I have been thinking about theoverpopulaton of Earth , especially in last few weeks, andhad meant to star a thread. was inspired to today after reading an article at http://www.propagandamatrix.com titled 'Leading Scientists: Overpopulation "is main threat to planet"' (sorry i cant give you direct URL. my limited system cant findout the url ofpage i am on. a drag i know)

It says in article that it hasbecome taboo to even discuss about overpopulation--'politically incorrect'. i hadn't know that. so that very MUCh trigered me to get it up here for debate!

whats your thoughts?

We need a good old fashioned nuclear war, or a zombie epidemic. They really thin out the population, and the latter shows who the real survivors are.

we are far from the full capacity of earth. if space gets tight we can always build upwards. as for food, many nations have huge surplusses of food right now, the united states for example is waisting loads of food.

also when you think of the huge amount of meat the united states consumes and then think of how much more food could have been fed to humans had we eaten the plants instead of feeding cows, pigs , ect... now im not saying that we should all become vegitarians (dont vegitarians die early due to insufficient ammino acids?) but if we began to eat more veggies we could certainly support more people

not to mention gm foods. http://scope.educ.washington.edu/gmfood/

china is begining to control its total population and will actually be going down in the near future. india cant rise for too much longer their agriculture tech isnt very advanced.

how can you say this planet can support our numbers which have doubled since 1960, and are increasng? would you say that for any oter nimal or is it cause you tinksun shins outta our arses

i trink it is one of THE biggest crimes, the unthinking overpopulation of Earth

Asfar ias i am aware, many Indigenous peoples regulated their numbers so as not to add pressure to the environment andoter spcies, which they knew was inteconnected with teir own welfare. but we 'civilized' people have lost this sense of balance, and now look at the state of us!

it hasbeen patriarchal mythology which has promoted unlimited births. look how now abortion is demonized by certain fundamental groups

I te 'developing' world. ie., the world exploited by the West....the reason peoplehave more children there is due to the fact of te insecurity of the economic system imposed on them

why is it tho in the West more and more people, including ay people want to produce yet more and more babies?

whatis it with having to have babies? isit cause you feel tat tey are your immortality or someting? that if you die not having procreated that it means your worthless as a human being?
what about the Planet. does that not matter for future generations?

why is it that you constantly attack the west, duendy? it is not soley the west that is causing this problem, in fact we have very few people for the amount of land there is. the east and middle east has a major overpopulation problem, specifically india and many african countries. it seems that overpopulation is mainly due to inadequate education, or poverty. studies have shown that the less educated tend to have more children. this is true in both other countries, and the US. this is also the reason that AIDS is a lot more prevalent in Africa.

people want to have babies because it is a natural instinct. once you reach a certain age, most people have an overpowering desire to have sex, or to have a child. this desire does not always fade after one child, too. also, primal desires are harder to resist for the less educated.

the the highest rates of population increase are in India, China, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Nigeria. none of those are in the west.

india cant rise for too much longer their agriculture tech isnt very advanced.

India has the capacity to rise above 2 billion. They have twice as much arable land as China, but I doubt 2 billion will be reached since the demographics will develop fast enough to slow it down. Just a thought.

The idea that we are near the overpopulation limit of the earth is ridiculous. The first studies to address this idea were done in the 20's and predicted a global population limit of about 1 billion. Obviously this has turned out to be incorrect.

So, what mistakes did they make? They didn't make any. They correctly calculated the number of arable acres, the yield per acre, and the food required per person. However, due to the "evils" of science and technology every year more acres become arable and each acre produces more yield. The most valuable natural resource is the human mind because of how it can improve the use and availability of all other resources.

The only real indicator of scarcity of any given commodity is price. In real terms the price of food staples (bread, milk, beans, rice, etc.) is at an all time low. The world has more people than it has at any point in the past and we are better prepared to feed them than we have been at any point in the past. There is obviously some limit, but we are nowhere near it yet.

-Dale

why is it tho in the West more and more people, including ay people want to produce yet more and more babies?



Still as blind as ever, eh, Duendy? And talking about (actually, raving!) things you know so little about. :bugeye:

People in the West, the U.S. and Canada for example, are having fewer children that ever before. For some time now, the only reason for population increases in the U.S. has been due to immigration.

Question: why is it you continually open your mouth while keeping your eyes firmly closed? You'd do MUCH better the other way around. (Hint, hint.)

whats your thoughts?
about what? the causes, or the solutions, or in general

why is it that you constantly attack the west, duendy? it is not soley the west that is causing this problem, in fact we have very few people for the amount of land there is. the east and middle east has a major overpopulation problem, specifically india and many african countries. it seems that overpopulation is mainly due to inadequate education, or poverty. studies have shown that the less educated tend to have more children. this is true in both other countries, and the US. this is also the reason that AIDS is a lot more prevalent in Africa.

me))))so, you want i should leave the West alone and not even criticize..?? aint gonna happen. it mayhave slipped your attetion, but theWest is the 'superpower'?????? obviously then its paradigm, its modeof operation is imposed on rest of the world.
As for overpopulation oly being a problem of the ....what? 'third world'? the'underdeveloped world'..? well, how do you explain the invasion of te Americas if populaton wasonly a problem of 'uneducated' people. why the fuk did they go there committing their genocide for more land, if they were so superior?
Als remember, the reason that pople do have more babies in poor countries is precisely because of the economic situation which is a consequence of Western pressure. this world is interelated. you seem to foget this


people want to have babies because it is a natural instinct. once you reach a certain age, most people have an overpowering desire to have sex, or to have a child. this desire does not always fade after one child, too. also, primal desires are harder to resist for the less educated.

me)))whatabout te primary desire for SURVIVAL. you know not completelyt fukin up the blalance of tis small planet so our species and all other species can live in balance. this resonsibilty for future generations seems to havebeen drastically lost via warped by patriarchal myth and ecomonic policies, etc., which have no regard for humanity and environment

the the highest rates of population increase are in India, China, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Nigeria. none of those are in the west.

ohhhhhhh, what A coinceeedence!!

so you blame increased pop. growth rates in other countries (not neccesarily 3rd world) on the US? you blame the growth rate of china, probably the most powerful and close to self-sustaining nation on the planet, on the US?

so you blame increased pop. growth rates in other countries (not neccesarily 3rd world) on the US? you blame the growth rate of china, probably the most powerful and close to self-sustaining nation on the planet, on the US?

no. listen. i am very very much seeing how empries havecreated a complete fuk up, wit aftermath-ic legacy round the world. ie., British Empire...? and the 'American influence, with its policies, overt and covert----all have created and continue to create the dire situations, which include overpopulation

BUT te real problem begins when a mindset becomes cut off from Nature. thism indset goes way back. Britain and U.S extremely much continue this distrous lack of relationship

patriarchal myth with its emphasis on procreation has M U C H to answer for. ita idea we are to dominate all Nature, rather than seeing that we are part OF the balance.

someone in tis thread believes its perfectly alright, our numbers ad that planet earth can sustain more. but what abou the extincting of all othe spcies, of the degradation of wilderness, etc. it isn't just about us fukin humans ya know!!

We need a good old fashioned nuclear war, or a zombie epidemic. They really thin out the population, and the latter shows who the real survivors are.
I agree regarding the zombie epidemic. In fact I have been preparing for it by watching every bad zombie horror movie that I can get my hands on. I'm pretty confident that I'm ready.

Ah so even though the highest rates of population increase are not in the west, you still blame the western world. Right..

I agree regarding the zombie epidemic. In fact I have been preparing for it by watching every bad zombie horror movie that I can get my hands on. I'm pretty confident that I'm ready.

Ok. Let me test you. What is the most versatile tool to carry ICOZ?

The west cannot just shruk off all kinds of blame, for example im almost sure i eat and throw away more food in a week then many 3rd world families, even thou i very rarely throw food away, im sur that if someone cared to dig up the numbers it would show the west as using far more resource then the rest.

Imo Overpopulation is just the cause, the effects and what to do about them are more intresting.

p.s. with proper resource managment, we not even close to earth Max pop.

Ah so even though the highest rates of population increase are not in the west, you still blame the western world. Right..
why did western explorers go searching for new land and then do genocide on the people for??

And how many people are now in the U.S in comparison before the take over of the lands?

what i am saying is that Indigenous people apparently self-regulate their numbers so as to make sure they didn't overbear resources etc......being also intelligent enough to plan for future generations, not just their own

what we got in this patriarchal/materialistic nightmare is totally not tat, but grab what yu can when you can and fuk the rest. including all other species

We need a good old fashioned nuclear war, or a zombie epidemic. They really thin out the population, and the latter shows who the real survivors are.
We really need to stop and think about the pressures to force men into sex with women --- and start seeing undue and extreme 'promotion' of heterosexuality as a threat to humankind and the nature itself.

Duendy, who are these "Indigenous people" which you generalise and idealise without references?

Duendy, who are these "Indigenous people" which you generalise and idealise without references?
Native American tribes used to regulate their populations....as others hafe done. why, was the wolrd overpopulated years ago?.....no, i am not sentimentally idea;lzing Indigenous peoples, but also i am not beliving to be superior to them---are you?

Native American tribes used to regulate their populations....as others hafe done. why, was the wolrd overpopulated years ago?.....no, i am not sentimentally idea;lzing Indigenous peoples, but also i am not beliving to be superior to them---are you?
Indigenious people live in harmony with nature. One of the biggest bullshit lie modern science propagates is the ancient people had killed off entire animal populations or brought about desertification etc. of their lands.

Modern scientists are trying to see precedence of their abhorent mind set in our ancestors.

Duendy,

Native American tribes used to regulate their populations....as others hafe done. why, was the wolrd overpopulated years ago?.....no, i am not sentimentally idea;lzing Indigenous peoples, but also i am not beliving to be superior to them---are you?
No I am not. By what means was population regulated?

Buddha 1,

Indigenious people live in harmony with nature. One of the biggest bullshit lie modern science propagates is the ancient people had killed off entire animal populations or brought about desertification etc. of their lands.
Why do you think that?

Ok. Let me test you. What is the most versatile tool to carry ICOZ?
Hmm I was thinking maybe chainsaw or shotgun but I'm going to go with shovel. ?

Duendy,


No I am not. By what means was population regulated?

me)))))))by practising non-procreative sex.
By encouraging abortive procedures. By allowing disabled and or weak children to die. regulating the amount of children per familiy. And not creating a philosophy which states we MUSt cling to life. For they understood in cyclic reality. tat death implies life and regeneration. This was profoundly differen to the patriarchal beliefr system which demonize death and pomise eternal life. in materialism it has dispensed with that but replaced it with the nihilistic belief which promotes meaninglessness, and no comminal sense of continuuity between community of human and animals species and plant Earth as an ONGOING process...
Buddha 1,


Why do you think that?
)))))((((((((p)))))))

Hmm I was thinking maybe chainsaw or shotgun but I'm going to go with shovel. ?

Good answer, I would also have accepted axe or (my personal favourite) crowbar. A chainsaw is a bad idea, for it will spray infected zombie blood everywhere when used as a weapon, and relies on petrol, and is really noisy. The zombies will hear and home in on it. Shotguns are good for close range, but I would stay as far away as possible, so a rifle would be another good item to carry.

Duendy, what does ")))))((((((((p)))))))" mean?

Spam, trying to derail the thread. Showing his contempt for what he percieves to be a patriarchal system that has made you think those things.

Duendy,

by practising non-procreative sex
By encouraging abortive procedures

Do you have any references? I do not have any resources regarding native Americans to hand, and I couldn't find anything about it on the internet.

Duendy,




Do you have any references? I do not have any resources regarding native Americans to hand, and I couldn't find anything about it on the internet.

whay'd i put '((((((((((p(((((((((' at end of post? well, my systemis differnt than you average computer. on my screen it is different lookin than computer, also lots i cant do, and IF i dont put any text symbols at end of post, past quote i cant post it. i try and be creative and put a pttern tere

about back up for what i am aying? i have notes spread out, but my notes aren't filed. i am on it but jeeeezus it is tedious. shoulda done it when making tem

but u know, much is common sense. the world poulation has never been as large as it has been since patriarcal culture and modern world take a g;obal control over the mindset

it is tis you need to look at as well. ie., for example, the paradigm of te last 400 years is good start. how Nature and pople and animals become looked more and more as machines. how from this philosophy alientation sprads

Much of Indegeous culture, and prepatriarchal culure didn't experience Nature like is te accepted norm now. there was respect for 'Moter Earth' and life death and regeneration

For example------When christian missionaries went to proslytize Native American peoples, and tried to indoctriate te concept of 'soul' as their belief system defines it, Native Amercians had a real swtruggle to understand . for them soul IS not separate individual souls destined for Heaven, Hell and 'above' Nature. For them 'spoul' was paert OF nature.........ie., their insight was animistic, realzing matter and spirit intereated as Nature. so tere wasn't the sense of bein superior to Nature and with plan to escape it, and all te other propaganda about sex being only for procreation etd that monotheism pushes on people via its doctrine

we are far from the full capacity of earth. if space gets tight we can always build upwards. as for food, many nations have huge surplusses of food right now, the united states for example is waisting loads of food.

also when you think of the huge amount of meat the united states consumes and then think of how much more food could have been fed to humans had we eaten the plants instead of feeding cows, pigs , ect... now im not saying that we should all become vegitarians (dont vegitarians die early due to insufficient ammino acids?) but if we began to eat more veggies we could certainly support more people

not to mention gm foods. http://scope.educ.washington.edu/gmfood/

china is begining to control its total population and will actually be going down in the near future. india cant rise for too much longer their agriculture tech isnt very advanced.
You can get the 9 essential amino acids from certain veggies/nuts/etc. I believe, I'm not vegitarian though. Get me some nice red meat and I'm happy.

What should have been the #1 population concern, is that more and more people would be glad to live, a very worthy goal if at all possible. Most everybody wants or ends up having children. Most every child is quite glad to have come to life and to have been born. Therefore, if any such thing as an "ideal"-sized human population could be defined, it wouldn't be nearly as small and pidly as possible, but more like nearly as large as possible. Why not fill most every bedroom and home with people, and build still more cities and towns and expanding suburbs. Growth is so much more exciting than stagnation. And humans, being designed as social creatures by God, are well adaptable to not only survive but also thrive even at extreme population densities. And God also allowed humans to unique enjoy being constantly "in heat," able to breed year-round. Although humans compared to other creatures breed quite gradually, allowing ample time to adapt and prepare for our natural increase, we also can tend to multiply steadily and relentlessly so we also have to use the intelligence God gave us to adapt to our ever rising populations. So we have very practical reasons why world population MUST BE WELCOME to be or become huge, extremely dense and widespread, and still growing, if at all possible.

Also, in agreement with Present, I would much favor piling people into vertical highrise cities filling entire continents, than some arbitrary artificial population control, although there would never likely be any need for either. If humans ever grew so populous that there wasn't room both for all the human habitation + agriculture, then obviously agriculture would have to go, as people come first. I figure so many people, if ever the need arises, would push a switch towards synthetically produced food, that would be just as good, more dependable than iffy changing weather to produce crops, and ultimately cheaper.

There's no such thing as human "over population," because there are no "surplus" or unnecessary people. (Well except for uncivilized creeps who commit heinous crimes, but then the death penalty is another topic, and is actually pro-life as it gets rid of the incompatible elements of a populous society making it easier for it to be all the more populous and dense. See Genesis 9:6 to see how seriously God regards the protection of especially innocent human life.)

oh, people like you wid yur 'God' --him-up-stairs. YOU are the problem. tis is what we're saying......your concept blinds you to ther actual reality, which is too much quantity degrades quality---in this case of life for ALL species. not just you, who think erself a creature o som e @God' who you ignore-antly believes wants to overpolulate Earh and make all other forms of life extinct, and increase poverty for millions at the expense of a few

oh, people like you wid yur 'God' --him-up-stairs. YOU are the problem. tis is what we're saying......your concept blinds you to ther actual reality, which is too much quantity degrades quality---in this case of life for ALL species. not just you, who think erself a creature o som e @God' who you ignore-antly believes wants to overpolulate Earh and make all other forms of life extinct, and increase poverty for millions at the expense of a few

Don't you get it? It's far more important to welcome humans to be abundant and to grow more abundant, than to forever maintain a "spacious" planet. Big families should be encouraged even as humans populate closer towards one another on a global scale, because more and more people would be glad to live. The more people there gets to be, the more people there are who both want to live, and to reproduce. The more populated we get, the better we get at supporting large populations.

"It is high time to accept as forever gone the spacious world of the past, and to move on and make an orderly transition to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist

Stop living in the fantasy "good ol' days" of the past, that never really existed quite the way we romance them anyway. Favor humans, promote peace on earth, goodwill towards man, as our Creator would have us do. Why not a more pronatalist, and child-friendly, family-friendly, human-friendly world? Even if humans become more "alone" in the world increasingly living amonst our own kind in a more urbanized and perhaps somewhat more "artificial" and more comfortable human-dominated world.

Same-gender relationships (homosexual, etc) are naturally good at keeping the population down, without resorting to birth control.

Perhaps they should be encouraged instead of discouraged?

Same-gender relationships (homosexual, etc) are naturally good at keeping the population down, without resorting to birth control.

Perhaps they should be encouraged instead of discouraged?

Isn't such immorality largely what destroyed the Roman Empire? Often what destroys a society, comes from within, not really from invaders from without. Moral decay is usually what causes the weakness that allows the collapse.

Not only does homosexuality not create life, but it takes life, when such vile affections promote activities and promiscuity and short-term relationships that quickly spread STDs and cause many health ailments. There is only but one orifice in the body actually designed for penile penetration, and that is the vagina. Any others causes damage. You really don't want me to dig up any graphic medical descriptions do you? I have some, somewhere around here.

And as I have said, the goal should never be to keep population levels down, but rather to accomodate growing populations better. God intended for human populations to grow to become quite abundant, as people would discover that the Bible is surprisingly pronatalist, if they would bother to read it from cover to cover as I have. It encourages large families and early marriage (Ps 127:3-5), large families for the poor (Ps 107:41), large population (Pr 14:28), foretells the world's burgeoning billions of today way back in Genesis 24:60. ("thousands of millions" in the King James Text, is litterally "billions" of descendents.) "... choose life that thou and thy seed may live," in Deut 30:19 could mean many things, including that parents not abort (murder) their innocent children, but couldn't it also be an admonition to breed?

In case I haven't explained it clearly enough, why not go read Romans 1 carefully, several times, slowly, taking time to think about it, then consider the pros and cons of going along with nature, or against nature, when it comes to marital sexual relations. I don't think Romans 1 merely speaks against the perversion of homosexuality, a blatant attack against family values, what men are, what women are, and who God is and his plan for us, but also against the modern perversion, or even societal expectation of "Use birth control! Use birth control!" We have been lied to, as anti-life "birth control" has been a huge curse to humanity, and wasn't even necessary.

You might find this link interesting in studying the dirty history of the "culture of death" abortion mentality movement for "birth control," which originally, I don't think promoted abortion, but inevitably soon led to abortion to fix all the "mistakes" that still slipped by.

Prolifers will prevail (http://groups.msn.com/Proliferswillprevail/thetruthaboutplannedparenthood.msnw)

Don't you get it? It's far more important to welcome humans to be abundant and to grow more abundant, than to forever maintain a "spacious" planet. Big families should be encouraged even as humans populate closer towards one another on a global scale, because more and more people would be glad to live. The more people there gets to be, the more people there are who both want to live, and to reproduce. The more populated we get, the better we get at supporting large populations.

me)))))Are you for real??....the more people there already ARE the ls resourcesterer will be, and the more species will go extinct to addto the thousands already gone.
Of course, your attitude is very unfortuneately dictatd by our faithin a @god' who gives rules that 'his' creatures must procreate. and materialistic science seks to keep people alive longer and longer and fr even elderly coulples to procreate, etc. fukin disaster for the balance of planet Earth

"It is high time to accept as forever gone the spacious world of the past, and to move on and make an orderly transition to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist

mePPPPi DON'Tecept taqt, case i can see it is ignore-ant. it neithe thinks and feels for present circumstances nor very much for future generationsof humans animals and animals

Stop living in the fantasy "good ol' days" of the past, that never really existed quite the way we romance them anyway. Favor humans, promote peace on earth, goodwill towards man, as our Creator would have us do. Why not a more pronatalist, and child-friendly, family-friendly, human-friendly world? Even if humans become more "alone" in the world increasingly living amonst our own kind in a more urbanized and perhaps somewhat more "artificial" and more comfortable human-dominated world.

nowhere do i hear you speaking up for othr species----for Nature. you are humancentric. tis is teproblem both for fundamental patriarchal religions, and materialistic science. Both from te same root mindset which believes humans must dominate and proliferate and fuck the rest

it is so convenient you dismiss mindsets and insights from the past who experienced Natue and community in a wholly diferent way
Look, this
relatively small planet has limited resources. use your LOGIC as well as encouraging your feelings potential. see tat when you have limited resources you do not promote more and more pressure on those respurces
if ANYone is living in an idealistic dream it is you mate/

we are far from the full capacity of earth. if space gets tight we can always build upwards.
I hate when people think like this. Like "we could always store humans vertically, and make farms under the sea, a human body is only *** cubic inches, and there's *** cubic inches of space within our atmosphere. So if we can arrange people from head to toe, saving space by stuffing our faces into the empty crevace between our neighbours buttocks, we should be able to fit 800 billion people on earth blah blah blah".
Long before you'd do these crazy things and completely suck the value out of everyone's life, you'd just get rid of a few people.

The world is overpopulated. It's not about how many you could concievably stuff into the planet, it's about how many can live in harmony with the rest of the living things on earth. How many people can comfortably be sustained and live a pleasant life per square mile within the specific geographic locations which are suitable for humans.
And we are well over that limit currently.

Do you really think all the rich people on earth are going to divy up their large estates into "human shelves", and then take their place in one of the 6 x 3 x 2 shelves?
No, they'll maintain their comfortable lifestyle, and the poor will perish at their illustrious gates, some squished partially through the bars by the mass of lower class humans behind them. And then the groundskeeper will come along and shave the gate with a hedgetrimmer, while his master leisurely sips alcoholic beverages on a hammock and stretches out in the serenity of his spacious personal wilderness.
And all this is as it should be.
It's the trash of the world which is becoming overpopulated, they should be confined into metallic domes and if they keep breeding they can just keep expanding untill they've condensed into a concentrated paste within those domes. We could then tap these domes for fertiliser.
We need to put our foot down and draw a line in the sand, by which I mean erect metallic domes around populations of poor people.

I agree with Dr. Lou. Why is it that humanity's goal should be to breed as much as possible? Shouldn't quality of life be more of a priority than quantity of life?

Isn't such immorality largely what destroyed the Roman Empire? Often what destroys a society, comes from within, not really from invaders from without. Moral decay is usually what causes the weakness that allows the collapse.


Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination.

The men with men work that which is unseemly, because they are given over to vile affections, and therefore given up to Satan.

Is it your godly duty to come to a forum populated by what is probably a majority made up of materialists and atheists, to turn their hearts to God? The Christian God, no less?
Rather noble, but you will likely find them more entrenched than ever, just because of your pro-problem "problem-solving". Or are you even trying to solve any problem? I can't tell, because childbirth is not going to solve any major problems. Rather it will feed the ones already in existence.

Any others causes damage. You really don't want me to dig up any graphic medical descriptions do you? I have some, somewhere around here.

Seems like you're prepared to take on all of Sodom!
Don't bother. I am quite familiar with what you are referring to.
Did I ever advocate anal sex or the like in the first place? Why do people always assume that? I advocated same-gender relationships with homosexuality in parentheses just to make things clearer. There is more to a relationship than sex.
I'm sure you're well aware of that, and it's probably in your arsenal of rhetoric to combat any protests along the line of "But we're in love" or "We're faithful to each other". The well-rehearsed reply is something like "But just because you're in love doesn't mean you HAVE to have sex" or even better "Well, PEDOPHILES love little children! Are you saying that they should be allowed to have sex with children just because they CLAIM to be in LOVE???" Even simpler is this "There isn't really any such thing as gay love, only gay LUST!" That's supposed to be the show-stopper, where all the "dirty" faggots realise their great mistake and rebellion against the Creator.

In any case, what you would be referring to is most likely a worst-case scenario. Any information that pro-family, anti-homosexual religionists dispense is generally of this kind: find the absolute worst statistics and horror stories, and assure all gay and would-be gay persons that THIS WILL BE THEIR LIFE! The certain outcome of their "immoral" and "sinful" lifestyle is already fact to the god-fearing Christian, so the repentant homosexual must let go of those vile affections and navigate through the rough waters, keeping an eye on the moral beacon that conservative (and apparently, pro-overpopulation!) Christianity provides.

Your own Master, Jesus Christ, never married, nor did he father children, according to the Book you treasure. And neither did Paul, who is arguably the most popular (greatest?) apostle. Did not Paul say that it is better to remain single, as he is? Are those two examples an ENCOURAGEMENT of this unchecked, baby-making-at-all-costs mentality??? It certainly doesn't appear that way.

Eunuchs will have a name greater than that of sons and daughters. Remember that? Have you FORGOTTEN THAT in your mad rush to populate an already overpopulated planet?
Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul: all eunuchs for the Kingdom of God. I take it you don't enter in to the Holy of Holies?
Did that verse fall out of the blessed King James Authorized Version? Were you aware that King James was a sodomite? Are you aware that the word sodomite appears in inappropriate places in that book?

Eunuchs will have a name greater than that of sons and daughters.

I take it that you wish to be MEDIOCRE and SECOND BEST since you apparently don't take this particular verse all that seriously? You would rather choose the name of a son or a daughter, who make flesh of their own flesh which is not life. In fact, judging by your name, being second best is priority number one.

"Let the children come to me" does NOT mean making procreation the highest, or even second highest priority. What are the two greatest commandments? Where is procreation one of those commandments?
What are the Ten Commandments? Where is procreation one of those commandments?
"Do not give the children's food to the dogs!"
How can advocating constant childbirth and overpopulation be loving to thy neighbor, when thy neighbor is poor and his children are hungered?
There is a higher duty. In this day and age, those who are without must be provided for FIRST, before you start adding more mouths to feed.

Wherein have I sinned? What wrong have I committed?

WELL! That was certainly a bit of fun!

The King James bible, when beaten, makes a rather poor percussive instrument!

We can FIT more people on earth, but not with our ecosystem and survival systems in place. They'll be happy for about two hours, then starve and devolve into warfare, disease, famine and bukake.

Not only does homosexuality not create life, but it takes life, when such vile affections promote activities and promiscuity and short-term relationships that quickly spread STDs and cause many health ailments. There is only but one orifice in the body actually designed for penile penetration, and that is the vagina. Any others causes damage. You really don't want me to dig up any graphic medical descriptions do you? I have some, somewhere around here.


Long may love reign! Wherever it is, long may it reign!

I agree with Dr. Lou. Why is it that humanity's goal should be to breed as much as possible? Shouldn't quality of life be more of a priority than quantity of life?
The guy in my immediate neighbourhood is going to get married. He shunned marriage as long as he could, but then he had to say yes, because of family pressures. He is the machoest guy amongst our group. Only I know that he doesn't want to get married and raise children --- that he'd be much better off with another man (no, we hadn't had sex, nor has he told me anything!). But how can an individual resist intense social and masculinity pressures?

If people are forced to get married and produce children when they don't want to, how will we ever stop the world population from falling?

Not only does homosexuality not create life, but it takes life, when such vile affections promote activities and promiscuity and short-term relationships that quickly spread STDs and cause many health ailments.

You really don't want me to dig up any graphic medical descriptions do you? I have some, somewhere around here.

Do I need to post pictures of all the little children with distended bellies caused by malnutrition and starvation? I have them around here, somewhere.
Do you want some REAL proof of what HETEROSEXUALITY is capable of producing on this planet? And need I mention that every damned-to-hell homosexual was BIRTHED by a heterosexual?

I agree with Dr. Lou. Why is it that humanity's goal should be to breed as much as possible? Shouldn't quality of life be more of a priority than quantity of life?
If only people could really agree.

Because, at one momentous time in history humans decided that they needed to breed as much and as fast as possible that they instituted the marriage system, and developed the mechanism that oppresses both men and women --- especially men, by forcing them into sex with women.

In the modern days, heterosexuality has replaced marriage as the main pressure on humans. But do we really need to breed as much as possible as our ancestors once did?

And need I mention that every damned-to-hell homosexual was BIRTHED by a heterosexual?
If only we were to believe the crap propaganda spread by the heterosexual ideology. Otherwise, only a minority of men and women who give birth are heterosexuals.

Mansex can't solve all the worlds woes buddha.
It's pretty much just one dude sticking his wang in another dudes keister and pumping, you know, I think you give it too much credit.

The hordes of mexicans and southeast asians and africans popping countless children out in short generations aren't all closet homos.
The odd closet homo having a couple of kids is no big deal. You'll find children from such a situation often committ suicide young anyway.

If only we were to believe the crap propaganda spread by the heterosexual ideology. Otherwise, only a minority of men and women who give birth are heterosexuals.


I think perhaps that you should be quiet for once.

Mansex can't solve all the worlds woes buddha.
It's pretty much just one dude sticking his wang in another dudes keister and pumping, you know, I think you give it too much credit.
The problem is that Womansex is given far too much credit, when it's nothing more than a dude sticking his wang in someone's pussy and pumping, you know. And the problem is that this results in babies!

The hordes of mexicans and southeast asians and africans popping countless children out in short generations aren't all closet homos.
I'm sure they are not wimps like the heteros in the west, either!

The odd closet homo having a couple of kids is no big deal. You'll find children from such a situation often committ suicide young anyway.
I am afraid you're wrong. The issue has already been dealt with in the thread "95% of men have a sexual need for other men". So you see the wimps are actually 5% of the male population. The rest are forced to be 'heteros'.

Mansex can't solve all the worlds woes buddha.
It's pretty much just one dude sticking his wang in another dudes keister and pumping, you know, I think you give it too much credit.

The hordes of mexicans and southeast asians and africans popping countless children out in short generations aren't all closet homos.
The odd closet homo having a couple of kids is no big deal. You'll find children from such a situation often committ suicide young anyway.

Is that a fact, Doctor? Do you have the credentials to back up everything you've just said?

Or are you just covering up for your own mistakes? How many women has the "doctor" implanted recently? Or how many women would that have been if it were not for modern contraceptive methods?

AH! So you can't have natural sex? Is this the truth? Good! It proves my point exactly about the self-righteous heterosexuals. They can do no wrong, apparently. How WRONG they truly are!

I think perhaps that you should be quiet for once.

Okay, Buddha. I didn't really mean this for you. You're cool.

Forget it.

Okay, Buddha. I didn't really mean this for you. You're cool. ;) .....

;) .....

Well, I'm serious, you're the only one who can apparently see here. Maybe not even as well as I can see. I don't know. That's subjective. I avoid arguments about something that can't be proven beyond one person's opinion.

I just though that this was more of that weird inner/outer gender stuff that confuses that hell out of people, including myself!

But maybe it's not?

God bless Clementi!

Mozart called him a charlatan! Assuredly, he was doing SOMETHING right!

The guy in my immediate neighbourhood is going to get married. He shunned marriage as long as he could, but then he had to say yes, because of family pressures. He is the machoest guy amongst our group. Only I know that he doesn't want to get married and raise children --- that he'd be much better off with another man (no, we hadn't had sex, nor has he told me anything!). But how can an individual resist intense social and masculinity pressures?

If people are forced to get married and produce children when they don't want to, how will we ever stop the world population from falling?

Too bad, Buddha! We can't stop them!

Too bad, Buddha! We can't stop them!
The problem is the basic root of the problem of over population lies in the its ancient obsession with breeding, which resulted in the marriage institution and the accompanying pressures on men to have sex with women.

They are all interrelated.

In this world when we don't need to breed anymore, the ancient mechanisms that were built ages ago have become very strong --- they have taken the shape of 'heterosexuality' where sex between man and woman becomes all powerful for its own sake, unrelated with procreation. They have also created a 'vested interest group' --- which will do anything to protect their powerbase, even when the society doesn't need to breed so much.*

This group stops us from seeing the problem in its real perspective --- and it is reduced to a myopic view of finding avenues to make 'heterosexual' (sic) sex free of reproduction --- by using technology and ruining our environment. Unfortunately, science and technology are also being used to increase several folds the pressures on men to be 'heterosexual' (sic).

(on the other hand the pressures to breed will be around as long as competitive religions of Christianity and Islam will be around!)

Long live the eunuchs!

Long live the eunuchs!
What about the eunuchs? Did I miss something?

I concur.

What about the eunuchs? Did I miss something?

Eunuchs by their very nature do not reproduce. That is what I was referring to.

why not go read Romans 1 carefully, several times, slowly, taking time to think about it, then consider the pros and cons of
Gosh, who has the time to do a stupid thing as that! That will be such a waste, when you can spend that time knowing truth.

Eunuchs by their very nature do not reproduce. That is what I was referring to.
That's not true. Being a eunuch is not a 'natural' condition. It is achieved artificially. And it only involves cutting off the dick, not their feelings. Therefore, they can't by nature not want to reproduce.

What about the eunuchs? Did I miss something?


Apparently it's a BAD name in your country to be eunuch.

Apparently it's a BAD name in your country to be eunuch.
Is it not in yours!

thought eunuchs cut off BALLS not dick...?

Is it not in yours!

What are you talking about? I though you knew the West inside and out!

thought eunuchs cut off BALLS not dick...?

TRUE! If ANYTHING is actually cut off. Doesn't have to be an act of man. People can be eunuchs naturally.

TRUE! If ANYTHING is actually cut off. Doesn't have to be an act of man. People can be eunuchs naturally.
I may not be fully informed on this, but I think when you say 'natural' eunuch you mean 'hermaphrodites'. Or do you mean sometimes people may just be born without dick/ balls --- which may be probable but would be extremely, extremely rare --- not something worth considering.

I can't see how eunuch would not be looked down upon in the heterosexual west, like they do it with everything that may interfere with sex with a female.

Although, Eunuch is not really a concept in modern west. It is related mainly to the orient. Because it was a practise (and it still is) in the orient --- amongst certain groups of males --- primarily transexuals/ transvestites to be castrated.

That is it, a eunuch is a castrated male.

And I though the castration is of the penis too, because then only will it appear like the vagina. Am I wrong?

There are still things I need to learn! :)

Sorry, Buddha, I don't know what your country/culture has taught you. Castration is usually of the testicles only, from everything I know.

Sorry, Buddha, I don't know what your country/culture has taught you. Castration is usually of the testicles only, from everything I know.
My culture is not perfect and niether the most ideal one around (ON second thoughts I think the latter may be true)! And if you have issues with my culture, you might want to deal with it directly.

While I agree with everything you say about human overpopulation and the sordid role of heterosexuality in it, I think making a person eunuch is not right. When cultures recognise only male and female as legitimate genders, and male-female sex as the only legitimate sexual bond, extremely feminine males who are attracted to men feel that they are perfect females but for their penis/ testicles.....and direct all the hatred the society invests in them towards their sexual organs. The society also recognises them as a seperate sex/ gender which is a psychological relief for such males. So they get castrated and become eunuchs.

In advanced, heterosexual societies, which does not recognise gender orientation as normal, transexual males grow up feeling extremely incomplete and 'wrong'. Instead of castration they go for sex-change.

The basic problem is the society's inability to accept male bodies with female inner-sex as a legitimate, valid, positive, natural and biogical phenomenon.

What happened to Pronatalist? Person doesn't care about this anymore?

What happened to Pronatalist? Person doesn't care about this anymore?
I think when religious people discuss things, and people get involved with them, we only end up wasting our time.

Religious people are never going to change. Their views will be limited to what their 'holy books' tell them! Everything will necessarily come round to that book. They are like frogs in a well and will never be able to see the world beyond that!

The good point is that no one cares about what they think anymore. They jujst don't have enough power! At least in not in this forum!

And since talking to them is like banging your head against a wall in any case, it is like wasting our precious time, which can be devoted to raising useful issues and enhancing our own knowledge.

I actually used examples from the Bible itself as an argument. I was curious to see if the Bible actually says only what Pronatalist wants it to!

And if you have issues with my culture, you might want to deal with it directly.

Yeah, buddy? I have an issue! Your country is made up almost entirely of closet fags!
I think if you could just see that the lack of positive female role-models in these children's early development has led the young men to focus almost entirely on their fathers, uncles, older brothers, you could see how this emotional and psychological dependence gets sexualised later in life, and thus becomes a real sexual desire for that male role-model, because the female was not a strong enough element to overcome that.
JUST KIDDING! ;)

My only issue is with your culture's unusual hatred towards eunuchs, natural, or otherwise. Why does the lack of male genitals make one weak and worthless?

nowhere do i hear you speaking up for othr species----for Nature. you are humancentric.

Well of course humans would tend to be human-centric. What a concept?

Why should I speak up for other kinds of creatures? I am not other kinds of creatures. I don't worship God's creation, but rather God.

The world has now some 6.5 billion human beings that need to be taken care of, accomodated, welcomed, etc. Other creatures can take care of themselves. Well except maybe for our pets which we have also bred to far beyond their natural capacity population density. But do I need to tell people that they need to feed their pets, because their pets can't fend for themselves at modern urban densities? No, probably not. People already sort of know that already.

And in an important way, I am also speaking for nature. For the natural increase of humans is quite natural. When people let their families grow possibly large naturally, they are going along with nature, not against it. Humans are very special creatures, created in God's image. But I disagree with the "environmental" mindset that we must only be considered to somehow be "outside" of nature. We may for various reasons choose to insulate ourselves from nature, to live in air conditioned and heated homes, to artificially enhance our food supplies, to be unnaturally clean and vaccinated, etc., but I consider humans to be part of nature, therefore the human activities of a huge and growing world population are generally quite "natural," as too are the big cities needed to hold so many people. Nature does not "think" and so could not "care" how populous humans become. But if it could, wouldn't humans be part of "nature's" creatures too, and wouldn't nature be pleased for massive human populations in the most populous of countries, to grow even more enormous as they can over time? God put the seed inside (Gen 1:11) the plants and animals so that life would be abundant and life would grow to fill most every imaginable niche. Why should it be any different with humans?, except that we might use the intelligence God gave us, to grow to become by far the most populous large mammal in the world.

I like things simple, and elegant, and natural, where possible and practical. I detest body piercings, tattoos, excessive jewelry, high heels and make-up for women, genital shaving, because such things obscure the natural beauty of the human body, and are bizarrely unnatural and hideous looking or at least quite unnecessary. Poisoning the body directly with experimental, awkward, side-effect ridden contraceptive devices or chemicals, is also quite unnatural and goes against nature. The body (or God) already sort of "knows" when to get pregnant without having to disrupt its natural reproductive rhythms. I do not believe God created humans too fertile, and that children should always be valued and cherished, so of course sex should be left open to the possibility of pregnancy, because children are a wonderous blessing from God. Large families also have practical and elegant advantages that they better condition the children that grow up in them to both survive and thrive in our modern and increasingly populous world.

tis is teproblem both for fundamental patriarchal religions, and materialistic science. Both from te same root mindset which believes humans must dominate and proliferate and fuck the rest

When God gave dominion to man over nature and other creatures, I don't believe it was just because humans are supposedly intelligent, nor just because "we can," but rather it was an invitation to people to multiply to become among the most populous of the large mammals. To proliferate to such incrediable population numbers that we would come to dominate by sheer numbers having no other option but to alter nature to better support that there has come to be so many of us. Then of course, because "we can" proliferate and multiply, is yet another reason that we should. That there are so many scalable technologies that do much to accomodate large and growing and dense human populations, of course is a compelling reason to advocate continued population growth, and of course large and often "unplanned" family sizes, for the good of society, for the good of individuals, and of course the good of the many.

it is so convenient you dismiss mindsets and insights from the past who experienced Natue and community in a wholly diferent way
Look, this relatively small planet has limited resources. use your LOGIC as well as encouraging your feelings potential. see tat when you have limited resources you do not promote more and more pressure on those respurces
if ANYone is living in an idealistic dream it is you mate/
creation

The world already has way too many realists, with no imagination, no dreams, no hopes. The world needs more idealists. It's far better to accomplish but 10% of what one dreams, than to dream of nothing at all, and accomplish 100% of nothing.

I am well aware that the planet is finite and has supposedly limited resources. I do believe the world already has so many people, that of course we should be doing more to develop those resources, for the benefit of the many. We should develop all the economically viable resources. Drill for more oil in Alaska. Build more nuclear power plants. Build more hydro-electric dams. Build a few more ocean water desalination plants. More and more people would be glad to come to life and be born. Most everybody wants or ends up having children. Most any child would want to come to life. Nobody wants to be told how many children they are to be allowed to have. Colonizing other planets or outer space doesn't appear feasible anytime soon. The planet isn't getting any bigger. What to do? Why isn't it more obvious? Since the human race shares a common goal and natural desire to enlarge its numbers, but we can't make the planet any bigger, what then is necessary, is for world population to grow denser and denser, on a global scale at least. We should scoot over a little and make room for our fellow humans, with just as much right to live and be welcomed, as we would also have. Where can we put all the people? Simple. In between all the people living already. As has always been done historically as human populations naturally grew. There can simply be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. More cities and towns can be built. Cities can in fact grow and sprawl with more people, growing closer to each other and being welcome to coelesce into vast conurbations of cities as necessary. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land, which is paltry compared to what should be conceivable or possible.

Currently, God hasn't given us the ability to live on other planets just yet, and yet we increasingly have all the necessary technologies to live on this one more densely. (There is no practical means to prevent possibly more billions from being added to our numbers. The more people there are, the more people there are who want to live, and also want to reproduce. God's commandment to humans to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, necessarily would imply that the earth is supposed to get fuller and fuller of people with each successive generation. If people are multiplying, then each successive generation then grows larger and more populous, than the previous. What part of all that, do we not understand? Does it require a complicated explanation? Use my LOGIC? I have. That there is simple, elegant logic.) Why not use what technologies are available now? Since more billions of people are coming in the next few decades, why can't humans simply live in closer proximity to each other, on at least the global scale? Or are we godless people-haters or something?

Well of course humans would tend to be human-centric. What a concept?

Why should I speak up for other kinds of creatures? I am not other kinds of creatures. I don't worship God's creation, but rather God.

The world has now some 6.5 billion human beings that need to be taken care of, accomodated, welcomed, etc. Other creatures can take care of themselves. Well except maybe for our pets which we have also bred to far beyond their natural capacity population density. But do I need to tell people that they need to feed their pets, because their pets can't fend for themselves at modern urban densities? No, probably not. People already sort of know that already.

And in an important way, I am also speaking for nature. For the natural increase of humans is quite natural. When people let their families grow possibly large naturally, they are going along with nature, not against it. Humans are very special creatures, created in God's image. But I disagree with the "environmental" mindset that we must only be considered to somehow be "outside" of nature. We may for various reasons choose to insulate ourselves from nature, to live in air conditioned and heated homes, to artificially enhance our food supplies, to be unnaturally clean and vaccinated, etc., but I consider humans to be part of nature, therefore the human activities of a huge and growing world population are generally quite "natural," as too are the big cities needed to hold so many people. Nature does not "think" and so could not "care" how populous humans become. But if it could, wouldn't humans be part of "nature's" creatures too, and wouldn't nature be pleased for massive human populations in the most populous of countries, to grow even more enormous as they can over time? God put the seed inside (Gen 1:11) the plants and animals so that life would be abundant and life would grow to fill most every imaginable niche. Why should it be any different with humans?, except that we might use the intelligence God gave us, to grow to become by far the most populous large mammal in the world.

I like things simple, and elegant, and natural, where possible and practical. I detest body piercings, tattoos, excessive jewelry, high heels and make-up for women, genital shaving, because such things obscure the natural beauty of the human body, and are bizarrely unnatural and hideous looking or at least quite unnecessary. Poisoning the body directly with experimental, awkward, side-effect ridden contraceptive devices or chemicals, is also quite unnatural and goes against nature. The body (or God) already sort of "knows" when to get pregnant without having to disrupt its natural reproductive rhythms. I do not believe God created humans too fertile, and that children should always be valued and cherished, so of course sex should be left open to the possibility of pregnancy, because children are a wonderous blessing from God. Large families also have practical and elegant advantages that they better condition the children that grow up in them to both survive and thrive in our modern and increasingly populous world.



When God gave dominion to man over nature and other creatures, I don't believe it was just because humans are supposedly intelligent, nor just because "we can," but rather it was an invitation to people to multiply to become among the most populous of the large mammals. To proliferate to such incrediable population numbers that we would come to dominate by sheer numbers having no other option but to alter nature to better support that there has come to be so many of us. Then of course, because "we can" proliferate and multiply, is yet another reason that we should. That there are so many scalable technologies that do much to accomodate large and growing and dense human populations, of course is a compelling reason to advocate continued population growth, and of course large and often "unplanned" family sizes, for the good of society, for the good of individuals, and of course the good of the many.


creation

The world already has way too many realists, with no imagination, no dreams, no hopes. The world needs more idealists. It's far better to accomplish but 10% of what one dreams, than to dream of nothing at all, and accomplish 100% of nothing.

I am well aware that the planet is finite and has supposedly limited resources. I do believe the world already has so many people, that of course we should be doing more to develop those resources, for the benefit of the many. We should develop all the economically viable resources. Drill for more oil in Alaska. Build more nuclear power plants. Build more hydro-electric dams. Build a few more ocean water desalination plants. More and more people would be glad to come to life and be born. Most everybody wants or ends up having children. Most any child would want to come to life. Nobody wants to be told how many children they are to be allowed to have. Colonizing other planets or outer space doesn't appear feasible anytime soon. The planet isn't getting any bigger. What to do? Why isn't it more obvious? Since the human race shares a common goal and natural desire to enlarge its numbers, but we can't make the planet any bigger, what then is necessary, is for world population to grow denser and denser, on a global scale at least. We should scoot over a little and make room for our fellow humans, with just as much right to live and be welcomed, as we would also have. Where can we put all the people? Simple. In between all the people living already. As has always been done historically as human populations naturally grew. There can simply be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. More cities and towns can be built. Cities can in fact grow and sprawl with more people, growing closer to each other and being welcome to coelesce into vast conurbations of cities as necessary. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land, which is paltry compared to what should be conceivable or possible.

Currently, God hasn't given us the ability to live on other planets just yet, and yet we increasingly have all the necessary technologies to live on this one more densely. (There is no practical means to prevent possibly more billions from being added to our numbers. The more people there are, the more people there are who want to live, and also want to reproduce. God's commandment to humans to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, necessarily would imply that the earth is supposed to get fuller and fuller of people with each successive generation. If people are multiplying, then each successive generation then grows larger and more populous, than the previous. What part of all that, do we not understand? Does it require a complicated explanation? Use my LOGIC? I have. That there is simple, elegant logic.) Why not use what technologies are available now? Since more billions of people are coming in the next few decades, why can't humans simply live in closer proximity to each other, on at least the global scale? Or are we godless people-haters or something?
I warned you not to start him up on religion! :rolleyes:

that's his MAIN blindspot, and it stems from his indoctrine-ation where he says: 'when god gave dominion to man over nature and animals'

errrr, no mate. that is justpatriarchal myth writ by a self-appointed elite group of men, not 'God'

Indigenous peoples didn't share that myth. they didn't don't see Nature as a 'thing' to be dominated over, but as an organism they are part OF

you people, religious and secular wit yer power-over beliefs are the BANE of Planet Earth. you have no empathy for the natrual balanceof life, and thus degrade life for all

wecan see this extremely clearly but are waiting for you to see it, beforeits too late

it is simple. ANY sepcies that over runs is a danger to the balance. if there are too many squirrels there has to be a culling. natrually before a mindset of ma fuked it up Nature found a dynamic balance. now if a species gets overbearing they have to cull them. but for themSELVES they dont see tis, caus they think the sun shines outta there 'godly' arses...
Some people would argue that war wasmade to cull us.but that is an awful solution. war is horror.
but rather self-regulation is a way to go. but is it any wonder people like yousel arte aginst abortion. no,you'd rather see people crushed togther in degrading circimstances whilst othrs have vast spce etc to live

it is all wrong, and is informed by dodgy myths and beliefs. SEE directly theproblem. have the GUTS to see it with YOUR eyyes not with some @god's@ some Hebrews made up thousands of years back who really represents the Sun-------errr they were desert people u knowwwww!

the sun can be very crule when its just sun. we need trees, rain, animals, space, QUALITY of life. dontya think?....do youuu like being cooped up, no food, no space, no MEANING...?

do youuu like being cooped up, no food, no space, no MEANING...?

MEANING? Duendy, can't you see that making babies is our one true purpose?

"Let the children come to me" does NOT mean making procreation the highest, or even second highest priority. What are the two greatest commandments? Where is procreation one of those commandments?
What are the Ten Commandments? Where is procreation one of those commandments?


If making babies is so important, certainly it would have been one of the ten commandments. If making babies is so important, Jesus would have said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto yourself, and also make lots of children."
If making babies is so important, we would have heard all about Jesus' divine pronatalist message. We probably also would have heard about his own large family.
Instead, Paul the apostle said that it was better to stay single.

What do you think of that? You're saying not only that marriage is better, but having lots of children is even better than that. For some unknown reason.

Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land, which is paltry compared to what should be conceivable or possible.


Wonderful! So cities can just keep growing UP then, huh, and everything will just take care of itself?
You can fit several houses into one acre of land. However, how many acres of wheat does it take to make all the bread that those families will consume in one year? Not to mention that they won't be eating just bread, but vegetables and fruits, and probably meat. Cows take in much more food than they put out, so they're using more than they need to.

People can be stacked up in apartments. Crops cannot be stacked up. How long until farmland can no longer produce all it needs?
The rainforest is being cut down at an alarming rate so that selfish humans can sustain their selfish expansion. The land is often worthless after a few years.
There are many places in the world already that have practically no fertile soil, or no rain or water.
Certain types of fish have been nearly depleted because of the demand for them. Making animal species extinct is not such a good idea.

I'm sure you're one of those people who would claim that homosexuals are self-centered. What do you call people who destroy without being able to rebuild, and take without replenishing, just to be able to support large families? Suddenly that isn't selfish anymore?

post title: If a populous future world is our destiny, what right do we have to go against nature to oppose our many neighbors who would naturally prefer to become so populous in order to all live?

we are far from the full capacity of earth. if space gets tight we can always build upwards.

I hate when people think like this.

Why would you hate for people to think outside the box? Why should everything be decided by self-appointed know-it-all "experts" who propose some one-size-fits-all non-solution? Why do you hate for there to be far better alternatives to needlessly disparaging human life?

Isn't it logical to suspect that the world really isn't "over populated" after all, if there are yet ways that even more people could possibly survive and thrive? Shouldn't such things be explored in any honest discussion of the matter?

You hate alternatives to the usual group-think propaganda? Why?

Like "we could always store humans vertically, and make farms under the sea, a human body is only *** cubic inches, and there's *** cubic inches of space within our atmosphere. So if we can arrange people from head to toe, saving space by stuffing our faces into the empty crevace between our neighbours buttocks, we should be able to fit 800 billion people on earth blah blah blah".

Blah blah blah? And the rhetoric of the population phobics isn't "blah blah blah?" So what then makes for the difference?

If the world was perhaps headed for 800 billion or more people living all at once, we should encourage and embrace it, since it then must be our destiny. Surely the majority of those 800 billion people of the future, would easily greatly outnumber our paltry burgeoning billions of today, so why not go along with the "majority vote" for life? And does it not matter much that they would be our own offspring? It's not like they are aliens that popped out of another dimension or something.

Have you ever heard those "everybody could live in Texas" examples? If everybody supposedly might need 1000 square feet or 100 square meters, then everybody in the world could build their homes in Texas and live on the ground level, and use the rest of the U.S. to grow food, the example often claims. Therefore, the world isn't "crowded." Is such an example a recommendation that the world should live so close together? Of course not, although I think it does advocate that it shouldn't be much any problem for world population to grow larger and somewhat denser.

I of course would prefer to live in a world in which the entire planet is populated to "everybody could live in Texas" density, if it ever became necessary for so many people to be able to live at once. If the entire world was to shrink into the space of Texas, then there should be room for enormous population expansion as every place also populates to the same high density. But that would be a gradual, natural growth process, not a "let's move everybody to Texas" because "we can" scenario. It would be far better than denying people their God-given right to procreate, which is said to be but one small step from denying the right to live. If one has no right to live, how would they then have any rights at all?

But then considering that most humans prefer to cluster in families, not only could there be living space on ground level land for 800 billion, but over a trillion people, and several trillions of people counting normal family clustering.

Gee, was that about the only point of your post here, some bogus population scare tactic claiming that a mere 800 billion people would be about like "standing room only?" Better go back and check your math. "Standing room only" is above a quadrillion people, and that's only if it doesn't occur to anybody "Hey, we can build upwards and find more space." Anyhow, either scenario is quite unlikely, so what relevance do they have in any serious or "scientific" population discussion?

Long before you'd do these crazy things and completely suck the value out of everyone's life, you'd just get rid of a few people.

Sounds like a mere opinion.

If people were born into such a world, in which 100s of billions of people were naturally burgeoning into trillions of people, they wouldn't know any different and it would be quite "normal." Most people seem largely unaware, don't care, or aren't seriously worried about supposed "over population" of humanity. Similarly, in a future hypothetical world of 800 billion, probably even less people would be worried about it by then, at least percentage-wise. Perhaps to suggest that in the "good old days" that there were once "open spaces" not inhabitted by humans, children would look at you funny and wonder if you lived way back in the "days of the dinosaurs."

The world is far less crowded than would be a bus with but just 1 passenger. Just how much "elbow room" do you really need? Here's a great example of just how uncrowded the world is, even with its present huge human population. People too quickly forget how huge the planet is, and that it once took months for pioneers to travel out West in the U.S., or that people were couped up on ships for months, to reach the New World.

Overpopulation: Lifeboat Earth (http://www.pregnantpause.org/overpop/lifeboat.htm)

The world is overpopulated.

Actually it is not.

It's not about how many you could concievably stuff into the planet, it's about how many can live in harmony with the rest of the living things on earth. How many people can comfortably be sustained and live a pleasant life per square mile within the specific geographic locations which are suitable for humans.
And we are well over that limit currently.

And who gets to decide that "limit?" Who can we trust? Only God can decide such things for humans. The same God who specifically commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

And come on. Open your mind a little. If we could conceivably stuff more people into the planet, then why must we trick or con people out of having their children again? What if most people really don't want to, or aren't much worried, about "living in harmony" with the rest of the living things on earth? What do I care about spotted owls and snail darters? Do spotted owls pay me rent or reduce my taxes? Maybe many humans think it more important to go along with nature in not resisting our natural increase, welcoming our children to happen when they happen, not poisoning our bodies directly with bizarre and experimental contraceptives, and living in harmony with the proper outlet for our powerful reproductive urges within marriage.

Nature can't "think" and so couldn't "care" how populated humans may become. But if nature could think, and since God put the seed in the plants and animals themselves (Genesis 1:11) so that life would naturally be abundant and grow to fill most every available niche automatically, wouldn't nature prefer for humans, nature's creatures too, to grow more and more abundant, and to fill even enormous cities and expanding towns with more and more people? I have read somewhere that maybe humans adapt "too well" to their environment. Well in nature, any species that adapts very well to widely varying environments, tends to proliferate. Some of God's creations become far more abundant than others. And yet do we have a grass "overpopulation" problem? Or maybe a tree "overpopulation" problem? Why not? Grass and trees are practically everywhere. So why can't humans possibly come to live practically everywhere? Isn't really about racism or fashionable hatred of humans inspired by "doctrines of demons?" (a Biblical phrase)

Do you really think all the rich people on earth are going to divy up their large estates into "human shelves", and then take their place in one of the 6 x 3 x 2 shelves?

Who around here, is advocating human shelves in which each person only gets but 6 feet, with another neighbor living just 2 feet down and another neighbor 2 feet above? Why do you suppose that vertical cities were even mentioned by that other guy? So it couldn't possibly come to that, even if more and more people refuse to deny life by using awkward, anti-life "birth control" far into the future. The idea of stacking people into the sky in highrises, is to provide spacious accomdations that would allow for families to continue to have their children, even if humans someday come to crowd the ground level fairly tightly. Rather than telling them that they can't breed anymore, simply let them be free and stack people into vertical cities. Most demographers don't even expect world population to double even once more, so sci-fi ideas about how to stuff more and more people into the planet, are largely sci-fi and not actually very likely, especially within the forseeable future, the practical limits of anything we could possibly currently be intelligently planning for. Right now, the most practical idea, is simply to use the countryside to house increased populations, since that could easily absorb numerous additional billions of people, in relative comfort and safety. That of course means welcoming some population-driven urban sprawl, and building more cities and towns, so that human populations can both increase, and the poor can have more affordable housing. We can easily accomodate our natural increase, by allowing human residential territory to expand more widely over the land of the planet and allowing rural or countryside areas to shrink a little as the planet naturally urbanizes to better be able to hold more people.

No, they'll maintain their comfortable lifestyle, and the poor will perish at their illustrious gates, some squished partially through the bars by the mass of lower class humans behind them. And then the groundskeeper will come along and shave the gate with a hedgetrimmer, while his master leisurely sips alcoholic beverages on a hammock and stretches out in the serenity of his spacious personal wilderness.
And all this is as it should be.

So rather than suggesting that any reforms be done to reign in greedy corporations along with their unaccountable CEOs, or that any reforms be done to reduce poverty, say like eliminating income taxes and property taxes for most people so that they could save a little money for emergencies and for their future, you only want to eliminate the poor? So do the rich have more right to live and breed, than the poor? Why?

I often find that the poor are often kinder, and can understand simple matters of truth, more easily than many rich or overly "educated" people can. For some reason, poor people seem more easily persuaded as to the great value of each and every human life, and the virtues of having big families or welcoming "all the children that God gives." They don't seem to have so many "educational" objections.

I would hate for the rich elites to lose their spacious golf courses where they go to waste the day away, rather than doing any real work? Not.

What makes you think that the poor would even want to wait at the gates of the rich, for something? Too much land hoarding by the rich? I say let the rich keep their huge, empty mansions. But not excessive land they might be hoarding and yet using for nothing, say like in the form of ridiculously huge wildlife refuges. What about all the needy people? I wonder how many poor people live in shantytowns in developing countries, because they are wrongfully denied title to their land, and can't build nice homes, lest government thugs, who often control the newspapers to help squash any public outrage or revolts, come bulldoze their homes merely because they are unsightly. I often say that the income taxes and property taxes should be eliminated for most people, so that people can be free and not be burdened by insideous taxes designed specifically to steal their wealth, prevent any accumulation of savings, deny the right to own property—a communist ideal, make people more dependent on government, and undermine the work ethic. But maybe exceptions could be made so that huge, unaccountable corporations, and people who own far more land than a single family could possibly need, could continue to pay such taxes.

Actually, the elimination of unjust property taxes would help protect the poor in an increasingly populous world. Under the current system, aren't farmers forced to sell out as the growing cities encroaches upon their land? The land value rises and they can no longer afford the property tax. Under my reform, the city could grow up around the farm, and it could remain a farm, since it was there first, and then the heirs may choose to cash out later, selling the land for housing developments, after the farmer passes away. And the heirs can buy up new cheaper land farther out from the growing cities, and farm again if they want.

It's the trash of the world which is becoming overpopulated, they should be confined into metallic domes and if they keep breeding they can just keep expanding untill they've condensed into a concentrated paste within those domes. We could then tap these domes for fertiliser.

So what exactly is "the trash of the world?" Is it self-defining, in that anybody who continues to breed in an increasingly populous world, is now automatically labeled "trash?" Or was that meant to perhaps be a racist term? And would it only apply conveniently enough for us, to foreigners and immigrants, or would you mean for it to also include American "trailer trash?" Such broad steotypes are rarely accurate. As all people who have big families aren't stupid, and not all foreigners or people who happen to currently live in a trailer park are stupid. Like I have said, poor people tend to have big families for various reasons. Perhaps they, like other people, also love their children. They say of the poor that children are their only wealth, sometimes sex their only recreation, and that for poor people the cost of contraceptives is out of the question. I encourage large families worldwide, for the pressing concern that more and more people would be glad to live. That means most of the people in the world should be breeding, and having as many children as they naturally can, or "all the children that God gives." Earlier marriage for those who are ready and know who they want to marry, should be encouraged, so that more people might be happier, have more natural and proper outlets for their powerful reproductive urges with a larger proportion of the world's huge population actively breeding and closer generational spacing so that parents may live to see their many great-great grandchildren, and have more reproductive time to have larger families. Even if they currently live in overcrowded shantytowns or in the most populous of regions or countries or "technically" don't have room for another child. Housing conditions can always be improved later, but people can't just have their children later, after their fertility is waning with advancing age.

Humans are already confined to the "dome" of the planet. With now 6.5 billion of us, to confine us to anything smaller, would be barbaric and inhumane.

Humans get their value imputed to them by God, and we value ourselves. Therefore, each person is worth just as much, no matter how enormous the overall population levels may grow. Therefore, your proposal makes no sense. If people keep breeding, then we must scoot over a little and make room, even if it might someday mean stacking people into vertical cities.

Why do you only blame the people who keep breeding? Aren't you also a human? Don't you continue to take up living space every day you continue to live? I find it difficult to imagine that when the population phobics talk bad about "those other people" who keep breeding, that they could only be talking about "those other people" over yonder somewhere, because I am "people" too. What's the difference? I think they are talking about me, especially since people, like me, who ask too many uncomfortable questions of know-it-all rich elites, surely wouldn't be welcome in their tiny little "worker bee" utopias where a few poor people are allowed to exist merely to serve as slaves to prop up the rich lifestyles of the rich elites.

We need to put our foot down and draw a line in the sand, by which I mean erect metallic domes around populations of poor people.

Oh, but there is no "we" that can get together to decide what the population level should be, nor is there any moral nor practical means by which to enforce it.

Why do you suppose that in a world with now over 3 billion human penises in it, that we can somehow get people to stop breeding?

The very lax population controls of the Bible are plenty. Get married first, and provide for and love your children, and train them in the ways of God. As long as children can somehow be provided for, there is no need to limit their numbers.

Who are these "poor" people anyway? Compared to certain rich people in the world, aren't we all "poor?" More of us might find ourselves to be suddenly "poor" if we don't tell the lib-tard DemocRATS to stop forever raising our taxes to pay for all their stupid tax-and-spend social programs. We have a fraudulent economy these days, based upon funny paper fiat money created out of thin air or debt, and purposely designed to be "inflationary." So unless you have a stash of gold or silver somewhere, and of course you can guard it from theft, maybe you are among the "poor" if the government or power mongers out there decide to "inflate" the little money you think you have?

Such matters as population size, can not morally be made by humans. While some liberals or feminists may try to claim that how many children they have is nobody's business but their own, if that was ever true, it isn't anymore. What if everybody had big families? Wouldn't society be forced to grow denser? Therefore we are all affected and it is a very public matter how much we breed, not merely a "private" matter. My point is that the effects of human population growth are largely positive, so it is society that should encourage more childbearing, for the good of individuals, for the good of families, for the good of society, and of course the good of the many. It is society that should welcome women to breastfeed their babies in public, even if they fail or choose not to cover up, because we all share a natural global goal or desire to enlarge the human race, evidenced by the many great reasons people have children, and in our powerful reproductive urges that the world's burgeoning billions naturally enjoy in being designed by God to be constantly "in heat," able to breed year-round, for decades.

The great quantity of human life, can only morally be decided by God. What if I went to my neighbor's door, and said to him, "I really don't think you should be having a 9th child into your little 3-bedroom house," after perhaps he posts a rabbit sign announcing their 9th child in his yard. "You're making the planet grow more and more crowded." Well, if he was a nice pronatalist, like me (well except in this hypothetical example?), he might say, "Look, I know that's a concern, but these children live in my home with me, not in your home with you. See this fence here? This side is my property, and I am allowed to provide for my children on this side, see here?" What choice would I have, but to listen to children playing outside, and to slowly watch my neighborhood becoming increasingly crowded with children. But in time, the children move away, and if every lot on the street already has a house, the population density of established neighborhoods generally doesn't go up all that much. The cities just get bigger and more towns grow larger and start also becoming cities. I heard somewhere that China has so many cities with over a million people, that smaller cities are considered "rural." Well that of course is one way to look at it. A pronatalist society could always promote some level of increased "crowd tolerance." Of course had my hypothetical neighbor been mean, he could just punch me in the face, for saying such a stupid thing. Society, or countries, or whatever, simply has no right to limit the quantity of its members. Every child of a member, also is automatically a member. Citizenship is heredity, as it obviously must be. Surely nobody would stand for their children to be born as country-less refugees with no place to go?

The idea of human populations expanding exponentially, seemingly "unchecked," must have been God's idea from the start, because if humans are designed to multiply, and children inherit that ability, shouldn't they also be expected to also multiply? The real restraint on how fast babies may be added to the world, isn't really resouces, but the limited numbers of parents to raise them. As countries gain more women of childbearing age, of course they should be encouraged to add more and more people to their numbers, faster and faster. They say you can't stop people from having sex. Well why not complete that saying then? If so, then you can't stop people from having babies. Especially, you can't stop your many neighbors from having babies. Such vital matters can only be morally decided by "a higher power." Our "higher power" is God, who specifically commands people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. What can that possibly mean? Surely that means that each successive generation is supposed to grow larger and more populous, and that over time, the world is supposed to grow fuller and fuller of people. It doesn't mean each individual family will grow large, because obviously God doesn't give everybody big families. But big families are somewhat more likely when people don't rebell and use "preventative measures" to limit family size, as the commandment to people to multiply would imply they shouldn't do. Sure, sex within marriage may be for pleasure too, but it's main procreative purpose should not be hindered or perverted. As most every child would be glad to come to life and be born, and more and more people would be glad to live, if at all possible.

Of course I support a much different standard for mere animals, not created in God's image as people are. I don't imagine that there can be "unlimited" numbers of people in the world, and unlimited numbers of every other kind of creature too. For pets, their "higher power" is their owners or masters or "pack leaders" as I hear that pets often regard their human companions. Since pets can't provide for their growing numbers, of course I would encourage people to get their pets fixed if they don't plan to breed them. People may morally decide such things for mere animals of far less intelligence, but never for their "equal life value status" neighbors. But when pets are fixed, they remove so much that they no longer even desire sex. That's okay because animals don't have "human rights." They don't need offspring when they have us for families. But even there, I don't support any definate or arbitrary limit on the number of animals that may share our world with us, as I don't believe pet owners should be coerced into getting their pets fixed, only encouraged to do so if they don't plan to breed them. Pet populations probably greatly exceed their "natural" "carrying capacity" already, due to the help of human intelligence and humans feeding them. They can increase further, only by finding more humans to adopt more pets. So if our pets could know what they should want, they would want for humans to go on having big families, since more people = more pets.

Arguing With Religious Fundamentalists Is Like Banging Your Head Against A Wall!

It's A Terrlible, Terrible Waste Of Time!

Arguing With Religious Fundamentalists Is Like Banging Your Head Against A Wall!

It's A Terrlible, Terrible Waste Of Time!
Damn right!

I notice that Pronatalist has twice now refrained from answering my specific questions, based on the Bible, specifically, those examples of Jesus and the New Testament.

If Jesus never fathered children, and nor did Paul, who wrote nearly HALF of everything in the New Testament (more than any other single author), where is the great imperative or commandment to replicate?

Paul specifically said it is better that men and women remain single, because being married detracts from the GREATER OBJECTIVES at hand. It is a DISTRACTION.
If marriage is a distraction, then what is the CHILDBIRTH, that comes from this marriage?

PRONATALIST!

I am not a stranger to the Bible, or Christianity. I'm sure if you actually read my replies to your rhetoric, you would see very clearly that I see very clearly. And I am also capable of seeing dogma for what it is, and reading between the lines of a humanly-derived text.

Jesus, when speaking about many things, went above and beyond the text supplied by the Old Testament (Torah, Pentateuch, etc). You demonstrate a very limited view of both the Bible, and the Holy Spirit. Apparently, for you, the Holy Spirit is confined to BIOLOGY. Hard to imagine that the very breath of God (as the Holy Spirit is supposed to be) is subject to the whim of living carcasses!

Jesus slept with naked men, and there is documentary proof of that! Sex with men has been part of several spiritual practices that flourished in the times of Jesus.

Okay, now, Buddha, sleeping with naked men and having SEX with them are two different things!

Now, be reasonable! Don't make hasty conclusions, like a lot of your detractors!

I assume you're referring to Secret Mark, and the young man in the linen gown?

Okay, now, Buddha, sleeping with naked men and having SEX with them are two different things!

Now, be reasonable! Don't make hasty conclusions, like a lot of your detractors!

I assume you're referring to Secret Mark, and the young man in the linen gown?
Yes, but what makes you think someone would sleep with a naked man without there being a sexual implication.

You also have to view the above in the light of the following:

- That for 300 years after the death of Jesus, there were hundreds of sects that worshipped Jesus, who practised sex between men as a spiritual thing. They were called Gnostics.

- That sex between men has been documented to be part of several spiritual practises in the ancient and medieval times.

- That most men do have a sexual need for men, and in a society which did not put it down (no religious sanctions to begin with --- in fact no religion to begin with, just spirituality!), and where sex between men was known to be almost universal, it would be the most likely thing to deduce from a man who sleeps next to a naked man.

- And why are you biased against believing that! I mean if Jesus slept next to a naked woman, you wouldn't think twice before assuming that he had sex with her. Or that if Jesus was married, you would not think twice before assuming that he loved his life and was not under any pressure to marry her.

I won't say that Jesus was overwhelmingly attracted to women. I won't say that.

I also wouldn't deny that he was attracted to other men.

Apparently, the disciple that Jesus loved was another man.

Love doesn't necessarily imply anything sexual, though.

you see with a lot of gnostic sects (errr ok it goes XXX now. gunight chillen....) the idea regarding homosexuality, and spunk orgies. yes, orgies where they would smear each other in cum and offer it up. etc....(The Dead Sea Scrolls and The Christian Myth, J.M.Allegro), was bascially because they viewed the material world as evil--made by an evil 'Demiurge', and so their idea was NOT in any way to prolong this evil via bringing children into the world hence the above

but i am noy suggesting that. i am more for ealizing how extraordinarily amazingly wonderfull this world is and to really really take this shit seriously what we are doing to it

say you are bringing up a child. and thre is danger for that child. you dont um and arr do you. you, if caring. loving. amd inte;ligent IMMEDIATELY are response-able aren't you. othrwise it is gonna be irreversable danger for the kid

Yes, but what makes you think someone would sleep with a naked man without there being a sexual implication.

You also have to view the above in the light of the following:

- That for 300 years after the death of Jesus, there were hundreds of sects that worshipped Jesus, who practised sex between men as a spiritual thing. They were called Gnostics.

- That sex between men has been documented to be part of several spiritual practises in the ancient and medieval times.

- That most men do have a sexual need for men, and in a society which did not put it down (no religious sanctions to begin with --- in fact no religion to begin with, just spirituality!), and where sex between men was known to be almost universal, it would be the most likely thing to deduce from a man who sleeps next to a naked man.

- And why are you biased against believing that! I mean if Jesus slept next to a naked woman, you wouldn't think twice before assuming that he had sex with her. Or that if Jesus was married, you would not think twice before assuming that he loved his life and was not under any pressure to marry her.
There are two very strong reasons to believe that Jesus loved men:

- That several sects of Gnostics believed that Jesus used to sleep with men.

- That the Church sought to banish this information from public way back in the beginning days of Christianity. If there was nothing unusual about this, why would they want to hold this away from people. According to the letter that Mark found, the Church representative (I forgot his name) had written that "people ought not to know everything about Jesus", and that is why he said such an information should be held from people.

I won't say that Jesus was overwhelmingly attracted to women. I won't say that.

I also wouldn't deny that he was attracted to other men.

Apparently, the disciple that Jesus loved was another man.

Love doesn't necessarily imply anything sexual, though.


Oh, please! EXPLOIT MY WEAKNESS, ENEMIES!

I'm apparently making references to a mythological Christ-character. No wonder I'm crazy! Well, I guess you can just FILE ME AWAY and write yourself a TICKET TO HOLLYWOOD!

you see with a lot of gnostic sects (errr ok it goes XXX now. gunight chillen....) the idea regarding homosexuality, and spunk orgies. yes, orgies where they would smear each other in cum and offer it up. etc....(The Dead Sea Scrolls and The Christian Myth, J.M.Allegro), was bascially because they viewed the material world as evil--made by an evil 'Demiurge', and so their idea was NOT in any way to prolong this evil via bringing children into the world hence the above
That information about Gnostics has come through the Church. And you have to take everything with great helpings of salt. Apparenlty, Gnostics were the most important enemies of the Church in those days.

Now that was certainly a bit of fun! :p ;)

Love doesn't necessarily imply anything sexual, though.
I think 'sexual' love is one of the most powerful love on the physical plane. This can get transformed into spiritual love -- if it is really pure. But 'sexual' love is not a bad thing which we have to look at from the eyes of the religion.

Oh, please! EXPLOIT MY WEAKNESS, ENEMIES!

I'm apparently making references to a mythological Christ-character. No wonder I'm crazy! Well, I guess you can just FILE ME AWAY and write yourself a TICKET TO HOLLYWOOD!
I see no reason to believe that Jesus did not really exist. You could as well say that Buddha never existed!

That information about Gnostics has come through the Church. And you have to take everything with great helpings of salt. Apparenlty, Gnostics were the most important enemies of the Church in those days.

I will comment that some Gnostic writings and scriptures were so far removed from what is presented in the Bible as to be an entirely separate religion.

Some of them seem just a little...

I will comment that some Gnostic writings and scriptures were so far removed from what is presented in the Bible as to be an entirely separate religion.

Some of them seem just a little...
They made up several lies about them in order to defame them in the eyes of the public.

There are two very strong reasons to believe that Jesus loved men:

- That several sects of Gnostics believed that Jesus used to sleep with men.

- That the Church sought to banish this information from public way back in the beginning days of Christianity. If there was nothing unusual about this, why would they want to hold this away from people. According to the letter that Mark found, the Church representative (I forgot his name) had written that "people ought not to know everything about Jesus", and that is why he said such an information should be held from people.

Actually, Mark was the supposed author of what may be the oldest gospel. Secret Mark, as found by a professor Morton Smith, is supposed to be an addition to that gospel that is not contained in the regular canon.

There is external evidence, I believe from Clement of Alexandria, that there WAS INDEED a section of this gospel that was left out of the regular one, with the justification that it was for people who had already learned the rudiments or basics, and were ready for deeper knowledge.

It does not exist except in quotation from second or third parties, so any information gleaned from those sources may or may not be hearsay.

I guess it's open to discussion.

Actually, Mark was the supposed author of what may be the oldest gospel. Secret Mark, as found by a professor Morton Smith, is supposed to be an addition to that gospel that is not contained in the regular canon.

There is external evidence, I believe from Clement of Alexandria, that there WAS INDEED a section of this gospel that was left out of the regular one, with the justification that it was for people who had already learned the rudiments or basics, and were ready for deeper knowledge.

It does not exist except in quotation from second or third parties, so any information gleaned from those sources may or may not be hearsay.

I guess it's open to discussion.
Yeah, the 'data' is correct. I read it a long time back.

The following is hard to dispute (unless you're a fundamentalist Christian). It is taken from : The strange case of the Secret Gospel (http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Secret/secmark-engl.html)

What Smith then began photographing was a three-page handwritten addition penned into the endpapers of a printed book, Isaac Voss' 1646 edition of the Epistolae genuinae S. Ignatii Martyris.[4] It identified itself as a letter by Clement of the Stromateis, i.e., Clement of Alexandria, the second-century church father well-known for his neo-platonic applications of Christian belief. Clement writes "to Theodore," congratulating him for success in his disputes with the Carpocratians, an heterodoxical sect about which little is known. Apparently in their conflict with Theodore, the Carpocratians appealed to Mark's gospel.

Clement responds by recounting a new story about the Gospel. After Peter's death, Mark brought his original gospel to Alexandria and wrote a "more spiritual gospel for the use of those who were being perfected." Clement says this text is kept by the Alexandrian church for use only in the initiation into "the great mysteries."

However, Carpocrates the heretic, by means of magical stealth, obtained a copy and adapted it to his own ends. Because this version of the "secret" or "mystery" gospel had been polluted with "shameless lies," Clement urges Theodore to deny its Markan authorship even under oath. "Not all true things are to be said to all men," he advises.

Theodore has asked questions about particular passages of the special Carpocratian Gospel of Mark, and by way of reply Clement transcribes two sections which he claims have been distorted by the heretics

Yes, I am aware of the story.

I vaguely recall the part where he says not all truth should be quoted to all men.

The passage, if I remember it correctly, does not say anything about two men have sexual relations, though. It was implied, but people can imply many things if the wording is right.

That information about Gnostics has come through the Church. And you have to take everything with great helpings of salt. Apparenlty, Gnostics were the most important enemies of the Church in those days.
well just because they were enimies dont mea their myth wasthe 'truth'....Alegro doesn't get most of the information from the Church but from the actual gnostic texts
te important thing is that both the gnostics--who influenced christianity-- and christianity are dualistic in their own way. the differenceis that the gnostics--of the negative variety--were dualistic, 'spirit' and 'matter' and the church its 'flesh' and 'spirit'-----Paul and St Augusine, for example were very influenced by gnosticism

also, there is no actual evidence 'Jesus Christ' exited neither

we are facing dodgy myths which denigrate Earth and the body!

the prsent oppressive myth is the materialistic myth, which assumes its shaken of te myths it wasborn from but really they influence on unconscious levels

the Indigenous animistic, and agrarian, worldview has always been more caring for the balance of Earth. weeing the WHOLE as well as the parts

Very well said PRONATALIST

The world does not have a population problem, but it does have a managment problem.


Dwayne D.L.Rabon

Very well said PRONATALIST

The world does not have a population problem, but it does have a managment problem.


Dwayne D.L.Rabon
no. not well said, and you have missed the point. the world IS overpopulated, for sure. and this IS totaly a management problem. ie., half right

Yes, I am aware of the story.

I vaguely recall the part where he says not all truth should be quoted to all men.

The passage, if I remember it correctly, does not say anything about two men have sexual relations, though. It was implied, but people can imply many things if the wording is right.
We have recovered just a small part of a damaged document. We have to collect evidence from all sources to build a final picture. And the final picture does speak for itself.

Also, people in the ancient times were not so 'scientifically' minded as to be explicit about such words. What do you want them to write: explicit details of what the two men did in bed?

Hello

Haven't read the full thread. But what I get from what I have read, is only the topic of the thread-- right?-- which is over population. The world will be overpopulated. How are we to be told other wise. I don't see what someone could really say; I mean, given .. oh I don't know let me just say 60 years (if the world lasts that long). A friend of mine is a serious defender of this view. That the world will be over populated, that we are destroying it, and that nobody cares. That no one takes issue to it. And from what I have read in an eariler post, that it shouldn't be talked about. That the reason you post this thread, is that it isn't supposed to be talked of. That we can talk of it here, and that I agree that overpopulation is an issue, as well as many other things, that must be recognized. And I see no evidence that it is considered, as well as politics in general.

yeah you have really understood the gist of what some of us are saying.
it seems that thers a denial about the situation for us, other species, the very planet.
to really get our heads round why there is tis denial , i personally feel we have to look at the prevailing myths. what are the tales being told us that cause us to go numb about what really matters

a lot of it is fear. we dont know why we here where from and where to. many people just feel existing. no meaning. job slee job sleep school sleep grabbed fun on flashy gadgets.....desperate sex in all the frantic rush of modern life. faster and faster and fukin fater faster. especially in te big cities. shit in London, when you go into it ..its like tis monster that swallows you up into anothe time zone
but its really gettin same everywhere in modern world
remember noting down this quote by a Native American Elder speaking to some youth where he sees that everything is getting faster and aster, so he recommends, the faster it goes the slower you must go

when we slow down we begin looking and strarting to look around

many pople, especilly in 'undeveloped' counries feel they need lrge families for security. cause lives are sooo hard. so tis is an insght how eferything is interelated...not only ecosystems ....all the amazing living dyamic process of Nature, but also human relations........

this is a massive massive problem obviously and needs extraordniary radical change of worlview

My main point is that it needs to be REALIZED. Is it realized?

My main point is that it needs to be REALIZED. Is it realized?
ourt burden, if u like---ie., the ones who allow temselves the freedom to exploe why things are the way they are---which can be very painful, issss. that you cant suddenly wace an arm and put things right. so we may EXPLORE why there are thousands of animals going extinct , and over population etc etc, but doing so have to also bear that the world seems to get fukin crazier and crazier

some peoplemay turn cynical in this rut. but we have to keep stron. even to we may die when nothing HASbeen 'realized'. what keeps me going is the passion to explore when i feel's worthwhile and hat sharing it and learning about it WILL add to changing tings. cause the more wo just throw the towel in. or wont even allow themselves to think about such as tis really are dead in myopinion

Well Duendy
I look at it this way if you belive that the world is over populated, than you think like the people that would line masses of people up in a pit and excecute them, suchas what happened in Rwanda, or in concentration camps, ethnic cleanseing, these ideas and there end result of mass murder is what you say you support by entertaining such unfounded ideas.
By far greed is the cause of population/peoples discomfort, being forced into small areas such as cities. Concentration of people hasa been the result of goverment and buisness efforts, not only to use people for there needs but also for education, defense, and other social developments, but none the less it is a controll that has not given much thought to the daily comforts of people, ie there are problems will goverment concentration of people, social and management wise, such as homosexuality as social issue, city sewers a management issue. goverment and buisness oragnized most of the cities we have to day not the enviromentalist. it pleases goverment because is causes for the treatment of society, and pleases big buisness because they can make a living off of it.
A good example of mismanagement is the fact that most cities are not self supporting, therefor in a emergancy or other dire circumstance it would fall on its face, wherein most dwellings/ homes in cities are on a plot of land that could not support the life of one person, most homes are on land that could not or does not have enough space to even grow vegitation to support even one life for a year, not even if the person was eatting the grass every day. this design of cities is a managment screw up, and most cities in the world are the same.
This type of design makes life uncomfortable socially and economically, people have no base resource to exspand on in the city, no gardening, no private social area ect...it becomes more uncomfortable as humans are forced to work harder for survial than what nature has supplied for. nature establishes that the a human should do the work of walking about 2,000 ft to gain life nurishement. meaning you daily food supply should be within a walk of 2,000 ft. humans work many times that to gain a daily supply of food. there are other factors such as daily motion, humans to stay healthy should move at about 2.2 mph, or be able to walk 1 mile in 30 minutes to stay healthy, living in the city this motion is contiunally altered by different factors such as the grocery story is only 100 ft away, work is only 500 ft way, people drive cars, stop lights ect.... the impeadance of your cities rat maze, causes biologically discomfort exspecially over a long time period.
Nursihment and health is inportant, Depending on body size humans require 2 to 6 pounds of food daily, a 200 pound man must eat 6 pounds of food daily, thats about 0.03 pounds of food per pound body weight, i don't think that most people in the cities of the world can afford to eat 6 pounds of food daily, it is not possible in the USA to eat so at general minimum wage or even on the govement provision of general welfare which shows the govemental misadjustment to basic standard of living.
Humans should have a habitat for self of about 200 ft by 200 ft in relation to the earth,that is area effect to a single human, but that doe snot mean that other people should not be in or move within that space, it just means that humans will have alertness to objects with 200 ft. and so this effects social interactances. dwelling sapce for a human is about 1000 sq. ft. or 32 ft. by 32 ft.(where the walls of the dewlling are 32 ft apart for one room) many cities in the world do not take this into account, and dwellings do not even have 1,000 sq. ft. of living space.

All of these discomforts of city life, are subsided by other menatlly projected ideas of city life pushing inportant things a side, eventually the discomfrt grows with some and they start forming these ideas about how the world is overpopulated and in reality it is no where even near over population, there are however a few countries in the world that actually have a issue with overpopulation based on the defines of nature, Japan is the number one,follwed by some small pacific island, other countries that are currently approaching this limit are England, Germany,Jamaica, Israel,Italy, South Korea, Lebannon, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Philippines,Rwanda, Singapore, Vietnam, Hong Kong, Belgium, Bangladesh. Of which these countires should probably recives the highest immagration entitlements from other more spacious countries.

The reality is that overpopulation is not a problem in consideration of the entire world,and that conjestion caused by mismanagement is the problem, that means the inablity of world leaders to organize city life, or human life in decent manner.

It is exactly the conjested discomfort of city life that leads people to belive mentally that there is a overpopulation problem, such belivers suffere from shock, probablly to much nosie, or other factor that overrides there senses and therfore they belive that the world is over populated.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

Dwane, you say some good tings and some daft things.theltteris where you accuse me of beig some kind of SD mentality who is wanting to promote mass s;laughter of people........errrr no. i didn't mean that.

i can however see the world has become overpopulated. te whole reason i brought it up was inspired after reading a largearticle about it in te Observer www.observer.co.uk the other sunday ago.....and the figures speak fr themselves

the whole reason for congestion in the world's cities is nt an isolated incident, but related to oer population of world in general. obvious---ly

i have tried to show that a huge reason for ofer population is patriarchal myth, i te West---i am not sure about Easternmyth. i feel that the overpopulaton of 'undeveloped' countries is due to the overall glboal effect on their lands, and its creation of debt, exploitation and severe poverty. so people have many children for security

in West it was/is more a pressure from mythic/political expectation to promote procreatiive sex. patriarchy WANTS, demands, male births for its inductrial fascism and warfare!

sp dont paint me with the same brush as that mindset dude. of course i bleedin dont want wars and mass slaughter to 'sort it out' ....i am suggesting that tis is talked about and not denied

if you claim we have not --are not overpopulating this relatvely small planets whic isn't home only for O U R species, then i am afriad yer in denial

The link just pointed to the main page of the Observer, not the overpopulation article. But I have never seen any actual evidence of overpopulation as a current problem, only as a future problem. I am skeptical that the article really said anything substantively different from past ones.

There is obviously some limit, but we are nowhere near it. My evidence: market prices. What is overpopulation? It is having so many people that we run out of one or more vital resources. What happens when you run out of a vital resource? The price of that resources goes up. Lumber is the only resource that I know of that is more expensive (in real terms) than it has been historically, and that is hardly a vital resource (and only really a resource problem in the US with its large amount of wood-based residential construction). All food staples are less expensive now and even industrial staples like metal are less expensive. We have more people, but are actually further from overpopulation than we have ever been.

I personally prefer actual evidence to generalizations, slogans, and projections.

-Dale

ACTUA evidence is always all around. it is in themass extinction of species, in trees disapperning, in wildernesses disappearing.even artic being under threat. why? cause of us two legged upright fukers swarmin every where is why

you have heard of sustainable ecology i take it?....well, Indigenous people, usually denigrated as 'pre-scientific and pre-literate' kew this,and regulated their numbers. but moderners, NO. and global pressures excacerabte overpopulation in 'undeveloped' countries too, where people beliefe they need more and more children to survive

sorry about observer contact. i actually must have slung the actual article tho i meant to kep it as reference, and cant find anonline reference to it, tho it was very intensive

check tis tho
http://www.dhushara.com/book/diversit/bomb.htm

the problem is simple. the more mouths to feed, and all the rest people want. sme very very greedy and not thinking of others, other species and future generations, are completely eating away at LIMITED resources. full stop

Ok Duendy, here are my figures for the capacity of human life on the planet, the capacity for human on earth is 40,256,944,444 persons, which inculdes vegitation as the source of nurishement, however that does not include other land animals, which would require for each species a population of about 50,000 members to have a stable group of animal species not threatened by exstinction(of course this would eliminated them as a source of food for humans).

The current world population should fit into the area of North America, which includes the U.S.,Canada,and Mexico with not strain on food resources.At 40,000 sq.ft per person (200 ft. X 200 ft.)
Naturally a self supporting group of humans would number about 50,000 person in a 72 sq. miles. that is as a co existing colony/society which is naturally self organizing. meaning that as a group because of there number to area it is there natural order/natural constitution or natural mind frame to organize in a highly effective manner to advance and tender their population.( this type of grouping behavior begins to take form about 20,000 persons) As a example in the U.S. it is generally required that in order for a group of people to form a self governing city that it have at least 10,000 persons with the wish to incorporate the area as a city.

The world population food requirement would require a area the size of Austraila, this would also include rotating crops, animal grazing, and food proccessing requirements.

I would say that it is probably true that in some so called third world countries where actually human life got its foot hold that the land resources are probally greatly demiminshed, or places where the population of of the human race has been for exstened periods of time such as india.
So it seems that when we look at it from a strictly human related circumstances, that migration should be a fairly free event of life, if you can get there you have a right to be there, however there are the political controlls that make things more difficult and so with all the other human management problems, humans actually suffer some more apparent and some more secretly, less obviously. So of course areas of the earth that are highly populated should have limited migration to the area, but with out impunity to travel thur, passing by way of that region, tours ect.... for example no one can critizes Japan for its tough immagration laws given the natural definition that they are over populated.(likes wise, England, Germany, Italy, Bangladesh ect..)

Also Duendy I do not look to brand you as the evil one of mass murder, but when such ideas get out of hand in the wrong places of say goverment they end up causeing undue harm to the people, like secret groups of doctors that plan to eliminate the elderly ect.. and to be honest i really think that with some of the up coming world events that threaten humans existance on our planet we need a lot more people, and even there the organization for human management is having problems figureing out how to carry the current human population through such events let alone the millions more that they need to be successful at guarding human life on our planet.

Dwayne D.L.Rabon

Ok Dalespam, maybe a staple will allow for the requirement needed.
Rice, Wheat,Corn, Beans, Oats
Given the minium wage and general welfare in the U.S. a considerable use of stapels in the diet might be enough, possibly!!

DwayneD.L.Rabon

Does the overpopulation issue also include things such as natural resources? Oil, etc etc etc....

Because if it does, then can I find out by anyone if there is any problem or not? It may be "realized," I just wonder if it is a problem along with everyone else at this thread.

Does the overpopulation issue also include things such as natural resources? Oil, etc etc etc....

Yes, all of those resources should be included in calculations on population densities. In fact, it's called the "Population Footprint", I think. I.e., the population of NYC does NOT grow their own vegetables and meat, therefor those supplies must be grown outside the city ...which would be considered IN the NYC footprint. Ditto for waste, garbage, etc.

As I understand it, man's biggest problem is going to be fresh water supplies. That's one thing that is NOT renewable, but is in very short supply all over the world. Fresh water will be the "killer" for us, not oil or energy.

Baron Max

Baron:

So there is of course a problem. When I say it is realized, what in the world are they thinking? Haven't people been denying this in this thread? That it is realized, that they ARE thinking. What in the world are they thinking......

of course it does, pay attention to whats bee said. the obvious insight is that on planet with LIMITED RESOURCES, you cannot double and treble the demand via overpopulation of humans

if someone offered the sick reponse that that's cool cause e have extincted and are extinctiing countless othe species, well believe it or not, this planet is not just for humans, but consitrs of a interelation ofecosystems all forming a very intelligent dynamic balance

we propaganderized modern humans are soooo cut off from thenatrual world in rhe concret power suckin cities, we have lost CONTACT with Nature

ACTUA evidence is always all around. it is in themass extinction of species, in trees disapperning, in wildernesses disappearing.even artic being under threat. ...Your "ACTUA" evidence is pretty weak. The extinction of species is hardly a new thing and hardly the exclusive domain of humans and industry (think dinosaurs).

the problem is simple. the more mouths to feed, and all the rest people want. sme very very greedy and not thinking of others, other species and future generations, are completely eating away at LIMITED resources. full stopI understand the problem. My point, however, is that overpopulation is not a problem existing today, it is only a projected problem for the future. We are nowhere near the resource limitations as indicated by their market prices. I have no doubt that if current trends continue we will eventually hit a limit, but the facts don't support the conclusion that we are near it right now.

-Dale

Your "ACTUA" evidence is pretty weak. The extinction of species is hardly a new thing and hardly the exclusive domain of humans and industry (think dinosaurs).

me)))why try be clever and highlight typo ''actua'. to make yerself feel big?
you have no insight whatsoever and i aint going round in circles with a fool

I understand the problem.

me))))whoooo know you do not! no way do you andothes of similar mindset kow the true problem. thats whyy things are thew state they are in. causeof smart alecs who believethey 'know theproblem'....when the ACTUAL isplain even for a child to see

My point, however, is that overpopulation is not a problem existing today, it is only a projected problem for the future. We are nowhere near the resource limitations as indicated by their market prices. I have no doubt that if current trends continue we will eventually hit a limit, but the facts don't support the conclusion that we are near it right now.

me)))))rubbish. dream on. you may want to livein your sorry dream whilst meanwhile the planet's ecosystems get poisoned and extincted but i and others like myself do not. there is no convincin peple like you. you haveno insight. qute convenient...for YOU isn't it. not forote species, and millions of people in dire poverty though, and te unfortunate generations gonna come into your world that you seeis fine, and neds yet moree two leggeds roaming swarmin everyfukin where

-Dale
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm/...not

As I understand it, man's biggest problem is going to be fresh water supplies. That's one thing that is NOT renewable, but is in very short supply all over the world. Fresh water will be the "killer" for us, not oil or energy.

Baron Max
Just another long term harmful effect of forced heterosexuality on humankind!

Ok Dalespam, maybe a staple will allow for the requirement needed.
Rice, Wheat,Corn, Beans, Oats
Given the minium wage and general welfare in the U.S. a considerable use of stapels in the diet might be enough, possibly!!In my personal experience (4 years at poverty income) the US definition of "poverty" is actually a very comfortable life, even without taking advantage of any government programs. The same is not true of poverty in other countries.


-Dale

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm/...notGo ahead and chant your aphorisms and slogans if they make you feel good. I will keep paying attention to the evidence.

-Dale

I have no doubt that if current trends continue we will eventually hit a limit, but the facts don't support the conclusion that we are near it right now.

Well, I sorta' agree with that statement ...except for the vague term "near".

But even while your basic argument is somewhat true, there is, right now, much REAL starvation in the world. I.e., the wealth is NOT distributed evenly, and therefor, in some/many parts of the world, over-population is ALREADY a major problem. So unless the more wealthy nations bring those starving people into their own nations, then there will STILL be great over-population problems in the present world ...not to even mention in the "near" future.

Baron Max

Well, I sorta' agree with that statement ...except for the vague term "near".

But even while your basic argument is somewhat true, there is, right now, much REAL starvation in the world. I.e., the wealth is NOT distributed evenly, and therefor, in some/many parts of the world, over-population is ALREADY a major problem. So unless the more wealthy nations bring those starving people into their own nations, then there will STILL be great over-population problems in the present world ...not to even mention in the "near" future.

Baron Max
i rea this just comin from your regular rant against black people in New Orleans and poor Blcak people in general. does your compassion only happen for people in other 'exotic' locations

like, cant you make connections. seeee a fukin pattern? dont answer, i already know!

does your compassion only happen for people in other 'exotic' locations?

Where was I talking or implying anything about compassion? ...for anyone?

You seem to think that ye're quite good at reading between the lines ...it's too bad ye're not actually reading the lines that were written!! Try it sometime, you might actually learn something, tho' it's doubtful.

Baron Max

Well, I sorta' agree with that statement ...except for the vague term "near".Agreed, "near" is vague, which is problematic since we (or at least I) don't know how much advance warning the increase in prices would give. Therefore I see nothing wrong with taking a long-term view and addressing the issue now before it actually becomes a problem. What I dispute is only the idea that the world is already overpopulated and therefore technology, science, and the west is inherently evil.

But even while your basic argument is somewhat true, there is, right now, much REAL starvation in the world. I.e., the wealth is NOT distributed evenly, and therefor, in some/many parts of the world, over-population is ALREADY a major problem. So unless the more wealthy nations bring those starving people into their own nations, then there will STILL be great over-population problems in the present world ...not to even mention in the "near" future. As you correctly point out, this is not a matter of global overpopulation but a matter of distribution. My personal solution would be to really push the industrial and economic development of 3rd world countries. Not only would that really help the distribution issues you mentioned as infrastructure develops, but it should also reduce the birth rate and population growth rate of these areas.

-Dale

In July 2004, Hispanics numbered 41.3 million out of a national population of nearly 293.7 million. They have the fastest growth rate among the nation's major racial and ethnic groups. In the 1990s, they accounted for 40 percent of the country's population increase. From 2000 to 2004, that figure grew to 49 percent.

The census report does not include local details, but previous figures have shown Hispanics accounting for about a third of the Washington area's growth from 2000 to 2003 and making up 9 percent of the regional population. The Brookings Institution has dubbed Washington an area of Hispanic "hyper-growth" and noted that the District has a higher share of prosperous Hispanics than the rest of the country.

Over the past two decades, the Hispanic population has swelled largely because of immigrants. Although immigration continues at a fast pace, the mix changed this decade, and new immigrants are now outnumbered by babies born in the United States and overwhelmingly likely to remain here. One in five children under 18 is Hispanic, according to the census figures.

"It's due to the settling of immigrants having children here," said Jeffrey S. Passel of the Pew Hispanic Institute. But, he said, "over half of Hispanic adults are immigrants. It takes time for that to play itself out, but by the time today's children grow up, that will have changed."

The future of those young people has become the topic of a debate among advocates and scholars, with some noting that Hispanics already have lower average education levels than other Americans and that their children could face a future at the bottom.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802381.html

No jb, wrong stop. this is N O T a racist thread. fuck off !!

My personal solution would be to really push the industrial and economic development of 3rd world countries.

A "solution" is not worth a fuck ...UNLESS... you can provide some good, workable methods of achieving the goal. And I doubt that most sub-Sharan tribes would be able to utilize high-speed computers to grow more food for their starving tribe. ...maybe beat them into plowshares?

Please, I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm trying to point out that your idea(s) have probably all been tried or are being tried ...some of them being tried for years and years, with little or not satisfactory results.

Baron Max

No jb, wrong stop. this is N O T a racist thread. fuck off !!
How can you talk about over population without talking about who's doing the over populating?

How can you talk about over population without talking about who's doing the over populating?

because i know your views off by heart, and tey are very very ugly, and racist

this threa i started is not about what you mean at all. it is lookin at the human SPECIES...!

and when you look at the larger picture and not blame parts of it, yo see it is how we are with each other that is cusing all this overpopulation

involved is understanding Ecology, and how all species and ecosystems are interelated. how x doing whatever over here will effect y doin shit over there etc etc

yto dig this huge problem u gottta GO TO!!!!!!!! LOse you fragmented racist, reductive, and materialistic indoctrination, or u will not understand it, and create yet more conflict

Good heavens, J.B., haven't you learned not to respond to anything the Duendy posts? If not, please take this moment to reinforce that basic principle of debating at the sciforums. :)

Baron Max

Hello, all. Just had to toss out my two cents worth on this one. First of all, we most certainly have BOTH an over-population problem AND a distribution problem. While there is, in theory, enough food to go around if we just share and play nice, history tells us that isn't likely to happen. Further, even if it did, the balance between the carrying capacity of the land and the mouths needing to be supported from/on it, is very precarious. Climate events, which have become increasingly intense over recent years could easily and quickly destroy what possible balance there is. So I have some suggestions for possible ways to address these things.
1. stop rewarding people for increasing their brood beyond 2.
2. stop quibbling over abortion and veiw it as both NOT YOUR BUSINESS unless it is your body or your signficants, and help public funds pay for such things too. For those into the dollar aspect, you'll save money and food and space, for those with religious or philosophical oppositions, live with it and let God sort it out.
3. Quit making people live who should be allowed to die... and I mean people of any age who are in vegetative states. And quit having 80 year old women with breast cancer (my grandmother was one) go through painful and expensive treatments... make 'em as comfortable as possible, but do NOTHING to prolong life in that circumstance.... and I could list a number more.
4. Equip homes/appartments/condos with black water and grey water systems to promote more efficient water treatment and reuse. While you're at it, equip them all with solar and/or wind power systems to help offset usage.
5. encourage Earth Friendly practices, like not allowing pavement to cover every inch of ground, allowing 'unsightly' clotheslines to be an option for laundry, planting home gardens, composting and rain barrels.

oh... and one more thing while I"m rolling...

everybody gets 3 'free' kills in their lifetime. Catch is that you can't start using your free kills until you are over 25... and it will be in the interest of EVERYONE to NOT be on anyone else's list.

so there you have it. :)

We're on the way to sorting out our overpopulation problem--just wait til the seas start rising, and all the major rivers of Asia dry up because the snow cover of the Himalayan mountains is gone.

How many of you would like to share your wealth with the poor to even out the distribution anamoly

We need a good old fashioned nuclear war, or a zombie epidemic. They really thin out the population, and the latter shows who the real survivors are.
HAHA! THAT'S A HARSH STRATEGY HAMSTER.WE JUST NEED TO CARRY OUT SOME SCIENTIFIC PROCEDURES TO REDUCE THE BIRTH RATE ANS SENSITICE THE POPULATION ON THIS ASPECT.WAT DO UTHINK?

I Think It's Really Very Important To Fight Against The Overpopulation.yes Because Many People Produce Children When They're Not Able To Raise The Children.thi Leads To Famine,shortage Of Life Resources And Alwatnot.i Mean It Wil Be Better Not To Have A Child Than To Produce Large Amount More Than We're Able To Bring Up.we Need To Abolish All These Sufferings In Ths World, It's Painful To See Children Suffering.just Yesterday, A Mexican Had To Throw Her 6month Old Child In The Sea Because She Said She Was Unable To Raise The Child. Is That Fair?not Atall. We Need To Do Something About It.i Have Many Sugestions,wat Do U Think?

I say kill em all and leave me the white women.

I dont really know, with so many people comes sooo much diversity. There is so much potential for _______ right now. Yeah were fuckin the earth, but i love to fuck. If the ships goin down, then im shootin bullets in the floorboards

How many of you would like to share your wealth with the poor to even out the distribution anamoly

Not I. But I'm also opposed to excessive wealth.

This might have been mentioned already as i couldnt be bothered reading the whole thread but the population of the world needs to increase massively. If you take how big the universe is you need to have as many people as possible. We are a planet destined to go out into the stars and colonize. The universe is huge so the population needs to be huge to combat the size of the universe. Everyone who says were overpopulated is short sighted and thinking short term and is not considering the size of the universe. Get rid of the one child policy in china now.

I do not think our planet is over populated.

Only the distribution of population over the earth is not uniform.

Further some people will bound to remain poor and some will be rich irrespective of total population.

Only we shoud try to maintain certain standard of living for poor people.

Serving the poor can be considered as big service to humanity.

P.J.LAKHAPATE
plakhapate@rediffmail.com

I am in no position to say that the planet is overpopulated.

I advocate the equitable distribution of resources, but at what level? At what standard of living? If it is the US' standard of living, then yes, the planet is definitely too overpopulated. But that's a selfish standpoint, and most likely unsound.

It looks like people who are concerned about overpopulation won't have to worry. Within a decade or two, irreversable climate changes will kill off much of the planet and change life from a consumer-based model to a functional one. It might not fix the source of the problem, but it will at least provide a wakeup call.

It looks like people who are concerned about overpopulation won't have to worry. Within a decade or two, irreversable climate changes will kill off much of the planet and change life from a consumer-based model to a functional one. It might not fix the source of the problem, but it will at least provide a wakeup call.
If you are refering to a deep cold New Little Ice Age, then there are chances that most people will survive as they survived between 1640-1716 during the total absence of sunspots while Earth plunged into the Little ice Age when the Thames river froze up beyond London.

But if you mean a warming as predicted by Hansen and colleagues, then mankind will surely suvive in a much better condition than today. We haven't yet reached temperatures seen during the Medieval Warm Period, or the Roman Warm Period, which were about 2º C higher than today.

That is true EDU, a warm period has preceeded ice ages.
I wonder if climate change can "skip" the warm period and go
right to an IA. What do you think?

Climate has been changing since Earth was formed. The Earth has been in an "Icy State" for about 80% of the time, while warm periods (interglacials) have been much shorter (8000 to 15000 years).

Sometimes, climate change has been abrupt, and ice age conditions have developed in just a few decades. (Older and Younger Dryas are recent examples in our Holocen period), and cooling and warming events have been shown to be of a cyclical nature, as Dansagaard-Oeschger and Heinrich events (warm and cold ones)

Actually, it looks like we have entered into the downward slope leading to a new Little Ice Age (predicted by Theodor Landscheidt, the late solar physicist) when the sun will develop what is known as the Gleissberg Double Solar Minimum (of the same importance as the Maunder Minimum of the 15th century).

This terribly cold winter and so many Mobile Polar Highs coming down from the North Pole are simply a confirmation of such predictions. Landscheidt predicted that by 2006 we'd be seeing the cold effects of the incoming Gleissberg Minimum. He was right.

More cows and sheep and trees and stuff as weel etc

moo?

moo?
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/media-pictures/cow-bank-1.jpg
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/media-pictures/cow-bank-4.jpg
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/media-pictures/cow-bank-3.jpg

http://www.boreme.com/boreme/media-pictures/cow-bank-1.jpg
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/media-pictures/cow-bank-4.jpg
http://www.boreme.com/boreme/media-pictures/cow-bank-3.jpg

The hell?

swiss bank moo, regular customer

Duendy,
Indigenious people live in harmony with nature. One of the biggest bullshit lie modern science propagates is the ancient people had killed off entire animal populations or brought about desertification etc. of their lands.
I thought you might find this article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060213090658.htm) interesting. It's about the exploitation of certain animal species by Native Americans.

Dragon: Obviously a delivery by gateway computers.

Duendy,

I thought you might find this article (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060213090658.htm) interesting. It's about the exploitation of certain animal species by Native Americans.
Laika, i have never romanticised about our past. i am saying on tw whole many Indigenous poeples had more respect for Planet Earth manly because of a totally different worldview where they saw it as ALIVE, not dead as our current oppresive materialist philosophy dictates it

notice in your hand-picked article how it says 'significant [mammal] population declines'...it doesn't talk about EXTINCTION of entire species as has happened since modern man got a foot hold ad is escalatelingly happening now as i type.
ook Laika, our shit is wayout of hand. dont look and ig to slag off some forms of Indigenous ways as a JUSTIFICATION for our rape of Earth. rather try and understand NEW ways of learning to live sustainably with the land. we HAVE to or we is dead, and/or living in more hell, and fuk knows about your kids and future generations

and also note.that artilce. weees listnn to mr white man agin aint we?

Duendy, this is exactly what you said. It's a quote:
Indigenious people live in harmony with nature. One of the biggest bullshit lie modern science propagates is the ancient people had killed off entire animal populations or brought about desertification etc. of their lands.

I did not hand pick this article, nor did I dig for it. It was an article on www.sciencedaily.com on February 13th. I thought you'd find it interesting, so I posted the link.
significant [mammal] population declines'...it doesn't talk about EXTINCTION of entire species as has happened since modern man got a foot hold ad is escalatelingly happening now as i type.
It does talk about extinction. Here's a quote from the article:

"...from 2,600 to at least 700 years ago, native people hunted some species to local extinction, and wildlife returned to "fabulous abundances" only after European diseases decimated Indian populations starting in the 1500s."


ook Laika, our shit is wayout of hand. dont look and ig to slag off some forms of Indigenous ways as a JUSTIFICATION for our rape of Earth. rather try and understand NEW ways of learning to live sustainably with the land. we HAVE to or we is dead, and/or living in more hell, and fuk knows about your kids and future generations
When did I "slag off" anybody? When did I try to justify the exploitation of a species to extinction?
and also note.that artilce. weees listnn to mr white man agin aint we?
I wonder why you think this is relevant. Are you accusing the researcher of racial bias?

what are you trying to say?
are u ;lawyer??
i have explained to you already that rhe worldview of many Indigenous peoples was animit. do you know what that means? hafve you red any Native American Elders speak about land and community?....have you contrasted that wit what came down on ther heads?

i am NOT saying ALL of them were prfect. i am aware of other stuff you dont know too. BUT, on the whole A worldview that respects mNature is surely gonna not do ASmuch fukin damage as we are doing?

and my main point is is NOT scoring points. trying t mke out Indiigenous people ere as bad if not more so than materialists, BUT to have INSIGHT about our ancestor's worldviewws and to try to L E A R N.

what is you tryin to do?

tel me?

'and the worldview of many Indigenous peoples was animist'

annnd. dont forget the fukin genocide OF Native American peoples by the W H I T E man.

No, I'm not a lawyer.
No, I haven't read any Native American writing.
I don't doubt that you are aware of other stuff that I don't know.
I am demonstrating the error in your claim that:
Indigenious people live in harmony with nature. One of the biggest bullshit lie modern science propagates is the ancient people had killed off entire animal populations or brought about desertification etc. of their lands.
You were wrong. Britain's indigenous farmers deforested large areas of the country. That doesn't sound like living harmony with nature to me. Indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand hunted the moa and harpagornis to extinction. That doesn't sound like living harmony with nature to me. The indigenous inhabitants of Easter Island severely deforested the land and drove several species of birds to extinction. That doesn't sound like living harmony with nature to me.

does making thusands of species extinct--going on now-----and global warming, nd poisoning Nature for millions of years with nuclear waste and depleted uranium?...can you intuit a main rush to destruction going on?

so what are you saying? that what went before as you interpret it and now is linear ignorance?

what are your suggestions for us to learn then?

does making thusands of species extinct--going on now-----and global warming, nd poisoning Nature for millions of years with nuclear waste and depleted uranium?...can you intuit a main rush to destruction going on?
I don't quite understand what you're asking me.

so what are you saying? that what went before as you interpret it and now is linear ignorance?
I am saying that your claim was mistaken.

what are your suggestions for us to learn then?
I am not making any suggestions.