6 billion and counting

So what is one of those, anyway?

Dangerous huh? Afraid somebody might actually learn something, or finally open their eyes to see how it really is?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is a puzzle cube as featured in the Hellraiser films.

The only thing that anyone can learn from your posts is just how dangerously insane Christian dogma can be if taken seriously. It is hardly a parody of your posts to say that you seem to believe that we have a duty to fill the world up with humans before end times come, so there can be as many souls in heaven as possible. Since there is no good reason to believe in the Christian god, the existence of souls, or biblically prophesied end times, there is no compelling reason to read anything you post.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Somehow, it seems to remind me of that mysterious relic ancient clock, in the Tomb Raider movie. Laura Kroft throws it into the time distortion, and the missing shard of the magical powerful relic is suddenly suspended with all the other pieces that have flown apart. As if another dimension had been introduced, allowing her to reach inside the clock without actually having opened it, and take out any part she likes. I have heard somewhere, if you were 6-dimensional, rather than 3, you could eat an orange from the inside out. Whatever does that mean?

I haven't seen any of those movies, so what was the puzzle cube about? And I wish I could have solved more of the puzzles in some old Myst game.

In some sense, it's not so much about the numbers, but in seeing a better metaphor, of if the world is seemingly becoming "pregnant" with people, then let it bulge and swell naturally, like how a woman may be proud that her belly swells conspicuously "great with child." Nature is resilient, and the planet can much more easily withstand the rising human population "pressure," than frail humans can be expected to struggle against nature with awkward and unnecessary "birth control." If human don't control their numbers, neither will nature. Both humans and nature will ADAPT. So why can't we feel more free and relaxed to welcome the natural flow of human life, unhindered?

How do people so miss what is going on? I have heard something, that there's an attack against the children, and some sort of revival or standard is being risen against that, and some people of faith are finding that they should be raising Godly seed in the endtimes. I wish I could explain it better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But what about those who have 4,7,8,15 kids that they cannot afford and cannot provide for, who when they breed essentialy are likely to do the same...?

God has said a lot of things to a lot of people...yet nobody has heard it, if it has a problem it knows where I am, omni-potent y/n

I have faith and feeling just not in 'Gods'.

 

Pronatalism helps an increasingly populous world, more readily and naturally ADAPT.​

Oh, I want for those children, to also in turn, have their 4,7,8,15 children, also. As the numbers of women of childbearing age around the world, naturally swells, families should continue growing just as large. Welcome the huge human race, to go on naturally enlarging its numbers, for the greater good of the many, and the collective "progress" of the human race. If human reproduction is perhaps becoming "a mighty force of nature," then so be it. Nature and God's determination of how things must be. I would be much more fearful of such a mighty force, that could somehow stop or "control" such a force.

Largely discredited population pessimist, Paul Ehrlich, said in his old scare tactics book, "The Population Bomb," that "family planning" is a huge "failure." By allowing people "choice" (to not have children) we deny society any choice. One family may choose to have 3 children, and another family 7 children. They both add to the growing population size. Paul I think was opining there, that most everybody wants families of such a large size, as to keep the population growing. Of course recent demographic trends, could can into question such an assumption. But I tend to agree with him at least on that one point. What if most everybody naturally wants families of a size to keep population growing? Maybe at least 3 children or so, maybe 5. Doesn't that then imply, that most everybody would rather populate the planet more densely than be told how many children to have? So go ahead and shun "birth control" and encourage naturally, possibly large families for everybody. Sure, family planning is a huge "failure," but I approach it from the pro-life side. I want to see humans multiply and human life spread, naturally. I want people to know that "birth control" has side-effects, and to encourage people to relax and let their family size grow more naturally. A naturally "blossoming" human race, helps keep the world curious and interesting, and less corrupt and cynical. Some father on Dr. James Dobson's Christian radio program, just the other day, talking about his book, something or other about fathers and home-schooling, their family had 10 children, the first 5 children coming in a time span of just 6 1/2 years.

Some population article I read many years ago, some woman "family planning" pusher, or something or other, spoke of "Ping! Ping! Ping!" in describing some woman in some developing country village, who had a baby on her back, another inside, and a toddler following behind. Why so disrespectful of people enjoying having their precious darling children? I agree with such examples of people breeding naturally without the use of any means of "birth control," as humans were not designed to use any means of "birth control," and more and more people would be glad to live. Most everybody wants or ends up with children, and those having the most children, tend to be the best candidates for having more children, because they have experience raising children, and likely love children or are good at nurturing them, especially in an increasingly populous world, with rampant experimental contraceptives all around, and yet these peopel for one reason or another choose not to use them. I have long had much respect for people with enough faith to go against the declining social mores and welcome or allow somehow their families to grow possibly naturally large. When people breed more relaxed and naturally, I think that says something very positive and hopeful about what the future for us all, may be like. They are investing "heavily" into the future, which surely somebody needs to do, as far too many of us, aren't investing much at all into the future. If they say that the future is our children, so where are our children then?

If our society better valued children, of course so many people could still afford many children, and could in fact, provide for so many. And pronatalism helps a society better and more readily adapt to its naturally burgeoning human numbers. No, I don't think humans should let their huge human numbers grow "out of hand" willy-nilly, giving no thought as to how to adapt or accomodate so many. No, it's even wiser to grow on purpose, and clearly state the reasons why.

I am both a very logical thinker, but also capable of a rather high level of abstraction. I see many useful analogies, and the glaring flaws in some of the other popular analogies. So here's one I would like to "correct." Some population cartoon, I saw some time ago, shows an "earth bowl" filling with people, getting so full as to be squeezing the diversity of other forms of life into what tiny space up towards the rim of the bowl. What's filling the "earth bowl?" A population spigot just "gushing" with people. I'm not looking at the picture right now, just trying to recall it in my mind. What do we assume that's in the picture, that either isn't, or ought not to be? That's right. The faucet handle to control this spigot. It's missing. It's not a regulating faucet, but more a "pressure relief." It's like the pressure just popping off of a pressure cooker, a boiler, an overheating hot water heater. Let's say we try to "fix" it and plug it up? Ka-boom! Something's probably going to BLOW! We can't turn off the heat apparently, so we should hope this "pressure relief" continues to pop off, and allow it to "blow off the steam," even faster as the numbers of fertile women around the world, perhaps continue to rise. I understand why world population grows, and I agree with most every reason that could be listed.

There is indeed a lot of "heat." More and more cities have over a million people, the number having climbed from what, maybe one, in 1950 or so, to 100s today. They say what populates the planet is extremely pleasurable. Most all religions advocate large families and population growth, for some very good and practical reasons. More people seem to have "problems" with methods of "birth control" that they may have tried, than people seem to like to admit. And there's a strange appeal of the most natural and naturalistic method, the "no method" method of "family planning." I don't expect people to use any means of "birth control." I am concerned about side-effects which too often are down-played and not accurately reported or warned about. I do believe that the natural flow of human life should flow naturally, unhindered. I do believe that the world could hold, or be made to hold, so many more people than most people may want to admit possible. So let there get to be more cities and towns, growing bigger, and closer to one another. By welcoming human populations to not only grow naturally, but to densify naturally, so many more people can somehow fit onto the planet. And people may go on enjoying having their precious darling children, no matter how large the overall headcount might statistically get. Besides, statistics are too cold, and promote misunderstanding. They complicate and clutter so many people's rather small, unimaginative minds. They don't speak of the natural relationships, that all these "numbers" of people, are really people's friends, relatives, family members, that they invent and create and have ideas, that contribute far more to the world than we normally tend to realize, etc.

Besides, did I mention that large families, tend to use resources more efficiently, on a per capita basis? And large families better condition children to both survive and thrive in an increasingly populous world. Why should be be "bothered" to live in "crowds," if they grew up in a loving "crowd?" What else then, is there? Each and every human life is sacred, and so we ought not to interefere against human life's creation.

 

You're right nature is resilient and we are apart of it whether we want to admit it or not. And you're also right about both humans and nature adapting because it happens all of the time with all things in nature. Except I don't think the Earth can add more resources to itself just to meet demand. When resources run out so do we. We aren't special even though we like to think that we are, birth control would be a method of delaying the unavoidable, but we don't have any real predators so it was bound to happen eventually.

And why does it seem like we've been living in the endtimes since the beginning of time. Didn't the people who lived through the turn of the first millenia think the world was going to end, just like we did when the year 2000 came around, yet we're all still here.

 

Faith in God makes you feel good, whilst nature makes you.
Ignorance to your own existence, your own power, your own potential is marred by the fact's (in your eye) of the past.

Pronatalist...
Do not look backwards my friend ,as it is only at our feet, where we stand , where it belongs.....where we were..

If the earth be a bio-dome,:cheers: we be the owners.........? If children can simply run virtual worlds for pleasure with gratification of creation as the reward , where have we failed , what have we missed.

I asked another builder friend today about the equation for houses and he reckons that it takes 1 man, 1 month to build 1 house , so you do the math

 

I wonder how many babies in the crowded womb, thought like that, then they burst their confines, and came to be born. But then babies wouldn't think like that, as they haven't quite yet discovered exactly what they are. So the babies are smarter than we are? Because they aren't yet conceited in what they think they know? Could that relate something or other, to what Jesus was talking about, when he said something about having the faith of a child, to enter heaven?

Why would a baby want to delay its inevitable or unavoidable birth, anyway?

The 1970s was probably the time of "Zero Population Growth" stupidity, selfish thinking. Then China grew into the world's 1st "population billionaire" in 1979. Come 1999, India joined the growing prestigious "population billionaire" club. Both times, the world went on, and almost seemed to forget its population "milestones." I have a sneaky suspicion, that if the world before too long, grew to dozens of "population billionaire" nations, it may still go on. And to the people alive then, the world would seem even less crowded than it seems now. As they wouldn't know any different, and they would be born into a world already like that.

 

What? I'm not sure of what your even talking about.
How would you not know its crowded. I live in LA and I think its crowded, but according to your theory I shouldn't know the difference. And children who haven't even been conceived yet probably don't think to often about their birth. At least I hope my children don't think all that much.

 

Babies in the womb, I don't think their brains think (to understand choice) or have understanding apart from instinct.

 

Wouldn't the future world, ADAPT to natural population growth, far better than we give them credit for?​

Because you live in a "crowded" place in a world that isn't "crowded." If the whole world was "crowded," then wouldn't LA "crowding" seem pretty much the norm? And LA would be designed lots better to hold more people more comfortably, by then, BTW.

And children would think quite a bit, after their birth, which implies that their conceptions would be good, even considering them before the fact. If we want to leave a good world to our children, wouldn't it help to actually have some (or many) children?

 

i can't get passionate about the issue. someone will figure things out. who cares if mankind dies, not like anyone will mind when we're dead. if conditions get crap, well people only define quality of life depending on whats available anyway.

 

the earth only has 6.66 billion people now, it's not very much. when there's 666 billion people you can start worrying.

 

We can start worrying when the population count hits 666 billion ? Wtf ?
You realize that that's 100 times more people than there are now, do you ?
We will meet our doom long before that number.

 

well that's only roughly 325 years away.....

 

Havn't seen Pronatalist for a while...man his post were like short books...lol

 

People will start dying off from famines and other related stuff long before that.

 

After the ignorant entered the fracas:

I agree! We could put a few dozens more into that beach:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I always enjoy the solitude of my Chinese vacation...

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

...but only after taking a pleasant ride on the Indian Express:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

yes, it's fun with many people. there's so few people where i live. i would like to have at least a trillion people on earth.

nah, but seriously, there can never be that many people because there will be famines, mass diseases etc

 

i was just joking, i just wanted to say the number 666