http://www.observer.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,750782,00.html

please go to the link above, i found it on the italian site of the WWF and talk about us looking for another planet to inhabit before the 2050 end of earthly resources...

let me know...

The problem,of course, is that after reading that, the vast majority of people have already forgotten it by the next day.

People, unfortunately, are stupid.

That is why it is good that people like Sunflow, remind us to this.

It is totally up to every human him/herself, to decide whether he/she wants to forget it, or actually do something about it.

I agree with you that people are stupid. Very stupid, yes...:(

The WWF report is a stupid one and it is worth less than the paper on which it will be promulgated by the environuts. But the media will give it lots of coverage (and propaganda support). The WWF shows its Malthusian philosophy, and we all know what that philosophy means: <b>hate everything coming from humans... </b>

<HR color=red>

<center><font size=4 color=red><b>Thomas Malthus: Environmentatlist's Dear.</b></font></center>

By Marjie Bloy, Ph.D., Research Fellow, National University of Singapore.

Thomas Malthus believed that natural rates of human reproduction, when unchecked, would lead to geometric increases in population: population would grow in a ratio of 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64 and so on. However, he believed that food production increased only in arithmetic progression: 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. It seemed obvious to him that something had to keep the population in check to prevent wholesale starvation. He said that there were two general kinds of checks that limited population growth: preventative checks and positive checks. Preventative checks reduced the birth rate; positive checks increased the death rate.

Moral restraint, vice and birth control were the primary preventative checks. Moral restraint was the means by which the higher ranks of humans limited their family size in order not to dissipate their wealth among larger numbers of heirs. For the lower ranks of humans, vice and birth control were the means by which their numbers could be limited - but Malthus believed that these were insufficient to limit the vast numbers of the poor.

The positive checks were famine, misery, plague and war; because preventative checks had not limited the numbers of the poor, Malthus thought that positive checks were essential to do that job. If positive checks were unsuccessful, then inevitably (he said), famine would be the resulting way of keeping the population down. Before starvation set in, Malthus advised that steps be taken to help the positive checks to do their work. He wrote:
<font color=blue>
<blockquote><B>It is an evident truth that, whatever may be the rate of increase in the means of subsistence, the increase in population must be limited by it, at least after the food has been divided into the smallest shares that will support life. All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. ... To act consistently, therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operation of nature in producing this mortality, and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use.

Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases: and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased ... we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty and yet few be absolutely starved.</B></blockquote></font>

In Malthus' opinion, the masses were incapable of exercising moral restraint, which was the only real remedy for the population problem (Malthus had eleven children). They were therefore doomed to live always at bare subsistence level. If all income and wealth were distributed among them, it would be totally wasted within one generation because of profligate behaviour and population growth, and they would be as poor and destitute as ever. Paternalistic attempts to help the poor were therefore highly likely to fail. Also, they were a positive evil because they drained wealth and income from the higher (and therefore more moral) ranks of society. These people were responsible - either in person or through patronage - for all the great achievements of society: art, music, philosophy, literature and so on owed their existence to the good taste and generosity of these people. Taking money from them to help the poor would deprive the world of culture.

Source: http://65.107.211.206/economics/essay.html <b>The Victorian Web.</b>

Sure, we should follow Malthus and the WWF (<b>World Wide Fraud</B>) in their quest for a worldwide genocide. Just the sight of those three letters makes me sick...

The Guardian, following its habit of misinforming people, has not yet got the news that the WWF changed its name years ago from "World Wildlife Fund" to "Worldwide Fund for Nature", but the spirit remains: geopolitical tool created for keeping the Imperail Claw on its old African colonies.
.

Our living planet is dying. The signs and syptoms are being monitored, but the doctors are not responding to the call!

The World Wildlife Living Planet Report for 2002 states...

"

9 July, 2002


Humans running up huge 'overdraft' with the planet says new WWF report

Geneva, Switzerland - Standards of living and human development will start to plummet by 2030 unless humans stop using more natural resources than the planet can replace, according to a new report released by WWF, the conservation organization, 50 days before the start of the *World Summit on Sustainable Development*. (http://www.johannesburgsummit.org/flat/)

*Living Planet Report* (http://www.panda.org/livingplanet/lpr02/) shows that humans are currently running a huge deficit with the Earth - using over 20 percent more natural resources each year than can be regenerated - and this figure is growing each year. Projections based on likely scenarios of population growth, economic development and technological change, show that by 2050, humans will consume between 180 percent and 220 percent of the Earth's biological capacity. According to the report, this means that unless governments take urgent action, by 2030, human welfare, as measured by average life expectancy, educational level, and world economic product will go into decline.

"The fact that we live on a bountiful planet, but not a limitless one, presents world leaders at the World Summit on Sustainable Development with a clear challenge," said Dr. Claude Martin, Director General of WWF International. "Ensuring access to basic resources and improving the health and livelihoods of the world's poorest people can not be tackled separately from maintaining the integrity of natural ecosystems. Unless we ensure the health of those ecosystems, we will never be able to guarantee an acceptable standard of living for much of the world's population."

According to the Living Planet Report, the Earth has about 11.4 billion hectares of productive land and sea space - or 1.9 hectares of productive land to provide for each of the 6 billion people on the planet. The global ecological footprint - or consumption of natural resources - is 2.3 hectares per person. However, while the footprint of the average African or Asian consumer being less than 1.4 hectares per person in 1999, the average Western European's footprint was about 5.0 hectares, and the average North American's was about 9.6 hectares.

At the same time, the Living Planet Index (LPI), which is based on trends in populations of hundreds of species of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fish also shows clearly that the current human consumptive pressure is unsustainable. Over the past 30 years, the LPI has declined by about 37 percent. The decline in freshwater species has been particularly dramatic, with 54 percent decline on average in the populations of 195 species living in rivers and wetland ecosystems. Marine species are also under threat - with an average decline of 35 percent in 217 species, while forest species populations show a 15 percent decline in 282 species.

WWF believes that governments could reverse some of these negative trends and put humanity back on a path to sustainable development if they address some key issues. These include improving the resource efficiency with which goods and services are produced - in particular moving energy supplies away from fossil fuels and promoting energy-efficient technologies, buildings and transport systems; encouraging equitable and sustainable consumption; and conserving and restoring natural ecosystems to maintain their biological productivity and diversity.

"We do not know exactly what the result will be of running this massive overdraft with the earth. What is clear though is that it would be better to control our own destiny, rather than leave it up to chance," said Jonathan Loh, author of the Living Planet Report. "At the WSSD, world leaders will have a magnificent opportunity to address the root causes of our obvious failure to achieve sustainable development and set us on the path to a truly sustainable future."



Bill Hamilton:
I don't even see any awareness on the part of average citizens and neighbors who are too concerned about rushing to their nearest grocery store or WalMart to purchase and consume more goods.

Some say the environmentalists are alarmists and only normal changes are occurring to our green planet. Could that be true? I don't think so. All one has to do is graph the changes and plot the statistics on a curve and a graphic picture will emerge and it is not a pretty picture.

So, what can we do about it? Warnings have been given to the leaders of the world and still we see outdate policies pursued, especially by the Bush team. It seems Bush is intent on doing more environmental damage, not less.

The best you can do is prepare for survival as an individual and reach out to other aware individuals and symbiotically form a group. Such groups should give some consideration toward making a local thriving ecosphere and give additional consideration toward hollowing out a cave or underground shelter where the environment can be controlled. Things may get hot one day on the surface of the earth and having a contingency plan is the way to go.

Banshee, your activity in the forums seems to be dedicated to a "copy and paste" job, posting Apocalyptic scaremongeries that would, presumably, awake dormant people to the imminent destruction of the Earth. The report by the <b>World Wide Fraud</b> --oops, the <i>Wordwide Fund for Nature</i> follows the old Malthusian strategy: <b>"Scare them to death --and then you can stick your hands in their pockets."</b> That policy is universally used by robbers and muggers, when they put a knife to their victim's throat, or a gun into their skulls, while saying: "Gimme your money!" It works only on people unable to defend themselves, but it does not work with self-defense experts or Karate, Aikido, Tae Kwon Do, and other blackbelts.

The green tactics of "scaring and asking for money" works -unfortunately- on gullible and/or ignorant people, who sincerely donate money for "saving something" that will only make the checkbooks of the green leaders grow fatter and fatter.

But for those who know about science and the environment, the Living Planet by the WWF does not fool us for a single microsecond. The report is just a clumsy artifact based solely in computer projections and "managed" statistics that use selective, biased and mostly forged data for reaching results that had been previously designed and established by a geopolitical agenda.

I must point something to you: had you ever visited and read any of the links I suggested, you would have stopped posting your "The Sky is Falling" messages. You choose to believe in whatever you want, and that's OK with me. But, as a longtime teacher, much in the way I feel sad when I see a pupil that refuses to learn, I feel sad when I see a grownup adult refusing to use the basic mechanisms of reasoning for harnessing the full potential of his/her brain.

It seems you have lots of faith in our Prophets of Doom.

I am not posting only for you to critisize. I choose to do it this way and let you have your say. Whatever, it is fine by me.

Are you not copying and pasting the same reply?

In no way do I have to justify myself.

I learned a while ago that it is talking to a deaf man's ears in your case.

This thread is not here to argue, so I post articles and no more than that in this forum. I suggest you keep yourself occupied with your own "businesses" and copy and paste all your resources.

Good luck...

This is my first posting. I don't type well and am unsure of proper posting protocol. Copy and paste seems ok to me as at least it shows you based your opinion on something that someone else took the time to write about.

For my 2 cents worth, I don't need the WWF's article or anyone elses to warn me of impending doom to resources and therefore humanity. It is apparent to me in everyday life. It did seem the WWF was streching it a bit, but if one knows one's multiplication tables at least through x2, it should be obvious that anything above a world wide zero population growth will lead to exponential populaion growth. It is true the planet will run out of resources at some point as we have not achieved this zero pop growth.

Technology is the only hope to curb this. In using methods that will be unpopular to most idiologies, as in these, we view the planet and everything on it, as being created for us (even though our existance has only been for a fraction of a percent of Earth history). But unfortunately the masses, especially in Western society, has used technology for football, beer, cars food, and a host of other activities that do nothing to help preserve or enhance humanity.

The overindulgence of these activities make people mentally blind-

and therefore stupid.

There is no physic resourceproblem, only economical/political problems about SHARING/DISTRIBUTING the loot.

when we run out of oil in 50 - 100 years ? we have coal for at least 1500 years and nuclear and renewable energies on top of that. Consider the sheer thickness of the earthcrust and that we mine just the outer skin wich is less than 0,5 precent than you see we have plenty of metals/minerals in the rest of the crust. At some point, due to price/demand or advances in extraction techniques it becomes economical attractive to dig deeper mines. So talking about mining other planets is really unnecessary and certainly not cheaper, I agree however that mining other planets is more exciting/imaginative for sci-fi enthousiasts like me.

However, the market of supply and demand will regulate itself, but not without trouble, wars, diseases , pollutions, extinctions of animals etc etc, just because there are some people that want much more than others.

Come to think of it, overpopulation and the Bush "More SUV" policy is the best thing since decades that happened to us environmentalists ? Why ? because it will help burn up the dirty depletable resources fast (before global warming has time to really kick in), so that, when these resources get scarce, they are FORCED by circumstances (also the hungry american consumer, wanting to maintain his lifestyle) to be more ahum resourcefull and do more with recycling and other resources.

Me always thought that Bush and his resourcehogging business associates lacked long term vision, but now I can see they thought way ahead of me :)

What are the effects to Polymers and and many other industries dependeant on oil

Urbaniteman, welcome.

About the topic...... I wonder if one day femtotech (maybe just picotech) may be developed to help solve this things out? (oh, if you're wondering what I meant, try to relat nano and atoms.)

Well, we don't need femtotech or picotech, although they would be a bonus;

to provide enough energy for a population of 10 billion living at present day American standards of living, we would need to cover the equivalent of 5% of the Earth's land surface with photovoltaic solar cells; this is actually a massive area, and would cause quite a lot of ecological damage.

If we are determined to all live in modern comfort we will have to accept a certain amount of environmental change...

in truth, it seems likely to me that fusion power will be available before the coal runs out in a thousand years time, and before we have to build a new continent in the Pacific Ocean just to hold the solar energy generators;

but as a last resort, the option exists-
apart from energy, every other resource can and will be recycled, of course.
given enough forward planning, civilisation could thrive on our planet for millions of years.
__________________
SF worldbuilding at
http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

Oh- except helium-
you cant recycle helium; once it's gone, it's gone.

Another reason to go to the Moon.

Hydrocarbons for polymers can be extracted from coal as well, Technologically speaking it must even be possible to make polymers and peptides out of thin air and water , as air contains Co2 and nitrogen and water the hydrogen, wouldn't be a cheap methode (maybe nanotech will change that), but wouldn't it be nice if you had some box that sucks in air and water and outputs a proteine shake complete with plastic cup and straw :D

Isn't helium a waste product of tokamak fusion reactors ?

Hopefully yes, nantotech may help provide 'near-limitless' supply of hydrocarbon fuel, and at the same time, reduce the green-house effect (right or just too much?).
Oh also, somewhat related to "atmosphere loss" thread I started ages ago, so it's true that we're losing helium, but what is it for, anyway?

awake dormant people to the imminent destruction of the Earth.

That would be a good thing, Edufer. The general population could care less about nature and perserving it. IMHO, its better to scare people and take their money (if thats even the case), than to let them lead lives being ignorant of the casualites of human civilization. At least now they have some appreciation or respect for nature, even if a few dollars are missing from their change bottle on their dresser.

"Life is unfair, what are you going to do about it?"

Later
T

the helium waste can be used to make blimps... it think thats so cool...millions of blimps in the sky...i wont one, can't wait

i think the end of earthly resources would would end sooner then 2050. I say this because the earth is in a shitty shape at the current time.

Oh- except helium-
you cant recycle helium; once it's gone, it's gone.It is going up to space constantly, but it keeps coming back. Helium is formed in the deep parts of Earth's crust, just above the mantle, as a result of decaying radon. Then, helium starts its way up the surface and, in the region known as the "methane region", it mixes with it and produces oil. The theory, already proven, is that oil is constantly being formed by this process, and the reason for "unexplained" refilling of ancient oil wells that were depleted.

That's the reason why "fossil fuel" is a misnomer for oil (petroleum) and that term should be left for carbon, that comes from ancient jungles and biomass depositions.

Oil companies collect helium in their drillings and sell it in the market. So no way we'll ever run out of helium - first radon must disappear, along with all radioactive material inside Earth's crust.

I was under the impression that all the worlds helium comes from a singel source, an oil well/ field in texas, and it is running out. Now, sure, it may be formed undergroudn, but is it actualy collecting somewhere in enough density to be recoverable? If not, then we're buggered. The article i read made no mention of any alternative sources of helium.

"World Wildlife Fund" to "Worldwide Fund for Nature", but the spirit remains: geopolitical tool created for keeping the Imperail Claw on its old African colonies.
.

Hahahahahah. Thats funny. The imperial claw is being kept on countries in quite another way, generally to do with resource extraction.

Helium is found and obtained from all oil wells in the world, although not many have the equipment to retrieve it and store for ulterior sale.

Perhaps the helim is running out in that well in Texas (along to its present oil content). But when they reopen that weel after say 30 years of being shut down, they will find it replenishing, as it has happened with many wells in the Galveston area, Bolivia, Argentina, etc.

Of course, the replenishing occurred has not the importance of the previous ancient deposits. 30 or 40 years time of new oil formation cannot be compared with millions or billions years of Earths's geological history.

would any of you believe that we will run out of resources due to patterns of consumerism?

would any of you believe that we will run out of resources due to patterns of consumerism?

Then perhaps we will learn to design a matter replicator a la Star Trek? There is no physical law that would prevent us in doing so....

By 2050, we should have computers that are powerful enough to think and design innovative solutions to our pathetic problems....

would any of you believe that we will run out of resources due to patterns of consumerism?Not me, do you? And what's the evidence for such a claim?

It sounds like the Good Old Green Litany again... not again, please!

Today's consumption is undermining the environmental resource base. It is exacerbating inequalities. And the dynamics of the consumption-poverty-inequality-environment nexus are accelerating. If the trends continue without change - not redistributing from high-income to low-income consumers, not shifting from polluting to cleaner goods and production technologies, not promoting goods that empower poor producers, not shifting priority from consumption for conspicuous display to meeting basic needs - today's problems of consumption and human development will worsen.

... The real issue is not consumption itself but its patterns and effects.

... Inequalities in consumption are stark. Globally, the 20% of the world's people in the highest-income countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures - the poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%. More specifically, the richest fifth:

Consume 45% of all meat and fish, the poorest fifth 5%.
Consume 58% of total energy, the poorest fifth less than 4%.
Have 74% of all telephone lines, the poorest fifth 1.5%.
Consume 84% of all paper, the poorest fifth 1.1%.
Own 87% of the world's vehicle fleet, the poorest fifth less than 1%.

Runaway growth in consumption in the past 50 years is putting strains on the environment never before seen.

(Emphasis Added) -- Human Development Report 1998 Overview, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Consumption.asp

it sounds to me that consumerism is playing a role in some important natural resources.

If we do start running out of resources, then we will probably find another planet with resources that we need and we (humans) will dran the hell out of it. :D I am just saying this beacuse Humans in general are fucking greedy.

'If we do start running out of resources, then we will probably find another planet with resources that we need and we (humans) will dran the hell out of it. I am just saying this beacuse Humans in general are fucking greedy.'

sad, but VERY true. i totally agree. we'll find some planet/comet to steal resources from.

I figure there is no major problem currently in existance that could not be solved by fewer people. I figure things will become much easier when warfare is revolutionized by the contraceptive bomb. Suddenly people actually have to take a pill in order to have children instead of the reverse.

psycho
bringing Mars to earth?

Then perhaps we will learn to design a matter replicator a la Star Trek? There is no physical law that would prevent us in doing so....

By 2050, we should have computers that are powerful enough to think and design innovative solutions to our pathetic problems....

Well doesn't that seem a rather far-fetched gamble? How do you know that humans are even smart enough to make matter replicators? Yeah, I like that idea too, but don't know if we shall ever see them.

Rather, I believe that human population growth makes resouces
more abundant and reduces pollution, because all those people don't just sit around and do nothing. They expand the workforce, have creative ideas, and accelerate the growth of technology. And I think history has indeed supported this view. So does the Biblical worldview and God's commandment to people to multiply and fill the earth. People are getting richer and living longer, even as human populations accumulate throughout the world. :D

Thus, human population growth self-accomodates and should be considered a great asset, not hardly a "problem" to "solve" somehow. Because more and more people would be glad to live, large families should still be encouraged worldwide, to benefit "the many" who couldn't live otherwise.

If we ever get those matter or food replicators or ever colonize other worlds, I think it won't be because there were merely a nice mere convenience, but rather because we need them, because the population has grown so large. We likely would find it too expensive or too not cost-effective or we would be too lazy to colonize other worlds, until we "out-grow" this one, and the massive and still-expanding human population pushes the necessary technology forward.

So how do we invent "matter replicators?" I say have lots of kids, and maybe one of them will invent them? They say that "necessity is the mother of invention," don't they? If you want "food replicators," help multiply the number of mouths to feed on the earth, so that their possible invention becomes more likely.

I don't think much of that sci-fi stuff will occur anyhow, as we seem too near the Biblical endtimes to have time.

This article is the exact same argument made in the book "Limits to Growth." That was published in the 1970's, and they made all kinds of claims, none of which came true. This lie is so worn out it is now a cliche.

Well, better start saving up one heckuva stockpile now, for 2050. :D

If we do start running out of resources, then we will probably find another planet with resources that we need and we (humans) will dran the hell out of it. :D I am just saying this beacuse Humans in general are fucking greedy.
The problem (partly) is that even if all the difficulties with finding another planet to suck dry are overcome, "we" will not be doing anything: some few people somewhere will exploit the hell out of it (or colonize a brave new frontier, if you prefer) while the majority of the population is left behind to rot.

Bellieve it.

The problem (partly) is that even if all the difficulties with finding another planet to suck dry are overcome, "we" will not be doing anything: some few people somewhere will exploit the hell out of it (or colonize a brave new frontier, if you prefer) while the majority of the population is left behind to rot.

Bellieve it.

Well I much rather be "left behind" on some "overcrowded" planet, and exist, than to never have been born because there were fewer people having opportunity to live.

The population control freaks, paranoid pessimists, gloom-and-doomers, or whatever is appropriate to call them, would probably have us believe that we need more planets, for people to keep multiplying, or for more people to have wealth, and yet they ignore the possibility, that if we had new space or other planet colonies everywhere just "begging" for more people, most people, loving being lazy or their familiar surroundings, would still probably choose to stay on the earth, "crowded" or not. So of what relevance would more "space colonies" be anyways, at least in the near future? Except for cool sci-fi movies.

We should have strong families and clean up our culture, and not put too much faith in far-fetched fantasies like building more inhabited planet/colonies for humans. If we ever need to colonize more worlds, I imagine some means to do that, will be found. Right now, I think that excessive space exploration would just be a huge "suck" on taxpayer dollars, and produce little. Until we have better technology such that I can afford a flying car to fly to Mars, venturing far into outer space, just isn't very cost effective without better technology first.

This article is the exact same argument made in the book "Limits to Growth." That was published in the 1970's, and they made all kinds of claims, none of which came true. This lie is so worn out it is now a cliche.

It's pretty clear that our demand for resources (food, water, misc. biomass, air) is increasing exponentially, driven by the exponential growth curve in population and intesified consumerism in both developed and under-developed nations. It's also clear that the resources of the planet are finite. Those two lines will intersect at time - that's mathematical certainty.

There's ample evidence to suggest that resources are reaching critical points. You can dismiss this evidence as green propoganda if you want, but that seems pretty ignorant since I'm sure you haven't read a single scientific paper on the subject.

It's also clear that the resources of the planet are finite. Those two lines will intersect at time - that's mathematical certainty.


It is also a mathematical certainity that our sun will go supernova and kill all of us....or that another Iceage wipe out a major chunk of the population.

The prudent direction should be aiming towards a zero population growth through education and focusing on technology as in Clark's 3001 while developing policies to reduce urban congestion and pollution - like insourcing jobs to rural areas.

It's pretty clear that our demand for resources (food, water, misc. biomass, air) is increasing exponentially, driven by the exponential growth curve in population and intesified consumerism in both developed and under-developed nations. It's also clear that the resources of the planet are finite. Those two lines will intersect at time - that's mathematical certainty.

There's ample evidence to suggest that resources are reaching critical points. You can dismiss this evidence as green propoganda if you want, but that seems pretty ignorant since I'm sure you haven't read a single scientific paper on the subject.

Well of course human population is supposed to grow on an exponential curve. I am fully in favor of that. Think about it. If God wanted the human population to grow quite large, what better way than an exponential curve? It would seem the main restriction on how fast human populations can grow, is the limited number of parents to raise all the children. As the number of women of childbearing age steadily rises around the world, then of course babies can be added to the world at a faster rate, as all those additional children have all the more parents to care for them. And all the more population and larger workforce to build up the infrastructure for still more population.

Malthus, the apparent father of population gloom and doom, said that somebody must die to make room for each new birth. Back when the world only had around a billion people. Good thing people didn't follow his perverted advise. Lest you and I would never have been born. What about the obvious alternative? Why not simply leave births unrestricted, celebrate the precious gift of life from God, and welcome human populations to accumulate? Because "faith" might be required? Well I don't have much "faith" in Malthus' non-solution, as it has little benefit for humanity nor the few humans remaining with little freedom and population "control" tyranny. Where can we put all the additional people? Simple. In between all the people already living. World population can indeed grow larger and denser, as the world is nowhere near "full." Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be far more if ever need be.

Growth in population on a "finite" planet? Critical points you say? Well not within the forseeable future. Just because a few pessimists might think they can spot some "growing pains" of the burgeoning world population, does not mean that humans still could not survive and thrive in a world continuing to grow more and more populous. I count the rising population as great progress for humanity, and all the more people around to enjoy and experience life. It is great news and something to celebrate. For each person that dies, 3 more are born. Long lifespan, people being better fed, increasing wealth and technology around the world, ought to be good news to celebrate, and I think such things are really driven and accelerated by population growth, or God's grace and will for human populations to continue to grow. What do "critical points" mean anyways? I suggest that they not be negative. Doesn't the baby inside the womb reach some "critical point" in size, before labor and birth begins? Is there some "critical point" at which human freedom, and dignity, should no longer be respected, and people no longer allowed to bring precious new human life into the world? Not unless God takes away our ability to reproduce in the Biblical endtimes. Rather, isn't "necessity the mother of invention?" I think people think about it backwards. Rather than waiting for "food replicators" before we welcome people to keep having so many babies, maybe if the world eventually someday, hypothetically, grows so full of people, that we need "food replicators" to feed all those hungry mouths, then they will then be invented. If we ever want to actually colonize other worlds, rather than merely dream about it in sci-fi movies, perhaps we will have to "out-grow" this planet, to push the technology forward to make it possible? As population growth accelerates the technologies that eventually do so much to help accomodate today's swollen human populations (compared to "historical" norms), I say that human population growth self-accomodates, and so for the sakes of human freedom and dignity, and obeying God's commandment to multiply and fill the earth, that humans should only seek to accomodate human population expansion, and do nothing at all to "limit" actual human numbers. That better benefits "the many" people. Married couples should be encouraged to go ahead and have "all the children that God gives," and avoid "preventative measures" to limit family size, as what child wouldn't rather have been born than not exist at all, even if into a large family with so many children that the younger children might share beds for a while? The 10th child is just as precious and valuable as the 1st child, so population size is the jurisdiction of God, and not humans. Population is what it is. And I want my children to know how much they are wanted, in knowing that their parents don't practice any form of "birth control" nor rhythm, as more children are always welcome, if God is willing to give us more. And I hope they would have faith in God's ways, and do the same for their children, even in a more populous world, than today's. To live in a child-friendly, family-friendly, pronatalist (favoring childbearing) and rather populous world, would be a far better place to live, than a crueler, but more sparsely populated world. :D

Pronatalist, why do you bother to type out new posts? Just cut and paste one of your old ones, they are all the same! (if anyone reading this doubts me, do a search of his posts)

Various nuts out there latch on to certain passages in the bibull, and then dedicate their lives to them. You've really got "be fruitful and multiply" stuck in yours.

Have you ever even considered the possibility that there is no god?

We humans are in control of our own destiny, at least to the extent that our biological determinism allows. If we allow ourselves to multiply out of control, (like bacteria in a Petri dish full of agar agar) until there is a big die off, we will have no one but ourselves to blame.

Yes, you can always blame starvation and want on politics and nationalism, and the uneven distribution of resources it causes. What possible reason do you have to think that these forces are going to do anything but get stronger?

Pronatalist, why do you bother to type out new posts? Just cut and paste one of your old ones, they are all the same! (if anyone reading this doubts me, do a search of his posts)

Various nuts out there latch on to certain passages in the bibull, and then dedicate their lives to them. You've really got "be fruitful and multiply" stuck in yours.

Have you ever even considered the possibility that there is no god?

We humans are in control of our own destiny, at least to the extent that our biological determinism allows. If we allow ourselves to multiply out of control, (like bacteria in a Petri dish full of agar agar) until there is a big die off, we will have no one but ourselves to blame.

Yes, you can always blame starvation and want on politics and nationalism, and the uneven distribution of resources it causes. What possible reason do you have to think that these forces are going to do anything but get stronger?

What if we allow ourselves to "multiply out of control," and there is no "die off?" What if nature really doesn't care how populous humans get?

What if there is no God? Well if this life is all there is, then it's pretty crummy and short. If there is no God, then we all die, with no hope. Do the details of how really make a lot of difference, with no eternal destiny?

We humans are in control of our own destiny? Are you serious? How many of us even get to choose our jobs? Isn't it more like our employers decide who they want to hire? We don't even seem to have much control over how many children we have. How many people struggle for years to conceive a child, or another child? How many people end up having to adopt, that is if they can even find a child to be placed with them?

It takes a lot of work to add another billion people to the planet, so it is rather unlikely to happen "overnight" or "accidentally" or without people even thinking about it. If humans keep breeding up their numbers, wouldn't it be better if people did it willingly and deliberately? Wouldn't it be more prudent to make plans for and to welcome the population increase that may or may not be inevitable anyways?

If humans have any say about it, humans should be encouraged to "multiply out of control," as it is not something that humans were meant to control, and more and more people would be glad to live. To do the most good for the most people, would seem to also imply that whatever "ideal" population size should be rather large, or even nearly "as large as possible." What does "control" in this case mean anyways? Wouldn't a more accurate word be on the order of "tyranny," or "anti-life?"

The planet is still quite huge, and it would take a tremendous human population to "fill" it, so there is little danger in welcoming the nations to keep growing more and more populous, to benefit "the many" people. Sure, I think much of the third world nations are growing so populous that they should modernize and get flush toilets and clean electric and gas stoves, for proper sanitation and to stop the pollution of themselves hovering over smoky cooking fires of wood, trash, or dung, but we already have ample technology and sanitation methods, to welcome all the nations to keep growing in population so all the more people can enjoy living. The answer to the population concern, is not to diss life and try to magically cut birthrates while contradictorially supposedly respecting the lives of all the people already here; but to leave birthrates unrestricted, welcome each and every person, and rather urbanize the world to whatever extent needed.

Human populations have 3 perspectial dimensions into which they may grow: outwards, inwards, and upwards. We can grow outwards and build more cities and towns, and welcome existing cities and towns to sprawl as they swell with people and all the children those people enjoy having. Humans should be welcome to spread over and fill more and more of the land. We can also grow inwards, and infill underutilized land or allow more people to live in the same amount of space. More streets and homes can be built in regions of cities where people already live. We can also grow upwards and more people live in highrise apartments or condos. I advocate all 3, especially people growing outwards over the land. I suppose most people have not given serious thought to how many billions or 100s of billions of people there could be plenty of room for, if human populations were welcome and encouraged to grow into all 3 dimensions, so that everybody's children could still be welcome far into the future.

One point though. If there is a God after all, then it is probably far safer for human populations to grow "out of control," as it is far more likely that the Earth was really designed for large and growing human populations, than had humans somehow magically come about by "evolutionary" happenstance, chance. So that is just another reason for people to learn the truth about their eternity destiny and come to faith in the true God of Abraham, the one of which we read in the Bible. But if the world could, hypothetically hold, perhaps up to some 200 billion people, then why worry if world population eventually soars beyond 30 billion? Wouldn't a mere 6 billion people be a huge waste of potential? Shouldn't an "optimal" size human population, if such a thing could even be defined by humans, seek to populate the world, and any other worlds we might reach?, to its full potential? And isn't world population already "controlled" by the time it takes human populations to expand; people increasingly becoming either too lazy, selfish, or preoccupied to breed, as in the "demographic transition" (no doubt helped along by anti-life contraceptive pushing); and people being intelligent enough to make decisions about marriage and employment and childbearing without anti-life coercion? How long have the gloom-and-doomers, who usually are the same people who reject God and faith and dreams, and think rather small, been harping that we should have all starved to death by now? And yet the world has more mouths to feed than ever, people are living longer, obesity is a growing problem in China and even a recent news story said that the dogs in China are becoming obese, and wealth and technology is growing. So it rather looks to me, as the world population continues to grow, that at the same time the world grows all the more "underpopulated," having all the more capacity for still more people. And that is because human population already self-accomodates, especially with good leadership. The population growth already has its own seeds for its accomodation, so there never was any need to slow human population growth. And as the population accumulates, we also accumulate more people coming into adulthood who want to have children themselves. So we accumulate all the more people and reason and drive towards more population. Which is all the more reason to welcome human populations to expand, which the people obviously must want.

"The more the merrier," they say.

Why do I bother to type new posts? Because the world has far too much bad news, and there is far too much a "culture of death" abortion mentality, contributed to by lack of faith in God, selfishness, and lack of respect for human life. The positive side of the issue, that human population growth may actually be good for people and society, just isn't heard enough, even though it is far more scientific and logical than hearsay gloom-and-doom population pessimism. Humans are social creatures, and can both survive and thrive, even at high population densities. Especially if that's what we purpose to do. I type because I care about people. Because I really don't think nature "cares" just how populated humans get. Why do you think there is so many people now? I rather believe it is no "accident," but by design for some great purpose. I see it as great progress for humanity, whether or not our large population size is supposedly "intentional" or not. When God gave "dominion" over nature and such to humans, why could that not have included an invitation or implication for humans to grow to among the most populous of large mammals? Couldn't numerical superiority, or outnumbering other kinds of creatures, be part of "dominion?" It's nothing to be embarrassed about, but something rather cool for us humans at least. We don't breed fast, but rather live a long time, and so rather relentlessly accumulate in numbers, over time, which gives ample time to prepare and adapt to our population expansion. Each person has great value imputed to them by God, and people value themselves, so each person is just as valuable, precious, and essential, regardless of overall population size. So babies should be just as welcome throughout the world, even in the most populous of nations or communties. Large families should be encouraged worldwide, so that all the more people may live. It is up to God to decide how numerous he wants to make people.

Some people without a lot of vision, may claim that "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," was for a time long ago before there were so many people as there are today. But is that really logical? While to fill an "empty" planet may be *a* reason to encourage large families, is it really the *best* reason? I think not. The real reason for people to multiply, would be so that all the more humans can experience life. Thus, "be fruitful and multiply" is just as relevant today, in today's world of "burgeoning billions." As the world could still *hold* a lot more people if ever need be. Our children still rather like living, and people today do have much more opportunity and exciting things to do and technology, so we should still have them, even though even more billions of people might be added to the planet in the process. It is well worth it to welcome and enjoy our children.

The planet wasn't empty when early man came on the scene Pronatalist. As our large brains and our ability to make tools allowed us to spread, we displaced species that were already here. Sabertooth tigers were still in North America very recently in geologic time. Scientists feel it is probable that they were exterminated by humans. We Homo Sapiens may have been responsible for the extinction of Homo Neanderthalis.

Your love for fellow humans seems to be coupled with a complete indifference to the natural world. I like children, but if I ever have any, I want them to grow up in a world that has forests and lakes, and wildlife. Maybe you would be happy in some sort of globe girdling city, but I would view it as a hell on Earth.

Yes, we humans are in control of our destiny, barring some sort of comet or asteroid strike along the lines of the one that caused the extermination of the dinosaurs. Either we populate until we wipe out, or we plan ahead. Refusing to decide is also a choice, but not a good one.

Nature doesn't care care how large the population of humans becomes. The planet is utterly indifferent, as is the universe. There is no good reason to suppose that the universe cares any more for the fate of the human species than it does for E. Coli bacteria. The fate of humans is only important to other humans. And we already know that this planet won't last forever.

As for a creator:When you come to look into this argument from design, it is a most astonishing thing that people can believe that this world, with all the things that are in it, with all its defects, should be the best that omnipotence and omniscience have been able to produce in millions of years. I really cannot believe it. Do you think that, if you were granted omnipotence and omniscience and millions of years in which to perfect your world, you could produce nothing better than the Ku Klux Klan or the Fascists? Moreover, if you accept the ordinary laws of science, you have to suppose that human life and life in general on this planet will die out in due course: it is a stage in the decay of the solar system; at a certain stage of decay you get the sort of conditions of temperature and so forth which are suitable to protoplasm, and there is life for a short time in the life of the whole solar system. You see in the moon the sort of thing to which the earth is tending -- something dead, cold, and lifeless.

I am told that that sort of view is depressing, and people will sometimes tell you that if they believed that, they would not be able to go on living. Do not believe it; it is all nonsense. Nobody really worries about much about what is going to happen millions of years hence. Even if they think they are worrying much about that, they are really deceiving themselves. They are worried about something much more mundane, or it may merely be a bad digestion; but nobody is really seriously rendered unhappy by the thought of something that is going to happen to this world millions and millions of years hence. Therefore, although it is of course a gloomy view to suppose that life will die out -- at least I suppose we may say so, although sometimes when I contemplate the things that people do with their lives I think it is almost a consolation -- it is not such as to render life miserable. It merely makes you turn your attention to other things.
http://www.luminary.us/russell/not_christian.html

You're always on about more people who would enjoy living. What, do you feel that there is some sort of netherworld where people are eagerly awaiting being born, and are bitterly disappointed by family planning measures that prevent their corporeal existence?

And what of the millions already on this planet who's lives are lived in misery and squalor? Day after day of grinding poverty, malnourishment, disease, until death seems a welcome alternative? Your solution is to bring even more people onboard?

True god of Abraham?
http://www.negativland.com/nmol/pics/products/ts_cis.gif

The planet wasn't empty when early man came on the scene Pronatalist. As our large brains and our ability to make tools allowed us to spread, we displaced species that were already here. Sabertooth tigers were still in North America very recently in geologic time. Scientists feel it is probable that they were exterminated by humans. We Homo Sapiens may have been responsible for the extinction of Homo Neanderthalis.

Well sure the planet wasn't completely "empty." Should God have made the earth a vast, barren desert, so we wouldn't feel "guilty" about expanding our populations across the globe? Ever since humans grew beyond the original 2 people that God created, Adam and Eve, we probably have been "displacing" something. Surely you don't suggest that a world population of 2 humans would be anywhere near enough? As I read in the Bible, it appears everywhere that God fully intended for humans to fill cities and the land. Our large brains? That sounds like some sort of "evolutionary" reference? Actually, I do think because humans are intelligent, and can adapt to accomodate our population growth, is a good reason for there to be so many billions of people on the planet, and a compelling reason for humans to continue enjoying having big families. Humans are worth far more than cattle, foxes, squirrels, or whatever wildlife we might be "displacing" as our cities and towns grow and need more room. And other kinds of creatures don't even see it as "displacement," as they don't live forever anyways, and use territory very inefficiently. Humans are social creatures and can both survive and thrive, even at high and efficient population densities, far in excess of other mammals. Thus, not only are humans worth so much more, and thus worthy to fill the land, but humans can use land efficiently, allowing for all the more life to exist at once in confined places. Often those wildlife "displaced" simply fail to reproduce to keep up their former numbers before man encroached upon the wild areas. And the planet hardly needs to be "empty" to have room for humans to grow into, as human populations can grow denser and more widespread.

Your love for fellow humans seems to be coupled with a complete indifference to the natural world. I like children, but if I ever have any, I want them to grow up in a world that has forests and lakes, and wildlife. Maybe you would be happy in some sort of globe girdling city, but I would view it as a hell on Earth.

Complete indifference? Nah. I have been hiking and camping, and think that forests and hiking trails are beautiful. But where from that, shall I somehow assume that humans should go against nature and use anti-life "birth control?" I often find what is "natural" to be more elegant and practical. I don't like the idea of women wearing much make-up, uncomfortable high heels, people feeling like there is any need for "birth control," tattoos, and body piercings, as all those things are so artificial and of little value or benefit to humans. I think in many cases, it is more practical to let forest fires burn themselves out, rather than fight them, if we don't have to. Human population growth is natural. Sex is natural. Not everything "natural" is "good." Poison ivy or disease might be said to be "natural." Food preservatives are greatly to be preferred over "natural" food poisoning. I believe that medical care should not only state as its objective to help people be healthier and live longer, but to also help enlarge the human population so that all the more people may enjoy life as a result of restricting death rates, but leaving birth rates unhindered.

If people really cared about other people like they should, shouldn't they rather than worry excessively about human population expansion, prefer to stack people up in highrises to make room for more people, rather than diss population or wish somehow for fewer people to be able to live? Why should I have any objection to some "globe girding city" if that's where we are headed? I like living, so I must also defend the value of all those other lives too, since those people are much like me, no matter if human populations might eventually someday become enormous. What mere human is qualified to decide who should be born, and who shouldn't? Why do you think some continous global city should be "hell on earth." If that's where you had been born, would you know anything else? Wouldn't it be like some great city/spaceship? Rarely does the "worst" or "best" happen in our human experience, but something in between, so I doubt that the land would ever be 100% urban some day. Rather, we could more realistically expect more of the same, as human history goes on, assuming time before the Biblical endtimes, should they tarry. That cities and towns will continue to grow, somewhat from natural increase, that they would grow a little larger and closer together, and that the rise in population would "crowd" the hiking trails and campgrounds a little, or that humans would encroach into more such places. But so what? When I go camping or hiking, I don't go to "get away from it all," but with some Church group or something, to meet people and do something different. So it shouldn't bother me if the hiking trails are rather "crowded" at that time of year, or if people pass by every few minutes. To extrapolate to the most ridiculous extreme, isn't a likely scenario, so why talk about that much? If the world can hold today's 6 billion+ population, then it probably can hold tomorrow's 9 or 10 billion, nearly as easily and comfortably. That most everybody wants to live, and most everybody wants children, are very compelling reasons for population growth, as those things are very important to people, and so of course whatever might serve as restrictions on the size or speed of human population growth, should be rather week, to respect human freedom and dignity, and welcome every individual to live and experience life. But far into the forseeable future, there is likely to be forests and lakes, even if the human population manages to grow far larger. I like children, and I think it rather far more important that the children of the future be born, than that there be lots of forests and lakes and wildlife. Of what use are those natural things, without lots of people around to enjoy them? To worry about forests and lakes first, before people, is to get the "cart before the horse." Rather, one of the best things we can do for future generations, is to have lots of children. How else will they be born? If a woman is pregnant, you don't tighten her clothes to restrict or hide her swelling belly. She wears loose maternity clothes. Likewise with the burgeoning human population. If the world is "pregnant" with people, let it wear loose "maternity clothes," and let the world "show" with people. Be proud to bring forth valuable human life. Dream of colonizing other planets, should we ever get the chance, which I don't really think we will. I don't want to contemplate at what point I turn into some communist population control freak, and rant about "too many" people, as if I am somehow more important to continue living, than all those multipling masses. It is not man's place to tell his neighbor not to have so many children, but rather to celebrate with one's neighbor at the birth of a child, because God says we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. Surely that implies somehow that it shouldn't bother us, if our neighbors manage to grow more numerous, especially if they are friendly and easy to coexist with.

Yes, we humans are in control of our destiny, barring some sort of comet or asteroid strike along the lines of the one that caused the extermination of the dinosaurs. Either we populate until we wipe out, or we plan ahead. Refusing to decide is also a choice, but not a good one.

We are in control of our destiny? We are more like puny wimps at God's mercy. We don't even seem so sure we can control even our population size. We seem to like sex too much? I read in some book, that the natural affection in our hearts to seek our kind's multiplication and increase, is implanted by God.

You suggest we should "plan ahead?" I think I agree with that. Rather than populating "by accident," I think it is smarter to populate "on purpose." To plan for and enjoy growing more and more populous. As long as censuses aren't used for negative population dissing, I am rather in favor of monitoring the build-up of human populations, if it is done to help human populations keep growing. The main reason for censuses, is mainly just for proper proportional political representation, and to keep the DemocRATS from cheating and trying to gain undue influence by inventing phony population "estimate" numbers. But censuses could also serve to better build infrastructure for expanding human populations, giving demographic data to better determine where to build new water mains, sewer lines, roads, schools, businesses, etc. All nations should be proud to welcome large and growing populations both within and without their borders, not merely for the selfish reasons of more taxpayers or customers, but for the common societal goal to allow all the more people to live. Thus, all the nations should be encouraged to welcome baby boom, and to allow their human populations to balloon. (In the "Left Behind" series, a fictional account of Biblical endtimes, the Anti-Christ scolded the third world nations for letting their populations "balloon." It seems that people who reject God, tend to think too small?)

Refusing to decide is a choice? What kind of choice? A choice to grow more populous, without doing as much to accomodate the growth? While that probably isn't the best choice, it still is far better than anti-life, anti-freedom, anti-human population "control." The best choice would be to welcome growth, and plan for it, and encourage it. And to promote the freedom and tax cuts and reform, that would better help parents be better able to care for larger and more "unplanned" families. We shouldn't merely grow, but plan to grow on purpose, and list the many great reasons to do so. So I partially agree with you there?

Nature doesn't care care how large the population of humans becomes. The planet is utterly indifferent, as is the universe. There is no good reason to suppose that the universe cares any more for the fate of the human species than it does for E. Coli bacteria. The fate of humans is only important to other humans. And we already know that this planet won't last forever. ...

I am glad you agree with me there. Some pessimists speak as if nature is vengeful, and is just waiting and seeking to "strike back" at humans for growing so numerous and "out of balance" with nature. As if nature could think, or was vengeful. But rather, as I see it, nature is indifferent, and could care less how populous humans become. That could be largely why there as so many of us now. Because nature has little ability to restrict our numbers. And no "desire" to do so. If nature could think, shouldn't or wouldn't nature think human population growth to be rather "natural", as aren't we supposedly "part of nature?" I see human population expansion sort of like inflating a balloon. The more air blown in, and the bigger the balloon gets, the less able the balloon becomes to resist the expansion as it stretches thinner and its volume enlarges. And the more people, the more people there are "blowing" (or having sex and having babies). The balloon can't really "pop" because there is nowhere for it to "pop" into, as the atmosphere or ecosystem is constrained by gravity, not some fragile membrane. I think human population "pressure" tends to cancel out, much like how the atmospheric pressure "cancels" out, pushing equally in all directions. Oh, it is there, and makes humans dominant upon the planet, but it is not necessarily a "negative" effect. Nature is not the finely-tuned fragile instrument the evolutionists so often make it out to be, but a highly resilient system that naturally tries to promote abundantly, perhaps even "over populating" all over the place. All the plants and animals have the seed inside, as Genesis says that God created them that way, and try to grow and fill every niche they can, to grow more and more food for humans, or for forests to overgrow until they succumb to the occasional forest fires having filled the forest with too much fuel for the periodic droughts. We have to repeatedly mow our yards and constantly trim our bushes, to keep the jungle from moving back into our yards. We can't even "destroy" habitat, but merely make it more attractive to certain kinds of creatures (i.e. humans) than to others.

And as humans are better fed, and population growth accelerates technology, I think even in the minds of the public or the masses, the population issue has become less and less a matter of worry over survival, but more of a social issue, of just how populous might we like to be? It increasingly appears that adding more and more mouths to feed to the world, does not tend towards hunger after all. Just more food production and more obesity, as the news reports are showing. Considering that most everybody marries and has children, I think most people wouldn't mind for the world to continue to grow more and more populous, for quite some time at least. Certainly most everybody seems rather to be glad to have been born, even if into a world of billions. Most of the time, most other people are really an asset to us anyways. People still depopulate the countryside, to move to the cities. Human populations still seem to prefer greatly to cluster together for various benefits such as access to utilities, stores, and modern comforts, and jobs.

You're always on about more people who would enjoy living. What, do you feel that there is some sort of netherworld where people are eagerly awaiting being born, and are bitterly disappointed by family planning measures that prevent their corporeal existence?

Yes, in a way, I think that is correct. I don't believe in the Mormom "pre-existence" where souls supposedly "wait" to be born. But I do think it far better for a person to exist, than to not exist. Even if "existing" means being born into crowded shantytowns for a while, or young children having to share beds for a while, because there are so many and their family is poor. Those conditions can be improved later, as long as people can be born when the opportunity is available. The larger human populations get, the more people there are, who are enjoying life. That is a compelling argument for large population, to benefit "the many." There is some sort of Utilitarian Principle that advocates doing that which does the most good for the most people. Contrary to the vain hopes of the population pessimists, that does rather seem to imply that large population, is a rather "good" thing to benefit the most people. Also, considering the great value of each and every person, I think it a very good thing to leave the door to life wide open, and welcome as many babies that can naturally come to life, to come. Since most every child would be rather glad to be born, and most all children are very much loved and "wanted," at least by the time they are in fact born, that is a very good reason to not interfere with the sacredness of human life, and to welcome families to grow possibly large, without preventative "family planning" measures to limit family size. I would not want to have been "family planned" out of existence. And likewise for my children. I would like to have "all the children that God gives," not to mention not having to bother with nasty contraceptives. I would much rather have a "bonus" child or two, and have the typically "unplanned" family size of 5 or 6 children, than a "perfect" little "planned" family of 3 or 4 children, as I believe children are a precious blessing from God and love kids.

It is not so much to "plan" to have large families, but rather that "unprotected" sex, doesn't guarantee more children, and yet more children are not some "bad" thing worth any effort to prevent. Thus, for married couples to enjoy natural sex, without contraceptives nor rhythm, is natural and elegant, as is welcoming any children that come to life, to come naturally. To be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, doesn't seem to really mean to have large families, so much as to not use "preventative measures" to limit family size, as for most all of history family size was thought to be rather uncontrollable. Now that we have all of these options and choices, which perversely seem to transform themselves into "obligations" to limit family size, I still find them to be impractical, and to go against God's ways of life and living by faith.

Why do people so conveniently forget that if the human population expands, that also expands the number of people enjoying living, who prefer to keep doing so? Thus, we can't hardly call human population expansion anything "bad," but rather more like great "progress" for humanity.

And what of the millions already on this planet who's lives are lived in misery and squalor? Day after day of grinding poverty, malnourishment, disease, until death seems a welcome alternative? Your solution is to bring even more people onboard? ...

Exactly. If more people are welcome, then it stands to reason that more is likely to be done to accomodate more people, and thus those already here, would also be more accepted and better accomodated. Do you think that the poor don't also love their children? Don't they say of poor people, that children are their only wealth? Should we take away their "only wealth?" You help the poor by helping them or teaching them how to be less poor, not by getting rid of them.

Some socialist utopia for the few, can't possibly work, because all the people it seeks to exclude, would seek to bring it down. Not to mention what an anti-God pipe-dream it is. If we really want to improve things for society, it must be for "the many," as humans are already rather numerous. I notice that population growth does help accelerate technology growth, so why does it not occur to more people, that populations may even be able to "grow" themselves out of poverty? In fact, isn't that a large part of the history of the world? Much of the progress and modern conveniences that we so often take for granted, perhaps may have come about via population growth, or by God's grace to allow our growing populations to survive and thrive. Do you really think that toilets were invented solely to avoid cold trips outside to the outhouse? Could it not also be because the cities were getting so full of millions of people? Could not the modern, clean, electric and gas cooking stoves, be to avoid smoking up big cities with burning wood, dung, and trash for cooking fires? Even perhaps the Internet and virtual community forum discussions, came about because the human population is growing so big? Otherwise, it would be hard to find many people willing to carry on extended discussions on "your subject" of interest. Wouldn't modernization be more in the interests of burgeoning third world populations rather than "birth control," so that they may better enjoy and provide for their children, and so their nations may comfortably hold all the more people? I say we should be more like the third world and have more children ourselves, and that they should modernize to better provide for their growing populations.

I would much rather live on a populous world that is child- and family-friendly, than a cruel world that is more sparsely populated. As even a "crowded" world, could be rather human-friendly and safe. In fact, it seems that adding more people, makes the world more adapted for humans, or more human-friendly.

Well then Squid Vicious and Banshee tell me what exactly what you are doing about this matter... or are you stupid like the rest of us and have forgotten about it??

I don't like the idea of women wearing much make-up, uncomfortable high heels, people feeling like there is any need for "birth control,"

Birth cotrol is natural, so is eugenics. These things are common in nature.

Birth cotrol is natural, so is eugenics. These things are common in nature.

No, "birth control" seeks to hinder the natural progression of life.

Eugenics does also. The idea that only certain elitist groups should breed, is rather quite racist, wouldn't you say? If people are to be free and get along, then surely most everybody must be welcome to breed. Rather than just some people multiplying their numbers, it is so much better for "the many" for us to all grow together.

Human population growth is quite natural and to be expected. Hence the population term, "natural increase."

Large families should be encouraged worldwide, so that all the more people can live and enjoy life.

No, "birth control" seeks to hinder the natural progression of life.

That begs the question: What is the natural progression of life? Is it devoid of the intellectual capacity and higher functions of the brain? Is it the way animals live? When nature introduced the higher functions of the brain, is that unnatural? :confused:

No, "birth control" seeks to hinder the natural progression of life.



That begs the question: What is the natural progression of life? Is it devoid of the intellectual capacity and higher functions of the brain? Is it the way animals live? When nature introduced the higher functions of the brain, is that unnatural? :confused:

Well life also seeks to multiply, and to fill most any niche it can.

As the Earth grows older, of course human populations will grow larger and larger. It is our natural progression, and our God-given destiny.

Malthus, the apparent father of anti-population gloom-and-doom pessism, said that somebody must die to make way for each new birth.

But why? What was the alternative so unthinkable for him? Simply to let birthrates exceed deathrates, and for human populations to accumulate, so that all the more people could enjoy living. That certainly should be preferable, if the earth was nowhere near "full" of people? That is of course what I advocate. Rather than dissing the life of people who I probably don't know, who probably happen to be of a different skin color (racism?), let the nations breed up their numbers. As sanitation and food production have improved and people live longer, and more children grow up to have children themselves, there is no need to compensate by now having fewer children. Rather, the world is a more exciting and modern place, and in many ways a better world in which to bring children into.

So where do we put all the additional people? Simple. In between all the people already living. We can't make the planet "bigger" in physical size, and people want to live and have children, so the obvious alternative to Malthus's barbaric approach, is for human populations to grow denser and denser upon the earth. For there to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far away from many people. Because each person is immensely valuable, and somebody's child, relative or friend, and should be considered much essential to society. But with cities only occupying but 2 or 3% of the land, the world is still nowhere near "full." Let people generally live where they want. Let them spread out or cluster together as they see fit or best benefits them. But the unthinkable alternative to Malthus, is really the better one, for humanity to grow denser, and be welcome to urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed, to "love thy neighbor as thyself" as Jesus commanded, or at least make way for all the people and welcome our fellow humans, as long as they behave as civilized people should.

Do you really think that the higher intelligence functions of the brain, should be only for selfish or materialistic reasons? To merely fill our homes with stuff? "He who dies with the most toys wins," as the saying goes? No, intelligence also serves to better allow human populations to be incrediably large. To allow all the more people to live. To better benefit "the many" and not merely the selfish few.

Because humans can understand the consequences of our actions, is but all the more reason why we should keep multiplying our numbers, as God commanded us to. Because we can adapt and prepare for our population increase, unlike mere animals. Or because God can provide for 12 billion people, as easily as for 6 billion. In fact, I think 6 billion is nearly as large as 12 billion is, resource and management-wise, anyways. The difference wouldn't be all that noticable, except to the people who wouldn't have lived at all, had the population not grown.

Surely intelligent people can recognize some great value for "the many" in allowing all the more people to live and experience life. Its not that the planet needs more population, but rather the people do. People would much want to live anyway, even if in "crowded" conditions or being born into an already large family. Most everybody wants to have been born and to live, and most everybody wants children. More and more people would be glad to be alive. Shouldn't that have been the #1 population concern? That more people would be glad to live? That's a very worthy goal, if at all possible. Rather than foolish utopian ideas to "control" or limit population, wouldn't it do far more good for "the many" to merely accomodate and welcome any population increases that may occur and to urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed, and welcome people to multiply their numbers, and enjoy having their possibly large families?

Since the probability of the existence of god (in the Christian sense) is near zero, your god given destiny is a bad joke.

Your argument basically boils down to "since we can increase our numbers, we should".

I'm sure I'm not alone in finding this line of thought completely insane.

As I've ponted out to you many times, the idea that humans are what this world and universe are here for is ludicrous. To think that we are what everything has been leading up to is beyond egocentric, and unbelievably arrogant.

That trait is a basic human thing. Its practically ingrained into our genetics. We need to feel important. Before the advent of the science of astronomy, the one way we could do that is to say that everything was made just for us.

Its an old way of thinking. Times change and with it, the ideas developed in them.

I aggree, its ludicris to believe that.

Later
T

Since the probability of the existence of god (in the Christian sense) is near zero, your god given destiny is a bad joke.

Your argument basically boils down to "since we can increase our numbers, we should".

That isn't reason enough? If I would list for you 100 reasons, would that be enough to convince you? Perhaps 6 billion+ "reasons?"

I'm sure I'm not alone in finding this line of thought completely insane.

As I've ponted out to you many times, the idea that humans are what this world and universe are here for is ludicrous. To think that we are what everything has been leading up to is beyond egocentric, and unbelievably arrogant.

There you have it. Most of TV programming, is beyond egocentric, and unbelievably arrogant. For most all of TV is full of humans, on most every channel. Usually talking about little or nothing important. Why even the cartoon animals talk and act like people. Most all TV is for entertaining humans. Never any TV shows for dogs or cats to watch. Oh, that's right, dogs and cats don't have wallets nor credit cards and don't make the buying decisions of the household. They don't even pay taxes nor vote.

Well it seems the world and universe is pretty much here for humans. I mean like the rocks and grass don't care about anything.

And if the world wasn't about humans, wouldn't it be more about humans, when the human population grows even larger in the future?

The folly of "animal rights," is that it really says that humans should be treated no better than animals, and is also rebellion against God. Everything can't be #1 priority, thus humans have to come first. After God that is. Even animals can understand a "pecking order." And pet dogs, generally accept their human masters as the (dog)-pack leader. Perhaps they are a little smarter than we often give them credit for. Even our dogs know the world is about humans. So if we think we are so smart, why are we not sure what creature God gave dominion to? It clearly says, right at the beginning of Genesis. Man. And that there are so many of us, is probably just another sign of which creature has dominion.

There is your fatal logical error, using an ancient book of mistranslated myths as a basis to form opinions. No matter how hard you try, you cannot build a sound logical structure on such a faulty foundation.

But you are free to think as you like. As Bertrand Russell said: "If a man maintains that the Moon is made out of green cheese, you don't argue with him; you feel sorry for him."

I thought a lot of the more easily accessed coal has been mined, as many of the current mines are pretty deep or ackward, what there is more of is oil shales and oil sands but current oil consumption is so high 25 million bls/day, if society needed to produce that much oil per day from oil shales, etc., the oil price would need to be much higher like 150 or 200/bl. Relatively there is no problem with other resources, as long as the world has easy cheap energy, one can always produce metals or whatever. Some of the garbage dumps near the large cities have a copper content approaching that of some open pit mines, but it's easier to grind up the rock in a mine than process municipal trash.

its about time something kicked humanity in the teeth.
bring on the starvation...

I thought a lot of the more easily accessed coal has been mined, as many of the current mines are pretty deep or ackward, what there is more of is oil shales and oil sands but current oil consumption is so high 25 million bls/day, if society needed to produce that much oil per day from oil shales, etc., the oil price would need to be much higher like 150 or 200/bl. Relatively there is no problem with other resources, as long as the world has easy cheap energy, one can always produce metals or whatever. Some of the garbage dumps near the large cities have a copper content approaching that of some open pit mines, but it's easier to grind up the rock in a mine than process municipal trash.

Human population appears to exhibit a positive vicious circle, not the negative one the gloom and doomers often whine about. As while population growth produces more future parents, who in turn produce still more babies, it also produces more accomodation of population. Even the larger number of parents better accomodates burgeoning youthful populations. Human population growth contains within it the seeds of its own accomodation, as either God, and/or the innovation and creativity of all those people, make way for more and more humans. That's a reason why we must go forward, and I believe that nations can even "grow" their way out of poverty, expecially with good leadership, because all those people need something to do, and most jobs in one way or another, automatically, without even much thinking about it, help in some way to support large populations of people, since jobs usually produce things people want or need. And it stands to reason that since God commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, that God must have therefore designed the earth to eventually become rather populous by the Biblical endtimes. That would explain why nature just can't seem to resist our population growth or appears not to "care" how populated people get.

So on the specific issue of oil supplies, population growth, rather than hastening the day when we supposedly "run out," population growth would more likely hasten the day when oil becomes rather obsolete, after somebody discovers something far better, to fuel our futuristic flying cars, like from the Jetsons cartoon.

Is the Jetson's future "far fetched?" Not entirely. The first season is out on DVD now, and I note in the commentaries on DVD #1, that the lady actor voice claims we already have 2 of their inventions. Their "food irackicycle...," or whatever they called it, is the microwave oven. And we have those "slidewalks" in airports now. Neither were available when the cartoon was made.

And I have wondered why it is so normal for people to live in highrises in the Jetsons? Perhaps because the population has grown so enormous that they have to stack people into the sky? Or do they just like highrises with a view? I don't recall that the cartoon ever says. Perhaps the people of the future, just aren't bothered by the large size of their population, and don't give it much thought. "It's just the way it is," they might say if asked? I'm not sure when the Jetsons cartoon was made, but it wasn't long ago, that family size was often not "planned," or thought to be "uncontrollable." I also notice that in the Jetson's world, other planets are either colonized, or at least suitable for vacation sites. And they do see to have a lot of "traffic" in the sky lanes. Which never seemed to make much sense, except maybe they have to fly in their "orbit" the commentator said, like airplanes have to fly in their approved airspace. Anyhow, I think a huge human population would be less trouble than ever, in a futuristic Jetsons world. It would be easily accomodated with all that technology.

It would be wrong to consider technology as some idol, or magical cure-all for society's ills. But it is wise to consider that there are many alternatives in dealing with the population concern, other than actually limiting human numbers. Humans are social creatures, and can both survive and thrive, even at high population densities. So there is no excuse for population "control." Human numbers simply do not need to be "controlled." More and more people would be glad to be alive, so humans should be proud still for their numbers to expand, to benefit "the many."

Very nice post Pronatalist. The otherday, I watched PBS Charlie Rose Show with MUHAMMAD YUNUS, Founder of The Grameen Bank, Author, "Banker to the Poor:
Micro-lending and the Battle Against World Poverty"

There is a lot to learn about poor, resource management etc.

The sky is the limit to human endeavours....

Reply to kmguru:

The sky is the limit to human endeavours?

Well not quite I think. We are still subject to what God allows.

But I believe it folly, to think we either can, or should, worry about how to limit our population size. It seems to me that far more people benefit, from human population size being large and growing. If it can be larger, so much the better. If parents would be willing to have more children, then all the more people can enjoy life.

If more people were more eager to have big families, then society would have to adapt to being more populous. And more children would make the world more child-friendly and family-friendly, which is better for everybody, whether or not they have many children.

The planet seems to have no "maximum capacity" sign, but it will be, what God allows. We should be grateful that so many of us get to live and experience life.

There are plenty of problems to worry about, without making up unprovable speculations, such as "over population" of humans. Who's to say how many people there should, or could be, but God?

The planet seems to have no "maximum capacity" sign, but it will be, what God allows... Who's to say how many people there should, or could be, but God?

I know the Bible says to "be fruitful and multiply, replenish the Earth and subdue it..." Yet surely, our own common sense and logic must tell there comes a point when we have already been sufficiently fruitful?

Surely, no rational faith dictates that God wishes us to multiply until we suffer overcrowding, mass starvation and hysteria? :( And "subduing" the Earth cannot actually mean that we have to populate every scrap of land, destroying all the Earth's wilderness and most of its biodiversity. God's other creatures must have the right to live as well, especially from a theological viewpoint. ;)

Well not quite I think. We are still subject to what God allows.

As long as a man does not try to represent God and subject us to his (not His) thinking.

Oh! as to fruitful and multiply, as long as humans dont breed like rabbits with a monkey brain....I am all for it. Can I have 5 wives please...it will be faster.....:D

The point is we have to think with the brain and not with the penis! OK....

I am all for the future of Clark's 3001 where people live in space and food production on Earth....may be we should move everybody to moon as residential area and leave Earth for food production.

The planet seems to have no "maximum capacity" sign, but it will be, what God allows. We should be grateful that so many of us get to live and experience life.


Hi there... this is my first ever post =) so do forgive me if i contravene against any of the unspoken protocols of this forum

I felt compelled to reply to your one of your previous posts. With reference to your statement (and deep-seated belief) that its good that "so many of us get to live and experience life". Hmmm... is that really true?

I quote "so many".

The question is: how many people on this planet actually enjoying and experiencing life as depicted? Does that make up the majority of the population?

I'd prefer not to resort to using statistics or examples, but i'm sure that you're already well-aware of the glaring and horrific truth about the living conditions of our fellow homo saipiens halfway across the world. Poverty, extreme hunger, untreated diseases. Just to name a few off the long long list.

They are suffering. And it's definitely not the kind of experience that any living being should be put through. Would it be good that even more babies are brought into our world only to undergo such ordeals? And then to consequently die suffering?

Is that really the will of God?

Is that really the will of God?
No one knows. So better keep God out of any discussion. Those who say "It is God will", or "it is God's work", or "this is the word of God", are trying to con you.

It has nothing to do with your religious beliefs. No one has ever seen or heard God, and those who say they did, well... most of them are committed in nut houses. Some others claim they rule kingdoms because a Divine Right, and have the Divine Right given to them directly from God. This kind of fraud is as old as the world. It is as old as superstition.

Personally, I belive in God, but I rather not mix Him in any discussion.

Thanks Edufer: if the Will of God becomes the principle subject of this thread, it should be moved to the Religion forum. Colouring one's science with religion is a dangerous thing, since you will soon be rejecting empirical evidence.

I just rated this thread terrible. It was supposed to be about the Earths resource sustainability. Not religous crap about the population. I vote this thread be closed!

It was supposed to be about the Earths resource sustainability. Not religous crap about the population.

Point taken. There shouldn't have been any relation whatsoever to religion.

Well, but isn't the issue of resource consumption - and sustainability - directly pegged to our global population growth patterns?

Granted, our planet would run dry on fossil fuels by around 2050. And new alternative energy sources have been mostly identified. Much as we like to toy with all these exciting new technologies and scientific concepts in our heads, we really should take time to consider the demand aspect for earthly resources in future: the many many more human beings of Earth 2050.

I'd say the core essence of sustainability stems from curbing the demand. Less mouths created, less mouths to be fed.

Then perhaps we will learn to design a matter replicator a la Star Trek? There is no physical law that would prevent us in doing so....By 2050, we should have computers that are powerful enough to think and design innovative solutions to our pathetic problems....


I think Km has made an important point here.How come you guys are able to predict so readily.Did you actually take into account what variations might occur? may be tommorow we invent a Hydrogen Pill which energizes our body to the full! may be tommorrow we stop eating what we eat today,then AP of food wont matter.
The alternative Path of Predictions or Curve Fitted with predictor values taken may change completely then.Did you guys think of any such scenario?

Sun,is about to extinguish in so...so... years,what then? we"ll find some other way then...

bye!

the_Greenvision said: “Granted, our planet would run dry on fossil fuels by around 2050.” I am sorry to disappoint you, but it is not granted at all – at least not by credible scientists. Canada has oil sand fields easily converted into oil that can provide present oil demands for more than 500 years.

The “many, many more human beings of Earth 2050” are going to be around 9500 billion, as population increase is leveling (according to United Nation’s studies and projections). Then we must consider that back in the 40s Earth had about 4,5 billion and a kind of agri-technologies that barely supplied food for all people in the world. Also, we must consider that now we are about 6.5 billion and technologies have developed in such a way that food crops have tripled – using half the land used in the 40s.

This trend, in diminishing population growth and increasing crop production, means we shouldn’t worry too much about “vanishing resources”. Resources are only resources when a given technology makes something never heard before a resource. When we look back in history, we can see that wood was a widely used resource, used for making fire for cooking and heating, house building, furniture, boats, wagons, and many other uses. Now wood is used mainly for manufacturing paper or expensive furniture, and is being replaced by plastics in most uses.

For centuries, oil was a fowl produce surfacing and ruining crop fields, until in the 1850s it was converted into a “resource” because the internal combustion engine demanded it. Afterwards, oil was used as a source of fuel for fueling cars, electrical generators in facilities, planes, boats, any kind of vehicles, etc. Until around the 40s, uranium had no value at all, but came to replace oil a source of energy for producing electricity. The uranium supply around the world, especially in Canada, Australia, Argentina, etc, is so vast (and cheap) that mankind will have unlimited amounts of energy at its disposal, even if fusion energy is not developed the way everybody hopes.

Sand (or silica) was (and still is) considered useful just for making mortar for building houses. Now you find it inside any electronic device, your computers, radios, TV, phones, you name it. Even CO2 is a resource, as it is collected from nay limestone and cement kilns and used for making “dry ice”, the white piece of ice found in ice cream containers that do not melt, but vaporize.

How many “not-yet-resources” are there waiting in Earth’s crust for a new technology to demand them and give mankind a new “resource”? And we have only scratched Earth's surface! And what will happen when we venture into oceans's floors?

As you see, I am the kind of guy who sees the glass half-full. It makes me live happier, and all people around me too… Perhaps that’s the result from having read during my youth Voltaire’s “Candide”, whose hero underwent terrible experiences during his life (around the 1500s), but his motto was “Tout est pour mieux”, meaning, “Everything is for the better”. Candide was, of course, an optimist. I am one too. And I am firmly convinced that optimists are going, someday, to overtake and rule the world. Because optimism is HOPE, is what makes us keep going and fighting against adversity and problems. Without hope there is no use in keep living.

Sorry if this is against your beliefs, the_Greenvision, but I find “greens” utterly pessimistic and negative. They don’t even like to hear about the good news about the environment, and how it is improving in many places in the world. But this is another entirely different issue.

And Eduardo, tro get all that food crops, you need carbon to build it. Right, carbon as in carbon dioxide ;)

That's true, Andre. CO2 is plant food - and ours too by extension.

I'd say the core essence of sustainability stems from curbing the demand. Less mouths created, less mouths to be fed.
Do I hear Malthus speaking from his grave? The Club of Rome, a Malthusian organization, published its “Limits to Growth” book and manifesto back in the 60s, encouraging governments around the world to curb population growth (genocide) by any possible means, including the ban of DDT, an insecticide that had almost eradicated malaria in the tropics. Of course this caused that some countries doubled their population in 20 years – and this ecological sin was something Malthusians wouldn’t let go without punishment. DDT was banned and malaria death toll returned to its original level of 3 million persons a year – until today.

As for Malthus theory on population, I would suggest you to read Malthus Essay on Population, available in http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

Quoting some interesting views expressed by Malthus (bolds are mine):

<dir>“Assuming then my postulata as granted, I say, that the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.
Population, when unchecked, increases in a geometrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in an arithmetical ratio. A slight acquaintance with numbers will show the immensity of the first power in comparison of the second.” … “By that law of our nature which makes food necessary to the life of man, the effects of these two unequal powers must be kept equal.” …</dir>This is the basis of Malthusian (flawed) Theory.<dir>“Consequently, if the premises are just, the argument is conclusive against the perfectibility of the mass of mankind.”</dir>According to Malthus mankind is a beast worth of being wiped from the Earth’s face. Sound familiar? <dir>“This ratio of increase, though short of the utmost power of population, yet as the result of actual experience, we will take as our rule, and say, that population, when unchecked, goes on doubling itself every twenty-five years or increases in a geometrical ratio.”

“The population of the Island [Great Britain] is computed to be about seven millions, and we will suppose the present produce equal to the support of such a number. In the first twenty-five years the population would be fourteen millions, [by 1823] and the food being also doubled, the means of subsistence would be equal to this increase. In the next twenty-five years [1848] the population would be twenty-eight millions, and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of twenty-one millions. In the next period, [1873 ] the population would be fifty-six millions, and the means of subsistence just sufficient for half that number. And at the conclusion of the first century [1898] the population would be one hundred and twelve millions and the means of subsistence only equal to the support of thirty-five millions, which would leave a population of seventy-seven millions totally unprovided for.”</dir>As you all can see, Malthus was wrong in all accounts. See what some statistics say in: http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/population.html
<dir>“The population of the UK at mid-2001 was 58.8 million (see Table below). Official projections, based on 2000 population estimates, suggest that the population will reach more than 65 million in 2051.”</dir>According to Malthus’ theory, England’s population should double in 25 years, and quadruple after 50 years. This means that by 2025, according to Malthus, England should have 117.6 millions and by 2050, 235.2 millions of very hungry people. Malthus predicts a 200% increase for 2050.

Present official projections, based on more realistic assumptions and experiences, say England’s population in 2050 will be around 65 million well fed people. A mere 2% increase.

But, believe it or not, (you better believe it!) Malthus theory is the Sacred Gospel for ALL environmentalist ONGs and institutions, among them the Club of Rome, the WWF and Gr$$npeace, and public policies are forced upon the people based in this absurdity!. Paul Ehrlich, an ardent follower of Malthus theory, received many awards for his flawed theories on Earth’s resource depletion and population increase predictions. What is really outrageous is that Ehrlich keeps receiving attentions, grants, money and honors after more than 40 years of being proven wrong – dead wrong! – by real world events.

The funny thing of Malthus’ theory is that Malthus never checked it against the real world! Had it made the necessary calculations, he would have seen that according to his own theory, the British population would have started with TWO persons – just in 1212 AD! And this would have shown that all historians had been lying when telling stories about the Romans colonizing the British Islands.

So “the core essence of sustainability stems from curbing the demand. Less mouths created, less mouths to be fed” is as flawed and unrealistic as anyone can imagine.

The planet seems to have no "maximum capacity" sign, but it will be, what God allows... Who's to say how many people there should, or could be, but God?

I know the Bible says to "be fruitful and multiply, replenish the Earth and subdue it..." Yet surely, our own common sense and logic must tell there comes a point when we have already been sufficiently fruitful?

Surely, no rational faith dictates that God wishes us to multiply until we suffer overcrowding, mass starvation and hysteria? :( And "subduing" the Earth cannot actually mean that we have to populate every scrap of land, destroying all the Earth's wilderness and most of its biodiversity. God's other creatures must have the right to live as well, especially from a theological viewpoint. ;)

And why do you suggest that we may have already been sufficiently fruitful? We should now just get fat and lazy and turn into couch potatoes?

The main reason to multiply, would seem to be so that more people could then live. Overcrowding? Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. There is room for lots more people. People would still want to be born and live, even if their surroundings were "overcrowded." Better to be "overcrowded" than to not exist at all. If we really cared about other people besides ourselves like we should, why not populate every place imaginable, if needed to welcome everybody? Why not stack people in highrises to make room for more people, if we really care much about people? Who wants to eliminate God's other creatures, other than a few undesirables like mosquitos? But people have to come first. People are God's Creation masterpiece. And why waste relatively cheap matter or food that could be "invested" into being converted into people of immense value? Not only should people have plenty to eat, but be welcome to turn food into all the more babies.

I would love to see humanity not only fill the Earth, but colonize the moon, Mars, and wherever else we can. But I don't think we will, nor will there ever be so many people. But humans would do well, to avoid the pitfalls of needless racism or eugenics, and welcome everybody to have "all the children that God gives." It is simply not meant for humans to limit their numbers. Humans aren't smart enough to "play god." It is up to God to decide how much he would multiply us. With so many of us in the world now, the question isn't how to limit our numbers, but how to accomodate them, and better coexist with our neighbors. And I see no conclusive evidence to suggest that humans would be any better off, if our numbers were fewer. Rather, most of us wouldn't have been born. And that would be bad. World population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born, I heard somewhere.

... How many “not-yet-resources” are there waiting in Earth’s crust for a new technology to demand them and give mankind a new “resource”? And we have only scratched Earth's surface! And what will happen when we venture into oceans's floors?

As you see, I am the kind of guy who sees the glass half-full. It makes me live happier, and all people around me too… Perhaps that’s the result from having read during my youth Voltaire’s “Candide”, whose hero underwent terrible experiences during his life (around the 1500s), but his motto was “Tout est pour mieux”, meaning, “Everything is for the better”. Candide was, of course, an optimist. I am one too. And I am firmly convinced that optimists are going, someday, to overtake and rule the world. Because optimism is HOPE, is what makes us keep going and fighting against adversity and problems. Without hope there is no use in keep living.

Sorry if this is against your beliefs, the_Greenvision, but I find “greens” utterly pessimistic and negative. They don’t even like to hear about the good news about the environment, and how it is improving in many places in the world. But this is another entirely different issue.

Nice post.

Yeah, why do the population pessimists, insist that everybody should share their unjustified pessimism?

Why can't we be optimistic, that at some time in the future, world population could be higher than expected, while prosperity is also higher than expected?

Why all the Chicken Little ranting about the "sky is falling?" According to the Malthusians, we should have all starved by now. And yet I detect my belly is full? And obesity is a growing problem throughout the world. A recent news report I heard, said that even the dogs in China are getting obese. So even the evidence suggests that the world could easily deal with still more mouths to feed. It's great to bring precious new human lives into the world. That there are so many people now, is largely irrelevant to all the great reasons which are still just as applicable, to have children. The world could hold far more people, if need be. "Over population" is way overrated.

Biological waste to oil. This was mentioned in another thread about oil already. The latest issue of Discover has an update on it. <a href="http://www.changingworldtech.com/home.html">Changing World Technology</a> has a process of converting biological waste products into high grade oil. The concept has already been proven to work in a smal scale setting. A plant in Philadelphia converted 7 tons of waste a day into oil. A new plant is being constructed which will handle 200 tons a day, producing 500 barrels of oil a day. I don't believe that the oil is good enough for regular gasoline, but it does meet specifications for diesel fuel. This has the added benefit of giving us something to do with dead animals and by products than to feed it to the animals. Mad cow disease is a name on everyone's lips these days. There have been no tests on the effects of this process on prions, but those involved are certain that the high temperatures and pressures involved should break them down no problem. Oil for the masses. We may soon be free from the deadly grip of big oil.

Nazi Germany didn't have plenty oil during the war. That's why they got their oil from Ploesti, Romania, in the Black Sea coast. The Allies bombed the refineries during a night raid. However Germans still kept producing synthetic fuel for their fighter planes (they produced about 4000-5000 every month!) and tanks, trucks, cars, and the whole economy from coal. The world has vast coal resources and using the German technology oil can be produced to satisfy present demands. Did somebody remember to store the German formula in a safe place before the Russian got into Berlin?

The myth says the greedy oil companies have it but will never release it. Perhaps they will do it when oil runs out - but when will oil run out?

As you see, I am the kind of guy who sees the glass half-full. It makes me live happier, and all people around me too… Perhaps that’s the result from having read during my youth Voltaire’s “Candide”, whose hero underwent terrible experiences during his life (around the 1500s), but his motto was “Tout est pour mieux”, meaning, “Everything is for the better”. Candide was, of course, an optimist. I am one too. And I am firmly convinced that optimists are going, someday, to overtake and rule the world. Because optimism is HOPE, is what makes us keep going and fighting against adversity and problems. Without hope there is no use in keep living.

Sorry if this is against your beliefs, the_Greenvision, but I find “greens” utterly pessimistic and negative. They don’t even like to hear about the good news about the environment, and how it is improving in many places in the world. But this is another entirely different issue.

Utterly pessimistic and negative? That's far too extreme, I fear.

I do agree with you that optimism embodies hope, and that is what fortifies the human spirit against all odds and adversities. And problems.

Discovering treasure troves of natural resources, finding new uses for existing resources, or exciting new technologies that’d contribute to the betterment of our kind, there are so many reasons for us to look forward to, and be optimistic about our future. Unfortunately, there is a very thin line between optimism and situational arrogance. In our instinctive desire to actualise plans into reality, we sometimes tend to overlook the distant ramifications of our actions. So many examples. Take the classic CFC as a example. There were many industries that were optimistic about this new