I don't care how much the West is bitching about China's 1 child policy, they did the socially responsible thing. Every day the human population increases by 200K (!!!) people. Can you believe it??

We are way beyond the carrying capacity. ( I wrote this sentence to increase responses). Not exactly true, but why push poor mother Earth up to her limits? Like rabbits, just breeding and breeding.

Not to mention that the extra breeding occurs in the wrong part of the world, where there is not enough food, water or medication to keep them alive. And some naive people want to erase poverty. I can erase poverty, just breed LESS!!!

Not to mention that the extra breeding occurs in the wrong part of the world, where there is not enough food, water or medication to keep them alive. And some naive people want to erase poverty. I can erase poverty, just breed LESS!!!

Its a vicious cycle because poor nutrition and health in underdeveloped countries means a decrease in life expectancy for children, which means people have more children.

The only way to decrease population is to address the basic needs of adequate food and optimal health, both of which are exponentially dependent on social progress and education.

Yep yep. The government should hand out free hysterectomies vasectomies.

Last edited by samcdkey : Today at 03:03 PM. Reason: corrected for sexist bias.

Sam,
I have to say that this is the first time you have seriously disappointed me.
That was a blatant abuse of mod power and direct disregard for respect and decorum.

Sam,
I have to say that this is the first time you have seriously disappointed me.
That was a blatant abuse of mod power and direct disregard for respect and decorum.

Actually it was merely a joke, which is why I used the strikethrough, and not delete.:)

Then you should have quoted Zephyr and done it in your quote.

Yep yep. The government should hand out free hysterectomies and vasectomies.

One does not undergo hysterectomies for birth control!!!!:eek:

Then you should have quoted Zephyr and done it in your quote.

Wouldn't have been as much fun.;)

Not to mention that the extra breeding occurs in the wrong part of the world, where there is not enough food, water or medication to keep them alive. And some naive people want to erase poverty. I can erase poverty, just breed LESS!!!

How logical. Except for one detail. How come there has 'always' been poverty?

I actually attempted to remember the name of the male version but couldn't :o

Incidentally, hysterectomy is usually just done for cancer and other diseases; female sterilization in humans merely involves clamping the fallopian tubes (which can be reversed) - but I can't remember the name of that procedure either.

I actually attempted to remember the name of the male version but couldn't :o

Incidentally, hysterectomy is usually just done for cancer and other diseases; female sterilization in humans merely involves clamping the fallopian tubes (which can be reversed) - but I can't remember the name of that procedure either.

One could just hand out oral contraceptives, why the all or none?:shrug:

PS its called tubal ligation.

One could just hand out oral contraceptives, why the all or none?:shrug:
Harder to enforce. When I said free, I meant as in 'price'. Not as in 'will'...

Actually, it just sounded funnier.

Harder to enforce. When I said free, I meant as in 'price'. Not as in 'will'. ;)

How do you propose to "enforce" free vasectomies/hysteroctomies?

Here is one way being tried in India:

http://www.mid-day.com/news/city/2004/february/76551.htm

Take a man along to the Raj Bhavan for a vasectomy operation and come home with a cool Rs 100 in your pocket. The man who gets operated on is paid Rs 500.

The Governor’s Mission NSV (non-scalpel vasectomy) campaign to curb Mumbai’s population in particular and Maharashtra’s population in general, by birth control measures, is gaining ground.

The drive hopes to make vasectomy popular. “It makes sense that both are rewarded for their effort,” said Dr U Deshpande, Governor Mohamed Fazal’s doctor, the brain behind the vasectomy drive.

The usual way. Send vans full of candy to the villages to lure out the kids. They arrive back later a little dazed, but with a big bag of candy.

Better to do it to kids on the basis of 'can't miss what you never had'.

The usual way. Send vans full of candy to the villages to lure out the kids. They arrive back later a little dazed, but with a big bag of candy.

Better to do it to kids on the basis of 'can't miss what you never had'.

Unfortunately there is such a thing called informed consent and another little hitch called litigation.

Unfortunately there is such a thing called informed consent and another little hitch called litigation.
Don't you mean tubal litigation? :p

What you mention is only a problem in non-totalitarian countries. But the way America's been behaving, people are starting to doubt this whole 'freedom' thing. Soon the world will again be in equilibrium.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Marta-libria-flag.jpg/300px-Marta-libria-flag.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium_(2002_film))

Warfare, the tradition way of "keeping the population in check"...is largely obsolete. I agree we need to think up new ways to deal with the population problem.

Ohhhh I don't know maybe SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT LIVING ON OTHER PLANETS.

"[anything which] is a living and not a dying body... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant — not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power... 'Exploitation'... belongs to the essence of what lives, as a basic organic function; it is a consequence of the will to power, which is after all the will to life."
– trans. Walter Kaufmann, Beyond Good and Evil,

Life does not like to be "held in check". There are consequences to this. Yes China is a very very good example...warfare is about to come back "in style".

Don't you mean tubal litigation? :p

What you mention is only a problem in non-totalitarian countries. But the way America's been behaving, people are starting to doubt this whole 'freedom' thing. Soon the world will again be in equilibrium.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/Marta-libria-flag.jpg/300px-Marta-libria-flag.jpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equilibrium_(2002_film))

Feeling dystopic today, are we?:p

Ohhhh I don't know maybe SERIOUSLY THINK ABOUT LIVING ON OTHER PLANETS.

1. because it is not realistic/practical.
2. even if it were, we would just overpopulate the other planet. Same problem then.

Now, why not just think about returning to the ocean? Living underwater is still way way cheaper than trying to get on another planet...

I personally think mother earth will take care of the problem if wars won;t a nice new virus can whipe out half of the population in no time...

I personally think mother earth will take care of the problem if wars won;t a nice new virus can whipe out half of the population in no time...

She will.
She always does.

Looks like the problem is taking care of itself, although I think the current population is already too high:

"You need a TFR -- a Total Fertility Rate -- of about 2.1 children per woman to maintain a population. It's a little higher in backward countries.

55% of the world now lives in countries with TFR's at or below 2.1 -- these include Brazil (1.9), China (1.2-1.7), Turkey (1.9), Iran (1.8), Algeria (1.87) and Tunisia (1.75), by the way. And probably (nobody's quite sure) Indonesia.

On current trends this percentage will increase to 75% in the next 10 years, as India dips below 2.1. Large parts of India already have.

The _world_ TFR is now 2.59, down from over 6 in the 1970's. The decline is accelerating and it's pretty well universal. Even the most backward countries have seen fertility declines. The world TFR will drop to 2.1 or below by 2020 on current trends, quite possibly earlier."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2036598,00.html

That's pretty good for the birth-side of the problem, how about the death side? What's global life expectancy expected to do? I'm not the statistician to be able to tell if that's relevant, but I've got to wonder what extended life expectancies would do for the global population.

One could just hand out oral contraceptives, why the all or none?:shrug:

You've got to take them every day. At least go for depo-provera or norplant.

Looks like the problem is taking care of itself, although I think the current population is already too high:

"You need a TFR -- a Total Fertility Rate -- of about 2.1 children per woman to maintain a population. It's a little higher in backward countries.

55% of the world now lives in countries with TFR's at or below 2.1 -- these include Brazil (1.9), China (1.2-1.7), Turkey (1.9), Iran (1.8), Algeria (1.87) and Tunisia (1.75), by the way. And probably (nobody's quite sure) Indonesia.

On current trends this percentage will increase to 75% in the next 10 years, as India dips below 2.1. Large parts of India already have.

The _world_ TFR is now 2.59, down from over 6 in the 1970's. The decline is accelerating and it's pretty well universal. Even the most backward countries have seen fertility declines. The world TFR will drop to 2.1 or below by 2020 on current trends, quite possibly earlier."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2036598,00.html


Interesting. How come that there always has been poverty? Even with a population that was a fraction of the one we have now.

I thought you were logical.

Interesting.

:(

How come that there always has been poverty? Even with a population that was a fraction of the one we have now.



If X% of the world's population live in poverty today, and the population doubles, than obviously we also doubled the people living in poverty. Thus we have more poverty...End of story...

I thought you were logical.
:)

Now the real problem is that most likely we will also increase the % of people living in poverty (that is relative numbers for *****), because there is no way we can keep up the living standard of today with this quickly increasing population.

How does breeding less "erase poverty" (post #1) if there is always an X% in poverty?

Breeding less will erase poverty because then there won't be anybody left to starve, we must end the cycle of birth in the lower less developed countries.

How does breeding less "erase poverty" (post #1) if there is always an X% in poverty?


wow...Are you a logical leftie?

No, I can't stand the hatred it generates.

Breeding less will erase poverty because then there won't be anybody left to starve,

Exactly. By the way we don't have to mean literally erasing poverty, just reducing greatly. Or not even poverty, but at least starving..

Certainly, breeding MORE doesn't help the problem no matter how we look at it...

Certainly, breeding MORE doesn't help the problem no matter how we look at it...

I would like to hear some logic behind that.

I can tell you why you are wrong of course.

Let's assume the population remains the same. People started 'breeding' less and as a result the population reaches a status quo.

Nothing will ever change. The current system needs poverty.

Let us say people start 'breeding' a lot less. The population diminishes by half. Nothing happens. Still the economic system thrives on poverty.

Let us say people start 'breeding' a lot more. The population is booming. Soon a point is reached where our current economic and social system completely collapses.

At this point there can be two scenarios.

A period of war, anarchy, genocide, disease crashes the population till the old economic system becomes viable again. The cycle starts over again.
A period of anarchy, disease, genocide, war, rampant sex, etc is followed by a revolution in our society.


Option no.2 gives an opportunity to eliminate poverty.

None of the breeding less scenarios do.

There simply is no artificial mechanism that will "control" people in this regard. It is not working in china. It is a basic need to procreate and also to have sex. Even if it were possible, to control the population, it cannot last and WILL have a negative outcome for us.

Even slaves in most cultures were allowed to do this, limiting it always has consequences.

Life grows, it is that simple and we are part of life. If we are to be successful, beyond earth, we must out grow it. The earth was good to us, it gave birth to us, it nurtured us to where we are now. It's time to move out. Let's not pass away in her basement.

If space is not the solution now(and it should be, we should be MUCH farther advanced if we took a different path from 1969), it is the solution eventually. Or it is an early death. These are not humanity's twilight years, we need more children and we need some more space. There is plenty to be had.

Yes many people will die, but there will come a time(I HOPE), every life will be precious again and WANTED. At least life of the adventurous sort. Not this slave society some of you imagine.

You are wrong on so many accounts:

1. Artifical controls: laws and taxes.
2. Having sex doesn't equal having children.
3. It is working in China. There are disadvantages, but the population growth in China slowed down.
4. It was for the slaveowner's benefit to have more slaves.
5. You design a spaceship taking away 200K people a day...
etc.etc.etc.

3. It is working in China. There are disadvantages, but the population growth in China slowed down.

You do realise that the situation in China is not that great, don't you? Because of the one child policy and the cultural belief that having a boy is better than having a girl, China is now facing the possibility that there simply will not be enough females to maintain the future population in China. They are attempting to encourage couples to keep their female children instead of aborting them or dumping them, simply because their policy has resulted in a frightening shortage of female babies.

In that, the one child policy has failed in China because the future populations can now not be guarranteed, due to the lack of females.

As to breeding less in poverty stricken countries. All well and good, but with poverty in such extremes, people have more children to ensure that at least some survive. Think of the depression and the number of large families that came into existence during that time.

Having less children will not reduce poverty. It will only ensure that there are less poverty stricken people... because there are less people in the first place.

And breed more smart people, and sterilize the stupid.

You do realise that the situation in China is not that great, don't you?

Sure. But I bet we have like 200 million less Chinese... And this is a problem where ANY solution is going to hurt someone...

China is now facing the possibility that there simply will not be enough females to maintain the future population in China.

OK, let's not get carried away. They still have plenty. And they can always reverse the policy...

Humanity makes its bed, then hasn't a clue what to do with it.

I can think of two distinct ethnic groups that are working to overwhelm the rest by simply breeding and taking advantage of human rights that are supposed to be in place to protect everyone. It's a contest that no one who has any sense joins in, and no, neither one of those ethnic groups has any sense when it comes to survival.

White Protestants have a lot of faults but we're starting to learn something about controlling our population to control the damage that we cause to the Earth. But when we try to make some living room, SOMEONE insists on getting over on it. They don't care if their offspring are drug-addled, shooting each other in the streets, spreading diseases like crazy, and doubling the population of the world every decade. They are primed to be what's left after the system breaks and we are living in a post-holocaust world.

Humanity should not cease reproduction, or even curb it, rather, humanity should quadruple its rate.

The more people the better.

Technology and space travel will make room.

Moreover, it should be considered a moral obligation for the greatest of our people to breed the most.

You are wrong on so many accounts:

1. Artifical controls: laws and taxes.
2. Having sex doesn't equal having children.
3. It is working in China. There are disadvantages, but the population growth in China slowed down.
4. It was for the slaveowner's benefit to have more slaves.
5. You design a spaceship taking away 200K people a day...
etc.etc.etc.

1. Laws and taxes are slave/master controls. Laws/taxes suppress the strong in favor of the weak. In North America only the elite(masters) can afford to have as many children as they like. The "poor" can also have as many children as they like, blowing their morality through a non-exhistant broken condom. They get a new government check for each one. Why not? It's the only thing NOT REGULATED BY THE EFFING GOVERNMENT NOW. There is your law and taxes in a nutshell.

2. Sex = children, wtf did they brainwash..teach you in that ...university???

3. China is going to have 200 MILLION unmarried, sexually frustrated conscripts readytogo kick some ass because of it's heavy slave/master system.

4. HUH? are you arguing for me here?

5. Traveling across the Atlantic ocean to north america(or India) was not possible in the 14th century...or at least thought not possible. By the 16th century people were coming by their own steam. By the 17th, businessmen and 18th - poor people, 19th, dirty poor(+criminals!lol) people were coming happily for "free land". Only requirement - adventurous attitude and guts. It will be similar with space exploration and then colonization. It may start small, but it will be exponential growth.

She will.
She always does.
And then we find a way around it. So far, we're winning. Your faith in... mother nature... might be seriously misplaced. Humanity has become Frankenstein's monster.

And as a side note - the thing about war is that it is never fought for any of the reasons humans say it is.

I agree with you, humanity contra mother nature which = earth.

Perhaps "mother" is not the right word. Uterus is the right word. Petri dish is the right idea. We stay too long without spores, we do not continue.

Is this not the point, "to continue", going over? Or, to pass away, go under?

Mother Earth is Chinese:

Our father, evolution, has died.

She is now a servant of us.

I don't care how much the West is bitching about China's 1 child policy, they did the socially responsible thing. Every day the human population increases by 200K (!!!) people. Can you believe it??

We are way beyond the carrying capacity. ( I wrote this sentence to increase responses). Not exactly true, but why push poor mother Earth up to her limits? Like rabbits, just breeding and breeding.

Not to mention that the extra breeding occurs in the wrong part of the world, where there is not enough food, water or medication to keep them alive. And some naive people want to erase poverty. I can erase poverty, just breed LESS!!!

Breeding less does not erase poverty, it just reduces misery. The only way to erase poverty is communism. The way to reduce misery is to breed slowly.

TimeTraveler:

What the Hell?

Have you never seen North Korea?

Breeding less does not erase poverty,

Actually, it could. In the extreme case, when breeding decreases so badly that only 200 people left on Earth a few generations from now, each could have their own country.

Now, you can't be called poor when you have your own country, can you? :)

TimeTraveler:

What the Hell?

Have you never seen North Korea?

Have you heard of sanctions? North Korea is doing better than capitalist South Africa isnt it? Or do you want to make the case that South Africa is more successful?

Actually, it could. In the extreme case, when breeding decreases so badly that only 200 people left on Earth a few generations from now, each could have their own country.

Now, you can't be called poor when you have your own country, can you? :)


The only way to erase poverty is extinction. We WANT poverty to exist, so no matter how much we breed it's never going to not exist, it's just going to be a different group that will be in poverty. If you remove everyone except Americans and Europeans, then poverty in America and Europe would increase because there would be LESS slave labor everywhere else.

Do you really think anything would change with less people in terms of poverty when the USA and Europe, and soon Asia, consumes the majority of the worlds resources? The poor don't consume as much, so let's be serious here, how are you going to consume all this junk, and live like you do, without poverty? Someone has to do all the work while you live king like.

TimeTraveler:

Two things:

1. South Africa is hardly Capitalist. Nelson Mandela was a Communist.

2. Yes, I would wager even South Africa is better off than North Korea.

South Africa is Communist???

The only way to erase poverty is extinction.

Which is pretty much what I said. From 7 billion to 200 people....

But I want RICH people to breed less too!!! It is not just about poverty, but the Earth's carrying capacity...

Which is pretty much what I said. From 7 billion to 200 people....

But I want RICH people to breed less too!!! It is not just about poverty, but the Earth's carrying capacity...

200...people? Seriously? You keep saying that...

How are you going to limit the Rich people pray tell? Or rather the powerful...

The same way you could persuade them not to use Humvees. Seriously, with heavy taxation. Every kid more than 2 would increase their personal taxbracket by 10%...(or 20% if you want to be really mean)

See a poor person most likely doesn't pay taxes, so this new law works most effectively on the rich and the middle class...

Which is pretty much what I said. From 7 billion to 200 people....

Where are you gonna' bury all those dead bodies?

And who's gonna' do it? Ya' only got 200 people to dig billions of graves and cover up the bodies .....and not long to do before the bodies begin to rot and stink pretty badly.

Baron Max

The same way you could persuade them not to use Humvees. Seriously, with heavy taxation. Every kid more than 2 would increase their personal taxbracket by 10%...(or 20% if you want to be really mean)

See a poor person most likely doesn't pay taxes, so this new law works most effectively on the rich and the middle class...

Your not listening. Taxes are an imposition upon the slave by the master. How do you limit the masters?

Moreover it wouldn't even work on the slaves. You could have 99% taxes. Some people are going to find a way(legal or not and you assume people will obey any fucked up law), to climb over any hurdle you throw at them. And some will still find a way to feed 4-5 or 10 mouths by their own means.

Your not listening.

Probably because there was nothing to listen to... :(

TimeTraveler:

Two things:

1. South Africa is hardly Capitalist. Nelson Mandela was a Communist.

2. Yes, I would wager even South Africa is better off than North Korea.


Thats ridiculous, how can you say Nelson Mandela was a communist and be expected to be taken seriously?

Which is pretty much what I said. From 7 billion to 200 people....

But I want RICH people to breed less too!!! It is not just about poverty, but the Earth's carrying capacity...

Dude, we are the "rich" people you are talking about. (The USA and Europe are the richest)

I'm saying, if people are going to breed less, that alone will not solve all the earths problems, it just slows them down. I think we will of course need to have some form of limitations or a way to slow breeding down, but to simplify it to just saying breed less, is a bit stupid.

Where are you gonna' bury all those dead bodies?

And who's gonna' do it? Ya' only got 200 people to dig billions of graves and cover up the bodies .....and not long to do before the bodies begin to rot and stink pretty badly.

Baron Max

I think he's joking, he knows it's not realistic. It's one thing to limit breeding, it's another thing to say "breed less". breed less is like telling a fat person to eat less to lose weight, it's not that simple. If it were that simple, we'd all be healthy and would just eat a little bit less junk food to do it.

It does not work that way, eating less donuts every day, does not mean you'll be healthy even if you lose weight.

TimeTraveler:

http://www.realnews247.com/how_to_be_a_good_communist.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela

He was heavily involved with Communism throughout his life. To characterize him as fundamentally non-Communist is to disregard the fact that practically everything he was associated with was associated with Communism.

Moreover, even if South Africa is a fucking Hell Hole, its current state is leaps and bounds over every Communist government. Millions of people have not died from famines and massive state-murder.

Communism is the great impoverisher - nay, the greater enslaver.

TT, let's say you have terminal cancer. Unoperable. But we are able to slow it down.

Wouldn't you be VERY happy with that much???

So you are of the opinion humanity is doomed....a dying body?

Well, of course eventually it is doomed, but not necesserily because of overpopulation. A nuclear war or an airborne, fast acting killer virus could finish us off faster.

But in the long run, having too many people sure doesn't help and just increases the risks of the other two...

The Japanese Prime Minister just publicly declared that all Japanese women are "baby machines" in order to increase their birth rate to head off a huge economic problem with so many elderly Japanese retiring and no one to take care of them. Same situation in the U.S. with social security funds running out. Economics vs. world population. What a global mess.

The Japanese Prime Minister just publicly declared that all Japanese women are "baby machines"

Ah yes japanese efficiency perhaps they're going to integrate it in their morning gymnastics... No offence against the Japanese their yust as nuts as the rest of the world but their sure are a little bid more eccentric in it.

Syzygys:

ACtually, no illness can kill off a population of 6 billion at 100 percent efficiency. The most virulent illness known was the black plague, and that barely hit 1/3rd.

Similarly, we do not have to worry about large-scale nuclear conflict, owing to MAD. What we have to worry about is terrorist nukes and small-scale tactical nuclear exchanges between minorly-armed nations (see: China, Israel, Pakistan, and India).

It is so easy to prove you wrong, it is not even a challenge...

ACtually, no illness can kill off a population of 6 billion at 100 percent efficiency. The most virulent illness known was the black plague, and that barely hit 1/3rd.

1. Who needs 100%? If the efficiency is higher than the birthrate, time will take care of the problem.
2. Ebola has a 50-90% mortality rate.

Similarly, we do not have to worry about large-scale nuclear conflict, owing to MAD.

I am glad, you are not worried. You probably never heard of nuclear military accidents when WW3 ALMOST occured, just by human or machine mistakes. Look it up...

I pretty much agree we stand a high risk of slaying ourselves yes. Frankly I think we are at an "intersteller" point in the evolutionary process. A simple question really:

Can this people obtain a morality to avoid killing themselves?

If yes, then expand beyond home planet.
If no, then repeat with new dominant species.

In my opinion the successful morality does not include legislating your balls.

I don't care how much the West is bitching about China's 1 child policy, they did the socially responsible thing. Every day the human population increases by 200K (!!!) people. Can you believe it??

We are way beyond the carrying capacity. ( I wrote this sentence to increase responses). Not exactly true, but why push poor mother Earth up to her limits? Like rabbits, just breeding and breeding.

Not to mention that the extra breeding occurs in the wrong part of the world, where there is not enough food, water or medication to keep them alive. And some naive people want to erase poverty. I can erase poverty, just breed LESS!!!

Most everybody has their compelling reasons for having as many children as they do, and more and more people would be glad to live, and people of course have powerful reproductive urges best satisfied after marriage of course--by reproduction. That all adds up to a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race.

Of course people worldwide should go on breeding and breeding. What part of God's commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, do we not understand? There are serious side effects to "birth control" seriously underreported. Catholic-condoned rhythm, the world objects to, saying it requires too much "self-control." Well isn't that one of the things that marriage is supposed to be about, building the family nest and commitment, the proper preparation for providing for and loving children? Welcome more fellow human beings to come alive. Whatever happened to welcoming babies to happen when they happen? So why not talk of the virtues of the "no method" method of "family planning," since any other method after marriage, goes against nature and is quite unnecessary. Some lady who wrote an article in Glamour magazine, about the mad rush so many women have to finally have some children before it is too late, and then end up spending $thousands on infertility assistance, said it was like her diaphram was laughing at her saying, "You probably didn't need me anyway."

I have long encouraged large families worldwide, because even population arcologies, if it ever came to that, are far better than nasty, awkward, anti-family "birth control." In the ethics subforum or folder, somebody posted some beatiful picture of some artist's rendering of future population arcologies, which I don't think is where we are headed anyway, considering also the growing, perhaps runaway "birth dearth" of Europe, no doubt afflicted upon them by rampant contraceptive peddling, and the impending Biblical endtimes anyway.

You mention China? What if China was to ask us, what if you had a billion people within your borders? Still okay for people to enjoy having "all the children God gives?" Well the correct answer then, would be "Of course we would still welcome people to have large families." What do you think all this technology is for anyway? I notice that technology right now, is headed far more towards allowing people to populate more densely and efficiently throughout the world, than towards colonizing other worlds yet. There is a way to accomodate the world's burgeoning billions well into the forseeable future, and that is to allow there to become more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Urbanize the world to whatever extent needed. The sacredness of each and every human life is sacrosant. It shouldn't even be subject to debate. A populous world is not the place to be disparaging human life. It would be more prudent to promote the social graces, and seek to actually like people, especially since there are now so many of us.

It's not corporation legal fiction "persons" that should be welcome to grow as large as possible, but rather real people.

http://www.thecorporation.com

You sir are a religious nutcase and nonsensical idiot, who should not be responded to, but speaking of beautiful pictures:

http://www.senescence.info/overpopulation.jpg

Also:

http://update.unu.edu/images/overpopulation.jpg

http://www.tkrl.org/images/overpopulation.jpg

http://cache.bordom.net/images/f4417fa96d0de8973a80bf49624aadce.jpg

Speaking of China:

Now you can see it:

http://washingtonbureau.typepad.com/china/images/smog1.jpg

Now you can't:

http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/2477/S2002011041003.L1A_HJMS.jpg

You sir are a religious nutcase and nonsensical idiot, who should not be responded to, but speaking of beautiful pictures:

http://www.senescence.info/overpopulation.jpg

The truly sad thing is, Pronatalist is so singularly focused on his quest to see Homo Sapiens displace every other living thing on the planet that he probably thinks those pictures are wonderful.

With no compelling evidence of any sort of god, I have no hesitation to throw out commandments from bronze age creation myths. There is no evidence that anyone or anything in our universe is anything but indifferent to the fate of our species. Our inflated sense of our own importance will likely be the cause of our own demise. But extinction is the eventual fate of all species, just as your own personal death is unavoidable. So there is no point in getting upset about it.

Since we supposedly have free will, does it make any sense to continue breeding uncontrollably, until we are drowning in our own filth?

1. Who needs 100%? If the efficiency is higher than the birthrate, time will take care of the problem.
2. Ebola has a 50-90% mortality rate.

Your knowledge of disease is pathetic.
Resistance develops, as well as individuals containing natural resistance. Every organism on the planet has immune responses to pathogens, developed by billions of years of evolution. Humans are no exception.

Even a disease with a 99.9% mortality rate leaves 0.1% of the population, which will result in greater resource distrubtion between the survivors, less environmental stress due to crowding, and a greatly diminished exposure to disease vectors.

For instance, Myxomatosis. Or the growth cycles of grouse.

There is natural selection on diseases to become less virulent, and even stronger selection on populations to develop resistance.

While a plague may have the potential to obliterate life as we know it, it surely won't obliterate the human species- there are too many of us, too spread out.

I don't care how much the West is bitching about China's 1 child policy, they did the socially responsible thing. Every day the human population increases by 200K (!!!) people. Can you believe it??

We are way beyond the carrying capacity. ( I wrote this sentence to increase responses). Not exactly true, but why push poor mother Earth up to her limits? Like rabbits, just breeding and breeding.

Not to mention that the extra breeding occurs in the wrong part of the world, where there is not enough food, water or medication to keep them alive. And some naive people want to erase poverty. I can erase poverty, just breed LESS!!!

you breed less or dont breed at all.

I will breed as I wish.

Your knowledge of disease is pathetic.
Resistance develops, as well as individuals containing natural resistance.


Your knowledge of math is pathetic. Who cares about resistance once 90+% was already whiped out?
I never said the disease whipes out all humankind, did I?

I will breed as I wish.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bawl:

P.S.: You breed not as you wish but as some drunk women let you... :)

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :bawl:

P.S.: You breed not as you wish but as some drunk women let's you... :)

i DO not wish for my child to be born from drunk woman.
But I will find a suitable healthy woman nevertheless, when the time is right.

I'm so glad China gets those "special kyoto" conditions...

So that's the country we are supposed to emulate?

How about this, how about we just gun down their boats filled with people looking for refugee status and continue with the north american increase, which is very modest.

I'm so glad China gets those "special kyoto" conditions...

So that's the country we are supposed to emulate?

How about this, how about we just gun down their boats filled with people looking for refugee status and continue with the north american increase, which is very modest.

suits you, assassin.

The age of industrialization seems to be the cause...

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html

And if you need something off the wall to pass your time...

http://www.ferroboats.com/

suits you, assassin.

Hashshashin to you, pleb.

Syzygys:

It is so easy to prove you wrong, it is not even a challenge...

Looks like you dropped the ball, George St. Pierre.

1. Who needs 100%? If the efficiency is higher than the birthrate, time will take care of the problem.

No illness is going to spread over so many generations as to severely destroy mankind.

2. Ebola has a 50-90% mortality rate.

And has killed only about one thousand people in the worse area of the world.

Chances are an ebola outbreak on a large scale would drop its mortality rate to 10 percent at worse, and more like 2 percent in the first world. As Roman pointed out, natural selection selects for less virulent diseases. The more it kills quick, the worse it is for it.

I am glad, you are not worried. You probably never heard of nuclear military accidents when WW3 ALMOST occured, just by human or machine mistakes. Look it up...

It didn't happen. It shows you how good MAD is to stop crap, as is human knowledge of not doing bullshit that will end the world unnecessarily. Cooler heads -do- prevail. There is too much at stake.

By the time I'm dead, I hope there are billions upon billions of more human beings, a colonized moon, a colonized Mars, and projects to colonize the rest of the solar system, if not the galaxy. Humanity should grow exponentially. The more the merrier.

We are clearly not in the same league when it goes to debates, but let's educate you:

Humanity should grow exponentially. The more the merrier.

It DOES grow exponentially. Now I am curious, why do you think it SHOULD?

It was good back in the old times when mortality rate was high, but when survival rate increased, fertility rates should go down....

No illness is going to spread over so many generations as to severely destroy mankind.

One generation can be sufficient. Again, I never said it would whipe out humankind,but could help with the overpopulation problem.

Let's start with a history lesson:

"The 1918 flu pandemic was a category 5 influenza pandemic between 1918 and 1920 caused by an unusually severe and deadly Influenza A virus strain of subtype H1N1. By far the most destructive pandemic in history, it killed some 50 million to 100 million people worldwide in just 18 months,"

Now this was back when there was no airtransportation, people spreading all over the world in a few hours. Since people today are not immune to the very same virus, it is safe to say today's casualties would be ten times more, easily.

That is 1 billion people lost to a simple FLU....

And has killed only about one thousand people in the worse area of the world.

Let's make an outbreak in a big metropolitan area and see how far it goes...

Chances are an ebola outbreak on a large scale would drop its mortality rate to 10 percent at worse, and more like 2 percent in the first world.

Or not. Since this thread is not about Ebola, I will pass on this, although I am happy to discuss a possible Ebola outbreak scenario.

It didn't happen.

Lucky for us. It COULD HAVE happened. You probably haven't heard of the Russian guy who saved the world by overriding the system and not retaliating against a computerglitch.

It shows you how good MAD is to stop crap, as is human knowledge of not doing bullshit that will end the world unnecessarily.

Your ignorance is showing. There were quite a few accidents, when humankind got lucky, not to mention the political hottimes, when we almost had a full blown nuclear war...

Syzygys:

It DOES grow exponentially. Now I am curious, why do you think it SHOULD?

It was good back in the old times when mortality rate was high, but when survival rate increased, fertility rates should go down....

The more human beings, the most we are assured of survival. The more human beings, the more great ones. The more human beings, the more great things in this universe.

Man is the meaning of his existence. There is no point in there being a universe without him. Accordingly, he must master it. And the first step? Start populating it.

Syzygys:

Now this was back when there was no airtransportation, people spreading all over the world in a few hours. Since people today are not immune to the very same virus, it is safe to say today's casualties would be ten times more, easily.

That is 1 billion people lost to a simple FLU....

You fail to remember:

1. Most people didn't have electricity.

2. Most people didn't have indoor plumbing.

3. Most people did not have clean water.

4. Most people had no access to medical care worth a damn.

5. There were no modern hospitals and care.

6. The population had just been devestated by one of the most deadly wars in human history.

Let's make an outbreak in a big metropolitan area and see how far it goes...

It isn't apparently that contagious, as again, only a thousand people...

Not only could it be contained, it would be relatively easy to do so. The panic would be worse, as ebola is known to be a horrible disease.

Lucky for us. It COULD HAVE happened. You probably haven't heard of the Russian guy who saved the world by overriding the system and not retaliating against a computerglitch.

I actually have. I'm glad he did so, like any rational being would. Double check before causing the apocalypse.

Your ignorance is showing. There were quite a few accidents, when humankind got lucky, not to mention the political hottimes, when we almost had a full blown nuclear war...

MAD protected us int he bay of pigs, good sir. That is why the Russians pulled out as Kennedy had his hand on the button.

There was no luck, only human rationality.

Here is a list of pandemics in history, where 10-25% mortality rate occured.
Sure, today we have better healthcare and everything you listed, but that is counterbalanced with the possibility of faster spread and the aviability of more hosts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic

MAD protected us int he bay of pigs, good sir. That is why the Russians pulled out as Kennedy had his hand on the button.

There was no luck, only human rationality.

There was rationality, for sure, but not on Kennedy's behalf. It was Chruschov who saved the world after the Americans QUIETLY agreed to his rational demands.

Hey, here is a philoso-mathematical argument against more people:

Since it is safe to say that there will be another world war or pandemic in the future, the more people we have, the more will die....

Argue against that! :)

Syzygys:

Here is a list of pandemics in history, where 10-25% mortality rate occured.
Sure, today we have better healthcare and everything you listed, but that is counterbalanced with the possibility of faster spread and the aviability of more hosts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandemic

Even the third world is significantly better off today. But you are correct that we are more connected, which can cause a greater strain. But whether or not the pandemic could hurt us because of this is really less of an issue than local care quality.

THe worse place to be in the case of a pandemic is where the modern world really is not too existent. Central Asia or sub-Saharan Africa are good examples.

There was rationality, for sure, but not on Kennedy's behalf. It was Chruschov who saved the world after the Americans QUIETLY agreed to his rational demands.

Aka: Kennedy screwed up majorly. But yes.

Since it is safe to say that there will be another world war or pandemic in the future, the more people we have, the more will die....

A lot of deaths doesn't much bother me if the war is worth it.

A lot of deaths doesn't much bother me if the war is worth it.

I find this sentence very interesting, although not surprising from you. So what if the whole goal of the war is just to decrease population?

Is that a worthy goal?

The truly sad thing is, Pronatalist is so singularly focused on his quest to see Homo Sapiens displace every other living thing on the planet that he probably thinks those pictures are wonderful.[QUOTE]

Well of course they are wonderful or beautiful, in some sort of way at least. Is there some natural law, that says that only human neglected land and "pristine" places can be beautiful? Cities can be beautiful too. All those people in and around the swimming pool, don't seem to feel "too crowded," otherwise, they would leave, right?

I have a question. Why when talking of population, do people go get the photo with the most people crammed into it? Some religious festival or fair. Why not get the photo with the least people crammed into it, some gap within the population settlement pattern, to show how "crowded" all of India is getting. Look! There's so many people, that this region still has 0 people in it. We must do something about this (apparently rather minor) problem. Why? Because people showing crowd pictures, really aren't looking for the truth or the "average" population density, but rather for shock propaganda value. For there is no country with so many people, that they have to be crowded but only a few feet from one another, so what relevance has those photos then?

[QUOTE=Repo Man;1348899]With no compelling evidence of any sort of god, I have no hesitation to throw out commandments from bronze age creation myths. There is no evidence that anyone or anything in our universe is anything but indifferent to the fate of our species. Our inflated sense of our own importance will likely be the cause of our own demise. But extinction is the eventual fate of all species, just as your own personal death is unavoidable. So there is no point in getting upset about it.

Why the fatalistic perspective? Wasn't the whole point of the discussion, that people apparently care about such things? Noah Webster (of dictionary fame) said that it is apparent, that the things around us didn't create themselves. You say that the universe is indifferent to us. No, I don't think that's quite right, because it was all created for some purpose, and without people around, it would be pretty much useless and worthless. Why would I create an "environment" in a video game I might write, except to populate it with people of some sort, even if but the 1 real human player in the game? What would be the point, without somebody to see it all? If the universe doesn't care about us, is indifferent as you say, then it shouldn't at all be "bothered" at how populous humans might ultimately become. Environmental extremists like to lie and claim that if humans don't control their numbers, nature will. Wrong. Nature won't, for humans transcend and help shape nature, for God gave man dominion over nature and other creatures. No, nature would, if it could, consider man part of nature, and multiply us all the more. All life seeks to spread and fill most any niche it can, and so why exactly should it be different for sentient (spelling?) humans? Humans are special, the masterpiece of God's creation, created in the "image" of God. By definition, an "image" is inferior in some way, to the original, but does share some traits, with the original. My photo may look like me, but can't experience life. But God breathed life into Adam.

God's commandments are for human benefit, to keep us from destroying ourselves, and to help us populate all the more, so I wouldn't be tossing them out just yet. With all the more people populating the world all the time, don't you think that would be all the more reason to promote the social graces, so we might get along in harmony better? If the world is perhaps growing more "crowded," don't you suppose maybe you should hold the door open for the person behind you? We had best try to be friendly towards fellow humans then. I understand why people just have to have so many babies, for when people have more babies, it promotes the greater good of the many. I am one of "the many" too, so what benefits "the many" benefits me also.

Since we supposedly have free will, does it make any sense to continue breeding uncontrollably, until we are drowning in our own filth?

Huh? I am very pro-development too, as more people would seem to require more infrastructure, more homes, more roads, etc. I advocate not nasty, anti-nature, anti-life contraceptives for the burgeoning billions of the world, but rather more modern flush toilets, and modern clean gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens to displace millions of smoky cooking fires in the various growing cities. Just because human numbers are rising, is hardly any excuse to be "drowning in our own filth." More people and more poverty, is hardly the ideal combination. But more people and more modern prosperity, that's win-win for everybody.

Unfortunately, it does help to have a world view of God's proper purpose for man, to help explain better why there really does need to be so many, many of us. All the more people to populate heaven and worship God. One parable that Jesus uses, is to liken man to the wheat of the field, and the wicked people to the useless chaff. Now what farmer wants a sparse harvest? No, the wheat should be so numerous, as to be almost close together. And isn't society a bit like that? Why do people depopulate the countryside to move to the big city? Excitement, jobs, stores to shop in? Apparently they prefer to be around other people, but I would rather the city grow more from natural increase than from poor people crowding the cities faster than they can properly grow. I would prefer the technology to help people stay in the rural areas or wherever they already live, or live where they choose, and not be pushed into cities by corrupt land laws, greedy corporation takeover of the land, or poverty.

Syzygys:



The more human beings, the most we are assured of survival. The more human beings, the more great ones. The more human beings, the more great things in this universe.

Man is the meaning of his existence. There is no point in there being a universe without him. Accordingly, he must master it. And the first step? Start populating it.

I read in some book, in some chapter On Fertility Control, 3 reasons why they say that humans are so prone to go on reproducing. In many parts of the world, they don't understand the physiology of sex, and so family size is still thought to be "uncontrollable." Yeah, right, like who doesn't know what makes babies? No, it's more like I read in some conservative newsletter, of people who won't use condoms (to supposedly prevent AIDS), because they actually want children and want to get pregnant. They say of the poor, that children are their only wealth, and the rich have so many excuses not to have children, maybe that's why God gives so many of the children to the poor? Another reason is some vestigal pride in big populations or large families. Tradition or natural pronatalism or something, we could probably call it. Apparently, most people still haven't got the message that the world is "full up," especially since it isn't even true. And then the third reason, I thought a bit amusing, being almost what I had suggested. Late motivation is a factor, as many people don't do anything to not have children, until they have a "multiparity" of children, and by then their sexual behavior has become routinized. Yeah, they are so used to enjoying sex naturally, why stop now, now that they have a house full of kids? I had previous suggested that many large families aren't exactly "planned," but rather many parents find that they have had their 4th child already, and haven't got around to choosing a "satisfactory" means of "birth control." Often, if they love children, why bother to contracept at all, as more children really wouldn't be that much a "problem" or "bother" anyway, should they come along?

Also, I notice that the more populated we get, the better we get at supporting large populations. Human population growth, especially under good leaders, naturally tends towards technology acceleration, which in turn, helps accomodate all the more human population. That's a vicious circle in the morally positive sense, all the more reason not to oppose basic human rights, and not even bother to try to "limit" our numbers, which we aren't so sure we can practically do anyway.

What if a baby in the womb was to "panic," and refuse to grow further, when the womb began to get "crowded?" What if women didn't switch to maternity clothes and let their bellies bulge naturally, when pregnant? No, it's necessary to put on that extra weight and bulge, if ever humans might, which I doubt anyway, spread to more worlds. We aren't even near ready for such a global "birth."

I am offering $5 for anyone who actually reads Pronatalist's post and an additional $5 if you can summarize it in 3 not too long sentences.

In the maintime, another stats:

Number of undernourished people (million) in 2001-2003, according to the FAO, the following countries had 5 million or more undernourished people [2]:Country Number of Undernourished (million)
India 198.0
China 150.0
Bangladesh 43.1
Democratic Republic of Congo 37.0
Pakistan 35.2
Ethiopia 31.5
Tanzania 16.1
Philippines 15.2
Brazil 14.4
Indonesia 13.8
Vietnam 13.8
Thailand 13.4
Nigeria 11.5
Kenya 9.7
Sudan 8.8
Mozambique 8.3
North Korea 7.9
Yemen 7.1
Madagascar 6.5
Colombia 5.9
Zimbabwe 5.7
Mexico 5.1
Zambia 5.1
Angola 5.0

OK I posted a pic with lots of people and water, so let's try the opposite of it:

http://www.danheller.com/images/Africa/Morocco/Sahara/sahara-i.jpg

I think we could put up a suburb there...

I'm sure those people like being that crowded at the swimming pool, and freely choose it over a less crowded one.

Lets take the wayback machine to the old thread. Posted by Fukushi.

I live in the most densly populated area of the world,...comparable with TOKIO. Populous/m²

Today, I went to the only swimming pool in the nabourhood: I had to bicycle an half hour to get there in the first place.

It was overcrowded and I couldn't swim one straight lane without bumping into people twice or more. If all the people that where on laying on the five foot sqware lawn would jump in,...then the water, wich I never saw so filthy by the way, would come out over the egde and you would have to stand in the water straight, since a horizontal position would certainly mean some people being drowned underneath the surface of bodies.

And that's not all: ,.... the noise,... more then 20decibel shouting and screaming from children and adolecents. A wonder no-one jumped on my back!

No,...this was to much for my nerves. No wonder I swam my laps as good as I could and that will be the last time I went to the swimming-pool on a sunny day.


And what's that with more cars? EVEN MORE cars you say? What are you nuts? You are a completa moron!###^#^@§é^!!RAAAAH!!
The roads are stacked with traffic, from sunrise till moonlight!!!! And you are thinking it would be best to TRY to overload them further??!???!!!?? Man, you must be living in a part of the world where there's still some place left: wich doesn't make you the best person to decide wheter or not there should be more traffic than the roads can handle.

Most Goverments troughout the world are having trouble even creating 200.000 jobs...without letting their unemployment figgures raise offcourse. Let alone create jobs for DOUBLE the people that are living now.

No man: you must be out of your head to promote somthing like this: WAR OVER WATER, WAR OVER LAND, WAR OVER RESOURCES

Because: when there's double the people: there's double the resources needed!!! Where are YOU thinking of???

Ah man: no offence, probably you will attack me now on personal grounds before taking my points into consideration,...

even when you look at those points I make,...you will not most likely change you mind on it.

But take it from a guy who knows what's it like: living in a box with cars and noise and agression and so on and on,....
if I where to make you a list of counterpoints: you wouldn't believe it to be the truth.


So before you're off shouting we should make more offspring, you should work to create a reasonable incentive for people like me, so that people like me don't want to kill you for saying such stupid things.

And take this from me: I'm not convinced of the case for birth-restrictions, but I DO realise that there's a population problem!

I'm just giddy in anticipation for when it is like that here as well! I can hardly wait.

Are we supposed to figure out this magic "cure" for the 3rd world? They gotta come up with the lion's share of the solution themselves. We can help, but they must be able to come up with the solution themselves. Any solution we have is external and will be viewed as such, wrong, even if it right.

what about instead of helping them we stop hindering them.

what about instead of helping them we stop hindering them.

One person's "hindering" is another person's "helping".

Baron Max

Are we in agreement again?

Well, of course eventually it is doomed, but not necesserily because of overpopulation. A nuclear war or an airborne, fast acting killer virus could finish us off faster.

But in the long run, having too many people sure doesn't help and just increases the risks of the other two...

Your knowledge of math is pathetic. Who cares about resistance once 90+% was already whiped out?
I never said the disease whipes out all humankind, did I?

You can't even remember what you posted.

COULD is the operative word...

But thanks for reminding me.... Anyway, the thread is not about total annihilation, but a decent living enviroment.

COULD is the operative word...

But thanks for reminding me.... Anyway, the thread is not about total annihilation, but a decent living enviroment.

Oh.
Yeah, civilization suffering a major catastrophe is pretty much a given. So is extinction.

OK I posted a pic with lots of people and water, so let's try the opposite of it:

http://www.danheller.com/images/Africa/Morocco/Sahara/sahara-i.jpg

I think we could put up a suburb there...

Sure, why not.

Doesn't look like that land is doing much useful anyway.

There is a way that people can go on enjoying having their precious darling babies, in a world with so many people already. That is for supposedly intelligent people to learn and adapt to living and breeding in closer proximity to other people, on the global scale at least. The more the merrier they say, but all those people need to live somewhere, so bigger cities and towns populating closer together, is one obvious place to put the burgeoning billions. Let people live where they want, but welcome them to live and come to life.

And before you come back, and claim that not many people can live there, why exactly can't they, should they hypothetically choose to? Desalinated ocean water can be piped in. So many people would presumably have some power to change nature and even green formerly deserts. People have more a symbiotic relationship with nature, not the enviro wacko presumed parasitic relationship, so even nature can benefit as human populations naturally soar. And if not all that many people presumably would choose to live in the desert, Antartica, or wherever, then obviously, what about the traditionally preferred urban sprawl? There are plenty of good places to live, that aren't anywhere near "full" of people, and so cities can in fact, populate bigger and denser with people, and fill more gaps in between the growing cities with additional cities and towns.

We are clearly not in the same league when it goes to debates, but let's educate you:

Humanity should grow exponentially. The more the merrier.

It DOES grow exponentially. Now I am curious, why do you think it SHOULD?

It was good back in the old times when mortality rate was high, but when survival rate increased, fertility rates should go down....

Why should fertility rates go down? What parent wants to have a bunch of children, just to see some of them die? There's no need to "compensate" with lower birthrates, more people living longer. When people have more babies, they promote the greater good of the many, by doing their natural part to welcome humans to grow all the more numerous, so that all the more people may enjoy life.

Of course human populations should grow exponentially. For the main restraint on just how numerous people can be, or should be, is the limited number of parents to raise them. That would seem more in line, with God's apparent ideal model of human population growth. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Could Eve have billions of children herself? Once the number of women of childbearing age grows larger, then children can be added to nations faster, now that there are finally more people to raise them all. And that is true in the past, and in the future. As there becomes more birth canals from which babies can emerge, then it's natural to expect that there ought to be more births, more birthing centers, more cities, more homes, more workers, more scientists, more options being explored to colonize Mars if ever, etc.

Why do you think they needed more people, back in the past when human populations were smaller? They didn't have so much in large population supporting technologies back then. Now as such technology has become more needed, it has naturally come to be developed. And it's far better than directly polluting the body with nasty, highly experimental, contraceptives, for which the human body was never designed for "birth control." Now is when we need more people all the more, because we have so many so why stop now?, and because there are more options and technology for better supporting more people, more comfortably and safely.

More and more people would be glad to live, and population "control" doesn't even try to adequately address that very valid concern.

Here is a simple question: You do have to agree, that growth can not go FOREVER. Thus we could double even triple today's population, but how about 10 times as many?

So where do you draw the line, enough is enough? If 7 billion is not enough how about 70 billions?

screw you guys, im breeding an army! :)


peace.

Here is a simple question: You do have to agree, that growth can not go FOREVER. Thus we could double even triple today's population, but how about 10 times as many?

So where do you draw the line, enough is enough? If 7 billion is not enough how about 70 billions?

it is never enough.

Here is a simple question: You do have to agree, that growth can not go FOREVER. Thus we could double even triple today's population, but how about 10 times as many?

So where do you draw the line, enough is enough? If 7 billion is not enough how about 70 billions?

It won't be enough for some idealistic jerks until we're all standing shoulder-to-shoulder/front-to-back covering the entire world! Standing room only, and some people here would say that we should add more.

Baron Max

Here is a simple question: You do have to agree, that growth can not go FOREVER. Thus we could double even triple today's population, but how about 10 times as many?

So where do you draw the line, enough is enough? If 7 billion is not enough how about 70 billions?

The population will grow regardless of what you want 'people' to do. You cannot control this. One of the most totalitarian countries in the world could NOT do it, even killing female babies could not stop it. You manage to even stop the population growth in China(through machinistic slaughter?), and India will teem with masses at its border eventually.

And if you really think you have some kind of earth-shaking new moral philosophy that will make every person bend to YOUR will and obey, then you are an absolute moron to use such power to limit humanity in this way.

What you ask requires TOTAL cooperation by the whole earth. I mean really are you just advocating pop control just in the third world? It is rediculous to limit us in Canada and U.S and many other countries right now. It is not fair to do it to certain countries(3rd world) and it is not fair to do it to 'everyone' even if they do not have a population problem. You then advocate everyone be limited right now and that lightly populated countries are to be populated by the teaming masses of the third world? I'm just trying to get a grasp on the logistics here, which are truely phenomenal.

We have probably never had close to that amount of cooperation on the earth. What I am advocating in this thread, expansion as far as we can (YES to SPACE), does not even require total cooperation, just a basic agreement to not kill ourselves(world peace is easier aquire than what you prescribe for humanity). Historically in relatively peaceful times on the earth, humans have EXPLORED.

Until then, humans are like any other animal, we will grow as far and wide and large as is possible in our environment. Disease, war, and 'natural' causes are all that will limit our growth and there is nothing YOU can do about that.

The population will grow regardless of what you want 'people' to do. You cannot control this.

Just like I can't control nuclear war. :eek: Damn it!!!

I hate to break it to you, but we are on a message board and discussing ideas, events,etc. So, deal with it and get used to that MOST of the time we are discussing things what we have no control over.

Got it?

P.S.: The Chinese government policy did work, otherwise we would have 2 billions Chinese by now....

Just like I can't control nuclear war. :eek: Damn it!!!

I hate to break it to you, but we are on a message board and discussing ideas, events,etc. So, deal with it and get used to that MOST of the time we are discussing things what we have no control over.

Got it?

P.S.: The Chinese government policy did work, otherwise we would have 2 billions Chinese by now....

Just giving my opinion buddy, don't hate because I'm right and your wrong.

You will see the effects of China's little experiment in your lifetime. 200 million young men with no wife.

Just giving my opinion buddy, don't hate because I'm right and your wrong.

Never happened, never will. :) I was giving my opinion (breed less) and you were bitchin'....

You will see the effects of China's little experiment in your lifetime. 200 million young men with no wife.

So? People have to realize that fixing problems takes sacrifices and there will be negative effects.

Do you think when we finally going to switch from oil to something else that is going to be painless???

get all the men and women to turn gay, so you can have sexual pleasure but not breed? that would be an easier task.


peace.

Here is a simple question: You do have to agree, that growth can not go FOREVER. Thus we could double even triple today's population, but how about 10 times as many?

So where do you draw the line, enough is enough? If 7 billion is not enough how about 70 billions?

Well if there ever came to 70 billion, don't you think that those people would enjoy life and expect to have their precious darling children too?

So no, 70 billion then, hypothetically, isn't enough either.

What part of be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, do we not understand? There's no "expiration date" on that commandment God gave, well other than the prophecied Biblical endtimes, when people eventually at some point, as the angels, apparently unable to reproduce anymore? (See Luke 20.)

But don't you think that before world population can grow to 100 billion, it must first reach 10 billion? Demographers now seriously doubt that we will ever reach 10 billion, due not so much to the so-called "demographic transition," but more due to rampant contraceptive peddling and the selfish and cynical society nature that goes along with all that. Now why worry about 70 or 100 billion, when we don't even know if the selfish people of the day, will even want to be "bothered" to have enough children to grow to 10 billion?

What I am trying to say, is that when a married woman becomes pregnant, she wears maternity clothes. That's natural. Her pregnant belly needs room to bulge. If ever the world becomes more "pregnant" with people, why not let it similarly "bulge" with people too? Why impose restrictions, that aren't even necessary? What's wrong with leaving some things natural, when it benefits so many?

If ever humans manage to naturally "outgrow" the world, then we should, because what baby should stay in the "womb" forever? Why not spread humanity to more worlds, not keep "all our eggs in one basket" so to speak, if and whenever we can, which we obviously aren't ready to do yet, for first we must grow in numbers and become stronger first, and develop the naturally population-driven technology first.

They say that "necessity is the mother of invention." So conversely, we may never develop all that fancy Star Trek-like technology, unless humans grow so populous that they have a need for it, because people tend to be lazy, and it takes lots of creative minds, adding upon other people's inventions, to get there, if ever.

It won't be enough for some idealistic jerks until we're all standing shoulder-to-shoulder/front-to-back covering the entire world! Standing room only, and some people here would say that we should add more.

Baron Max

Well of course add more. What if it was then your turn to come to life and be born?

Did you forget that people could still be stacked vertically, into highrises or population arcologies?

Who says everybody has to live on "ground level?"

And don't you think there is a lot of work involved in adding another billion people to the world? Lots of runny noses to wipe, lots of children to read stories to and tuck into bed. The way some people talk, you would think somebody could just sneeze another billion people into the world, as if they just easily just pop out of another dimension or something, and all these children will of course, just raise themselves. It's people's own homes they are first populating, which are always more confining than their communities or the world, so if they can find or make room, why can't society also find or make room for its many members?

post title: Isn't it far easier to "scoot over" a bit, than to convince everybody to stop breeding?

The population will grow regardless of what you want 'people' to do. You cannot control this. One of the most totalitarian countries in the world could NOT do it, even killing female babies could not stop it. You manage to even stop the population growth in China(through machinistic slaughter?), and India will teem with masses at its border eventually.

And if you really think you have some kind of earth-shaking new moral philosophy that will make every person bend to YOUR will and obey, then you are an absolute moron to use such power to limit humanity in this way.

What you ask requires TOTAL cooperation by the whole earth. I mean really are you just advocating pop control just in the third world? It is rediculous to limit us in Canada and U.S and many other countries right now. It is not fair to do it to certain countries(3rd world) and it is not fair to do it to 'everyone' even if they do not have a population problem. You then advocate everyone be limited right now and that lightly populated countries are to be populated by the teaming masses of the third world? I'm just trying to get a grasp on the logistics here, which are truely phenomenal.

We have probably never had close to that amount of cooperation on the earth. What I am advocating in this thread, expansion as far as we can (YES to SPACE), does not even require total cooperation, just a basic agreement to not kill ourselves(world peace is easier aquire than what you prescribe for humanity). Historically in relatively peaceful times on the earth, humans have EXPLORED.

Until then, humans are like any other animal, we will grow as far and wide and large as is possible in our environment. Disease, war, and 'natural' causes are all that will limit our growth and there is nothing YOU can do about that.

Contrary to some of the propaganda, most people actually do not engage in "mindless" breeding, not considering the consequences, like mere animals might be prone to do. People give a lot of thought to it, and often do find many great reasons to have children.

Of course we should expand into outer space, but I don't think humans have all that much time left on earth anyway, because there is the Biblical timetable to consider too. God did not intend for humans to inhabit the world forever, but rather heaven forever. At least expand into outer space in the sci-fi stories, because people need some level of dreaming and optimism. Consider that man went to the moon first, in the comic books. You have to start somewhere. It starts, with good ideas.

Population "control" imposed upon humans, is one of the most idiotic, slavery ideas imaginable. Has not anybody considered what could hypothetically happen, if just 1 single country retains wild or unrestrained human population growth? They would grow and grow, until they fill the entire planet. Which I suspect is an underlying reason for China's 1-child policy tyranny. What better way to show the subjects, that they are but mere lowly peasants or slaves, than to dictate how many children they would be allowed to have, and then nature intervenes and they end up going over their population "quota" and love and defend their children regardless? It probably wasn't even China's idea, but rather Western imperilistic power-mongers, claiming to fear that "as goes China, so goes the world." If China, the world's most populous nation, can't get its burgeoning human population under control, then neither then, can the planet? And it of course, encourages the other nations, to breed up their numbers also. Well I do believe that the world can actually hold, or be made to hold lots more people, and that the human race really does want to enlarge its numbers, so of course I defend the basic human right for people to enjoy having their "traditionally very large families" wherever they happen to live, including within China. If it is "as goes China so goes the world," well that's all the more reason to encourage large families in China. Far better to have one's village become engulfed by nearby growing cities, than for faraway commie thugs to dictate how many children they think the people can manage to raise.

What we could use some more "cooperation" in, is in trying to get along better, especially now that there is so many of us. Promotion of the social graces and faith and such. Like you say, live with it. Human numbers will be "huge" well into the forseeable future, and people have many needs, that need to be accomodated, even if we didn't grow in numbers further, and I don't see the population phobics addressing those needs, but rather creating awfully convenient scapegoat excuses to continue oppressing the masses and retarding needed development.

It's easier to promote good manners, than to go against nature and breed less.

post title: If China is going to be a population giant, then be proud to be a population giant.

After all, all those people have to live somewhere.

Just like I can't control nuclear war. :eek: Damn it!!!

I hate to break it to you, but we are on a message board and discussing ideas, events,etc. So, deal with it and get used to that MOST of the time we are discussing things what we have no control over.

Got it?

P.S.: The Chinese government policy did work, otherwise we would have 2 billions Chinese by now....

No it didn't work. We would be better off, with 2 billion or more Chinese by now. If they were busy marrying and having children, it keeps them busy and less prone to become restless and go to war.

Thread KIA by a random bible-thumper.

Well if there ever came to 70 billion, don't you think that those people would enjoy life and expect to have their precious darling children too?

You seriously think that ALL 7 billions people ENJOY life today? I bet it is safe to say that at least half suffer more than enjoy it.

When the number of humans were counted only in the millions and the chance of reacing adulthood was less than 50%, breeding like rabbits made sense. Not anymore...

We are already everywhere, so you could say the order from the Bible has been accomplished...

You seriously think that ALL 7 billions people ENJOY life today? I bet it is safe to say that at least half suffer more than enjoy it.

When the number of humans were counted only in the millions and the chance of reacing adulthood was less than 50%, breeding like rabbits made sense. Not anymore...

We are already everywhere, so you could say the order from the Bible has been accomplished...

You're trying to use "reason" with someone who is "hopelessly insane", and learned all he needed to know by reading "Chick's Tracts".

"Human suffering" is "irrelevant", because they will all live "forever" in heaven. Like the Jesuit missionaries in south America would who take indian infants away from their parents, baptize them, then dash their head against a rock, killing them; but saving their eternal souls from hell.

I've noticed a pattern over the years with Pro. I think he forgets to take his "meds" periodically, and starts posting his "insane gibberish" again.

You're trying to use "reason" with someone who is "hopelessly insane",

You are right, I don't know what I was thinking. It won't happen again, I promise... :)

post title: So many men, too few women. What an insane anti-people policy.

BTW, why do I type in a Title, but then I see no post titles in the thread? Must be a server software glitch?

Just giving my opinion buddy, don't hate because I'm right and your wrong.

You will see the effects of China's little experiment in your lifetime. 200 million young men with no wife.

Just what we don't need. 200 million restless soldiers with nothing to do but to get into trouble?

But I hope that China's 1-child barbarism, can't possibly last. One obvious way to fight such abuses, and make the world more child-friendly, is to marry and breed, breed, breed. And crowd out into irrelevance, the backward commie views of the population phobics.

A little unrelated but I found this video and pics of Senegal interesting. That's how people live in the 3rd world:
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2448#more

Population is only 12 million, but the transportation, electricity and other issues are typical...

"Indeed, relatively speaking Senegal is doing pretty well. It's described as one of the most stable democracies in Africa. The economy has seen real growth in GDP averaging over 5% during the last decade and inflation of just 2%.

Military spending is less than 2% of GDP (which I’m counting as positively low).

Perhaps the biggest concern going into a resource constrained world is demographics though. The median age is 19.1, 41% of the population are aged 0-14 and the fertility rate is 4.4 children per woman."

post title: Breed more, and avoid the pain of being barren and childless.

Not to mention all the underreported side effects of nasty, awkward, unnatural contraceptives, and being used as a guinea pig for the latest fad contraceptive potion/device/poison.

Never happened, never will. :) I was giving my opinion (breed less) and you were bitchin'....



So? People have to realize that fixing problems takes sacrifices and there will be negative effects.

Do you think when we finally going to switch from oil to something else that is going to be painless???

Yeah, why wouldn't it be painless? The reason to switch, is because something better was developed. You don't see Mr. George Jetson, in the futuristic The Jetsons cartoon, pumping gasoline into his flying car, do you? That's because it runs on "power pellets." Which I have determined must be code-words for having a nuclear reactor, because you don't expend that amount of energy, and rarely refuel, well unless it is nuclear. Chemical reactions don't pack energy that dense.

Oh yeah, come to think of it, there is likely to be a little "pain" after all, when it dawns on the oil monopoly that their day of ripping us off with their gasoline price-gouging, is coming to an end. But then, why should we feel sorry for selfish greedy corporations again?

post title: Only God can say when the earth is "full."

Well if there ever came to 70 billion, don't you think that those people would enjoy life and expect to have their precious darling children too?

You seriously think that ALL 7 billions people ENJOY life today? I bet it is safe to say that at least half suffer more than enjoy it.

Well why hasn't the world been developed better? One obvious reason, is all the effort and money squandored on (anti)"family-planning." That could have went to better uses, rather than being diverted from reform and useful purposes. Why aren't economies and political systems developed more to benefit everybody, rather than the rich elite few? Because society isn't pronatalist enough. Because people don't value the sacredness of each and every human life, like they should. Because too many people don't even try, to love thy neighbor as thyself. And population "control" gives them a cop-out excuse, because they can just opine nonsense about there supposedly being "too many" people in the world, and use that as a handy rationalization to stall and avoid needed reforms. If human lives really mattered, then we might have to pay people a decent and living and family wage, for their work. Corporations might not be allowed to exploit the labor of the poor in cruel sweatshops so much. We might actually have to allow the poor, some way to establish title to their land, so that they can build themselves nicer homes. We might actually have to act more, like we care.

When the number of humans were counted only in the millions and the chance of reacing adulthood was less than 50%, breeding like rabbits made sense. Not anymore...

We are already everywhere, so you could say the order from the Bible has been accomplished...

Well when there were but mere millions of people, don't you think that some people might have trouble remembering all those names, and keeping track of everybody and whether everybody has paid their excessive taxes? So who's to say, that there wasn't "too many" people back then, if there is supposedly "too many" people in the world now? Did you know back then, people didn't use flush toilets. Gasp! Would you want to have very big cities where people don't even use toilets?

Why do you think that God commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth? To prevent an "empty" planet? I don't think so, for then why didn't God start with more people, and seed people onto more planets? God commanded people to have dominion over nature and other creatures, and to be good stewards and to till the land. Why? For the benefit of man. When humans grow more numerous, more people benefit by being alive. So God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, is still just as relevant today, as way back when before human populations naturally grew so huge. Let's say there are maybe 100 great reasons for people to procreate. We have lost one reason, that of filling an "empty" planet. Doesn't that still leave around 99 great reasons remaining, to keep on procreating? But then neither is the planet "full" either. There's lots more room most everywhere, for lots more people, if or as need be. Humans are even accused of adapting "too well" to the environment, such that maybe rather than people being able to live most anywhere, we start living most everywhere at once. Well that too is a practical reason why humans should continue growing more numerous, because we can adapt and benefit from growing all the more numerous.

You say we are already everywhere? No, we are not. There are lots of places remaining where human populations are sparse. And often it isn't due to any reason such that it isn't a good place for humans to settle, but quite often, because not many people really want to live "in the middle of nowhere." In the middle of nowhere, is too far from the jobs and low wages always Wal-Marts, too far from the shopping malls and the excitement of the cities. Human population can increase further, by there coming to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from many people. Cities could in fact, grow bigger and closer together. More cities and towns can in fact, be built in between the various growing cities and towns. What's a little "urban spawl" if it helps to accomodate all the more fellow human being coming alive?

There are 3 perceptional dimensions that human populations can yet grow into, plenty of room for more people, for the forseeable future. Outwards, inwards, and upwards. Cities and various human settlements can spread over more land. Humans can expand their range and territory, and cities and countries can welcome their swelling populations to "merge" into one another, so that everybody can be welcome and have their place. I am against "globalization" of the form of political considation of power in the hands of corrupt globalist unaccountable dictators, but have no objection to the people themselves coming closer together, merely because there is so many of us, out of what is natural or necessity. Inwards of course means infilling underutilized land, adding more streets, or welcoming households to grow in numbers, or more people sometimes perhaps sharing rooms for a while until the housing stock can be expanded. Upwards of course means, that if everybody wants to live in the same place, well more people can be stacked into highrises, so that they may be both numerous and live where they want.

Yeah, why wouldn't it be painless? The reason to switch, is because something better was developed.

Not necesserily. The reason could be/will be not having the former anymore. Then we have to take whatever we have as a substitute, it is not a given it would be better...

post title: Lots of people know there is no oil shortage. It is a manufactured conspiracy.

Yeah, why wouldn't it be painless? The reason to switch, is because something better was developed.

Not necesserily. The reason could be/will be not having the former anymore. Then we have to take whatever we have as a substitute, it is not a given it would be better...

Not the enviro wacko "we are going to run out" lies. Such deception only plays into the hands of the power-hungry government and the greedy oil corporations looking for excuses to jack up prices and oppress the poor.

Look in author Julian Simon's book, The Ultimate Resource, for a graph of how long the oil is projected to last, versus what year the prediction was made. It's not a declining curve, but rather, a rocky mountain range. They keep finding more, and keep finding better technology to get at oil not so reachable before.

They could even manufacture oil/gasoline/ethanol or whatever, sythetically. But then instead of producing energy, then it becomes merely a means to store energy, as the energy would have to be put in, to make fuel from scratch, one of the stupid things that the proponents of "the hydrogen economy" don't seem to like to fess up to. Want a "hydrogen economy?" Better build some nuclear power plants or something, because there is no ready supply of hydrogen, except we put lots of energy in, to liberate hydrogen from water. But what for? For gas-guzzling rocket engines? Hydrogen is not a practical fuel for cars, because it is not naturally a liquid at room temperature, nor is it energy-dense enough. I think they like hydrogen for rocket engines, because hydrogen can be chilled to ridiculously cold temperatures without freezing up. They actually use the fuel as coolant, otherwise the rocket engines would melt.

The Japanese Prime Minister just publicly declared that all Japanese women are "baby machines" in order to increase their birth rate to head off a huge economic problem with so many elderly Japanese retiring and no one to take care of them. Same situation in the U.S. with social security funds running out. Economics vs. world population. What a global mess.

Older people should have thought of that and took better care of their kids.

post title: Only God can say when the earth is "full."



Well why hasn't the world been developed better? One obvious reason, is all the effort and money squandored on (anti)"family-planning." That could have went to better uses, rather than being diverted from reform and useful purposes. Why aren't economies and political systems developed more to benefit everybody, rather than the rich elite few? Because society isn't pronatalist enough. Because people don't value the sacredness of each and every human life, like they should. Because too many people don't even try, to love thy neighbor as thyself. And population "control" gives them a cop-out excuse, because they can just opine nonsense about there supposedly being "too many" people in the world, and use that as a handy rationalization to stall and avoid needed reforms. If human lives really mattered, then we might have to pay people a decent and living and family wage, for their work. Corporations might not be allowed to exploit the labor of the poor in cruel sweatshops so much. We might actually have to allow the poor, some way to establish title to their land, so that they can build themselves nicer homes. We might actually have to act more, like we care.



Well when there were but mere millions of people, don't you think that some people might have trouble remembering all those names, and keeping track of everybody and whether everybody has paid their excessive taxes? So who's to say, that there wasn't "too many" people back then, if there is supposedly "too many" people in the world now? Did you know back then, people didn't use flush toilets. Gasp! Would you want to have very big cities where people don't even use toilets?

Why do you think that God commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth? To prevent an "empty" planet? I don't think so, for then why didn't God start with more people, and seed people onto more planets? God commanded people to have dominion over nature and other creatures, and to be good stewards and to till the land. Why? For the benefit of man. When humans grow more numerous, more people benefit by being alive. So God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, is still just as relevant today, as way back when before human populations naturally grew so huge. Let's say there are maybe 100 great reasons for people to procreate. We have lost one reason, that of filling an "empty" planet. Doesn't that still leave around 99 great reasons remaining, to keep on procreating? But then neither is the planet "full" either. There's lots more room most everywhere, for lots more people, if or as need be. Humans are even accused of adapting "too well" to the environment, such that maybe rather than people being able to live most anywhere, we start living most everywhere at once. Well that too is a practical reason why humans should continue growing more numerous, because we can adapt and benefit from growing all the more numerous.

You say we are already everywhere? No, we are not. There are lots of places remaining where human populations are sparse. And often it isn't due to any reason such that it isn't a good place for humans to settle, but quite often, because not many people really want to live "in the middle of nowhere." In the middle of nowhere, is too far from the jobs and low wages always Wal-Marts, too far from the shopping malls and the excitement of the cities. Human population can increase further, by there coming to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from many people. Cities could in fact, grow bigger and closer together. More cities and towns can in fact, be built in between the various growing cities and towns. What's a little "urban spawl" if it helps to accomodate all the more fellow human being coming alive?

There are 3 perceptional dimensions that human populations can yet grow into, plenty of room for more people, for the forseeable future. Outwards, inwards, and upwards. Cities and various human settlements can spread over more land. Humans can expand their range and territory, and cities and countries can welcome their swelling populations to "merge" into one another, so that everybody can be welcome and have their place. I am against "globalization" of the form of political considation of power in the hands of corrupt globalist unaccountable dictators, but have no objection to the people themselves coming closer together, merely because there is so many of us, out of what is natural or necessity. Inwards of course means infilling underutilized land, adding more streets, or welcoming households to grow in numbers, or more people sometimes perhaps sharing rooms for a while until the housing stock can be expanded. Upwards of course means, that if everybody wants to live in the same place, well more people can be stacked into highrises, so that they may be both numerous and live where they want.

If humans exist mainly to destroy other humans, and other lifeforms, and the environment, how does creating unlimited numbers, make anything better?

Obviously, we are horrible at mating. The most intelligent among us have the least kids. Most people still have kids with whoever has the sexy ass, paying no attention to the most important organ, the brain.

We might be better off if people required a license to have more than 2 kids. Say you get your bachelors, then you should have the ability to have one more kid, say you get your masters? one more kid, say you get your PhD? one more kid.

But if you let a hopeless, uneducated, unambitious, and all around mediocre individual, have 10 kids with another hopeless, uneducated, unambitious, all around mediocre individual, what do you think the result will be?

So what? Even if they have beautiful bodies it does not improve the species if we mate ignorantly.I'm just saying we should mate smart. The smartest should pair up.

I'm not really saying breed less, I'm saying breed intelligently, and slowly, and precisely. Don't breed stupid.

Syzygys:

ACtually, no illness can kill off a population of 6 billion at 100 percent efficiency. The most virulent illness known was the black plague, and that barely hit 1/3rd.

Similarly, we do not have to worry about large-scale nuclear conflict, owing to MAD. What we have to worry about is terrorist nukes and small-scale tactical nuclear exchanges between minorly-armed nations (see: China, Israel, Pakistan, and India).

Cancer can. So can brain parasites, and airbone Ebola.

Research BSE, no human has survived BSE.

Just admit it, you don't care about the survival of the species.

If humans exist mainly to destroy other humans, and other lifeforms, and the environment, how does creating unlimited numbers, make anything better?

Obviously, we are horrible at mating. The most intelligent among us have the least kids. Most people still have kids with whoever has the sexy ass, paying no attention to the most important organ, the brain.

We might be better off if people required a license to have more than 2 kids. Say you get your bachelors, then you should have the ability to have one more kid, say you get your masters? one more kid, say you get your PhD? one more kid.

But if you let a hopeless, uneducated, unambitious, and all around mediocre individual, have 10 kids with another hopeless, uneducated, unambitious, all around mediocre individual, what do you think the result will be?

So what? Even if they have beautiful bodies it does not improve the species if we mate ignorantly.I'm just saying we should mate smart. The smartest should pair up.

I'm not really saying breed less, I'm saying breed intelligently, and slowly, and precisely. Don't breed stupid.

What you say, sounds too much like Nazi eugenics theories.

Not everybody is attracted by sexual appearance. Many people like me, are attracted to personality and intelligence. And people who love their children, likely tend to have more, so I think it largely works itself out. And not everybody gets children, for their much copulation. Some things still are very much in the hands of God.

Humans aren't really of "unlimited" numbers so much as of "lax" restraint on numbers. But isn't that a lot of what freedom is about? Be grateful to God that God allows/causes us to be so numerous. Otherwise, how could you and I have come to be born?