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

But how is it "addictive" anymore than eating or breathing?

When a couple goes through a divorce, it's not so much the "withdrawal" from sex, that tears them up so much inside, but the broken relationships and love, and the strange new loneliness and feelings of failure.

To often, Christians might be depicted as moralist party poopers, who want to ruin everybody's fun. But God designed sex, to be a beautiful thing, and to be enjoyed. We have profaned sex, or the devil has beguiled us, and made into something "dirty" or painful. Married people, are expected to be enjoying "marital relations," especially if their marriage is going well.

It really disgusts me how the population bomber freaks, try to pour cold water, onto our proper and moral, procreative sex.

Why is the body's reproductive system, considered to be of less importance, than the body's other vital systems?

Why do they come up with all these bizarre, awkward, anti-population contraceptives, and then expect us to use, them, without even have given a good reason to try to prevent a precious human life from coming to life?

Why do so many people consider themselves so lowly as to be but just mere "evolved" animals, rather than people being God's Creation masterpiece?

Of course the population is supposed to be getting bigger and bigger. That's by design. Most of the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, remain in effect regardless how large the overall population grows. The more populated we get, the more people there are who are glad to be alive, and rather like reproducing. More and more people would be glad to live. Most everybody wants or ends up with children. Most every child is glad to come to life and be born.

Why do people keep looking to the past, as a measure of how large human populations ought to be? Often past moral standards, are there for good reason, but the past isn't the right place to look for proper population size. God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, doesn't sound so much like an end goal to me, but a process. One implying perpectual growth. Most people, I find, in talking to people or posting internet polls, seem to prefer at least the huge population size of today, as obviously, who would want to be "eliminated?" The original 2 people that the world started with, Adam & Eve, is far too small a population for today's world. As too, is the pidly-sized world population of the 1600s. The proper reference, is not the past, when human population size is supposed to be progressing, but more the future. Any enormous population increases to come in some hypothetic future, would dwarf the present population size, into seeming rather "small." As to do the most good for the most people, and to recognize that the many compelling reasons that people have as many children as they do has no valid argument against it, suggest that any "ideal"-sized world population, wouldn't be on the order of being nearly as small as possible, or the bare minimum to maybe get a somewhat workable civilization, but more like "nearly as large as possible," welcoming there to become just as many people as the world can be made to hold, even by stacking people up on top of one another in highrises, if ever needed, although I don't expect it to come to that, anytime within the forseeable future.

Author Charles Provan, in his book, The Bible and Birth Control, claims that it is God who put the natural desire in our hearts to seek humanity's multiplication and increase.

And considering how long we are now procrastinating marriage, it appears to me, that we aren't "caving in" near enough actually, on average.

Sperm is harmless. All it can do, is maybe make a baby, and probably not "this time" anyway, but more like "next time." And to bring another precious human life into the world, is supposed to be a "good" thing, so why bother with any effort to try to prevent it? God didn't design sex to be so complicated. Nor do I believe that God made humans too fertile. At least we usually, have but 1 baby at a time, not litters of offspring, like some animals do.

So if people have large families, as the result of having carefully "planned" so many children, and turned sex into a reproductive "chore," then it's "okay" to have so many children? Why can't married and commited couples, enjoy sex that is, well ... a bit "wild?"

If they will simply commit to each other in marriage, before sex, so that the mother knows that her "boyfriend" won't run out on her, when he gets her pregnant, and will responsibly help take care of all the children, and couples will love and provide for all their children and train them in God's ways, well that's all I see God expecting. That's "control" enough. Nowhere in the Bible, is any hint, that limiting family size is a good idea. In fact, fertility was long considered a blessing.

1 Cor 7, seems to say that a married couple should usually have sex, whenever either of them wants it. That could obviously be, for some couples, quite a lot, as God designed humans to enjoy being constantly "in heat," with no restricted or defined "breeding season," other than of course, puberty to menopause.

Well then fortunately for us, the world is quite a big place, and nowhere near full of people. And human populations already grow gradually enough to allow intelligent humans time to adapt and prepare for our own natural increase.

The Malthusian population phobics are wrong. More mouths to feed, leads to better food supply and production methods. If we don't "control" our numbers, neither will nature.

Eventually we will run out of land, we will run out of food? Well where do you think they got those nifty "food replicator" things on Star Trek? By then, the human population has probably grown so huge, that so many can't be fed anymore by agriculture methods. So they synthesize "copies" of food, good enough for the body to accept as "food." While food replicators may of course, perhaps never come to be, they do say that "necessity is the mother of invention," and there could be some intermediate forms of more efficiently synthesizing food. GMOs, are just a part of that topic.

Already I see evidence that God is providing for the needs of expanding human populations. But of course poverty, greed, ignorance, immorality, and political turmoil, interfere with us properly developing the resources that God has already made available.

The present world population is quite "small," compared to what it could potentially be, at some distant point in the future, which the Biblical endtimes appear to be wrapping up long before then anyway.

 

I have an easy solution...

But first, let me ask you a question.
Would you be offended by/wish to censor a joke about Michael J Fox, Abortions, 9-11, Pedophiles, Retards, All organized religion, dead babies, politics, gender, and race all together(or anything else)?

If you answered yes, you're one of the people we'll simply chemically castrate and relocate to the moon. Problem solved.(Along with quite a few others.)

 

Once a couple is married, the conditions are right to engage in natural sexual intercourse, and of course the conditions are right, to start pumping out babies. Married people are automatically entitled to enjoy natural sex, and to breed. My Dad once said, "If you make a baby, you are responsible." Yeah, if the parents have built the family nest, to have some place to welcome their babies, then more and more human babies can expect to find their loving place within the world, regardless of the rising human population size. It's just that simple!

It's enough to have to marriage for sex. The Bible doesn't say anything to limit family size, but rather in favor of encouraging natural family growth.

So I want as many children as God gives, as I love children, and consider myself no "better" than they, so of course I would want to leave the door to life open for them, and always welcome the possibility of pregnancy with sex. Sex is all the more erotic even, when it is fully allowed to naturally populate the world, fuller and fuller of people.

Oh, here's Britney Spears at it again, encouraging more baby-making I guess, because the world doesn't have enough of it going on yet:

Pregnant Britney Spears - Yahoo News

Wow! That's a hot, uh, cool, hot, picture.

And here's a curious post that married people still need sex even if they live in cramped quarters or don't have enough privacy on some ship.

"Substance"? Like on Monica's Dress?

Never mind the stupid article, do a browser find for "Mayflower" to find the post about all the babies conceived on such sailing ships as the Mayflower. Which is the perfect situations for "sex in public," such as people with naturally growing families, who still live in homes too small, for much if any privacy.

 

My point is that any solution to overpopulation that requires "everyone should..." will fail because not everyone will...

 

And that of course, is why distardly population "control" freaks, entertain bizarre ideas, like letting the UN or the Anti-Christ take over, to impose the global tyranny it would presumably require, that is if all the rampant contraceptive peddling isn't enough to keep the burgeoning billions "in check."

I propose a much better and fair idea. If people have a sacred right to life, which of course must include their "unlimite" God-given right to procreate, then they probably no longer have any "right" to live miles from their nearest neighbor, as the two would seem to be mutually exclusive.

Oh sure, people are free to go out and live "in the middle of nowhere" if they want, but fortunately, not many people want that, or there wouldn't long be any place left "out in the middle of nowhere."

What "everybody" must do instead, is to do what humans are already good at anyway, adapt. Allow for the world, to naturally and gradually populate itself up more and more densely with people, on the global scale at least. If people in India or wherever don't much care for "birth control," that's well and good, but then at some point, we should expect them to put flush toilets in their homes, and adapt to better accomodate today's increasingly populous world. Oh, and they better learn to use trash cans too, which I hear still aren't very popular yet in India.

That allows for the "traditionally-preferred very large" families to go on, as perhaps also allowing for the pidly little contraceptive sex families to go on too, and it can be win-win for everybody, everybody gets to have all their children they were meant to have or want, and humans can come to, in time, learn to more heavily populate the planet, for the greater good of ALL.

 

A solution to alot of humanity's problem: get rid of RELIGION and GOD

 

There are huge areas of the world unpopulated, just fly to Las Vegas for example and you will see huge expanses of desert and scrub.
Although these areas are usually harsh environments we have the technology to introduce water and shelter not only in a way that will make it livable but in a way that is environmentally neutral if not friendly.
The technology is definitely availiable for producing drinking water from sea water, for utilizing underground built structures that will not spoil the landscape, for re-cycling the mountains of glass metal rubber and plastics to produce cost effective housing in these areas.
The only problems - loss of governmental control by having many smaller independant communities rather than a centralized population, the loss of centralized taxation potential by distributing the tax payers over a larger area, the potential of envy over those who have the money living in luxury and the huge problem of persuading people to relocate to a new area, where they would have to build an entire community from scratch - housing, social order, jobs, etc.

 

it's not just the woman.

 

Why thank you. We men deserve some of the credit too. And fathers can sometimes change some diapers too, like when Mom is taking a bath or off at the supermarket or something.

For women to be popping out the babies, it sure helps to have a supportive husband to help out.

 

Then they would just make themselves to be "god," and there would be no standard definition of morality.

There's plenty of room on the planet, for countless billions of people who seek after God's ways and worship God.

But there's simply not room for billions of false gods running around, making up their own self-serving rules as they go along. That's the real recipe for conflict and anarchy.

In fact, wasn't that about the situation, before the Great Genesis Flood? So God promised he wouldn't flood the entire world like that again? So that leave what? Only around 999 other ways he could destroy us for our sins then?

 

Actually, humans might desalinate ocean water, and pump it to where needed, such as to green up deserts.

And filling up the deserts with houses, is of course one of the many tools to accomodating rising human "population pressure" that I would consider promoting as needed, as I believe in neither population "control" nor "birth control," as each and every human life is sacred, and so we ought not to interfere with its creation.

Where to put all the additional billions of people, that may be to come? How about where we have always historically put them. In between all the people already living. People can in fact, populate denser and denser, at least on the global scale, to make room for all their adorable and immensely valuable children. If massive population increases continue to come, and people don't necessarily rush too fast towards living in supercities, or in cities and towns but only a few miles from the next city or town, well there's always the deserts to spread into, as people would choose where they prefer to live.

But we can't "pick and choose" who gets to live and procreate, and who doesn't. That isn't the right of humans, but only a "higher power," can decide such things for us. For humans, our "higher power" is God, who can clearly stated his commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. What part of "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," do we not understand? For animals, their "higher power" is their owners, so we are free to get our pets fixed, because they have no "human rights," and they have us for families and so they don't need any offspring if we say they don't.

 

Well.. if a couple feel they can't provide for their children, or that they aren't ready for bringing up children, does that mean that they should just not have sex? Or should they wear a condom, have a healthy relationship and enjoy their lives together until they feel as though they can? A higher power has nothing to do with deciding who gets to procreate, we have the choice.. that is the point of being human.. as far as I'm aware, in most western countries there is no law saying that we shouldn't or can't have children, it is the choice of a specific couple.

Excuse me, but that is just NOT true. Aren't you forgetting the hundreds of billions of other animals who don't rely on humans at all, but which we rely on, whether we are aware of it or not? As for pets, we do not make the descision to neuter them because we are their HIGHER POWER and we feel we deserve the right to make judgements for them, we simply do it because we feel we cannot provide for them.. They have not decided, like you have with god, to give their life to us. We have simply trained them to rely on us. The more they rely, the harder our lives are... the same reason we decide not to have kids..

If god told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? That is what he is basically asking you to do... there will be DRASTIC conseqences if we multiply too fast, if we continue to live the way we do now. Certainly, we will not be able to build cities like we do now. There are only a finite amount of resources on the earth.. we run out of oil, which WILL happen, and BOOM, no food, no society, no infastructure.. and all these people who you claim will be able to life in the desert will DIE. If we continue to live like we do now, the earth will not be able to sustain 100's of billions of people. In fact the only way we could possibly do it would get closer to nature and be much less irresponsible with it than we are now..

Now, I know it is inevitable that our numbers will rise, whether we are pro-life or pro-choice... but personally I think it would be better to slow our growth so that our technology can improve enough so we are not as reliant on fossil fuels and the general destruction of our environment. If we all became pro-life, we would run out of oil very quickly, society would come to a stand-still, and there would be no chance of progression. By taking nature, our own ignorance and our technology into account, we can at least plan the growth of our species in a way which is less likely to end up with the death of thousands, maybe millions, of people.

 

Part 1 of 2:

Assuming that such a couple is married, of course they should be encouraged to enjoy natural sex. I have no desire to reduce the rising number of marital, procreative sexual relations going on throughout the world. Marriage entitles couples to "unlimited" sex, because they have established the family nest, and have 2 available parents, lest any babies "happen" along.

If they feel that they can't provide for children, or don't want children yet, maybe because the husband is still in school and not established in his business field yet, well they certainly can express these things to God in their prayers, and maybe God won't send children right away, but I see nothing at all in the Bible suggesting that it could possibly be a good idea to bother to try to limit natural family growth. I hardly think that all children need to be "planned," in order to be loved and very much "wanted," at least by the time they are born. Many couples who ended up with a baby "prematurely," perhaps before they were "technically" married, still love that child very much, and aren't sorry for having had the child, but perhaps sorry for being "caught" in sexual sin. But there is forgiveness, and working things out. Actually a baby being born outside of wedlock, is almost one of the best possible outcomes to such sexual sin. It could have led to a relationship-destroying abortion, or an STD or something. And often there is the option of making things right and marrying after the fact, if not before.

I am not a Catholic, and so I don't think the supposedly more "natural" forms of "birth control," such as abstinence (after marriage?), less frequent sex, rhythm, or even "pulling out," to be practical substitutes for "artificial" contraceptives. Even "natural" methods, still artificially prolong periods of high fertility by attempting to twart the body's persistant efforts to get pregnant. Rather, an already occupied womb, and normal breastfeeding, are about the most natural and elegant way to naturally space babies. To just let babies come naturally, whenever they come.

A couple of people were talking at work, about Catholic rhythm. "Isn't it still wrong, since the object is to prevent pregnancy?" Well of course I agree, having walked into that already going on conversation. I don't consider rhythm to be practical, but rather the "no method" method of "family planning," is the most natural and elegant, and the most pro-life.

If they really aren't ready for any children, and they conceive a baby regardless, they could always give their baby away for adoption, assuming they don't change their mind and get attached to their child, by the time of his or her birth? Children very much want to come to life and live, regardless of the circumstances, regardless if being born into families that are already "too big," or into a "crowded" world.

There are many articles floating around the internet, warning of all the pitfalls of contraceptive sex. Would you like some links?

Here's a couple of the latest ones I have come across:

Topic: The case against contraception *(Read 345 times)

http://forums.prolife.org.ph/yabbse/index.php/topic,976.0.html

No insemination, No bond

http://forums.prolife.org.ph/yabbse/index.php/topic,1336.0.html

I like that one especially, because it explores that there could be unsuspected great benefits from husbands naturally cumming inside of their wives, which not only expressing faith that God can provide for them and their children, but bonds them closer together and deepens their love for each other.

Now I have written a piece on the amusing multitude of ways that a condom can "fail" to prevent pregnancy, and you can read it by clicking on the following link:

Birth Control Gets in the Way

http://forums.delphiforums.com/prolifeviews/messages?msg=8578.1

I would guess that they have Guest forum access enabled?

If not, or since some silly unrelated squabble among a couple of other people got the thread closed, you can Register and Reply, under the crossposted article on my forum, try webtag /innovate1 rather than /prolifeviews

Anyhow, to sum up, I am not at all impressed with sensation-dulling, "wishful thinking" condoms, as I don't wish to try to make any effort to prevent human life, as I believe each and every human life to be sacred, and so we should not interfere with its creation. After marriage, not only should there be sex, but it should be natural sex, open to the possibility of the transmission of life.

And I am very disturbed about that so-called "choice" being eroded into some sort of "obligation" to not have "too many" children, supposedly for the sake of the "environment." What about the sakes of all the people who could have been? In fact, I suspect a grand "bait and switch" scheme right from the beginning, in which "choice" (to not have children) was to become population "control," as I think that those who propose the original sliding down a moral slippery slope, bear much responsibility for where it logically leads.

I see nothing in the Bible, describing any way that we can "make" people marry by a certain age, nor "make" them have sex "often enough," nor "make" them have at least X number of children. Rather, in the Bible, fertility was always considered a blessing, and barrenness perhaps some sort of curse or problem.

Government, especially perhaps all the more so, in a modern world of burgeoning billions, can't hold people's hands, and make all their decisions for them, nor determine just how many children a family might be able to manage. I believe families are automatically exempt to any single-family housing density zoning restrictions, because population "control" is never any valid jurisdiction of any civil government. It's "okay" for homes to be "overcrowded" with "too many" children, if they come by procreation, because government can't morally limit marital procreation, and houses don't just magically grow with natural family growth. A "full" house is no excuse for assuming people to be able to find a "satisfactory" means of contraception, which many people can't find, due to their love for children, religious objections, or simply because they have problems with too many of the shoddy experiment contraceptive "options." Although "too many" children for the size of house, might possibly be an issue when it comes to adoption, when there are more qualified applicants for adoption seeking children, although I would suspect that "too many" children might be more an "asset" than a "liablity," at least in some cases of only "minor" overcrowding, as experienced parents would be good for adopting too.

Society has no right at all to limit its population size, because people don't exist as mere "cogs" in some great socialist society "machine." Rather, society exists for the benefit of the many individuals, and for collective benefit. The societal population decisions are properly made by the billions of reproducing parents themselves, who always find their own homes more confining than that of communties or the planet and so there's always room for more people anytime parents say there is room, or better yet, by God.

No, I am not forgetting them. There is even some verse in the Bible somewhere, that I recall as recognizing humans as one of the factors that keeps animal populations in control. Humans that go out and hunt deer, are quite useful to humans, because it helps guard against the stupid deer in the headlights syndrome. A populous world wouldn't want for there to be too many deer out there, lest they mangle the front ends of our cars, when they wander out into traffic.

Actually, we make the decision for our pets, for both reasons, one of the interesting dualities I notice in our world, in which more than one explanation, can sometimes both fit or overlap. Humans already are benefitting our pets, dogs and cats, by multiplying them to populate the planet also, like us, at far higher densities than they could do naturally, without our help. But pets, who understand nothing of "birth control," have entire litters of puppies and kittens at once. That would be fine, except that left to their reproductive urges, they multiply far faster than additional adopting homes can be found for them. As humans replace the social structure of wild animals, with one that remove terrorial issues and supplies unlimited food, pet populations can then naturally "explode." I believe it is fine for people to let their pets breed, but it is humans, who make the decision whether they want to provide for more pets or not. Pets are forever dependent upon us, and simply can not fend for themselves at the population density we have allowed them to breed to. So getting pets fixed, when people choose to not breed their pets, is both out of practical necessity, and because we are their "higher power," as God put us in charge, of especially our own animals. But notice how simple it is to fix pets, because pets don't need sex nor the agression that may come from pets breeding and protecting their territory or young, as sexual urges would only distract them from being good pets. Pets often get no sex at all, because they are mere animals that don't have "human rights." Now pets are worth more than wild animals, because their human owners impute some value to them, and make them to be "friends."

Humans face a far different population size standard, because humans soon learn to be more self-sufficient, and not keep depending upon their parents or "masters" to provide for them. Human population growth naturally accomodates itself, especially with good leadership, and so as anything that could keep our burgeoning numbers "in check" fades away, that's a potent signal advocating there to come to be more and more people throughout the entire world.

God commanded humans to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, but also gave dominion over nature and other creatures, to man, to help us do so. Thus, it would seem that humans are responsible for maintaining the proper sized pet population, but not for determining the proper population size for our own societies, that being determined properly by God. In fact, God giving dominion to man, probably implies an "invitation" to man, to eventually grow to become among the most populous of the large mammals, not to dominate merely due to supposed intelligence, nor because "we can," but out of the necessity of sheer numbers.

Like our children, pets don't get to decide much, while our children gain more decisions as they grow older and more mature. And if pets could decide, I think most would opt to stay with their human masters, rather than go suffer on their own, in the wild. Pets seem to rather prefer and crave our company. I have heard the theory that dogs generally accept their human masters, as their "pack leader." Since the humans seem to have all the food, surely we must be the smartest and most worthy "pack leader?" Then pets become more socialable like people, because of their "pack leader's" expectations. If their human master naively thinks that both a dog and a cat can live in the same house, well who's to say that it isn't so?, and so even a suspicious sneaky cat, can become a member of the "pack." If their human master says that visiting strangers aren't "intruders," then it must be so, lest the dog get banished to another room for barking and being unsociable.

I think you would get some disagreement from many pet owners, about their animals being dependent upon them, making their lives "harder." Some would claim that they just couldn't get through life, without their pets or something. And then some "pets" actually loyally do "work." I find it amazing the "work" that handicapped assistance dogs, rather "love" doing for their masters. In some respects, a pet can do the job better, because they are almost always there for you, as they don't really have "lives of their own" to worry about. While humans can do more, other human friends are often too busy, and we have to wait for them to come visit and help us out, while pets have nothing better to do than to cater to their masters.

Pets and children are much different. People are under no moral obligation to have pets, but more and more people, more and more children, would be glad to live. Humans are created in God's image, while pets are not. The excuses why people fear having children, usually aren't valid, or can be overcome, but those excuses world work fine, for not adopting more pets.

Well it sounds like you admit that there can be great benefits, to humans multiply at least somewhat, at a reasonably moderate rate. And also, it sounds like you are saying that the planet could in fact be far more densely populated, if we are willing to correspondingly alter from the way we live now. I think we agree on some of that.

But in suggesting a "danger" in multiplying "too fast," you seem to imply, as so many population pessimists do, that God somehow "goofed" and made humans "too fertile," which I don't believe to be the case. Humans usually have but 1 baby at a time, allowing us time to transition and prepare for our natural family growth. By the time some couples "discover" that their family is starting to get "really big," well it's already "too late," as they have already become rather used to raising a big family, and found it not to be so "scary" as society makes it out to be. In fact, I suspect that quite a lot of "large" families aren't exactly "planned." What happens, is that a couple has just had their 4th child or so, and they, for whatever reasons, haven't got around to selecting a "satisfactory" means of "birth control." And perhaps as the 5th and 6th child comes along, either they don't notice that their family is getting "large," or they aren't worried about it. I visited a family at my Church, with 8 children, having been invited for lunch. I did ask for the tour of their home. When I asked him why he had so many children, his answer was sort of plain. Something about that they didn't give it much thought, I think. It happens. As I recall, they seemed to have a nice family, nice house, and their house was "full," but not at all "crowded." I don't recall there being any extra beds or bedrooms, and their attic was like part of the upstairs, all useful living space.

 

Part 2 of 2:

I happen to agree with "environmentalists" on some minor points, but rarely with their major thrusts or articles of faith, that anything that benefits humans "must" be "bad" for the "environment." I agree that the world population is "huge" and still growing. I agree that there are so many, many people in the world, that we should be a little careful with resources and wastes, to insure that there is plenty for everybody. But I do not agree with their assumption that humans are "too fertile," nor that there is no God to provide for our needs and some of our wants. I agree that perhaps a "paradigm shift" is needed, but not of the sort they would tend to propose. One that I propose, is now that there are so many people that not everybody can possibly live miles from their nearest neighbors anymore, that the big and growing cities, must now also become appropriate places for "traditionally very large" families, as cities already are designed, almost by definion, to more efficiently accomodate huge populations of people, far more efficiently than the old rural countryside. Yes, we do need to alter the way we live somewhat. In ways people often naturally prefer anyway. Big cities no longer have the room for people to go defecate out in some empty field, so more modern conveniences, such as indoor flush toilets, are increasingly needed, which come naturally as people are allowed to accumulate wealth in order to provide for their growing families. If we expect to enjoy having "all the children that God gives," some of us may have to do so, while living and breeding closer to their many neighbors, than in the past, well at least on the global scale. We can learn to populate more densely and efficiently, and welcome more areas to grow to "urban" densities, as all these populous masses, have to live somewhere.

Why do you say that God is telling me to jump off a cliff? Yeah, if God told me to do that, perhaps I might, but it depends on what you mean by that. Didn't God command Abraham to move to a foreign land? That seems a bit like "jumping off a cliff." That back then, would hardly have been a trivial journey, but a huge investment, and with possibly no return if it doesn't work out quite as well as hoped. Such things can be some sort of "test" of our faith.

When God commands people to multiply, God is not obligated, to answer 100 different questions about "Well what if?..." God already knows, how it is that he intends to provide for us. I have read the Bible from cover to cover, and the Bible is surprisingly pronatalist. While way back in Genesis, we see Abraham and Lot's tribes decide to spread out, due to their steadily expanding numbers, to avoid conflict, there is no mention of "birth control" to keep them from later populating back together, in even huge numbers than before. In fact, many of the modern technologies, food packaging and preparation, modern clean gas and electric stoves and microwave ovens to avoid the smoke of millions of cooking fires in growing cities, highrise buildings, indoor flush toilets, all appear to be converging to allow for population growth to continue "unchecked" as humans populate more densely together. That suggests that we welcome growing cities to naturally pull together and coelesce into even vast conurbations if need be, to find room for all the people, or maybe explore how to make jobs more flexible and movable, to reduce the draw of growing cities that depopulate the countryside. One analogy I see in the Bible, referring to people, is that of harvest fields of wheat, souls to be harvested for eternal life in heaven. Something about that the fields are ripe for the harvest, but the laborers are few. Pray that God would send more laborers. Now how "dense" is a productive field ripe for harvest?

I don't believe that God would do any bizarre experiment of just how many people he can cram onto the planet, before we keel over and cry "Uncle! Stop it now!" No, it's merely our poor perception, that entertains silly "overpopulation" fantasies. God fully knows what he is doing, but we aren't seeking God's ways like we should.

Some sci-fi writers have that already figured out. If ever land runs out for urban sprawl, which I don't see possibly happening within the forseeable future, well there is always the vertical city or the population "archology." There is yet another dimension that humans can spread into. I have long thought that stacking people upwards into the sky, was much preferable to population "control." It seems to be rather commonplace to live in highrises in the futuristic The Jetsons cartoon, and even after watching every episode in the DVD collection, I still can't tell why. Is it because people like the view, and it's the "modern look," or is it becaue the population has grown so enormous and there is so little nature left, and yet people are oblivious to that and don't much care, because their modern life is convenient and "normal" to them. One thing I miss about living in an apartment, rather than in a more spacious house now, is that before I didn't have to mow grass nor trim bushes. So there's at least one possible benefit to having but only a thin wall to separate me from my neighbors, although I do like that I don't have to watch the TV volume to not be too loud at night anymore. Anyhow, I would entertain ideas of changing city design somewhat, in order for people to populate closer together more efficiently, but there's hardly any need to rush into unproven, unnecessary population accomodation changes just yet. Simply more roads and more toilets, and more homes getting modern stoves and electricity and such, will do for now.

Oh, not the "Peak Oil" fraud? There's plenty of oil, but the enviro wackos don't want you to believe there is plenty of oil, because they are largely luddites scared of "progress," and the oil monopoly corporations don't want you to know just how much oil there is that can be developed still, because they like their big fat golden retirement eggs for their CEOs, like that $400 million that that CEO of Exxon/Mobile just got, even though he likely isn't much smarter than you and I.

Oil is already on the way out, and will mostly die due to obsolesce and not real shortages. The flying cars of The Jetsons world, run on "power pellets," which I am pretty sure is a less controversial code-word for nuclear power. Ever notice how seldom, in the The Jetsons world, that they ever fuel up, and yet those flying cars zipping along at 100s of mph, surely must be "energy hogs" or "gas guzzlers." Now is that possible with chemical-energy based fuels? No. That has got to be "nuclear." But the transition to better forms of energy, will take some time, and so we much need more oil and coal and such, for the burgeoning world population and the much cheap energy that big cities need, for now.

And why can't the world be made to hold 100s of billion of people, which appears now quite unlikely to occur anytime soon? There certainly is enough land to house so many, and I imagine food production could turn synthetic and less agriculturally-based to clear up more land for residential space, inviting cities to overspread former farmlands.

The world already has way too many people to get all that "close to nature" anyway. We can't "go back," because human population naturally rachets upwards, becoming ever more entrenched and naturally preparing and pushing for further expansion. I find it really surprising that all these people who claim to want to get "closer to nature," would find directly poisoning their bodies with nasty cancer stick cigarettes or trendy experiment contraceptive devices and drugs/hormones, to be apalling, and want to go back to the natural sex that probably the Amish enjoy, but in a modern, more urban world, made to be compatable with our now huge population numbers. More "natural" would be going with our natural hair colors God gave us, not shaving our genitals because if God gave us hair well leave it there (it rhymes even), no ugly tattooes or body piercings, and of course, going back to the faith and pro-life views of welcoming babies to "happen" whenever and wherever they can happen.

Do I discern a strange and curious "desire" for our numbers to continue rising, in that statement? Especially if such "rise" doesn't occur "too fast" for us to adapt and prepare for it? Well author Charles Provan, in his book, The Bible and Birth Control, tells how it is God who put the natural desire in our hearts, to seek humanity's multiplication and increase. I think that could relate to why most every baby, even not our own, just usually looks so cute and adorable. Because on both a conscious and subconscious level, humans rather like growing more and more populous.

Well I already observe that human populations, unlike those of other creatures, already expand gradually changing relatively little from year to year. An already occupied womb, won't reset itself and start on the next baby for a while, and when nations multiply "too fast," their populations become so youthful, that a growing proportion of the population is still too young to reproduce, sort of a "self-limiting" effect that doesn't limit eventual growth, but the natural speed of growth. Humans, oddly enough, are among the most slowly reproducing of God's creatures, and yet we are about the most horny, enjoying being constantly "in heat," from puberty to menopause, with no defined "breeding season," able to breed year-round, and even mate, during pregnancy, when another pregnancy isn't normally possible.

I am not so sure that it's a "given" that pro-choice, or probably more accurately, pro-abortion groups will multiply, as contraceptives damage their reproductive systems and waste away the years until nearly waning old age infertility, but rather that pro-lifers, and hopefully also, the general population, will multiply. Another great benefit of large families, is that they change the culture and make it more pro-life and more pro-human.

But there is no "we" that can get together to decide what the population should be, nor any practical nor any moral means by which to enforce it. Can we slow the growth of a human pregnancy? No, that's the wrong way to look at it. If humans naturally grow more and more abundant, it's not something shameful to "hide," but rather something wonderful to celebrate, and so the analogy of a visibly pregnant woman having to don maternity clothes, I find to be useful. Well why can't a planet "bulging" with people, merely don it's "maternity clothes?" Pregnancies lead to wonderous "births," not disaster.

There are also those population phobic, anti-progress arguments I have heard, that go something like, "Well can't we just wait for the technology to come along, and if and when that happens, we can expand human populations later." Or in other words, there will never be "enough" technology ever, and that day is envisioned to come, oh, probably the day after hell freezes over. (never) As even rich mogul Ted Turner, complains about how the modern wind energy farms, spoil the view, or so I have heard. And yet what could be "cleaner?" I think they are beautiful, that is if they really are economically viable and competitive with the cost of other energy.

Another reason we simply can't "slow" our population growth, is because of that saying "necessity is the mother of invention." I simply don't believe we will ever have the necessary technology to colonize other worlds, provide cheaper energy for the populous masses, or whatever, until we "need" it. The enormous population growth, likely will be a prerequisite for all those wonderous "breakthrough" technologies of the perhaps improbable future. Actually, not all that many "breakthrough" technologies are needed, as we already have much of the technology that humans may seem to need to expand our numbers, already, and it is largely scalable to any size of population. For more people means a naturally expanding workforce, and more and more customers, which naturally expands the pace of technological development and innovation. I notice that most modern technologies just never came along, until world population started also, at about the same time, becoming seemingly "huge." And besides, how do you safely "slow" an advancing global "pregnancy?"

More Malthusian gloom-and-doom. History so far, says otherwise. And since most of the world's population growth now supposedly come from the more pronatalist developing countries, many with "huge" populations already, how do you know for sure, that the entire world isn't gradually turning pro-life anyway? I have read of some places where the decline of birthrates has seemed to "stall," and I suppose even "reversals" to higher less-restrained fertility are possible? Although the growing and perhaps runaway "birth death" may still be the overall trend?

No, if we all were to become pro-life, and more consistantly pro-life in being also pro-population, I think we would get those nifty flying cars soon, as less cynical people probably also tend to be more innovative.

We can't all be pro-life? And why not? The world's way too "crowded" to all be pro-death. That would be too dangerous. That sounds too much like that homosexual claim I saw somewhere, that "we can't all be heterosexual. Imagine the overpopulation." And yet that surely doesn't jive with what the Bible says. We could all start to kill each other off, but then, isn't that about the barbaric behavior that preceeded the Great Genesis Flood judgement of humanity? As if God was/is saying, "Now we can either do things my way, or we can do things my way. ... I am the author of life and death, and so I will decide."

 

Have you ever heard of compulsive eating? It's a recognized medical condition which is very much an addiction. The only difference is that a far greater percentage of the population is affected by compulsive procreation than by complusive eating.

As to your second point, where did I say anything about sex? My comments solely concern addiction to procreation. Sex is a completely different matter, and is not generally harmful to society (except in cases of STDs and things of that nature), unlike uncontrolled procreation, which threatens society's ability to function.

Overpopulation causes shortages of land. Lack of land causes a lack of resources. Lack of resources causes an inability to support the population.

So what you end up with is a complete circle of social destruction.

 

i think the only viable solution is for governments or other people clandestinely to put something in everyone's food, water, air or something, i know that sounds draconian, and possibly risky as well, that will lower all human fertility (the probability of pregnancy) accross the board without bias or exception. i just don't see anything other then that, or famine and disease being very likely to do the job.

what is overpopulation? it is when environment vs economics becomes a tradeoff. it is when the needs of human society are resaulting in mass extinctions of other species at a greater rate then at any time since there have been humans.

why should we care? because it threatens the web of life itself upon which our own ultimately depends. not to mention the experiential qualities of living. even our individual and collective mental and physical health.

abstinance? get real. that's fine for those who are into it, maybe. but it's contrary to nature and it ain't a gonna happen. war? sure wars kill. and people turn right arround and more the make up for it first chance they get after it happens.

disease and famine? that's how nature deals with other species who'se numbers get excessive in proportion to the community of other species in their environment. this hasn't quite worked that well on humans. not yet anyway. we're pretty good at comming up for cures for things. but that don't mean it can't or won't.

if we don't beat nature to it by reducing our birth to mortality ratios by lowering our birthrates ourselves.

is there some impending doom if we don't? how impending it might be at this point is anybody's guess, but we are and have been condeming ourselves to a world far less gratifying and nonstressful then we would have if there were signifigantly fewer of us.
such as the kind of world our species got to where we are now IN.

'global warming' (signifigant chainges in long term weather patterns) is a reality undiniably witnessed by many indicators, not the least of which being the drastic receeding of ALL glaciers on the planet. something they had never ALL been doing at the same time from the end of the last ice age up untill less then a couple of decades ago. and what has chainged in that time that stands out as a probable trigger for it?

the combination of human population levels and their ever upward spiral, with the use of combustion to generate energy and propell transportation.

=^^=
.../\...

 

There is a thing called natural selection, when babies are not supposed to live, they are given disabilities, which would not able them to survive without the help of our medicine. Older people would die a lot younger, small pox, chicken pox, cancer, the list goes on of ways that god (if there is one) is trying to say that there are too many people, and is trying to give us a natural way to select these people. has anybody ever thought that maybe we should try and stick to this? That some people just arent meant to be here. When people are unable to move, eat and breathe for themselves, do you think they have a quality life?
And i do agree that there should be a child limit, even if only for a while, that would help our sitiuation which is better than nothing.
Or if people were to sustain themselves and not rely on unrenewable sources, we need to take a look at our situation and get it sorted!

 

mass executions.....

 

Society is causing far more social problems and disfunction, by rampant anti-life contraceptive peddling, than it cares to admit.

And yet you can read all sorts of compelling reasons, for humans not to use any means of "birth control," on those various websites criticizing the use of "artificial" contraceptives, many of which appear to be "Catholic" or faith-based in tone.