6 billion and counting

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by sly1, Nov 30, 2007.

  1. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349
    omg, Enmos, what happened to your avatar? :jawdrop:
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    But isn't it so much easier and natural to not decrease human population, than to coerce stagnation?

    Well I agree that things like human population are self-regulating, but not so much in the way that some population phobics may wish, due to the obvious possible penchant towards natural growth.

    And some people still begin to reproduce before age 20. I read something in some book of people still marrying as young as 13 in places like Bangladesh. I do believe more people should marry young. Our ancestors used to marry off their children young, to help prevent things like children born outside of wedlock. An old home Church I once attended, married a couple in which she was 17, and he was 18. Everybody thought they were old enough.

    I'm not so used to house with 7 floors, but I have lived on the 9th and 11th floors of the college dorms, and the windows had a great view. Seemed a rather safe and study concrete building. I would much rather people have to live in highrises, then ever be told we can't have all the children we were meant to have. If ever in the future, the world seems more "crowded," it won't to future people, because they will be used to it, and it will be normal and natural for them, and they will have ADAPTED.

    Natural population growth is very good for humans, as it encourage innovation, and discourages laziness.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    I am pissed off.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sciencelovah Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,349

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Night all, I'm off.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Good night Inzomnia

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    "Progress" towards possibly more and naturally-growing cities.

    Not so, for if that ever happens, nature doesn't disappear, but rather, humans and nature become one and the same. We then have "absorbed" nature into ourselves, or something or other.

    But I do not believe in population "control" for humans, yet another reason why I don't like "birth control," and also, without population "control," that implies that human population should be allowed to be a bit "wild" or "out of control." That really does make so much more sense, than senseless discussions of who can we trust to do all the "controlling."

    An old article I read, "Supercities: Growing Pains of the Population Crisis, cited that the number of women of childbearing age is larger than it has been previously, as a prime reason for so much population and the growing numbers of "supercities," or cities with more than 10 million inhabitants. Well what better reason can there be for building some supercities, than that there's getting to be so many more young women yearning to have their children too? As the world naturally gains more birth canal paths from which babies can emerge, naturally populating vaster and denser together, we should eagerly welcome people to go on having all their precious darling babies. We do claim to be "civilized" don't we? Well to always welcome children, is the kind and compassionate thing to do. Especially since all these people are just like us. Friends, relatives, friends of friends, perhaps our children even.

    A side article warned that if contraceptive use doesn't increase from half of people to 75% soon, we may be headed for a future "Baby Blast." Well bring it on then. 75% is absurd, and hardly respect of people's needs and wants.

    The natural remedy for powerful human reproductive urges, is pregancy. The natural remedy for pregnancy is childbirth. Welcome the natural flow of human life unhindered, so that more and more people may experience life, and so people can enjoy having their possibly numerous progeny.
     
  10. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    But in this context, it pretty much is.

    People understandably are going to be most concerned about human life.

    Don't think so? Just turn on the TV. What do you see on most every channel? People. People, people, people. Even cartoon characters act something like people. Maybe even people naturally mating, or pretending to mate, if you have too many of "those" pay-too-much channels.

    I've even seen the baby's head crowning in the vagina, a few times on prime-time TV, on "educational" PBS. Looks like human life to me. :bravo:
     
  11. Reiku Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,238
    Answer: For another 1000 years or so, give or take a couple of hundred years. The Earth is limited when it comes to supplies.
     
  12. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Humans generally don't smell the reek of our human scent, that our dog pets probably smell in human-teeming cities. So it's okay.

    I imagine our dog pets might smell the growing human body smell of the burgeoning human race. But they simply don't care, and don't really understand what it is. Or they like humans anyway, so what does it matter? But I suspect it may be having some effect, on some wildlife that don't adapt so well?

    Nonsense. So the air in some places becomes a bit "stale." So what? Humans adapt. No I don't think there will be a market for canned air, other than to spray out our computer keyboards and such with. But no doubt spaceship "life support" machines are bound to get lots better at "reprocessing" air.

    Actually, don't you have any idea how close humans may be getting, to finding far more productive alternatives to burning fuel? Look at the flying cars on The Jetsons futuristic cartoon and in a movie or two. They have no emissions tailpipe. What are those "power pellets" they supposedly run on? I think it's a codeword for "nuclear" power. That's way too much energy and rarely refueling, to be old-fashioned quaint chemical reactions (burning "fossil" fuels). If you think you see "emissions," that's just the visual representation of the "anti-gravity" waves being put out. Most likely though, such would be completely invisible. Now what happens, when all these electricity power plants, cars, factories, and home heating furnaces, stop putting out any emissions or smoke? That's right, lots more oxygen for lots more humans to breathe. Needing lots less plants and such to keep the air fresh.
     
  13. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Most of the naturally-ENLARGING human race, naturally leans towards pro-population?

    Yes, I think most people naturally tend to be rather pro-life. Especially the poor. Much secular "education" does seem to get too many people sort of confused though.

    Yeah, I'm quite proud of how numerous the human race has managed somehow to become, or that God would allow so many people to experience life, but quite ashamed of the much rampant contraceptive pushing. As if people didn't much matter?

    Humans growing so populous, shows that at least we are doing something right, and on the right track or something, or at least some of us are on the right track.
     
  14. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Pronatalist, if you are talking to me you clearly don't know what I meant with 'Ignore list'..
    lol
     
  15. CutsieMarie89 Zen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,485
    You can't smell people? Most people don't smell bad or anything but everyone has their own smell. Maybe I'm part dog or something but I can tell people apart just by scent alone.
    That was irrelevant. I know.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  16. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Oddly enough we could have those people appear on earth more slowly over time, and still, they could all have their chance. More right now is not always better.

    For example in eating - which is important - it is best not to eat the entire week's food for breakfast on monday, and then try for the next week's food at lunch on monday. In fact it can be a sign that food matters to take it slowly.

    This is true about a wide range of things, even important ones.

    Mary had one kid. Or so they say, anyway.
     
  17. Myles Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,553
    Mary had a little lamb;
    The doctor was surprised.
     
  18. Simon Anders Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,535
    Animals giving birth to animals of other species or to humans can mean a change in sucession in the ruling clan in China.

    As far as humans giving birth to animals, there are many recorded instances, though, of course, most scholars consider these to have been abortions and miscarriages of human foetuses.

    Regardless they were considered evil portents.

    In fact, if I happened to witness one, I would also be inclined to view it rather grimly, 21st century or no.

    But when Mary 'had' a little lamb, she in fact ate some lamb for dinner. The overuse of 'to have' in English for significantly different activities 'ownership' 'birth' 'ingestion' - these latter two approaching opposites - have created, telephone game style - a false rumor. She did not in fact either own or give birth to a lamb. And she was a delicate and demure thing herself, not wishing to sound gluttonous. Hence her claim to have eaten a little. Eating disorders, nascent or otherwise, have been with us for a long time.
     
  19. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    How our natural population growth, tends to drive technology growth, which in turn, better supports our population growth.

    Actually the surface of a planet is a lot more confining. There's only but so tall that buildings can be built, before they collapse under their own weight. Isn't the current practical limit, around up to a half-mile tall? And if people were stacked up too far, the air starts getting too thin up there. Maybe we could pump the air up the building, and have really tight seals to keep it from leaking out, but then your buildings or population arcologies start looking more like really huge spaceships that can't actually fly anywhere. Actually, that could be a cheaper way to build "spaceships" to house people. It's simpler to build spaceships that don't really go anywhere, merely serve to help populate the planet more densely. At least that way, there would be no need to invent "artificial gravity plating," like they supposedly have on Star Trek. Yeah, wouldn't that be nice? The movies 2001 and 2010 show a solution for manufacturing artificial gravity, for spaceships, that we can do already. That of spinning the spaceship, and making the outer wall which would most feel the "centrifical force" of the spinning, to be the floor. I recall some scene of them walking down the hallway, and in the distance, it curls upwards. That's because they are really walking on the outer wall of the spinning ring. It would feel just like gravity. Unfortunately, it's not an efficient shape for spaceships though. Producing artificial gravity should work much better, as it allows floors to be stacked together tightly and efficiently, much like traditional buildings.

    Perhaps you are making an assumption, that you didn't so clearly state. Sounds like you mean "inside the globe," to imply a boundary of no escape from the globe, which you don't impose that condition upon the surface of the globe. But what's the difference really? Living on the surface of the globe, while our telescopes might gaze out at the stars, we are still fairly well "trapped" within the planet's gravity well, with a "huge" and naturally-growing population of people. Even if we could transport a few people in spaceships to other worlds, world population rises by around 210,000 people a day, far faster than we can currently transport people to anywhere beyond the "gravity well." Fortunately, the planet's still a very big place, and there's ample room to put so many people, among us. And of course, the population growth doesn't really seem like much, to most common people, as it's already disperse around the planet, where the people live, and not at all all in one place. Most all countries and communities, should easily absorb "a few more" people from day to day.

    Actually, the way it happens, is that most "inventions" are really incremental. Somebody simply "slightly improved" what somebody else had already done. And most people don't invent much of anything. I think that would help explain, why the dramatic population growth of the world, really has been a huge driving factor, in the recent modern acceleration of technology growth. Far too people understand very well, how so much of the technology we already take for granted, was largely population-driven. And in turn, the technology helps better support vaster and denser populations of people. That's a vicious circle in the morally positive sense. That the rising population brings supposed problems, that soon turn out to be self-solving, in that human population growth, at least under wise leadership, tends to naturally self-accomodate. That's a huge reason why it tend to get so supposedly "out of control." It's like a balloon inflating I imagine. The bigger the balloon gets, the more the rising air volume starts to overcome the resistance of the stretching rubber. Similarly, if nature ever had any "resistance" to human population growth, it appears to be fast fading away. The balloon can't "pop" because there's nowhere for it to pop to. The ground isn't going to collapse under the weight of so many humans, because we weigh almost nothing compared to what the planet already weighs.

    Humans do not multiply like "cancer cells," as cancer cells aren't really trying to build anything useful, but are damaged and malfunctioning. Humans multiply more like cells in a healthy body, working together, via some strange underlying intelligence, to build some much bigger organism, by which they were somehow "programmed" to build. Cells have DNA for programming. So humans must have God or "religion" as their programming. And we interrelate socially, which counts as mutual, common interest programming. I think God knows better, what sort of civilizations he wants to grow, than humans would understand. And what our destiny is to be. "Gaia" is not a good name for this "organism," as Gaia is too much about earth-worship, and not about God and people. The earth has no common "spirit," that's too much a New Age term. "Organism" probably isn't so great a term either, as it's methaphorical uses are limited. Useful maybe in comparing the micro-scale to the macro-scale, but not much more. "Civilization(s)" is about the right term to use, to describe the "collective" of human groups.
     
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2008
  20. Pinocchio's Hoof Pay the Devil, or else.......£ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    Nature...Its what we rely on to survive,its whose mercy we are at to live.

    Resouces-'Shelter'

    At the moment in (not so)Great Britain there is a housing crisis, there are hundreds of thousand's of people crammed into shared housing between 5-9 people sharing 4 bedroom houses......problem..!
    The housing market has outpriced itself and is on a decline,as the country is in recession people cannot afford and cannot get mortgages..result hundreds of thousands of empty properties up and down the country, the price of rental is so extortionate that people renting will never be able to save enough money to actualy buy a property..people are starting to realise that the majority of their children, this generation will never be able to buy their own house. One of the ways round this which has become a trend recently among teenage girls is to get pregnant and get a council house/flat (as they get priority)...The problem is in less than 16 years their children will be in the same predicament but their will be no more council flats/houses as this generation has had to use them to have a roof over their head that they can call home...normaly council property was used to get a foot on the housing ladder as it was really cheap so you could afford to save for a deposit for mortgage on your own property-so the houses would have been used on a generation cycle, but that cycle has stopped....you cannot build your own house without permission,you cannot live in a tent, you cannot live in communal homeless groups this is one problem with over population.....
    I'm wondering where in Britain the first shanty towns will be, I reckon London or Manchester.As this would also not be allowed I wonder what the government would do if there were a couple of hundred thousand people made homeless (NOTHING)..
    So childbearing may help these women now but it effects everybody longterm....No property,No job,No finances,No education should equate to no children unfortunately it is not the lack of education that is causing all these teenage pregancies for housing it is the only way they can have their own property.....
     
  21. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Baby booms, much like a swelling pregnant woman's belly, don't like unnatural arbitrary confinement. Let them naturally "bulge" proudly.

    If that's where we are heading, hadn't we prudently pursue the relaxed orderly transition? Let the natural waves of naturally burgeoning human population expansion overspread the planet naturally, baby booms "blossoming" and "bursting forth" naturally, welcome everybody to have their place, let people move back to the countryside that they previously depopulated but now at urban densities as there gets to be so many of us, build bigger cities closer together, build population arcologies, whatever is needed.

    So many parents say look around, there's places for more people everywhere. Really? Let them fill the gaps in between the people with still more people. They are correct. It's quite possible to somehow fit more people upon the planet, in such a way. They say or imply they don't mind populating denser. I insist upon allowing humans to explore how to populate denser, always much better than contemplating Nazi-like, anti-child eugenics. The natural flow of human life unhindered, is beautiful as it welcomes all the more fellow human beings to experience life.
     
  22. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    You are just a fucking troll aren't you ? Nobody can say this moronic stuff and be serious about it.
    :crazy:
     
  23. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    Let the baby booms "burst forth," wherever they can or would occur. Welcome babies to happen as they happen.

    Actually, that doesn't sound like so many for a house at all. I do think households, at least in the U.S., tend to be too small, which then supposedly isn't so good for the environment they say, because more resources are then used per capita. Why have to heat and cool an entire home, for just 1 or 2 people? Why not add some children or extended family to share the benefits?

    However, people's housing conditions should be their choice, sounds like choice in that is being violated. Why should people even work their jobs, if their jobs fail to provide decent income to provide their needs? Why not go on some national strike and protest?

    Do you not realize how economies work, or what a "housing bubble" may be? If not enough people can afford to buy, and housing sits empty, prices will have to fall, as owners don't want their property to sit empty, wasting them money. My family took a loss on selling a house, due to a down housing market. We don't want to hang onto a house we can't use, because somebody has to come over and mow the grass, and it produces no money for us.

    It's also the result of excessive taxation, rampant socialism, too much control by greedy corporations that don't want to share profits with employees and are too quick to lay off their best workers to save a quick buck at the long-term health of the companies.

    That's how housing becomes "overcrowded" in developing countries. Human life is very valuable, and if I can't reasonably get my children to move out of the house, when it's time for them to marry, then I love them anyway, and I would say to them, okay don't move out, stay here, marry, and have your babies still living with their parents. I know somebody who did that in my old home Church, they married and had a baby, before moving out, but within a year, somehow they managed to buy the house next door to them. I suspect help from the parents.

    Well should that be so surprising that wayward societies manage to add even more incentive to teenagers to get pregnant? Puberty is coming younger, but we procrastinate marriage later and later. What's wrong with this picture? We are going too much against nature. We should welcome more people to marry younger. I encourage more teenage pregnancies within reason, as certainly 17, 18, 19 years old, is plenty old enough to marry and be having babies, for many people. There has to be a proper moral outlet for humanity's powerful reproductive urges, and that's commiting to marriage, and welcoming our babies to naturally happen and come out of our bodies, and loving them and taking care of them.

    In a society so foolish as to not expand housing, people would be wise to go on reproducing naturally anyway, and then come to "force" the issue, when there's so many more people needing housing in the future. Naturally rising population "pressure" should eventually force along the necessary reforms, that people should have been wise enough to forsee, and not let the soda bottle shake up and pressure rise close to bursting, in a metaphorical sense. The need to welcome the immense value and sacredness of each and every human life, easily trumps even the need for decent housing, as housing can always be improved later, but we can't just have our children "later" after human fertility, soon starts waning away, a fragile blessing that fades with age.

    We Americans have similar problems, but most people I meet, seem to find adequate housing one way or another. Jobs still seem to pay the rent, or many people qualify for housing finance. But people don't budget their money very good, and tax-and-spend government drives up the costs of everything.

    You listed some problems, that I also think should be reformed. Why can't people build their own homes? Why are we not allowed to live in a tent? Some people are rarely home anyway, so maybe all they want is a cot in a tent? Who says I can't live in a campground or something, if I so choose? And why can't we have more "communal" groups where large numbers live in monastaries or such? Not everybody wants to collect lots of stuff. When I was in the military, they had big rooms with rows of bunkbeds and big lockers for our stuff. Why can't people choose similar lifestyle, for a short while? Why can't more people live with parents longer, until they get married, if they even move out by then?

    My sister really complained about how government, won't let people live homeless, won't let you camp or live in a mobile home trailer in many places, won't let you afford to buy a house, etc. It's so stupid. How our ancestors lived commonly all the time, now wouldn't meet housing codes or zoning laws? You can't just get an axe, and build your own log cabin? Why not?

    I think shantytowns form, largely because stupid governments cause them. By denying poor people clear title to land, they lose any incentive to build themselves decent housing. If any day, their stantytown might be bulldozed, why invest into making it nice, comfortable, and safe?

    The pronatalist mindset is so much better. Encourage all the various countries to naturally populate themselves denser with people, so that all the more people may experience life. If each and every human life is respected and treated as immensely valuable and sacred, then people will pay more attention, to making sure workers are paid decent wages, have good working conditions, make sure business climate is condusive to creation of jobs, etc. Exploration of cheaper more affordable housing, that's still decent, can take place. Cities are welcomed to "overspill" naturally-growing populations, into surrounding countryside, new suburbs upon suburbs, as people's progeny, and more and more people, must be welcomed to experience life, even if that means increasingly urbanizing the planet to somehow fit so many people upon the planet.
     

Share This Page