Are we really overpopulated?

I would like atheists to live underwater or on the moon. I prefer solid earth myself

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why is that ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol sure..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I figure that once the world becomes too overpopulated, things will happen to reduce the population. There are wars, famines, diseases, mental issues resulting in suicide, poison, and other things that I can't think of to keep the human population from getting too high. The problem is that the world population will grow dramatically and become an issue in our lifetimes, more so than it is already. Imagine 2 billion people living in the United States.

 

My pronatalist views aren't just merely "religious," but scientific and practical as well.​

You actually make some good points in this post, so I find it puzzling why you are so irrationally religion-bashing hostile to my position in your post?

Never mind rumors of possible holodecks in the future, wouldn't people be prone to ignore, dismiss, grow accustomed to, or otherwise overlook the supposed "overpopulation" by losing themselves into a good book, or a fun video game?

Yes, the population growth is gradual, but that's a reason I wouldn't call it "overpopulation," as there are ample technologies and time to ADAPT to the gradual and natural rise in human population. And no thanks to the rampant contraceptive peddling, human population appears to be possibly all the less "explosive" and either headed towards not growing or atrophy, or more towards a more leisurely creeping growth, that while it may still be "relentless," is all the more gradual and not so noticable really.

That's a cool benefit of the technology. Plus, that 2nd virtual life seems all the less "overpopulated" than the main one, as it's more designed to better welcome an accomodate, seemingly nearly "unlimited" people. "The more the merrier," they often say. In the world of forums, "overpopulation" is relieved, by people naturally adding yet more forums, and more discussion topics to naturally divert some of the people. Rarely do I find forums that are so "overpopulated," that it seems a huge crowd is discussing the same topic at the same time, and it's too hard to follow anything that's going on, as just way too many people are currently talking.

Yes, I have long suspected that the most "crowded" peoples, aren't near as "alarmed" about it, as judgemental outsiders who make so little effort to understand the culture. American spaciousness, could seem to some more densely populated cultures, as "inefficient" use of space.

Sounds like you are talking of cities naturally growing to such immense size that they fill entire continents with wall-to-wall human housing. I am not opposed to such a supposed inevitability, but I find it quite unlikely. I don't see is as very "creepy," as by the time that ever happens, if ever, our distant descendents would be well used to it, and see it as quite natural and normal. Already, people think little of living in big cities, with human housing stretching onwards for miles, as far as the eye can see. Modern technology has already made many natural, proper modifications, to make such urban living very easy to deal with, say like building immense networks of water mains and underground sewer systems to conveniently hide away and properly treat, the immense volumes of human wastes so many people living at once, would produce.

There's not really so much loss of biodiversity, as I see squirrels and bird and rabbits and chipmunks outside my windows all the time. When I used to rent an apartment, I didn't at all miss having to mow grass and trim bushes. My lawn now, serves little purpose but to make me have to go out and do lawn work, that I would rather not do. I do like though, not having anybody pounding on the thin apartment wall, to turn my TV down late at night. Not that I ever played my TV very loud.

The obvious alternative to overcrowded farm animals and slaughtering of livestock for food to feed humans, is to mostly eliminate the animals and replace their production of meat, with more efficient synthetic processes, or some form of GMOs. The PS2 video game "Project Eden" had their "real meat" growing in tanks. Appeared to be far more efficient. But where's the benefit to animals then? Cows become useless, so we then just get rid of cows? The real benefit, is more affordable food for the working poor and such. All the less constraint on food production, making it all the easier for human populations to grow even more vast and dense.

Yes, I do agree factory farms may be inevitable due to so many billions of people now being alive. Because land divisions tend to be arbitrary and not necessarily entirely so fair, growing numbers of people not conveniently born already allocated their plot of land, tend to perhaps converge into the growing cities. That's why I so much advocate proper development and hefty production of energy and electricity, cheap and reliable and abundant energy to power the growing cities of the future, increasingly needed just to house so many people as there is getting to be. Increased urbanization of more and more land, seems far more able to absorb the naturally-growing numbers of people, than "primitive" Amish ways, that may seem to work well for certain smaller groups of people who prefer to live in such "outdated" or supposedly more "natural" ways.

There's room for both in the modern world. Nuclear fusion power plants producing harmless helium, and oil-powered cars. But there are additional possibilities not enough people dream of. How about synthetically produced gasoline? Might that someday be even cheaper? You don't have to drill it out of the ground, if the hydrocarbons are assembled synthetically, using nuclear power to provide the energy to be loaded into the fuel. Energy is all around us. Energy can also be inserted into fuels. The movie iRobot suggests cars will soon be going faster, driven more safely by computers, and not burn gasoline. Unfortunately, the movie neglected to mention what replaced the gasoline for energy. Must be up to us still, to figure that part out. Maybe like on The Jetsons cartoon, cars have small nuclear reactors, that are far safer and more reliable than carrying around fuel tanks full of gasoline.

That danger is greatly exxagerated. No doubt, Chinese cars will have some level of pollution control on them. The big danger I see, is that "environmental" extremists will continue to block the much-needed development of our own oil drilling, in a populous age of uncontrollably-rising demand for fuel. If such populous countries become overly polluted, they will use their rising wealth, to explore some technology to cut back upon some of the pollution. It will work out, without the West having to tell them, that they can't live more like us, and have their cars, and enjoy having just as many babies as they can or think that they want.

Such a "waste heat limit" is not such a "hard" limit as some make it sound. I don't even think that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is actually a physics "law," but more like a general observation. There might yet be some way to circumvent it, and convert waste heat into other forms of energy. I have heard that a human body, radiates into its living space, the equivalent heat of about a 40W light bulb. Even billions of people, isn't much body heat, if dispersed about the planet and not all within the same room. But somewhere towards the colorful scare-tactic of a "standing room only conditions" world, there starts becoming less and less space in between all the people, for all the body heat to disperse to. And then presumably, refrigerators and TVs and such, various machines, also produce some amount of heat. But the analysis I read, says that via refrigeration processes, the heat can be pushed up to the roof of the world multi-floor warrens of people, up to a presumed limit of glowing red-hot. This assumes the oceans being pumped into flasks below, or having have boiled off. But the entire analysis is rather absurd, not to mention amusing, as isn't it already rather unlikely that humans would ever manage to grow to such numbers, especially within the forseeable future?

Why do you tell the untruth of accusing me of trolling, when such "trolling" is a figment of your own imagination? I post only upon certain selected threads, not all over the place. Many people have far higher post counts than me, on this "science" forum. Are they "trolling" then? I can't very well be held responsible for the delusions of your own imagination. Your religion-bashing is very evident here. The very topic of "overpopulation," especially as how most people in the public sphere commonly define it, is hardly "scientific" at all, but involves moral questions of for what purpose do humans exist, where did we come from, where are we going, and how ought we to treat one another. These are all RELIGIOUS questions. "Overpopulation" directly relates as to how we consider the worth of other people, a RELIGIOUS question. Please note, that I did not start this "overpopulation" thread, so if you claim I am "trolling," then I must not be the only person around here, "guilty" of your imagined infraction.

Actually, in a way, I was "invited" to this thread, as "overpopulation" is not the only word I sometimes perform a Search on. I also search for "Pronatalist," in case somebody may have replied to one of my posts, as I like to show them the respect of reading all such replies, and responding if I have something to comment. Look back, at how somebody dropped my screenname into the discussion, in essence "inviting" me to join.

You claim this is a science website, when in actuality, it has all the properties of a FORUM. The majority of people in the world, hold to some serious RELIGIOUS persuation. Are you saying, that only people who hold to the supposedly non-religious religions of atheism, evolution, Marxism, and so on, are welcome to post here? Last time I noticed, I didn't see any sign on this forum that it is to be the atheist, or the humanist, or the evolution forum, and even then, such hypothetical forums probably would welcome some possibly diverse "religious" views.

Anyway, if you are to make any pretense as to having any reasonable discussion about "overpopulation," then you MUST accept various religious views concerning it, otherwise, there is little hope of coming to an adequate understanding of the presumed "problem." For RELIGION is a leading contributor as to why people still cling to their right to have possibly large families throughout the world. Many people have very understandable "religious" objections to the use of "birth control." I have been rather kind, to in my explanations, not only cite my religious objections to impeding the natural flow of human life, but to also include philosophical reasons, practicality reasons, and the hope that already population-driven technology growth will naturally help mitigate most all "problems" that continued natural human population increase may seem to bring, especially within the forseeable future.

I do not consent to your position as moderator, to allow you to BULLY people of a different religious persuation around, as a shoddy excuse at unfair censorship, towards unproductive liberal-lopsided discussions. I host several forums myself, and I wouldn't dream of abusing my power in such a way, as usually, I find the Reply link plenty powerful to challenge views that I may happen to not entirely agree with.

Most people understandably don't want to be told how many children they may have. Just because I explain as to why families naturally grow, far better than many less vocal people, do you find my position to somehow be "threatening," fearing that people might discover the truth, and be persuaded by me? If my view is so wrong, as you seem to imply here that it may be, then why worry about it, as it's not likely to persuade many people, especially in an open discussion in which all views may be shared?

There's a lot of ifs to that wildly speculative extrapolation. If some killer comet doesn't wipe us out first. If no runaway star comes along. If there's no Bible-predicted endtimes to take us off the planet. If aliens don't come abduct us or give us technology or invade us. If people still manage to multiply populations, in spite of all the rampant contraceptive peddling and modern selfishness. If you and I are still around. Whoops, that last one is probably particularly unlikely.

We still don't seem to know, according to popularly-accepted demographic projections, if the human race will even breed to the 10 billion people mark. Don't we first have to reach 10 billion, before having any shot at 100 billion?

We already live in the miles-deep warrens, when we play the virtual environments video games. That "natural" sky in the game, is nothing but a thin facade. Who knows what "warrens" or other video game environments, might be imaginatively lurking beyond? And if we double human populations every century, even mostly known present technologies, likely would be adequate, for several centuries to come. Especially as they become more widely applied, and most all the world gains indoor flush toilets, electricity for cooking, internet access, etc. At least for the vast majority of people who aren't hermits or xenophobes. Even bees live in hives, so why is the populous future so "scary" anyway?

Your opinion. Surely you can see that many people simply won't agree. Being called a supposed "moron," isn't limited to only faithful Catholics.

Are you accusing me again of the same imagined infraction, in the same post? That's obviously not fair. There's not even a "notice" in between imagined infractions then, and your double repeating of it, doesn't make it in any way a double-infraction.

And why would I want to live in a ghetto? I have high morals, and I don't trash up my neighborhood.

Quite many people understandably hold to the position, that we simply don't need to impose Big Pharma shoddy contraceptive potions and poisons upon people who especially want more children, just to "compensate" for more children living long enough to have still more children of their own. That more children would survive to grow up, is all the more reason to enjoy having large families, as why have children just to see them die?

When I first starting reading about the supposed "overpopulation crisis," I found it curious, that the size of the human population, was not at all stable or static, but prone to, over time, grow. But this should not be a "surprise" to a Christian worldview, for the Bible clearly advocates that human populations should grow. It might be a bit of a "surprise" to an atheist or evolution worldview, where everything presumably happens for pretty much "no reason," at random, not much to insure that it even can naturally work itself out. See how vital one's worldview is, to properly framing the issue and seeking to understand it? Surely, you don't expect all participants, to magically hold to only but one unified worldview?

I know the Third World nations, tend to now have large and dense and growing populations. How are people to enjoy having their children in a world with so many people alive already? I propose moral and simple answers, that most anybody can understand if they want to. Explore how to populate the various countries more and more densely with people. That is how to help the planet absorb the perhaps lots more people yet to come along. Is this a "radical" solution? Not at all, for it's already the path we are on, and it has rather normal terms describing it. Like "sprawl" and "migration" and building "suburbs." I think the more simple and pronatalist people of Africa, rather like seeing their villages naturally grow into small towns, naturally growing larger and closer together, but I would like to see more pronatalist planning for growth, and not read so much of "haphazard" growth that somebody commented on.

Upon what "scientific" basis can you explain, why humans aren't free to "pick and choose" among the natural and the artificial, according to what benefits us? Yes, I support death control but not birth control, as I see human life as something immensely valuable, sacred, something well worth my efforts to defend. The rising population size does seem to increasingly requiring allowing people access to vacinations, proper water treatments, and yet most of the compelling reasons for possibly naturally large families, also apply just as much as ever.

Currently, I see not much progress in technology towards humans spreading to colonize other worlds, at least not soon. But there's huge progress already being made, towards populating this world denser and denser with people. And if ever humans are to colonize other worlds, I predict that massive population increases of the population of this world, must first occur, to spur on the necessary technologies that would make space travel more comfortable, safe, and especially AFFORDABLE to the common man and his growing families.

Think about it practically. Population phobics make it sound, like human populations grow so easy, as if somebody sneezes and out pops another billion babies. That's absurd, parents invest quite a lot of effort and work, to bring another billion babies into the world. And they alreay give much thought to what they are doing. I am confident that the human womb, already is a sufficient natural "bottleneck" as to how fast human populations can expand, as the womb usually only naturally accepts, but 1 baby at a time. What could be a more natural form of child-spacing, than an already-occupied womb? But if the world still happens to be more naturally pronatalist than some people-hater population phobic might seem to like, then perhaps the naturally-growing numbers of women of childbearing age, are loosening that "bottleneck" a bit, decade by decade, as larger generations of children become the breeders of tomorrow, and there gets to be all the more possible birth canal paths from which babies may emerge. I am fine with that idea as well, as I am not at all for overly tight "earth control." More people alive means more people also wanting to reproduce. The right/duty to reproduce, is given us by God, and not something "debatable" towards the selfish and unimaginative goals of globalist socialists, who seek to relegate humans to but mere cogs in a socialist machine state. Therefore, it's fine for so many countries to have "more than enough" people, as there's so many better, more altruistic and moral reasons to allow for potentially huge and denser populations, other than merely the minimal number of people to staff the factories or whatever peon-nonsense towards the filthy rich elite having enough unquestioning "slaves" so that they themselves don't have to actually do any productive work. Even some YouTube video description text commented positively upon "Gaia" being "pregnant" and really wanting/needing to have this (human race) "baby," so I am not at all alone in my views of welcoming the continued, unhindered, natural increase of humanity. And more people coming to live more closely together thoughout many regions of the world, could tend to make baby booms all the more "contagious." I am no party pooper. I'm fine with all the more people coming alive and enjoying being sexual active, within proper marriage and preparing their proper family nests to responsibly receive any babies that may understandably result, but of course. I believe some aspects of nature can still remain somewhat "wild," and that especially intelligent humans can somehow deal with their own baby booms that just might tend to persist, intensify, or spread, increasingly perhaps globally. I do not believe that humans need be subjected to freedom-robbing population "control," and believe that proper respect for people includes to some reasonable extent, expecting people to make their own decisions, so I do not believe in setting any "cap" on national or world population sizes. Leave it up to God, nature, people's own family decisions, as it's highly arrogant for a few rich elites, to always pretend like they have all the answers.

And yet, whether I be here or am gone, any discussion on "overpopulation" will always inevitably attract sooner-or-later, "religous" types with opinions as to how human populations could potentially enjoy being even larger. Not everybody's into all that quaint, outdated gloom-and-doom Malthusian (yet another "religion") nonsense. Somehow, the idea that somebody who thinks there are supposedly "too many" people in the world, should just end their own life, just always seems to come up. A little pesky thing called "reality" or "hypocrisy" that even casual observers seem to sooner-or-later pick up on and inquire about. Even some atheists consider human population growth "progress" for the human race, or a natural or basic fundamental "right" of humans.

Unfettered breeding? Have you so little respect for people to make their own choices for their families? Has secular "science" education so clouded your mind, as to spit upon anybody who dare have the gall to disagree with the "politically correct" wrong views of the world's "enlightened?" That pompous "scientific" view, comes across with me, as being wildly "religious" and overly narrow-minded. Anyway, I think I did read in some pamphlet, something or other on birth control methods, of the "no method" method. Nice to see it actually included in the list of methods, as it obviously would be a common method, which still nearly half the world uses, much of the time, according to somewhat-ol statistics I have seen. I think it said that the "no method" method, has around an 85% "failure rate." But this has to be skewed statistics, not counting women too young to be biologically ready to conceive, nor those too old to conceive, nor those not currently married or otherwise not engaged in natural marital relations anyway for some reason. To claim an 85% failure rate, is a very high number, only conceivably imaginable, among the most fertile group women, who aren't already pregnant yet. I think the figure is defined as meaning something like, among 100 women of this group, using the "no method" method, within 1 year, 85 of them can be expected to have become pregnant, at least once. If the "no method" method, can be listed as a method, why exactly, would properly married couples wanting children, not be free to choose it, for whatever reasons they like? And what if you and I, supposedly being "educated," find reason to choose some other method than "no method," perhaps Catholic-tolerated rhythm, being understandably concerned about the expense, possible abortifacient methods, or the side-effects? Wouldn't we still have to accept somehow, that quite many people throughout the world, still may in some regions, face significant natural population expansion, due to the understanbable popularity of the "no method" method?

Even a "scientific" view, would have to accept, that it probably is quite possible, to have large regions of the world, populated nearly wall-to-wall, or whatever colorful description, with people. Now whether that is a socially-desirable way to live, may be another matter, but if it is presumably possible, through proper use of both natural and artificial means, then why is the supposedly "scientificially"-annointed, so fearful to accept that prospect?

You call my well-thought-out views BS? Well I can also call "standing room only conditions" that I read of, in some college textbook or whatever, similarly BS. Why are such implausible "scare-tactics" even admissable into a serious, supposedly "scientific" discussion?

I don't at all advocate cutting down all the trees, to build ugly statues or ridiculous excessive numbers of temples. My first choice for Churches, is meeting in people's own homes. I am already frugally-minded, at least in some of my own personal preferences, and I am too much a packrat, and tend to prefer to stay home and not consume much. But I don't want those shoddy contraceptives in my body, nor that of my mate, or interfering with proper marital relations. A world with more and more people, presumably implies that gradually, eventually, as natural technology progress and advancing wealth permits, each person must pollute less. As there's more people around, living closer together, more easily affected by other people's unwise decisions, say like lighting up a cigarette in a crowded room. That's maybe why we don't burn our leaves in the cities anymore, why cars have pollution controls, etc., in order to protect our rights and ability to go on having our children in an increasingly population-dense world. Also yet another reason why I don't smoke nasty cigarettes. Who wants to "go outside" for a smoke, as we find ourselves seemingly sometimes surrounded by so many people opposed to second-hand unneeded cigarette smoke. Also a reason why I bathe before going to work, perhaps a bit more often than I might otherwise like. Modern high population level has been made possible by proper use of science, which you seem to despise and want to redefine science to mean something perversely anti-human benefit. That would then be called radical "environmentalism," not so much "science" anymore, in that case. Or "Deep Ecology," as some "tree huggers" may be into. Deep Ecology is not at all compatible with today's human population-dense world, so I suggest people quickly jettison such notions, before it causes unneeded problems. Or discuss such notions to me, so I can help explain the error of their ways.

What would really drive ever-widening radiuses of deforestation, would be holding people back to primitive fuels for cooking their food. A leading real environmental problem, is the respiratory problems people have from burning wood, trash, and dung to cook their food. The problem is not at all addressed by the unnatural "magic condom," but by natural gas and electricity being developed to cook food in growing cities, to have the human-benefit, without all the pollution, and without people having to so much clear away so many trees, for "free" firewood.

Yes, I understand all about that. That's why I suggest it's so much easier to "scoot over" a bit, to make room for everybody's progeny, than to lie and deceive and seek to rob them out of enjoying having their precious darling children. Unlike the Anti-Christ in the popular Left Behind series of books, I don't scold developing countries for letting their populations naturally "balloon" in size, for I find it quite understandable, as the powerful urge to reproduce resides in most all of us, not just "them." I encourage all nations to populate denser, as how else can the planet absorb the more and more people, that you and I and our neighbors having our children, tends to bring?

Now how in the world do you confuse my kindness and compassion for people, with the rampant socialistic tax-and-spending reckless economic activities of our age? I have studied the population issue for decades. I understand why world population tends to grow and grow, and I agree with most every reason parents can cite for having as many children as they do. The Bible says we Christians are supposed to be a peculiar people. I am no "troll." I host several forums of my own, so I am well familiar with the Mod and the common peons sides of forums. I am more frugal than most people, I too am annoyed by certain displays of conspicuous consumption, especially when combined by excessive debt. Would it surprise you that I have no debt at all? I never had a car payment, and my house is paid for. I never made all that much money, I just try to make wise decisions in managing it. I prefer to make reasonable preparation for whatever "coming economic earthquake" that foolish decisions of our "leaders" may be bringing upon us, and also for the possibly large family I might someday have. Although, unless my wife-to-be is younger than I, the statistics suggest God may not give us all that many children anyway, due to age-waning fertility?

Too much favor-giving in Washington D.C., politicians "buying" votes making promises to do things for people by stealing thy neighbor's money to fund them, and way too much corporate welfare. Not enough people with principle and morality, people like me, in government leadership positions. Due to people voting foolishly and being greedy, not even beginning to understand the valid purpose of government anyway.

So do we more agree, or disagree on the issues really? Why do you feel so "threatened" my "idealistic" views, that the world probably won't much accept anyway?

Where did I once ask for a financial contribution? I don't advocate for "unfettered breeding" of pets, because I would understandably be at a loss to explain how it could be properly supported. We are our pets' "higher power," and so we may decide for them, whether they may have offspring or not. God is the "higher power" of people, so God commands us to multiply. I believe humans are uniquely different than other creatures. I do hope I am not overly optimistic, to think that humans are intelligent, and easily naturally ADAPT to our natural increase, and that more and bigger cities, are probably far easier to deal with, than how to impose evil schemes to rob people of their precious darling children.

Now you might try to call such natural pronatalist views supposedly overly "religious," but that would be inaccurate. For they also meet with reasonable tests of philosophy and practicality as well. For what is easier than imposing excessive "control" upon the already populous masses? How about not imposing so much "control?" The people are already so many, that they must be free to make many of their own decisions, as who's to say what's right for them, well unless you are alluding to a "higher power?"

 

I wouldn't necessarily mind living underwater or on the moon or Mars myself, if needed to find some affordable housing somewhere, well except for some of the practical problems.

• Might not like to share a community overly infested with atheists.
• Might be mismanaged by evil leaders as in the movie, Total Recall.
• Low gravity causes body changes making it harder to return, if ever, to Earth.

But even living on the moon, is much preferable to the evil globalist power-mongers, trying to dictate to us, how many children we may have.

I am certainly open to the growing human race, spreading to inhabit more worlds, to find a bit more growing room, except that technology doesn't seem to be offering that option anytime soon. So in the meanwhile, I see no better option, than welcoming this world to grow naturally more and more dense with people.

 

Less global whining, would be my first guess.

 

Women's bodies don't seem to be "overpopulated" by the baby growing inside and swelling their bellies, and yet the "bulge" is very conspicuous. So much so, that I have heard somewhere, that's what tilt-steering was invented for, so that pregnant mothers could more easily drive a car or van.

Population-driven technology is reducing pollution, in spite of, or shouldn't I say, because of, population growth.

What should worry people, is not so much what a "force of nature" human reproduction could seem to be naturally becoming, but rather, what evil force would it presumably take, to impede or stop such a natural and human-beneficial expansion.

Yeah, open and green spaces, might be nice for something, but they are simply worth far more, having been filled with people.

It's like lamenting that a field is becoming "too full" of pretty flowers. Why exactly, should that be considered to be "a problem?" "Too many" people surviving? How would humans be any better off, if were were dropping dead like flies?

I'm a natural introvert. What use have I for crowds? But that doesn't mean that I would fear crowds, or often seek to avoid them. I can still defend the right of crowds to exist, although, perhaps somewhere else than too close to being in my bed with me. Well except for my wife, and occasionally the children you just can't always keep out, during some particularly dark and scary thundery stormy night.

 

Not so hard nor scary to imagine.​

I suspect some population phobics fear, there may not really be that much anymore to keep human populations from potentially growing so "crowded."

I welcome the prospect of 2 billion people living within the United States. Especially if it comes mostly from natural increase and not so much immigration. I welcome the natural flow of human life unhindered, and don't at all ask nor expect for people to use any form of "birth control," as natural family or national or global growth, means all the more people around to benefit and experience life. I don't expect mothers to curtail the natural flow of babies pushing out from between their legs, any more than I would expect people to stop breathing or eating. All are human-beneficial, life-giving, natural processes. Think about it practically. By the time we manage to become so populous, you and I and our direct children would be long gone, and our descendents well used to it and adapted to it. 2 billion wouldn't seem like anything much more than the "getting a bit large" number we have today, of 300+ million. And many people in China, probably persist in thinking it's not particularly "crowded" at all, especially if they don't live in the biggest cities, as many were born within recent decades, and don't remember much of a China with less than a billion people anyway.

 

correct, and less irrationality as well.

 

Sure but the real damage will already be done by then. Think about it.

 

Don't listen to pronatalist. For you own sake..

 

The Japanese are 'happy' - so much so that house prices are through the roof and they are having to quite literally beat down the central mountain ranges in order to create land out to sea and to create more 'uncomfortable' space?

I also know inner-city dwellers who long to escape from their grey, angular world - what exactly is your point?

My sister's ex-boyfriend was from Georgia and he came over to visit us in England one Summer. Some adjectives he used to describe our country were "small, close-together and overpopulated."

Pro-natalist -

You are an idiot.

What kind of analogy is that? How can you compare a single baby in a perfectly capable womb to billions of people sucking at the world's and eachother's resources. I would consider the womb over-populated if she were having octuplets.

Evil force? We're not talking about extermination here. What about sexual education and limits on how many children a family should have?

Why is an open green space worth more if it has people in it? Are the aforementioned 'pretty flowers' not worth anything? Or any wildlife at all? Or what about the people living in these inevitable squalid conditions, will they be happy?
You don't mind crowds and pollution when you can keep them at arm's length, but if growth carries on at its current rate, you may not have that option.

 

No.

There are still vast stretches of uninhabited lands and plenty more that can produce crops still.

 

No, There are only about ten million people really on Earth. The illusory "billions" simply do not exist.

 

Really? Pray, tell the world the location of these hitherto undiscovered fertile expanses!

 

Your math skills are illusory.

I'm sure we could get an extra ton or so of grains from your arse, if properly fertilized and harvested.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Making people have only so many children is communist.

 

Let nature be a bit "wild" still, in human-beneficial ways, and avoid needless "tampering."​

That doesn't mean the people are unhappy. Many people already have their plot of land or housing space, so they may be fine, but economic forces may say develop even more land, for newlywed younger couples, looking for a space for their own additional homes. The obvious place to put even more people, is between all the people. If people are already close together enough, then the obvious place, is those places that don't have a lot of people yet, the gaps in between the various cities and towns and villages, could be ideal for urban sprawl, new communities, moving natural towards people not just capable of living "anywhere," but perhaps "everywhere" as well.

Also, check to see if there are perverse economic/political activities to blame. Setting areas "off limits" to development, is naturally going to corall the growing populous masses, to any areas yet remaining.

To be fair, with Japan being populated slightly more densely than India, in statistical terms of nearly 2 people per acre versus India's 2 people per 3 acres by my calculation/estimation, it would appear that Japan didn't receive their "fair share" of the planet's land, during all the past conquests and formation of national land boundaries. Generally, there's not much that can be done now, with all the land now claimed by some country, and frontiers supposedly vanishing. Countries can't "give land away," because that isn't fair to their own citizens already invested into making their lives and homes there. The obvious answer, is for countries to use well what they have, and naturally just populate denser and denser. Just because a country may seem to some to have "too many" people, doesn't at all diminish the people's God-given right/duty, or I suppose you can call it nature-given if you aren't into respecting religious belief so much, right/duty to have children. Children want very much to come alive and be born, no matter if into a big family already, or a country "crowded" or not. Far better to exist and be loved and welcomed, than not to exist at all.

Ever hear the saying, you can't have your cake and eat it too? I say people can't both have the right necessarily, to have "unlimited" children, and also to live miles away from their nearest neighbor. Sure, they can do both, as land space permits, or if they really do want to move to "the middle of nowhere." But accepting people's rights to have children, also necessarily implies that all their many neighbors, in their own country, and in surrounding countries, and the entire globe, also have this right and duty to procreate as well. Now if people become "trapped" in the city, because the city naturally grows from coast-to-coast, and there's nowhere else to live, then be grateful to be allowed to live then. But "people everywhere" isn't what currently "traps" people in cities. Most everybody can find small villages, or "open" countryside to move to, they just don't want to. Might have to leave relatives and friends behind, or leave behind comforts like a wide variety of jobs and stores in the city to choose from.

If people feel "trapped" in the city, why lament what can't be changed no matter what people reasonably do? Get a house plant, or plant a garden, explore what one can do, to make one's city look a little bit more natural, more comfortable, or more human-friendly and family-friendly. Put a swingset or junglegym in one's backyard. No family backyard? Maybe organize a fund to build a community park for the community children and families. I don't think there is any "law" requiring cities to remain "gray," is there? Communities could organize efforts of budding artists, to, with permission, paint building walls and concrete, with nice colorful, respectful murals/art.

I think as future generations come along, and perhaps know of nothing else, small, and close-together could be seen more and more as natural and normal. Since we can't ship off the supposedly "surplus" human populations to some other planet, we must somehow fit or squeeze them in, the best we can. In housing sales lingo, a small living room is often called "cozy." Well what's so wrong with "cozy?" Sometimes "cozy" can have a few, perhaps unexpected benefits. For example, when I found an apartment to rent, I was glad I didn't get the unit at the end of the row. By being "sandwiched" in between 2 other apartments, my apartment was easier to heat. When I was away and turned off the heat until I get home, it normally would never get all that cold. The couple longer walls, have heated apartment units on both sides. At the end, more walls would be exposed to only the cold outdoors.

And yet parents' own homes are naturally filling with population growth, so much more dramatically than communities or the world. People's own homes, by definition pretty much, are always more confining than the community or world, and yet all these babies coming alive, live in the homes of their parents usually, for at least nearly 2 decades. I say that's already pretty good "education" of the population growth condition, warranting no additional scare-tactics to not have "too many" children.

Why is the planet not similarly "perfectly capable?" Do you call the womb like some sort of population arcology, or "baby factory?" It's fine for the womb to be swollen "with child," because that's its natural function? Why can you not say the same for the planet then? I don't perceive the problem with my analogy that you claim.

I say it's very good to have "burgeoning billions" "suckling" as you say, at the world's resources. What's the results of this? It helps people ADAPT and learn how to properly use such resources, for the benefit of the populous many, and not selfishly just for the elite filthy rich few. And think of the wants and needs of business and various economic models. What might the manufacturer of baby diapers want, for his business to prosper? For babies to grow older and older and never be potty-trained? No, that's absurd, selfish, foolish. No, why not have there be, more and more babies' bottoms needing diapering. Since that goes along well with the many parents' natural desire and various reasons to go on procreating. That would be a reason why I, as a pro-lifer, and hypothetical business man, would be much more interested in manufacturing baby toys or diapers, and never contraceptives. I would want no part in helping to eliminate or prevent my possible "future customers." The natural flow of human life, or babies, is very good for business and stimulating the economy.

What about respecting that Big Brother government can't possibly decide everything for everybody. Quite many people are actually quite capable of some level of self-governance. Would you want Big Brother directing the self-organizing flow of people on the skating rink? No, quite often people out of self-interest, already tend to make the right decisions, without some big bully breathing down their necks trying to overly restrain available options.

The number of children families have, has already plummeted sharply, no thanks to rampand contraceptive pushing, without all the Big Brother imposition of direct coercion and "limits." But even if it hadn't, surely humans can more readily ADAPT to natural-rising population sizes, than to cope with evil politicians seeking to lie and scheme and rob them of their children.

Look at real estate values. The more people there are, to bring value to the land, the higher the value rises. But is that some sort of economic fiction? Partially perhaps, but not entirely. Economic "competition" for land yes, but wide open spaces really aren't worth much, if few people ever see or experience them. Land does not have its own intrisic value, but the value people ascribe to it.

Sure, pretty flowers have value, but not near the value of beautiful people and souls. You can buy flowers at the home improvement store, rather cheaply, compared to all the various values placed upon people. Even medical insurance will cover a human body to several $millions. It could be even more, if only "more money" could cure all our body's ailments.

I'm not worried about the presumed prospect that someday, it may become supposedly impossible to keep the crowds "at arms length." That ranks actually fairly low, on the things that sensible prudent people should be worried about right now. We should be much more concerned about Iran, and about defeating Obama, who is so much against economic prosperity, and drilling our own oil. He wants gasoline prices sky-high, 100% dependence upon unreliable importing of oil, because he is a dangerous, cold, calculating pro-abortion, anti-family sadist.

Such supposed "distant future" "overpopulation," should rank around #9,999 on the list of things to maybe worry about. Nowhere near the top.

I do not believe in "earth control," which I define as so overly trying to "control" nature, as to be harmful to human benefit. Alter nature Yes, but subject to reasonable cost-benefit analysis. At some recent perverse UN population conference, I heard some news snipet of them trying to rampant push contraceptives, in culturally appropriate ways. Huh? I so detest such lying doublespeak. What if there are no "culturally appropriate" ways? Some countries are still so much more pronatalist than ours, and generally the more children families have, the better. Are they saying that the mean nasty contraceptive pushers, are then content to just let those populations "explode" in size naturally? I say Yes, if people want so many children, yes let the populations "balloon" naturally, and use technology to alter the cities and landscape to better absorb more and more people. But the contraceptive pushers are so set against population, to accept the apparent desire of the people to explore how to populate denser, for the sakes of themselves and their progeny. So why don't they simply admit what people haters and racists they are? Because then, most everybody would turn against them and their evil agenda, so they try to sell their evil "war on population," through lies and deception. But then, that already shows their side or position to be terribly weak and indefensible.

I don't believe in "earth control." I believe nature to be far more resilient than some supposedly "educated" humans like to give it credit for. I believe the natural "bottleneck" of the human womb, sufficient to allow humans ample time to prepare and ADAPT for the potentially even larger and more populous successive generations to come. Although the number of women of childbearing age around the world continues to rise, quite many girls are not yet old enough to bear children, and the womb usually only but hold but 1 baby at a time, not usually "litters" of children, as with faster-reproducing animals. I believe some aspects of nature should yet remain somewhat "wild," say like welcoming the natural flow of human life unhindered, accepting that Yes, even populous regions can long endure with welcoming huge and naturally-persisting baby booms especially under wise and kind and capable leadership, that there is much that can yet be done to alter the planet towards vasters and denser populations of humans for mutual and future benefit of us and our progeny. I also think there are still remaining many regions so remote of people, that more forest fires in such remote or unpopulated places, should be left to grow naturally and do their thing, as the cost of human intervention is way too high, without the benefit of protecting human benefits and property to justify it. Not all regions should qualify for costly forest fire suppression, just the popuous regions that would understandably require some partial intervention. I believe most of the already-long-slow-burning underground coal fires should be left to burn naturally, uncontrollably, because they are so impossible to reach or control, so leave them be to nature to manage. Leave the planet somewhat "wild," but in a very human-beneficial way. It is nature even, that wants our human numbers naturally-growing all the more, if at all possible. In nature, most all life seeks to spread and fill most every available niche. Now why can't supposedly intelligent humans, share in the huge benefit of such natural change as well? Future generations would think that the relatively sparse populations of the past, to be so quaint and inpractical. Why leave so much land empty and undeveloped, when so many more people could have benefited and experienced life? Even Star Trek envisions human populations having spread to numerous planets, seeking to plant human civilization as widely as possible, to insure its survival.

I also say I am against "tampering" with nature, which means, changing things to change things, rather than for human benefit. "Climate change" appears to be natural normal cycles of nature, caused by the sun, and not by human activities. But regardless, if humans were causing it, it's very much for human benefit, as growing cities of people NEED cheap and abundant energy, and affordable gasoline to keep the cars and trucks running that make city life possible. I find cities to be a sort of "mild population arcology," that actually does help the planet to hold potentially lots more people. We already have way too many people, for everybody to go back to the quaint ways of the Amish or something. The land redistributions would likely never work out anyway. Relocating so many homes, already built within the cities, just wouldn't be affordable. So if humans are raising CO2 levels slightly, LET THEM. It's not something we can reasonably "control" or stop. The technology will naturally progress, and the spike in CO2 then, would eventually decline, although with human population levels higher than ever. But trying to "fix" "global warming," would be TAMPERING. We don't know what we are doing, there is no clear benefit, so what else could it possibly turn out to be, but a costly and worthless boondoggle to impoverish the working poor?

 

Those you think you've seen over ten million were just put there by your mind as filler. You've only interacted with, at most, a few hundred, and some of those probably highly resembled each other. Several supposed countries are completely without population. This is all an experiment. The veil will be lifted soon enough.