6 billion and counting

There is only so much space on the Earths surface. We will eventually have to eradicate nature completely..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Life is not a term exclusively used to indicate humans

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Here is a thought. Consider Einstein or Newton. How much contribution do they produced
compared to the resources that they finished? Now, if all human use their full potential
till its extent like those two folks, imagine what they can produced compared to what
they can maximumly consume?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It doesn't matter, when the plant life dwindles, the oxygen levels will come down, the CO[sub]2[/sub] level will go up.. humans will be fucked (pardon the pun).

 

People who live in India, probably rather like living in India.​

But all of India isn't like that, and please don't confuse poverty with population.

Just because you wouldn't find that areas best for you, doesn't mean that people who already live there, don't somehow find it "livable."

I have spent a year in South Korea, stationed there when I was in the military, and they have twice the population density as that of India, 4 times that of China. I didn't find it stuffy or confining, a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there, mainly because I don't know their language or culture very well. I traveled even by myself, road the subway by myself, in Seoul. It was marked in Korean and English. I had Korean roommates to help me learn Korea. They certainly had ample room to go on having their babies. I didn't find it "crowded" at all. And they were just getting cars there too.

And who's talking of getting rid of all the plants? Some trees may have to go, to make way for more human housing, but most seem to stay around for a while.

 

You are !
How much people do you think it will take for us to cut all the rainforests ?

 

Actually, "inside" the globe, would provide a whole lot more space, than merely the surface. No wonder sci-fi suggests stacking people into population arcologies, or vertical cities. Why not use the 3rd dimension as well, if it may help? Not that I think we would ever need to, so much.

But perhaps you were suggesting that outer space might finally become accessable?

 

Human life is supposed to naturally grow more and more abundant. Even the Bible and nature, tell us that.​

Actually, the Sony Playstation 2 video game, "Project Eden," suggests stacking people upon the surface of the planet, in rising layers. And their "real meat" was meat growing in a tank. Some form of GMOs. But I found in playing the game, their "overpopulation" was largely a handy excuse for eliminating the work for the programmers, of having to created "realistic" looking natural scenery. So much easier to build polygons for buildings with plenty of regular square corners. The game wasn't even "crowded." Just a handy excuse for a video game. It could have been a great game, had they finished it and got the "bugs" out of it. It had a serious flaw, in which game saves become corrupted, and then the game freezes up later. I finally found the work-around and cheat codes on the manufacturer's website. It had some really cool levels, "The Zoo" had a funhouse hall of mirrors and a holographic jungle. A bit hard to enjoy the scenery thought, being chased by creatures. The game was too hard, and I "cheated" my way all through it, even using a free internet walk-through guide. But at least I explored all levels.

I don't see it going to any such extent, but yeah, I would suggest stacking up human life in layers, if it ever came to that. Presumably, people would still insist upon having their children.

 

Pro-life is pro-human-life. Doesn't everybody know that?​

Of course it is prolife. If you google "prolife" or "pro-life," I think you would find the vast majority of the usages of the term, imply human life. They aren't talking about plants or animals, but about human life. I should know, for I have been a prolife activist since 1991.

"Pro-life is more consistantly prolife, when it is also pro-population." Pronatalist

There's another example implying humans. When terms like "population" are mentioned, the context usually implies that it is only human population that is being discussed. Otherwise, which animal or plant population, is clearly indicated in the context.

Now being prolife doesn't at all imply less plants and animals. Not necessarily, unless that is supposedly the result of there becoming to be more human life. Actually, I have heard that oil is helping to expand not only human life, but life in general, when fertilizer and such is made out of it—by humans. Human populations are expanding, farm livestock populations are expanding, and pet populations are expanding. And perhaps certain wildlife that likes to live around humans, may also be expanding. Say like certain birds, squirrels, rabbits, etc., that seem somehow well adapted to thrive in urban landscapes, quite often not getting in the way of the many, many humans. I say it makes for a fascinating world, when so much life around us is expanding, especially to welcome the natural "blossoming" of the human race.

 

Yea most people are more or less like you. Be proud.

 

At least far more people, than there are now.​

Actually, I think there would still be lots of plants and animals, if there were 100s of billions of people on earth. Maybe not quite so much "wild" areas, but people even have plants and animals in their own lawns and in the trees on their own lawns.

Star Trek appears to suggest a world having naturally grown into the 100s of billions at least, and humans having spread to countless more worlds. All is not "gloom and doom" about natural human population growth. What of the needed "progress" of the human race? What of God's commandment to humans, to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth? If ever humans do manage to "fill" the earth, there's lots more planets, and they become more and more reachable, via the already population-driven growth of technology.

You can't very well stop a progressing pregnancy in the womb, and still be "civilized," so similarly, we should not be able to stop the natural rise in our population levels. Maybe that's why they call it natural increase.

 

Keep dreaming.

 

Not really. Not at all. If it is inside the globe, it is rather easy to calculate the
limit. Just calculate the volume, and that's the maximum / the limit.

Who knows :shrug: We need more people to do more research. Human capacity is unpredictable.
Invention will accelerate another invention.

 

The natural spread of human life, makes life so much more curious, beautiful, and fascinating.​

We need more and more humans, because people presumably want to have so many babies. More and more people would be glad to live. Any "civilized" society ought to be fond of children, and welcome them to come to life, especially via parents apparently willing to expand their families, because they love children, have faith, sex feels good, or whatever reasons.

It's not so much what humans can produce, but that human life is beautiful, each and every human life immensely valuable and sacred, and so nature is much "enhanced" when more people come into the scene. How can there be beauty of nature to see, without human eyes to see it? And since humans are both part of nature and transcend nature, then humans are no "intrusion" upon nature, but a natural part of nature, as too then must be, the things needed to accomodate more people, such as our cities and cars and buildings and such. Especially if we take some pride in what we build, and don't build everything all ugly.

I'm not so optimistic that humans can ever make Mars habitable. I don't know that I will ever see a practical manned mission to Mars in my lifetime. But I do want them to keep it up in the movies, as humans need to more be encouraged to "think outside the box." And already there is so much potential, to populate this planet, so much more vastly and densely with people, a necessary preliminary first step, before we can possibly develop technologies to explore or colonize more worlds, if ever. The baby has to get even bigger, to safely emerge from the womb and survive. Humans aren't anywhere near even ready, to expand to more worlds, but I would like to see it happen, if ever it reasonably can.

 

Or what is as somebody said, "Gaia is pregnant," and really wants to have this "baby?"​

No, that's the wrong metaphor, and a reason we need to have more pronatalist in the world, to get people's thinking back on track.

Human life is much more beautiful and humans are such agreeable docile creatures, much of the time at least, compared to cancer cells, rats, mice, roachs, locusts, ravenous dinosaurs taking over ("Godzilla" movie), or any of the other inappropriate metaphors. One of the best metaphors I see as useful, is that of a progressing pregnancy itself? Pregnant women have a strange beauty about them, I think because both babies and pregnancy are obvious symbols of the natural subconscious and conscious natural human drive to reproduce. In a pregnancy, all parts grow together, towards a collective and good outcome, similarly, all nations may enjoy growing all at the same time, and help each other out somewhat in their collect goal to ENLARGE the entire human race, so that all the more people may experience life, and there may be more people to worship God and populate heaven. Pregnancy doesn't naturally lead to disaster, but to some sort of wondrous "birth." Humans are "progressing" towards something interesting, surely. More people to populate heaven, or more people to populate more worlds.

I don't like that Star Trek is so overly humanistic, but I do like some of the optimism, of suggesting at some point in the future, poverty and hunger have vanished, and people work, not for money, which has also largely vanished, but for love of working. While obviously the actors have to be paid, isn't it interesting in the story, how the characters are so eager to help one another out, all without pay or a paycheck, apparently. There's probably not much to actually "buy" with houses and spacecraft probably build largely by automatic robots, and food coming from "food replicators." There apparently isn't much interest in population "control," as in the future there's little perceived need for it, but didn't one episode mention something about some Atlantis project, or trying to raise more land out of the ocean floor? Suggests possible a rather "crowded" planet perhaps? Maybe not a lot of land left not already heavily populated by humans? Yeah, Star Trek's a fantasy, but isn't it just possible, the future could become a bit more like that?

 

Just fuck off with your anti-life preaching !

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ignore list.

 

omg, lol

 

No, it should be even easier, to encourage people to enjoy "what comes naturally."​

No, we should be encouraging people to pair up, marry, and reproduce, because it gives them something to do to stay out of trouble, but especially, it provides all the more people to experience life. Besides, natural baby booms are cool and curious.

Also, what about compassion for people? In a world with so many people as there are now, what of the growing need of so many people for "sexual relief?" There's perhaps seemingly "suitable breeding material," all around us. So many young enough people of opposite sex. Some people may feel the attraction, and very much want to mate and reproduce children. Some people much like or are good at nurturing children. Some people like being pregnant. Cities sometimes can be "crowded" and "erotic." Can hearing the "natural music" of neighbors making love through thin apartment walls or through open summer windows at night, further intensify human primal reproductive urges? I think so. Baby booms already tend to be "contagious," as when everybody around is having babies, that awakens more natural desire to have babies too.

 

Actually if this is your way of thinking, I feel rather pity for you.

I was thinking like this.... One human needs only 1 house for his own life, but
he can create 10, 100, .. houses along his life. One human needs to eat only
about 1.5 kg food per day, or 50 kg per month, or 600 kg per year, but give
him few couples of livestock, and see how many he can produce per year..

His survival will then depend on how can he produced compared to how much
he consumes. Now, if he doesn't produce anything, or produce slower than he
need to consume, likely his life won't be beautiful (as you dream). His life will suffer,
he will struggle in competition, his presence is merely to serve others, he is
exploited by others who are smarter or faster. That way he can't be happy.