Human population should be allowed to grow without limit

Discussion in 'Human Science' started by Pronatalist, Jan 2, 2009.

  1. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Moderator note: This thread is a split from the thread:

    [thread=89204]Is Heterosexuality a Social Conditioning?[/thread]

    It concerns the question of whether unrestricted population growth is a desirable thing.


    ----

    Go ahead, run over the world with people, since more and more people would be glad to live. Just so long as we may do the same, and cooperate in raising the human population level of the planet. That's the sort of "globalism" I prefer, not the corrupt consolidation of political power, that globalist power-monger freaks try to cabal conspiracy for, but simply the world naturally populating itself into itself, fading somewhat the political boundaries that have in the past served to divide us.

    But wouldn't even the nature of how humans reproduce, tend to serve to reinforce the proper moral heterosexual nature? In nature, it seems opposites attract, especially with increasingly populous humans needing to find their proper sexual relief (procreation).
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2009
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. vbsanuk Registered Member

    Messages:
    44
    Opposites do attract in nature - for brief mating periods. Not the extended 'spouse' relationships that human societies impose to control/increase population.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Oh, the male-female marriage relationship, is clearly for the purpose of increasing population. Marriage is a Biblical concept. So too is the natural increase of humanity, as in Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

    The "control" aspect, is not to actually "limit" human numbers, but to "control" the natural population growth, to be a more orderly and predictable phenonomen that societies should then be able to handle.

    As I have heard, why do husband and wife traditionally sleep together every night in the same bed? For the maximum temptation and opportunity to produce children.

    And in most healthy longterm marriages, I think most people in them would tell you, Yes, opposites do attract.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. vbsanuk Registered Member

    Messages:
    44
    No disagreements here abou that, when i said "control" i did not mean decrease.

    The question of whether humanity is truly happy in an over-populated world, and under the structures society creates to keep breeding up is another question. The physical question of the proper human population size pre-civilization and whether all this breeding to malthusian limits is "natural" is another question too.

    Also, the custom of husband and wife sleeping in the same bed all the time is far from universal. The European aristocrats often did not practice this, with husband and wife having separate beds.
     
  8. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    If the world is to remain free, then we must always welcome human populations to grow "out of control."

    Oh, sure there must needs be some control, but I favor only the lax control I see in the Bible. Get married first, take responsibility for providing for and loving your children. I have no interest on setting any arbitrary "cap" on world population size, as such profound things can only be in the rightful domain of God. Growth of human populations can be reasonably be mitigated, by applying proper technology and development and faith, without actually trying to limit the pace of the natural growth of numbers. In fact, development should be done, in such a manner, or sometimes stated, in order to better welcome and accomodate ever-growing numbers of people.

    There's no assurance that most people would be any happier in a lesser-populated world. People don't want to be told how many children they may have, and most everybody wants or ends up having children. More and more children would be glad to come alive and experience life. Most all these "structures society creatures to keep breeding up," also help make life more comfortable, and at the very least, provides some much-needed alternatives to imposing upon people awful shoddy Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons, that very understandably, so many people have "religious" and other practical objections to using. To use "birth control" is contrary to nature, and seeks to prevent actual real human life. Large families better condition children to both survive and thrive in an increasingly populous world.

    My point is that husband and wife sleeping together in the same bed, quite likely was pronatalistically-motivated, throughout much of history. It's also part of that example of larger families using resources more efficiently. When you traditionally had large families sleeping in small 1 or 2 room homes, it would make much sense for husband and wife to share a bed, if for no other reason, for efficiency of space. When reasonable living space is tight, it's also quite reasonable for children, especially small children, to share beds as well, at least temporarily. People also forget, that until the event of automatically-heated homes, proximity of human bodies at night, would help people sleep and stay warm during winter.

    As to practicality, my main interest in husband and wife sleeping together, is to insure natural family growth. If married couples can still breed children as prolifically and yet prefer separate beds, I don't have much objection. Sometimes one's mate snores or pulls the covers off, so in today's big homes, whether husband and wife should ideally share a bed, seems a bit "optional" to me. I would encourage them to share beds, but understand if they like a bit more personal space, especially if they are still into welcoming "all the children that God gives." No doubt they can come together to mate, and then go to their separate beds, which could even be in the same big master bedroom sometimes, or be in a spare bedroom, that is, until the accumulating children manage to fill every available bedroom.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Pronatalist:

    Freedom involves being able to do what you want with your life. If you're born into extreme poverty, you have little choice and are hardly free. Increasing the human population too much can only lead to more and more people living lives of grinding poverty and deprivation.

    Then using electricity is contrary to nature. Driving a car is contrary to nature. All of modern medicine is contrary to nature.

    Oh, and having sex for fun rather than for procreation - is that contrary to nature, in your opinion?

    I think people seem to manage to find ways to have sex regardless. Don't you?
     
  10. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Sorry to answer your address to Pronatalist, but I also wonder about masturbation. I think most young people (especially most young men) masturbate fairly frequently. That doesn't lead to procreation. But it's a very natural urge, and unless you subscribe to Catholic dogma, it is very hard to find a solid Biblical reason for abstaining from masturbation. Appealing to "natural" law would be, in my opinion, an even more difficult task than defending from a purely Bible-based position.

    Then you have infertile couples who often are capable of normal sexual response, pleasure/orgasm, etc. but who are either unable to conceive, or can only do so sporadically or with great difficulty. They enjoy the pleasures of sex without the responsibility of conceiving a child as a result.
    Would it therefore be unnatural for people like this to seek out medical assistance in order to bear children? If it would be acceptable to seek modern medical techniques to aid in conception, then why would it be wrong to seek modern medicine to prevent unwanted conception, for whatever reason??? Maybe someone would rather help or adopt other children in poverty or abandonment situations, than bear their own children. Is that morally lesser than bearing their own children?

    It must be noted for all interested parties, especially the conservative, Bible-believing Christians, that Jesus is not once mentioned as having fathered children nor as being married. In a similar manner, the apostle Paul, to whom a good chunk of the New Testament is attributed, not only remained unmarried throughout the Bible narrative, but does at least once advise against marriage, and endorses chastity. If all humans are supposedly tasked with endlessly (or something close to endlessly) increasing the population of the world, certainly both Jesus and Paul are setting poor examples?

    I find that many Christians who attempt to procreate and conceive as often as possible mostly do so based on Genesis 1:28
    It's a little peculiar that most of Christendom, including the more fundamentalist versions of it, discard most of the Old Testament observances (Levitical laws and whatnot) but find a few passages that somehow supercede most others in stature and importance. That the Gen 1:28 passage, being one of the earliest passages and also being a directive to the presumed first two people ever created, would somehow have survived as a commandment on par with THE 10 (no explanation needed, I hope!), is puzzling.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    If the human population grows "too much," then why not simply adapt and be grateful that we humans are so abundant.

    Who gets to decide what is "too much" population? I don't agree with all this nonsense socialist engineering. If human population rises "too much," then so be it. People need useful challenges away. And it seems to me, that people have every right to naturally populate themselves to "extreme" levels or to naturally breed to "crowded" levels, if or as they can or do.

    Population growth and poverty are not the same thing. Regions can be densely populated, without being poor. They could also be well developed, and better designed to hold so many people.

    But of course. Let married people have their natural sex, in their tents, RVs, separate beds, or shared bed. As the numbers of people in the world continues to increase, so too should we expect natural babymaking to similarly increase. Families have every God-given right, to have just as many children as ever, no matter how huge the overall population may manage to grow. People never have had any obligation to use "birth control," as God's commandment to people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, says people don't need to "regulate" their birthrates. It means to let babies naturally push out, welcoming natural family growth, without needing to take "precautions" against supposedly having "too many" children.
     
  12. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    I think what populates the planet, was made very pleasurable, for some very good and profound reason.

    Obviously, marriage and procreation is better than masturbation. But then, not everybody is married just yet. And what's a husband supposed to do for the month or so, after the baby has come out, before his wife is ready to resume normal natural marital relations? But I can't seem to find the verse authorizing masturbation either, but yeah, I don't think I find any verse prohibiting it. Seems to me that masturbation is a bit like peeing. Nothing so glamorous, just trying to relieve a need. But I think even the body "knows" it's not the real thing, and would rather prefer the real thing, if at all reasonably possible. My Dad said something, to the effect that sex with a woman, feels so much better.

    Deut 30:19 says to choose life, that thou and thy seed may live. In talking to some Catholics at some Life Chain event, they tell me that Catholics also don't believe in trying to assist conception, and not only in refraining from trying to prevent it. I believe assisting in creating human life is optional, but we should not try to hinder the natural flow of human life. I don't like any of the contraceptive methods, so I understand how many human families can naturally tend to grow quite large. Family size used to be thought of as "uncontrollable." But then, considering the myriad of shoddy methods supposedly available, that should all be shunned and rejected, why wouldn't family size then, be just as "uncontrollable" as ever? I am no Catholic, so I don't believe in using supposedly natural rhythm or early withdrawal either. Since babies are supposed to be a blessing from God, why not let babies happen as they happen, and not take any "precautions" in trying to regulate human birthrates. Why not respect the natural reproductive rhythms of the body, not fight them, let families everywhere all grow naturally, so that all the more fellow human beings may experience life?

    Adoption is a good thing, even helping other parents to reproduce more children than they supposedly can raise themselves, but not in place of reproducing children, but in addition to raising one's own children. Sure, children need to be taken into good homes, but that's no excuse to shut the door to life and use shoddy unnatural contraceptives. It's probably good for many children to grow up in families that are just a bit "too big." It helps train them to share, to care about other people, and better condition them to both survive and thrive in an increasingly populous world. I don't believe in imposing population "control" upon humans, but rather, let world population grow naturally, supposedly "out of control."

    Not all people are called to have children. But apparently most people are, should they live long enough to become parents. The Bible does say there are some eunichs, but they seem to be a very narrow category. I don't even see any Biblical basis for Catholic priests to be celebate. I read somewhere some joke, some Bible translator supposedly making the discovery, Oh, the word is "celebrate," not "celebate." I had a pastor who remarked something about people who love Jesus, do tend to have large families. I would rather think that if one thinks that humans are wondrous creatures created by God, then why not let "baby after baby" come out, as they will? And it does seem like somebody's always having babies at my Church.

    Yeah, that does distinctly seem to have something to do with it. Probably also that sex feels good, and that that verse says they don't have to use any birth control. If humans are to fill the earth, that's more a process than an end destination, so it does rather distincty imply, fuller and fuller. No matter how "huge" world population grows, the verse still applies Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, for as long as God allows humans to retain the reproductive ability, which does seem to eventually run out, when humans finally become as the angels. See Luke 20. I don't think angels can reproduce.

    Isn't it possible that God made what populates the planet, so extremely pleasurable, that people might actually be quite good at keeping at least 1 of the commandments? At least reproducing is something that quite many people can apparently do quite well. Don't take away the one thing they do so well.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Pronatalist:

    Because overpopulation causes misery.

    Like the challenges of starvation and disease, you mean?

    What is actually needed is education and the ready availability of methods of reliable methods of birth control. In educated western nations, the birth rate is currently less than replacement rate, while in poor, uneducated nations the birth rate is unsustainable.

    Correct up to a point. However, a given area of land will only ever be able to support a given number of people.

    Given the choice, most women choose contraception most of the time.

    But they want it. Many don't have the choice. Would you deny them that choice, if that's what they want?

    Extrapolating to the present day the commands of a possibly imaginary deity to a people who lived 3000 years ago is an exercise fraught with difficulties. You need to start living in the 21st century and stop pining for a past that probably never existed.

    Perhaps you're unaware, but in the 5 years from 1995 to 2000, the world's population increased by more than all the people who ever lived from the dawn of history to about the 1500s.
     
  14. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    What "overpopulation?" God meant for human life to naturally grow so incredibly abundant.

    No, socialism/communism causes misery, by spreading the poverty around, undermining productivity, wealth, and incentives for producing wealth.

    And for some rich elitist, to have a bit less of a view, due to all the population, is not "misery."

    And "growing pains" are a natural and healthy part of life.

    No, merely having to use more of the land, just for all the needed human housing. And building some more bypass freeways.

    No, that's not true. Birthrates could remain naturally high, all the better, with the proper development that would go so far towards better supporting so much population. Naturally high birthrates are quite "sustainable," otherwise God would not have commanded Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Quite many people don't believe in, or still resist "regulating" human birthrates. For very understandable reasons. More and more people would be glad to live.

    But the population will never be so large and dense, that somebody couldn't imagine how even more might possible be crammed into a land area. If for example, some overcrowded shantytown was displaced, by a vertical population arcology better designed to house so many people, human bodies could be populated even more densely together, and yet be more spacious, having been spread upwards into the vertical dimension. And obviously, a land region can "overflow" with people, "overspilling" into surrounding areas. As other land areas also do the same thing at the same time. There can be a natural, guided transition, from people being able to live most anywhere, to increasingly "everywhere."

    Not so fast. In many cultures still, many of which are still quite pronatalist, most women would rather not use contraceptives. Nearly half the world does not use birth control. And since most people do in fact reproduce, and humans aren't all that fertile, even those who do use some form of contraception, probably don't, much of time, while "trying to conceive." And I do suspect that many women resent the burden of having to use "birth control." Some would rather just not bother trying to "regulate" their birthrates. Some guy I once worked with, said his wife wants 6 children, but he's not so sure. Of course I told him to go for it, he wouldn't be sorry. Sounds to me, like his wife did not want to use any means of birth control. A family at my present Church, has 8 children. When I asked the father why he had so many children, he said something about not giving it much thought. Oh yeah, like a lot of people, sounds like they just let the babies come out, without bothering to ever get around to selecting a "satisfactory" method of "birth control." I suspect that's how still quite a lot of large families occur. They aren't all exactly "planned," but rather growing naturally or "out of control."

    I would vote to ban contraception, if given the opportunity. It's done so much damage to our culture, promoted promiscuity, divorce, selfishness, abortions, STDs, family breakup, cheapened sex into a profane selfish carnal act.

    And quite many do not want birth control. Many more pronatalist cultures do not want contraceptives, still associating them with "dirty sex" such as prostitution, and promiscuity. A huge deception about "family planning," is the fiction of "unmet demand," which much of it doesn't even exist until people become confused by "family planning" propaganda. People hardly seem to know that they don't have to keep having babies, because that's just the way it is, and that families tend to grow and are large.

    I see nothing wrong with adding another 400 million people in just 5 years. Now there's finally enough parents to raise children entering the world so fast. God knew what he was doing, when designing humans to multiply exponentially. Descendents inherit the ability to reproduce as well, so that means exponential growth. What of all the feigned concern for people of liberals? As world population grows, so too grows, the numbers of people needing sexual relief, and of course we should expect more people to be becoming sexually active. When I say I don't believe in human population "control," that's what I mean, that's I'm fine with more and more human wombs, naturally pushing out more and more babies, faster and faster. I believe in the natural flow of human life, and welcoming babies to happen as they happen, keeping the door to life open.
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Pronatalist:

    It worries me that you seem to rely on the bible for your views, rather than any actual data or experience. The bible is a document mostly written more than 2000 years, for and by a small and undistinguished band of people living in a tiny section of the Middle East. At the time, it might have been reasonable for that small group to advise "go forth and multiply", but such an approach is simply irresponsible in the 21st century, where the human population is more than 6 billion.

    Does your God favour humanity so much that he wishes humanity to be the only large mammal remaining on the Earth? Your God obviously doesn't know about ecosystems.

    Do you understand the term "too much"? It seems you do not.

    You appear to be living in some kind of fantasy. I assume you're an American, who probably hasn't been overseas and seen real poverty.

    You're exactly the kind of "rich elitist" you're complaining about.

    You're in favour of more global warming too, are you? Why am I not surprised?

    Do you live in some kind of cocoon where you assume that you and your many children will never be affected?

    You're not big on rights, though, are you? You would ban contraception if you could, you say. You're just fine on removing choice when it conflicts with your choice.

    Development in the modern era brings reduced birth rates, because people demand contraception. To maintain high birthrates, you need to keep the population uneducated, and preferably misogynistic.

    Did your God ever command you to think for yourself?

    How do you know that your God's commands to multiply were meant for all time - even 3000 years in the future from the time he supposedly gave that command to his small band of Israelites?

    History proves you wrong. Consider Easter Island, for example. At one time it was covered with forests and populated by thousands. Now it is a treeless waste with no inhabitants.

    What went wrong? Why didn't your God protect the Easter Islanders and support their endless population increase?

    Vertical expansion does not create arable land.

    Only at the expense of other peoples, or valuable plant and animals.

    For the half of the world that does not use birth control, it is largely unavailable.

    Rather than "suspecting", I suggest you investigate the matter yourself. Read surveys and studies that have looked at what women want. The information is readily available.

    Your local Church, full of "pronatalists" like yourself, is not indicative of the general population. (Are you from Utah?)

    Nonsense.

    Which cultures, specifically? ANd are we talking about the men of those cultures, or the women?

    He intended for humans to push out all the other life on the planet, did he? He intended famine and suffering for the most populated areas of the world, did he?

    Well, at least you're comfortable. Lucky you and your Church buddies.

    As population grows we expect more of all human activities. So what?

    One form of life comes, sooner or later, at the expense of other forms of life.

    You should investigate what happens when animal populations grow out of control. Look at locust plagues. Look at rat plagues. While resources are available, everything is just fine. As resources diminish due to competition, great suffering and death inevitably follows until balance is eventually restored.

    Why do you imagine that unlimited human population increase would be any different?
     
  16. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Lack of world population control, that's freedom! Imposing population "control" is tyranny!

    It worries me, that so much of the world does not regularly read their Bibles. Deception is so rampant these days, dividing people, leading people astray.

    It is not irresponsible for people to continue going forth and multiplying, in today's world nearing 7 billion. Look around, there's so many places to put lots more people. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Cities could be bigger. Additional cities and towns can be built in between the growing cities and towns. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more. Even in crowded conditions, babies are glad to come alive and be born. Human populations can in fact, prosper being both vast and dense.

    We may be among the most populous of the large mammals, but there's lots of other large mammals. But if there's not so much room anymore for so many wild elephants in India or wherever, to add more people is far more valuable. People populate so much more efficiently than elephants. Did you know just 1 wild elephant stealing food from somebody's garden at night, can eat 400 pounds of food in a night? That's not very efficient.

    I'm making fun of the term, and suggesting that any "growing pains" could in fact, be minor.

    I've been to South Korea, back in the 1980s when they were getting cars. Quite many people used bicycles as if they we cargo trucks. But the people did seem to be improving their wealth, and I never noticed they were 4 times as densely populated as China, until I looked it up later in an almanac.

    But what about the reality, that people are quite able to reproduce children, no matter where they live, whether it be "crowded" or not. Parents can always find or make room, for their own children.

    No, I am not. I understand that people have many compelling reasons to have as many children as they do, and I advocate and defend naturally large families. Not all that long ago, contraceptive use seemed bizarre and immoral. What changed? Social mores declined, that's what. People quit reading their Bibles, and fell prey to the multiplying deceptions of an increasingly wicked and selfish world.

    It's too cold anyway. And there is no conclusive evidence for human-caused global warming. It's natural cycles caused by the sun, and this winter has been too cold for there to be "global warming," hurricane predictions have fallen short of Al Gore's "global warming" gloom-and-doom dire predictions since 2005.

    My children will be affected, by being welcomed and loved, and being free to have all the children they were meant to have, after growing up and marrying. I want for my children to be affected by a child-friendly, family-friendly world, lax in welcoming world popualation to grow and grow naturally, unhindered.

    Still doesn't make people have sex. Bible doesn't say how often married people must have sex, and lack of contraception still allows free natural methods of rhythm and early withdrawal, and self-control is supposed to be a virtue anyway. Why so much delusion towards using Big Pharma's unnatural, shoddy contraceptive potions and poisons?

    I still favor the development, and encourage people to let their families grow naturally, possibly quite large. A modern, educated world, helps expand options to mitigate and accomodate natural population growth. I know about the Demographic Transition theory, but isn't it obvious that it's really the underlying rampant contraceptive pushing underlying it? As I read somewhere, there's nothing about having money in one's pockets, that magically sterilizes the reproductive organs. People can gain wealth, and their families still grow as large as ever. But a modern world would have better resources and options towards better managing vast and dense population comfortably and safely.

    I think far more independently, that most people I know.

    Even nature tells us to multiply.

    Did Easter Island have indoor flush toilets? Proper modern methods of food preservation? Did they have electricity? Refrigerators? Highrises and skyscrapers made of steel and glass? Global trade? Why do people keep bringing up the Easter Island "overpopulation" myth? They were likely savages or died of some disease. Had there been simply "too many" people, they would have simply overspilled the island back to the mainland. Not all people are so stupid they can't see the changes occuring.

    They were probably in rebellion to God. What for did they make all those stupid ugly superstitious statues for anyway?

    There's more people than ever, and people are are fed better than ever. Food production has become more and more efficient, to the point that most people don't even want to grow their food anymore.

    And if ever farmland became scarce, globally, food production would just move more towards more efficient, synthetic methods.

    The other people also stay there, and multiply themselves. But suburbs upon suburbs can be added, and cities and towns and villages naturally be allowed to naturally coelesce into one another. And people are always more valuable than natural flora and fauna. Let baby booms naturally persist and spread, so that all the more people may experience life.

    Surely they know of the "no sex" method. But I have read of people who refuse to use condoms, because they want children and want to get pregnant. They use condoms to waterproof their roofs, and give them to their children to play with. So many embarassing stories I've seen on the internet. Medical clinics with more contraceptives than they know what to do with, but shortages of basic supplies like clean needles and medical gloves.

    I read a variety of resources, not just anti-family "family planning" propaganda.

    I am neither Mormon nor Catholic, but Protestant Christian. Most religions do encourage people to have large families.

    My Church isn't even all that conservative. But somebody's always having babies, because nature favors those who reproduce. Some people have adopted babies from China.

    Both.

    Why exactly, can't human populations be vast and crowded? Poverty is caused by bad government and corruption. Smaller population wouldn't solve any of those problems.

    The point is, with so many people, there's huge need for huge numbers of babies to be born. If sex is such a great thing as society makes it out to be, shouldn't there be all the more people alive enjoying sex, among other things? I welcome there to be more human penises, more vaginas, naturally populating closer together. Let the babies push out naturally. I don't believe in population "control" of humans.

    We are under God's control. Humans multiply so much more gradually than other creatures. And humans are supposedly intelligent and highly adaptable. Haven't you read of any sci-fi suggestions, that are actually quite unlikely to be much needed, anytime soon? Vertical population arcologies, underground cities. Already, we have growing numbers of megacities and supercities. Who says cities can't be enormous?

    Have you any concept of freedom and basic human rights? They say that denying the right to procreate is but one small step from denying the right to live. If people are to be free, then we can't morally "regulate" their birthrates. It's up to the billions of reproducing parents, or better yet, to God.

    Are bee hives unnatural? Who's to say that humans can't live in population hives?
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Pronatalist:

    You're a real bundle of contradictions. You haven't really thought this out, have you?

    Nobody said anything about imposing population control. The population will control itself, one way or another. What I would advocate is making sure that contraception is readily available for all. That's what they want, and that's the responsible thing to do. Unrestricted population growth can only lead to widespread misery, disease and death, and I'm sure your God wouldn't want that, would he?

    What's the point in organising your life by pretending you live in 1800 BCE? You need to be realistic and realise you live in 2009 CE. Conditions are different now. Why not benefit from what humanity has learned in the past 3000 years?

    You don't seem to get it. I'll say it one more time: a given area of land can support only a certain amount of life, be it human or animal. If you build more cities, more land will be needed to feed the people in those cities. Already, there are huge problems with providing food to the people currently in the world, and you want to increase those problems. That's irresponsible, cruel, and, dare I say it, un-Christian.

    Let us be clear. Humanity is already the most populous large mammal on the planet by orders of magnitude, and yet you want to sacrifice the other large mammals so we can have more human beings?

    I'm guessing you didn't visit the slums.

    At the expense of their other children and themselves. Sure, people can live in grinding poverty, up to a point. It's not something I advocate, but apparently you do. Why?

    Contraception was only ever bizarre and immoral if you were religious and believed what the Catholic Church told you. Most of the world, however, has never been Christian, let alone Catholic.

    Also, wouldn't breeding more people just increase the wickedness of the world? Why would you want to bring more children into an increasingly wicked and selfish world? So they can starve and suffer, I assume.

    Enough said. You don't actually understand the science or the implications of global warming, do you?

    Wrong on all counts. Evidence for global warming is compelling. The sun has been ruled out as the cause. A single winter says nothing about long-term climate trends, nor do hurricanes in a single year. 2008 was about the 12th or 13th hottest year on record as regards average global temperatures, since records have been kept.

    You're probably right as regards your children. But you live in the richest nation on Earth. You are disproportionately privileged. You consume hundreds of times more in terms of resources than your neighbours in India. Because you are so insulated from reality, population increase seems like a great idea to you. If you had an inkling about the real world, you'd change your mind.

    If population increases dramatically elsewhere, people from elsewhere will turn their eyes on the lush fields of America. Terrorism will increase and your children will no longer live in the cosy child-friendly world you want. If global warming is allowed to run rampant, your children or their children will live in an era of natural disasters and extreme hardship.

    Contraception does not need to involve drugs. Condoms are very effective, for example. And you know what they call people who use the rhythm and withdrawal methods of contraception? Parents.

    A woman's place is in the home, right? Keep her barefoot and pregnant until she can't have any more kids. And whatever you do, don't educate her, or she might want to stop having your babies.

    No. Not really.

    Correct. So, wealth isn't it, then. Now, think.

    You avoided the question. Your justification is God, yet you can't answer this?

    No, but even if they did none of this would have helped them.

    Ah, but there the analogy breaks down. The Easter Islanders could have imported food grown elsewhere, you say. But when the entire Earth is full of your exploding population, nobody will have spare food. Where will the Earth import its needed food from, then? Outer space?

    Overpopulation wasn't the major problem. A lack of concern for the environment was the problem.

    Just like you, by the time they noticed the changes that would lead to their extinction it was too late. They couldn't leave because there were no trees left to build the ships needed to leave. They'd cut them all down. They thought there would always be more trees.

    What do you think the Islander who cut down the very last tree was thinking as he did so? Do you think he realised? And if he did, was he rejoicing in the expanding population (if, indeed, it was still expanding at that time), or despairing?

    Ha! They were, as it happens, extremely devout - just like you. Those "stupid statues" were the ones their gods demanded of them. Far from being in rebellion to God, they were carrying out his explicit instructions. Just like you and your breeder friends.

    Correct. But even now people benefit unequally from technological advances. And those advances themselves are not unlimited. Sure, overpopulation is unlikely to affect your children at first, but sooner or later it will catch up with them - if your preferred policies are followed, that is.

    Your faith in science is touching. However, even science has its limits. It cannot produce food out of nothing.

    But why do you trust science to solve your problems anyway - the same science that makes all those nasty contraceptives - the same science that makes people believe in nonsense like global warming, that might lead to their having fewer children?

    Why?

    That's quite irresponsible.

    So they don't do it for God, but because it's natural? Is natural always good, then? Do you own a car, or walk everywhere?

    Poverty is not caused only by bad government and corruption. Why do you think, ultimately, that the United States is so rich while Ethiopia, for example, is so poor? Just government and corruption and war? Or some other reason?

    You're confusing sex with reproduction. There's no need to reproduce to have sex. If it's sex that you want, then have sex with contraception. You don't have to pretend to want children in order to justify a sex addiction. It's more honest, to yourself and to others, to admit what you really want.

    I thought he gave us free will. I thought he gave us brains to think with and to decide what is best for ourselves and our children.

    Sci-fi suggestions of megacities rely on the colonisation of other planets to obtain the necessary resources. If we do colonise other planets, then accelerated population growth may be sustainable for a time. But this is just fantasy right now.

    What about denying the right to contraception?

    But you'd like to regulate all their morals, surely?
     
  18. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I can't think of an insult that would do you justice Pronatalist.
     
  19. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    Most of the developed countries , not all of course, have been trying to achieve a zero population growth . Over two thirds of the Earths population are uneducated and poor and do not have the ability to try to reduce their numbers whatsoever. Until family planning, birth control and other means are practiced in every country the Earth will only see unchecked human growth until it reaches a breaking point somewhere.
     
  20. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,885
    Population will not grow without limit.

    Starvation, war over diminishing resources, et cetera will limit it if humans do not limit it voluntarilay or due to repression.
     
  21. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    What if we already live in a world, naturally moving more back more to unrestricted population growth?

    Of course I have given lots of thought to these issues. And where's my contradictions? I am remarkably consistant and logical and compassionate and humane.

    So you don't support imposing population "control." But don't you realize that people who buy into the "overpopulation" rhetoric, generally don't believe in freedom and self-determinization all that much, and would use a trumped up fear of "excessive" global population, as a handy excuse to trample upon people's rights? Why run the risk, when the "overpopulation" fearmongering isn't true anyway?

    So far, it would appear that the "unrestricted" global population growth, has led to a curious world of iPods, computers, internet, social networking websites, and of course, a myriad of convenient population-accomodating technologies.

    I reject the entire notion that human birthrates need to be "regulated." Our ancestors simply did not believe that, and for most of history, for most people, babies happened when they happened. There was no need to fight the body's reproductive rhythms, as babies usually were welcome, as quite possibly wonderful blessings from God. Some pagans discarded "unwanted" babies along roads, but the Christians took up those babies, and raised them as their own. Probably helped spread Christianity, and slow the spread of the infestation of liberalism, BTW.

    If people fail to, or just don't want to use birth control, then they can let their babies push out naturally, and raise them like the valuable people that they are.

    BCE? You mean 1800 B.C.? Eclesiates says "There is no new thing under the sun." How exactly are conditions different? People are still selfish and sinful. "Birth control" still does not work very well. It's still quite awkward, and still has bad side-effects. Why not benefit from what humanity has learned in the past 3000 years? Of course, why not? I advocate using technology towards better accomodating vaster and denser human populations. There's so many of us, I don't think everybody could live a simplistic and primitive life like the Amish. There's just too many of us, and I think it helps to have modern water treatment systems, truly voluntary vaccinations, modern food storage technologies, to make sure we can comfortably and safely have so many people living so close to other people in many immense cities teeming with millions of people.

    Humans are not mere animals. Humans have dominion over nature, as Genesis 1 declares, and so we can alter ourselves and nature, to hold more and more people. Somebody said either we curb our birthrates, or find more places for more families to live. Obviously, most any freedom-loving people don't want to be told how many children they may have, so if population still increases, we must then logically, find more places for additional families to live. Obviously, there's plenty of rural land for people to live in the countryside if they choose to, but perhaps not everybody could do that anymore, or would it really be so much spacious countryside anymore? 125 people per square mile, on average, globally, is a very spacious rural density, but even if people spread out "equally," we would only be but 2 minute's walk from our nearest neighbor, or shouting distance away. Most people don't want to live "in the middle of nowhere," so many big cities, and more smaller towns, are the obvious answer. People within the cities are also reproducing, some cities more so than others, and cities draw people in, depopulating the countryside, in search of jobs, excitement, shopping malls. One way or another, cities are growing bigger, and humans continue to grow ever more numerous. Building suburbs upon suburbs, building more cities, insure that there's enough housing space for the growing numbers of people. Somebody said that a paradigm shift is needed. So here's mine. Let people have their "traditionally very large" families, but within the big cities as well. As human populations grow larger and denser, families can still enjoy growing as naturally and as large as ever, but we have to allow people to live and breed these days, within closer proximity to one another, on the global scale at least, as the planet is not getting any bigger.

    People are better fed, and I believe there's much room, that will be revealed, for food production efficiency to continue to increase. God will feed his people, if people are busy growing food rather than fighting amongst themselves.

    You can't just keep adding more and more wild animals to a given region of land, because animals aren't all that smart, and don't adapt well. Surely, humans are smarter than wild animals? Already, how many signs should seem rather obvious, that humans can and do, populate potentially extremely efficiently? What of high-density housing or apartment complexes? Seems like a possible example of "efficient population density" to me.

    And it's also an example of allowing people to make their own decisions. If people apparently can find ways to keep having their babies, and they manage to adapt and populate denser to fit everybody into their countries, even though there be more people alive there than ever, who's to say there's anything wrong with allowing them to do so, and welcoming everybody and their progeny?

    What part of "I don't believe in imposing population 'control' upon humans," did you not understand? There are billions of fertile wombs pushing out babies these days. I am not some party pooper. I think there should be all the more people becoming sexually active, and I have no desire to try to stem the natural flow of human babies. I don't like any of the means of "birth control," and I understand there's so many compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, so I don't even ask nor expect people to try to hinder their natural rate of babymaking. What I believe in, is the very lax restrictions I see in the Bible. Not population quotas, but to get married before having sex. Provide for and take care of one's children. Responsible, stable, and Yes, sometimes rather large naturally-growing families. If humans are already so numerous, it's not the babies' fault, nor is it the fault of their parents. Every life is sacred and precious. It's just the way it is.

    Are we really the most populous large mammals? Not even our cows or dogs or whatever, outnumber us anymore? Be happy, that it's humans that are so populous, and not the ravenous dinosaurs, as suggested by some Godzilla movie. In comparison, humans are incredibly docile and easy to get along with. And did I mention that humans tend to be rather "population efficient," meaning quite many of us can live or fit within a confined space of land?

    What? I was supposed to visit the slums? Why don't people tell me these things, while I was there, and presumably might have had the chance? Where were the slums anyway? Perhaps not so close to a military base, as all our American dollars probably stimulated the local Korean economy somewhat.

    What exactly is a "slum" anyway? Their homes were likely somewhat small, and they live in the back of their stores, but then, they don't have all the stupid ineffiicent zoning regulations like we have, so a nice short "commute" to work, and they probably don't have all the STUFF yet that Americans collect, so what for, to have a really big home?

    Maybe I might not be so quick to recognize undersized, somewhat "slummy" housing, because they probably do have some electricity, presumably some sort of toilet facilities, and because I'm not so judgemental against people's right to exist, as some of the educated-beyond-their-intelligence, intellectual-idiot population phobics. Perhaps the population density may have been somewhat high by American standards, but the people seem to be happy and comfortable, and who's to say that human bodies or homes can't possible be located closer together, so as to fit more people into the more highly populated regions of the world, and to always welcome family and people's progeny? If I'm an outsider, visiting their country, who am I to expect their country to look just like the U.S.? Some places like Korea, do have nicely-maintained housing, it's just not always so big, just like American homes. A lot of that is cultural, and based upon lack of American materalism, not so much necessarily high population levels or poverty. A bigger home would be harder and more expensive to furnish and heat, something that would make sense to people with not as much money as we seem to have.

    You speak as if human life was something unremarkable, something to be rationed. I'm not advocating poverty, I'm advocating the natural flow of human life. Why? One reason is because I don't believe in "regulating" human birthrates. I find the contraceptive pushing sales pitch, somewhat less than convincing. Why exactly, can't families simply be or become naturally large?

    Non-use of contraception, is not just religious, but also traditional. Large families have long been the norm. Some YouTube video shows Philippine children giggling at the demonstration of a family planning worker putting a condom onto a dildo or something, and BTW, doing it wrong, not pinching the semen resevour flat. Supposedly, the country is becoming overrun with too many people, but the country isn't really that full of people, and apparently, the people are quite used to letting their babies come as they come. Why spoil their innocence?

    And I am not influenced by the Catholic Pope, so much as by the possible logic of the Utilitarian Principle, that suggests that often the best thing to do, is that which most benefits the most people. I am not alone in recognizing the population growth implications of this, as I happened along some website, that also suggests that a growing population would allow more people to be around to benefit from whatever. Also, much of my persuation, is pro-life, in that I oppose the inhumanity cruelity of abortion. A world without abortion, of course, is a world more unable to "control" its growing human population. Which of course, is yet another reason why I oppose abortion, as I don't believe in imposing population "control" upon humans, and banning abortion helps insure that population "control" couldn't be all that effective, so why bother with such wicked deviousness?

    Well I do notice that the bigger urban areas more voted for the wicked Obama socialist, than the more sparsely-populated rural areas. But does that really mean cities are more wicked? Maybe, but it could be that cities are more trendy and less traditional than rural areas. Perhaps when it becomes obvious what a huge failure Obamanomics is, those urban areas will also turn against Obama and vote more conservative? Big cities tend to have more crime, but that varies from country to country. I think cities attract the criminal element, when liberals soften punishment of criminals. Cities may not breed more crime, but merely attract those wanting perhaps excessive anonymity to commit crimes. Some small towns can be cruel as well, but at least you know who are the people being cruel.

    But breeding more people does not make the world more wicked. Already, I suspec that the best candidates for having more children, are the ones most easily persuaded to have more children. Conservatives need to have more children, to take our country back from the liberal retards trying to take control of every level of government. And to let the world steadily grow more vast and dense with people, is the kind and compassionate answer to "How are we to have our children, in a world with so many people alive already?" Well we could obviously "scoot over" a bit, and find or make room for everybody. I would much rather that we naturally grow kind of "crowded," than to be mean to people without just cause.

    Some people may not necessarily be so drawn to big cities. Let people live where they want. But in the unlikely scenario of a world naturally growing so full of people, that big cities are about the only place left to absorb the growing population, then big cities start to look very attractive.

    BTW, I have been considering whether I should flee the U.S., as I have no confidence in this new crowd of socialists coming in, to do anything but make our rampant debt-induced economic crisis, anything but worse. Were I to move to another country, I would likely be drawn to a really big city, as I want to be sure to have easy access to the proper government facilities to quickly become a citizen, and make sure I can easily find gainful employment. Since cities are already designed to efficiently hold much people, the big city is attractive, especially if I emigrate to another country.

    I don't plan to teach my children the wickedness of the world, but rather to be kind and try to improve things, and to think of others. I imagine many of the other parents of possibly big families, tend to believe good things something similar.

    And I don't expect my children to starve. I would try to do my best to get them established, and most people with jobs, do tend to eat rather well, especially when they budget their money properly. Now as to suffering, that's another story. This fallen world, is full of suffering, of different degrees. People technically "suffer" from tiredness, and occasional hunger, until they can get home from work and fix dinner. While suffering can obviously be reduced somewhat, we can't eliminate it from this world.

    Read the book, Climate Confusion by Roy Spencer. Yes, I do understand it, that's why I am not suckered by the lies about it, nor worried about it, other than the hasty rush to bad policy supposedly based upon it.

    Mars is warming too, or was. How many factories and cars do we have on Mars? It's caused by natural cycles of the sun. Come on, I don't have room to address every junk-science claim here.

    I used to say, they can't prove there is any global warming, they can't prove it is significant, they can't prove that the effects would be dire, nor can they prove that there's anything reasonable we can do about it.

    What if, for the sake of argument, humanity was becoming so numerous, as to becoming a mighty "force of nature," even altering the climate. Why is this assumed to be "bad?" Humans aren't parasites upon the planet, but have more of a symbiotic relationship with nature, that nature welcomes. What if the planet was "warming up" to us. We so often have to wear coats, and with humans becoming more numerous, and humans so altering nature, nature could be becoming more human-friendly, all the more egging us to further increase our numbers, as in nature, most all life seeks to expand and fill most every available niche. In the movie Artificial Intelligence, I thought towards the end, the reason for the impending ice age, was that humans had disappeared, due largely to disfunctional degenerating social mores, and the robotic gigalos and robotic pretend children, replacing natural procreation. Without humans, nature had no reason to maintain a human-friendly environment, and so froze up, as if to "cry."

    Consider at the beginning of Genesis, the climate that God created, was apparently strangely warm. Adam & Eve at first, didn't even notice that they had been created naked. To be outside, in the Garden of Eden, without clothes, sounds like it must have been rather cozy warm.

    Have you not heard of all the winter ice storms this winter, in the news? Don't you notice how libtards define most everything to be global warming? If it's colder than usual, that's global warming. If there's to be no test that shows global warming to be false, then the term itself must logically be meaningless, if there's no way to disprove it, then if global warming is everything, then it's nothing. Don't believe their lying propaganda. I figure out long ago, that global warming, or "the greenhouse effect" they first were calling it, was a huge fraud. Isn't it awfully convenient that that which produces wealth, the burning of fuels to power machines or heat homes, usually releases CO2? So it's really an attack on free markets, and wealth creation. The alternative is to ban it, and go back to making animals and slaves do all our work. Do we really want to go backwards? Was there anything desirable about such poverty and servitude? But then, don't people and animals breathe out CO2 as well? Aha! Liberals won't be satisfied to shut down prosperity and business. Then when the people become poorer, then we must reduce population as well? Not!

    You do know there are other perspectives, other than the propaganda of population phobics, who incidently, probably make a lot of money selling their pathetic gloom-and-doom books and articles.

    But it's the people who live in some of the most populated regions, who are having the most children. Seems they think population increase is a great idea as well. I heard some story of some family planning workers in some village of Africa. When they warned the people, that at their present rate, they would double their numbers in 25 years, they all started clapping. Whoops! Seems somebody forgot to tell them, that Western contraceptive imperilists consider that to be "bad." Now are such "uneducated" people completely stupid? I think not. No doubt village elders notice the village growing, swelling with youth, getting bigger, and growing closer to the other nearby growing villages. But why should that necessarily be a problem, if the neighboring villages are also friendly? Quite many people, before they get all that stupid secular education, think it a good thing to allow the natural conversion of relatively cheap organic matter, or food, into additional human bodies, and for more of the land to be steadily being covered by people. People would naturally think it a good thing, for the villages to be growing larger and closer together, as that means the people are prospering, and human life is something special and remarkable, so of course humans should naturally be spreading and multiplying. People are among the most amazing of God's creatures, and so of course, let people grow all the more numerous, let the people be fruitful and multiply, towards allowing all the more people to experience life.

    I have read the population proganda claim, that the world only seems uncrowded, because the vast crowds those "empty" farmfields are growing crops for, are far away. Anyway, they say that "nature abhors a vacuum." So that suggests if or as populations grow elsewhere, were we to also grow our population at the same time, we help make sure that "vacuum" isn't too attractive to draw in immigrants. Also, a larger U.S. population would serve to "dillute" any inflow of immigration. I want for populations to increase dramatically elsewhere, so that all the more people may experience life, and so as to welcome people to have all their precious darling babies. But of course, all those reasons also serve to encourage population to grow dramatically, right here at home in our own country, and our own communities. It's a cooperative global goal, to enlarge the entire human race, for the greater good of the many.

    And whatever does terrorism have to do with anything? That is related to people-hating, of the sort that population phobics encourage, and religious fanaticism. Wait a minute, isn't that redundant? Population phobics are themselves religious fanatics.

    All countries should be expected to populate denser, especially with their own children, so as to do their part to help the planet hold lots more people. So it's cause for celebration, to hear of India, The Philippines, or wherever, their populations to increase dramatically. We should help them populate denser, share whatever needed technologies, encourage free markets, so that they can get the indoor flush toilets, electricity for refrigerators and clean gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens, that help make possible massive cities on confined islands and such. They can breed their children freely, by exploring how to populate themselves denser and denser, and sharing what they learn with the world, and vice versa, so as to populate the entire planet denser, for the greater good of the many.

    And global warming, isn't all gloom-and-doom either. Nature isn't a person, capable of seeking "revenge" against imaginary perceived "environmental" injustices. Did you know there are theories that aren't so gloom-and-doom? I have heard the idea that global warming could cause instability, that could sheer apart hurricanes and cause hurricanes to become less common. A pressure cooker isn't going to build up dangerous pressure, if you leave the top off, similar I imagine with unconfined, unrestricted human population growth. The natural bulging of pregnancy may be obvious, but need not be unhealthy nor threatening. Large cities could conceivably "bubble over" with people, naturally filling the surrounding land with people, and yet people can be happy and well adapted to the population being so much.

     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2009
  22. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    What if world population "stabilization" (stagnation) soon proves to be futile? Why not let the planet's swelling "pregnancy" progress naturally?

    Zero population growth, is a stupid pipe dream of liberal retards. It doesn't make sufficient consideration, of people's understandable desire and duty to have children. Nor of the inevitabilities of even "unplanned" but very much wanted "bonus" children that just naturally seem to occur.

    I have long supported proper use of technology and development, to help the various nations populate themselves denser with people, so that they can do their part to help the planet hold more people, especially their very own children.

    I welcome "unchecked" human growth in all countries, as more and more people would be glad to live, and parents have very good and compelling reasons to have as many children as they do. A more densely populated world, is the obvious answer, as to how people are supposed to have their precious darling babies, in a world with so many people alive already. Well there obviously could come to be, more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. That way, there can long be place for everybody and all their progeny.

    And what is this "breaking point" anyway? So often, people use it as some scare-tactic of supposedly dire consequences, but I see it more likely as some sort of "planetary birth" into a far better era. For the sci-fi buffs, perhaps humans spreading to colonize more worlds. For the Christians, more people to populate heaven.
     
  23. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    You're referring to sex, orgasm, etc. I assume. I wouldn't leave love and affection out of the equation, either.

    Food tastes good. It is pleasurable to eat foods one likes. That doesn't necessarily entail being a glutton, just because food is pleasurable to eat.
    Food is also far more necessary to sustaining life than sex is. Sex may facilitate procreation, but procreation by itself doesn't put food on the table, or fire in the hearth, or clothing on the body.
    By that same token, sex being pleasurable and the fact that male-female coupling leads to conception does not mean that one should do it endlessly.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You're simplifying a complicated subject.
    Not every man desires or enjoys sex with women. Not all women desire or enjoy sex with a man. Some people at least claim to have no desire for sex with anyone.
    Do you have experience in those areas? Or do you dismiss them as wrong, pure and simple? It's easy to say that one enjoys something, but it's far more difficult to say that someone else does or should enjoy it only because you do.


    According to accepted Christian tradition, neither Jesus nor Paul procreated that their seed may live. Did they therefore choose death?

    Many modern medical solutions to medical problems, contraception included, are not perfect or reliable. Does that make all of them totally useless and unworthy of consideration?

    Do you allow every urge that enters your mind to take its "natural" course?
    Do you ever exercise self-control? Do you ever consider external factors and consequences, or do you just do whatever you feel like doing, precautions be damned???

    People don't need to grow up in crowded houses and large families to have an incentive to share and care for other people.

    How do you ascertain whether someone is called to have children or not?
    Humans can be wondrous creatures, and they can also be the opposite.
    I have known many people who had children, sometimes by accident, that were not what I would consider good potential parents. For example, couples that break up shortly after a child is born.

    My question was why the undue focus on one of the earliest commands from God, according to the Bible in Genesis?
    I'm not trying to go too far into a religious, Biblical argument, but you are arguing from both a religious as well as Natural Law stance, so I'll play along.

    They MAY use birth control?
    Sex feeling good doesn't exactly justify it, especially not from a Biblical point of view, unless you're arguing from a different perspective.

    Fill the Earth? That was spoken to what most Bible-believers consider as the first couple ever created and living, long before we had a population that was capable of filling even 10% of the planet, give or take a few percentage points. Even liberal interpretations of that situation would say that the Earth wasn't filled at that point.

    I guess you'll have to go into greater detail about angels, and which humans will become such.

    Are you even for real?

    Keeping at least one of the commandments? Which commandments are you talking about? The Ten Commandments? The Levitical commandments? The New Testament commandments, whatever those are?

    Don't take away the one thing they do so well???

    Again I must ask, why does "Be fruitful and multiply" survive as a commandment while most other directives from the Old Testament either get thrown into the trash, or only receive passing mention from most professing Christians?
     

Share This Page