6 billion and counting

It's our natural population growth, that is beneficial to man.

It's our natural population growth, that is beneficial to man.

Incorrect. It hasn't ceased to be "nature's course," whatever that supposedly means, but still is, for humans are part of nature, so human influence upon nature, is part of nature. Going against nature then, is acting irrationally in contrary ways that don't benefit man. Just because humans may have found some useful means of "death control," does not at all obligate us to impose unnatural "birth control." Human population size was never supposed to be "balanced," but to naturally increase. Surely that's what God mean when God commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That means no population "stabilation" (stagnation), but a natural and deliberate propensity towards natural population growth as time passes.

If nature could have its way, nature would multiply us all the more, because all life seeks to expand into most every available niche, probably all the more with intelligent life, that can find all the more ways by which "it can." Nature would not consider humans "outside" of nature, but part of nature, even though God also created humans to transcend nature. If cities are built properly, why would nature have any "objection?" Of course though, the natural forces of man, are needed to maintain the cities and protect them from the ravages of neglect. And of course a garden, as they say, is much more beautiful than neglected jungle, but at least for now, both seem to have some place.

You can't "license" baby-making. Babies tend to "happen" regardless. Already due to this contraceptive-peddling-induced "demographic transition" theory nonsense, we are in danger of population atrophying, jeopardizing the great progress in technology that we started to make, quite much of it likely very much population-driven, when you think about it.

I do not believe in "earth control," as that is trying to enforce excessive "control" upon nature, beyond any clear benefit to man. I do not at all believe that countries need bother to try to limit their population size to a size "reasonable" for the amount of land. Whatever for? They can find ways to populate denser, vaster, even stack people vertically into highrises if they ever have to. We need not bother to limit natural family size, and why bother to fight forest fires out in remote unpopulated wilderness that nature could deal with without our costly "help?" With so many people now on the planet, the linkage of our efforts to human benefit, ought to be more consistant and clear. Sure, humans may alter nature, but I am very much opposed to "earth control," some grand globalist delusion that can do little more than impoverish the world with endless costly boondoggles. For example, if humans are causing some "global warming," which I seriously have much evidence to doubt, then fine, let the planet warm naturally. But trying to "fix" this presumed "problem" is "earth control" "tampering" with nature, because there's no clear benefit to man, to justify the expense and effort. Why would we "tamper" with what we don't understand, for no clear benefit at all? That's about what I said to somebody who asked me about some wacky idea of humans messing around with volcanos, to release sulfer into the atmosphere to help counter this "global warming." Insane! Why try to hinder nature perhaps trying to go back to Garden of Eden conditions, to encourage humans to breed all the more?

So much of the "environmental" movement thought, seems to envision humans as parasites to the planet. "Too many" people "infesting" the biosphere, and "Gaia" gets a "fever." What utter New Age religion garbage! More accurately, humans have a more symbiotic relationship with nature, while we humans may conveniently insulate ourselves from nature, we also become intertwined and part of nature. Nature benefits also, and our alternations benefit increasingly populous man. I think the movie "Artificial Intelligence" was partially on the right track, even if my interpretation differs from what it meant to say. God wouldn't be pleased with robotic pretend children, to take the place of God's children; but also, nature wouldn't be pleased to see humans disappear. What caused the ice age at the end of the movie? I think what happened, is that the robotic jigalos undermined natural human procreation, the population soon withered away, without humans around nature had no reason to maintain a human-friendly environment, and so things just froze up. As if nature was "crying" for the human race having had disappeared. Just when things were starting to get "interesting," humans go and "shoot themselves in the foot" and destroy themselves?

And so human population growth is beautiful, and it better respects nature and nature's God creator, to welcome our babies to go on naturally pushing out, without the needless bothers of unnatural, anti-family "birth control." So welcome the natural flow of human life, to flow naturally, unhindered.

The most natural and elegant way to deal with rising human populations, is to simply accept that there can come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Where will we put all the additional billions perhaps yet to come? Simple. In between all the people already living. Where we have always put them historically. Welcome cities and towns to grow larger and closer together. Urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed, so some place can be found, or made, for all the people's precious and wondrous, darling little babies. Who very much like to come alive and be born, REGARDLESS of how many people they soon find they have to somehow share the planet with.

Nature is resilient. The planet can much more easily bear the rising human population "pressure," than frail humans can be expected to struggle with awkward, anti-life "birth control."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the Industrial Revolution did not fit into nature's plan as it is not natural.
The industrial revolution increased the growth rate of mankind from doubling in nearly 2 millenia to doubling in less than 2 centuries and it has increased that is fact, any mention you have made with "God" is faith, the difference FACT, FAITH, nature maybe resilliant but mankind is not.
As to License for chilbirth if it is to ensure the survival of man, you will do as your told, or face the consequences the same as the religious weirdos have said for 2000 years.
And as to your theory as to where to put these people "in between where people are already yeah thats cool but 35 years later the population has doubled, as your trying to figure out what to do next wahhay the population has doubled again......Keep your god he has been useless so for to mankind only useful to the individual for peace of mind

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

How do you know that the "Industrial Revolution" wasn't "natural?" By what basis?

Population accomodation doesn't come "after" but concurrently. People with jobs building houses, don't build houses for their children some 20 years later, but for those new families, needing houses NOW, and borrowing money to buy them. So it's not like "Where'd all these people come from, and where can we put them?," as if somebody sneezed, and out popped another billion people from another dimension.

35 years is a long time to build a lot of homes and cities and such. That's half a lifetime! Why do you think I call for all this development and cities to be built? A doubling of the huge human population is a lot of people. But they come gradually enough that a supposedly intelligent human race should be able to easily adapt and prepare for our own natural increase. That means more suburbs, urban sprawl, maybe a little more high-density housing, well unless you have a handy island or some huge patch of countryside you can persuade us all to move into? Yeah, I know what it means, and if we like being free to have our precious darling children, then we should be fine with that.

Yes, the Industrial Revolution, and better public sanitation and medical care and all that, may have hastened the doubling rate somewhat, but not by the amount you claim, for the earth is a "young" earth, only around 6000 years old, 6000 to 10,000 years being obtained by Creationalists tracing out the Biblical geneologies to measure the elapsed time. But then the Industrial Revolution also stole the father from the home, to go work for the corporations, then the mother also, so it hasn't been all good to us. It also helped usher in the era of materialism, falling away from faith, and conspicuous consumption, which has had some detrimental effects on many people. While I don't prefer to be as "technologically impaired" as the Amish, I have to admire some of their simplistic ways, and the many modern-problems they likely handily avoid. Without electric lights and TV, they probably get plenty of sleep at night. Without "birth control," they don't have the side-effects. Without the credit cards, they don't have all the debt. And so on. The Amish probably know their Bibles, far better than most of us.

Catch my other postings on the topic, by doing a quick forum search on the word "overpopulation." I sometimes search on that, or my screen name, to try to catch up with any replies to my posts.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pinocchio, you ought to read this post before you reply again.

 

PRONATALIST........SO YEA YOU HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO BUILD THE HOUSE 35 YRS, SO YOU BUILD THEN YOU HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN(MORE),AND AGAIN(THIS TIME MORE). it is not a solution it is ignorance, you do not have a solution, not even a just incase................

I got to the bit about the earth being 6000 years old and realised you are a brainwashed religious nut, which is good for you but will not benefit mankind.


REPOMAN.. Read the link and should have listened when you first warned me....I have taken it on board this time:crazy:

 

If world population is naturally burgeoning, then surely more and bigger cities can be among the useful tools to help house all the people.​

And why is this a "problem" that we have to build the house, then build another house, and still more houses? You do like having a job don't you?

Not long ago, it was feared that the trendy new labor-saving machines, would soon take away all our jobs. And they say that war is good for the economy. Apparently, when the men go to war, it creates a labor shortage, so then employers really have to notice their workers, and pay them better so that they stay. But war is so destructive. Surely there's a better way? Aha! There is. Making babies. The rebellious 1960s hippies were right about at least one thing. "Make love, not war." Well if "making love" means making babies, then they are onto something. For when people have babies, more of practically everything, is soon needed. More houses, more roads, more schools. Want to keep a society productive and employed? Encourage them to have their babies. Help insure that there will be the jobs people need.

You can't build a house, in 35 years? Actually, now we have more people around, to build all those more houses. Why can't people see a natural self-solving "problem" right under their noses? Letting human populations expand naturally, even stating the benefit in enlarging the entire human race for the greater good of the many, handily helps solve many societal problems. It helps keep the people occupied and productive, and out of trouble. Human population growth naturally accomodates itself, at least under good wise leadership. That's a practical reason why many people tend to embrace it, or at least not worry about it so much.

 

:fart:

you think too short term,long term your plan is flawed

 

It works well into the forseeable future.

Don't you suppose if the world, or cultures, eagerly embrace the populous future, they will likely more readily adapt to it? No reason that has to change, further out into the future. Well unless one sees things, only as a hopeless pessimist would tend to see them?

What if both the pessimists and the optimists, are right? What if what they claim to believe, they end up bringing about, to become self-fulfilling prophecies? People who believe in failure, might plan to fail. People who believe in success, might invest in success. So doesn't it really pay, as much as reasonably possible, to at least try to be an optimist?

Endless extrapolations into the future, are useless, because the farther out one extrapolates from known data, the more rapidly the projection wildly departs from any useful reliability.

Also because the Bible clearly states that humans won't be living on the Earth forever. There's the biblical endtimes coming, perhaps sooner than most people think?

And further out into the future, don't you suppose that there will be more options by then, and people then will be able to see the picture more clearly? Or do you have the money you will need for the next 100 years, already saved?

You like my views for the short term? Then where do you see the departure from short-term benefit to long-term detriment, anyway? I just don't see that much distinction between the two.

 

short term prob... in the next 35 years you have built, 7 billion homes, in 70 years, you have to have built, 21 billion homes, 105 years you have to have built 63 billion homes.......we havn't built that many houses in 4000 years how can it be done in a 100...........

I respect you have a belief, but when it comes to ensuring the survival of man there is no place for religious influence........sorry dude.


And even if I'm wrong it 's better to be safe than sorry. My way (birth licenses) will balance out the growth rate and populous in 100 years, your way becomes impossible after 100 years, Try and logicaly look without biblical ref or influence, and without "God" as your last resort.

 

Think about it. Isn't it often far easier to build a house, than to convince everybody to go against nature and "plan" away their meant-to-have children?​

It's far more elegant and easier and more respectful to nature and nature's creator God, to welcome babies to push out naturally, than to "control" human birthrates. Humans simply weren't meant to "control" everything, a practical reason why I don't believe in "earth control." Definition: Earth control is trying to impose control upon nature, beyond any clear benefit to man. Sure, alter nature to better suit human interests, but there are natural limits as to how far is cost-effective in imposing such "control." Examples of "earth control" that I vehemently oppose, is pushing "birth control" upon humans, excessive unproductive suppression of forest fires even in unpopulated regions where they are little threat to much of anything, and trying to "fix" supposed perhaps-natural-actually "global warming." If humans are supposedly causing "global warming," which I seriously doubt, then we have good reason and no reasonable alternative, so it's "natural" either way. But trying to "fix" it is needless "tampering" with nature, with no clear benefit to man.

Well it looks like you conveniently forgot to factor in, the potential of the huge, population-driven expansion of the work force. A common error of the population phobics. Deliberately only looking at the negative while dismissing any possibly positive factor. Why in the world couldn't a naturally burgeoning human race, build 63 billion homes in a century? By then, people would be just as used to, if not more so, the "giant" size of the world population, as people are today. Homes could almost be built in factories. Factories are often bigger than a house, and houses could be delivered by special helicopter, if designed slightly better to be hoisted by a cable. Homes are also often built of some of the most amazing common materials, so it is in fact, quite possible to build numerous and/or massive cities filled with people.

According to your way of thinking, the past century shouldn't have been possible, as many "new" things were accomplished. Before the 20th century, very few cities had over a million people, now such cities are proliferating into the 100s. Now half the world's people live in cities, telling us that perhaps the trend of the future is of rising human population density. And yet quite a lot of urbanization isn't driven so much by population growth, as by people depopulating the countryside to move to cities, so it's more by choice, and not so much by "crowding" necessity. I see that as a negative trend actually, as I don't think people should have to move to already crowded cities to find employment, as cities could more naturally grow from the natural increase of all the people already living within them, as the countryside rises in population density as well. Why not explore how more people can prosper, right where they live already, expanding their options.

My way? My way is the natural way, and the God-fearing way. It's not merely "my way." China must have some 350 or 450 million women now of childbearing age, many of whom yearn naturally for "traditionally very large" families. I say have some compassion and welcome them to push out their babies naturally. There can come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. By merely "scooting over" a bit, so many astounding more people can find or make some room to fit upon the planet. Yeah, I know, if the Chinese people more respected the dignity and sacredness of each and every human life, in a generation or two, they may have some 650 or 950 million women of childbearing age, much of whom may be freely pushing out babies naturally. The world's most populous nation setting an example for a growing world of people, of encouraging natural global population growth. That's the idea. To enlarge the entire human race, for the greater good of the many. Maybe China grows naturally to 3 billion, India to over 2 billion, or vice-versa. But then not all that many decades ago, it was a "first" for the world to have not just one, but then 2 "population billionaire" nations. And still the world went on.

Why is allowing people to live, and respecting human dignity, a "radical" idea? Some stupid government monopoly school textbook, that I bought at a thrift store, I guess they couldn't get rid of it fast enough eh?, had a chapter title of "Infinite humanity: The end of evolution?," showing a picture of a crowd. Apparently not everybody imagines it so impossible to have a massive natural enlargement of the human race. So why do you?

BTW, your numbers are way off. Seems you forgot to factor in, that typically several people share a home. Not an entire house for each person. But no matter, as the numbers aren't really so much the issue anyway. It's more a question of morals, and the sacredness and great worth of each and every human life.

No place for religious influence? Ha! Without religious influence, humanity would not long survive. Without moral guidance, what keeps us civilized, and at least, in appearance, trying to "play by the rules" rather than killing one another, as in the days before Noah and the Great Flood that God judged the world with? Without religious influence, the human race would have more troubles coping with having become so dense and numerous already. Aren't we perhaps a bit like that ape experiment, which I may have mentioned somewhere, in which they kept adding more and more apes, to some confines, giving them plenty of food and water, and Oooops! They adapted. They took to grooming one another and seeking to avoid conflict. Bummer. Where's the propaganda value in that? So they keep prattling on about the even more irrelevant disfunctional mice experiment. Did it not occur to anybody, that these "scientists" may have inadvertently "tainted" their own experiment? Pets don't behave so much like wild animals. Pets behave somewhat more like humans. More calm and civilized. More tolerant of crowds. Why? Because humans seem to expect it of them. Pets get disciplined for being too naturally "territorial" or for barking too much. So when apes see the humans adding more apes, what do you think they expect? Okay, these apes must now "belong" to the pack too. Who are we to argue? The humans appear to be more powerful or smarter than us. Could that be slightly similar to the effects of "religious influence" upon the human race? Oh all these additional billions must belong to the human race too, because they are our very own children, they even look and smell like us, and/or God is adding them for some reason.

Humans using "birth control" is a very new and novel, radical "experiment." Historically, not all that long ago, it wasn't the norm. There's practical and logical reasons why our population growth is still referred to in naturalistic terms such as "natural increase" and parents having "issue" of children. As not all that long ago, there was more respect for welcoming the natural flow of human life, and people were pretty much fine with the natural tendency of each successive generation naturally growing larger and more populous than the previous, as that's likely what Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, God's commandment to people, would imply. It was likely much of the motive for recent public health improvements and much of medical science, as people noticed that the human race was naturally expanding and densifying, and wanted to better insure that such could continue more easily and safely. Not all that long ago, "growth was good." What happened? Isn't it supposed to be more like "growth is good?" People fell away from faith, and started trusting way too much, in the corrupt, sensation-seeking media, and the new "high priests" of the day, so-called "environmentalists" and "scientists."

Editted to add: Better to be safe than sorry? That's the fallacy of the "precautionary principle." But it simply does not work in this context, because there are huge costs in interfering with the way that things were meant to be, also. To deny people their children, via deception and anti-family values, is not being safe rather than sorry. It's inviting trouble and otherwise needless revolts and revolution against repressive and oppressive governments or societies.

 

my mate is a builder and he say's it is not possible to build that many homes in the time scale. my edit note at the bottom said it was a max (50% is not possible).

If your belief is that strong in God, let me ask you.

When you are ill do you go to the docs/hospital or does God cure you.?
if your child had cancer/lukemia would you take it to the docs/hospital or would your faith in God cure it?
If you wear glasses why does God not fix your sight?
If your God is real does that mean all the other Gods are?


Why do we have hospitals if we have God.......?

don't forget for 1000 years mankind was persecuted killed and brainwashed in the name of God , I don't think we will stand for it again and most faith was lost because of proven falsehoods.?

only we can save ourselves...?
by any means neccesary.

aslo even if it was possible to build more house in 100 yrs than we have done in 4000 yrs, what about food, plants for oxygen areas for wildlife, not forgeting that land mass is decreasing.....where will your building materials come from?

 

Don't profane the true beauty of sex. It's main natural function, is obviously to enlarge the entire human race.​

And why is it not possible to build that many homes? Don't forget, homes are expensive, so people quite often share homes with roommates or with family members. So the number of people can be several times the number of homes. According to the TV show, "Extreme Makeover Home Edition," they radically improve, or build an entire new home, in just a week. But I suspect that they rig it somewhat, by bringing in huge work crews, prefab materials sometimes, and taking workers out the market for a bit, while other people's projects, not featured on TV, wait? Your friend may not be able to build so many homes, but don't you imagine in a human race getting larger, that the number of people who become skilled in building homes, can increase? Didn't more people in the past, build their own homes or log cabins? But homes were smaller then, as people didn't have so much STUFF. And when you have to build it all yourself, either you soon find it doesn't have to be so big, or you must have some serious free time and a incredible set of power tools? Most people who live in mansions, probably didn't do much of the work actually themselves, but had money to hire it done.

When I am ill? I am very rarely ill, and then it's rarely anything that a little rest and time can't cure. And yes, I do ask God to heal me. Does God heal me? Maybe, sometimes? I have a few minor little things, that God hasn't healed, I still pay to visit the dentist, but strangely, my lips used to chap, and now they just don't. I don't know why.

Pray first, ask people to pray, but most people who pray, still visit the doctors and pray for a good outcome. Why not pray? God don't hit you up with an obscenely expensive medical bill, for his healings. Other than that God wants us to trust him and be the Lord of our lives. God doesn't just want some of our money. God wants it all. Your soul, your trust, your money to be used for his kingdom, or at least used wisely to benefit you and your family. Where do people get off thinking that if they give God his tithe, the 10%, they are free to waste the rest? Does that honor God?

Good question. And yet I have better eyesight and better handwriting, than most everybody I know. People say my handwriting looks like type from a computer. I can write, and read, text that is very small. I don't do that to save paper, but for the same reason I put my computer monitor on its highest resolution that it can display without flickering. I want to see so much more at the same time, without having to scroll. I'm okay with tiny text and tiny icons, if they in effect make my computer monitor seem bigger.

Why don't God make us all to be "supermen," and take away all our pains and troubles? Because they serve some purpose, for now. They help keep us humble. They help us depend on others. They help keep our pride more in check. Why didn't God just give people X-ray vision like Superman, and be able to see through anything? What if you could see through the scratchoffs, and see the winning lottery ticket before buying it? Then lotteries might not be such a ripoff? What if everybody could see that? What if I could just fly, by thinking about it? How many dreams have I had, in which I could fly? What if you just gave your small child, every thing and toy they could possible want, all at once, all the same Christmas? What if you just bought them everything they might possibly want, for the next 75 years, and gave it to them all at once? Say your son is 3 years old. Give him a house, a car, 400 gift-wrapped toys, a bicycle, a chemistry set, 8 computers, 5 video games consoles, extra video game consoles for when those wear out and break, etc.? It would be overwhelming. How would anybody get into the living room with all those things all stacked up? Well maybe God doesn't want us to have "everything" all at once either? If I was rich, and shopping with my children, should I just buy them every video that they want? I think not. Let them choose something, and leave something behind. I don't want them to be spoiled, but to enjoy what they have. More things take more time.

Don't want to wear glasses? They do have a laser treatment for that, to correct the eyes now. But I rather wear the glasses. I don't want to trust the doctors to do some radical surgury, that might actually damage my eyes, when "corrective lenses" solve the problem well enough.

Why did God say that man shall now earn his bread by the sweat of his brow? Adam & Eve did not have to work for their food, in the Garden of Eden. Until they sinned, and got kicked out of the Garden. Work isn't just a "punishment," but due to our sin nature, that which we receive without having invested much anything into it, or working for, we tend not to appreciate or take care of very well. How many children when they come of age, are just "given" a car, and they peel out the tires, do doughnuts in some parking lot, and before long, the transmission is shot, the tires wore out, or the car wrecked or totaled? My parents never just bought a care for me. But my Dad did help me with the cost of both cars that I have owned. I kept my first car for 10 years, after having bought it used from my uncle. Be grateful that God has allowed man's machines to do some of the "sweating" for us.

If my God is real, then all the other gods are false. God doesn't leave any room for other gods. Have you not even read the Ten Commandments? God is a jealous God, and commands against having other gods or idols in our lives. If God is all-powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent, and so on, how can there be any room in the universe, for any other gods? If there was other gods, then would God have to share the power? Then how would God be all-powerful or omnipotent? Might there be god-wars? See, multiple gods is an invention of humans, trying to fashion god in their own image. We become like the gods we serve. Therefore, people should only serve the one true God. The Bible is very specific about such things.

Well the first reason that springs to my mind, is that people would rather pay through the nose, than to ask God for healing. Why do people smoke? Why do people engage in promiscuous sex? Why do people drink? If one plays "Russian Roulette," do they expect God to just make them "lucky?"

Do you even know where anestesia (spelling?) came from? The story I heard, was that some doctor thought it should be possible to do operations, without causing people so much pain, and he noted that in Genesis, when God made Eve out of a rib from Adam, that God put Adam, "into a deep sleep." That's where the idea for anestesia came from. Jesus healed people, by them touching him. But there was somebody in the New Testament, who understood how it worked better, for he also was a man of authority, for when he said to do something, servants did it. He asked Jesus to heal a servant of his, who was not present there. He had faith that Jesus could heal his servant. So Jesus did. The Bible reports that his servant was healed the same hour, I think is what it said, even though his servant had not met Jesus.

Jesus said that not everybody who says "Lord, Lord" will enter heaven, but those who do the will of the father. What an amazing "coincidence." Guess what I saw in some anti-Mormon cult exposé video? The words "Lord, Lord" where there should be a window, in a Mormon temple. Are they bragging that they are a false cult, to those in the know?

Not everybody who claims to be a Christian, actually is one. Obviously there must be false religions, because they are mutually exclusive in belief systems, so they can't all be true.

One out of one people dies. Nobody gets out of this world alive, or so they say. We can't save ourselves. The Bible reports of two people who never died, for God took them. But not even they saved themselves. I recall hearing some story of those people who walk with God, that some day, they walk so close to God, that it's like God says, "My place is closer than yours, let's just go to my place." Sorry I can't remember exactly how the preacher tells the story.

Yeah, that's what I am talking about. Filling the gaps between the many people, with still more people. Yes, homes getting more numerous and closer to other people's homes, on the global scale at least. More places where people live and fewer places far away from lots of people. What part of Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, do we not understand? Abraham and Lot's growing tribes, had the right idea, when they decided to move farther apart, to minimize any conflict over wells and grazing animals, so that their tribes may go on growing, more safely and comfortably. Surely they didn't think that a "permanent" solution? As their numbers grew, might they eventually become just as close together again, but then there would be so many more people than before? Well perhaps not, within their lifetimes, but it would happen to their descendents. Well spreading out over the land, is to "buy time" then, I would say. To allow time to find more options as to how to deal with all that, when the time came. There's presumably only but so far people can spread out, on a sperical "finite" planet, as they say, before people run into themselves again. What then? Well as I see it, there's actually 3 perceptional dimension people can yet spread into. Not just outwards, but inwards, and upwards. Outwards of course means urban sprawl, building additional cities and towns. Expanding human habitat over all the more land. Welcoming cities to grow closer together and even coelesce into one another. Inwards means infilling underutilized land. Building more streets and roads within existing communities. High density housing. Welcoming humans to naturally populate more densely together. Perhaps even more people in a home or younger children sharing bedrooms or beds. Upwards of course, means that some people may prefer to live in highrises, especially if it allows them to cluster into the more "desirable" areas of town, or to obtain housing more affordably. Considering all 3 perceptional dimensions, there's ample room to accomodate all the people who could come along, within the forseeable future.

What about oxygen? There's no oxygen shortage.

What about food? The world faces a growing pandemic of obesity. Apparently at least people with money, are finding food.

What about building materials? Ha! Homes are built often, of the most incredibly abundant substances. How do you think it is, that so many people can afford to live in homes so much bigger than that of their ancestors? Wood. Trees are most everywhere. Forest are so vast, as to cause inconvenient problem with forest fires. Trees grow almost like weeds, and without humans harvesting them, they die and rot, and burn in natural wildfires. Plastic. Plastic is largely weatherproof, especially some types such as PVC pipe or plastic conduit. Plastic is sometimes even replacing wood as a non-rotting board. Park benches and such may be made of recycled plastic. Plastic comes from petroleum, which is actually quite abundant, when you look at all the, nearly a billion? cars it powers. Brick. Brick is made of fired clay. What is clay? A certain consistancy of dirt. Glass. Glass is made of silica from sand. Cement. Made of sand and whatever adhesives or bonding agents. Metal. Comes out of rocks. A CD-ROM encyclopedia that came with an old computer, said that 8% of the earth's crust, is aluminum. Now perhaps the highrises on The Jetsons cartoon aren't made of wood anymore. Perhaps metal or plastic. But there's so many materials that either are weather-resistant, or can be made strong and weather-resistant, that I seriously don't forsee a housing shortage due to lack of available raw materials. Just look at the children's story of The 3 Little Pigs. Houses can be made of straw or grass, wood, or brick. Some people live in homes made of mud or of grass. Thatched roofs, properly maintained, shed rain water quite well actually.

Of course within most all houses, apartments, grass huts, condos, tree houses, caves, refugee camps, city lofts, tents, or wherever people may happen to live, people are enjoying sex and pushing out babies. So surely the housing stock must continue to increase. The way the world seems to be so obsessed with sex, and people act like it's so great, well if so, why not have all the more human penises and vaginas, populating more closely together? It's all the more people around to enjoy sex, or actually life, to be more comprehensive about it. Anyway, sex shouldn't be a selfish thing, people seeking only to get their jollies. It should be a loving and wonderful and generous thing, not profaned by man's selfishness, to be beautiful like how God made it to be enjoyed. To pleasure one's mate, to bond more closely together, and of course, to let love "overflow" and additional people to naturally come to life.

I do not believe that man should try to "control" every aspect of nature, as it tends to be impossible and unproductive to our interests, and our birthrate is a great example of something that was meant to remain somewhat "wild." Even the Utilitarian Principle things suggests it, if often the best thing to do is that which most benefits the most people, then probably we should welcome world population to be or become "nearly as large as possible," so that means welcoming the natural flow of human life, unhindered. As the numbers of women of childbearing age naturally swells around the world, they too should be encouraged to pair up and marry, and push their babies out naturally as well. Like I probably said here somewhere, I do not believe in "earth control," or the deliberate "control" of nature beyond that which is clearly beneficial to man. I do not at all believe that people need to limit their family size, to a pidly size that supposedly helps to keep the population size "stable" (stagnant), but a far better guide, is to consider that if the body is having montly periods trying to get pregnant, let nature "run its course," since it benefits so many humans so much anyway. The natural remedy for powerful human reproductive urges, is of course pregnancy, and the natural remedy for pregnancy is childbirth. The more I learn about contraceptives and the dark history behind them, the more I become convinced that humans simply were not designed to use them. And that's hardly just a "religious" belief, but enters into philosophy and medical health issues, respect for families, and who knows what else?

Even nature reflects this, for we aren't just 6 billion anymore, but now about 6.7 billion, soon to surpass 7 billion. And that's just the "official" numbers. Do you really want to get me started, on all the suspected or possible undercounting?

 

Reduce the birthrate tremendously by only allowing a third of people of reproductive age to reproduce in a given year (and let's say a maximum of only one successful insemination per year). Therefore people can only have a child once every three years. This may not seem like much, but it would legitimate the state's role in definitively controlling human reproduction. Also, force everyone to become a vegan. Then we will be able to feed everyone, without the McDonald's fleet of cows using up all the arable farmland for animal feed and wasting the precious fresh water.

 

Pronatalist.

I asked the question about God because if it does not help you biologicaly now, and you would go to the hospital rather than let your god cure you.
How will it help those who do not believe as much as you,religion is good for the individual but bad for the masses. If you do not have enough faith in god to cure how can it save?

GROWTH CONTROL WILL BALANCE THE POPULATION IN 100 YEARS.

Also as I do not believe in deities how can yours be more real than 50 other religions...?

 

Humans only eat a fraction of edible plants. With our numbers naturally growing, maybe we could BROADEN our diet?​

Society has no right to unnaturally limit its population size. People are not mere cogs in some socialist society machine, but rather society is a collection of individuals, for both individual and collective benefit. So the individual must always also remain important. The matter of reproduction is so valuable and vital, that is can only morally be made, by a "higher power." For our pets and livestock, we are their "higher power," making their decisions for them. So we are free to get our pets fixed if we want, as they can't provide themselves for their burgeoning numbers, and being "in heat" distracts from their role of being a good pet. Animals don't have "human rights," and so they don't necessarily get to breed. That's even true in the wild, where most animals seem to miss out on any chance to breed. Humans are far different. We are supposedly intelligent, and most humans have very reasonable opportunity to breed. Our "higher power" is God, and God made it quite clear, by commanding us to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, that we should go on breeding. God has decided that for us, so which part did we not understand? All married people may all have a baby, all at the same time, every year, if nature or God allows. Human life isn't something that we can impose rationing on. There's no moral or practical ways to enforce unnatural lowering of our birthrates. Babies need to be welcomed and loved, not rejected. The state can't morally impose regulations upon our birthrates, because the man in government is "our equal," not at all a "higher power." Government has to give account to the people it is supposed to be serving. The "divine right" of kings, has long come into question, and isn't considered legitimate, at least not anymore.

We more respect nature, and nature's creator God, when we welcome the apparent natural reproductive function of humans, and welcome babies to push out naturally from all properly paired up and married human being's birth canals. Let the natural flow of human life flow naturally, unhindered. What could be a more natural and elegant means of child spacing, than a womb that is already "occupied?" Food isn't merely for the selfish consumption of people already living, but also for the great "investment" of being converted into additional human bodies, of far more value and worth, than the initial organic matter. Humans have powerful reproductive urges. Some may say that humans are among the horniest of God's creatures, enjoying being "in heat" constantly, able to breed year-round, not confined to a limited "breeding season." The natural and elegant outlet, or remedy for human reproductive urges, is pregnancy. The natural remedy for pregnancy is childbirth. So why have we forgotten how natural and beautiful our natural increase really is? Human population growth is beautiful, for it allows all the more fellow human beings, to experience life.

Everybody being vegans, doesn't make sense either. We should be poor and go hungry, as some might in India? While rats and cows eat up a substancial portion of their food? Maybe there's a reason humans are omnivores, capable of eating, almost everything. Because there's getting to be so many of us, we were designed to become incredibly populous. As I have read it explained, eating animals actually does help insure our survival. It buys us "food insurance." By farmers having incentive to produce several times the amount of food needed to feed the entire human population, in times of famine, we could stop feeding animals and even eat the animals. So I don't see the animals as supposedly "competing" with us for our food, if we in turn, eat those animals. And who's to say that people can't eat meat? God said that we may eat meat. Animals don't have "human rights." They are not the same, and some say that animals don't have souls.

 

We are all part of the whole, we are all human's-the human race-homosapien-the only known factualy placed beings in existence so the whole/the maqchine/humanity/people/society will always come before the individual. ourselves in our entirety could be defined as an organism an entity.

When the inividual see's himself above all other's, as in his want/needs over rationality/fairness towards others I wonder if they were at Jonestown.

We are all cog's, parts', bit's of something greater all separated by some degree in the same thing we all expeirence.......Life and Life must come first.

Faith is good brother, but I would have to put reasoning before feeling.​

 

I think many scientist believe that earth's carrying capacity is about 13 billion. So I think our over population is a problem that the Earth will most likely fix itself. Just like when any species population becomes to large. Didn't you do that science experiment in high school where you have some flies or insects in a closed system like a jar with a replinishable food source? The flies eat the food and the healthier they are the more they reproduce, but when there are too many flies in the jar and the food isn't replenishing itself fast enough then the flies begin to die in large numbers until the population drops below carrying capacity of the jar and then the cycle repeats itself. Unless we can find some way to live off of artificial food that does not require energy,then we will do this to ourselves. People will die because of the lack of food or shelter, or any other resource because the Earth is closed system and like the fly jar has a carrying capacity to how many resources it can give us.

 

Trying to reason with Pronatalist is as dangerous as playing with one of these:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You're trying to talk about facts, he's talking about nonsense such as end times and souls. It is truly hopeless.

 

If people can't have their individuality and special uniquenesses that God gave us, then don't we seem all the more "crowded" or redundant?​

We are not some Star Trek "Borg collective." That is not how God created us. We aren't given the "hive mind," but our own soul and own thoughts.

You misinterpret to the wrong level. Some feminists or liberals may try to claim that how many children they have is nobody's business but their own. If ever that was true, it isn't anymore. What if everybody had large families? Society would be forced to populate denser. Somewhere I read some claim that in a populous world, large families affect everybody. My point is that the effects are largely positive. I agree that human reproduction isn't merely a "private" matter, but also a very "public" matter. But there's obviously a far better alternative to denying people their God-given right to have children, and it is population accumulation. How can people go on enjoying having all the children they were meant to have, in a world with so many people alive already? Simple. Explore somewhat how to populate denser and more efficiently. Allow the stastistical average distance between human bodies to shrink naturally, on the global scale at least. There can simply come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Just a little urban sprawl and such, what we are already well used to doing, well into the forseeable future. Build more homes and suburbs, as we need the jobs anyway.

Society benefits, so society should encourage large families. Does the greater good of the many, mean nothing to you? All we need is the minimal number of worker drones, so that the rich elites don't actually have to do any productive work? The more populated we get, the more people there are wanting children. Does that mean nothing to you? People most basic wants and primal needs, don't count for much of anything? And we dare call ourselves "civilized," when we give little or no consideration to what people most need and want? A little "growing pains," which of course can be mitigated by faith and use of technology, is but a small price to pay, for so many more people to be able to enjoy life. To keep government off our backs, and to promote personal responsibility and self-control. Faraway politicians can't make all our decisions for us. We need to take responsibility for our actions and making the world a better place, ourselves. Government isn't qualified to act as "god." Do you think that power-mad politicians care much what's good for you? Society wants to grow more numerous, because that's what the people apparently want. If they want it individually, then that often translates to the collective interest as well. "The Tragedy of the Commons," is a misapplied, clever lie, at least in this case.

When I add up the powerful reproductive urges, and many compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, I get a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race, and so I support that. It's the will of God, it's the will of the people. Dare to dream. Don't be so unimaginative. Dream bigger.

I often don't stress the "individual" rights aspect so much, as I often focus also on the collective good. Even the collective society wants to multiply. Haven't you noticed that I often say things like that the natural flow of human life should be welcome to flow naturally, unhindered? Let babies push out naturally. Go ahead and enjoy having all the children people were meant to have. Now where there did I say anything about "personal choice?" That individuals should have as many children as they want? No, I often speak to nature and natural and naturalism. Discouraging the awkward shoddy experimental contraceptives. I am thinking of the babies to come. I want to free people from the bizarre new "burden" of being asked to "decide" how many children to have. Whatever happened to babies happening when they happen? Would I want my parents having have "decided" not to have me? I don't believe human birthrates need to be "regulated" by man. I don't believe God created us too fertile. It's not so much about how many children people "want" to have, but that they have a right, a duty to procreate children. Any place where an empty bedroom can be found, or even room in parents hearts, an empty fertile womb, wherever God would allow, welcome the babies to come, for they are much the same as us. Weren't we all once babies?

So I am not arguing for excessive "individualistic" rights, but that people ought to be welcome to breed, so that the human race can expand and progress. Because the future generations would naturally prefer to be larger and more populous, so that they can all have their place and be welcome to live and to have came to life. Out of service to the "collective," we should be more willing to perhaps "scoot over" a bit, as may come to be needed, so that our numerous fellow humans, can have their place as well, so that our place to exist may also long be respected.

God says that all parts of "the body" are important. You seem to say that all parts of "the body" are mostly trivial and irrelevant. How might you reconcile this discrepancy?

I have a very logical and rational mind, and for me, faith and feeling sometimes come difficult. But I attempt it, why don't you?

There's a verse in the Bible, something about "lean not to your own understanding." Why? Because human reasoning is often so frail and error-prone.

In science or math, there's some discussion over how to make calculations to the proper number of significant digits. Notice that usually if I list the world population, I usually only state it to 6.7 billion, not more than 2 significant digits. Actually, the plus or minus tolerance accuracy, may suggest that we simply limit it to 1 significant digit, 7 billion. Many people make claims of undercounting, and some pro-lifers may suggest that we count babies still within the womb, among the count, as they are people too, and already alive. But why stop there? If we claim to do reasoning and logic, why not do some accessment as to how do we know what we know, and how sure are we, and what don't we know? Malthusian population phobics seem awfully sure of themselves, and yet they can't seem to prove their theories, and they conveniently refuse to consider how counterproductive their theories are, to family values, human rights, human dignity, tolerance or respect for religion, etc. While liberals preach "tolerance," they often are among the most intolerant of all.

 

And why do we confuse animal biology with human sociology, anyway?​

Actually, if you were to do just a tad more reading, you would find those estimates to be all over the place. From a few hundred millions, to 2 billion, to 10s of billions, to 100s of billions and beyond. Know what that is called? No so much "science," but wild speculation.

What I notice is, that the planet conveniently has no "maximum capacity" sign.

And why would the planet "fix itself," whatever that is supposed to mean? "Overpopulation" largely exists in the imaginations of the population phobics. It's hardly something that nature could be "aware" of or "care" about. Usually when the term "overpopulation" is wrongly applied to humans, it's rarely defined in any sort of "scientific" or objective way, but based on vague feelings of supposed "crowdedness." And yet most places, aren't crowded. Why is it, that when there is some discussion of supposed human "overpopulation," they go find the most crowded religious event, or the most crowded streets around? Why don't they go find the least crowded place in India or whatever? Presumably, people could go to such places, if they chose to?

Humans aren't just like other creatures, so the usefulness of such comparisons is extremely limited.

Artificial food? Ha! Farming is "artificial," if you want to get technical. Food just doesn't grow that way, all by itself. But then people are part of nature, so what it takes to accomodate us must also be natural, including cities and farms.

And why should energy be assumed to be scarce? So that a few bigwig corporate stockholders can line their pockets with your money? There's so many ways to produce energy or electricity. Energy is all around us. Falling heavy water that could be dammed to produce electricity. Wind. Solar. Nuclear power. Burning coal. Oil. Humans only eat but a fraction of the plants that are edible. We could even BROADEN our diets, if we thought we needed to. People can eat more plants, eat insects, etc. You must not have much imagination, if you really think that the Earth is a closed "jar." This gravity well may be a bit confining, but not that confining. You survived being couped up in your mother's womb, didn't you?