Are we really overpopulated?

That's why I say that more developing countries are growing so densely populated, that they need to modernize a bit, and adjust to having indoor flush toilets. You can't exactly go outside into an empty field to defecate anymore, when it has long since been filled in with human housing as far as the eye can see.

Human wastes are among the most readily biodegradable of wastes imaginable. Even useful as fertilizer, at least in some developing countries. They say the grass grows greenest, around the septic tank. So not even nature minds, when they are handled properly.

The trick is not to limit the growing volume of sewage or human wastes, but to make sure it is increasingly somewhat treated, and kept separate from drinking water, even though by sometimes artificial water treatment means. As some program on PBS, I recall said, it's not smart to poop in your drinking water.

I also forgot to say earlier, that human hives aren't really such a "radical" idea. If ever humans manage to colonize other worlds, because other worlds aren't readily habitable to humans, it would be a lot more efficient for humans to live in "hive-like" structures, with maximal volume inside, and minimal exterior surface area, to get the cost per capita down to a reasonable level. Just as with airplane flights, it's so much cheaper per capita, to run them "full." That means you would actually want, just about as many people packed into these "life support" buildings, as can reasonably be made to fit. So if anybody has an aversion to living in "human hives" or "population arcologies," it would probably be best for them to stay and breed here, upon the earth.

So just how crowded should spaceships be, anyway?​

One thing that I have given some thought to, is the living crew quarters on Star Trek; The Next Generation, upon their Enterprise spaceship. Why are they so spacious, and spartanly, simply furnished? There's not near enough "stuff" cluttering them all up, as would be seen of any "typical person's" house, on most any TV sitcom. Why do people of the future, not hoard and pile up stuff all over, like we do? I think their "replicators" are the answer to that. Why do you need bookcases and bookcases of books and DVDs, when it's all in the computers? Why do you need closets and closets of clothes, when you can just "replicate" clothes upon demand? How many cupboards does a person need, to store all their dishes, when their food comes out of a replicator, plate, utensils and all? Our homes often are overflowing with stuff, because we fear scarcity? So we hoard? Cheaper to just keep everything like a "packrat," than to have to go buy it again?

And yet, I consider, The Enterprise, just doesn't have quite enough full decks, to house their supposed 1000+ "small city" population upon that spaceship. I lived in a college freshman highrise dorm, for a year and a half, and it only held but 500 people, and that's at double-person room occupancy, and the bathroom down the hall, not directly off our dorm rooms. Presumably, The Enterprise doesn't have the luxury of Dr. Who's time travel spaceship, which is conveniently bigger on the inside, than on the outside. Must be some "extra dimensions" thing going on there? So how do they fit over 1000 people onto that "galaxy class" spaceship? Aha! A partial answer to my question, in some particular episode. Sure, the crew quarters are bigger than what an admiral would have had, not so long ago, in the view of Scotty I think it was, who they found stuck in a trasporter cycling pattern, I think was their excuse for bringing back an old actor. But that's for higher ranking bridge crew sort of folk, and for visitors, not for lower ranking personel. That particular episode, let it slip, that unless one has a certain rank, they usually have a roommate assigned to them, and they can request a different roommate assignment. Okay, the spaceship is just a bit more "crowded" than it normally seems. But at least people aren't bunking above and below one another, among the missile tubes, as in today's submarines.

In the future, we are told, biological wastes are the least of their worries. On the last franchise of the Star Trek sega, Enterprise, I recall some student in some spaceship/classroom hookup, asked, when you flush the toilet, where does it go? Into a "biomatter resquencer," I think the captain claimed, where it is refashioned into a boot, or whatever is needed. I think the living space, and the overall weight and speed of the spaceship, is among the more pressing concerns. Nobody's around counting toilet flushes, well unless that's a dusty old computer log file that nobody ever looks at?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I stand corrected, 5 acres it is (my source excluded the water expanses after all) - but who is really going to live floating on the sea?

However, the point remains the same; you need to look further than the space a person needs to actually sleep and eat in. What about the space to dispose of waste and everything else I mentioned before?

It's obviously an average, hence the use of the word 'average'. :wallbang:
Some people will need more, some less - I'm afraid that's the nature of statistics.
Yes and do those people living in these crowded and dirty places exist in anything else but poverty? Why are you so eager for the world to become like that all over?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Everybody can in fact, live in Texas with enough housing room, but we wouldn't want to, not just yet.​

You have to consider, that for now, humans are stuck in Earth's gravity well. It would be nice, if the planet were bigger, the land more spacious, if already there were other world colonies just a-begging for hoards of more people to fast move in. We might feel just a bit less "cramped" and perhaps a bit more optimistic about our various options. But we have to work with, what we have.

When I do my population-land area calculations, I rule out Antartica, because, who really wants to live there? Too cold. The most "underpopulated" continent upon the planet, for very good reason.

Who is going to live floating on the sea? I imagine lots of people, if that was the only place left to find more housing. Can you imagine the lucritive profitable markets for the latest technology floating cities? Presumably with well-proven more sink-proof technology than that of the Titanic. But even before that, firmly rooted population arcologies, vertical cities, population towers, start to look very attractive. If there lacks much seemingly available for overcrowded shantytowns to spread into, because greedy rich people and ridiculously huge wildlife refuges have selfishly hoarded so much of the land up, and their babies just keep right on coming, why not at some point, just simply, logically, start stacking people into the sky? Have bigger, more spacious housing units better suited for people's large families, with proper running potable water, flushing toilets, electricity, refrigerators, clean gas or electric cookstoves and microwave ovens, suitable anti-fire barrier walls and automatic firedoors, fire sprinkler systems, "recycling" of waste water. With the invention of air conditioning to insure that waste heat and body heat can be pumped out of the arcologies, now more so than ever, people really don't need "windows" in their housing units anymore, especially perhaps those looking for a cheaper housing deal. Windows can be virtual, selected from a range of webcams, so that quite many "windows" can look out upon the world's most beautiful (and still remaining) wild natural places, or upon city landscapes. Or windows can look out upon various common areas, restaurants, indoor parks for children to play in, or out onto vast crowds of humans. All those available technology things could be applied for better housing a vast and dense human population within a limited land space. Hypothetically, in a distant sci-fi future not really so probable, at least not within the forseeable future, vast human "hives" do perhaps start to look like a rather attractive option, for the supposedly improbable scenario in which so many people seem either unable or unwilling to curb their reproduction so much. I am not wrong to point out that there are technology options that quite many people could for various reasons, "religious," practical, freedom-loving, philosophical, etc., quite possibly consider very attractive alternatives to pushing the latest fad shoddy Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons.

I don't really think you need much space for disposing of wastes, and no doubt, waste disposal technology will improve. And humans have a weak sense of smell anyway. If the planet starts to smell more like human poop and urine, people would get used to it. If properly channeled to waste treatment plants, it would smell no worse than natural farm manure that I smelled as a child. I think it's the wild animals in ridiculously huge wildlife refuges that have more a problem with the rampant human scents wafting over the planet, as it marks the territory of the entire planet, for humans only, and signals them not to reproduce since they can't find any territory that seems their own. So why not humans also naturally spread into the wildlife refuges as well, since we use land so much more efficiently than other large mammals anyway. And let's be logical. RVs carry biological waste containers, so that your toilet and shower can operate even while driving down the road. Do they stink? Usually not. So proper waste treatment probably does tend to somewhat control "odors" as well.

Landfills aren't really all that big, compared to all the urban space, around 2 or 3% of land area, occupied by cities. I am too much a packrat. But if I was to just "keep everything," and put all my trash in my basement, it would easily fit. Not suggesting that, but on a per capita basis, trash isn't really all that significant. Closed landfills are useful for parks and parking lots, but not the most ideal place for building buildings on top of, due to land settling, although it is possible.

I heard a story some time ago, that some "family planners" warned some African village, that at the rate they are growing, they will have twice as many people in 25 years. To which they all started clapping. Whoops! Looks like somebody forgot to tell the people, that Western contraceptive imperilists consider that to be "bad." Now are these supposedly more "primitive" or less-educated people, completely stupid? I don't think so. I suspect older village elders, probably do notice the growing numbers of youth, that the village is growing bigger and filling with people, spreading over more of the land, and that other nearby villages are doing the same thing, and the gaps in between them, are somewhat shrinking. There's more people alive, and all the more young people naturally having all the more babies. People are naturally growing more numerous, and the land steadily growing more "crowded" with people. But these are more pronatalist cultures than we are now. That take pride in large family size. I think it's largely because they still think it a very good thing, for humans to prosper and become more numerous. Why fear that neighboring villages are also growing, if the people are friendly and perceived to be little or no threat? Even when people live simply sometimes, life is good, people enjoy being alive. And all the more people enjoying being alive, is a very good thing.

Understandably, most freedom-loving Americans, don't like for China to have a 1-child policy. We have people at my current Church, who have adopted babies from China. (BTW, those "foreign"-looking children are cute and precious also. It's fun to watch them run around and play.) Adopting parents at my Church, consider that, as I am told, China is giving its blessings away, as we are blessed raising their children, rather than China. Aren't we "undercutting" China's cruel 1-child tyranny, undermining their supposed population "control," by helping China export globally its naturally-growing "surplus" population? Some of these Chinese children still get to live, and will within a few decades, be reproducing here in the U.S., while many 100 millions continue to also reproduce in China. 1.3 billion Chinese people, in the world, isn't enough? What if we count all the Chinese people living in other countries, perhaps having become citizens of those countries? And then there's the undercounting theorists, who claim the world may already have some 7.5 billion or 8 billion people, and China have not 1.3, but maybe 1.5 or 1.6 billion? Don't we know that wicked communist regimes and stupid politicians can't count? How many countries are babies born into, where their births aren't always recorded upon paper, and yet these people live? Maybe there's close to 2 billion Chinese people in the world, but maybe not all are 100% Chinese, but of mixed breeding?

Anyway, my point I wish to make, is that we Americans understandably criticize China for denying their people their children. As we similarly don't want to be told how many children we may have. Until commie Clinton got elected, under the supposedly pro-life Reagan administration, Chinese people could expect to be granted political assylum for fleeing forced abortions in China. Must have been a rather huge "embarassment" to the wicked Chinese "government." Makes us look quite a lot more "civilized" than them. So let's say, hypothetically, the U.S. and China sit down to a philosophical discussion. China says, "Easy for you to enjoy having unlimited children, you don't have over a billion people within your borders. We do. Would you still be so prolife, if you had over a billion people too?" What's the correct answer to this hypothetical question? Obviously, it should be Yes, we would still welcome people to enjoy having "all the children God gives," or respect that people often should be trusted and allowed to make reasonably many of their own decisions. So this of course, is a reason why I don't "shame" China for having such a "huge" population, and I welcome them to build their 1 or 3 coal-fired electricity power plants a week, as they are currently doing. They have a vast and dense human population, that has many needs, and of course more housing, with air conditioning and cars, should be built. They are human beings with many rights and duties, too. People have been living in Asia for quite many 1000s of years, so it's quite understandable that their populations could naturally have become rather "huge" by now. That doesn't obligate them to use unnatural "birth control" any more so, than anybody else.

I don't even think that a 1-child policy was China's idea to begin with. I think Western contraceptive imperilists leaned upon China, to get its burgeoning human population, more "under control," for fear of "as goes China, so goes the world." If the world's most populous country can't get a handle upon its surging human populationg growth, what does that portend for the future of the planet? But I already advocate a more vastly and densely populated planet, to better insure ample place and acceptance for all our progeny, so I don't fear that surging human population growth in China, sets an example of encouraging growth, and perhaps seemingly becomes surging overall worldwide population growth.

Are we "better" than they? No, I think human population growth, ultimately is a global phenonomen anyway, as political boundaries are sort of arbitrary, the more real confines, would be the deep gravity well of the planet. Currently, about one third of the world population, already lives in a country with over a billion people within its borders. Not just China, but some 12 years later, now also India. To me, that suggests a possible "trend" indicating that we should accept and expect that we now live in a bit of a populous age now. That so many people, live in such populous countries, does suggest that it is quite possible for people to with today's technology, live in countries with around an acre of land per person, or potentially perhaps much less land per person. I'm not at all trying to take people's land away nor to "crowd" them together needlessly, just defend the immense and sacred value of each and every human life, since the very moral and understandable pro-life position, does absolutely nothing to reign in naturally-burgeoning global population growth. Then, wouldn't it be prudent, for at least some prolifers, to actually make an effort to explain, why continued population growth of humanity is a very good thing to encourage anyway? Quite many people are disgusted at the barbaric practice of abortion. But without abortion, it becomes nearly impossible practically to "control" human population growth. Imagine all the "accidental" pregnancies that can occur, that might actually been deliberate in some way? A few possible "excuses" for "unauthorized" pregnancies (where abortions generally aren't allowed): The condom broke, leaked, slipped off, didn't think it was that time of the month. When actually, quite many couples don't like to use condoms to begin with. Many prolifers don't like to use contraception either, for various practical and religious reasons, and because both contraceptive use and abortion are of the same selfish mentality and irrational "modern" fear of possible pregnancy. Quite many prolifers are smart enough to realize that encouragement of contraceptive use, leads to abortion, as most all contraceptives have admitted "failure" rates. At a recent Walk For Life, to benefit our local Pregnancy Care Center, a guy I talked with a bit during the walk, said they don't use any birth control and have 4 children. Technically, in their specific case, the next generation is already twice as large, and still they may have more children. That's an example of what I mean by respecting the natural flow of human life unhindered. Just welcoming babies to push out as they come, making no effort at all to unnaturally "limit" the proper population size of the naturally-growing human race.

It's not just China, but we in the U.S., should set a good example for a growing world of people, by growing ourselves, and showing the world how it is best done.

I read where somebody said on some webpage or blog, something about villages in Africa haphazardly growing into small towns. I am glad to hear of the villages growing. I do think there's quite many gaps between the various villages and cities that could easily absorb lots more people, with better-designed pro-population development. I think they rather actually like naturally growing more numerous. I am glad to hear that all the more fellow human beings can experience life. What concerns me then, is the "haphazard" part. Can't humans more intelligently anticipate the growth, and make some sensible plans to welcome and better ACCOMODATE it? Properly lay out the additional streets where new houses and apartment buildings should go up, prevent erosion. Work to include more people in the economy, reduce taxes upon growing families, put in water mains and sewer lines and storm drains, build beautiful and sometimes also incredibly populous cities and towns. I believe the pronatalist mindset helps keep us on the proper track of both welcoming our natural increase, and making sure we do somewhat better in planning to ADAPT and prepare for it.

Even overcrowded shantytowns can somehow hold more people, and that families continue to grow, does rather prove that already overcrowded family rooms/huts/shanties can in fact, hold even more people. Children want very much to come alive and be welcome to be born, even if into already rather large families or into overcrowded shantytowns. I hear that poor people are often just as happy as we are. However, more population + more poverty, is not the ideal combination. More population + more prosperity, contrary to the propaganda of certain radical "environmentalists," really is the ideal. People with wealth and technology, can more easily ADAPT to high population levels, having both high population, and possibly clean and beautiful and gleeming, surviving and thriving cities. In an article I read some time ago, "Supercities: Growing Pains of the Population Crisis," it cited that the number of women of childbearing age, as being higher than it has previously been, as a prime factor as to why there is so much world population now, and why more cities are growing into the millions and 10s of millions. Can there be much better of a reason, to build "supercities," than that the world now finds itself with so many billions of fertile women, many quite eager and yearning to reproduce, many coming from large families themselves? They say that the world now has a billion teenagers. I imagine many came from large families and may also want large families. There's still plenty of room that can be found or made, for people's possibly large families. Sure, it would be nice, if humans could spread to more worlds, but for now, it's so much easier and cheaper, to find more space for more families, upon this one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I am not being tactically selective about your post, I just found a large percentage to be off-subject drivel. Overall you are not looking at this from a rational, scientific and economic point of view, but a religious one. The line 'go forth and multiply' was written when the world was a much emptier place.

I have pieced together the relevant information that actually addressed my point, and here is my response:

I can't understand why you see that as a favourable position to be in; to be so madly overcrowded that the world's land mass can no longer contain our cankerous masses? Let's go back to the OP: 'are we really overpopulated?'

Overpopulation refers to when an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat. In common parlance, the term usually refers to ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulated

Billions of people breeding have a lot of momentum, we may be able to just about support our current numbers but do you think we are going to find an optimum and stop? The world's human population has increased from thousands to billions and is growing now faster than ever. How are we going to support these people?

I wasn't just talking about waste.

Hence you missed the essential point. Even if it is physically possible to pack people in to every square inch of the globe, how are they going to live? Where's the land going to come from to support them?

Yes, another 'source' you heard a conveniently long time ago and can't actually prove exists

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It sounds to me as if they thought he was predicting a prosperous next 25 years in terms of rain, crops and livestock. What the 'family planner' failed to include in his warning was that the community would not be able to support this new boom in people. I can draw a lot of parallels between you and that tribe of Africans.

China says do they? Typical strawman.

[Citation needed]
So it had nothing at all to do with the government foreseeing a food, water, housing etc. crisis?
THINK of a possible reason why a government would want less people. After all, it's a larger workforce and army.

 

I don't expect people to respond to every point I make, because even I often don't respond to every point. Not to say it's off-topic necessarily, but I may not respond, because I simply have nothing I want to add, or leave it for somebody else to make their observations upon. Or I might not respond, to something that I feel I have already expressed enough as much as I want already. Or because my post is already too long, or my time I have to reply before I have to do something else, is constrained.

I am well aware that Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, was written during a time when the planet was quite "empty" of people. But consider the practicalities. Today's "burgeoning billions" do not at all, prevent humans from being able to multiply further. Not only can people enjoy having their "traditionally very large" families in the spacious countryside, where presumably as people used to say, "farmhands" are needed anyway, but people can also enjoy having their big families in the big, growing cities. Humans having multiplied so much in the past, hasn't reduced the powerful human reproductive urges, but rather spread them to all the more people. They say that humans are among the horniest of God's creatures. Somebody just the other day, on some forum somewhere, maybe here?, said that people love to have sex, and so we may soon top 10 billion people. Perhaps those who tend to have or like having large families, or who give birth to babies easily, are spreading their genes throughout the human population, all the faster? Nature obviously favors those who reproduce, and natural increase is apparently quite natural for humans. Anyway, there's some practical reasons why so many people tend to believe that Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, is still so relevant for today's populous world.

What is the logical reason for such a commandment, or "tradition," if you don't want to properly respect the religious component? Have you ever heard of the Utilitarian Principle? It claims that often the best thing to do, is that which most benefits the most people. I am not alone in noticing, that a larger population would benefit more people, merely by having all the more people around to benefit from whatever, for I read of the population growth implications on some website somewhere. So then, what would be the "optimum" or "ideal" size of human population, if humans can even determine such things? It wouldn't at all be small and pidly, as some population phobics like to opine, to hear themselves talk and pretend like they are smart, but more on the order of being or naturally becoming "nearly as large as possible." Because more people would benefit, because "too many" people are benefitting from families that tend to grow "large," are practical reasons why I advocate large families worldwide, and insist that the most populous regions of the world should discourage use of any means of "birth control," and more respect the natural flow of human life unhindered. Also out of respect for the immense and sacred value of each and every human life, people's rights, and towards that even growing human populations must be properly ACCOMODATED. These are not merely "religious" reasons, but also practical and philosophical. About showing some respect, that people should be able to make their own decisions, and that Big Brother government can't do or decide everything for them.

I know full well, that quite many places throughout the world, already have "more than enough" people, in some respects. Do we really "need" more people cluttering up the landscape, needing so many things, needing jobs, producing more and bigger landfills? Does more people always make countries easier to govern? But my aim isn't the minimal needs to staff the socialist machine state, as if people were but worthless cogs or pawns in a cruel system that only considers the collective, or more accurately, a few filthy rich elites at the top, who tend to only want enough unquestioning peon slaves under them, so that they themselves don't have to do any productive work. Why I say that most any place could absorb so many many more people, is because that's what the people seem to want, and what benefits them. The vast majority of people in the world, aren't finished having their children. Large youthful populations, will soon want still more children of their own. More and more people would be glad to live. These are very worthy reasons, to explore how to populate the planet a whole lot denser. By expecting the various nations to populate denser, so many more people may fit upon the planet. And I am speaking of primarily by natural increase, people's very own children, not so much necessarily, of migration. I try to sell the people what they already want, because I am kind and not deceptive, and I believe truth to be on my side. If people are either unable or unwilling to stop reproducing so much, then to some degree, they will simply have to live and breed in closer proximity to their many neighbors, on the global scale at least. I am a natural introvert, and yet that doesn't mean I fear crowds, merely I don't do all that many things to cause me to seek the crowds. But if the people are friendly, what does it really matter if there be many people close by?

Sure, I love sci-fi ideas of humans naturally spreading to more worlds. Why keep "all our eggs in one basket," so to speak? But I admit that exporting "surplus" population to more worlds, doesn't appear to be a very realistic option within the near future. So I advocate what's even much easier and cheaper. Let's more finish colonizing this planet that we are on, and let/encourage our populations to just naturally grow denser and denser, and then maybe explore adding additional worlds much later, if ever humans find feasible ways to do so, if they even want to?

World population is actually quite small, compared to what it could potentially be, or perhaps ultimately become. They say that to "stabilize" (stagnate is more like it), world population size, couples on average must limit themselves to a paltry 2.1 children per couple. I find that paltry small compared to what could best suit many families. At such a level, half of children would be born to parents with little or no experience raising children. That doesn't seem so much a "good" thing to me. Shouldn't the parents having children, have more experience raising children, than that? A more "stabilized" world, would also tend to be more dull and boring. And mathmaticaly or statistically, it takes an average of 3 children, just to get both a boy and a girl. I certainly don't believe in the sort of "sex selection" discrimination that appears to be one of the many faults of China's barbaric 1-child tyranny.

The land masses should easily contain the growing human masses at least well into the forseeable future, especially if people would have enough sense to stop voting for socialist tax-and-spend corrupt politicians, and vote for conservatives that value family and fiscal responsibility.

I do not agree with the Nazi or Adolf Hitler eugenics position, of getting rid of most all the outsiders in the way, to obtain more growing room for a nation's own population. No, most all "outsiders" would consider that blantantly unfair. I don't agree with man pretending he has so much wisdom as to try to push that much "control" upon nature, including the nature of our own natural increase. No, I am no eugenist. Any moral people must conclude, that we have to let "everybody" reproduce, as we were apparently designed to. History since WW2 has indeed showed that nations can multiply their numbers dramatically, without adding additional growing room, and that by so doing, the technology naturally progresses towards better supporting such densification. 2008 is supposed to be about the year, at which the globes tips towards more people now living in cities, than in the countryside. And yet, cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. How can this be? Apparently, people are finding benefits to city life, and preferring to live in cities. I imagine it could also be partly due to natural population growth, in that human bodies are also naturally becoming somewhat closer together, and most people don't want to be the first to move out to "the middle of nowhere" where there aren't yet the modern conveniences such as a low wages always handy Wal-Mart within but 10 or 15 minutes driving distance from where they live.

I don't imagine that the political boundaries for nations were drawn "fairly," and land was often acquired by questionable means. But we can't "give land back" to the original countries, because that wouldn't be fair to those who settled there, investing into living there, thinking they would remain citizens of their countries. That logically implies, that we must allow people to go on multiplying, REGARDLESS of how "crowded" they may seem to be getting. Migration is a useful population accomodation tool, but due to political realities, migration is sometimes somewhat limited. But what country really is "solid city" other than maybe the tiny island nation of Singapore?, where they encourage people to have more children BTW.

But you can't apply such biological terms to humans, because humans also have powerful ability to alter their environment to hold more people. Thus, there is no clear fixed "limit" as to just how many people the land can hold, a practical reason to side with parents and defend their God-given and natural ability/desire to reproduce.

I know there's quite a lot of human reproductive momentum, that's all the more reason to advocate for natural, "unstrained" global population growth. How can world leaders, if they have any care for the rights and sensibilities of the people they are supposed to be serving, imagine that they can possibly "regulate" the numbers of babies that can push out of billions of fertile human birth canals?

When I "discovered" the global population concern, while in college, I thought it rather curious that world population was not at all "static" in size, and naturally unstable towards steady and relentless growth, adding each billion people faster and faster. Like quite many people, I suppose I though world population to be rather large, but sort of steady in size, as people are born, and people die, every day. But these days, for each person who dies, 3 more are born to "replace" him or her. Well we do celebrate birthdays, do we not? I read in a secular college textbook, typical scare-tactics, like at current rates, it may not be long before we all reach "standing room only conditions," and studied their graph of how the numbers of years to add another billion, was getting shorter with each billion, and their photo of "baby 5 billion." But at the library, I found also many books and articles, talking of the good and optimistic side of human population growth "progress." I soon found the pessimistic side, far less than convincing, besides, isn't it rather cool that so many more people are coming alive, and that there must be quite many people enjoying sex, among other things?

So the world isn't "static" after all? But wouldn't people in tune with what the Bible says, already know that? Who really believes that humans would forever live upon this planet anyway, but the secular atheist evolutionalists? Not only does such a wicked worldview underly the communist purges of Stalin, and so many historical atrocities, but also the entire global depopulation agenda as well. But most people seem too intellectually lazy to "connect the dots" and see the big picture.

There's also more practical concerns. Ever hear of the very real concern of "population competition?" I read that the depopulation agenda isn't working so well in India, as groups fear becoming swamped by other growing groups, in terms of political power. If we don't want for Western freedom-loving culture to dominate the world much longer, which would you prefer in its place? Islam? Hindus outmultiplying us? Most all religions encourage large families. If you don't have many children, other people still will, right? I would like to have a large family possibly, if or as I can. I don't like any of the proposed methods of "birth control." They are all unnatural and awkward. I believe the world can easily find or make room for my possibly large family. Is it "fair" for me to have a large family, and other people to have smaller families, so that there's enough space and stuff to go around? Well I believe my right to enjoy having a large family, is more naturally and assuredly protected, in a society of commonly large families. If I may morally have a large and naturally-growing family, then why not everybody else in the world enjoy "unlimited" babies as well? So that's what I propose. Don't believe all of Big Pharma's misrespresentations as to their side-effect-ridden shoddy experimental contraceptive potions and poisons. If quite many people, for whatever reasons, don't want to, or fail to, regularly use some form of birth control, then we can expect over time, already "huge" human populations to grow dramatically. So that's what I propose we prepare to accept and to ADAPT to. But such growth, isn't merely steady and relentless, but also actually rather gradual, and predictable in the short-term at least, giving supposedly intelligent humans, AMPLE time to prepare and ADAPT.

Do I expect humans to find an optimum and stop? Not really. I do believe there are natural mechanisms that already regulate population growth in nature, that we don't even hardly begin to understand, as rarely do you see "skinny" squirrels or birds, and yet they have no contraceptives. But maybe humans are somewhat "immune" to some of those mechanisms. Even "crowded conditions" don't appear to put much any damper upon our reproduction. But since it is God who gave humans the commandment to multiply and fill the earth, that logically implies it is also God's responsibility to determine our population size for us. And God has already clearly indicated his will in this. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That implies to me, that it would be best generally, for humans not to use any birth control, and to welcome as "blessings from God" "all the children God gives." Respect the body's reproductive rhythms, and after marriage, enjoy sex, and let babies push out naturally, making no effort at all, to limit how many nor to "space" them. Don't fight the body's efforts to become pregnant. Women having periods are the result of the body trying and failing to achieve pregnancy upon that cycle. An already-occupied womb, and natural breastfeeding of small infants not ready for more solid food, is more natural and elegant means of naturally "spacing" or pacing babies.

People don't need to stop growing their populations, for the future will make it clear, when to stop, when people become as the angels, as foretold in Luke 20, where people aren't given into marriage for eternity. I don't think angels reproduce, do they? It's up to God. But if it's up to nature more, as some people may try to say, then don't you suppose, that it's only a matter of time, regardless, before humans eventually manage to "outgrow" the planet, giving "birth" to a far better era, of population-fueled technology growth leading to humans spreading to more worlds?

How are we going to support so many people, as there is already getting to be? Get back to our Christian roots. Get back to morality. Even atheists understand what "morality" is, to some extent, don't they? Stop stealing from the working poor with tax-and-spend socialism, with earth worship radical "environmentalism." More people, at least for now, requires more oil drilling, and more coal-fired electricity power plants. More hydro-electric dams. More nuclear power plants. Perhaps even some additional water desalination plants, to insure plenty of water for people even in the most dry regions of the planet. We have to produce and develop, as the world population continues to grow "huge" and ever denser. Maybe only to 9 or 10 billion, as demographers predict, but even if so few, so many people will need additional housing and jobs and stuff.

I figure that China must now have some 350 or 450 million women of childbearing age, quite many of whom still yearn for their "traditionally very large" families, even if they happen to live in the big city. What they much need then, is lots of babies. They have just as much right/duty, to enjoy having their children, as anybody else, as Americans do. I do not ask that they use any form of birth control neither expect them to. I consider the human reproductive system, much the same as any other vital part of the body. I no more expect people to use birth control, than to stop eating or to stop breathing. They say you can't stop people from having sex. Oh really? Then why don't "they" complete the idea? You can't stop people from having babies either. Until very recently, family size was thought to be "uncontrollable." Now with a bewildering array of contraceptive "options," they keep inventing more because all the previous have all been found to be shoddy, why should it have changed? Why don't we still consider family size to be "uncontrollable" then? Did the "family planning" pushers do such a thorough con job of deception, that we have come to believe, that human society just couldn't function without their shoddy Big Pharma, make us to be like experimental lab rats, awful, contrary to nature, contraceptives? And now all the still more pronatalist than us, developing countries, must also be "educated" to scheme contrary to nature, to reduce the natural, typically "large" size of their families?

People aren't thinking so clearly upon the matter of natural human population growth, because of the excessive popularization of fatalistic gloom-and-doom "environmental" predictions. But there is a whole another side to the debate.

"The world is getting smaller. Smell better." an old Hugo cologne commercial

Why exactly couldn't it be that easy? If human bodies are indeed having to populate a bit closer together, globally, why not just overlook a little "body odor" or to-be-expected things, say like more mothers perhaps feeling free to breastfeed in public? Why not reaffirm the social graces, and hold doors open for strangers, and remind ourselves to use turn signals and be more polite? Since there's so many people around and maybe we can't get much away from them? Make them our friends. What if it turns out that we CAN'T stop multiplying? Isn't that all the more reason, to sometimes welcome nature to take its course and make the best of things? And to seek more to tap the mighty "force of nature" that human reproduction could seem to be becoming, for good, rather than whine and complain counterproductively?

If you would care to specify, I might comment on those other points as well. I really don't think that massive human populations, even spoil the scenery so much either, as big cities are themselves, a form of possibly natural beautiful scenery, that I consider can be natural enough, since big cities may presumably be necessary to help the planet continue to absorb the continued natural increase of humanity.

Isn't it just maybe possible, to leave some such questions to future generations to figure out? That's part of the arrogance of man. He just has to pretend to understand it all "right now." And yet even large families, learn how, by doing. Many TV heros at least, such as Indiana Jones and MacGyver, learn how, on the fly, while doing it.

Already, quite many people have little or no land of their own. Is every person who lives in some highrise condo or apartment, poor and suffering? Not at all, or at least, not any more so, than was common generations ago when the population was much smaller.

Have you no imagination? Even distopian sci-fi futures, aren't really so distopian as they may first appear, since sci-fi is but only a suggestion of what may be to come, not at all really an accurate prediction. Even Star Trek had to radically improve its view of the future, as computers advanced and became more user-friendly. No more cold mechanical box voiced computers, talking on the level of just a highly advanced calculator. The computer voice sounds more soothing, almost human now. Computer displays are sleeker and easier to use. Voice command computers are commonplace in the sci-fi future now. The PS2 video game, Project Eden, had a few ideas what an extremely populous future might look like. Towering buildings casting the ground level into near darkness. Synthetic "real meat" growing in tanks. Actually, it didn't appear crowded. And the "overpopulation" was really largely an excuse to avoid having to make the more complicated "natural" scenes in favor of easier polygons of squarish buildings.

Apparently, the "less educated" people are actually more optimistic, that certain problems will be solved. I strangely find it so much easier to explain my well-informed pronatalist views, to more simple common working people, than to the highly "educated." Simpler people raise fewer objections, and they more understand. People of faith similarly are inclined towards large families. Secular "education" is apparently more harmful to people, and their outlooks upon life, than people realize.

Poverty, generally isn't caused by growing numbers of people, but by Marxist African dictators, bad government, and foolish tribal warfare. Surely the people must notice that the numbers of mouths to feed is rising, but they are finding and producing the more food they need.

You seemed to miss the whole point of what I said. To people naturally already more pronatalist, they are inclined to see rising numbers of people as "good," not "bad." I was questioning the Western moralistic conceit, that opines that population growth must always be "bad," and suggesting that we make just a little more effort to understand and accept other cultures, actually, the good of other cultures. I am not some "multicultural" liberal, trying to bring in all the failures of other cultures and false religions, as some "trojan horse" to corrupt our culture. But pro-life and pro-population aren't just "other culture" ideas, but also American ideals. So I think we can relearn from other cultures, that breastfeeding babies in public is actually okay, especially for mothers more relaxed about letting their families grow possibly quite large, or as we sometimes find ourselves in situations of there being many people in most every room, say like on airplanes or buses or waiting rooms.

That's not a strawman argument, that's merely a "gross simplification" of the political/human rights battle. If we Americans say that China should not have a 1-child policy, then we should stick to what we say, even as we hypothetically find our own nation, rising to over a billion Americans. Unless we want to admit to our "hippocrasy." The U.S. is populated to just over half, the average global population density, so we have significant room to grow our numbers, by that standard alone. We have the right to allow ourselves to grow as densely populated as China, as China continues to "crowd the world" and let their population rise to the level of the entire world, not so long ago. I can imagine a China of 5 billion people. If the supposedly superior communist system of top-heavy micromanaging "government" can't figure out how to build closely-spaced rows of highrises, or whatever they think might help them properly absorb their natural increase, then shouldn't they humble themselves and resign, and let somebody else do it, or carve up their ridiculously huge empire, into smaller, more automous states?

Did I explain my theory as to where 1-child really came from, Western contraceptive imperilists leaning upon China to get its burgeoning population more "under control," for fear of "as goes China so goes the world?" But isn't it already largely becoming "too late" for such scheming to set freedom-robbing precidents for the entire globe? Now, thanks to there being not only 1, but now 2 "population billionaire" nations, now India also, a billion people just doesn't seem like so many anymore. Something like a little pocket change. We Americans hardly even seem to notice, that we are growing a bit "large" ourselves, the U.S. being the 3rd most populous nation in the world. We have just over 300 million officially, closer to a third of a billion, than to a quarter of a billion, which doesn't seem like all that long ago. I already advocate a more populous planet, so I don't have any problem with China and India perhaps portending a "as goes China so goes the world" population "example." But I would like to think we would develop for population growth, a lot better than they did, without all the poverty. Poverty encourages population growth, but there are far better factors than poverty, useful for encouraging population growth. As I read on some website, challenging perhaps the typical mischaracterization of the "Demographic Transition" theory, there is nothing about having money in one's pockets that magically sterilizes the reproductive organs. Yeah, just ask Israel, which is both modern and developed, where large families are still common. Wealth doesn't necessarily slow population growth, wealth could even help it along, as I have heard a conspiracy theory that the income tax was invented, lest Americans think themselves to be becoming so rich, that they would be more inclined to commonly have more large families.

Why do you need a citation? Didn't I say from the start, that it is my theory. So the citation would be myself. But consider, commie chairman Mao, who the Chinese still pretent to honor with large posters and stuff, said that a large and growing population would make China strong. Maybe, maybe not, I say. Maybe it makes them more needy. But at least it makes for all the more people around to experience life. China is going against tradition, and against their commie heros, to try to "limit" family size. That does sort of suggest the prospect of "outside inteference," to anybody with an inquiring mind, who wants to know how things really are, and with enough courage to delve below the typical media propaganda manufactured to placate the mindless gullible drones. And don't you know anything of NWO conspiracy theories and "secret societies," how they scheme to manipulate the globe? My theory would at least explain a lot, that otherwise just doesn't quite seem to add up. Or did Mao just simply know nothing of demographic theory, of how many 100s of millions of naturally-multiplying people, would in a matter of decades, naturally eventually top a billion? Now if you want to go research the matter, and tell me if there is some validity to my theory, be my guest. No doubt I may research the matter, but maybe later, as I prepare to write my book(s) someday.

Not really. The natural incentives with business and government, that is, if they care anybody about the people, or even about maybe (exploiting) the people, are for more population. More people is more customers, more taxpayers, more profits, more military power, more superpower status among the world, vaster more impressive nations and empires.

Housing crisis? That's pretty much a no-brainer. Just build more homes, more cities, more buildings. Homes can be built of practically anything that can long withstand the weather. Fired clay, brick, metal, wood, concrete, plastic, glass—those materials are actually incredibly abundant. China is already building a lot more housing, which is good for jobs, BTW. Aren't many so-called "environmentalists" actually sort of publically worried about the fast pace of construction booms going on in places like China and India? Isn't that a reason for the recent spike in certain costs of copper and maybe concrete?

China's food crisis was caused, not by adding people, but by government manipulation of collective farms, which undermined any individual incentive to do the necessary work, and an insane obsession with catching up with Western steel production. Which exposes the folly of letting politicians make too many decisions better made by free markets. If everybody is trying to make stupid steel quotas, and nobody's producing any food, what might be the result? Uh, duh?

Actually, doesn't it seem that some tree hugger, earth worshiping "environmentalists" fear that humans are solving too many problems, leading naturally to supposedly an uncomfortably "overcrowded" planet? Could that maybe explain why radical "environmentalists" don't often appear to actually like solving any problems?

"Environmental" propaganda could be one reason. Idiots pretending to be "scientists" and using that as a handy soapbox to air their anti-population opinions. Also, underlying manipulation and economic coercion of power-mad globalists.

You really need to look into some of the conspiracy theory lore. In the movie 1984, there's the idea that (wicked) governments need to manufacture some sort of phony crisis to keep people from questioning their own government, and keep them in line. In the past, fear of the commies or the "Red Scare" might have sufficed. When nations fear other nations, people can be motivated to get by with less, so as to build up costly militaries and such. Weren't War Bonds "patriotic?" Now I am not saying that some parts of this might actually be legitimate. But the scare of other nations, seems to fade, with all this talk of a NWO or New World Order, in which countries increasingly merge their economies and surrender sovereignity, a thing that quite many conservatives insist is a very bad and troubling trend. So what can we "scare" the people into line with now? How about aliens from another world, invading our world? Ha! The movies have made that into such a joke! How is that possibly a credible "threat" anymore? Besides, we now know that Vulcans and Klingons probably have little interest in invading us anyway. So what remains? The environment. Just enough truth about environmental problems, to scare people, with distortions of imagined but unnecessary gloom-and-doom. Already the "population bomb" has lost much of its "shock value," and yet it hasn't faded completely yet. People are coming to accept, that it's just normal and nature for our planet to hold an incredibly "huge" human population. World population growth is often already just another factor to design around. But unlike the pessimists, I believe huge population is an incredible resource to tap, and not hardly "the end of the world as we know it." I say huge population is reason for more development, not for more global whining and anti-family contraceptive pushing.

 

Still hoping.

 

Son of a bitch that's a long post up there.

Like the longest post ever.

Son of a bitch!

 

Appeals to authority, appeals to tradition, begging the question. As Truman Capote said of Jack Kerouac's On The Road, "That's not writing, that's just typing."

 

An anology about MORALIZING hypocrisy. I hope at least somebody can understand it?​

Uh, don't forget going with the natural flow of nature, in at least what benefits man.

And I might as well bring up the matter of "religious hypocrisy." How is it, that somebody would accuse me of supposedly "inserting religion" into a supposedly "scientific" discussion, when it's mostly a religious question on the thread name to begin with?

Look at all the liberals religiously MORALIZING as to whether other people ought to be allowed to have so many children as they themselves, nature, or God, would seem to determine.

I don't know if it will do any good, as I don't know if my personal interpretation will be very readily transferable here, but I shall give it a try. While watching the "Homeward" episode, I think it was, of Star Trek TNG, I was particularly impressed by some small aspect of it, that most people may have missed. This guy who is Worf's human brother, a human sibling of the human couple that took Worf in after the Kitamir massacre, and raised a Klingon child as their own, was the culture watcher on some planet, hiding behind some holographic blind, so as to not disturb the development of the primitive culture of the world he was watching. Relates to the Star Trek (non-interference) "Prime Directive." But when some "plasmotic" reactions started destroying the atmosphere, in a matter of days, he led the people of this one village into the caves, and set up a deflector shield to protect them from the solar radiation. He had dropped out of Starfleet after only a year, not so good at following all their rules. He sent out a distress call, and that's how Worf and the Enterprise came by to help. Captain Piccard gave some pitiful speech about there being supposedly nothing they could do, as all life on the planet naturally ended, while Worf's brother (yeah, I forget his name okay?) got on a computer terminal doing something, and we soon learn that he not only knows his way around the computers quite well, but has beamed the village people up into the holodeck, cave (simulation) and all. As they were conveniently asleep, they never noticed the transfer.

Neither Captain Piccard nor Worf, at first, are much pleased about having been roped into a rather uncomfortable situation. What are they going to do with those people now? Well of course, something soon goes wrong. Seem the plasmotic reactions are playing havok with the Enterprise's spaceship systems, and the holodeck is having trouble maintaining the integrity of the simulation. To fix it, the entire holodeck system really needed to be rebooted, which would take way too long to avoid exposing the simulation "deception" should I call it? Worf's brother suggests that he can lead the people through the caves, and that they can program the holodeck to gradually change them to match the new planet they drop these people onto. The village's history keeper, dropped a piece of his chronical back somewhere in the caves. Worf I think, accompanying his brother on this simulated "journey," I think it was, sent his back to get it. Now why did I think that wasn't such a hot idea, as Worf or his brother would not be "alarmed" at any "relevation" of reality peeking through the holodeck's simulation? Well but of course, he sees part of the holodeck door, peeking through the walls of the cave, curious, touches it, and next thing the door automatically opens onto the very strange in comparison, well-lit hallway of the spaceship. He is terrified, very confused as to what has happened, and in fright, wanders into 10-Forward, afraid of the crowd of people. They reassure him that they are friend of Worf and his brother. The guy comes to understand, the reality, that they have been abducted from their old planet, that was now a dead planet incapable of supporting life, by kind aliens, taking them to another suitable world, and after their doctor examines him and find she can't erase his memory, they assign him crew quarters.

Now here's the whole point I was trying to get to, in this story. Worf's brother is rather alarmed by learning that somebody has "escaped" the holodeck, how this is going to complicate his plan to help these people he came to care about. What if he come back into the simulation, with his fantastic story of spaceship and outer space travel and aliens, that the people's primitive culture isn't at all ready to deal with? Worf snaps back, "You should have thought of that before you" (helped those people). Worf says you always do stuff without thinking, leaving other people to clean up his messes. Difficult sibling struggle argument. No, the guy who escaped, is not being held prisoner, he is free to make his own choices. He can come back into the holodeck, and tell everybody his wild story, he can come back and try to keep it a secret, or he is welcome to make a new life with the modern world. In the end, unable to decide, he killed himself with a rictualistic suicide, after having asked to be left alone for a while in his quarters. I wondered, why couldn't he make the transition? But then, his life was probably sort of simple, and not used to the "modern," crazy populous world to which I am so accustomed. I would make such a transition so much easier, as it wouldn't be quite so "unusual" to me, well aquainted with all sorts of fantastic sci-fi stories. Why couldn't he make the transition? Ask the Star Trek writers.

The take home point I wish to make, is that he was naturally expected to make his own decisions. They would not hold him prisoner.

That's a lot of what I have been for so long trying to say. If people in the most populous nations on the planet, think they would still like to enjoy having "traditionally very large" families, who do we think we are to question it? I support them in that pro-life, pro-population, pro-nature, pro-human decision. Yes, I do think they are used to being so densely populated, and can find proper ways to populate even denser, as they may have to. Who are we to say, that large families aren't right for them? Why do we make so little effort to understand other cultures, and what apparently works so well for them? (Maybe it's even the harder for them to curb the natural flow of babies, as some probably live so close to their many neighbors that they often hear the natural music of neighbors also reproducing at night? Making their baby booms all the more persistant and "contagious?") I don't at all believe that people in other countries, continuing to enjoy having possibly large families, any more populate or "crowd" the planet, any more so, than you or I continuing to live. Aren't they just as worthy of life, as we are? I just do not see why we are so prone to draw arbitrary lines contrary to the interests of families and the natural babies to come? Whatever happened to people, as much as reasonably possible, being free to make their own decisions?

 

I DID. That's why I quoted myself from a previous post in only the line above what you are replying to.

Land to produce electricity.
Land to produce fuel.
Land from which to obtain water.
Land to work on.
Land for recreational activities.
Land to grow food.
Land to keep livestock.
Land to get rid of waste.
Land to actually live on.

So I am a tree-hugger, for actually wanting to live in a world with places not made out of concrete? Well it's always a sign of a good argument when one resorts to name-calling.
Where are you getting 'they don't want to solve problems' from? Environmentalists have provided many, many different types of renewable energy and more fuel-efficient vehicles over the years. They have also made recycling and re-using easier in a world in which they know people simply can't be bothered.

What problems are YOU solving by suggesting we just sit back and watch humans completely destroy the earth?

Oh I see, a miraculous discovery will come along and save the earth from poverty and over-crowding. Yeah, we're arrogant for not dumping our mistakes on our children - do we think we know it all or something?

Please, for the sake of brevity, please some up your apparently evasive point. Do you want a world over-crowded with people? Or do you just think we should encourage growth because future generations will OBVIOUSLY be able to move to another planet or teleport or something. And please, try and keep a two-paragraph maximum this time.

 

Well I tried. The point was about respecting that people must often be allowed to make their own decisions, outsiders or government can't decide everything for them.

If I was to use the episode of an example of that, it might be helpful to describe the episode story/context? So that somebody might understand how I came to be impressed by it. Can I reasonably explain the story of a 45-minute TV episode, in only but a few sentences? Somehow, such a tight summation, just wouldn't quite work.

If you want to reply, there's no need to reply to the TV episode, just the part I pulled out of it, that they left the guy to make his own decisions, unwilling to hold him prisoner. As might be to-be-expected in a freedom-loving society?

If people in developing countries are supposedly way too easily capable of reproducing in overly tight overcrowded quarters, so be it. I respect their decisions for life. I am not going to shame or disparage their precious darling babies, based upon some unjustified abortion-tolerant-culture Western prejudice. No doubt their housing conditions will eventually be improved.

 

I edited my post. There's your condensed reply

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We won't be here to see that improbable future anyway, so why all the excessive global whining?​

Energy is all around us. It doesn't necessary take a lot of land to produce electricity, and often due to the technologies used, the electricity is produced far from where it is used, quite often in places with lots of open space, and not much people. That's why they have to have such high voltage lines, because to transport the power, either voltage has to be high, or current high, by Ohm's Law Power = Voltage * Current. Too much current would melt the wires and cause huge voltage drop. So high voltage is more efficient at delivering electricity over long distances.

Oil can be drilled out on the oceans. And in Alaska. Or do you have a handy oil well under your house?

Water can also come from ocean water desalination plants. Not much land used there. And rivers can pass through cities. So what keeps the land from serving multiple uses?

Land to work on? How about working at home? How much "land" does it take to provide space for a little office cubicle, big enough to personalize and put up all your nice pictures?

Land for recreational activities. Play video games. The Nintendo Wii even makes you exercise, although I haven't yet gotten into these "new" motion-sensing technology video game consoles. Hard to imagine my PS2 is already getting "old." You can have parks for children to play in, inside of highrise buildings.

Land for food? Grow more on less. Synthetic, mass-produced foods may start to take over? Just as good/better as waiting and waiting for fair weather to grow crops.

Land to keep livestock? Humans are omnivores. I can eat meat and/or plants. We can keep livestock in other countries not yet full of people. Isn't most land in Australia, not even used for anything? Maybe that would be a good area to farm?

Land to get rid of wastes? Hmmm. Ever hear of hog waste lagoons? Just how much land do you need? Land for wastes, is small than land for housing, as people don't really produce all that much trash per capita, it just looks like a lot when you add it all up. And yet most land isn't used for wastes.

Land to live on? But the view is so much better, up in the sky. There's so much land available for building suburbs full of additional housing. Most any suburb has a much high population density than the globe in general.

Do you even know what "tree hugger" means? Somebody with values so mixed up, that they actually try to opine almost as if, a tree is worth more than a person.

Housing can be built of other materials besides concrete. But housing must be built of something. I have yet to hear of any reasonable scheme to house the world's naturally-growing population up in a bunch of little tree houses, so that we don't have to cut down any "big overgrown weeds" ehem! trees.

Let's look at the track record of enviro-weenies actually "solving" any problems. They didn't like cars with exhaust pipes, so what did they propose, "Look Mom, no tailpipe." The electric car. That went over like a lead balloon. Oh, they try to hatch their stupid conspiracy stories, like "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Never mind that most people didn't want a car with an extension cord, that could go at most, 50 or 100 miles on a charge. Compared to a gasoline car that goes 300 or 400 miles on a tank. So what do they do now? Ah, hybrids. "Look Mom, no cord." Yet again, too little, too late. Still uses price-gouged gasoline, so what's the point? Give me a power cord (and a pidly trickle-charge solar panel), so I can at least run on electricity around town. Oh, but wait! With their schemes of "carbon sequestration," they're planning to jack up the price of electricity too! Maybe I should just drive a Hummer and participate in Carbon Belch Day, just to spite them?

And it gets better. Look at all the global whiners, whining about how "unsightly" the wind energy turbines are, and how their gears make awful whining noises. And still our electricity comes from 52% coal-fired plants, because the eco-freaks won't let us build more nuclear power plants, even though France went mostly nuclear power.

Looks to me, like most all the problems are being solved by the developers, actually building the housing and power that people need, while the eco-whiners haven't offered up much of anything for solutions.

Care to take a guess where I get some of my names for so-called "environmentalists?" From Captain Planet, a sick junk-science cartoon supposedly pro-environment. And let's not forget "Green Nazis," which I heard on some PBS program, of some people out West somewhere, hopping mad about the meddling enviro-radicals seeking to steal their land use or something or other.

Maybe "environmentalists" have had 1 small success. They convinced us to recycle. So now on TV sitcoms, I see not one, but 3 trash cans in the kitchen, to facilitate recycling sorting presumably. More clutter in my kitchen, some "progress?"

You must be watching too much Captain Planet or something. Can you believe it, a cartoon in which everybody's a villian. Everybody from meddlesome know-it-all pesky "planeteers," their superhero villian that pompous Captain Planet, to greedy corporations intent upon producing as much pollution as possible, even if they have to lose money to do it. That's not reality, that's scare tactics.

Humans naturally spreading over more land, isn't "destroying," but "enhancing" the land, putting it to better use, increasing the abundance of the best type of life, humans.

Why are you holding out for some miracle discovery, when everybody jobs and efforts are already making the world a better place? It's called free enterprise, free markets, something that "environmentalists" seem to want to destroy, so they can spread the misery and poverty around, without actually creating any more wealth.

Okay 2 more paragraphs, got cha. You didn't really think I could respond to ever point you made in just 2 paragraphs total?

Yes, why not? If that's where it's headed, let the world naturally "overcrowd" with people. I don't want to diss anybody's babies for no good reason. I'm pro-life, so I must be against things which only serve to encourage imposing abortions upon people. You don't really think there can be very effective population "control" without pushing abortions, do you? People will never spread to more worlds, without further population growth first pushing forth the necessary technologies. Most people probably wouldn't want to go, as this world is right here, and so much more comfortable. Already, people appear almost too lazy and selfish, to even populate this world much beyond 10 billion, if you believe the rather low projections of the demographers, about how world population will supposedly just taper off soon, no thanks to all the rampant contraceptive pushing and abortions. By the time, if never, world population becomes more stacked up in highrises and population arcologies (vertical cities), you and I, and our children, would be long gone, so why all the excessive global whining?

 

Define 'a lot of land' and give me some examples how we can generate reliable energy without using much at all.

Why do you think the US government are so keen on Saudi oil? The deposits found under the ocean floor are simply not enough to fit the huge demand.

Not much land in relation to what? Add up all the plants needed for the entire world population and you have a lot. Plus, this is just one human need for space out of many.

You are ridiculous and clearly have never visited the planet earth.
Office cubicle? What percentage of the world work in offices? Who will provide the world's food, clothes, appliances, cars, oil, electricity etc if everyone is doing accounts in their own home? Bit there's not only public necessity; individuals need employment to earn money and survive. These jobs must be available to prevent an economic meltdown.

What about those who love walking? Or the countryside? Or team sports, or cross-country running?
Besides, who's going to make all those Wiis sitting at home in front of a computer?

Synthetic foods? Hmm, no fruit, vegetables or meat will definitely not cause an unhealthy and disease-ridden population! Or perhaps this is your grand plan to actually lessen the numbers.

Fertile land in Australia is used and the arid outback is left deserted in places for a good reason. Are you suggesting we all must become vegetarians? Your eutopia just gets better and better!

I'm talking about sewage plants, landfill sites (which aren't as tiny as you seem to think), recycling plants, scrapyards and every other place where the things we don't want are shipped off to.

And so you bring me back to my original point. There may be solutions for housing space, but that's not the only space we need.

Better use? Or simply our use? To paraphrase Enmos, the world survived for billions of years without humans - life was abundant. You profess to be pro-life but you don't care when the lives of the other millions of species in this world are compromised for just one. What kind of pro-lifer are you?
Billions of years, and then in the last blink of an eye a relatively intelligent species comes along wilfully and unnecessarily destroying habitats, food chains and the natural order. No other creature has ever done this in the race for the survival so why do we need to.

Oh my God, are you able to recognise SARCASM? It was you who are leaving our children and children's children with this huge problem that they are supposed to miraculously solve.

And why are you creating this imaginary group of people the 'environmentalists'. Am I an environmentalist? If so, address me and my points, don't just keep throwing up strawmen.

Contradictions, contradictions. Plus some rather random and non-existent points.
No-one is forcing abortion on anyone - and it was I who suggested some kind of limit to how many children a family should have.
Don't be ridiculous, having sex and having children is a basic human need. Are you really suggesting that we'll all get bored of it and overcrowding will no longer be a problem?

What about all your other descendants? Do you let them live lives of poverty and unhappiness? How do you have the front to call the world selfish and then make a comment like that.

 

"Pay them in dollars and fuck their daughters. Cancers, parasites... eating up the whole damn world."

 

Maybe we should genetically engineer people to be two or three feet tallas adults.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Think of the saving in food and other resources. We could also pack alot more people on the planet if they were smaller--imagine that scenario; a population of sixty billion dwarves...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

We should go even further, and engineer ourselves to resemble social insects such as termites or ants. Live in colonies with strict classes and specialties. It is the obvious solution to cramming the maximum number of humans possible on to this planet, and who could possibly object to the means with such an honorable end in mind?

 

It's not honorable, it's insane.

 

You're obviously an enemy of the colony. As we speak, I'm emitting pheromones that will summon soldier humans to crush you with their large mandibles!

 

lol ok, I'll comply already..