I care a lot about people I even run an online support group for people with mental illness. But my caring for people alive at the moment has been over run by the long-term effects on the enviroment that we instigate. Therefore the more people that die the more chance we will ALL have long-term. We need more deaths, we need a major bird flu etc. The best enviroment solution must be less humans? Am I right? What are your views?

I care a lot about people I even run an online support group for people with mental illness. But my caring for people alive at the moment has been over run by the long-term effects on the enviroment that we instigate. Therefore the more people that die the more chance we will ALL have long-term. We need more deaths, we need a major bird flu etc. The best enviroment solution must be less humans? Am I right? What are your views?
Ok. i agree. you first!

After you :p

You're opening a can of worms here.

I agree that less humans would benefit the planet's ecosystem, but stating I want people to die isn't exactly the way I'd have put it.

It is very much an Illuminati idea--an idea many feel is already being implemented! Checkout 'global cleansing'

picture this.....a very very very VERY very veryvery rich elite set of families. ok?.....they are aLS INCREDIB;Y POWERFUL.

they look at the 'people' the 'massess'/'useless eaters' as being wild, uncouth. so as the gentry do wit foxes etc, they want to CULLus, sos 'their' world is not over run with us.

now, you want me to agree with those fukin monsters?
rather ...that killing other people. we shouo have --like Indigenous peoples, regulated our births. but you see te myths we live by--the 'gp forthandmultiply' propaganda has had its effect. you also have he effect of worldwide poverty, excacerbated by Western poliicies which forces extremely poor people to have more children.

so, considering this mess. NO one has the right to suddenly say, 'right who can we kill to sort it out'!....aS I SAY, THOSE EVIL EVIL MUTHAS AT THE TOP IS DOING THAT RIGHT NOW

The only way things would really change in the world is to have a HUGE population disaster. It would have to take out like 75% of the entire global population. Bird flu or some weak disease like that wouldn't be enough. Some horrible disaster that effects everybody on earth, something that nearly destroys humanity. This would help to unite people around the event and precipitate some cooperation. If I had a garauntee that this would occur I'd be happy to take one for the "team"

The only way things would really change in the world is to have a HUGE population disaster. It would have to take out like 75% of the entire global population. Bird flu or some weak disease like that wouldn't be enough. Some horrible disaster that effects everybody on earth, something that nearly destroys humanity. This would help to unite people around the event and precipitate some cooperation. If I had a garauntee that this would occur I'd be happy to take one for the "team"
they already on it...check this:
http://www.rense.com/general67/avianflufright.htm

bconn29: eliminating 75% of the earth's population would set us back, technologically, hundreds of years. In other words, technoloical advancement has a correlation with population growth (civilization growth and development). Thats why colonies on the moon and Mars arent fiction... They are fact, eventually.

later
T

Don't kill; just have family planning!

I really don't think that we would lose in technology just because the population dropped by 75 percent. Too much of the increase in population has been where it would have the reverse effect by increasing poverty and straining resources.

We need to reduce the human population, but we need to do it by increasing the quality of life and apportioning bribes for people to become childless. This will also have the effect of eliminating those who have a genetic tendency to sell their children to the knacker. Since the Illuminutti have chosen the very low road, there isn't much point to the population reduction program. All it's doing is turning the Earth into an open sewer AND failing to reduce the human population. It probably will work eventually when enough people become convinced that it is necessary to "purge."

It all goes to show that the Illuminutti are not very smart.

"The best enviroment solution must be less humans?"
do you drive a car?
do you really think it is right for people to die, to cut down on pollution so that you can drive a 4WD, litter and leave heaters on throughout the entire winter??
the best solution is dramatically increasing the price of petrol and mains electricity

Duendy wrote "excacerbated by Western poliicies which forces extremely poor people to have more children"

I disagree. In evolutionary terms, the western world has fewer children these days and takes better care of those fewer children that they have.
Eastern cultures simply have to have more children because it is accepted that more of them will die.

How has the west forced the east to have more children?
If anything, the west donates a shitload of condoms to these countries ever year, but many don't believe in using them, it is believed in certain parts of africa that the way to cure HIV is to "have sex with a virgin".

Now i'll be the first to stand up and say 9-11 was dodgy. DODGY.
But these conspiracy theories that the West invented AIDS etc. really shit me.
As if the West had the scientific capability to invent HIV in the 1950s??? WTF?

I'll tell you where AIDS comes from, it comes from people who have unprotected sex.

Besides, it is most obvious that countries with the poorest hygeine (e.g. bird flu victims in asia reportedly drinking duck blood etc) are the most likely to contract, and spread, these diseases.

Now i'm 23 and I don't even have my learners license - i rely on public transport.

I found it highly offensive when the first african woman to win a nobel peace prize - "Wangari Maathai" said just days after receiving her award, that "In fact it (the HIV virus) is created by a scientist for biological warfare," (allegedly to cull the black africans).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200410/s1216687.htm
That is extremely offensive to the scientific community, who have done nothing but give her country and other african countries millions of condoms, and tried to educate them - to no avail.

I think her nobel prize should be revoked, until she can provide some evidence of her claims.


Hey DUENDY! no offense, but I just found something you might want to check: your link, http://www.rense.com/general67/avianflufright.htm
was written "By Leonard G. Horowitz"

it seems he's a spiritual/miracle healer! http://www.healingcelebrations.com/

"In Healing Celebrations™, you will learn . . .
5 practical steps to reverse cancer, autoimmune diseases, and vaccine injuries, and . . .
5 spiritual steps to manifest miraculous healings . . ."

He doesn't even vaccinate his children! wtf?

He also sells scam healing devices at
https://www.healthyworlddistributing.com/

The worst thing about believing that the HIV virus is a conspiracy is that it gets even more people to believe in HIV. What is finally going to happen is that nuclear weapons will be used to sterilize populations thought to be diseased.

This sounds like a discussion for the Cesspool or a line from ‘Independence Day’ not Earth Science.

The best enviroment solution must be less humans? Am I right?

I agree with you. But in the same post, you said, "I care a lot about people...". So which is it? How can you "care" for people, yet feel that more people should die? That's sorta' contradictory, ain't it?

Personally, I think it's much, much too late. At this point in time, the death of even 75% of the world's human population would do little to curb human desires of greed and violence. If there's ten people, male and female, remaining, humans would just do it all again .....even knowing what they know now.

It's too late.

Baron Max

Max is right, maybe you just don't like people. If no one had babies, there would be no more people on Earth in less than 100 years with no untimely death involved. There used to be 12 million bison on the plains, and they are huge, so perhaps it's just our behavior that's a problem, not our numbers.

...so perhaps it's just our behavior that's a problem, not our numbers.

No, it's both!

Even if all humans were all "nice guys", at some point, with their horrendous breeding rate, the Earth's resources won't be enough to sustain them (even simple food!).

The bison numbers were naturally limited by the amount of available grazing and the wolf population. They couldn't have and wouldn't have continued to multiply forever! Nothing can do that on this Earth.

I always like to think of the Native American cultures as somewhat idyllic and "perfect". But that's romanticizing the past. It's true that the Indians were well adapted to their environment but studies and statistics have shown that, even though it was slow, the Native American tribes were growing in numbers by leaps and bounds! Had they been allowed to continue as they were, they, too, would have over-bred their available food supplies.

Humans are just totally fucked up. And those that don't or can't believe it are just hiding from the "horrible" truth. Man is going to continue to fuck up the Earth until it's nothing but a barren ball of rock revolving around the sun. Face the facts.

Baron Max

Actually, people don't breed themselves into extinction. Having large numbers of children was only necessary with historicaly high rates of infant mortality. With rising education and rights for women come greater control over their pregnancies, especially with birth control. If current trends continue, world population will level off soon.


I wasn't making a point about Indians. I was making a point about Bison. Large numbers of animals aren't necessarily inherently unsustainable on Earth.

Actually, people don't breed themselves into extinction. ... With rising education and rights for women come greater control over their pregnancies, especially with birth control.

No, that's not how it's going to be. The educated will, as you say, stop breeding. But the breeding rate of the uneducated will continue ...and soon the world will be over-populated with hordes of uneducated in greater and greater numbers.

Look at the trends in just the past few decades ...the educated breeding rate is, in fact, falling, while the uneducated breeding rate is actually on the increase (mostly due to the educated helping with health care and handouts!).

If current trends continue, world population will level off soon.

Not soon enough! When it "levels off", the Earth will be a giant barren rock!

Baron Max

If u want people to die, why not starting by:
- terrorists
- dangerous criminals (drugs barons, serial killers, rappers, etc)
- USA and Portuguese government people (politicians = s***)
- all men that are most beautiful and sexy than me :D ...kiding

I agree with population reduction. I don't agree with attempting to do it by reducing the quality of life, or by violence, or by deception.

alexb123,
I want people to die!

If they are evil is no problem!

I care a lot about people I even run an online support group for people with mental illness. But my caring for people alive at the moment has been over run by the long-term effects on the enviroment that we instigate. Therefore the more people that die the more chance we will ALL have long-term. We need more deaths, we need a major bird flu etc. The best enviroment solution must be less humans? Am I right? What are your views?


First I'd think that you should go on a 2 or 3 week vacation for it seems that you are becoming burned out if you are trying to help people then turn around and say this.

The population of Europe took quite some time to recover from the results of the plague.

But it seems to me unlikely that something like that will happen again due to the increased knowledge on hygiene and medical science.

We might not be able to cure something like the plague immediately, but we will probably have a better notion on how to isolate it, or reduce its effects.

Or not...

Because the world is globalized.

People seem to think there is a Paradox in my statement, I don't believe there is.

A caring person would if given the choice kill billions of people today so that billions of others in the future would have a chance.

Therefore, the best hope for the future is death or population reductions. I'm not saying I want anyone to die, I am just saying its the lesser of two evils. Also population reduction will not happen many country’s pay people to have children. Even Catholic Spain has undertaken this course.

Make it a law to circumcise. Permits should be required before having babies. Slow down the porn. Extend the arm of death sentence to lesser offences. If all else fails lets just look for volunteers that want to be laid to rest, believe me you will find any group of people if you look hard enough, you can start with the so called green peace people and those types. Thats all I have for now

A caring person would if given the choice kill billions of people today so that billions of others in the future would have a chance.

the problem, of course, is that ye're predicting the future ....and to get people to believe your predictions just might a be a bit difficult, don't ya' think? You can give all kinds of scenarios, but any scenario falls to shit if something like the plague comes along ....right after you've killed half of the world's population.

The future is pretty hard to predict ...and even harder to convince anyone else that your prediction will come true.

Baron Max

Baron Max wrote "Look at the trends in just the past few decades ...the educated breeding rate is, in fact, falling, while the uneducated breeding rate is actually on the increase (mostly due to the educated helping with health care and handouts!"

I have to agree with this statement. Very few people are willing to accept that this is continuing and a "growing" problem.

After all, it is the educated who have the higher quality of life.

People seem to think there is a Paradox in my statement, I don't believe there is.

A caring person would if given the choice kill billions of people today so that billions of others in the future would have a chance.

Therefore, the best hope for the future is death or population reductions. I'm not saying I want anyone to die, I am just saying its the lesser of two evils. Also population reduction will not happen many country’s pay people to have children. Even Catholic Spain has undertaken this course.

By definition, your statement is a paradox: what you say is contradictory, opposed to common sense, and results in a self-contradictory conclusion.

At first you address yourself as a "caring person," but then you advocate a view of "killing billions of people." This is self-contradictory. Any caring humane person would not advocate the killing of billions! This is sadistic, cruel, evil, and inhumane!

Population reduction by controled breeding is the rational option and I hope that you focus your initiatives and thought on it, rather than advocating murder!

Valich I don't agree with you at all. You make it seem as if killing is always bad, which it isn't. If you ran over a Dog and all you could do is sit and watch it slowly die in pain would it not be more humane to kill that dog? Or even a person?

If bird flu was to wipe out 2 billion people (westerners as they make the bigger enviro impact) then it would buy us the time to get to fuel cell and clean energy production.

the problem, of course, is that ye're predicting the future ....and to get people to believe your predictions just might a be a bit difficult, don't ya' think? You can give all kinds of scenarios, but any scenario falls to shit if something like the plague comes along ....right after you've killed half of the world's population.

The future is pretty hard to predict ...and even harder to convince anyone else that your prediction will come true.

Baron Max


Its not often I agree with Baron Max but that is probably one of the most sensible things I have seen him post.

Also there is only one life and that is yours. You can choose to lay that down for another if you wish, but you cannot say that a single life in the future is more valid than a single life now. Sound's like nazi idealism to me.

peace

c20

I killed two ants today, it was an accident!,will i go to hell?

I killed two ants today, it was an accident!,will i go to hell?

Why do you ask?

because ants are extraterestrials and will come back and get me, do you believe
in extraterestrials?

because ants are extraterestrials and will come back and get me, do you believe
in extraterestrials?

I think we are probably better advised to stay on topic. Post a new thread if you want on the subject of ants being extra terrestrials. I am sure it will invite much [ridicule] comment.

peace

c20

ok, peace

Its not often I agree with Baron Max but that is probably one of the most sensible things I have seen him post.

Also there is only one life and that is yours. You can choose to lay that down for another if you wish, but you cannot say that a single life in the future is more valid than a single life now. Sound's like nazi idealism to me.

peace

c20

I think you have missed the point here; the loss of life in this generation will help to ensure that there are future generations. My point is there might not be future generations. This isn't a life for life debate; it’s a life for the existence of life debate.

The records show that extinction is on the cards for us as it has been for almost all living creatures. The records also seem to show that the more intelligent/complex the species the fast the extinctions. The death of billions will properly only buy us time but I think the unselfish among us would see that for the good of the human race people need to die in large numbers.

I don't understand. Why does it matter if humans overpopulate the world. It is ours by right, to live and breed. All animals live and breed. The Earth does exactly what she's meant to do in terms of being self sustained. History has shown time and time again that the earth is quite capable to naturally create and destroy anything and everything it wants. It's a cycle of life. Insects and most animals procreate at a much higher rate than any human being could ever hope for. Why would you want to kill people just to create more people. The Earth is capable of sustaining alot more people than are here right now. The issue is that people can't sustain themselves in some of the more harsh environments that the Earth provides but theres plenty of room, plenty of food, plenty of trees, plenty or water, plenty of oxygen. It's a control issue. Who you're letting control the environments natural control is the problem. Not just people. If you want to kill anyone it should be those of whom you put in control of your very lives.

people need to die in large numbers.
People do die in very large numbers naturally everyday, every year, every century. Millions and millions 5 times over. You want to murder more people too.

Valich I don't agree with you at all. You make it seem as if killing is always bad, which it isn't. If you ran over a Dog and all you could do is sit and watch it slowly die in pain would it not be more humane to kill that dog? Or even a person?

If bird flu was to wipe out 2 billion people (westerners as they make the bigger enviro impact) then it would buy us the time to get to fuel cell and clean energy production.
Mercy killing of a suffering animal that is about to die anyways with no possible hope of survival is quite a different matter than the outright slaughter of innocent victims, or of genocide, aka Hitler, Slovenia, some African nations.

All life has a right to live and you as a solitary individual have no right to create an altruistic new code of morality that dictates otherwise.

In contrast, a vast proportion of people on Earth are utilitarian humanitarians and philanthropists who put their money, resources, and abilities to work in a civilized way in helping the needy and in trying to find and provide civilized humanitarian ways to deal with overpopulation. Your proposal is uncivilized and barbaric.

Valich I like your example of the kindness of mankind, it is pleasing to the mind. However I am posing the question here is it really now truly humanitarian to save lives? Is it not becoming more and more a fact of life that harsh solution will be needed for our long-term survival? Therefore death and killing will become humanitarian in its own right?

em.... Not wanting to chuck a spanner in the works or anything, but wouldn't it actually slightly more actually humanitarian to prevent the onset of such extremes where by that sort of logic becomes a necessity in the first place rather than advocating its inevitability before the situation has become anything of the sort?

It's just, y'know, a really rather obvious sort of question....

Valich I like your example of the kindness of mankind, it is pleasing to the mind. However I am posing the question here is it really now truly humanitarian to save lives? Is it not becoming more and more a fact of life that harsh solution will be needed for our long-term survival? Therefore death and killing will become humanitarian in its own right?
Humanitarianism, as in the "giving of humanitarian aid," means to provide "help" to those in need. Humanitarianism means for the welfare of ALL of society: not for just a part of it by eliminating half. Your redifinition of humanitarian is selfish, sadistic, and sick. You're a sadistic person with a mental problem, possibly prone to violence, and should seek psychiatric help before you start hurting other people, or "killing" them as you are proposing.

If you want people to die in large numbers, Valich, just wait for this northern Winter. Bird flu has been confirmed in Rumania--which is grossly overcrowded because of Cuacescu's policies--and the flu has every chance of becoming a world wide pandemic as soon as the virus changes a little bit so we human-to-human transmission. Besides, some nice scientists have just managed to recreate the 1918 flu virus (which killed 50 million peopl world-wide just after WW1). All we need now is for Osama or some other terrorist wonk to get into that lab and release the virus, and :eek: we have another 1-in-40 death-toll like we did back then. :bugeye:

Valich you say that humanitarian mean to provide help for the welfare of all. Ok lets take AIDS, which is a good method of population reduction. It would be helpful to withdraw all AIDS drugs and let the disease take its natural course and wipe-out millions. AIDS is a good natural population control method. Now this method of course would not help the AIDS victims but if humanitarian means to "help all" then yes in the “long-term” this method would help "all".

Valich thank you for your analysis of my mental state, which DSM criteria would best suit my condition. It’s always good to see a qualified physiatrist giving informed advice on forums about the environment.

I can't believe that any project that envols pasivley/activley killing your population is going to be recieved well.
But I do agree that it would be for the world best if the human population would drop or at least stops growing.

But the "world leaders" do actually try to bring their populations down. CHina is perhaps the biggest example because it has his 1 child policy.
But even North America and West Europa have their projects, by activly supporting the ID of first a career and then children.

I do agree that the world population is still raising but this is mainly a problem of the poorer nations.

But if I had to choose to birth controle option it would be the one about 0.75 children per person. This way is better the Chinees methode because you still have some options left afther a divorce, and people that would like a big family could purchase the rights of others. So childrenless couples get a financial bonus.
And if you put all the orphens in the sale department and ask only like 0.5 for them and asks more for couples that have significant genetic flaws. Than you wouldn't have any orphans and a whole lot less handicapt people in the world

I can't believe that any project that envols pasivley/activley killing your population is going to be recieved well.
But I do agree that it would be for the world best if the human population would drop or at least stops growing.

But the "world leaders" do actually try to bring their populations down. CHina is perhaps the biggest example because it has his 1 child policy.
But even North America and West Europa have their projects, by activly supporting the ID of first a career and then children.

I do agree that the world population is still raising but this is mainly a problem of the poorer nations.

But if I had to choose to birth controle option it would be the one about 0.75 children per person. This way is better the Chinees methode because you still have some options left afther a divorce, and people that would like a big family could purchase the rights of others. So childrenless couples get a financial bonus.
And if you put all the orphens in the sale department and ask only like 0.5 for them and asks more for couples that have significant genetic flaws. Than you wouldn't have any orphans and a whole lot less handicapt people in the world
The China one child policy is much more of a myth than a reality. Believe me: I lived there, I know. Most Chinese still have three to five children. That law is seldom if ever enforced and why they try to, there's always ways around: they just pay off the small fine, ignore the village cadre, leave town when tey conduct a census, pay off the municipal officials in charge, migrate and blend into the cities where they're no longer registered.

The biggest problem with over population, as I think I mentioned above, is in Africa, where many countries still believe in having as many children as possible (8,9,10) and have many wives as possible (its legal) because the health conditions are so poor that a lot - sometimes most- of the children do not live long. Then the children - as in China too - are married off at unbelievable early ages (girls 8, 9, 10 years old), so that they can start their own families to support their parents and pass on the family name.

Avian Bird Flu spread to Romania and Turkey in the largest delta region there. This delta region is a major stopping off point for migratory birds heading to Northern Africa for the winter. If there's one country that is totally unprepared for a pandemic flu outbreak, it is Africa. The World Health Organization WHO, keeps saying that its not "if" but "when." Looks like it may initially start bigtime in Africa.

to original post:

not necesarily less humans, just less use/misuse of the environment

although, killing is a blast, so have at it.

I care a lot about people I even run an online support group for people with mental illness. But my caring for people alive at the moment has been over run by the long-term effects on the enviroment that we instigate. Therefore the more people that die the more chance we will ALL have long-term. We need more deaths, we need a major bird flu etc. The best enviroment solution must be less humans? Am I right? What are your views

What we need is to tell the government to introduce permits for giving birth. I mean I was just thinking about this, why do I have to share the same space with some other ding dong's carbon copy. We share the roads so we need a driver's license so why in the world can't we introduce permits for giving birth, which by the way takes up a lot more than highway space. It will also cut down the number of abandoned babies and STD's, not to mention the ever increasing population space. Too often two ass holes think they are in love and pump out a baby only for them to revaluate their socio-economic and emotional position thereafter, contributing to poverty and psychological scars. Every government needs to enact this law, at least until a new industry or idea is discovered. America doesn't need to seal its border, just introduce birth licenses and documented aliens. The reality is people just don't know what they have, easy come easy go.

We need another war.
Peace=lazyness, and instead of banding together with fellow man, peace just seems to seperate people, nobody has anything to worry about, people are bored.
And nobody seems to strive towards anything but extra cash, there is no "fight for your country"
it is more like "fight for someone else so you can keep driving and making cash and eating junk food".

Unfortunatly we have nukes, and that really does spoil things, the weaponry today is too severe to the point where nobody can actually win, which is IMO a real shame.

I am not sure I buy your sentiment. For one thing War happens everyday, just on a more subtle level, war is just elevated stress. The constant hussling and bussling around town is a battle itself. Besides one man's peace is another's battle.What we need immidiately is birth permits. As if its not enough to deal with people the ass hole has to pump out a replica of himself. We need to do this for ourselves and all other species

For one thing, we need to make heroes out of people who choose non-reproductive forms of sex. Two guys or two gals making love aren't going to contribute to the population problem, and the STDs problem is greatly exaggerated. If we straightened out a lot of the confusion that has been deliberately created by various agencies, there wouldn't be nearly so many problems educating people and getting them to go along with the program. Forcing people to obey all sorts of confusing guidelines screws up their lives and forces them to rebel because no normal person can get a mental handle on what they're supposed to do anyway, so they say to hell with it. Asking them nicely and making the requests plain, simple, and consistent goes a long way toward gaining cooperation.

If a person can't see that he or she is contributing to the survival of the species by not having children, he or she will do the next best thing. The lowest common denominator is to contribute to the survival of the human species by breeding more humans. It takes no education. If the education is incomprehensible, it doesn't seem real, it doesn't seem right, so the person in question does the one thing that she can understand to be right.

Bird flu won't help a bit. If anything it will inspire a baby boom. Everyone who loses a relative or a child will have two to compensate, one for replacement and one to make certain. This kind of thing can go on for a better than 50 percent mortality rate, so any disease too much short of an Omega strain is not going to do the job. And I don't want it to go this way anyhow.

I think that the world is being pushed towards mass sterilization, both by surgery and by actual irradiation of affected areas of the world using neutron bombs or the like. Maybe the only thing that makes this like a conspiracy is a shared attitude about life. Christ on an effing pogo stick, if we can get together and declare mass suicide, you would think it would be easier to get together and decide that quality shall be chosen over quantity. Except that the first choice is by default and the second choice requires some actual mental work, say at least on the mental level of a 14 year old.

Yep, if you look at history the populatiion explodes after a major disease or catastrophe. I don't think there is too much confusion because everybody does a quick socio-eco evaluation before and after having a child except for the accidental mistakes. The government is having a say on abortion and sanctity of life so why the effing hell can't they implement birth permits? Its the municipal and federal leaders obligation to revaluate the current social infrastrucrures of a vicinity before allowing mothers to pump out more babies. Same shit happens in the animal kingdom won't you agree?

Valich I like your example of the kindness of mankind, it is pleasing to the mind. However I am posing the question here is it really now truly humanitarian to save lives? Is it not becoming more and more a fact of life that harsh solution will be needed for our long-term survival? Therefore death and killing will become humanitarian in its own right?Well why don't we start by killing you. That would be a "harsh solution" to your proposed survival strategy. Or, unless you are being a hypocrite, you aught to start by committing suicide! Bye. No more posts tomorrow, right?

Take an example from easter island, the people there thought that they can live for the rest of time on that large island. But in the end, there were not enough recources on that island to support them. So the population there died out. Earth is like an island, no where to go, but there is a non-violent way to solve this problem.

Find a planet and send half of the world to colonize it. (like the Europeans colonized the west in the 1700s)

em.... Not wanting to chuck a spanner in the works or anything, but wouldn't it actually slightly more actually humanitarian to prevent the onset of such extremes where by that sort of logic becomes a necessity in the first place rather than advocating its inevitability before the situation has become anything of the sort?

It's just, y'know, a really rather obvious sort of question....

No. Prevention is entirely overrated. If we thought like that we'd have nothing to bitch about and no excuse to kill people. You're wildly insane suggestion would require people to think before acting, and be responsible for their actions when they don't. Like Alain said on the first page, we'd rather kill off the unwashed masses so we can have our Ford Exhibition, I mean Expedition, running along spitting and swallowing poisonous fumes and natural resources respectively so that we can pretend to society that we off-road on the weekends.

That similar thinking manifests itself in so many areas of our culture. We are so accepting of our social and political structures and so comfortable in how things are done that we think, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, but when things suck I'll make someone else pay." People fail entirely to look at why things "suck" and come to understand that the systems are "broke". We feel so superior and think we've come so far, people have holed up and don't look at how far we should or how far we can go.

Thats why I think we need to solve the space travel problem. (I know, now is when I fly off to crazy idealist land....) Then similar minded people can just take off and start their own planet...provided they can find one magically available and waiting. I know its a fantasy, but I would love nothing more than to leave this planet to the people who think "it ain't broke" and laugh at them from 20 light years away. Hey, a girl can dream can't she?

I care a lot about people I even run an online support group for people with mental illness. But my caring for people alive at the moment has been over run by the long-term effects on the enviroment that we instigate. Therefore the more people that die the more chance we will ALL have long-term. We need more deaths, we need a major bird flu etc. The best enviroment solution must be less humans? Am I right? What are your views?

If global warming and its geological side-effects really get under way, you'll get mass-death in spades. :eek:

I think some people are starting to stop some desaters from happening.

Just look at all the adds to stop smoking and drunk driving. They kill lots of people and yet it is not enough. I think we should just let people that are stupid enough to kill themselves do it. Am I right?

And another thing we may use up a lot of resourses on Earth but when the richer countries start starving are we really going to give more food to the poor ones? I don't think so.

Jumping into the conversation late here...
It is with fascination that I read the range of opinions
about this suggestion. :bugeye:
Contrary to the lore of yesteryear overpopulation doesn't
seem like its going to be the deal breaker that it was thought
to be in decades past. As a matter of fact, the educated sectors of
society are breeding UNDER replacement levels now, though this
is a phenomenon largely contained to the western hemisphere.
There are more than one reason for this; economically, it isn't beneficial
for an educated man and woman to put aside the much needed second
income to take the time out to have a child, and add to that the
cost of raising a child to maturity, the cost can become prohibitive
and is a factor in many a couple remaining childless. College educated
women in particular are putting off raising a family in favor of
pursuing careers which is also a factor in this.
Population decline is hitting Europe particularly hard causing
EU countries to offer incentives to citizens to have more children.
This is being overshadowed by the population growth due to
an influx of non skilled immigrants from the lower socioeconomic
strata of other countries.
So what we have is a decline in high IQ circles and a growth in the
underclasses typified by lower IQs.
This situation is what is called dysgenic.
Planned parenthood is actually having a detrimental effect on society
as those having the abortions and those practicing birth control are
for the most part those who we need to procreate.
The underclass is breeding like crazy as it pays for them to pop out another one; their paycheck goes up...
And the stigma attached to single motherhood has been eroded to such
a point that it has become romanticized for teen girls to squeeze out
illegitimate future convicts.
Welfare has been shown to be generational, and can be viewed as a custom
of not working and expecting the state to provide; and is passed down from parent to child and to their children after them.
Those that do get off of welfare have a predominant presence in
governmental and city services continuing the tendency to be
taken care of by the state.

Spermicidal corn and grain has been developed btw; and is being used
in Mexico and S. America.

in a couple generations, someone is going to have some prime real-estate.




before going, ponder this:
Before killing off huge swaths of people manually,
consider a plague, throughout history plagues have hit
the poorest populations first and hardest as higher
socioeconomic levels live in generally cleaner environments
and have fewer disease carrying vectors associated with them.
I've heard it suggested that the European plagues of medieval times
were at the end eugenic for the reason that the majority of the victims
were from the peasant population leaving the higher IQ alleles to repopulate.

:D

flame away me bloodyhearts.

i wouldn't care if there was a trillion people on earth...

I'd like to add that I understand completely the caring about humanity
enough that you see the benefit of a decrease in population now
to benefit the generations that follow.
Its the difference between a self-hating pathalogical altruism and
a logic based altruism based on concrete benefits and results.

btw
those that operate from an emotional perspective
will never accept something that goes against their
indoctrination and conditioning no matter how much
logic and fact it is based on.

i wouldn't care if there was a trillion people on earth...


would you care if there were one billion?

would you care if there were one billion?

i just mean that it wouldn't matter to me if there were many people on earth... but if there was only a billion... i guess it would be better. but it would probably be best if there were none.

I care a lot about people I even run an online support group for people with mental illness. But my caring for people alive at the moment has been over run by the long-term effects on the enviroment that we instigate. Therefore the more people that die the more chance we will ALL have long-term. We need more deaths, we need a major bird flu etc. The best enviroment solution must be less humans? Am I right? What are your views?
I think you're missing your underlying desire. You don't seem to be wanting people to die to get joy, you seem to be wanting humans to co-exist with the ecosystem in a beneficial way, or for the ecosystem to be better, that's what you really want.

caring about future generations may cause one to SEEM unfeeling
and inhumane to the present generation, especially if one is contemplating
the culling of the present generation to enrich those that will live
150 years from now.

i have personaly decided to NEVER have children,theres WAY too many stupid people.

if earth reaches its carrying capacity for humans,nature will take us out.

look at bird flu,and sars,products of or stupidity and over crowding.

this is a common refrain amongst those educated and amongst those
who fancy themselves as intellectuals.
why are you not going to procreate if you see the rampant stupidity
and growth in the numbers of savages?
If this keeps up, we won't have anyone with sufficient IQ
to keep up basic infrastructure in a handful of generations.
:confused:

What should have been the prime population consideration, is that more and more people would be glad to be born. And most everybody wants or ends up with children. Therefore, for the interests of human rights, the benefit of society, to respect human life and God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and to benefit the many, large families should be encouraged worldwide. We can't make the planet any bigger, colonizing other worlds or outer space doesn't appear feasible anytime soon at least not until preceded by massive population increase, and yet more and more people would be glad to live. The proper response to the trendy and unsubstanciated population phobic enviro wackos should have been glaringly obvious—increase world population density. If more people are coming to life, make the best of it and welcome our fellow humans, scoot over a little if necessary and make way for more people to be alive at once.

Humans reproducing isn't just about respecting the God-given rights of individual families, but also going along with nature and the common global goal we all share in enlarging the human race, as evidenced by our powerful reproductive urges and all the compelling reasons why parents have children.

Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of available land area. It could be more. There could simply be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Let the people build themselves more cities and towns to make way for all the children they are having. Urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed.

Come on people, how can you have so little imagination or vision? No faith in God? No faith in anything but trendy deluded hearsay junk-science?

Thomas Malthus, the apparent father of population-phobic anti-human propaganda, supposedly said that somebody must die to make room for each birth. Why? While the earth may no longer be "empty" of people anymore, neither is it full. There is plenty of room for lots more people. Enviro radicals like to claim that if humans don't limit their numbers, nature will. Wrong. Nature won't. Nature doesn't "think" and so doesn't "care" how populous human become. God gave people dominion over nature and other creatures, a likely or possible explanation why nature can't seem to keep human populations "in check" and why we shouldn't bother to limit our numbers either. I have a much better idea. Considering the shortage of "volunteers" to somehow cease living to promote the population reduction they claim to advocate (hypocrites!), wouldn't it be far more elegant and practical to be more pronatalist and go along with the natural enlargement of the human race, and to welcome humanity to grow denser as God would allow?

Before we can think much of colonizing other worlds, why not colonize this one first? After all the people are already here, so the question of how to transport people to other worlds wouldn't even be an issue. What we don't have yet, is the necessary technology to populate other worlds. What we do already have, is the scalable and wel-understood technologies to populate this world more and more densely, via more modernization, more flush toilets, proper sanitation, modern clean gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens, food storage and harvesting technologies, vaccines, etc. Why not work with what we have, and stop trying to play god, or rebelling against God, the God who commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. What part of "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," do we not understand?

i wouldn't care if there was a trillion people on earth...

Actually, that could have been a great point, had you taken the trouble to elborate or explain it better?

Let's say that you and I did happen to be born in a world with a trillion people, perhap earth in some hypothetical future scenario. Few people then by then, would see anything worrisome or strange about living on a planet with so many people living most everywhere, perhaps some stacked up into great highrises or skyscrapers. As they would never have known a world that wasn't so heavily populated and dominated by people. It would seem quite the "normal" thing. After all, nobody on the Jetsons cartoon, seems to be aware just how large their population may have become, or questions why most everybody lives in highrises. Just the way it is in the future? Or in "futuristic" cartoons at least. After all, living space isn't scarce and they have flying cars and prosperity. (Even after watching the Jetsons DVDs, I still have to wonder if the highrise Jetsons world is the inevitable result of freedom, future, and sluggish but steadily-ever-rising human population, or whether the highrises are merely technological progress and for the scenic view, as they never seem concerned that the remaining countryside has shrunk to accomodate massive population-swollen cities or whether the cities are still compact and most land still uninhabited.) Actually, there is enough land for most everybody, even a trillion people, to build their houses on ground level. Only then, the world would be nearly solid-continental-wide city. The land area of the world is so vast that each person could have their own 1000 square feet, or 100 square meters of land, up to around 1 1/4 trillion people. After that, presumably, more living space could be obtained by stacking people into vertical cities rising into the sky.

Population concerns really are largely vague and perceptional, not much rooted in reality or science.

Current population size is nearly irrelevant to all the great and compelling reason why parents have children, or families may still tend to grow possibly rather large.

If there were over a trillion people on earth, I would still want to have been born, and be free to have children regardless. Far better to live in a hypothetical (and quite unlikely BTW) future "overcrowded" world than not at all. Far better to live in an overcrowded highrise in a massive city, than be told how many children we may have. Some things should be left up to a "higher power," i.e. God. Population is what it is.

Actually, there is enough land for most everybody, even a trillion people, to build their houses on ground level. Only then, the world would be nearly solid-continental-wide city. The land area of the world is so vast that each person could have their own 1000 square feet, or 100 square meters of land, up to around 1 1/4 trillion people. After that, presumably, more living space could be obtained by stacking people into vertical cities rising into the sky.

Current population size is nearly irrelevant to all the great and compelling reason why parents have children, or families may still tend to grow possibly rather large.

If there were over a trillion people on earth, I would still want to have been born, and be free to have children regardless. Far better to live in a hypothetical (and quite unlikely BTW) future "overcrowded" world than not at all. Far better to live in an overcrowded highrise in a massive city, than be told how many children we may have. Some things should be left up to a "higher power," i.e. God. Population is what it is.



I do like the idea of vertical cities being a fan of science fiction as I am,
but I think you've glossed over alot of inescapable nasties in your attempt
to present a densely populated utopia.
I do agree that overpopulation concerns are largley unfounded, but thats
no reason to endorse irresponsible breeding.
It seems to me that there are already problems in huge portions of the current population being unable to feed themselves and great numbers of uneducated and unemployable people now with the population at its current size. Gawd don't bother to feed the huge crowds of emaciated walking dead now, why do you invoke his name while extolling the virtues of a planetwide slum? Do you think he will then? And what about the food neccesary to feed these citizens of mundopolis? Are you expecting manna? :confused:

Nature...
hmmm; allowing nature to take its course would mean
letting those unable to feed themselves starve.
It would mean letting those displaced by natural disasters
make it or break it on their own.
"Far better to live in a hypothetical (and quite unlikely BTW) future "overcrowded" world than not at all. Far better to live in an overcrowded highrise in a massive city, than be told how many children we may have."

Really. :bugeye:

If you lived in this scenario you've envisioned for yourself
the psycological conditioning for such a life would be intensive,
and dehumanizing.
"Far better to live in an overcrowded highrise in a massive city, than be told how many children we may have"
That was so flawed I had to repeat it.
If you lived in said overcrowded highrise
do you really think that you'd have freedom to reproduce
however you wanted????? Restrictions on the # of children allowed
would only be the first thing to go, with other restrictions getting
exceedingly harsh from there.

I think you mentioned as well some utopian dreamscape in which
people bred with abandon and everyone had 1000 square foot apartments...
more poppycock.
Research any high density urban center (hong kong; bejing; ny; london; tokyo)
and you'll see that the average living space is unimaginably small.
I did find your fantastic extrapolation lovely in a simple way though.
:D

I do like the idea of vertical cities being a fan of science fiction as I am, but I think you've glossed over alot of inescapable nasties in your attempt to present a densely populated utopia.

I like the idea of vertical cities too, especially in sci-fi stories where the "impossible" or unlikely is at least considerable, but there's no need to start building them anytime soon. Think of all the incrediable technological advances that occurred as human populations were rising worldwide, and cities filling and swelling with people. Not just that, but an increasingly free flow of information, and the growing trend towards democracy and self-government, and hopefully less of Roman-style empire building by force? Perhaps similar improvements could come from packing more people into vertical cities, but that is far more sci-fi fantasy than reality. I don't see there ever being so many people on earth, as to require vertical cities, unless people for some reason just decide they like each other so much that they want to populate up closer to each other, for the sake of society and togetherness? BTW, is the New Jerusalem in Revelation, a huge "vertical city" of some sort. Note that it is made by God, and not by human hands.

I don't pretend that man can build "a densely populated utopia." Rather, that we should explore the far better alternatives more, before talking crap about "over population" as if it was certain or science. If world population is rising, wouldn't it be prudent to adapt rather than resist our own fellow kind? Humans make far better friends than adversaries, as humans can be quite powerful and cunning.

And what of all the "nasties" of trying to scheme some workable human population "control" monstrous intrusion into people's lives?

I do agree that overpopulation concerns are largley unfounded, but thats no reason to endorse irresponsible breeding.

I am a little confused here. If overpopulation concerns are largely unfounded, then how is the "irresponsible breeding," "irresponsible" exactly? Nowhere did I suggest that people breed outside of marriage, nor run off on their duties to raise all their children. If overpopulation concerns are largely unfounded, wouldn't that probably imply then that human populations could yet grow far larger than they are now, and humans could adapt and thrive?

It seems to me that there are already problems in huge portions of the current population being unable to feed themselves and great numbers of uneducated and unemployable people now with the population at its current size.

And haven't those problems been with us all through history, and would not magically vanish, were the population to shrink either. In fact, I think things could get a lot worse, if human populations were to shrink drastically due to underbreeding or nonbreeding, as it would indicate serious problems in society, and the plummeting number of people would ultimately cause technologies to collapse or become unfeasible again. While an increasely dense world population would tend, over time, to bring technology closer to formerly isolated villages, and "crowd out" poverty even.

Gawd don't bother to feed the huge crowds of emaciated walking dead now, why do you invoke his name while extolling the virtues of a planetwide slum? Do you think he will then? And what about the food neccesary to feed these citizens of mundopolis? Are you expecting manna? :confused:

Didn't Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol," say something similar? Implying that helping the poor isn't worth the bother? And so of what use is counting coins, if they aren't to be put to some productive use? Family is of more value, than a big, empty, and cold house, and hardly anybody attending one's funeral when they pass on.

Hypothetical massive population increases don't imply a planetwide slum, but rather simply more urbanization. Cities can be beautiful you know. And if there is no escape from the giant cities, due to them filling more and more of the land, isn't that all the more reason for beautification or flowers or painting artwork on drab walls?

Nature...
hmmm; allowing nature to take its course would mean letting those unable to feed themselves starve.
It would mean letting those displaced by natural disasters make it or break it on their own.

So do you think I am some enviro wacko or nature purist?

I am for letting nature run its course, along with what benefits people. That means restricting deathrates, but letting birthrates remain unrestricted. Similar to the process that causes an erection in a guy. Bloodflow from the penis is restricted, while blood entry remains free, and the heart even increases its beating. Similarly, human populations should be welcome to swell naturally. Natural increase is quite natural for humans, but God did give us intelligence for something? Surely it could be used for living in denser populations more comfortably and safely, since God commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

I read in a government university textbook about the so-called "lifeboat ethic" concerning population growth. If we help the poor, is it really counterproductive? If we give or sell the developing nations food and medicine and such, we supposedly increase longevity, decrease infant mortality, and encourage more childbearing, all of which serve to worsen "overpopulation." Now we have more needy people than ever? So what's wrong with this picture? For one thing, isn't it racist? For it suggests treating people over yonder differently than we would want to be treated. That they happen to be of a different skin color, makes this easier? Also, it is socialist and globalist. It considers that man can manipulate and master society, like a potter forming a clay pot. Whatever happened to individuals and individual rights? And of course it is condescending. It assumes that "we" have all the resources, and that the poor can only be helped, by of course, "us."

I am pro-life, and I consider that pro-life is more consistantly pro-life when it is pro-population. Thus, I would want for any "help" or trade, to have the end effect that the nations being "helped" grow denser with people. I want more people to be welcome to live. So of course I would want to increase longevity, decrease infant mortality, and encourage childbearing. But I also think that true compassion leads to more self-reliance and less neediness over time. And that we all are truly needy, and that those who help others make friends, and may more likely be helped in our time of need.

Actually, I am not arguing for bigger government, more taxes, more so-called "foreign aid" to disappear into the pockets of politicians and tyrants.

Rather simply that countries can absorb more and more people, and that the people have very compelling reasons to breed, that ought to be given much more consideration as to why the population MUST expand and its natural growth be merely accomodated, never limited.

In the dramaticized CD series of the Left Behind books, a fictional account of how Biblical endtimes prophecy might play out, the Anti-Christ scolded the developing nations for letting their population balloon in size. Conversely then, the humane and kind thing to do, is to welcome the various nations to let their population balloon, so that their people may have "all the children that God gives."

So that nature can take its course (in naturally enlarging the human race), and people may be free to use the "no method" method of "family planning," especially if they love children or trust that God knows what is best for them better than they can know themselves.

"Far better to live in a hypothetical (and quite unlikely BTW) future "overcrowded" world than not at all. Far better to live in an overcrowded highrise in a massive city, than be told how many children we may have."

Really. :bugeye:

If you lived in this scenario you've envisioned for yourself the psycological conditioning for such a life would be intensive, and dehumanizing.

And so some sci-fi accounts suggest this?

No, I don't think all that conditioning would be needed, actually. Brave New World was hopefully wrong. Most of the masses won't want to forever be stoned on the supposedly safe drug, Soma. Growing up in a big family, never having seen a world that wasn't already densely populated, would condition children already. People who live in densely settled shantytowns of the world, don't find them so unpleasant nor shocking, as spoiled-rich outsiders who visit not long enough to learn hardly anything of the people or their culture.

[QUOTE=Pronatalist]"Far better to live in an overcrowded highrise in a massive city, than be told how many children we may have"

That was so flawed I had to repeat it.
If you lived in said overcrowded highrise do you really think that you'd have freedom to reproduce however you wanted????? Restrictions on the # of children allowed would only be the first thing to go, with other restrictions getting exceedingly harsh from there.

While we are discussing perhaps sci-fi hypothetical scenarios, may I point out, that you apparently aren't up on the relevent sci-fi? I think the name of the book is The World Inside. Not only are the occupants piled up in vertical cities or "arcologies" perhaps, at some improbable time in the future, but they are proud of their rate of reproduction, and the masses are encouraged to have babies at early age and often. I think they even have odometers in public places measuring the great progress of their cities' burgeoning population growth. Think about it. How do you think they got so densely populated in the first place? Either very strong reproductive urges, or that they were really into breeding already. Thus, as the cities grow possibly crowded, breeding is still encouraged. (Do you think I should actually order the book, as it is hard to get the just of it from just a few scanty reviews I read on a website?) Also, in the PS2 video game Project Eden, in which the diameter of the earth is growing due to severe overpopulation, there is no population "control" that I noticed, nor was it even "crowded" in most places. Mostly, the effect was that the majority of the population lived far up from "ground level," the more neglected areas of crime and the underworld. Up high, was prime, modern upper class real estate. Actually, the game wasn't much about "overpopulation" at all, but rather "overpopulation" provided an excuse for towering, closely built buildings, massive levels, and a slightly believable storyline. I liked it for being a puzzle-solving exploring game, the sort I like. And the computer terminal security cams, were a cool innovation. Unfortunately the game is buggy, and prone to crash after loading saves from some levels. I had returned the game as defective, years prior, and then finally decided to have another go at it, when the game was as cheap as it likely could be found. By then surely they would have fixed it? No. But I found the work-around and cheat codes on the manufacturer's website. Good thing. It was a cool game, but too hard to win "honestly" without occasional "cheating." Another cool innovation of the game, when not "cheating" of course, is that my 4 characters I control, regenerate, rather than the level resetting when I die. So anything accomplished remains accomplished. And the "flycam" was cool for exploring the confines of the level, especially with cheat options on, so that it wouldn't quickly deplete its energy and fall back down to the ground in 20 seconds or so. The flycam is a flying robotic ball of small size, with a camera and some limited ability to manipulate some objects remotely.

Anyway, breeding leads to more breeding, in more ways than one. A world of large families, isn't particularly likely to have much interest in the impracticalities of imposing the use of "birth control" especially among those who refuse to go against nature and deny their children any chance to come to life. And children who grow up sharing bedrooms or beds, aren't particularly likely to feel "crowded" in a populous world. And then of course with so many people reproducing, stopping them wouldn't at all be practical nor worth the inevitable conflict or political tensions which could easily lead to an even more devasting war(s). What better reason is there to fight, but to protect your family and children?

No, wouldn't a more likely outcome be that if humans ever manage to outgrow the world, we would burst the bounds and figure out how to colonize more worlds?

Increasingly harsh restrictions? Like what? No smoking? Good riddens. I don't smoke anyway. Only moderate pleasurable moaning and no screaming during sex? That's probably managable. Besides, the walls would probably have good sound insulation, and with every unit air conditioned, there may not be many open windows anyway. If the unit even has any windows?

I think you mentioned as well some utopian dreamscape in which people bred with abandon and everyone had 1000 square foot apartments...
more poppycock.
Research any high density urban center (hong kong; bejing; ny; london; tokyo) and you'll see that the average living space is unimaginably small.
I did find your fantastic extrapolation lovely in a simple way though.
:D

Was it that there is enough land for every person to have 1000 square feet on the ground level, up to over a trillion people on earth?

High density urban centers of the future could be much different than they are now. Consider the highrises of the Jetsons cartoon. When they are build in minutes by cheap robotic labor, why couldn't each family unit be spacious, even though I am not sure whether much countryside remains in the Jetsons world, as they are so unconcerned about their huge population size, that they didn't bother to mention any relevant details. When cars fly, would it be really so strange that people might live "in the sky?" But what's up with those highrises in the Jetsons cartoon sitting up on sturdy pedestals? So everybody can be on the top floors with the best view? I would imagine in my "utopia" that all that space underneath could have room for apartments and condos, all the way down to the ground.

Where the real poppycock is, is in the ridiculous idea that there could ever be so many people alive at once, anytime within the forseeable future. Human populations take time to multiply.

At last someone is addressing the problems I have raised here :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4585920.stm

If we NEED to thin out the human numbers, can we start with some of the less worthy people in the world?

Oh! shock and horror!! Who am I to say that some people are less worthy than others??
That's right, I said it.
Well you can start with the violent, and religious fundamentalists.
That'll get rid of a good 10% between them, so thats half a billion.

Then you can exterminate people found guilty of writing computer virus', spyware, malware, and PEOPLE WHO WORK IN ADVERTISING/MARKETING/TELEPHONE SCAMS.

That'll thin a good 1-2% of people out of western society, and possibly up to 5% of the population of India.

After that, you can thin out the numbers of people that seem to push out 10 babies each, none of whom are raised to actually survive or contribute anything to the world.

They don't seem to like using condoms, these folk, even if they are given to them for FREE. Surely they can't ALL be "gangstas" or write "rap music" - I think that market is already saturated.

What do you think people?

Ahhhh reading back I see Zendrake is with me.
Zendrake you might find what I just wrote amusing.

Nice to know I'm not alone.

I care a lot about people I even run an online support group for people with mental illness. But my caring for people alive at the moment has been over run by the long-term effects on the enviroment that we instigate. Therefore the more people that die the more chance we will ALL have long-term. We need more deaths, we need a major bird flu etc. The best enviroment solution must be less humans? Am I right? What are your views?
I agree with the problem, I don't agree with the solution!

Eventhough, considering that humans are really ruining our earth, I wouldn't mind sacrificing the human race for saving nature. We humans don't deserve it. I think that is why nature/ God has given humans the virus called religion (at least certain religions) that will trigger an end of the humankind with their terrorism. Just wait till one day they get their hands on the mother of all nuclear bombs.

I have been stressing since day one that we humans ourselves have been responsible for increasing our population beyond what we need. It is our ancient obsession with procreating more than we should --- and we have been competing with each other as communities, to outnumber each other. Relgions, particularly those who seek to proseletyse aggressively have add fuel to this greed and competition. Unless they are defeated, there will not really be an end to this competition. Science is just as obsessed with 'procreation' being the main purpose of life, which has not done much to reduce the problem.

Heterosexuality, which is an artificial phenomenon/ construct has been a major tool for increasing procreation beyond the natural limit. First (in the traditional days) by forcing everyone to marry and by making sex with women an issue of 'manhood', without which man would just not be considered a man, and then now with the help of 'science' institutionalising the marginalisation of same-sex bonds through sexual orientation, and also institutionalising the power given to male-female sex indirectly, through procreation, through inventing the heterosexual identity.

Technology, instead of freeing us from the burden of heterosexuality is being used by the vested interest groups in continuing their tradtional power base that the undue powering and articial masculinising of male-female sex has bestowed on them.

Natural selection / selfish gene theory: genes that drive people to have children are more likely to survive.

Natural selection / selfish gene theory: genes that drive people to have children are more likely to survive.
Sexual selection is half (actually 10% of) the truth. And half the truth is more misleading and disastrous than a complete lie. Please refer to the thread "Darwin was wrong about sexuality (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50460)

Buddha, if heterosexuality is artificial:
How do you explain the huge market for heterosexual porn?
Men go out of their way, at risk of being caught and embarrassed, to pay for pornography!! The internet, newsagents, adult bookstores, are full of pornography designed to cater, mostly to heterosexual men who want to masturbate whilst looking at pictures of naked women.

Now if a homosexual man is forced by society to be pressured into behaving homosexual, I can understand that. Infact I know of a man who was married with 2 kids and was in his 40s when he came out and got a divorce.
BUT: how do you explain the porn.

Do you know before the internet, how embarrassing it was for men to buy porn?
Why would they do this in such huge numbers, if so many didnt want to see naked women? or women having sex with men, or women having sex with each other?

I think, it some sort of nature ballance that eliminates or grows the number of people on the planet.

I can't tell exactly why.

:m:

Buddha, if heterosexuality is artificial:
How do you explain the huge market for heterosexual porn?
Men go out of their way, at risk of being caught and embarrassed, to pay for pornography!! The internet, newsagents, adult bookstores, are full of pornography designed to cater, mostly to heterosexual men who want to masturbate whilst looking at pictures of naked women.

Now if a homosexual man is forced by society to be pressured into behaving homosexual, I can understand that. Infact I know of a man who was married with 2 kids and was in his 40s when he came out and got a divorce.
BUT: how do you explain the porn.

Do you know before the internet, how embarrassing it was for men to buy porn?
Why would they do this in such huge numbers, if so many didnt want to see naked women? or women having sex with men, or women having sex with each other?
At least, you've tried to analyse.

a.) When I say, heterosexuality is unnatural, I don't mean male-female sex or sexual desire is unnatural. You should have known, you've read many of my posts that are now merged into 'heterosexuality is unnatural'.

Yes, men do have a sexual attraction for women. But they also have a sexual attraction for men. What most men do not have is an emotional attraction for women and the capacity and need to have relationships. To put it in words you can understand.

b.) This sexual attraction for women is way to exaggerated by the society. When you block men away from their sexual need for men, they become totally dependant on sexual need for women. But most of the time when men show their interest in women, it is meant to buy them power or it is an assertion of their power/ social masculinity, and does not correspond to the actual intensity of their opposite sex feelings.

c.) Pornography, whether on internet or in person has a tremendous 'social masculinity' value for men. I don't buy the fact that men are ashamed to look at or possess such pornography. Certainly not in the west. Even in my society, where most men do not have access to internet, most men proudly use porn as a power statement (which foreshadows the intrinsic value of such porn, which is undoubtedly there!). It's a great 'bonding' thing when men meet. And a great way to show that you have a sexual interest in women (iin my country there is no heterosexual identity).

Men may want to hide pornography from parents and stuff, but that is hardly a problem.

>> Therefore the more people that die the more chance we will ALL have long-term. >>>

sorry to say the Earth is way past the point of no return.

Therefore if you are Christian, be prepared to meet thy maker

if you are a realistic person

LIFE can never die, and YOU (a genetic formula) will therefore never 'die'...

so stop worrying

I lament that WE can not go on and keep on growing after seeding, and LIFE here could be a perennial super-organism instead of, as it appears it will be, and annual super-organism.

Now if a homosexual man is forced by society to be pressured into behaving homosexual, I can understand that. Infact I know of a man who was married with 2 kids and was in his 40s when he came out and got a divorce.
BUT: how do you explain the porn.
Just give a thought to why a person is forced to go through so much trouble to be 'heterosexual', when 'homosexuality' is acceptable in the west. He can easily be gay, move to a gay neighbourhood and live happily --- if 'gay' indeed represents all needs for same-sex bonds. There is enough in the west of 'gay' to last one lifetime.

You'll agree that the sexual drive is very strong in human beings, perhaps the strongest after hunger. Then what forces that man to go against his nature, suppress his actual needs and pretend to be heterosexual. I'm sure you can understand that it won't be the easiest thing to do.

Perhpas, gender orientation is much more important than sexual orientation, and a much more basic need than sexuality.

Perhaps you can appreciate that 'social masculinity' is indeed a matter of life and death for naturally masculine gendered men. So much so that they will even go against their strongest drives to achieve/ maintain their 'social masculinity'.

What you've presented is an extreme case, where the man had perhaps an exclusive need for men, and he actually 'came out'. The thing with most straight men is that THEY CAN ALSO DO IT WITH WOMEN, and they use it as their hanging point on the 'straight' identity --- by exaggerating and building on it.

I have to agree with this statement. Very few people are willing to accept that this is continuing and a "growing" problem.

After all, it is the educated who have the higher quality of life.

yes but at this time it's the masses, (the lower class) that allow for humanity to continue its progress.

the common folk are the machine that keeps us thriving. they work the less glamorous jobs that keep humanity progressing towards a time where there will be no difference in the quality of life of the rich and poor.

and until we reach that apex of humanity where there won't be 'rich' or 'poor' (rather foolish and wise)the lower classes will continue to be essential.