is by definition, destructive. Human population growth is constructive. Therefore your analogy is invalid. What if aliens from another world were to come and war against us, and eliminated half the people. Would people celebrate at having "cured" the supposed "overpopulation?" Probably not. We would want to repopulate to at least the level of before, especially if those mean aliens might come back. Why? Because people tend to compare things to known baselines. The 6.5 billion+ people of today, is "normal" because they have been here for a while. It's not like they came from another world or another dimension, but they are indestinguable from us, so if we rather like living, surely they do too. Likewise, if in the future, there ever gets to be 13 billion people, don't you think they would then like to be populated to at least 13 billion? Probably more, so that people may still freely have all their precious, God-given children.

Another analogy I like, to better explain the world population situation, besides the "pregnant" planet analogy, is that of Star Trek The Next Generation "Time Squared." From out of nowhere, a mysterious vortex appears in outer space, tugging at the starship Enterprise, trying to pull it in. Naturally, fearing the unknown, they resist, but the engines soon become overwhelmed by the strain and can't break free. Some bolt of energy comes through the walls of the Enterprise and strikes Captain Piccard. Since he thinks it is after him, he flees his ship in a shuttlecraft to hopefully spare his ship and all the lives of the people on it. He witnesses the destruction of the Enterprise as it crashes into the side of the vortex. Somehow, he gets tossed back in time, 6 hours prior. When his shuttlecraft returned to the Enterprise, its polarity was reversed, and he was, for a time, disorientated, unable to communicate. Jorde had to make up a special reversing-polarity adapter to plug up the shuttlecraft to recharge it, as its power by then was dead. As the vortex reappeared (repeating the timeline loop), obviously they were anxious to find out what they could from the shuttlecraft's logs or from the Piccard duplicate. The real Captain Piccard, demanded of his duplicate, what was the alternative option that he dare not mention, because it was unthinkable or something. Finally he coaxed it out of him, the option being, not to resist. Captain Piccard knew that must be the option, because resisting was only tightening the grip of the vortex. So he phasored the Piccard copy who had returned back in time, perhaps to break the time loop, and he ordered the Enterprise's engines shut down, and not to resist. Obviously, they were soon pulled into the vortex, passed through, and reemerged into normal space as if nothing much had happened.

Well I am a rather abstract thinker, so I can connect things that may not have had such an obvious connection. The vortex is the so-called "population explosion," and resistance is unnatural, anti-life "birth control," often even contrary to the apparent wishes of the parents. The consequences of resistance is destruction of our freedom or society as we know it. Like Piccard, I sense an "intelligence" behind it, that if we let "nature takes its course," it already knows where it wants to go. It's according to some intelligent design and was meant to be. Thus, we should not resist worldwide human population growth and welcome it to expand naturally. Let baby booms take hold on country after country and work for the greater good of the many, not to "control" human population growth, but rather to accomodate it better and have compassion on the poor and the weak and the meek, etc. It will sort itself out, in far better ways than the population phobics like to imagine.

Contrary to the view of the population pessimists, the natural increase of the human race, is scarcely the biggest threat to humans, but rather the convenient scapegoat excuse for perpetrating all sorts of abuses against people, and refusing or stalling necessary reforms. Hadn't we be more concerned about the myriad of other possibilities first, that of killer comets, that the sun might explode, etc.? Of course those are rather unlikely as well. But couldn't a worldwide effort towards global population control tyranny, or a global unaccountable government with no place for the refugees to go or to smuggle out info on abuses, be a likely catalyst for a third world war?

So aliens invade and make us their "pets?" Are you trying to make me laugh? You really should watch Star Trek: First Contact. According to Star Trek dogma, when a civilization develops "warp drive," it is then time to make "first contact." Why? Presumably because now they can travel to alien worlds, and meet under chaotic, unplanned circumstances. Better to have it be a formal greeting into whatever "Federation of Planets." Did the Vulcans invade Earth and make humans to be their pets? Were vulcans considered of "superior" intelligence just because they had "warp drive" before the humans? First of all, your "pet" analogy falls apart, because humans were not designed to be "pets." While dogs and maybe cats, seem to prefer living with humans for free food and companionship and to be our pets. Where do wild animals live? Out in the wild, in the cold, in the rain, with the prospect of being hunted and eaten at most any time. Being a pet is a great improvement in their prospects, and helps them more successfully spread their genes onto future generations, as I think the pet population is far swollen compared to what they could achieve without human help. I am not so sure that pets even want to reproduce, as humans do, because they likely don't know what makes babies, and rather it's more like a "trick" that nature plays on them that they really don't consider beforehand. Humans reproduce far more at the level of consciousness and prior planning, a far better way to enlarge our numbers, while planning to reduce suffering and expand infrastructure to better match.

Being a "pet" isn't decided by comparitive intelligence, but more on absolute measures of God's design. On some episode of CSI, in commenting on some "aliens coming to take us to a better world" scam, the star character opined that if there are aliens out there, they would probably stay far away from humans. A planet increasingly or seemingly bursting at the seams with people, is hardly the most attractive planet to colonize, as those humans are both numerous and bound to be royally ticked off. Not only out of respect for other sentient creatures, but for other practical reasons, wouldn't it be far easier to colonize a planet that doesn't already have intelligent sentient life, especially if not "invited" by those supposedly intelligent creatures? I suppose you aren't very well read up on sci-fi, to suggest that humans might be reduced by aliens to being their "pets?"

Whether evolutionalist-slanted people like to admit it or not, humans are profoundly different than other animals, and that must be considered to formulate intelligent, human-friendly policy. It also has a lot to do with why the earth apparently has no fixed "carrying capacity" for humans. It depends hugely, on how well humans develop their infrastructure and resources, and how kind they are to one another, just how thick and widespread the human race might ultimately be hypothetically able to eventually become, given enough time, which I don't think there is that much time left in the Biblical timetable anyway.

Since you suggest this hokey "pet" analogy, you might get a laugh out of a Far Side cartoon I saw some time ago. It shows several people scurrying away, from a big jar on the ground marked with a label "Humans" lying in broken shards on the ground. Out of the clouds comes the words "Oh oh!" The way some people behave, you have to wonder whether we prematurely "escaped" from God's laboratory or something.

 

Actually, it seems to be more the birthrates that is the prime factor, as people now live long beyond their reproductive years. And for each person who dies, 3 more are born to "replace" him or her.

But that's quite understandable, because who wants to "wait" until "hell freezes over" for the population to finally go down a little bit? Thomas Malthus supposedly said that somebody must die to make room for each birth? Why exactly? Isn't there a far better alternative? There is. Welcome human populations to go on accumulating.

Supposedly, according to the popular anti-population dogma, in the past, people died younger, and so not all children lived to become old enough to reproduce themselves, supposedly contributing to some "balance." Of course, medical science and public sanitation aimed to fix that, so the contraceptive peddlers conveniently lied and claim that they have to "compensate" for most every baby now growing up to also reproduce. Whatever happened to "choice" (to selfishly poison one's body to not have children)? Had preachers warned back in the rebellious 1960s of the dangers of the advent of "the pill" and that "choice" would be bait-and-switched into "obligation" to not have "too many" children, supposedly for the sake of the environment, would they have been laughed at? Okay, so we lost a reason to procreate. The world is no longer "empty" of people. But what of all the other compelling reasons to procreate? That more and more people would be glad to live, that most everybody wants or ends up having children, that most every child is glad to come to life and be born, etc.? As I see it, 100 great reasons to procreate, minus 1 reason, still equals around 99 great reasons to procreate still, so nothing much has changed. There is no need to "compensate" for more children living to adulthood, as the powerful reproductive urges that most all humans feel + all the compelling reasons they could list for having as many children as they do, adds up anyway into a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race. And there's no way I can have enough children to match all the future people who might be glad to come alive, and so I encourage large families worldwide.

Although, by a few respects, the world may not seem to have "need" of more people, it certainly can find or make room for lots more people, if or as need be. To say that the world has "enough" people (enough that is, for the absolute minimum to staff some pathetic paltry socialist "machine" society), is like saying that my car has "enough" power if I just propel it with a push lawnmower engine. Yeah, maybe enough for me, but most of the people behind me, might like for me to drive faster than 4 miles per hour. Yeah, protest the high gasoline prices by driving slow on the freeway, but due to all the traffic, I have to limit that "protest" to driving maybe 60 mph, late at night when there isn't much passing traffic. And due to the modern design of cars, I really do probably need to be at least fast enough to be up into overdrive, to get the peak efficiency mpg of my car.

But anyway, "too many" people living, is hardly the problem that too many people dying would be. Why do we so refuse to be grateful to God for allowing so many, many people to live long productive lives?

 

And yet the Bible says that death is the final enemy to be defeated, or something like that. Jesus said that he is the resurection. Why would you want to preserve or entertain an enemy to be defeated?

Actually, I don't really care so much one way or another, whether human bodies are returned to nature, in the form of cremation or something. So little organic matter is locked up in human bodies, that it really doesn't make much difference. If less space was "wasted" on burying the dead, might there be more room for the living? Not really, for there aren't all that many people dead, and old gravesites seem to find new uses anyway, long after they are forgotten. Funerals and all that, are far more about the living, than the dead. The only reason to bury dead people, would be for religious reasons, or to dig them back up perhaps, to investigate allegations of possible foul play.

We have to pour concrete, because dirt floors in people's homes, attract insects and bugs and dirty water, and don't make for very good foundations for homes. And assuming that in some ghost town, that old concrete is no longer needed, there's no real need to dispose of it, for it will crack and disintegrate naturally over time anyway. Any area that humans long neglect, the weather and nature always reclaims eventually anyway. One main reason for tearing down old delapitated buildings, is to protect our children from playing in old dangerous structures.

Out of time, catch you later.

 

Actually, what I have heard, is some Creationalist saying that the oil we burn now, and the asphalt for the roads, comes largely from the Great Genesis Flood. So that's something profound to think of. The roads we drive on, and the gasoline that powers our cars, comes largely from the decayed animals and plants and people judged by God in the Great Flood.

Apparently, it doesn't pay to mock some old senile old man, talking about God is going to make it to rain in some great flood, to punish the world for sin. Had they been smarter, they should have asked Noah, tell us about this God? May we get on the Ark with you, before the "rain" comes?

Do you really think a salamander or a frog, really fears or gives much thought to death? They don't know what death is. They don't know what eternity is. God has not put eternity into their hearts, as with humans. Some creatures don't even offer much resistance when a snake snaps them up into its jaws. They get taken by surprise, so they don't get to pass on their genes, if they haven't done so already. Death isn't so bad maybe, to a soulless tree. But people experience quite a lot of grief at the death of loved ones, and having to go on without them. Even people eager to go to heaven, may not want to go there exactly "right away." They still have things to finish on earth, or children to raise, or it isn't their time yet or whatever. I think it was the last episode of MacGyver Season 5, "Passages" I think it was entitled, in which MacGyver has a "near death" experience. I do like the way they at least tried to portray heaven respectably, even though no TV show could do heaven justice to portray it accurately. MacGyver seemed to be fairly content to meet his (dead) parents on the "ship" taken people to heaven, and content to go on to his eternal reward, until he saw that his close friend, Pete Thornton, was to be murdered by the bad guys, unless he come back and finger who the bad guys were and help rescue him. And so MacGyver does another one of his famous escapes from the ship, and comes back to life in the hospital, after having suffered a huge fall from a window crushing into some car roof.

But man is supposed to "tend the garden," not let it fall into ruin or natural neglect. Why? For the benefit of man. I believe in "death control" but not "birth control." People were commanded by God to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. For the benefit of people. Because it is our proper role. Even an erection occurs because blood is restricted to leave, but welcome to come into it. Similarly, human populations should also swell naturally. I hope that is a good analogy. It seems to be useful. God designed people to ultimately become abundant. So it should be no "surprise" that human birthrates should tend to outnumber deathrates. That's the way it's supposed to be. How can you build great civilizations, except that more and more people gradually be added? How can people build much great things, if they are always starving or dying off in diseases? Shouldn't more people be able to live their fullness of days, and live on until they are all "old and wrinkly," and have their time to make their proper preparations for their children to inherit the company, or to set up their living trusts to avoid the corrupt and needless probate system? (See the book The Living Trust by Abts or some short author last name like that. $24.99 in paperback.)

Soylent Green? Now what relevance does that have? Were you not the one suggesting that human bodies, after death, should be returned to nature to rot, to release their nutrients for new life? To which I don't necessarily completely object, although I understand the largely sentimental reasons people have for burying and preserving bodies. I have that movie, as I wondered whatever are the population phobics talking about, and it was, as I expected, such a stupid sensationist farce. That scenario is quite far-fetched and unlikely. No, a hugely "overpopulated" world would far more likely, look more like an enormous Star Trek "Borg" cube, pessimistically thinking even, than like Soylent Green. People eat many times their body weight, so the "food value" of human bodies, is pretty much of neglible value, in most imaginable scenarios. And are people really so stupid as to build "Borg" population arcologies? What? No thought to individuality or even "virtual" nature? No scenery or decorations? Not much for privacy walls? Even the environment where the people lived, looked fairly decent, at least at the upper levels where the more affluent people lived, in the PS2 video game Project Eden, in which "overpopulation" was mostly but an excuse to skip more "natural" looking scenery in favor of lots of square lines and buildings, probably a lot easier to design all those millions of 3-D polygons for.

What on earth gives you the right, to say whatever it is you are trying to say? Where's the difference? You can say, but I shouldn't? You know what they say about opinions. Something about a certain part of the anatomy and everybody has one.

If you want to live "in balance" with nature, hadn't we go back to having just 2 people in the world, like what God originally created? Is that even remotely possible or realistic? Do you not realize, that from the very moment that Adam & Eve started having babies, they were "displacing" nature? Soon villages and cities sprang up, and there was some minor "loss" of something supposedly "nature" in a few places. A little less room for trees and ferns and wild creatures. And why should I cry for low-intelligence creatures that don't even know how to cry themselves? I say grace before I eat meat or vegetables. Should I also cry for the cow or the chicken? I think not.

The Bible is inspired by God, and written largely by 3 murderers. Did you know that? Moses, King David, and Paul, had all previously commited murder. (Even if for supposedly understandable reasons, in a case or two, especially in Moses' case.) But then God delights to use imperfect people for his purposes, so that man can't steal the glory for himself.

Well couldn't that be a reason also, not to abort our own offspring? What cures or inventions, might our children someday develop? What if they invent nothing? Isn't merely having all the more people around to experience life, worthwhile?

People are already here. What for do we need such a supposed catalyst now? Do you think that maybe dinosaurs will "evolve" to become intelligent like man? Whoops! I guess not, since man killed off most of them already. It seems like the old legends told of how man and dinosaurs and dragons, didn't get along so well, so of course, the lesser creatures had to go.

Sure, there might be some value in stockpiling away some "seed library" for "medicinal purposes" and such, but that too, is to serve man, so we might not have so much room for ridiculously huge "wildlife refuges" while poor people are denied clear title to land. Sure, they can live, just so long as they don't need a place to live, nor money to buy food? So cities may need to expand into "the rainforest" or wherever, to make sure that the working poor can afford decent housing, as people obviously need to live somewhere.

They may favor themselves, but that doesn't mean they want to. Plants "want" nothing at all, because plants don't even think, and we aren't so sure to what level even animals think, if at all. "I think therefore I am." Rene Descartes. But does anybody else think? It's hard to tell, since I am only but me. I don't hear other people's thoughts. But I think they think also, because they are indistinguable from me. Fellow humans, just like me.

Computers don't "think," and yet they can be programmed to mimic some animal behavior. But it's all internally nothing but calculator computations.

Would you give your life, to save your car? Why or why not? The car, like the animal, is the lesser creation, so to conserve value, it's your car that should "give its life" to save yours, in a crash, and that's exactly what many modern safety systems do. Crumble zones, air bags, etc. The car destroys itself, becoming "totaled" often, to save your life. Cars could be designed like tanks, more indestructable, but without crush zones to spare the occupants, the more sudden deceleration would be deadly. Without at least a little space between the bumper and you, the seat belt would cut you into pieces, or crush your body, so drastic would be the G forces. I don't think air bags are reusable. They must be replaced. There's likely talcum powder or something to lubricate the air bags, to make sure they inflate and unfold, rather than snagging and tearing. An accelerometer senses the G-force of a crash, and instantly detonates a small explosion, to deploy the air bags, to help protect occupants from being crushed, and perhaps partially from broken glass. Even in Knight Rider, K.I.T.T., the wonder computer-car of the future, "knew" itself to be a lesser creation, and in some episode, "gave its life" to save Michael Knight, because that's how it was programmed. (It's evil twin, in some other episode, K.A.R.R, wasn't programmed correctly in that fashion, and showed "himself" to be quite psychotic and selfish.) K.I.T.T. saw the missile coming, couldn't avoid it, knew the missile to be more powerful than its "indestructable" shell, and so said "Forgive me," and ejected Michael, without even his consent, as there was no time. K.I.T.T. was hit, and flipped over in a smoking heap, a major "repair" job for Bonnie or whoever was his technician at the time. BTW, Kitt stands for Knight Industries Two Thousand, and Karr, Knight Automated Roving Robot. I have to laugh watching every episode of Knight Rider on DVD now, and how this "futuristic" car has a cassette player in its dash. Maybe just 1 year later, in the 1980s, and they might have at least updated to a CD player?

No, a friend of mine saw a rabbit in the street, that had been injured, probably by a car, and having compassion, wanted to take it to a vet. I said, don't bother, there's so many rabbits in the world, you can't save them all, and there will be more. The value of a rabbit, just isn't worth the vet's bill. So we had to walk on. Obviously, rabbits aren't created in God's image, as people are. That problem even happens to pets. Often one can buy a new pet, cheaper than some ailments would be to fix. I obviously would take a pet of mine to the vet, but of course would never buy pet insurance, because if the bill would be too much, then what option is there but to put a pet "to sleep" as not even pets have "human rights" to live a long life.

What is selfish is to deny our children life. That is removing the possibility for life. Many religious people think that sex for self-gratification is carnal and selfish, except to leave open the wonder possibility of life. Pregnancy is considered a highly desirable outcome, or a least a potential blessing. Not something to fear or prevent. If it were not for the biological necessity to exchange bodily fluids to produce human life, one could question just how sanitary the practice is, and consider becoming sex-less or celibate prudes. If God allows for us to have children, then we should expect also that God can provide for them.

I don't think it is realistically possible or practical to have so many billions of people on the planet, if they are all to live in trees or in caves. I don't think there are enough caves. We are compelled to alter our environment, to insure that there are enough resources to go around. Not everybody can just live under a rock, nor sleep on the open ground like some dumb cow.