Animals need land to graze, crops need land to grow, humans need land for
homes etc, Has it been computed how much land is needed to support an
average person?

I guess that would be difficult, as some lands are more productive than others. To grow a certain amount of food on an upland or moor would take much more land than a floodplain for example.

Depends, you can grow a hellofva lot of food on blackland earth - which they build new sub-divisions on, here in Mississauga. Then they sell the people their own "black" earth back to them at home depot. Then people put useless green grass on that earth, using it till they hit clay again.

Animals need land to graze, crops need land to grow, humans need land for
homes etc, Has it been computed how much land is needed to support an
average person?

When I was growing up in lush, green Pennsylvania, we figured about five acres per cow for grazing. But note that that did NOT include the land needed to grow the corn and grass for hay and winter feed.

But you should also be aware that it takes more than that for pigs and chickens. And any farmer will tell you that chickens are important for eggs as well as year-'round food.

A garden of about two acres should provide enough vegatables for a family of four for summer eating as well as canned for winter food.

Now ....move that farm out to hot, dry New Mexico and those numbers don't work at all.

So your generalizations aren't going to be good for much even if and when you find what you're seeking. The best answer is ....Geez, it depends!

Baron Max

It was just a thought, the worlds total grain, meat etc production must
have a limit, that limit must be the total farmable land area, and the
land taken up for homes, factories ,roads must be in competion to that
total area, i guess it just comes down to, How big the earths population
can be before we run out of land.

When I was growing up in lush, green Pennsylvania, we figured about five acres per cow for grazing. But note that that did NOT include the land needed to grow the corn and grass for hay and winter feed.

But you should also be aware that it takes more than that for pigs and chickens. And any farmer will tell you that chickens are important for eggs as well as year-'round food.

A garden of about two acres should provide enough vegatables for a family of four for summer eating as well as canned for winter food.

Now ....move that farm out to hot, dry New Mexico and those numbers don't work at all.

So your generalizations aren't going to be good for much even if and when you find what you're seeking. The best answer is ....Geez, it depends!

Baron Max

5 acres over summer? sounds a bit off unless you are talking about unfertilised dryland grazing. with correct fertiliser application the WINTER growth rates in my area(8kgDM/ha) would be able to support a cow on 2ha(5acres) assuming a 15kg/day for maintenance only feed.

as for food, kitchen gardens in russia during the early years of the soviet collpase of about 1/10 ha provided enough food for a single person. the real deal breaker in how much land is required to grow food is whether you eat meat. if you look at the food chain, you will notice that approximately 10x as much energy is required to support a secondary consumer(carnivore) than a primary consumer(herbivore) because of the amount of energy expended in the herbivore to grow food for the carnivore.

don't forget the tree.
humans need oxygen, which a tree provides.

It was just a thought, the worlds total grain, meat etc production must
have a limit, that limit must be the total farmable land area, and the
land taken up for homes, factories ,roads must be in competion to that
total area, i guess it just comes down to, How big the earths population
can be before we run out of land.

There must be a limit somewhere, but I don't think we know what that is. Necessity leads to change, so if it looks like we are reaching that limit it will become economically viable to develop new techniques for increasing productivity like better fertilisers, or to improve the quality of otherwise low grade land e.g. irrigation. Or maybe we'll just learn to be less wasteful with what we have. It would be a way off yet, but I wouldn't rule out the idea of artificially created foods if we really were reaching such a dire point.

don't forget the tree.
humans need oxygen, which a tree provides.

The vast majority of oxygen is produced by photosynthetic marine organisms. Something like 70%.


If you want to minimize land use, everyone would have to be a vegetarian.

The vast majority of oxygen is produced by photosynthetic marine organisms. Something like 70%.
aren't we talking about land?

i guess it just comes down to, How big the earths population can be before we run out of land.
In the long term, probably between two and three billion. A greater population can be supported on a temporary basis by drawing on the Earth's non-renewable resources of fossilized carbon. Modern farming methods use up more (and in the US and elsewhere, many more) calories of oil and natural gas energy than they produce in food energy. More calories are also used in food processing than exist in the actual food product.

So its bad news for you in your old age as the fossil fuels run out. :(

In the long term, probably between two and three billion. A greater population can be supported on a temporary basis by drawing on the Earth's non-renewable resources of fossilized carbon. Modern farming methods use up more (and in the US and elsewhere, many more) calories of oil and natural gas energy than they produce in food energy. More calories are also used in food processing than exist in the actual food product.

So its bad news for you in your old age as the fossil fuels run out. :(

Bummer, i guess i will cancel my third regeneration then.

aren't we talking about land?

Yes.
But the amount of O2 the tree provides is minimal compared to that of marine organisms. Thus, therefore, whence, unto, verily, the O2 a tree provides doesn't matter in considerations of "how much land" we need.

I can see where you are coming from, Roman, but there is more to the oxygen in our atmosphere than just the marine phytoplankton. Almost all of our oxygen in our atmosphere was produced by long dead organisms, which produced reduced carbon which has been buried. If we oxidised the entire biosphere the oxygen level would only go down a couple of percentage points of oxygen.

The question of "how much land is needed to support an average person?" is usually referred to as an Ecological Footprint (http://www.mfe.govt.nz/withyou/do/footprint/) in fashionable academia. Of course, each person's effective support area is determined by their lifestyle - specifically, consumption habits. Check out yours!

I have always favored the idea of birth licensing, which means all backgrounds of a couple are reviewed before the government then grants then permission to have a child. 99% OF WORLD POVERTY IS CAUSED BY OVER POPULATION AND/OR under allocation of resources. Besides, I see no reason why someone should make a prototype of himself when he or she is either substancialy undereducated, underfinanced, host of a disease, or any combination of the above. How come we have to have a license to drive but we don't need one to have a child, who by the way is going to one day need a license to drive. This is one of the pressing issues any developed country should look into, but they rebutal would probably be "sanctity of life".

Animals need land to graze, crops need land to grow, humans need land for
homes etc, Has it been computed how much land is needed to support an
average person?



It all depends upon the diet of those that need the land. Tibeten monks

survive on little more tan rice and water.

It all depends upon the diet of those that need the land. Tibeten monks

survive on little more tan rice and water.

And they don't have any vitamin defincencies?? :huh: They don't need protein, calcium, vitamin C??

And they don't have any vitamin defincencies?? :huh: They don't need protein, calcium, vitamin C??



I'm sure they have other types of nourishment but rice and water are about

it for the staples. I believe they drink goats milk as well. Ever see how thin

and frail they are?

It was just a thought, the worlds total grain, meat etc production must have a limit, that limit must be the total farmable land area, and the land taken up for homes, factories ,roads must be in competion to that total area, i guess it just comes down to, How big the earth's population can be before we run out of land.Hydroponics removes that limitation. Food does not need to be grown outdoors. Meat is a very inefficient way to feed humans, even though we have specifically evolved for it. It's quite possible to provide a fully balanced diet from plant sources (although not simple, see my note at the end). That's what "Soylent Green" was all about. I'm sure it won't have a satisfying flavor and texture, but hey, children got used to Twinkies. :)In the long term, probably between two and three billion. A greater population can be supported on a temporary basis by drawing on the Earth's non-renewable resources of fossilized carbon.I read an article on this subject in (I think) Science around forty years ago. The first limit, as noted above, is space for growing food, and this is solved by hydroponics.

The second limit is space for humans. This is solved by building layers of warrens. They can be stacked something like 500 deep and still provide adequate air, water, energy, waste disposal, etc. Each person will be allocated an area about 3mx3m, providing room for sleep, work, entertainment, hygiene, socializing, and even aerobic exercise. An equal area, in aggregate, provides infrastructure as well as larger communal spaces, passageways for horizontal travel and more limited vertical travel. The upper levels will be for hydroponics, placing them closer to the surface for energy transfer and waste conversion. There will of course be no room for other plant and animal species except in zoos, refuges set aside for genetic diversity, and in the parks and parlors of the wealthy. The earth's entire surface will be reengineered, including mountains and oceans, so that "nature" will be a thing of the past. The article did not take plate tectonics into account. I don't know if we'll ever have a technology to prevent earthquakes, or perhaps the entire infrastructure will be built on gimbals. An earthquake on this world would kill rather a lot of people, if only by causing massive infrastructure failures.

The third limit is energy. This is easily solved by building massive solar collectors in distant orbits and transmitting focused beams of energy to receivers on the surface. With this technology, energy input was deemed to actually not be a limiting factor at all.

The fourth and final limit is waste energy: the low frequency EM or "heat" that is the output of life processes and all other activities. Entropy is what will stop us. We can transfer the waste heat to the surface and let it radiate out into space, but there is no way to increase the efficiency of this process. As the population increases, the ambient temperature will rise. We can insulate the warrens from the surface as efficiently as possible, but there's still a limit to how hot we can make the surface and have our technology work, and in any case no insulation is 100% effective. Survival of the fittest will kick in and only people who can withstand higher temperatures will survive to breed, but the article presumed that humans cannot evolve to live in an environment much warmer than 125 degrees (51C).

At this point they did the arithmetic. I'm sorry I can't find the original article but I remember it said we could go on reproducing at the then-current rate of doubling the earth's population three times per century, and continue for about 800 years before we reached the heat limit. That yields a population in the quadrillions. This will fit in the 500-level warrens they hypothesized, with adequate hydroponic nutrition. At that point an equilibrium will be reached, at which people die from heat stroke as quickly as they reproduce.99% OF WORLD POVERTY IS CAUSED BY OVER POPULATION AND/OR under allocation of resources.Actually if you look closely at the poorest countries on earth you will find that the largest correlation is with the degree of despotism of their governments. The world's production capacity for food and other resources is nowhere near maximum and in fact is not even under stress. The farms of the sparsely-populated Western Hemisphere could easily feed the starving millions in Africa and Asia. The compassionate and generous people of the wealthier nations could easily provide the transportation and distribution facilities to deliver the food to them. America literally abounds with religious, secular and government charities that send food to the Third World. The problem is at the other end. The food never reaches the mouths of the hungry and the same is true of the medicine and other supplies we send. It is hijacked by the minions of the despotic rulers, sold on the black market and the profits are used to provide champagne, Hummers, prostitutes, palaces, and weapons to make war on the despot in the next country or simply intimidate the starving population.

Poverty is a local, political problem in each country where it occurs, that has to be solved internally. It is not an international, economic problem that can be solved externally.It all depends upon the diet of those that need the land. Tibeten monks survive on little more tan rice and water.Humans cannot survive on grains because they supply an incomplete set of proteins. A balanced vegan diet must include nuts or seeds to provide the missing amino acids. Or, as someone noted in a subsequent post, you can just drink milk and get the completely balanced animal protein your body needs for maintenance, and just use the plant food source for calories. But you also need vitamin and mineral sources. The life expectancy of an adult human who survived the perils of childhood fell from the low 50s in the Mesolithic Era to the low 20s in the Roman Empire, because humanity had converted from a meat-intensive diet to a grain-based diet.

I can't find the details but permaculture principles can produce an enormous range and quantity of food from a standard suburban block.

There is quite a thrust to produce and consume food from a specific local area ( 100 mile radius, for example) to significantly reduce our ecological footprint.

Most people in developed , prosperous countries eat more than they need

to and waste allot too.

in 1958 dudley stamp calculated that for the world as a whole, each human would require 1.1 acres of cultivated land.

with all due respect, there is no satisfactory scheme for calculating a per human land use.

" substancialy undereducated, " --Chatha

Oh yeah? Who would you imagine that might be? And who gets to judge these substancialy unneredumacated folks? You?

T Rasa

Most people in developed , prosperous countries eat more than they need to and waste allot too.And it doesn't matter. The hunger problem in the Third World is not due to the planet's capacity to produce food. It is due to the despotic governments in the Third World. Our charities send colossal shipments of food to them and their leaders hijack it, sell it on the black market and use the money to buy weapons, Land Rovers, champagne and hookers. The Western Hemisphere is very sparsely populated compared to the rest of the world and our farms could easily produce enough food for everybody without straining the ecosystem. We just can't get the food into their mouths. At some point they have to solve their own problems before help can get through. I don't mean to sound uncaring but to a large extent it was meddling by the advanced nations that got the Third World into its mess, so I doubt that any further meddling is going to get them out of it. Many of their progressive leaders are telling us to simply leave them the hell alone.

Animals need land to graze, crops need land to grow, humans need land for
homes etc, Has it been computed how much land is needed to support an
average person?


According to FAO (1993), it is around 0.07 hectares per person.




The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for sustainable food security, with a diversified diet similar to those of North America and Western Europe (hence including meat), is 0.5 of a hectare per person. This does not allow for any land degradation such as soil erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies. Very few populous countries have more than an average of 0.25 of a hectare. It is realistic to suppose that the absolute minimum of arable land to support one person is a mere 0.07 of a hectare–and this assumes a largely vegetarian diet, no land degradation or water shortages, virtually no post-harvest waste, and farmers who know precisely when and how to plant, fertilize, irrigate, etc.17. In India, the amount of arable land is already down to 0.2 of a hectare; in Philippines, 0.13; in Vietnam, 0.10; in Bangladesh, 0.09; in China, 0.08; and in Egypt, 0.05. By 2025 the amount is expected to fall to: India, 0.12 of a hectare; Philippines, 0.08; China, 0.06; Vietnam, 0.05; Bangladesh, 0.05; and Egypt, 0.03 (refs 35–37).

http://www.iisc.ernet.in/currsci/feb25/articles16.htm (scroll to Landlessness)

However, one may not extrapolate this number (0.07 hectares/person) to calculate
maximum retainable world's population, because of the limited carrying capacity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity)
of the earth itself.

Title: I could live in closer proximity to other people, to be welcome to live and breed.

in 1958 dudley stamp calculated that for the world as a whole, each human would require 1.1 acres of cultivated land.

with all due respect, there is no satisfactory scheme for calculating a per human land use.

Contrary to the nonsense gloom and doom of population phobics, the amount of land required per person, would naturally decline, as the world naturally populates denser and more efficiently with people, a practical reason why I advocate naturally large families worldwide and that humans not bother to "control" our natural population enlargement, an obvious contradiction of basic human freedom.

Let the flow of human life progress naturally, and each successive generation grow larger and more populous than the previous. Where to put all the additional billions of people, perhaps to come? How about the most obvious place, where we have always put them. In between all the people living already. When I add up all the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, and the powerful reproductive urges/instinct that most people continually feel, what it adds up to is a global goal and natural desire, to enlarge the entire human race, for the greater good of the many.

As I see it, there's yet 3 perceptional dimensions human populations can grow into: outwards, inwards, and upwards. And as a previous post pointed out, there's quite a lot of space for humans that can be found or made, if or as ever necessary, by stacking people upwards into "warrens" or population arcologies, vertically into the sky. I wouldn't dare argue against people's compelling reasons to have their precious darling babies. If they can find ways to populate denser and more efficiently, which I am quite sure that supposedly intelligent people can, why not have at it? Let world population density also rise naturally as well.

You mean like this ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

Test: http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/
You can just skip the email stuff

Let the flow of human life progress naturally, and each successive generation grow larger and more populous than the previous. Where to put all the additional billions of people, perhaps to come?Prosperity is clearly the most effective contraceptive. Wherever the per capita GDP rises, the average family size decreases. This is most pronounced at a Paradigm Shift and does not happen in a single generation because it is more a cultural motif than reasoned behavior, but it happens slowly. People are accustomed to having more children for reasons they may not think about consciously: To make sure some survive since infant mortality is high; to have enough hands to turn the family farm or business over to; to have enough progeny to support them in their old age. As these reasons become unREASONable, people do eventually notice, and change both the cultural motif and the behavior.

Today, even in the Third World, the birth rate is falling. Where the average couple once had twelve children, they now have nine; nine, seven; seven, five; five, four; etc. Nearly everywhere in the First World, fertility has dropped below replacement level and our social security Ponzi Schemes are only being kept solvent by the immigration that the less perceptive among us decry.

China is not a fair example because it's imposed by government edict... on the other hand, in a Confucian society that could be called simply one very efficient and not entirely untraditional way to change a cultural motif.

Anyway, I still see no reason to doubt the prediction that the world population will top out at just barely eleven digits within this century, and then start to fall.

Title: Isn't space per person, really a largely subjective feeling, and not so much an "absolute?"

You mean like this ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint

Test: http://footprint.wwf.org.uk/
You can just skip the email stuff

Ecological footprint talk, is usually so fraudulent, for people supposedly having "large" ecological footprint, doesn't keep them from multiplying all the more. Farmland gets converted to human housing for expanding suburbs, and still people have plenty to eat. Can't ecological footprints "overlap" many times over? It's largely the "science" of gloom-and-doom eco-freaks, making up numbers to describe how dire they opine the world "environmental" situation to be, at the huge inconvenience of humans, but of course.

Their usual underlying mantra, would seem to be, that we humans don't even matter.

Isn't there some theory I heard of somewhere, I forget the term for it, that says that work will expand to take up all the time allotted to it? (Gee, could that be why I can't seem to get much done?) Maybe human populations are something like that. Given plenty of land, people will tend to spread somewhat more thinly over it. But as populations grow, and people have to "share" the land more, people will find they can do almost as well, squeezed into smaller tracts, or overlapping ranges of land living in closer proximity to their many neighbors. Contrary to the view of the population phobics, I think there is great reason to believe, that human populations are highly "compressible," especially when it come naturally by societal or pronatalist norms and not government fiat, and so the naturally rising population "pressure" shouldn't be all that big a deal, at least for we humans.

Title: Shouldn't more people point out, that "demographic transition" theory doesn't really work quite the way claimed?

Prosperity is clearly the most effective contraceptive. Wherever the per capita GDP rises, the average family size decreases. This is most pronounced at a Paradigm Shift and does not happen in a single generation because it is more a cultural motif than reasoned behavior, but it happens slowly. People are accustomed to having more children for reasons they may not think about consciously: To make sure some survive since infant mortality is high; to have enough hands to turn the family farm or business over to; to have enough progeny to support them in their old age. As these reasons become unREASONable, people do eventually notice, and change both the cultural motif and the behavior.

Today, even in the Third World, the birth rate is falling. Where the average couple once had twelve children, they now have nine; nine, seven; seven, five; five, four; etc. Nearly everywhere in the First World, fertility has dropped below replacement level and our social security Ponzi Schemes are only being kept solvent by the immigration that the less perceptive among us decry.

China is not a fair example because it's imposed by government edict... on the other hand, in a Confucian society that could be called simply one very efficient and not entirely untraditional way to change a cultural motif.

Anyway, I still see no reason to doubt the prediction that the world population will top out at just barely eleven digits within this century, and then start to fall.

Oh, but one of the reasons I want to call the so-called "demographic transition" theory, an almost outright fraud, is due to the underlying rampant contraceptive peddling. Without all the "family planning" propaganda, birthrates may just get "stuck" at the old traditionally high levels, no matter how much wealth and development. For as some website pointed out, there is nothing about having money in one's pockets that magically sterilizes the reproductive organs. In fact, more wealth may encourage human populations to multiply faster, encouraging such things as earlier marriage, more childbearing, etc.

I call for development, not to "slow" world population growth at all, but because more population + more poverty, is hardly the ideal situation.

"Developing countries should modernize and be more like us, to better support their burgeoning populations. We should be more like them, and have more children." Pronatalist

There are some practical reasons why poor countries tend to multiply people more rapidly, but probably any of them could also apply in more developed countries, as culture and religion all interplay. They sometimes call electricity a form of "contraception," because in dark villages with no electricity, what else is there to do at night, but snuggle up with one's mate and get warm, and make babies? They say of poor people that children are their only wealth. Now who would want to steal away their only wealth? Also, sex their only recreation, and the cost of contraceptives—out of the question. Food grows on trees, but contraceptives don't. Of course people in developed countries can choose to turn off the lights and TV at night, and make babies. Rich people could still count having possibly many children among their much wealth. And then of course, people find all sorts of "religious objections" and practical "excuses" not to use the societal mantra "Use birth control! Use birth control!" nasty contraceptives.

Don't they tend to have "large" families in Israel? Isn't Israel a "developed" country?

No, the "paradigm shift" I would advocate, that as presumably the countryside "shrinks" and gets filled in more with large and growing cities spreading closer together, that it's okay for people to enjoy having their "traditionally very large" families in the big city too, as maybe not everybody has room to live in the spacious countryside with so much room for growing families to spread into anymore, and it still remain rural "countryside."

A lot of growth of cities has come from people depopulating the countryside in search of jobs or opportunity or excitement in the growing cities. Not exactly the ideal model of growth, as I would rather have more jobs be more portable somehow so that people may remain where they are rather than crowd cities faster than they can adapt so well. It would be cool for people to move back to the countryside, but now at urban densities as there is getting to be so many of us.

Title: Isn't space per person, really a largely subjective feeling, and not so much an "absolute?"

Ecological footprint talk, is usually so fraudulent, for people supposedly having "large" ecological footprint, doesn't keep them from multiplying all the more. Farmland gets converted to human housing for expanding suburbs, and still people have plenty to eat. Can't ecological footprints "overlap" many times over? It's largely the "science" of gloom-and-doom eco-freaks, making up numbers to describe how dire they opine the world "environmental" situation to be, at the huge inconvenience of humans, but of course.

Their usual underlying mantra, would seem to be, that we humans don't even matter.

Isn't there some theory I heard of somewhere, I forget the term for it, that says that work will expand to take up all the time allotted to it? (Gee, could that be why I can't seem to get much done?) Maybe human populations are something like that. Given plenty of land, people will tend to spread somewhat more thinly over it. But as populations grow, and people have to "share" the land more, people will find they can do almost as well, squeezed into smaller tracts, or overlapping ranges of land living in closer proximity to their many neighbors. Contrary to the view of the population phobics, I think there is great reason to believe, that human populations are highly "compressible," especially when it come naturally by societal or pronatalist norms and not government fiat, and so the naturally rising population "pressure" shouldn't be all that big a deal, at least for we humans.

Well it is a fact that we a demolishing our environment, and eventually ourselves with it probably..
As for "we humans don't even matter".. in a sense a agree with that..

Title: A more dense and urban global environment, need not at all be "demolished," just altered to hold all the more people.

Well it is a fact that we a demolishing our environment, and eventually ourselves with it probably..
As for "we humans don't even matter".. in a sense a agree with that..

We aren't really demolishing God's environment he provided for humans, but altering it. In what way? Primarily, converting it to human habitat for the ever growing numbers of people. Building more houses, more apartment buildings, more roads to get people from place to place. We are altering the environment, towards a vaster and denser human race. So that so many of us, may go on naturally pushing out our babies. And for the greater good of the many.

How can you say that we humans don't matter? That's largely where a lot of the folly of population phobia comes from, this silly "religious" "environmental" view, that humans and mere animals, are all much the same. But we aren't. Humans are the pinnacle of God's creation, a practical reason to advocate the natural flow of human life, since it was God who commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Don't more people stop to contemplate what that could possibly mean? What does Genesis 1:28 and 9:1 say for people to do, when the world supposedly becomes "full" of people? Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Some Mormon website said the world is full, and yet there is room for more? So they want to populate the planet "beyond full?" No, I disagree, as I don't find the planet to be anywhere near full, but yeah, I welcome humans to naturally "outgrow" the planet, if and ever we naturally can, as that's how a baby escapes the womb, by "outgrowing" it. What does it say to do, when not one, but now 2 countries naturally blossom into "population billionaires?" Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. In my informal survey where I asked people if that commandment still applies, I think all my respondants said that it did. My sister said that God's commandment has not expired. One guy said that world population is "huge," and yet it still applies. Perhaps people are smart enough to be suspicious of leading issues that could imply that somebody could tell them not to have as many children as they may have? What does this commandment mean? It answers the population question, and it's more a process than an apparent destination, as man would see it. It means that as time progresses towards the Biblical endtimes, the world is naturally supposed to be getting fuller and fuller of people. Each successive generation should be expected to naturally grow larger and more populous than the previous, if people are to be faithful to obey God's commandments and direction for humanity.

That doesn't at all mean or necessitate a "demolished" environment, but more like perhaps an increasingly urbanized environment, and by what I read somewhere, 2008 is supposed to be the official year that the "majority" of world population now lives in cities, a curious "tipping" point of our natural increase. Apparently, in my view, that means that the flow of human life, will increasingly have to be welcome to progress, in the big cities as well, perhaps driving additional urban sprawl just to have enough room for everybody.

And a more pronatalist mindset, also serves to help keep us from demolishing ourselves, but helps remind people of the great and sacred value of each and every human life.

Title: A more dense and urban global environment, need not at all be "demolished," just altered to hold all the more people.



We aren't really demolishing God's environment he provided for humans, but altering it. In what way? Primarily, converting it to human habitat for the ever growing numbers of people. Building more houses, more apartment buildings, more roads to get people from place to place. We are altering the environment, towards a vaster and denser human race. So that so many of us, may go on naturally pushing out our babies. And for the greater good of the many.

How can you say that we humans don't matter? That's largely where a lot of the folly of population phobia comes from, this silly "religious" "environmental" view, that humans and mere animals, are all much the same. But we aren't. Humans are the pinnacle of God's creation, a practical reason to advocate the natural flow of human life, since it was God who commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Don't more people stop to contemplate what that could possibly mean? What does Genesis 1:28 and 9:1 say for people to do, when the world supposedly becomes "full" of people? Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Some Mormon website said the world is full, and yet there is room for more? So they want to populate the planet "beyond full?" No, I disagree, as I don't find the planet to be anywhere near full, but yeah, I welcome humans to naturally "outgrow" the planet, if and ever we naturally can, as that's how a baby escapes the womb, by "outgrowing" it. What does it say to do, when not one, but now 2 countries naturally blossom into "population billionaires?" Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. In my informal survey where I asked people if that commandment still applies, I think all my respondants said that it did. My sister said that God's commandment has not expired. One guy said that world population is "huge," and yet it still applies. Perhaps people are smart enough to be suspicious of leading issues that could imply that somebody could tell them not to have as many children as they may have? What does this commandment mean? It answers the population question, and it's more a process than an apparent destination, as man would see it. It means that as time progresses towards the Biblical endtimes, the world is naturally supposed to be getting fuller and fuller of people. Each successive generation should be expected to naturally grow larger and more populous than the previous, if people are to be faithful to obey God's commandments and direction for humanity.

That doesn't at all mean or necessitate a "demolished" environment, but more like perhaps an increasingly urbanized environment, and by what I read somewhere, 2008 is supposed to be the official year that the "majority" of world population now lives in cities, a curious "tipping" point of our natural increase. Apparently, in my view, that means that the flow of human life, will increasingly have to be welcome to progress, in the big cities as well, perhaps driving additional urban sprawl just to have enough room for everybody.

And a more pronatalist mindset, also serves to help keep us from demolishing ourselves, but helps remind people of the great and sacred value of each and every human life.

God ? wtf..
Humans the pinnacle of God's creation ? WTF!?

Dream on... your kids will suffer for it.

Title: World population may go on growing, regardless whether you and I procreate or not.

God ? wtf..
Humans the pinnacle of God's creation ? WTF!?

Dream on... your kids will suffer for it.

You never heard of such "religious" beliefs before? But of such is a main reason why human populations go on growing, so religious belief is very relevant to the issue.

My kids will suffer for it? Perhaps so, if having opportunity to become alive = suffering. But then normal hunger pangs and normal tiredness, are mild forms of "suffering." It was almost comical when the "Q" god-like entity, on Star Trek TNG was "punished" for his shenigans about the universe, by the Q race, and made to be a mere mortal "human" being for a while. What a crybaby! He thought he was dying, just to feel normal hunger or tiredness, and the humans around him, had to explain that that's what we feel all the time, even with plenty of food to eat all around.

But then, I believe it better communicates to children just how much they are "wanted," when their parents explain to them why "birth control" is not used within their family. Because more children are always welcome if God allows, and they have faith to welcome "all the children God gives," or perhaps have a natural adversion to the unnatural use of anti-life "birth control."

Surely you don't believe children should be spoiled rotten or have Chinese "emperor" complex, at having been a doted upon, only child? No, I suspect that many children do even better, having grown up in "large" families, being all the more socialized to both survive and thrive in an increasingly populous world. In many developing countries, "family planning" is still frowned upon, being associated, for good reason I would add, with "dirty sex" such as prostitution. I do think that a statistical link can be made, between excessive availability/promotion of contraceptives, and promiscuity, along with STDs, abortion, divorce, and assorted other societal disfunctions. Even with rising taxes, as larger families likely would be more resistant to rising socialist/communist taxation schemes.

God ? wtf..
Humans the pinnacle of God's creation ? WTF!?

Dream on... your kids will suffer for it.

Oh crap, Pronatalist is spamming the forum again. As I replied to Syzygys in this thread last June (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=64297&page=7)

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.

Repo Man, I could dignify your dribble post with a comment, but then, I didn't find anything rational enough in it, to reply to. Oh well, maybe later.