Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Syzygys, Mar 19, 2007.
Are we in agreement again?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
You can't even remember what you posted.
COULD is the operative word...
But thanks for reminding me.... Anyway, the thread is not about total annihilation, but a decent living enviroment.
Yeah, civilization suffering a major catastrophe is pretty much a given. So is extinction.
People can in fact, spread outwards, inwards, and yes, upwards, for the greater good.
Sure, why not.
Doesn't look like that land is doing much useful anyway.
There is a way that people can go on enjoying having their precious darling babies, in a world with so many people already. That is for supposedly intelligent people to learn and adapt to living and breeding in closer proximity to other people, on the global scale at least. The more the merrier they say, but all those people need to live somewhere, so bigger cities and towns populating closer together, is one obvious place to put the burgeoning billions. Let people live where they want, but welcome them to live and come to life.
And before you come back, and claim that not many people can live there, why exactly can't they, should they hypothetically choose to? Desalinated ocean water can be piped in. So many people would presumably have some power to change nature and even green formerly deserts. People have more a symbiotic relationship with nature, not the enviro wacko presumed parasitic relationship, so even nature can benefit as human populations naturally soar. And if not all that many people presumably would choose to live in the desert, Antartica, or wherever, then obviously, what about the traditionally preferred urban sprawl? There are plenty of good places to live, that aren't anywhere near "full" of people, and so cities can in fact, populate bigger and denser with people, and fill more gaps in between the growing cities with additional cities and towns.
So did God "goof" when he gave humans fertility & the ability to expand exponentially
Why should fertility rates go down? What parent wants to have a bunch of children, just to see some of them die? There's no need to "compensate" with lower birthrates, more people living longer. When people have more babies, they promote the greater good of the many, by doing their natural part to welcome humans to grow all the more numerous, so that all the more people may enjoy life.
Of course human populations should grow exponentially. For the main restraint on just how numerous people can be, or should be, is the limited number of parents to raise them. That would seem more in line, with God's apparent ideal model of human population growth. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Could Eve have billions of children herself? Once the number of women of childbearing age grows larger, then children can be added to nations faster, now that there are finally more people to raise them all. And that is true in the past, and in the future. As there becomes more birth canals from which babies can emerge, then it's natural to expect that there ought to be more births, more birthing centers, more cities, more homes, more workers, more scientists, more options being explored to colonize Mars if ever, etc.
Why do you think they needed more people, back in the past when human populations were smaller? They didn't have so much in large population supporting technologies back then. Now as such technology has become more needed, it has naturally come to be developed. And it's far better than directly polluting the body with nasty, highly experimental, contraceptives, for which the human body was never designed for "birth control." Now is when we need more people all the more, because we have so many so why stop now?, and because there are more options and technology for better supporting more people, more comfortably and safely.
More and more people would be glad to live, and population "control" doesn't even try to adequately address that very valid concern.
Here is a simple question: You do have to agree, that growth can not go FOREVER. Thus we could double even triple today's population, but how about 10 times as many?
So where do you draw the line, enough is enough? If 7 billion is not enough how about 70 billions?
screw you guys, im breeding an army! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
it is never enough.
It won't be enough for some idealistic jerks until we're all standing shoulder-to-shoulder/front-to-back covering the entire world! Standing room only, and some people here would say that we should add more.
The population will grow regardless of what you want 'people' to do. You cannot control this. One of the most totalitarian countries in the world could NOT do it, even killing female babies could not stop it. You manage to even stop the population growth in China(through machinistic slaughter?), and India will teem with masses at its border eventually.
And if you really think you have some kind of earth-shaking new moral philosophy that will make every person bend to YOUR will and obey, then you are an absolute moron to use such power to limit humanity in this way.
What you ask requires TOTAL cooperation by the whole earth. I mean really are you just advocating pop control just in the third world? It is rediculous to limit us in Canada and U.S and many other countries right now. It is not fair to do it to certain countries(3rd world) and it is not fair to do it to 'everyone' even if they do not have a population problem. You then advocate everyone be limited right now and that lightly populated countries are to be populated by the teaming masses of the third world? I'm just trying to get a grasp on the logistics here, which are truely phenomenal.
We have probably never had close to that amount of cooperation on the earth. What I am advocating in this thread, expansion as far as we can (YES to SPACE), does not even require total cooperation, just a basic agreement to not kill ourselves(world peace is easier aquire than what you prescribe for humanity). Historically in relatively peaceful times on the earth, humans have EXPLORED.
Until then, humans are like any other animal, we will grow as far and wide and large as is possible in our environment. Disease, war, and 'natural' causes are all that will limit our growth and there is nothing YOU can do about that.
Just like I can't control nuclear war. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Damn it!!!
I hate to break it to you, but we are on a message board and discussing ideas, events,etc. So, deal with it and get used to that MOST of the time we are discussing things what we have no control over.
P.S.: The Chinese government policy did work, otherwise we would have 2 billions Chinese by now....
Just giving my opinion buddy, don't hate because I'm right and your wrong.
You will see the effects of China's little experiment in your lifetime. 200 million young men with no wife.
Never happened, never will. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I was giving my opinion (breed less) and you were bitchin'....
So? People have to realize that fixing problems takes sacrifices and there will be negative effects.
Do you think when we finally going to switch from oil to something else that is going to be painless???
get all the men and women to turn gay, so you can have sexual pleasure but not breed? that would be an easier task.
Do I hear 7 billion, who will make it 70 billion? Will somebody please make a bid?
Well if there ever came to 70 billion, don't you think that those people would enjoy life and expect to have their precious darling children too?
So no, 70 billion then, hypothetically, isn't enough either.
What part of be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, do we not understand? There's no "expiration date" on that commandment God gave, well other than the prophecied Biblical endtimes, when people eventually at some point, as the angels, apparently unable to reproduce anymore? (See Luke 20.)
But don't you think that before world population can grow to 100 billion, it must first reach 10 billion? Demographers now seriously doubt that we will ever reach 10 billion, due not so much to the so-called "demographic transition," but more due to rampant contraceptive peddling and the selfish and cynical society nature that goes along with all that. Now why worry about 70 or 100 billion, when we don't even know if the selfish people of the day, will even want to be "bothered" to have enough children to grow to 10 billion?
What I am trying to say, is that when a married woman becomes pregnant, she wears maternity clothes. That's natural. Her pregnant belly needs room to bulge. If ever the world becomes more "pregnant" with people, why not let it similarly "bulge" with people too? Why impose restrictions, that aren't even necessary? What's wrong with leaving some things natural, when it benefits so many?
If ever humans manage to naturally "outgrow" the world, then we should, because what baby should stay in the "womb" forever? Why not spread humanity to more worlds, not keep "all our eggs in one basket" so to speak, if and whenever we can, which we obviously aren't ready to do yet, for first we must grow in numbers and become stronger first, and develop the naturally population-driven technology first.
They say that "necessity is the mother of invention." So conversely, we may never develop all that fancy Star Trek-like technology, unless humans grow so populous that they have a need for it, because people tend to be lazy, and it takes lots of creative minds, adding upon other people's inventions, to get there, if ever.
Not with the old, tired, discredited overpopulation scare tactics?
Well of course add more. What if it was then your turn to come to life and be born?
Did you forget that people could still be stacked vertically, into highrises or population arcologies?
Who says everybody has to live on "ground level?"
And don't you think there is a lot of work involved in adding another billion people to the world? Lots of runny noses to wipe, lots of children to read stories to and tuck into bed. The way some people talk, you would think somebody could just sneeze another billion people into the world, as if they just easily just pop out of another dimension or something, and all these children will of course, just raise themselves. It's people's own homes they are first populating, which are always more confining than their communities or the world, so if they can find or make room, why can't society also find or make room for its many members?
Isn't it far easier to "scoot over" a bit,than to convince everybody to stop breeding
post title: Isn't it far easier to "scoot over" a bit, than to convince everybody to stop breeding?
Contrary to some of the propaganda, most people actually do not engage in "mindless" breeding, not considering the consequences, like mere animals might be prone to do. People give a lot of thought to it, and often do find many great reasons to have children.
Of course we should expand into outer space, but I don't think humans have all that much time left on earth anyway, because there is the Biblical timetable to consider too. God did not intend for humans to inhabit the world forever, but rather heaven forever. At least expand into outer space in the sci-fi stories, because people need some level of dreaming and optimism. Consider that man went to the moon first, in the comic books. You have to start somewhere. It starts, with good ideas.
Population "control" imposed upon humans, is one of the most idiotic, slavery ideas imaginable. Has not anybody considered what could hypothetically happen, if just 1 single country retains wild or unrestrained human population growth? They would grow and grow, until they fill the entire planet. Which I suspect is an underlying reason for China's 1-child policy tyranny. What better way to show the subjects, that they are but mere lowly peasants or slaves, than to dictate how many children they would be allowed to have, and then nature intervenes and they end up going over their population "quota" and love and defend their children regardless? It probably wasn't even China's idea, but rather Western imperilistic power-mongers, claiming to fear that "as goes China, so goes the world." If China, the world's most populous nation, can't get its burgeoning human population under control, then neither then, can the planet? And it of course, encourages the other nations, to breed up their numbers also. Well I do believe that the world can actually hold, or be made to hold lots more people, and that the human race really does want to enlarge its numbers, so of course I defend the basic human right for people to enjoy having their "traditionally very large families" wherever they happen to live, including within China. If it is "as goes China so goes the world," well that's all the more reason to encourage large families in China. Far better to have one's village become engulfed by nearby growing cities, than for faraway commie thugs to dictate how many children they think the people can manage to raise.
What we could use some more "cooperation" in, is in trying to get along better, especially now that there is so many of us. Promotion of the social graces and faith and such. Like you say, live with it. Human numbers will be "huge" well into the forseeable future, and people have many needs, that need to be accomodated, even if we didn't grow in numbers further, and I don't see the population phobics addressing those needs, but rather creating awfully convenient scapegoat excuses to continue oppressing the masses and retarding needed development.
It's easier to promote good manners, than to go against nature and breed less.
If China is going to be a population giant, then be proud to be a population giant.
post title: If China is going to be a population giant, then be proud to be a population giant.
After all, all those people have to live somewhere.
No it didn't work. We would be better off, with 2 billion or more Chinese by now. If they were busy marrying and having children, it keeps them busy and less prone to become restless and go to war.
Thread KIA by a random bible-thumper.
Separate names with a comma.