6 billion and counting

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

  1. Cellar_Door Whose Worth's unknown Registered Senior Member

    Thanks PH

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    On titles - for some reason it just annoys me.
    On post numbers - I was referring to the number of overall words, rather than the fact you split them up into separate posts. Learn to be more succinct, otherwise few will bother to read your posts.

    You've got that from the 'fact' that more authors on the subject tend to be male? That is ridiculous. Would you like to back this up with anything?
    I, quite proudly, am female. And, for some strange and unfathomable reason, I quite like the idea of living in a world where there are places with no housing estates, supermarkets or cars.
    Based on your logic, shouldn't men want more people in the world too? That way there are more prospective mates and women to impregnate.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Humans should retain natural desire to see human kind multiply and naturally increase numbers.

    And why should there be places without housing complexes, cars, or supermarkets? Oh, no doubt people could list a few so-so reasons, but they pale into significance to the growing need for so many people to have someplace to live.

    Yes, but of course, men should also want for there to be more and more people in the world. Men also have a very practical and moral interest in promoting human life such that human birthrates remain largely naturally "unregulated" the world over. I was just asking why so many of the over-educated moron population phobics, seem to be male.
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2008
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Enmos Valued Senior Member

    Unrestricted growth in nature leads to elimination.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Nature prefers the "new balance" of growing human dominance and numbers, not the old outdated balance.

    Humans are much different than other creatures. God gave people dominion over nature and other creatures. Wild animals are too territorial, use land very inefficiently, don't adapt, don't very well store up or produce food for later use.

    I object to considering humans to be just like other animals, humans aren't subject to grossly sloppily guess-imated "carry capacity" nonsense, because humans produce most of what they consume.

    Humans are among the slowest-reproducing of God's creatures, and yet we seem to be around the most "horny" of God's creatures, and we also tend to multiply, remarkably steadily and relentlessly. The natural rate of expansion, is well within the reasonable ability for humans to adapt, allowing ample time to prepare and adapt, especially if that be a stated goal.

    I don't apply unfounded conclusions contrary to the necessary benefits to humans. Why stick to unproductive, unproven, useless theories? "Unrestricted" natural growth of human numbers, far more likely, may merely tend to relate to growth of numbers and sizes of cities and towns. Human bodies getting, over time, somewhat closer together on the global scale, as the planet obviously isn't getting any bigger. That's a rather minor "growing pain" easily enough to adapt to and live with. Still, there's the option of moving from bigger cities to smaller towns, if people so choose. The answer isn't unfounded population "control," nor pushing shoddy experimental contraceptive potions and poisons. A more urbanized planet, altered to more effectively hold lots more people, is so much easier for most people to live with. It welcomes finding or making some place for everybody's progeny, no matter how numerous people may have managed to become. It says, so a pregnant woman's belly naturally swells. To be "great with child," should be no shame at all, especially if married, since it welcomes fellow human life, and we were all once babies, not all that long ago. So much the better, to beautifully "swell," if that's what it takes for more people to experience life. Why can't a planet also naturally "swell" with human life, as well?
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2008

Share This Page