Considering the world population is 6 billion people and dramaticly getting larger.........

How many people can the earth tolerate and for how long?

Also for fun lets assume the world could tolerate 500,000,000 people comfortably and exist in balance with nature......

killing off 90% of the worlds population to secure the future of the human race and the planet earth........

what would you consider the "right" thing to do?

Well, at the rate that we are reproducing, in 1,000 generations from now there should be 1 human every sq. meter on the earth's land. YAY!!

Well, at the rate that we are reproducing, in 1,000 generations from now there should be 1 human every sq. meter on the earth's land. YAY!!

We will never get to that point.

Considering the world population is 6 billion people and dramaticly getting larger.........

How many people can the earth tolerate and for how long?

Also for fun lets assume the world could tolerate 500,000,000 people comfortably and exist in balance with nature......

killing off 90% of the worlds population to secure the future of the human race and the planet earth........

what would you consider the "right" thing to do?

Killing off people to secure the future of the human race and/or nature is unethical (understatement).
But if you think about it, people will eventually kill each other off. This will probably happen at some point after nature has been destroyed beyond restoration and recognition.
The question is, what is more unethical. Killing off people now and safe the planet (for a while at least) or letting people kill of each other at which point the planet will be utterly destroyed.
I don't know.. humans suck..
Maybe NASA can help ?

Considering the world population is 6 billion people and dramaticly getting larger.........

what would you consider the "right" thing to do?


Educating people on birth control techniques and sterilization are but 2 ways

to help reduce human infestation.

Considering the world population is 6 billion people and dramaticly getting larger.........

How many people can the earth tolerate and for how long?

Also for fun lets assume the world could tolerate 500,000,000 people comfortably and exist in balance with nature......

killing off 90% of the worlds population to secure the future of the human race and the planet earth........

what would you consider the "right" thing to do?

And people are worried about the decrease of the population due to gay people. Seems to me that that is exactly what this planet needs.

This indeed is a very tough question but a very legit one at that.
Think global warming is a big issue? Global warming is only a side effect of the big issue which is the population of the planet and the consumption/destruction of its resources.

My curiousity questions if this issue has crossed the desks of washington and other governments ie: (China, India)....Im almost positive it has.....in which case we should all greatly be concerned with how they answered the OP question I posed......

There is still a food surplus, so yes we will keep multiplying. Like an other animal.

Killing off people to secure the future of the human race and/or nature is unethical (understatement).
But if you think about it, people will eventually kill each other off. This will probably happen at some point after nature has been destroyed beyond restoration and recognition.
The question is, what is more unethical. Killing off people now and safe the planet (for a while at least) or letting people kill of each other at which point the planet will be utterly destroyed.
I don't know.. humans suck..
Maybe NASA can help ?

That's how I feel.

I think the ethical thing to do is to stop reproducing. One child per two people. No one dies intentionally or unintentionally. People will never accept it worldwide though. I guess we will leave it to economics.

That's how I feel.

I think the ethical thing to do is to stop reproducing. One child per two people. No one dies intentionally or unintentionally. People will never accept it worldwide though. I guess we will leave it to economics.

Or atleat try too.

You are right. People, or governments for that matter, will never accept it.

That's how I feel.

I think the ethical thing to do is to stop reproducing. One child per two people. No one dies intentionally or unintentionally. People will never accept it worldwide though. I guess we will leave it to economics.


how would you enforce "reproduction caps"? Especially in countries where they can barely enfore simple laws.

So much of our effort is to preserve human life already on the planet.......laws, medecine, science......etc all to preserve and protect and even lengthen the life span of humans......considering this normality of human nature........

can population decrease quick enough naturaly so as not to destroy the planet and thus everything on it and bring nature back into balance??

There is still a food surplus, so yes we will keep multiplying. Like an other animal.

for now......maybe.....but with global warming worsening and the weather being overdramatic in almost every fashion and no improvement any time soon.......wonder how long before that food surplus turns into a drought......dont forget water as well.

Perhaps the West should lead by example and put measures in place to ensure that we don't reach a point where the human population is out of control?
Seems to me like a problem that we hope our great grandchildren will solve.

Perhaps the West should lead by example and put measures in place to ensure that we don't reach a point where the human population is out of control?
Seems to me like a problem that we hope our great grandchildren will solve.

I dont think this is an issue that can be solved ethicly and practicly.......

Laws, etc, wont sway a persons natural desire to reproduce......I would bet the majority of people would fight those laws or just flat out ignore them. It would be hard to get the public at large to accept such laws in the first place.

The only practical way to reduce the worlds population seems to be an unethical one, ie: mass sterilization, genocide, disease, etc.......that is what makes my skin crawl about the subject........

Killing off people to secure the future of the human race and/or nature is unethical (understatement).
But if you think about it, people will eventually kill each other off. This will probably happen at some point after nature has been destroyed beyond restoration and recognition.
The question is, what is more unethical. Killing off people now and safe the planet (for a while at least) or letting people kill of each other at which point the planet will be utterly destroyed.
I don't know.. humans suck..
Maybe NASA can help ?

Save the planet. I usually laugh when I hear people say that. We could detonate all of our nuclear bombs at once and the planet would be just fine. Watch this George Carlin video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=related).

I believe that overpopulation is a serious problem, but there are many people that believe it is only a problem in some large cities around the world, and there is more than enough space and resources on this planet for 6.6 billion people. These people are people are not thinking about the fact that there are some places where human beings should not be living. They are also not thinking about the increased competition for the limited number of resources on this planet. The increased competition can only lead to more negative things like poverty, starvation, and wars.

I would support the idea of governments limiting the number of children that a woman can have. Bringing a child into this world should be a privilege, not a right. I also believe that people should be required to possess a license to be a parent. We require people to carry licenses to drive vehicles. I don’t see why people shouldn’t have to posses a license to be a child’s guardian. Being a parent is probably the most difficult job in the world. It is definitely more difficult than driving a motor vehicle. Anyone that wanted to obtain a license should have to pass a test that would measure their intelligence. They should also have to prove that they can afford all of things that a child will need. (Food, clothing, shelter, medical care)

I don’t know what this world is going to look like 100 years from now, but I believe that there is a high probability that a reign of humanity will come to an end in the near future unless we are willing to change the way we think and live. Overpopulation may be a problem now, but I can image several scenarios where the human population could be reduced by 50% – 100% by the year 2100. The population reduction could occur because of nuclear and biological weapons. It could occur because of climate change. And then there is the worst case scenario that would involve a large asteroid hitting the earth.

I truly believe that technologies like genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology is the only thing that can save our species. We have to create a new race of humans that will guide us into the future. Human beings are emotional self-destructive creatures. We have to evolve into a species that is guided by logic and probability. It is my hope that genetic engineering and artificial intelligence will give rise to a new race of enhanced humans some time during this century. This new race should eventually become the new ruling class. These people would not be encumbered by genetic flaws that make life more difficult that it has to be for all of us.

Considering the world population is 6 billion people and dramaticly getting larger.........

How many people can the earth tolerate and for how long?

Also for fun lets assume the world could tolerate 500,000,000 people comfortably and exist in balance with nature......

killing off 90% of the worlds population to secure the future of the human race and the planet earth........

what would you consider the "right" thing to do?
depends on what artificial standard of mod con life we insist be standardized on the globe

Seems to be a major conflict of interest concerning this issue.

The origional idea behind the "free world" was freedom over security.......it seems that today it has reversed itself to security over freedom.

Considering that shift in interest I would think depopulation in name of security of future of human beings and earth.....would be the winning idea.

As far as there being enough resources for 6+ billion people on the planet......that may be true for now. But for how long? Surely with less people the resources will last much longer........

Not to mention Global Warming has a dominoe effect on some of the planets most vital resources.....like fresh water.....and grown foods. With the destruction of the rain forest which is a major resource for the air we breathe......it will only worsen the effects of the current CO2 problem........

Save the planet. I usually laugh when I hear people say that. We could detonate all of our nuclear bombs at once and the planet would be just fine. Watch this George Carlin video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw&feature=related).


Huh!? How naive... :bugeye:
Any road (lol), I never meant nukes, humankind will destroy nature on this planet eventually by overpopulation. Forests will be cut down to build more houses, polution will increase, overfishing etc. etc.
To say everything will be alright is just naive and maybe a bit ignorant..

population control through regulated reproduction is only a temporary solution. you could never balance out births vs deaths to obtain any sort of equilibrium. life usually attends to itself so to speak. imagine, as someone said, that there IS 1 human per 1 square meter...life could not sustain itself in such an environment. There would be disease..pestilence..starvation..murder..etc. That is your population control.

The only reasonable solution is to look off planet for the answer. I think we will be capable of making something like that happen long before population really becomes a problem.

population control through regulated reproduction is only a temporary solution. you could never balance out births vs deaths to obtain any sort of equilibrium. life usually attends to itself so to speak. imagine, as someone said, that there IS 1 human per 1 square meter...life could not sustain itself in such an environment. There would be disease..pestilence..starvation..murder..etc. That is your population control.

The only reasonable solution is to look off planet for the answer. I think we will be capable of making something like that happen long before population really becomes a problem.

highly doubtfull.......as population really is a problem right now, and you can see proof through global warming and the amazon rain forest.

the rain forest will have been completely destroyed long before man will ever find a way to tera-form a planet and commute masses to live there. Even if tera-forming a planet were possible today it will still take too long for that planet to reach a livable enviornment.

highly doubtfull.......as population really is a problem right now, and you can see proof through global warming and the amazon rain forest.

the rain forest will have been completely destroyed long before man will ever find a way to tera-form a planet and commute masses to live there. Even if tera-forming a planet were possible today it will still take too long for that planet to reach a livable enviornment.

This might be true if terraforming a planet was the only reasonable alternative to off planet living...but as we both know I think...it isnt. for quite sometime, nasa has already been considering permanent stations on the moon..and we arent terraforming that.

In my opinion, population currently looks like a problem because of humans desire to form communities....to be near one another. If we continue to help under-developed contries to improve their standard of living and reform some of our own standards of living, I think those areas of concentration could dilute.

Seems to be a major conflict of interest concerning this issue.

The origional idea behind the "free world" was freedom over security.......it seems that today it has reversed itself to security over freedom.

Considering that shift in interest I would think depopulation in name of security of future of human beings and earth.....would be the winning idea.

As far as there being enough resources for 6+ billion people on the planet......that may be true for now. But for how long? Surely with less people the resources will last much longer........

Not to mention Global Warming has a dominoe effect on some of the planets most vital resources.....like fresh water.....and grown foods. With the destruction of the rain forest which is a major resource for the air we breathe......it will only worsen the effects of the current CO2 problem........

exactly who's "freedom" would be secured?

exactly who's "freedom" would be secured?

good question..........ruling elite?

good question..........ruling elite?
-ulp

suddenly I feel a strong need to secure my freedom
:(

-ulp

suddenly I feel a strong need to secure my freedom
:(


and how would you do that? Hopefully you wouldnt put your security of freedom in the hands of the ruling elite....err i mean government.....:eek:

The only reasonable solution is to look off planet for the answer. I think we will be capable of making something like that happen long before population really becomes a problem.By "looking off planet for the answer"... I'm assuming you mean populating other planets?
If not - and all we do is drag resources to Earth - we exacerbate the problem (more people on Earth than Earth has resources for etc).

However, the idea that we can shift an ever growing population off-world is even more ludicrous - and just pure fiction.

Even to maintain a 6 billion population - growing at 1% a year - we would need to off-load 60,000,000 people each year.

That's roughly 200 per second finding some means of leaving the planet.
Roughly one shuttle per second.


Simply put, overpopulation will NEVER be resolved through moving people off-planet - unless "overpopulation" is in the order of 1,000s of people a year or so.

And people are worried about the decrease of the population due to gay people. Seems to me that that is exactly what this planet needs.

A huge population needs feeding. Since gays are a net burden on resources how can they be needed?

By "looking off planet for the answer"... I'm assuming you mean populating other planets?
If not - and all we do is drag resources to Earth - we exacerbate the problem (more people on Earth than Earth has resources for etc).

However, the idea that we can shift an ever growing population off-world is even more ludicrous - and just pure fiction.

Even to maintain a 6 billion population - growing at 1% a year - we would need to off-load 60,000,000 people each year.

That's roughly 200 per second finding some means of leaving the planet.
Roughly one shuttle per second.


Simply put, overpopulation will NEVER be resolved through moving people off-planet - unless "overpopulation" is in the order of 1,000s of people a year or so.

wouldnt that be 2 a second?

wouldnt that be 2 a second?
You are quite right - I must have transposed the decimal somewhat. (/shame-on-me!)

Anyhoo - the point still stands - it is an unrealistic idea. :p

I'm sure mama nature will cook up a nice little parasite.....

You are quite right - I must have transposed the decimal somewhat. (/shame-on-me!)

Anyhoo - the point still stands - it is an unrealistic idea. :p

Personally, I dont agree. I agree that it may be unrealistic by today's terms of what space travel is, who runs it, how much it costs...etc. But, I think by the time population REALLY becomes a problem we will either hopefully be far more advanced by then and spacetravel will be as trivial as getting on a subway to get to work.

The reality of it is that comet will probably hit us in 2012 and we wont have to worry about the population for another 500 years...

If killing off a few 100 000 will save millions, I'm all for it. Just make sure that It's the murderers.. Surely there are over 100 000 murderers around the world.

Otherwise, If its like a lottery, No thanks.

I'm sure mama nature will cook up a nice little parasite.....

Yes indeed!
And if it's not a parasite, mama nature will do it some other way but we really are in for one hell of a slapping down.

Lift your skirts the floods are coming!

How are you so sure a solution to overpopulation exists? In a happy-go-lucky world every problem has a solution; however, in the world that Kurt Godel once walked, it's just not so. For example, even if an equilibrium of human:resources exists and a balance is reached, human nature itself could disrupt it through greed. I don't even want to touch the assumptions made in space-age living being a plausible success. So much credit is given to the logic of human society, when in reality, human kind is irrational and cursed with emotion-driven characteristics.

Title: More and more people would be glad to live, so rather than reducing birthrates, explore how to populate denser and more efficiently. Duh?

What about considering more, the greater good of the many, in welcoming people to enlarge their numbers?

When I add up all the compelling reasons for people to have as many children as they do, and humanity's powerful reproductive urges, it all adds up into a global goal and natural desire, to enlarge the entire human race, for the greater good of the many.

The natural remedy for reproductive urges, is pairing up and marriage, and of course, pregnancy. The natural remedy for pregnancy, is childbirth. And to welcome the natural flow of human life to increasingly fill the planet, respects nature and nature's creator God. The natural increase of humans is quite natural and to be expected.

Perhaps the West should lead by example and put measures in place to ensure that we don't reach a point where the human population is out of control?
Seems to me like a problem that we hope our great grandchildren will solve.

We should set a good example for a growing world of people, by multiplying ourselves, and showing the world how it is best done.

Why not let human population growth get "out of control" throughout the world? It's what people apparently want, and all the more people who can then experience life. What control freaks would you trust to "control" us all, in such personal and intimate of ways?

There's some Utilitarian Principle thing that suggest that often the best thing to do, is that which most benefit the most people. Even some website remarked on the population implications, that it suggests population growth so that more people may be around to benefit from whatever.

Each and every human life is sacred, and God has some purpose for each person, so the flow of human life should be unhindered. It better shows children how much they are "wanted," when their parents explain to them why their family doesn't practice any means of "birth control."

Such profound matters as population size, can only be morally decided by "a higher power." For pets, their "higher power" is their adopting masters, we humans, so we are free to get our pets "fixed," because they don't have "human rights" anyway. But to deny the right to procreate, to humans, is but one small step from denying the right to live. Our "higher power" is God, who made the matter clear with his commandment to people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. So what part of "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," do we not understand? Maybe the part about God designing what populates the planet, to be extremely pleasurable, a nagging reminder of most people's duties to pair up, marry, and of course, reproduce. Maybe the part about how each successive generation is naturally supposed to grow larger and more populous, than the previous? Or do we think that it was merely a suggesting, and not an instinct designed into our genes? Well it's a rhetorical question. Obedience would seem to imply shunning unnatural "birth control" and welcoming babies to happen as they happen.

I don't think that China's 1-child policy was even their idea. Commie Chairman Mao, claimed that a large and growing population would make China strong. Maybe, maybe not. But at least it would allow all the more fellow human beings, to enjoy life. I think it came from western power-monger globalists leaning on China to get its huge soaring human population more "under control" for fear of "as goes China, so goes the world." If the world's most populous country can't reign in its burgeoning human numbers, what does that do to the entire planet? And it further encourages people in other countries to also breed prolifically, making highly populous and dense countries, seem all the more, the norm. But I already advocate a more densely and efficiently populated planet, for the greater good of the many, so I encourage large families worldwide, so that far more people may enjoy life. Chinese peasants or whoever, should be encouraged to enjoy having their "traditionally very large" families, in China, or wherever they happen to live.

I like the metaphor of "the baby in the womb," to describe the planet's human population condition. A baby that could somehow "control" and stop its growth, would be in serious trouble. It must "outgrow" the womb, in order to escape and emerge into the vast, wonderous, better world. All parts of the "pregnancy" can be expected to grow, all at the same time. Some very noticable belly swelling, is normal and natural and beautiful, and to be expected. So if the planet is becoming "pregnant" with people, so much the better. It means that we must be doing something right then.

Title: More and more people would be glad to live, so rather than reducing birthrates, explore how to populate denser and more efficiently. Duh?

What about considering more, the greater good of the many, in welcoming people to enlarge their numbers?

When I add up all the compelling reasons for people to have as many children as they do, and humanity's powerful reproductive urges, it all adds up into a global goal and natural desire, to enlarge the entire human race, for the greater good of the many.

The natural remedy for reproductive urges, is pairing up and marriage, and of course, pregnancy. The natural remedy for pregnancy, is childbirth. And to welcome the natural flow of human life to increasingly fill the planet, respects nature and nature's creator God. The natural increase of humans is quite natural and to be expected.



We should set a good example for a growing world of people, by multiplying ourselves, and showing the world how it is best done.

Why not let human population growth get "out of control" throughout the world? It's what people apparently want, and all the more people who can then experience life. What control freaks would you trust to "control" us all, in such personal and intimate of ways?

There's some Utilitarian Principle thing that suggest that often the best thing to do, is that which most benefit the most people. Even some website remarked on the population implications, that it suggests population growth so that more people may be around to benefit from whatever.

Each and every human life is sacred, and God has some purpose for each person, so the flow of human life should be unhindered. It better shows children how much they are "wanted," when their parents explain to them why their family doesn't practice any means of "birth control."

Such profound matters as population size, can only be morally decided by "a higher power." For pets, their "higher power" is their adopting masters, we humans, so we are free to get our pets "fixed," because they don't have "human rights" anyway. But to deny the right to procreate, to humans, is but one small step from denying the right to live. Our "higher power" is God, who made the matter clear with his commandment to people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. So what part of "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," do we not understand? Maybe the part about God designing what populates the planet, to be extremely pleasurable, a nagging reminder of most people's duties to pair up, marry, and of course, reproduce. Maybe the part about how each successive generation is naturally supposed to grow larger and more populous, than the previous? Or do we think that it was merely a suggesting, and not an instinct designed into our genes? Well it's a rhetorical question. Obedience would seem to imply shunning unnatural "birth control" and welcoming babies to happen as they happen.

I don't think that China's 1-child policy was even their idea. Commie Chairman Mao, claimed that a large and growing population would make China strong. Maybe, maybe not. But at least it would allow all the more fellow human beings, to enjoy life. I think it came from western power-monger globalists leaning on China to get its huge soaring human population more "under control" for fear of "as goes China, so goes the world." If the world's most populous country can't reign in its burgeoning human numbers, what does that do to the entire planet? And it further encourages people in other countries to also breed prolifically, making highly populous and dense countries, seem all the more, the norm. But I already advocate a more densely and efficiently populated planet, for the greater good of the many, so I encourage large families worldwide, so that far more people may enjoy life. Chinese peasants or whoever, should be encouraged to enjoy having their "traditionally very large" families, in China, or wherever they happen to live.

I like the metaphor of "the baby in the womb," to describe the planet's human population condition. A baby that could somehow "control" and stop its growth, would be in serious trouble. It must "outgrow" the womb, in order to escape and emerge into the vast, wonderous, better world. All parts of the "pregnancy" can be expected to grow, all at the same time. Some very noticable belly swelling, is normal and natural and beautiful, and to be expected. So if the planet is becoming "pregnant" with people, so much the better. It means that we must be doing something right then.

At what point though does it get to where there are so many people on the planet you can’t enjoy life? Life is no longer enjoyable and each person created will share in this.

From dealing with asshole A) cutting you off in traffic and damn near killing you to asshole Z) trying to govern your life.....

At what point does your life infringe on my quality of life and vice versa?
At what point does the quality of life get so low you can’t enjoy it, but only survive it and get through?

Wouldn’t you agree that too many people on the planet would throw the entire planets balance of life off? Man is already the cause of extinction of certain animals and infringing on their habitat by expanding ours. As the only intellectual being on this planet I think we have a responsibility to keep ourselves in check......otherwise there will be nothing left. Humans consume more of nature than they give back......it will catch up to us.

Title: The natural flow of human life has an intelligent underlying design, so letting it take its course, generally much improves things.

At what point though does it get to where there are so many people on the planet you can’t enjoy life? Life is no longer enjoyable and each person created will share in this.

We will never reach such point, or it is ellusive. Consider that children in a more supposedly "crowded" future, would think it just the normal thing, and worry even less about it, than we do. Consider in The Jetsons futuristic cartoon, most everybody lives in highrises, and we are never told whether it is due to the extreme density of the population that people are routinely stacked into the sky, or whether it's just the "futuristic" way of doing things, or whether it's just for the scenic view—of other nearby highrises. I can't imagine that living in highrises does anything to help launch their flying cars. Why don't they tell us? Because nobody in the future, is even worried about it, they are so prosperous. Mr. George Jetson works 3 hours a day, 3 days a week, and apparently that's "full time" work, and what does he do at work? Push buttons. Why such a short workweek? Maybe it's the "overpopulation" and cutting hours to leave enough work for so many other people to have jobs too? If that's typical of future "overpopulation" problem, I am quite sure I can live with a nicely shorted workweek.

And much enjoyment of life comes from family and natural family growth. People need their freedom, which of course means that many will yearn to go on having their babies.

From dealing with asshole A) cutting you off in traffic and damn near killing you to asshole Z) trying to govern your life.....

You are extrapolating the wrong trends, that aren't likely to go that way into the future. Want to talk future predictions? I predict that people shouldn't be allowed to drive anymore. Too many human drivers are stupidly unprofessional. As computer software is much improved, computers will be our drivers, and drive far more safely and professionally. And cars taking to flying through the sky, will eliminate roads and traffic congestion? Will all that happen? Maybe not, but it will, long before population reaches the scary levels that you suggest. And don't you think that unnatural restrictions on childbearing, fall under your category of Z) trying to govern your life?

At what point does your life infringe on my quality of life and vice versa?
At what point does the quality of life get so low you can’t enjoy it, but only survive it and get through?

Far better to live on an "overcrowded" planet, than not at all, because there were too few births for you or I to have come along.

"World population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born." somebody posted somewhere

Some liberals or feminists may try to claim that how many children they have, is nobody's business but their own. If ever that was true, it isn't anymore. What if everybody had large families? Wouldn't society be forced to populate denser? So our childbearing affects everybody. But my point is that the effects are largely positive, so it is society that ought to encourage large families, and advocate the natural flow of human life. People should be honest on census forms, if they have no reason to fear any "punishment," for the sake of proper development planning, and especially Constitutional population-proportional election requirements, as natural family growth is not a "private" matter, but a rather "public" matter perhaps a bit more so in an increasingly populous world. But that only means we can expect to hear from our parents or friends or whatever, "When are you going to give us some grandchildren?" Or the customary "Congratulations." It doesn't at all diminish our God-given right/duty to procreate.

People don't exist as mere cogs in some vast socialist society machine. No, society is merely a collection of individuals, for serving the many needs of individuals. We are all unique and have some God-given purpose. God created people, and he created us in his image, and everybody have great value and the right to live. Therefore, societies have no right to "limit" their population size, but it's more like, population is what it is. Our ancestors seemed to understand these things better, before all the confusion brought by the rampant contraceptive pushers and radical eco-freaks, so how is it that we so readily forget what with all our modern "education?"

Haven't you heard the "everybody could live in Texas" examples? The planet isn't anywhere near full. Don't we all "infringe" upon one another, in perhaps a few minor ways? But it's a fairly simple concept that by merely "scooting over" a bit, quite a lot more people can fit onto the planet. I am quite willing to "scoot over" for your children, if you will do the same for mine. How can people go on having their precious darling babies in a world with so many people alive already? Simple. By populating more densely and efficiently. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Welcome the various cities to grow larger and closer together, and build additional cities and towns in between the various growing cities, so that everybody may have their affordable place to live, and enjoy having "all the children that God gives."

Wouldn’t you agree that too many people on the planet would throw the entire planets balance of life off? Man is already the cause of extinction of certain animals and infringing on their habitat by expanding ours. As the only intellectual being on this planet I think we have a responsibility to keep ourselves in check......otherwise there will be nothing left. Humans consume more of nature than they give back......it will catch up to us.

In nature, most all life seeks to expand into most every availabe niche. Why should it be so different then, for man? I don't agree with the radical "environmentalists' " sense of "balance," because it doesn't leave enough room for man. Humans need to expand habitat, to keep housing affordable for the working poor, and to allow the human race to grow more naturally and relaxed, without growing too "overcrowded." God commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, so we have no responsibility to keep our numbers "in check," but such matters are up to God, and we already have his word on the matter.

And that's another "environmental" error. Humans don't have a parasitic relationship with nature, but more of a symbiotic one. As our numbers grow, humanity and nature become more the same thing. A human-dominated nature, is a more urban form of nature, to which nature doesn't object if cities are designed right, because for humans natural increase is quite natural. People are part of nature, so too must the the cities it takes to hold all the people. I disagree with "environmentalists" drawing arbitrary lines that say that human habitat is unnatural. Upon what basis? Are we "intruding" aliens from another world? Not.

Human population growth is beautiful, because people are wonderous creatures, and with our natural multiplication, all the more people then have opportunity to enjoy living. The human race is supposed to blossom, and if the planet begins to "bulge" and become "pregnant" with people, so much the better, as pregnancy signifies a miraculous transition towards something much better, an impending "birth" of some sort. Like a child, the human race can't remain "little" forever, but the time comes to "grow up." It's all for the good, of people at least. And surely at least many parts of nature, if not nature in general, benefit from the rising human presense. "Man's best friend," dogs, seem to like it. When we multiply, they get to multiply too. Pets probably are already populated far denser than their natural wild levels would allow, so the only way they can multiply further, is for there to be more human homes to adopt them into. And pets seem to much prefer life with "strange" companion/company/friends humans, than left out on their own in the wild.

We humans are way due to another disease going around the globe and whipping out a few million people. If not that, peak oil is going to put a cap on overpopulation....

It's just a reflex from days of old when you had to create as many babies as you could in order for a few of them to survive.
In the West that instinct is largely overrun and there's actually a decline in population.

The new developing countries like India and China haven't yet mentally switched from the previous state, but it's only a question of a few decades, imo, till they too get into modern norm.

I don't think this is a really long term problem.

Another problem is Africa which the western countries keep feeding irresponsibly, so they are breeding irresponsibly. Stop food aid and stop lots of population growth in Africa. Any way, Africa is a special case, just close the borders and let them deal with themselves, assist only with educational and engineering aid.

Title: "Overpopulation" may not even be so much an ecological "problem" anymore, so much as a social issue. Can't people be extremely abundant, and also not be poor?

Pronatalism helps us more readily make any needed adaptations to our rising numbers. By deciding to be more deliberately fond of people, we help insure each and every person's place in society, no matter how numerous we may manage to grow.

We humans are way due to another disease going around the globe and whipping out a few million people. If not that, peak oil is going to put a cap on overpopulation....

Why? Why the gloom and doom? The "religion" of parroted Malthusianism? Environmentalism? Commu-nism?

A few million more people are added to the globe, every week. If a disease was to wipe out a few billion, biologically or demographically, would they even be missed?, as with current rates of growth, even people lost to major disasters are quickly "replaced." Of course their loved ones will miss them, but that's a social issue, not a "controlling numbers" issue, isn't it? See one reason why I call for welcoming world population density to rise naturally? We grow by a "city" of some 200,000 more people, each and every day. Fortunately, not all those births come to the same place, but are widely dispersed throughout the globe. Disease is not a help, but something to be prevented or "controlled" via the vaccines and other public sanitation methods designed to allow humans to populate far denser than people did in the past. Getting rid of people, is such a huge waste, even if by supposedly "natural" means such as famine and disease. Do you really think that the breeders want to raise children, to see them die?

Now most children grow up, to have productive lives, marry, and also to reproduce themselves. The challenge isn't how to "limit" our numbers, but rather more how to welcome all the more people to fill up the land, have access to plenty of things they want and need, while reducing certain pollutions harmful to man. So we have trash pickup and flush toilets in our homes, to allow us to populate so much more vastly and densely than in the past, in huge cities even, if we like.

Peak oil is a fraud as well, a trendy "environmental" myth that the greedy oil corporations monopoly would probably like us to believe, so that they can put the squeeze on their production, and ramp up their profits, at our expense.

Our environment isn't interested in putting the "brakes" on world population growth, but seems far more to "favor" our natural growth in numbers. All life seeks to grow and expand into most every available niche. All the more so it would seem with people, presumably with the intelligence even to bend nature to further that natural desire with people especially.

Even proper moral behavior and better nutrition, themselves do much to help keep disease "in check" regardless of our growing numbers. Must I remind people that humans have an immune system. Just another sign that we were designed to grow potentially very densely populated.

Title: Many religious people believe it best to keep "the door to life" open. That means the "no method" method of "family planning," is the natural ideal to promote.

It's just a reflex from days of old when you had to create as many babies as you could in order for a few of them to survive.
In the West that instinct is largely overrun and there's actually a decline in population.

Not everybody in the West buys into that "merely to maintain the population size is good enough" theory. Another reason to welcome the natural flow of life, is to welcome the numbers of people alive getting to enjoy life, to naturally expand. That means, go on having babies, in the most populous of countries or regions as well, as more and more people would be glad to live. That most every baby will likely survive, to grow up and have still more babies, is all the more reason to be having babies. Who wants to do all the effort of raising children, to see them die? Don't we even want for our children to outlive us, perhaps even to provide some "old age" security for the problems that may come upon us in old age, to have family to take care of us in our elderly years? With more children, the odds are enhanced that at least one of the childrens' families will take us in, or live close by, or be glad to help, or can take turns helping.

The new developing countries like India and China haven't yet mentally switched from the previous state, but it's only a question of a few decades, imo, till they too get into modern norm.

I don't expect them to have to make that switch, because it's a "family planning" induced perversion, and "rebellion" against God's commandment to people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. And the rampant contraceptive peddling underlying the so-called "demographic transition" theory, really disgusts me. Many people in China still yearn to enjoy having "traditionally very large" families. Is that to merely maintain the current huge population size? Not at all. But people quite often like to have families of a size that keeps the population growing. Commie Chairman Mao encouraged large families and discouraged "birth control," claiming that a large and growing population would make China strong. So did the people naturally multiply to such huge numbers, just because commie Mao thought it a good idea? No, I imagine they had their own reasons, and reproduction is primal instinct and in our genes. Chairman Mao was right, as misguided liberals are sometimes right, probably for much the same reason that a broken clock is right twice a day. They just "accidently" hit upon the right answer once in a while. Or "copy"/steal the right answer from more level-headed logical conservatives. Human reproduction is natural, so leave the people alone to "do their thing." Besides, it keeps the people busy, to help keep them from getting bored and wanting to overthrow their corrupt government. Let the people breed, for it keeps the powers that be, in power, to not too much stir up the wrath of the people.

I don't think this is a really long term problem.

Because humans are highly adaptable. We soon make many useful adjustments to our rising numbers, that make them so much easier to get by with.

Another problem is Africa which the western countries keep feeding irresponsibly, so they are breeding irresponsibly. Stop food aid and stop lots of population growth in Africa. Any way, Africa is a special case, just close the borders and let them deal with themselves, assist only with educational and engineering aid.

That gets into the perverted "lifeboat ethic" I read about in some secular misguided college textbook. Supposedly, say some anti-human extremists, helping the poor is counterproductive. Earth supposedly is like a tiny little lifeboat, only able to hold but a few people. By giving (or selling or trading) food and medicine to the developing countries, we supposedly increase longevity, decrease infant mortality, and encourage more childbearing. But I already propose a more densely and efficiently populated planet, as the obvious answer to how we are to go on enjoying having our babies in a world with so many people alive already. So of course I would want to allow people to live longer, decrease infant mortality, and encourage more childbearing. As I welcome the human race to naturally populate denser and denser and more efficiently, promoting the necessarily development to also do it more comfortably and safely. All countries should be expected to do their part to help the planet hold lots more people, primarily by welcoming their own natural increase—their very own precious darling children! So don't whine about how "crowded" it's supposedly getting, build more houses and apartment complexes, and more cities, and whatever the people need. Besides, people will do it themselves or buy these things themselves, because they need the jobs anyhow.

Earth has limited resources and a limited number of humans the planetary ecosystem can sustain.

Title: For now at least, populating the planet much denser, is a whole lot easier than expanding to colonize more worlds.

Earth has limited resources and a limited number of humans the planetary ecosystem can sustain.

Nonsense. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. Quite a lot more people can easily fit upon the planet, primarily by welcoming cities and towns to grow larger and closer together.

How can people go on having their babies, in a world with so many people alive already? Quite simple really. Allow humans to both live and breed, in closer proximity to their many neighbors, on the global scale at least. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people.

In the past, people could always spread out. Abraham and Lot's growing tribes, set that example pretty clearly in Genesis, when they decided to move farther apart, so as to go on growing naturally. But obviously on a "finite" sphere of a planet, there's only but so far people can spread out, before they run into themselves again. But that's hardly the "end of the road" in today's "modern" age of supposedly vanishing frontiers. There's 3 perceptional dimensions that people can yet spread into, as I see it. Outwards, inwards, and upwards. Outwards of course, means urban sprawl. Bigger and more cities. Suburbs upon suburbs. Inwards is infilling underutilized land, building additional streets within existing cities, or even larger households or children sharing bedrooms or beds. Allowing human bodies to grow somewhat even closer together as numbers naturally rise. Upwards is of course, stacking people into apartment complexes, highrises, or even population arcologies. If our options of "spreading out" are becoming a wee bit limited perhaps, then that only means, that it may be coming time, to "come together" then. Let cities grow closer together and even coelesce into one another. Abraham and Lot's tribes didn't spread out to slow or stop their growth, but to allow for it, and to "buy time" until humans could better figure out how to populate themselves more densely and safely, but also more comfortably and safely.

Fit - yes. Live - no.

Earth has limited resources and a limited number of humans the planetary ecosystem can sustain.

You seem to be thinking that cities are something independant from this planet.
Do cities grow their own food? Do cities mine their own resources?

Humanity is a part of this planet's ecosystem, and this ecosystem has limited resources, therefore the amount of humans this planet can sustain is limited. QED.

Your abrahamic ignorance is so outstanding I'm putting you on my ignore list, because I want to still have faith in humanity.

Your abrahamic ignorance is so outstanding I'm putting you on my ignore list, because I want to still have faith in humanity.

I keep mentally debating whether or not to do this as well. If you've read one of his posts, you've read them all, but there is something so jaw droppingly amazing about what he believes. His posts are like multi car pile ups on the freeway; horrible, yet you are almost compelled to look.

His posts do increase my sense that a large asteroid slamming into this planet wouldn't be all bad.

Title: Last time I checked, the planet had no "maximum capacity" sign.

Fit - yes. Live - no.

Earth has limited resources and a limited number of humans the planetary ecosystem can sustain.

You seem to be thinking that cities are something independant from this planet.
Do cities grow their own food? Do cities mine their own resources?

Human existence is somewhat independent these days, of ecological systems. People even know how to pipe and desalinate ocean water. Farmers are becoming so productive at producing food, that the world seems to have a growing obesity pandemic. You should read more stuff by such authors as Julian Simon. In free markets under good leadership, people soon find ways to use more efficiently, or substitute, resources supposedly in short supply. Costs in real terms, like hours worked to buy stuff, decline, while stuff in our homes accumulates. How much of the stuff that we think we just got to have, is really necessary to survival? Food basically, and not a whole lot else. Houses can be made of almost anything that can hold up to the weather. Energy can be produced, so many different ways.

So yeah, there's nothing in nature to prevent human cities from growing possibly larger and closer together. Sure, cities bring in things from outside them, but often things come from other cities, or from places not much hindered by cities getting larger and covering more land.

Humanity is a part of this planet's ecosystem, and this ecosystem has limited resources, therefore the amount of humans this planet can sustain is limited. QED.

Your abrahamic ignorance is so outstanding I'm putting you on my ignore list, because I want to still have faith in humanity.

You say this stuff almost as if established fact. But human population "carrying capacity" is still very much under debate, and has not been conclusively established. Many people have good reason to claim that "limits" are ellusive or non-applicable to humans, at least well into the foreseeable future. Governments and corporations, often may like for people to go on breeding, as more people probably means more customers, more tax revenues, more profits, more vast lucritive markets. Besides, how could they get the people to stop breeding anyway?

There is a natural remedy for powerful human reproductive urges. Pregnancy. There's a natural remedy for pregnancy. Childbirth. Many people of religious or faith persuation, consider such a natural flow of human life, something "beautiful" and even some athiests see the natural expansion of the human race, as somehow furthering our "progress." I consider it quite likely, that the natural purpose of human reproductive organs, just could be ... reproduction. So why should I have any objection to women squeezing out from between their legs, just as many babies as their bodies want to produce? Let the human race flourish and blossom, as it should! It's beautiful to welcome the planet to "blossom" with human life.

"How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers." Mother Teresa

His posts do increase my sense that a large asteroid slamming into this planet wouldn't be all bad.

:D:thumbsup:

Considering the world population is 6 billion people and dramaticly getting larger.........


It is actually 7 billions, but we are working on it:

http://www.terrierman.com/history/rabbitclass.gif

Pronatalist must be back on his meds.

Title: Last time I checked, the planet had no "maximum capacity" sign.

You say this stuff almost as if established fact. But human population "carrying capacity" is still very much under debate, and has not been conclusively established. Many people have good reason to claim that "limits" are ellusive or non-applicable to humans, at least well into the foreseeable future.

"How can there be too many children? That's like saying there are too many flowers." Mother Teresa

A few quotes from a passage....
"the first big jump in world population came with the neolithic revolution and agriculture. J.Huxley estimates that the pop' began to increase at a rate that doubled every 1,700 years or so. By the opening of the bronze age, the world population may have been about 25mil; by the begining of the iron age, 70mil; the start of the christian era, 170mil, with 1/3 roman empire, 1/3 chinese empire, the rest scattered.
By 1600 the earth's pop' tataled perhaps 500mil, a lot less than the current pop. of India.
At that point the smooth rate of growth stopped, and the pop.explosion began. explorers opened up 18mil Sq miles of new land to colonization by Europeans.
The 18th century Ind'revolution accelerated production of food and people.
The doubling of the world's pop' now took place not in a period of 2 millennia but in less than 2 centuries.it went from-
500mil in 1600-
900mil in 1800- then it started to grow at an even faster rate-
1.6bil in 1900-
1900-1970 it has climbed to 3.6bil despite 2 world wars (this was written in the 70's).
In 1970 the world pop. increased at a rate of 220,000 per day or 70mil a year. this was an increase of 2.0% each year (estimated increase in 1650 was only 0.3%). At this rate the earths pop. would double in about 35 years, some regions a shorter time.
Despite the Malthusian view (pop. will grow faster than the food supply) the world's pop. has apace without any serious setbacks......"

and..
"Then what? If the rate of increase of the human pop. continues unchecked at it's present rate,all our science and technical invention will still leave us struggling uphill like Sisyphus.
If you cannot accept this appraisal, consider the powers of Geometric Progression. It has been estimated that the total quantity of living matter on earth is equal to 2 x 10\19(to the power of 19)grams. If so, the total mass of THE TOTAL MASS OF HUMANITY IN 1970 WAS ABOUT 1/100,000 OF THE MASS OF ALL LIFE. If the earths pop. continues to double every 35 years (as it was) BY 2750 IT WOULD HAVE INCREASED 100,000 FOLD, THE MASS OF HUMANITY WOULD COMPRISE OF ALL LIFE.
Even if we could imagine artificial foodstuffs out of the inorganic world via yeast culture,hydroponics no advance could match the inexorable number increase involved in doubling every 35 yrs.
at 2600 A.D. it would reach 630,000 bil- STANDING ROOM ONLY.2 1/2 sq ft per person on the entire land surface.
Increase at the same rate by 3550 A.D. THE TOTAL MASS OF HUMAN TISSUE WOULD BE EQUAL TO THE MASS OF THE EARTH.
If we could colonize other planets assume this-
IF WE HAD 1,000 BILLION OTHER PLANETS WHICH HUMANITY COLONIZED, AT THE CONTINUED POP. INCREASE BY THE YEAR 5000 A.D. THEY WOULD HAVE STANDING ROOM ONLY.
AND BY 7000 A.D. THE MASS OF HUMANITY WOULD EQUATE THE MASS OF THE KNOWN UNIVERSE."

obviously, the human race cannot increase at this rate for long........

Remember this was written in the 70's

overpopulation is nothing but a joke because the earth can support infinite people.

but according to this site, people who fear overpopulation have planned world wars and diseases (AIDS) to reduce population: http://www.threeworldwars.com/index.html

overpopulation is nothing but a joke because the earth can support infinite people.

Idiot. So when we have 20 people per square feet, won't some of them fall into the ocean??

overpopulation is nothing but a joke because the earth can support infinite people.

but according to this site, people who fear overpopulation have planned world wars and diseases (AIDS) to reduce population: http://www.threeworldwars.com/world-war-3/ww3.htm

there is no way the earth can support infinite people. it is not logical.

the math states that 2 world wars had little or no effect on slowing the pop. explosion?

While this can't go on, to see it as a joke is a joke in itself.

Here's an idea. If you hate people and think overpop is a huge problem ,go jump off a cliff. Exercise your remaining freedom and lead by example all at ounce.

Then people who enjoy life and other humans won't have to listen to your crap about sterilization, abortion and gay sex to curb the human cancer....

Maybe nobody has noticed but many countries are facing economic break downs because of low birth rates. No new workers means no new money. When the SS program started in the US there were 141 people supporting every recipient. NOW there is 2. That means if you are married with no children, you and your spouse are already supporting 1 other person.

Maybe nobody has noticed but many countries are facing economic break downs because of low birth rates. No new workers means no new money. When the SS program started in the US there were 141 people supporting every recipient. NOW there is 2. That means if you are married with no children, you and your spouse are already supporting 1 other person.

I don't quite get what you are saying?
are you saying there is not enough people?
Economic breakdown wouldn't that be more like people cannot afford to go to work, or the majority of workers have emigrated or been part of a forced economic migration, which would lead to decrease in birthrate and loss of workers in the areas migrated from?

I don't quite get what you are saying?
are you saying there is not enough people?
Economic breakdown wouldn't that be more like people cannot afford to go to work, or the majority of workers have emigrated or been part of a forced economic migration, which would lead to decrease in birthrate and loss of workers in the areas migrated from?

Westerners are being conditioned to think children are not worth the trouble. In a welfare state, it has serious implications for their retirements.

But, the immigrants may pick up the slack....Or vote the west into oblivion.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0510/25/i_ins.01.html

The problem is not 6 Billions.

Compare the total weight of living matter with dead matter even on our own planet. Take this equation to our solar system, our galaxy, our universe.

The problem is 1-2 billion drag down the the rest with their dead weight.

.

The problem is 1-2 billion drag down the the rest with their dead weight.

you are probably right but even if we killed 3bil within approx 35 years they will be back, you still have to stop the growth rate, also who would decide who lives who dies?

you are probably right but even if we killed 3bil within approx 35 years they will be back, you still have to stop the growth rate, also who would decide who lives who dies?


Well its possible nature itself will decide who lives and dies. If not nature then the elite of the human race would decide....ie: those in positions of power....lol which is kinda funny considering most are voted on by the people they would exterminate.....ahh the irony.

its highly possible nature will find a way to solve the problem for us and it wont need to be a decision made by the elite.....plagues, floods, earthquakes, tornados, tsunamis, hurricanes......any or all of the above.

Idiot. So when we have 20 people per square feet, won't some of them fall into the ocean??

there will never be 20 people per square feet. some fools speak about overpopulation and global warnings... but when i look out from my window, i see none of them.

there will never be 20 people per square feet. some fools speak about overpopulation and global warnings... but when i look out from my window, i see none of them.

you don't belive in global warming...........?
and you don't believe in overpopulation....?

Do you not believe that the world's population doubles every 35 years?
Do you see the fact that the sea's are rising, deforestation, pollution of drinking water, forced migration due to ecology, pollution of the atmoshpere as a load of rubbish...................? A media ruse? if it is a media ruse what would they gain.

there will never be 20 people per square feet.

here is a homework for you. Next time you are at a party, try to gather 20 people on a square feet. Report back how it went...

Well its possible nature itself will decide who lives and dies. If not nature then the elite of the human race would decide....ie: those in positions of power....lol which is kinda funny considering most are voted on by the people they would exterminate.....ahh the irony.
.


It's not the amount of people that's the main problem it is the growth rate if we could control the growth rate, we can control the amount of people.

there will never be 20 people per square feet. some fools speak about overpopulation and global warnings... but when i look out from my window, i see none of them.

Your statement has as much grounds as 'if i don't look at the moon it means it's not there' you have based your judgement on population numbers and growth rate and global warming on what you can see from your window. Your scientific method has no perspective on reality....?:crazy:

A population of 630,000 billion will leave approx 2 1/2 sq ft per person?

I heard all of Happy Acres had pleasent views.

Pinocchio's Hoof, most of the sane members around here have already placed Yorda in their ignore lists a long time ago, suggest you do the same for the mercy on your brain, there is no use in discussing anything with that creature.

Pinocchio's Hoof, most of the sane members around here have already placed Yorda in their ignore lists a long time ago, suggest you do the same for the mercy on your brain, there is no use in discussing anything with that creature.

I will take that on board cheers.

I don't believe in "earth control." Defined as imposing "control" on nature (or naturally burgeoning human numbers) beyond any reasonable level that is clearly beneficial to man.

So let the flow of human life flow naturally, unhindered.

Welcome babies to happen as they happen, as was long the historical norm.

Maybe before long, the liberals will be gone, as they abort and contracept away their children, and we conservatives/Christians are having ours.

I don't believe in "earth control." Defined as imposing "control" on nature (or naturally burgeoning human numbers) beyond any reasonable level that is clearly beneficial to man.

So let the flow of human life flow naturally, unhindered.

Welcome babies to happen as they happen, as was long the historical norm.

Maybe before long, the liberals will be gone, as they abort and contracept away their children, and we conservatives/Christians are having ours.

Growth control is beneficial to man, the natural, unhindered flow of life changed dramaticly with the ind' revolution and ceased to be ' nature's course' but was steered by man.....?
We all welcome babies but there is a time and place for everything. Do you see a problem with license's for child birth? if this was brought in within 100years the population growth would receede enough for pop', food, resource balance.
And if we are to learn anything from history it is not to trust religion when it comes to the survival of man, only to trust man........

Pinocchio, apply Avatar's advice about Yorda to Pronatalist as well.

Indeed, he's on my ignore list as well.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
xkcd.com

what would you consider the "right" thing to do?

leave the planet Earth as fast as we can, sponsor missions to moons of Jupiter and Saturn and planet Mars and Uranus and Neptune moons so that we can settle there. But make sure humans get to live outside Earth.

http://www.shnakepup.com/images/CloudCity.jpg
http://www.starshipnivan.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/03/europa.jpg

But make sure humans get to live outside Earth.
[/IMG]

Why? Just so we can make other places wastelands? If humankind will destroy itself here on Earth it can do it in other places...

Why? Just so we can make other places wastelands? If humankind will destroy itself here on Earth it can do it in other places...

yeah who cares about Earth? whats this home sweet home feeling for Earth!? The sooner we spread out to space the better chance we have to survive and become a true empire.

Why? Just so we can make other places wastelands? If humankind will destroy itself here on Earth it can do it in other places...

Even if that was true, we still must. We are a living body, a growing and a gaining force of power. We will spread to our very limits. Our destiny is not to figure out how to provide more with less.

If we do not expand, we are simply a hamster in a wheel, a child that grows into adulthood in their mother's basement. Insignificant. This is the future of Humanity on the cosmic scale that you seem to advocate.

Mother Earth is just that, a mother. To be respected and cared for until her natural death. Yes we do not do that, but that usually has nothing to do with efforts(small as they are compared to the destruction), to expand and explore beyond the Earth. Someday we must move on, we are able to make baby steps now and so why not use them.

The explorers among us must be satisfied, if they are not, the effects can be destructive. von Braun wanted to go to space, when no one else wanted to. The Nazis found a use for his Rocket theory, however. There are two ways to satisfy the adventurer. Exploration or Warfare.

Exploration or Warfare.

why not both. :cool:

why not both. :cool:

Sadly, 'tis true. One pays the other's bills, it is our way I guess.

Sadly, 'tis true. One pays the other's bills, it is our way I guess.

sadly? Its probably the last stand for evolution species adaptation within our society. Especially now that we are getting into space with high dosage of radiation exposure, mutations of cancerous nature are of high probability so elimination of species' genes that are not well suited is one of the foremost priorities. WAR is other words, is for the better...just look at Von Braun.

sadly? Its probably the last stand for evolution species adaptation within our society. Especially now that we are getting into space with high dosage of radiation exposure, mutations of cancerous nature are of high probability so elimination of species' genes that are not well suited is one of the foremost priorities. WAR is other words, is for the better...just look at Von Braun.

Nonsense. Weapons of today demand unity within the species and possibly beyond that, should we encounter "others". I suspect the first critia for a fledling space-going species, is peace among themselves.

It requires a paradigm shift. Massive and yet simple at the same time. It really only requires most people shift the perspective. Us(living) VS them(cold dead universe). Not Us vs Us.

we are this cold dead universe, pal. We are as cold as rocks on Pluto, from dust to dust.

we are this cold dead universe, pal. We are as cold as rocks on Pluto, from dust to dust.

Not yet.

It's our natural population growth, that is beneficial to man.

Growth control is beneficial to man, the natural, unhindered flow of life changed dramaticly with the ind' revolution and ceased to be ' nature's course' but was steered by man.....?

Incorrect. It hasn't ceased to be "nature's course," whatever that supposedly means, but still is, for humans are part of nature, so human influence upon nature, is part of nature. Going against nature then, is acting irrationally in contrary ways that don't benefit man. Just because humans may have found some useful means of "death control," does not at all obligate us to impose unnatural "birth control." Human population size was never supposed to be "balanced," but to naturally increase. Surely that's what God mean when God commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That means no population "stabilation" (stagnation), but a natural and deliberate propensity towards natural population growth as time passes.

If nature could have its way, nature would multiply us all the more, because all life seeks to expand into most every available niche, probably all the more with intelligent life, that can find all the more ways by which "it can." Nature would not consider humans "outside" of nature, but part of nature, even though God also created humans to transcend nature. If cities are built properly, why would nature have any "objection?" Of course though, the natural forces of man, are needed to maintain the cities and protect them from the ravages of neglect. And of course a garden, as they say, is much more beautiful than neglected jungle, but at least for now, both seem to have some place.

We all welcome babies but there is a time and place for everything. Do you see a problem with license's for child birth? if this was brought in within 100years the population growth would receede enough for pop', food, resource balance.
And if we are to learn anything from history it is not to trust religion when it comes to the survival of man, only to trust man........

You can't "license" baby-making. Babies tend to "happen" regardless. Already due to this contraceptive-peddling-induced "demographic transition" theory nonsense, we are in danger of population atrophying, jeopardizing the great progress in technology that we started to make, quite much of it likely very much population-driven, when you think about it.

I do not believe in "earth control," as that is trying to enforce excessive "control" upon nature, beyond any clear benefit to man. I do not at all believe that countries need bother to try to limit their population size to a size "reasonable" for the amount of land. Whatever for? They can find ways to populate denser, vaster, even stack people vertically into highrises if they ever have to. We need not bother to limit natural family size, and why bother to fight forest fires out in remote unpopulated wilderness that nature could deal with without our costly "help?" With so many people now on the planet, the linkage of our efforts to human benefit, ought to be more consistant and clear. Sure, humans may alter nature, but I am very much opposed to "earth control," some grand globalist delusion that can do little more than impoverish the world with endless costly boondoggles. For example, if humans are causing some "global warming," which I seriously have much evidence to doubt, then fine, let the planet warm naturally. But trying to "fix" this presumed "problem" is "earth control" "tampering" with nature, because there's no clear benefit to man, to justify the expense and effort. Why would we "tamper" with what we don't understand, for no clear benefit at all? That's about what I said to somebody who asked me about some wacky idea of humans messing around with volcanos, to release sulfer into the atmosphere to help counter this "global warming." Insane! Why try to hinder nature perhaps trying to go back to Garden of Eden conditions, to encourage humans to breed all the more?

So much of the "environmental" movement thought, seems to envision humans as parasites to the planet. "Too many" people "infesting" the biosphere, and "Gaia" gets a "fever." What utter New Age religion garbage! More accurately, humans have a more symbiotic relationship with nature, while we humans may conveniently insulate ourselves from nature, we also become intertwined and part of nature. Nature benefits also, and our alternations benefit increasingly populous man. I think the movie "Artificial Intelligence" was partially on the right track, even if my interpretation differs from what it meant to say. God wouldn't be pleased with robotic pretend children, to take the place of God's children; but also, nature wouldn't be pleased to see humans disappear. What caused the ice age at the end of the movie? I think what happened, is that the robotic jigalos undermined natural human procreation, the population soon withered away, without humans around nature had no reason to maintain a human-friendly environment, and so things just froze up. As if nature was "crying" for the human race having had disappeared. Just when things were starting to get "interesting," humans go and "shoot themselves in the foot" and destroy themselves?

And so human population growth is beautiful, and it better respects nature and nature's God creator, to welcome our babies to go on naturally pushing out, without the needless bothers of unnatural, anti-family "birth control." So welcome the natural flow of human life, to flow naturally, unhindered.

The most natural and elegant way to deal with rising human populations, is to simply accept that there can come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Where will we put all the additional billions perhaps yet to come? Simple. In between all the people already living. Where we have always put them historically. Welcome cities and towns to grow larger and closer together. Urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed, so some place can be found, or made, for all the people's precious and wondrous, darling little babies. Who very much like to come alive and be born, REGARDLESS of how many people they soon find they have to somehow share the planet with.

Nature is resilient. The planet can much more easily bear the rising human population "pressure," than frail humans can be expected to struggle with awkward, anti-life "birth control."

It's our natural population growth, that is beneficial to man.



Incorrect. It hasn't ceased to be "nature's course," whatever that supposedly means, but still is, for humans are part of nature, so human influence upon nature, is part of nature. Going against nature then, is acting irrationally in contrary ways that don't benefit man. Just because humans may have found some useful means of "death control," does not at all obligate us to impose unnatural "birth control." Human population size was never supposed to be "balanced," but to naturally increase. Surely that's what God mean when God commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That means no population "stabilation" (stagnation), but a natural and deliberate propensity towards natural population growth as time passes.

If nature could have its way, nature would multiply us all the more, because all life seeks to expand into most every available niche, probably all the more with intelligent life, that can find all the more ways by which "it can." Nature would not consider humans "outside" of nature, but part of nature, even though God also created humans to transcend nature. If cities are built properly, why would nature have any "objection?" Of course though, the natural forces of man, are needed to maintain the cities and protect them from the ravages of neglect. And of course a garden, as they say, is much more beautiful than neglected jungle, but at least for now, both seem to have some place.



You can't "license" baby-making. Babies tend to "happen" regardless. Already due to this contraceptive-peddling-induced "demographic transition" theory nonsense, we are in danger of population atrophying, jeopardizing the great progress in technology that we started to make, quite much of it likely very much population-driven, when you think about it.

I do not believe in "earth control," as that is trying to enforce excessive "control" upon nature, beyond any clear benefit to man. I do not at all believe that countries need bother to try to limit their population size to a size "reasonable" for the amount of land. Whatever for? They can find ways to populate denser, vaster, even stack people vertically into highrises if they ever have to. We need not bother to limit natural family size, and why bother to fight forest fires out in remote unpopulated wilderness that nature could deal with without our costly "help?" With so many people now on the planet, the linkage of our efforts to human benefit, ought to be more consistant and clear. Sure, humans may alter nature, but I am very much opposed to "earth control," some grand globalist delusion that can do little more than impoverish the world with endless costly boondoggles. For example, if humans are causing some "global warming," which I seriously have much evidence to doubt, then fine, let the planet warm naturally. But trying to "fix" this presumed "problem" is "earth control" "tampering" with nature, because there's no clear benefit to man, to justify the expense and effort. Why would we "tamper" with what we don't understand, for no clear benefit at all? That's about what I said to somebody who asked me about some wacky idea of humans messing around with volcanos, to release sulfer into the atmosphere to help counter this "global warming." Insane! Why try to hinder nature perhaps trying to go back to Garden of Eden conditions, to encourage humans to breed all the more?

So much of the "environmental" movement thought, seems to envision humans as parasites to the planet. "Too many" people "infesting" the biosphere, and "Gaia" gets a "fever." What utter New Age religion garbage! More accurately, humans have a more symbiotic relationship with nature, while we humans may conveniently insulate ourselves from nature, we also become intertwined and part of nature. Nature benefits also, and our alternations benefit increasingly populous man. I think the movie "Artificial Intelligence" was partially on the right track, even if my interpretation differs from what it meant to say. God wouldn't be pleased with robotic pretend children, to take the place of God's children; but also, nature wouldn't be pleased to see humans disappear. What caused the ice age at the end of the movie? I think what happened, is that the robotic jigalos undermined natural human procreation, the population soon withered away, without humans around nature had no reason to maintain a human-friendly environment, and so things just froze up. As if nature was "crying" for the human race having had disappeared. Just when things were starting to get "interesting," humans go and "shoot themselves in the foot" and destroy themselves?

And so human population growth is beautiful, and it better respects nature and nature's God creator, to welcome our babies to go on naturally pushing out, without the needless bothers of unnatural, anti-family "birth control." So welcome the natural flow of human life, to flow naturally, unhindered.

The most natural and elegant way to deal with rising human populations, is to simply accept that there can come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Where will we put all the additional billions perhaps yet to come? Simple. In between all the people already living. Where we have always put them historically. Welcome cities and towns to grow larger and closer together. Urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed, so some place can be found, or made, for all the people's precious and wondrous, darling little babies. Who very much like to come alive and be born, REGARDLESS of how many people they soon find they have to somehow share the planet with.

Nature is resilient. The planet can much more easily bear the rising human population "pressure," than frail humans can be expected to struggle with awkward, anti-life "birth control."

the Industrial Revolution did not fit into nature's plan as it is not natural.
The industrial revolution increased the growth rate of mankind from doubling in nearly 2 millenia to doubling in less than 2 centuries and it has increased that is fact, any mention you have made with "God" is faith, the difference FACT, FAITH, nature maybe resilliant but mankind is not.
As to License for chilbirth if it is to ensure the survival of man, you will do as your told, or face the consequences the same as the religious weirdos have said for 2000 years.
And as to your theory as to where to put these people "in between where people are already yeah thats cool but 35 years later the population has doubled, as your trying to figure out what to do next wahhay the population has doubled again......Keep your god he has been useless so for to mankind only useful to the individual for peace of mind

How do you know that the "Industrial Revolution" wasn't "natural?" By what basis?

the Industrial Revolution did not fit into nature's plan as it is not natural.
The industrial revolution increased the growth rate of mankind from doubling in nearly 2 millenia to doubling in less than 2 centuries and it has increased that is fact, any mention you have made with "God" is faith, the difference FACT, FAITH, nature maybe resilliant but mankind is not.
As to License for chilbirth if it is to ensure the survival of man, you will do as your told, or face the consequences the same as the religious weirdos have said for 2000 years.
And as to your theory as to where to put these people "in between where people are already yeah thats cool but 35 years later the population has doubled, as your trying to figure out what to do next wahhay the population has doubled again......Keep your god he has been useless so for to mankind only useful to the individual for peace of mind

Population accomodation doesn't come "after" but concurrently. People with jobs building houses, don't build houses for their children some 20 years later, but for those new families, needing houses NOW, and borrowing money to buy them. So it's not like "Where'd all these people come from, and where can we put them?," as if somebody sneezed, and out popped another billion people from another dimension.

35 years is a long time to build a lot of homes and cities and such. That's half a lifetime! Why do you think I call for all this development and cities to be built? A doubling of the huge human population is a lot of people. But they come gradually enough that a supposedly intelligent human race should be able to easily adapt and prepare for our own natural increase. That means more suburbs, urban sprawl, maybe a little more high-density housing, well unless you have a handy island or some huge patch of countryside you can persuade us all to move into? Yeah, I know what it means, and if we like being free to have our precious darling children, then we should be fine with that.

Yes, the Industrial Revolution, and better public sanitation and medical care and all that, may have hastened the doubling rate somewhat, but not by the amount you claim, for the earth is a "young" earth, only around 6000 years old, 6000 to 10,000 years being obtained by Creationalists tracing out the Biblical geneologies to measure the elapsed time. But then the Industrial Revolution also stole the father from the home, to go work for the corporations, then the mother also, so it hasn't been all good to us. It also helped usher in the era of materialism, falling away from faith, and conspicuous consumption, which has had some detrimental effects on many people. While I don't prefer to be as "technologically impaired" as the Amish, I have to admire some of their simplistic ways, and the many modern-problems they likely handily avoid. Without electric lights and TV, they probably get plenty of sleep at night. Without "birth control," they don't have the side-effects. Without the credit cards, they don't have all the debt. And so on. The Amish probably know their Bibles, far better than most of us.

Catch my other postings on the topic, by doing a quick forum search on the word "overpopulation." I sometimes search on that, or my screen name, to try to catch up with any replies to my posts.

Pinocchio, you ought to read this post (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1356487&postcount=122) before you reply again.

PRONATALIST........SO YEA YOU HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO BUILD THE HOUSE 35 YRS, SO YOU BUILD THEN YOU HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN(MORE),AND AGAIN(THIS TIME MORE). it is not a solution it is ignorance, you do not have a solution, not even a just incase................

I got to the bit about the earth being 6000 years old and realised you are a brainwashed religious nut, which is good for you but will not benefit mankind.


REPOMAN.. Read the link and should have listened when you first warned me....I have taken it on board this time:crazy:

If world population is naturally burgeoning, then surely more and bigger cities can be among the useful tools to help house all the people.

PRONATALIST........SO YEA YOU HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO BUILD THE HOUSE 35 YRS, SO YOU BUILD THEN YOU HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN(MORE),AND AGAIN(THIS TIME MORE). it is not a solution it is ignorance, you do not have a solution, not even a just incase................

I got to the bit about the earth being 6000 years old and realised you are a brainwashed religious nut, which is good for you but will not benefit mankind.


REPOMAN.. Read the link and should have listened when you first warned me....I have taken it on board this time:crazy:

And why is this a "problem" that we have to build the house, then build another house, and still more houses? You do like having a job don't you?

Not long ago, it was feared that the trendy new labor-saving machines, would soon take away all our jobs. And they say that war is good for the economy. Apparently, when the men go to war, it creates a labor shortage, so then employers really have to notice their workers, and pay them better so that they stay. But war is so destructive. Surely there's a better way? Aha! There is. Making babies. The rebellious 1960s hippies were right about at least one thing. "Make love, not war." Well if "making love" means making babies, then they are onto something. For when people have babies, more of practically everything, is soon needed. More houses, more roads, more schools. Want to keep a society productive and employed? Encourage them to have their babies. Help insure that there will be the jobs people need.

You can't build a house, in 35 years? Actually, now we have more people around, to build all those more houses. Why can't people see a natural self-solving "problem" right under their noses? Letting human populations expand naturally, even stating the benefit in enlarging the entire human race for the greater good of the many, handily helps solve many societal problems. It helps keep the people occupied and productive, and out of trouble. Human population growth naturally accomodates itself, at least under good wise leadership. That's a practical reason why many people tend to embrace it, or at least not worry about it so much.

:fart:If world population is naturally burgeoning, then surely more and bigger cities can be among the useful tools to help house all the people.



And why is this a "problem" that we have to build the house, then build another house, and still more houses? You do like having a job don't you?

Not long ago, it was feared that the trendy new labor-saving machines, would soon take away all our jobs. And they say that war is good for the economy. Apparently, when the men go to war, it creates a labor shortage, so then employers really have to notice their workers, and pay them better so that they stay. But war is so destructive. Surely there's a better way? Aha! There is. Making babies. The rebellious 1960s hippies were right about at least one thing. "Make love, not war." Well if "making love" means making babies, then they are onto something. For when people have babies, more of practically everything, is soon needed. More houses, more roads, more schools. Want to keep a society productive and employed? Encourage them to have their babies. Help insure that there will be the jobs people need.

You can't build a house, in 35 years? Actually, now we have more people around, to build all those more houses. Why can't people see a natural self-solving "problem" right under their noses? Letting human populations expand naturally, even stating the benefit in enlarging the entire human race for the greater good of the many, handily helps solve many societal problems. It helps keep the people occupied and productive, and out of trouble. Human population growth naturally accomodates itself, at least under good wise leadership. That's a practical reason why many people tend to embrace it, or at least not worry about it so much.
you think too short term,long term your plan is flawed

:fart:
you think too short term,long term your plan is flawed

It works well into the forseeable future.

Don't you suppose if the world, or cultures, eagerly embrace the populous future, they will likely more readily adapt to it? No reason that has to change, further out into the future. Well unless one sees things, only as a hopeless pessimist would tend to see them?

What if both the pessimists and the optimists, are right? What if what they claim to believe, they end up bringing about, to become self-fulfilling prophecies? People who believe in failure, might plan to fail. People who believe in success, might invest in success. So doesn't it really pay, as much as reasonably possible, to at least try to be an optimist?

Endless extrapolations into the future, are useless, because the farther out one extrapolates from known data, the more rapidly the projection wildly departs from any useful reliability.

Also because the Bible clearly states that humans won't be living on the Earth forever. There's the biblical endtimes coming, perhaps sooner than most people think?

And further out into the future, don't you suppose that there will be more options by then, and people then will be able to see the picture more clearly? Or do you have the money you will need for the next 100 years, already saved?

You like my views for the short term? Then where do you see the departure from short-term benefit to long-term detriment, anyway? I just don't see that much distinction between the two.

It works well into the forseeable future.

Don't you suppose if the world, or cultures, eagerly embrace the populous future, they will likely more readily adapt to it? No reason that has to change, further out into the future. Well unless one sees things, only as a hopeless pessimist would tend to see them?

What if both the pessimists and the optimists, are right? What if what they claim to believe, they end up bringing about, to become self-fulfilling prophecies? People who believe in failure, might plan to fail. People who believe in success, might invest in success. So doesn't it really pay, as much as reasonably possible, to at least try to be an optimist?

Endless extrapolations into the future, are useless, because the farther out one extrapolates from known data, the more rapidly the projection wildly departs from any useful reliability.

Also because the Bible clearly states that humans won't be living on the Earth forever. There's the biblical endtimes coming, perhaps sooner than most people think?

And further out into the future, don't you suppose that there will be more options by then, and people then will be able to see the picture more clearly? Or do you have the money you will need for the next 100 years, already saved?

You like my views for the short term? Then where do you see the departure from short-term benefit to long-term detriment, anyway? I just don't see that much distinction between the two.

short term prob... in the next 35 years you have built, 7 billion homes, in 70 years, you have to have built, 21 billion homes, 105 years you have to have built 63 billion homes.......we havn't built that many houses in 4000 years how can it be done in a 100...........

I respect you have a belief, but when it comes to ensuring the survival of man there is no place for religious influence........sorry dude.


And even if I'm wrong it 's better to be safe than sorry. My way (birth licenses) will balance out the growth rate and populous in 100 years, your way becomes impossible after 100 years, Try and logicaly look without biblical ref or influence, and without "God" as your last resort.

Think about it. Isn't it often far easier to build a house, than to convince everybody to go against nature and "plan" away their meant-to-have children?

It's far more elegant and easier and more respectful to nature and nature's creator God, to welcome babies to push out naturally, than to "control" human birthrates. Humans simply weren't meant to "control" everything, a practical reason why I don't believe in "earth control." Definition: Earth control is trying to impose control upon nature, beyond any clear benefit to man. Sure, alter nature to better suit human interests, but there are natural limits as to how far is cost-effective in imposing such "control." Examples of "earth control" that I vehemently oppose, is pushing "birth control" upon humans, excessive unproductive suppression of forest fires even in unpopulated regions where they are little threat to much of anything, and trying to "fix" supposed perhaps-natural-actually "global warming." If humans are supposedly causing "global warming," which I seriously doubt, then we have good reason and no reasonable alternative, so it's "natural" either way. But trying to "fix" it is needless "tampering" with nature, with no clear benefit to man.

short term prob... in the next 35 years you have built, 7 billion homes, in 70 years, you have to have built, 21 billion homes, 105 years you have to have built 63 billion homes.......we havn't built that many houses in 4000 years how can it be done in a 100...........

I respect you have a belief, but when it comes to ensuring the survival of man there is no place for religious influence........sorry dude.


And even if I'm wrong it 's better to be safe than sorry. My way (birth licenses) will balance out the growth rate and populous in 100 years, your way becomes impossible after 100 years, Try and logicaly look without biblical ref or influence, and without "God" as your last resort.

Well it looks like you conveniently forgot to factor in, the potential of the huge, population-driven expansion of the work force. A common error of the population phobics. Deliberately only looking at the negative while dismissing any possibly positive factor. Why in the world couldn't a naturally burgeoning human race, build 63 billion homes in a century? By then, people would be just as used to, if not more so, the "giant" size of the world population, as people are today. Homes could almost be built in factories. Factories are often bigger than a house, and houses could be delivered by special helicopter, if designed slightly better to be hoisted by a cable. Homes are also often built of some of the most amazing common materials, so it is in fact, quite possible to build numerous and/or massive cities filled with people.

According to your way of thinking, the past century shouldn't have been possible, as many "new" things were accomplished. Before the 20th century, very few cities had over a million people, now such cities are proliferating into the 100s. Now half the world's people live in cities, telling us that perhaps the trend of the future is of rising human population density. And yet quite a lot of urbanization isn't driven so much by population growth, as by people depopulating the countryside to move to cities, so it's more by choice, and not so much by "crowding" necessity. I see that as a negative trend actually, as I don't think people should have to move to already crowded cities to find employment, as cities could more naturally grow from the natural increase of all the people already living within them, as the countryside rises in population density as well. Why not explore how more people can prosper, right where they live already, expanding their options.

My way? My way is the natural way, and the God-fearing way. It's not merely "my way." China must have some 350 or 450 million women now of childbearing age, many of whom yearn naturally for "traditionally very large" families. I say have some compassion and welcome them to push out their babies naturally. There can come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. By merely "scooting over" a bit, so many astounding more people can find or make some room to fit upon the planet. Yeah, I know, if the Chinese people more respected the dignity and sacredness of each and every human life, in a generation or two, they may have some 650 or 950 million women of childbearing age, much of whom may be freely pushing out babies naturally. The world's most populous nation setting an example for a growing world of people, of encouraging natural global population growth. That's the idea. To enlarge the entire human race, for the greater good of the many. Maybe China grows naturally to 3 billion, India to over 2 billion, or vice-versa. But then not all that many decades ago, it was a "first" for the world to have not just one, but then 2 "population billionaire" nations. And still the world went on.

Why is allowing people to live, and respecting human dignity, a "radical" idea? Some stupid government monopoly school textbook, that I bought at a thrift store, I guess they couldn't get rid of it fast enough eh?, had a chapter title of "Infinite humanity: The end of evolution?," showing a picture of a crowd. Apparently not everybody imagines it so impossible to have a massive natural enlargement of the human race. So why do you?

BTW, your numbers are way off. Seems you forgot to factor in, that typically several people share a home. Not an entire house for each person. But no matter, as the numbers aren't really so much the issue anyway. It's more a question of morals, and the sacredness and great worth of each and every human life.

No place for religious influence? Ha! Without religious influence, humanity would not long survive. Without moral guidance, what keeps us civilized, and at least, in appearance, trying to "play by the rules" rather than killing one another, as in the days before Noah and the Great Flood that God judged the world with? Without religious influence, the human race would have more troubles coping with having become so dense and numerous already. Aren't we perhaps a bit like that ape experiment, which I may have mentioned somewhere, in which they kept adding more and more apes, to some confines, giving them plenty of food and water, and Oooops! They adapted. They took to grooming one another and seeking to avoid conflict. Bummer. Where's the propaganda value in that? So they keep prattling on about the even more irrelevant disfunctional mice experiment. Did it not occur to anybody, that these "scientists" may have inadvertently "tainted" their own experiment? Pets don't behave so much like wild animals. Pets behave somewhat more like humans. More calm and civilized. More tolerant of crowds. Why? Because humans seem to expect it of them. Pets get disciplined for being too naturally "territorial" or for barking too much. So when apes see the humans adding more apes, what do you think they expect? Okay, these apes must now "belong" to the pack too. Who are we to argue? The humans appear to be more powerful or smarter than us. Could that be slightly similar to the effects of "religious influence" upon the human race? Oh all these additional billions must belong to the human race too, because they are our very own children, they even look and smell like us, and/or God is adding them for some reason.

Humans using "birth control" is a very new and novel, radical "experiment." Historically, not all that long ago, it wasn't the norm. There's practical and logical reasons why our population growth is still referred to in naturalistic terms such as "natural increase" and parents having "issue" of children. As not all that long ago, there was more respect for welcoming the natural flow of human life, and people were pretty much fine with the natural tendency of each successive generation naturally growing larger and more populous than the previous, as that's likely what Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, God's commandment to people, would imply. It was likely much of the motive for recent public health improvements and much of medical science, as people noticed that the human race was naturally expanding and densifying, and wanted to better insure that such could continue more easily and safely. Not all that long ago, "growth was good." What happened? Isn't it supposed to be more like "growth is good?" People fell away from faith, and started trusting way too much, in the corrupt, sensation-seeking media, and the new "high priests" of the day, so-called "environmentalists" and "scientists."

Editted to add: Better to be safe than sorry? That's the fallacy of the "precautionary principle." But it simply does not work in this context, because there are huge costs in interfering with the way that things were meant to be, also. To deny people their children, via deception and anti-family values, is not being safe rather than sorry. It's inviting trouble and otherwise needless revolts and revolution against repressive and oppressive governments or societies.

my mate is a builder and he say's it is not possible to build that many homes in the time scale. my edit note at the bottom said it was a max (50% is not possible).

If your belief is that strong in God, let me ask you.

When you are ill do you go to the docs/hospital or does God cure you.?
if your child had cancer/lukemia would you take it to the docs/hospital or would your faith in God cure it?
If you wear glasses why does God not fix your sight?
If your God is real does that mean all the other Gods are?


Why do we have hospitals if we have God.......?

don't forget for 1000 years mankind was persecuted killed and brainwashed in the name of God , I don't think we will stand for it again and most faith was lost because of proven falsehoods.?

only we can save ourselves...?
by any means neccesary.

aslo even if it was possible to build more house in 100 yrs than we have done in 4000 yrs, what about food, plants for oxygen areas for wildlife, not forgeting that land mass is decreasing.....where will your building materials come from?

Don't profane the true beauty of sex. It's main natural function, is obviously to enlarge the entire human race.

my mate is a builder and he say's it is not possible to build that many homes in the time scale. my edit note at the bottom said it was a max (50% is not possible).

And why is it not possible to build that many homes? Don't forget, homes are expensive, so people quite often share homes with roommates or with family members. So the number of people can be several times the number of homes. According to the TV show, "Extreme Makeover Home Edition," they radically improve, or build an entire new home, in just a week. But I suspect that they rig it somewhat, by bringing in huge work crews, prefab materials sometimes, and taking