Is it right to put people first?

What if natural population growth does lead to people adapting far better than imagined? Wouldn't that be a very "good" thing to encourage?​

But are they properly developing to better ACCOMODATE rising population, or is it the same old evil corruption and needless conflict?

Nature simply does not have some of these "hard and fast" rules that population phobics like to cling to. Ever hear of "tipping points?" Well such terms often don't mean quite what the liberals opine them to mean. Let a country get "too populated," and it adapts and adjusts to getting so populated, and there's more parents having babies than before. Somebody spoke of "overcrowding syndrome," which I think they meant to mean, that the people get so used to "living in a crowd," that they think it's just the normal natural thing. I imagine that some shantytowns get so big and crowded, that people hear neighbors making babies at night, making it all the more impossible for them to "limit" their birthrates. Children living in cramped spaces, seeing their parents making babies, may also pair up and begin to mate and make still more babies, while yet young. So large youthful populations soar? But the populations go on rising, as humans ADAPT. The answer is to promote freedom, expand housing and infrastructure and development, not to rob people of, or disparage their precious darling babies. Ultimately, the entire planet may manage to "tip" towards being a very populous place, something that seems to scare population phobics. I think they are afraid to public admit sometimes, that humans are in fact adapting "too well" to their environment, portending supposedly a forecast of "increased crowdiness." I read somewhere, that we need a new paradigm. Oh really? Then here's mine. Parents can also have their "traditionally very large" families in the big city, and not just in the spacious countryside, as presumably, at some point, maybe there's more city, and less remaining countryside?

I consider babies coming out from between their mother's legs, just as natural as people needing to pee or to breathe or to eat. I don't buy the rampant lies of the "family planning" pushers, hawking their shoddy Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons. I don't agree with trashing people's traditionally pronatalist cultures, pushing promiscuity and "dirty sex," rather than faithful marriage sex, and complicating it with sabotage of the body's natural reproductive function. They say you can't stop people from having sex. Uh, would we even want to? Leave them be. Let them enjoy freedom and personal responsibility. But I don't expect for people to use unnatural and impractical birth control either.

For humans, natural increase is quite natural. I have no objection to letting human populations continue to naturally rise, as God designed humans to ultimately become quite abundant.

Even sci-fi has many ideas how much huger human populations may be accomodated. Enormous cities teeming with people, vertically-stacked population arcologies, underground cities, humans spreading to more worlds. Why can't humans explore such options a bit, if they can manage to populate towards them?

I read somewhere that villages in Africa are growing haphazardly into small towns. While India is better planning for such growth. I do want to hear that the villages are growing larger and closer together, swollen populations burgeoning naturally, that huge numbers of people are just letting their babies keep pushing out naturally unhindered because they love their children, because I think that's what people really want. They want to be free to enjoy having their possibly many children, REGARDLESS. But a more pronatalist world would do a far better job, making sure we are making the appropriate changes towards a more populous world, towards more indoor flush toilets, clean treated potable piped water into people's homes, proper street construction and erosion control, expanding infrastructure, inviting people to multiply and spread naturally into more areas so that all the more fellow human beings may experience life.

I hear that Muslims are trying to take over the world, by the power of their wombs. But I believe human life should proliferate anyway, as more and more people would be glad to live, so as many "religious" people tend to say, leave the door to life open, and welcome the babies to just keep pushing out. Babies are glad to come alive and live, even in the most populous of places. So I have no objection to huge booming populations throughout much of the world.

I get so disgusted with the incessant, culture-trashing, rampant contraceptive pushing. No wonder the U.S. gets such a tarnished image throughout much of the world. Condoms aren't the magic solution to all the world's ills. At some UN Population Conference, they said that they are trying to find "culturally appropriate" ways to push family planning. Oh really? Why don't they tell the truth, that they are globalist power mongers and just pretty much hate people, especially those "other people" who don't happen to be into their elitists evil cliques? What if there are no "culturally appropriate" ways? Are they then content to just welcome their populations to "explode" in size naturally? I would have to say, Yes, let the human race "blossom" in size naturally, as the more numerous we can manage to grow, so many more people can then benefit by being alive.

Ping! Ping! Ping!, some lady-feminist-meddler magazine article author opines about a baby on a mother's back, another inside, and a toddler following behind. Oh really? And why may not a mother enjoy having baby after baby, I might like to ask her? What's it to you? Many people still do not believe in pressuring people to unnaturally "regulate" their birthrates, for all sorts of religious and practical reasons. As described in the pioneer-time movie "Love Comes Softly," to a child's question of where babies come from, a man and a woman love each other so much, their love "overflows," and so a baby comes to life. Now how in the world can humans love each other "too much?"

"How can there be too many children? That's like saying there's too many flowers." Mother Teresa

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But with the population growth (which has doubled in my lifetime since 1973)
it is not possible...in fact will only become more of a problem im sure that 90% of the US are completely dependent on supermarkets etc for their weekly food?and probably more than 95% in the UK, that is not self-sufficient that is total dependence

Well thats a small % and isnt the reason why we are in this mess.

The reason why we are in this mess is because finance is being put before the needs of humanity...if you think money should be put before mankind then mankind will always come second and the mess will only get worse.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You need land first, take the pop' of the US, take the amount of land the US covers...then take away the amount of land that contains cities, towns, villages, motorways etc then take away non-arable land and i guarrante there will not be enough area for people to be self sufficient

It doesnt help the people of south America who also suffer because of it..

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42294
Quote "Ortega, as host, chaired the discussions, and during breaks between speakers he wasted no opportunity to condemn the "empire", meaning the United States, and "neoliberal policies imposed by the international financial institutions."
The presidents of Haiti, Bolivia, Ecuador and even Costa Rica joined Ortega in blaming the world’s most developed countries for the global food crisis....
The United States has offered only one billion dollars in food aid to the world’s poorest countries, "the same amount they spend in half a week on the war in Iraq," Arias said."

So another classic example of failure due to putting money over mankind.So while the farmers make a little bit in S.America it takes food away from the S.American people...!!!! when really it should only be the surplus that is traded outside of the country not the bulk?
Hhmm it seems silly, if you suddenly find that you do not have enough food resources to support your people instead of doing the most logical thing i.e. make internal changes to correct it (which would be putting mankind first) a cheaper alternative is used buying crops from other countries which pulls those countries down into the turmoil...bit dumb really...

So if mankind had been put first then the governemt would have worked with the US farmers to sort out ways to produce enough crops etc to support the US people

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I can guarrante that all the countries the US import from food wise are poverty stricken and have food shortages....why because money is put first...if we cannot sustain ourselves how can we sustain a balance with the eco-system which has no immediate financial gains..

My opinion has swayed slightly since the OP (and sorry if it has gone a little off-topic) I still feel that although we are top of the food chain it doesnt mean we can abuse this status..but mankind will always come 2nd to money which is just an epic failure.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You cant graze cows in a car park or grow wheat on a motorway

 

As human populations naturally grow, antiquated farming methods will be forced to modernize to accomodate.​

And why not? Haven't you heard of the stacked "parking deck" sort of farm? Maybe with nuclear power plant-powered sunlamps?

Of course such ideas aren't yet practical, as there are vast lands that are cheaper, still available for farming.

The video game "Project Eden" for PS2, suggested how "real meat" might be produced for a future more highly populous world. It was growing in tanks. Apparently some form of genetic modification to feed a far more populous world. Why bother with the cow, when what we really want is the meat?

People aren't (yet) growing their wheat on rooftops, nor planting their gardens all the way out to the curb of the street. There's plenty of room for lots more families of people.

I don't advocate that everybody be completely self-sufficient. Perhaps there's no longer enough land left, for all the people, for everybody to live primitive like the Amish. I see cities as being sort of like "mild population arcologies," to better help the world hold so many people as we are getting to be. But people would be smart, to get themselves out of debt, do more reading and learn more how things are, and make better decisions concerning how they vote. Stop letting governments get into economic troubles by debasing their currencies. Stop the runaway socialistic tax-and-spending. Ballooning debt, unsustainable promists to repay, are far larger a looming threat, than merely the burgeoning human population sizes. Human population growth self-accomodates. Exponential growth of debt, doesn't, but leads evitably to cascading defaults upon promised obligations. And people relax and let our families grow larger and faster more naturally, because of how valuable children are, and so much worth having and loving.

Like it or not, there is serious "population competition" throughout much of the world. The evil NWO depopulation agenda is failing in places like India, I read, because people fear becoming swamped by other growing groups, in political power. Muslims are trying to conquer the world with their wombs. If we don't reproduce, other people will, and will they promote the sort of values or world that we believe in? I say if we pretend like we want to be more "in harmony" with nature, then why can't we at least welcome the natural increase, and let babies push naturally out of our wombs unhindered? More and more people would be glad to live, and already, much of the technology we take for granted, was largely population-driven anyway. I believe adding more people to the world, makes the world a better place, as people are far more a potential asset than a detriment to the world, especially as we love our children and train them up to be smart, and to live by God's ways.

World population has already grown so "huge," that it is poised to do "endruns" around any attempt to "control" or contain it. There's more women of childbearing age than there was previously, so further growth of the human race should be expected. So wouldn't the prudent person, rather than trying to stop the inevitable human population growth, be more interested in how best to tap the mighty "force of nature" that human reproduction could seem to be becoming, for doing good for the many? I even see the pronatalist influences in some TV car advertisements. They almost seem to come out and say it sometimes, if people would just have more babies, they could sell more cars. Yeah, babies are very good for the economy, but that's hardly the best reason to have babies. How about, so that more fellow human beings, may experience life, even if more and bigger families does have the nice "side effect" of helping to sell more cars and houses.

 

"Properly" is irrelevant. If there is no cap on population growth it will always overshoot the carrying capacity.

This happens to be one of them. Increasing the food supply just means there are that many more who suffer when the crash comes.

Like most prey animals, which is what we started out as, we are dependant on external forces to control our population. Now that we have removed the external preditors our population is exploding. There are already places where we are at or over the local carrying capacity and have to import food.

As the population continues to expand these areas will grow. Also, having a population in excess of the local carrying capacity degrade the environment, lowering the carrying capacity further.

Your path leads to a truly horrible end for all those babies: starvation and disease. Plus when the population is dying like that the social structure tends to break down making things even worse.

Just because the actual point of no return is difficult to place, that doesn't mean that there isn't a point of no return.

 

Whatever you think or want, nature will supersede it.