Is it possible to make the earth go farther from sun and so make the planet cooler?

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by pluto2, Mar 24, 2008.

  1. pluto2 Registered Senior Member

    It's because Jupiter orbits the sun faster (has a larger angular velocity) than earth. The centrifugal force keeps the balance.
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2008
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. pluto2 Registered Senior Member

    This belongs more to politics than to earth science. I believe there will be no war. The strong and powerful will simply take what they need or want from the weak, just like they do now. I hope we'll have a communist system by then which will divide the limited resources left equally between the people so the weak will not have to suffer and die from poverty and lack.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    But if we had the technology to move the planet to save ourselves, wouldn't we also have the technology to just pack up and move to another planet? (I'm assuming its because of the sun, not because of global warming, that we would want to move)
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. capelli Registered Member

    Yeah sorry, this does belong to politics, I just thought of it as a possible scenario to the VERY hypothetical example I was giving. The strong and the powerful will most likely take what they want, which would prevent the scenario I was speaking of from arising.
    However, if there happened to be two(or more) very powerful nations, one of which having the resources to maintain itself and the other relying upon other nations. If this dependant nation stopped gaining resources from elsewhere(and being denied it from the other powerful nation, which may come to a point in which it needs all the resources it produces) then this could lead to a devastating war between the two nations as the dependant nation may have no other choice than to use the power it has to provide for its people. Of course this is simplifying something which would be far more complex and yeah this is more politics than anything else.

    I agree that some communist system is likely the only way to stop poverty and suffering of the weak, but as you say the powerful will most likely thrive instead.
  8. capelli Registered Member

    Hmm I think it's difficult to say which would be the simplest option. Moving every last person on Earth really would take one hell of a transport system and of course moving the planet would take some incredible force or manipulation of gravity. I guess it depends on which way technological advances take us. I think one of the most important things is, where would we want to go? The exact positioning of our planet is perfect for maintaining life. A slight imbalance of so many things would be devastating to the whole planet. I remember reading an article a long time ago saying just how perfect our planet is, including its distance from the sun. One of the reason we are yet to find other life in the universe is due to there being very few other places life could possibly survive.
  9. Xelios We're setting you adrift idiot Registered Senior Member

    Life as we know it anyway. It's entirely possible that life could survive in other forms on planets much different from our own. Life here is the way it is because the Earth is the way it is, had the Earth been different life might have evolved differently (or not at all).
  10. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    If we had the technology to move the planet, we would have the ability to fix the problem in a much simpler fashion.
  11. MetaKron Registered Senior Member

    We are a hell of a lot better off with the oceans a few inches deeper than with the continents covered by glaciers. For one thing, we would have at least as much active biosphere as we do now, if not more. That is what life depends on. There may be some people who actually believe that human life depends on all those buildings on the edges of the seas that might get their foundations soaked in water. That's a pretty silly belief.
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2008
  12. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Yeah, we're too special to have dense populations like much of the rest of the world or India might?

    Wouldn't want to crowd out any rich yuppie golf courses, now would we?

    And how is it, that the contraceptive pushers have so deluded people? Up until at least the 1950s, even according to a humorous book on culture that I have, people just had children and didn't count the cost. People just commonly had often big families, because children were welcome, and there wasn't much for contraceptive "options," and there wasn't much thought as to any supposed need to "space" children. Children just come along, when they come. It's a natural and proper part of marriage and family. Had some preacher warned that the rather new fad of "choice" (to not have children) would soon become "obligation" to not have "too many" children, supposed for the sak of "the environment" or whatever handy lies a gullible public might fall for, how many people would have laughed at the prediction? And yet, we see the trendy overeeducated idiocy of today?

    Star Trek TOS had an episode that explored that prospect, entitled "The Mark of Gideon. It was some planetary paradise place, where all disease had been cured, and death only comes to those who are "very old." Captain Kirk seemed surprised to learn that the planet (supposedly) had a serious problem. The population grew and the birthrate increased, to the point that the people could never be alone. Of course Captain Kirk had beamed to some replica of their spaceship on the planet's surface, to thinly disguise that the story was really a propaganda piece for population control. Got to maintain the illusion that it's just sci-fi? The lady they put in there with him, seemed to not remember so much of the place from where she camed. So her memory comes to her, to make the relevation of what her planet is like, mysterious and shocking as it unfolds. Captain Kirk asks incredulously, "Why can your people never be alone?" "Because there are so many of us. There is no place, no street, no valley, no hill, that isn't filled with people." Gasp? Even Captain Kirk doesn't seem "sufficiently shocked." Even the story as told, had some serious flaws. People would "kill" to be alone? And yet they don't? Apparently then, the people wouldn't. Captain Kirk suggest to share something of what they know regarding birth control. But the planet's leader says, that the people can't use birth control, because they believe life to be sacred, in all its forms, people, child, fetus. I think Captain Kirk said something about sterilization. Doesn't work, or so the "leader" claims. The people are so healthy, their bodies heal. I wonder how often that happens in some way, BTW. How many people who supposedly couldn't get pregnant, eventually do? The body knows it is supposed to grow more human life, and sometimes certain problems just solve themselves somehow? Or God heals them and they end up Surprise! pregnant. Well the story unfolds that the planet Gideon, or at least its "desperate" supposed "leaders," are seeking a disease that Captain Kirk had had some time ago and had been cured. They are seeking some means of natural "death control" of their "out of control" population situation. But the crew of Kirk's spaceship cure the lady that they managed to give her the disease, and the story draws to a close with the lady, "Odona" I think her name was, saying "As crowded as my planet is, I could with for it to hold one more," speaking of Kirk. Gee, how does Kirk always get the ladies?

    Anyways, even that story was rather inconsistant and had flaws. Right away, I notice, why didn't the people stack up onto multiple floors, if they needed more living space? And why do they mock religious views like mine, that supposedly there's something wrong with regarding each and every human life as "sacred" and valuably precious? Yes, I do believe humans ought not to use any means of "birth control" neither be sterilized, but to go on welcoming our babies to come alive and push out. Leave the natural flow of human life flowing unhindered. Obviously, not everybody believes that humans would be on this planet so long, as to become so "crowded." And then the people seem rather used to their situation, and rather uninterested to stop breeding. So who are these control freaks, to impose upon them some draconian non-solution, that they don't appear to want? And obviously the story was driven by the rebellious population paranoia of the 1960s or so, about when the radical new and highly experimental "the pill" was unleashed upon an unsuspecting public.

    It's hardly credible for the incessesant prophets of doom, when proven wrong, again and again, to hedge their claims by saying, "Well it will happen, eventually."

    The best way to insure that there will be some space or place for everybody, is to welcome them to come alive as fellow human beings. To promote the pronatalist, pro-human mindset.

    Of course I would propose such things. Build more cities, more homes, more floors to stack people on, whatever the people would need. The PS2 video game, "Project Eden" was populated something like what you suggest, but people weren't crammed into every cubic space. Rather, it seemed merely a sci-fi idea and handy excuse to not have to bother drawing out the polygons for a realistic looking "natural" environment. Big buildings are rectangular, and so much easier to draw than trees and grass and all that scenic stuff.

    Somewhere I read that a new "paradigm" is needed. Well here's mine. As the world grows more urban, then the big city must also seen as a proper place for people to enjoy having their "traditionally very large" families, as maybe there's getting to be "too many" people for everybody to live in the countryside anymore, and it still be "rural countryside?" As human bodies naturally densify throughout the world, that doesn't at all keep them from enjoying breeding. They merely have to adapt.

    Yes, people of course should be encouraged to have their big families, in highrises, skyscrapers, grass huts, "overcrowded" shantytowns, wherever they happen to live. Have you no compassion on the people? In places where there's so many people living around, perhaps people are sometimes aware of their neighbors having sex. That's all the more reason for them not to be expected to "control" the natural growth of their families, as they get aroused to the natural sounds of nearby sex, from neighboring shacks, or apartment tenements, and baby booms persist and spread.

    Of course I don't expect for things to get to that point. Population phobics talk like it's so easy to add another billion people to the planet, as if somebody sneezes, and Presto! another billion. You just wake up to a world suddenly "overrun" with people, practically overnight? That's perposterous. It comes so gradually, that most people hardly even notice, and there's so much ample time to adapt and prepare for our progeny to come. Never mind all the work of raising so many children, never mind all the diapers to change, the runny noses to wipe, or all the kids to tuck into their beds and wish them sweet dreams every night?

    But if hypothetically, at some future point long after I and my children are gone, the world ever gained so many people, I am not at all obligated, according to the Bible, to entertain or answer "foolish questions" of things that wouldn't even ever happen. I simply do not need to determine at which point I turn into some power-mad communist and lie and deceive to deny people their children. It's all based upon false premises.

    From the talk of some of the population phobics, some seem to fear that would never happen. There's even a population theory that there's supposedly "too much" food, which fuels "wild" population growth, at least in the animal kingdom. To which I scoff, would the population phobics please make up their tiny little minds, which to worry us about? Too little, or too much food? Seems like one might cancel the other out?

    And why do you presume that people would still be "growing" food at such point? Why not synthesizing or "replicating" food? What if it naturally progresses towards, with "intelligent" life, "eating" the planet?

    Which disasterous problems we must cause, if they fail to materialize soon enough?

    Wasn't there some Coustea nut, who said something about that we must eliminate some 350,000 people a day, to keep world population from growing? Somewhere around the number of babies born per day? For some strange reason, most people seem to not like his "solution."

    Have you no appreciation for the uniqueness and specialness of each and every person? People are not to be regarded as other creatures. Humans are about the only creatures that I propose we allow to grow in numbers, seemingly "unchecked," as people tend to so readily adapt. There's plenty of space for all the people there ever will be, but maybe not for all the pets we let breed wildly, or too many free-roaming wild elephants.

    People should be welcome to and encouraged to enjoy having their big families, for as long as God would allow. Some things such as this, should intentionally be stated vague. Even a "super-populated" Earth could be made to hold lots more people.

    What would be my solution at this point? Again with the "foolish questions." Have you no concept of natural limits? No, I am not talking of the cruel Malthusian hypothesized "checks" on how big human populations can get, but of other natural means, such as the time that it takes for human populations to grow, the time it takes children to reach sexual maturity, that already-occupied wombs aren't (yet) ready to make another baby, and of course, that probably no matter what—not "everybody" is going to breed "pell-mell" like there's no tomorrow. Why the mad rush to "control" what man wasn't meant to control? Do we control how big women's bellies get, when "great with child?" Of course not. Instead, tilt steering was invented. Do we have "height control" of people? So what keeps people from just growing and growing, until they are "giants?" Then why do you suppose that God needs our "help" to keep his people's population size of managable size?

    Come to think of it, what were the people of Noah's time, fighting over, killing one another? Maybe they had their trendy "overpopulation" theories as well? Well apparently, God said he is the author of life and death, and ended it for those evil people himself. Some Creationalist, thought that world population may have grown to around a billion, before the Great Flood. Now do we, for no good reason, just turn on one another and slay each other, and invite God's judgement against us, or do we work with what we have? Maybe the devil or his demons, whisper lies in people's ears, to get them deluded so that they harm others or other people's interests? But why bother, when even that would seem to require unproductive work? Isn't it often easier, to maybe just "do nothing?" Why meddle with what we perhaps don't appear to understand to begin with? I don't usually get under my car hood with a wrench, wondering what I can tinker with, to make it run better. Yeah, maybe loosen a few bolts, remove the "dead weight" of the radiator cap, change the order of the spark plug wires around, that will give me better gas milage, right? There's the old repairman's adage, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." So then, why do we want to "fix" nature again?

    Yeah, let human populations grow naturally. Respect people. Respect that their babies are precious people too, with just as much right to live and to come alive, as anybody. A world deliberately designed to hold all the more people, does quite much to prevent supposed "overpopulation." I have long been clear on the great need to let overall human population densities rise naturally as well, as they say, the planet presumably isn't getting any bigger. There could simply come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Welcome cities and towns to grow larger and closer together, and build additional towns and cities in between, if it helps the planet hold all the more people. I respect that so many people naturally expect to be free to go on having their precious darling babies. I agree with most all the reasons people could list, why they have as many children as they do. I would like to have a large family myself, if God sees fit to bless me such. I do not believe in hindering the natural flow of life, and I cite the shoddy unnatural experimental contraceptives and the nasty history behind their development, as evidence even of my pro-life claims.

    Just because they may seem to have a lot of people, doesn't at all means we should respect them any less. People can't very well help that they are so numerous. "Stop being so numerous." That hardly makes any sense, now does it? Can you be half a person, rather than a whole person? Whatever for?

    Resource shortages are caused by greedy corporations engaging in uncompetitive practices, and by bad government and bad leaders. Why do you think I am so pro-development? I want to see human populations grow and "blossom." Aren't we already way too numerous, to be disparaging numbers now, not that there ever was any good time to disparage our numbers. If people could somehow, magically, just stop having babies, wouldn't our population size be "huge" for quite some time? And I could safely predict, that if one day, no more babies were conceived, for some unexplained reason, it likely would be a very short time before a huge panic ensues about the "alarming" shortage of babies being born. Long before there ever could be any "shortage" of even young people. Seems people just have to have something to worry about, even if they have to make one up. People seem to have this "god" complex by which, they are never satisfied merely being good humans. Always have to be "controlling" and manipulating everything?

    Well if there were no people, then nobody could ever die. Is that what you propose? Very little "birth control" is not the problem. It's the promiscuity and poor level of development, and bad government leadership. I have read that the "third world" actually is shrinking. These days, it consists of a few backward African countries under Marxist dictators. Americans seem to have this obnoxious smug attitude towards much of the world, as if most countries don't even have running water in their homes, and certainly not electricity. And yet in some respects, it's us who are behind, with our failing government monopoly schools, our slow adoption of the metric system, our quaint 12-hour rather than 24-hour clocks, etc.

    What? So you don't want me to point out the irony, that one of the ways we could imagine how the "meek shall inherit the earth," as said in the Bible, might actually have something to do with their greater breeding proclivities?

    You want "logical" reasoning? How about I point out the Nazi-like eugenics connections, or the racist overtones and motives behind much of the population "control" thinking and "family planning" pushing? Or is actual documented history, not "logical" enough for you?
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2008
  13. capelli Registered Member

    I didn't actually say this. A dense population is absolutely fine, as long as it is sustainable, as long as every last person can eat,drink,stay warm,etc. I am have not a single problem with living in a dense population.
    Again I couldn't care less. At the time being there is no problem with golf courses and the likes, but perhaps some day, with the way things are going, they may be a thing of the past.
    Just so you know, I have no huge problems about people having large families as long as they can love and care for their children, which I'm very sure you yourself would do but I'm saying that there will come a point when there is no longer enough room for any more people.
    I am not deluded, I know what contraceptives are used for and why they are necessary. Sure, if nobody had sex before marriage, and no promiscuity ever occurred, then at least STDs would no longer be a problem. But they are! Some people would still go on being promiscuous. No matter how much you dislike it, contraceptives save lives and to say they are a bad thing is senseless.
    Also, in a very wonderful world, everyone could have as many children as possible and always be able to feed them. This at some point becomes impossible. Many people at this very moment are having children they cannot afford to feed.
    Ok you obviously love you Star Trek but I don't see how your example furthered your argument. There are a great many fictional works dealing with overpopulation.
    There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with that, every life is to be valued and no more or less valued than any other life. The problem comes when, at some point, there no longer are the resources to feed the next child. How do we deal with this? Welcome them to the world but commiserate them on the fact that they were born into a world in which they cannot eat or live? Or perhaps someone else cannot eat instead, perhaps the eldest? But who is to decide who can or cannot eat? Everyone is sacred. Is it not more humane and loving to this child to never have even come into the world, to never experience the pain of not being able to eat?
    Do an experiment. Find a glass and get out that penny collection. Keep putting pennies in it. What is the eventual outcome(assuming you have a limitless supply of pennies)? Now sure that isn't the planet earth because people die on our planet of course. So now, for every 2 pennies you put in, take one out. What is the outcome? For every 10 pennies you put in, take 9 out. What is the outcome? Can you not see, no matter what, if you are putting more in than you are taking out then you then whatever you are putting them into will eventually run out of space?
    Yes, I expect they weren't, as it is an impossible scenario, but as you expect over population to never be a problem I thought you may somehow understand that reaching this point would at least be a very difficult situation, inevitably leading to a large number of deaths.
    I hate to tell you, but that's what has been happening for a very long time. The city gets larger as the countryside gets smaller. There isn't enough space in the countryside but what I'm saying is that eventually the city will no longer have that space either.
    Yes, I don't want large numbers of them to die from starvation, as many already are.
    Please tell me, why do you not expect it to get to that point? If there are more people year by year, why would there never be a limit to how much the Earth can take? Do you expect some solution coming from God, some mass cull, to stop the world reaching this point?
    Sure, if that last sneeze took around 12 years. Sure, 12 years may be a large part of mine or your life, but since the first humans, that is so small a period of time that you may as well call it a sneeze in the history of man, if that.
    No, you look at the current rate of population growth, and think "wow, if we keep this up there won't be any chance every newborn can eat.
    That's an interesting one, you should not entertain a question you already believe to know the answer to? Or put another way, you really can't answer the question because it goes against what you are really hoping is true.
    I never mentioned power-madness, lies or deception, or even denial of children. Please please tell me what these false premises are? You have not stated them.
    I'm unfamiliar with this theory, but evidently, in many places around the world, this problem("too much food") would be very much welcomed.
    I'm sure they worry much more about one of those problems than the other. T
    This interested me. You wonder why I presume food will still be grown but you presume synthesizing or replication will solve all problems. Suppose everyone chose to no longer entertain such questions as "what is another way to feed ourselves, to obtain food?" What if's really don't answer anything if you can't already answer the what if nots.
    By "eliminate" I assume he means "cut down the growth", as in say, have 350,000 less people being born each day. That is an incredibly large number, does that not even give you some idea of quickly population is increasing. I doubt he was proposing some horrific solution but merely pointing out that a solution was needed.
    Yes I have a great deal of appreciation. Everyone has a RIGHT to LIVE, or at least I hope they get the chance. Overpopulation would take this away.
    Is there? Go back to the penny experiment and think about it. In 2000 years the population has increased by 35 times. Think about our planet in 2000 years from now. Nearly 6.6billion right now by the way.
    How? Again, look at the penny experiment. How can we put more pennies in? Get a bigger cup?
    Ok, so any question you are unable to or don't want to answer is foolish, I get it. Yes I know what a natural limit it, do you? The Earth has one by the way, it's regarding its size. All those limits you speak of are never breached, yet still population increases. Yes, maybe man wasn't meant to control population size, but nature will do if we don't.
    That already is the case, it is when that is no longer the solution when the problem comes.
    I never said that in any way.
    This is besides the point. Yes people, themselves, cannot help being so numerous, but their overpopulation of the world can be helped in a great number of ways.
    I can give you at least two ways of performing such mystical happenings.
    Yes, but I am not saying that extinction would be a better outcome for the human race.
    I could turn that one right back around at you you know.
    Again, no.
    I'm not American by the way, English. I know SOME countries in regions have no running water in their homes and certainly not electricity. Corrupt governments are a very large problem and so is development, but there is no money for development(especially after corruption). Birth control would help and use of contraceptives would save a lot of lives.
    I ask you to logical, you speak of star trek episodes, answer many things in a "I'm sure it will be ok" sort of way, continuously avoid answerring questions you can't but throw that in and speak of yourself having logical reasoning. Please tell me by the way, where are the racist overtones?
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2008
  14. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Allowing people their God-given right to procreation, may imply a more densely populated world, even within our lifetimes.

    Well I can think of a few potential problems with living in a dense population, especially if there be no choice about the matter, as the human population hypothetically becomes "dense" most everywhere. But most all such problems, pale in significance with the great importance of so many people being able to live at once, and being welcome for their children to come alive as well. Of course many of these problems can be mitigated with technology. We really don't have to hear the neighbor's footsteps upon the ceiling above, or the neighbor's toilet flushing, or neighbors having sex. There is such a thing as concrete or sound insulation. But then, sounds of neighbors may be more preferable sometimes, to the expense and bother of sound insulation. And I happen to like the sounds of neighbor children playing. And some level of city noise can become seemingly "natural" and be easily ignored. I hear the constant roar of the nearby freeway. But it isn't that loud, I don't often open my windows anyway, and I drive on that freeway.

    I much prefer a "dense" population, if it be the means by which people remain free to have all the children they were meant to have, or "all the children that God gives." I prefer a "dense" population, over needless unnatural "earth control." I hardly think it so scary or supposedly so unnatural, as the population control freaks would have it to appear. And yes, a dense world population does appear quite sustainable, if things are properly designed to be that way, for the greater good of the many.

    No big loss, but there's plenty of room for all that stuff, well into the forseeable future. But I think that golf already is a huge waste of time and space and gasoline. I like miniture golf so much better. It's more fun and more varied. And already, can't you play golf, on a Nintendo Wii? I would rather see parks full of children, than overly rich Tiger Woods celebrities, getting undo attention on TV and in video games. But back to the matter, seeing golf courses converted to human housing, at least would make for a far more efficient use of the land. Of course, rich yuppie golfers might rather we cut down some forests instead, and I am fine with that as well. Forests are often similarly underutilized for human benefit, comparitively.

    Only if the enviro-wackos have their way. There's always more options. Stack people higher, more people in a room—especially among the breeders' homes presumably, filling the gaps with more people, underground cities, and of course, spreading human populations to colonize more worlds. And then even most demographers don't expect that there ever would be so many people alive at once. Last time I checked, there wasn't a huge number of people yearning to have big families, just because I say so, but for their own practical and religious and traditional and natural reasons. There's always more room outside the womb than inside, and so the natural remedy for the rising "population pressure" inside the womb, is to let the babies push out naturally. They say you can't make people stop having sex, and I say that people shouldn't have to use shoddy unnatural anti-life contraceptives, so perhaps many of the babies will go on naturally coming out?

    Contraceptives are false security that is actually promoting the reckless behaviors causing the problems. It taking a few more days to spread an STD or AIDS, is not "safe sex" nor "safer sex." People deserve some proper natural "reward" for abstaining from sex until marriage, or for marrying younger if they can't "contain" or whatever, and that of course is, that families may be expected to grow naturally large. Wait, wait, wait, until marriage, and then only have but a few kids? That's so unreasonable, especially for many couples so good at loving or nurturing their children. I understand the many ways that families can get possibly "large" and I agree with them. The 10th child is worth just as much as a 1st child, and human lives is not something to subject to "rationing."

    A more pronatalist world or culture, would do much to make the world more "wonderful." And it certainly would help growing large families in China, if a repressive communist regime didn't tear their large homes down, to punish them for some imagined "overbreeding." What of all the parents trying to do a good job providing for their possibly many children, but hampered by an anti-child, selfish world?

    And of course, if more parents "waited" until they were comfortably rich to have their children, not many children would be born at all. When is there ever enough money for anything important, in such a selfish and backwards world?

    My point was that even such a fictional and sensational story, had its weaknesses in its points. It came across to me, as disinguinuous, and inconsistant. Captain Kirk wasn't sufficiently shocked, maybe he thought such a crowded world to be curious or amazing, or their natural right? Similarly, Asia has what? Over half the world's huge population, and so many people seem to be largely oblivious to that, or to not even care? I say so many people live in China and India and other Asian countries, because people have lived there and been procreating their children for so long, it's naturally to be expected. No great shame, but rather highly suggestive that the world could potentially be made to hold, far more people than some population phobics may like to imagine.

    And I am not afraid of fictional fantasy curious stories of supposed "overpopulation," as I believe the truth to be on my side, of the much potential good of furthering the natural spread of human life, for the greater good of the many. What I fear, is the incredible gullibility of a government-monopoly-schooled public, so easily suckered by such anti-natalist lies. I don't want to see such nasty "cold water" dumped on people's love lives. People who find themselves to be "highly fertile," isn't that just a natural sign that they were meant to have a "large" family? Many people for whom the babies just seem to "pop out," often actually don't seem to have much problem with having so many children. Some guy some years ago told me that it seemed like every time he took off his pants, his wife became pregnant, and they had 5 children. Don't recall hearing him mention any complaints about having had 5 children, but he got sterilized after that. Why? Because society tells us to impose some fertility "control?" Why? Why bother to make effort to prevent human life? The Hekman, or something like that, on a Focus on the Family radio program episode, say that they had almost stopped at 4 children. But the father was very emotional about what it would have been like, to not get to know his 10 children. An editor note added that by the time of the airing of the program, they had had another 2 children, for a total of 12. Some guy at the last Walk for Life, said that they had 4 children, and they don't use any birth control. Some guy at work said he has 5 children, and he would love to adopt a hundred children or so, if he could afford it. He said children are a blessing, and it sounded like he doesn't use any birth control either, but they may be getting too old to expect more children? There's a guy at Church who looks like he could be his children's grandpa. Of course I said I see nothing wrong with people having children into old age if or as they can. Yeah, I say people ought to welcome their children to come along, until they just don't come anymore.

    But it's a morally positive vicious circle. Adding so many additional people to the world, natural alters the world in profound ways, that help it more readily absorb all the more people. Sort of like a balloon being inflated. The bigger it gets, the more the rising volume wins out over the thin stretching rubber, and it admits more air all the easier. The "balloon" can't "pop" because there's nowhere for it to "pop" to. The ground isn't going to collapse under the weight of so many people, as the people weigh almost nothing compared to the ground, and our matter that makes up our bodies, came from the ground.

    People are not viewing the situation properly. More mouths to feed, doesn't make food to become scarce, but often in many ways, more plentiful. Where are you more likely perhaps to starve? Out in the desert, in the middle of nowhere, or in the middle of the big crowded city? Often where there's so many hungry mouths to feed, there is food galore. Restaurants, stores, gardens, refrigerators, cupboards full of food, food, food, food, most everywhere. No wonder so-called "scientists" sometimes do bizarre population experiments on unsuspecting animals, giving them "unlimited" food. As supposedly limited food may prove not to be a "restraint" on human population size, at all. Our increasingly crowded planetary "terrarium" may become all the more glutted with food, naturally converting into additional human bodies.

    Yeah, I have heard of the perverted "lifeboat ethic." Supposedly the planet is like a "lifeboat," that can only, supposedly, hold X number of people. Too many, and the boat sinks. But how many is X number of people? Is X a fixed constant, or a variable variable? And what if the boat gets possibly a bit "uncomfortably crowded" without much apparent risk of sinking? Lifeboats are designed for survival, not for comfort. Lifeboats were launched from the sinking Titanic, less than half full, because the people didn't know what they were doing. Anyway, by giving (or selling) food and medicine to the supposedly "overpopulated" lesser developed countries, we supposedly increase longevity, decrease infant mortality, and encourage more childbearing, which only serves to worsen their "overpopulation." But that is so wrong. Already I advocate a more vastly and densely populated world, for the greater good of the many, so why wouldn't I want to increase longevity, decrease infant mortality, and encourage more childbearing? I disagree with viewing the planet like a tiny "lifeboat" of supposedly fixed resources, but rather more like a cornacopia of developable resources, and vast range of possibly innovative ideas, geared towards hopefully, serving the populous many. Even greedy corporations and corrupt governments, may see some selfish good from allowing the human headcount to rise more naturally. More sales, more profits, more tax revenues, grander scales of development and innovation. Even some atheists claim to think that further human population expansion could further the "progress" of the human race.

    But why do you try to "cap" what was never meant to be capped? Can't you find a glass with taller sides? Why don't you go withdraw your investments or accounts, lest they get too full or overflow? People just don't fear that they will have too much money, if they don't go out and waste and squander it, and yet why do they behave such, with the matter of whether they should have children or not?

    But I know the glass is getting "fuller." That's why I advocate development and urban sprawl. But the planet is nowhere near "full" of people, and there's such huge "gaps" in human populations, most everywhere.

    Not even "difficult situations" need mean deaths. What if we hypothetically colonized another world, and it just didn't work out. The planet proved to be unstable or impossible to terraform, or whatever. The exact scenario isn't important for my illustration. What would we do? We of course, would take our people back to planet Earth, crowded as it already be, if we had to maybe "double up" some homes, set up "tent cities," put people up in sports superdomes, whatever. Right? With hurricane Katrina, how many cities, and how many people, took in strangers to live with them? Shouldn't we plan for the better outcomes, and not how to make our worst fears come true?

    "The Mark of Gideon" told of a world where death seems to have fled the planet, and a little death, supposedly might have been a natural "check" on the gigantic-sized population supposedly choking the planet. Rising density not even brought any more death. The people had somehow adapted "too well," as humans are accused already of adapting "too well" to their environment. Well isn't that an asset and not a detriment? Adapting expands, not narrows, our options.

    Project Eden didn't suggest it impossible to feed so many people. Rather, that they had resorted to growing "real meat" in tanks, and they seemed to have the usual social problems that have always been with us, and that much of nature was displaced with really tall buildings; well unless that is the "new nature" as I suggest for such a hypothetical and improbable future world. And the game did have some rather cool levels, BTW, suggesting or implying that I might actually like to live in "such a world."

    The countryside has plenty of space. But did I hear of some humorous joke, of why move to the city, when you can wait for the city to move to you?

    Cities obviously can find much room to spread into, until they have coelesced into all the cities around them, and huge naturally spreading supercities start "devouring" the land or forming massive conurbations (networks) of jammed-together cities. But even then, the continents are largely empty, and children growing up wanting to start families of their own, could obviously move far away if they wish. Cities can also absorb more human population, by growing upwards and/or denser with people. Who says that another family can't live on the other side of your home's walls, if you choose to live in some apartment complex or condo building? I know cities and towns are often getting bigger, and that's generally to be expected, but cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be a lot more. But much urban growth has been of people depopulating the countryside to move to the big city. That's hardly the ideal form of growth, as wouldn't it be so much better, if cities were growing naturally from the natural increase of so many people living in them, as the countryside also grows from natural increase of the people living there, and from the cities growing bigger and spreading into the former countryside? If high population density was supposedly something to avoid, then shouldn't people be moving more away from the cities rather than towards them?

    But obesity is a spreading worldwide pandemic. Even the dogs in China are becoming obese.

    We should have much compassion upon our fellow people, and so we understand that there are so many reasons why the people need to be free to procreate, even though there perhaps be so many people already living close by them.

    I don't agree with the U.N. sort of control-freak type of thinking. They spoke at some recent population conference, of seeking to find "culturally appropriate" ways of promoting "family planning." Oh really? Don't you know I detest people speaking deceptively like that? What if there are no "culturally appropriate" ways? Are they then content to let countries' populations naturally "explode" in size, naturally? I detest such conspiring against basic natural human rights. Couldn't it go the other way as well? In a wonderful world without barbaric "earth control," why couldn't pronatalism naturally spread as well? What if the more pronatalist countries, think their way is better, and the way for the entire world? Maybe it's even easier to find "culturally appropriate" ways to promote potentially naturally large families? If turning the perverted logic against them, ticks some control freaks off, maybe that's my intent? As control freaks tick me off, to begin with. What of the strange surprising beauty of welcoming "the natural flow?"

    Why don't forest fires spread to burn up the entire planet? Because that's not the way they work. Weather is fickle, and the same weather that causes the fires, ultimately turns against them and stalls or slows them down. Sure, not fighting forest fires may allow them to spread, but the "damage" is often overstated, and the forests recover as soon as the sun and rain comes and plants grow again.

    They used to say that the world adds the equivalent of another Mexico, each and every year. That sounds like "a lot," as adding another significant "country's size" of people, would seem to make things a tad more "crowded." Well they can't say that anymore I guess, as Mexico is now bigger, around 100 million people, while the world population annual increment has dropped a bit, to what? Around 76 million now? But we are still adding another "India" every 15 years or so? But it's not so bad as they make it sound. This population increase happens globally, and is spread out somewhat over the entire planet. And it's gradual. The planet is still a rather big place. Population increase in the U.S., leads to us developing technology and methods more appropriate for supporting large populations, that are actually quite scalable and work for populous China and India and elsewhere. People who speak against fake contraceptive sex, and in favor of having children naturally, not "spacing" them, not at all "limiting" family size, on the Philippines pro-life forum that I frequent, on an island country with already a person for every acre of land, are an inspiration to an increasingly populous world. Countries like India, surpassing a person for each acre of land, suggest very strongely, that more of the world could be populated as densely as India, and that humans can in fact, populate the planet far, far denser, if or as need be. I agree with so affirming the great value of each and every human life, to let babies go on pushing out naturally, even in the most highly populated places of the world.

    No, no mass cull is needed. According to Bible prophecy, humans don't appear to have that much longer to live upon the planet anyway. Well there is the last millenial reign of Jesus as King of Kings, during which population may soar wildly to astounding planetary-saturating levels, but presumably, under such wise leadership, it's not a problem at all. Actually, the New Jerusalem, a city built by God and not by human hands, although beautiful and unlike anything we have ever seen, sounds a bit like an enormous population "arcology." Do a little research on just how huge this city is said to be. I am a little unclear as to whether people still marry and breed naturally, but it could be quite possible, that the already populous masses will cease to practice any form of "birth control" under such scenarios.

    A lot of things can happen in 12 years. 12 years is quite a long time in my life. About half a generation. People don't see things in "evolutionary-dilated" time, but in generations and lifetimes. And in a huge world of 6.7 billion people, a billion more people, isn't really so much "a lot" anymore. Getting almost like "everyday news." And as the numbers of women of childbearing age, continues rising into the multiple billions, of course let the "burgeoning billions" of the world, come faster and faster, so that people can go on enjoying having their precious darling babies. When I say that I don't believe in "earth control," that includes not imposing some unnatural, unjust "cap" on just how "huge" the overall world population may get. Let it be, what it will be.

    No, that's the wrong interpretation. Rather, world population could seem to be getting so "out of hand" because every newborn can eat. Nature isn't interested in constraining our numbers, but in nature, life seeks to spread into most every available niche, as it can. Apparently, we can.

    And human population growth is beautiful, as it benefits so many people to experience life. Welcoming human populations to go on growing, naturally, helps keep the world curious and fascinating, more wonderous and less cynical.

    And we can sympathsize with and cooperate with the populous nations of the world, by growing ourselves, and encouraging them to go on growing and filling with people.

    I am here to point out underconsidered alternatives. Those people of "vision" don't point out "the obvious," but rather, what should have been more obvious.

    The "foolish questions" involves a set of pessimistic assumptions, that actually aren't so likely to all be simutaneously true, especially in a world ruled by God, created for some profound purpose. If the world is instead ruled by random-happenstance evolution, it could easily just fall apart, even without the huge run-up of world population.

    Do I need to list all the false premises? I am trying to compose a reply post, not an entire book, at least not yet. There is a danger in trying to impose "earth control," that the control freaks may seek to take us in an even worse direction.

    I've read some mention of it, on some forum discussion of the topic. By feeding people, we allow them to become more numerous. Supposedly, at least in the animal kingdom, populations tend to get just as large as the food supply will allow, especially in the absense of predators.

    I propose that we not let humans off the hook so easily, as to posit that limiting food supply might be a way to keep our numbers more "in check." That's too brutal and unkind. Rather, I should hope that humans are smart enough to be able to handle an "unlimited" food supply, without being made to feel that they must resort to unnatural contraception either. People need worthwhile challenges anyway, and I have long predicted that massive human population increase must occur, before the necessary technology to allow humans to spread to other worlds, can possibly be developed, if ever. The "baby" must grow and get "big," in order to be ready to have a good chance of survival, outside the womb. "Outgrowing" the planet would seemingly make it a lot easier for humans to spread beyond it, which I doubt that we are heading for anyway, as I don't see it in the Bible. Humans are social creatures, that ought to be quite capable of both surviving and thriving, even at extreme population densities if or as need be.

    I disagree with the population control freaks. People should have food and good economic opportunity and jobs, no matter that they have no interest in controlling their fertility. Natural family growth is quite natural and beautiful. People who have already had children, have experience with children, and are great candidates then, for having still more children. Small families relate to high rates of "inexperienced" parents, which I count as potentially "bad," at least compared to what could have been. I much oppose economic "blackmail," in which aid comes with strings promoting unnatural "family planning." That's not respect for people and their dignity. If people seem to think they can populate up closer to one another, so that all the more people may live, or so that their progeny can be welcomed to come to life, more power to them. I want for more regions of the world to grow more vast and thick with people, so that they can do their part to help the entire planet change to hold lots more people. Under some Utilitarian Principle thing, that suggests that often the best thing to do is that which benefits the most people, whether meaning to or not, it implies that any "ideal" or "optimum" population size for humans, wouldn't be small and pidly, but more on the order of being or becoming "nearly as large as possible," so that so many more people could be around to benefit from whatever. That's a practical reason to advocate large families even in the most populous regions of the world. What if they don't adapt? What if they do? What if we expect and help them to?

    It's not really so clear which the population pessimists would tend to worry about more. Is it hunger they most worry about, or the growing possible lack of hunger? What happens when the more pronatalist nations, find themselves faced with "unlimited" food, and a natural belief or tradition against the use of unnatural "birth control?" Will their populations soar? Well I should hope so, as isn't that largely what God must have meant to happen, when he commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth? So what part of Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, did we not understand? That surely means, that the world should be getting fuller and fuller of people, as time passes. It's more a "process" than an end goal necessarily. And if there was any question about that, then why did God promise Abraham, that his descendents would be so numerous, as to be nearly as uncountable as the stars of the sky and the grains of sand of the beach. Even today, with ever more powerful telescopes, we are finding the stars to be far more numerous than we first thought.

    Obviously, if cities go on getting bigger and bigger, and the rural countryside shrinks, at some point, space for growing food, starts disappearing, while there's more mouths than ever to feed. Now while people could obviously plant their yards with crops, and grow food on their roofs, that hardly appears to be the direction of desperation that it is headed for. Gains in farm production and the "Green Revolution" suggest that in an increasingly populous world, we should expect for food to grow more plentiful, not more scarce. So much for "population control." In a world of miniaturation of electronics, spilling over into other fields, might possibly the same things happen to food production as well? If I could answer all the questions, wouldn't I be rich by now? Time will tell. I am here to say that the reasons for all the Malthusian gloom and doom are unfounded and highly one-sided, against the natural side of life. Wouldn't it be rather awfully convenient, if all those thinking, creative minds, might somehow find ways to make agriculture obsolete, freeing all that farmland, not to be "returned" to nature, but to be converted to the "new nature," of being converted to residential housing for a naturally enlarging human race?

    By more directly converting matter into food or into human bodies, more land can be used for human housing, and not wasted on "waiting" for food to slowly grow, if the weather cooperates. Some sci-fi stories have suggested radical things, like feeding people intreveniously, as it's more efficient. But a more modern efficient world, still can have its room for certain desirable "inefficiencies." The movie "RV," makes fun of the mess of dumping the sewage from an RV. But Star Trek Enterprise, takes a more meaningful approach to the question, of certain "byproducts" of feeding people. On some episode, in which the spaceship is taking questions from some classroom of students on the planet Earth, the question of "When you flush the toilet, where does it go?" comes up. Presumably, you can't just dump the tanks and fill up the water from some outside supply pipe, on a spaceship. The answer given, is that the wastes go into a "biomatter resquencer," and is formed into boots or whatever people may need. Gee, that really explains it, I feel so much better now? But isn't that sort of the answer we would be looking for? More direct and efficient conversions? The way that computers are going, and the way they handle data, does rather suggest the idea that rather than "growing" food, what if we could simply run off "food replicator" "copies" of food. That's close enough to feed the masses. Steaks could take real, although they never came from a cow, as they are a "copy" of what came from a cow. Not some veggie-burger, but real meat, that was never actually "grown."

    Don't be so sure. He went on to say something to the effect that it's a terrible thing to say, but it must be said. See how such population phobia clouds people's thinking? Or maybe he's a sadist anyway? If people can't or won't somehow cut the birthrate, then the death rate must be caught up to it? Parents wouldn't mind seeing their darling babies die, or people wouldn't mind people slaying one another. What exactly are the "good" ways for the death rate to catch up? Eliminate everybody at age 30 as in some movie, was it "Blade Runner?" Right when they are in their prime and starting to really give back to society, the benefits of their education and training?

    Of course world population should be growing "quickly" as you say. Finally there's so many parents to take care of so many children to be coming. The net increase right now, births minus deaths, is said to be around 210,000 per day. A "large city" of people being added, per day, except that 200,000 really isn't that "large" a city anymore. Wasn't it more like 240,000 more people per day, only a few decades ago, as world population growth pushed quite close to 2% annual growth? Now what's it? Around 1.2 or 1.3%, applied to a much larger population base now?

    350,000 less births per day, would be around Zero births. Surely that would be horribly tragic, were babies to cease to be born. It's a common population phobic prejudice, that human births and deaths must be "balanced" somehow. I disagree, as human populations must grow, for civilizations and economies to flourish, and so that parents may enjoy having the children they were meant to have.

    I think some years ago, I heard on my Dad's HBO, some statement that the world has some 2.5 billion dicks. What an astounding number! But now it's well over 3 billion. Quite many sexually active. And since society seems to think that sex is such a wonderful and essential thing, that does rather suggest the practical question, then why not have all the more people alive to enjoy it, among other things? Which all the more suggests that the populous masses ought not to use any means of contraception, but welcome their precious darling babies to go on pushing out naturally, not bothering to "space" them and encouraging more people to marry young so that families can possibly grow even larger, and that more people can enjoy being more sexually active for more of their lives. But if human reproduction is naturally growing to become a "mighty force of nature," who are we to stand in its way? Let it run its natural course. I don't see it as destructive, but incredibly constructive. Somebody on some forum, said something that human population growth is a "crazy fire." I corrected him, that his metaphor was off, and that a better term would be a "creation fire." It's building something rather incredible and intelligent, not so destructive at all. There's an underlying intelligence and beauty, even love underlying it. I agree with the "fire" aspect, as in something we can't easily "control," but wish to point out, that it is by intelligent design, and achieves some wondrous and incredibly human-beneficial purpose, so the curious term "creation fire," is far more appropriate.

    But a world better designed to hold so many more people, would guard against supposed "overpopulation," by deliberately welcoming and better providing a place for everybody. By suggesting that cities indeed could be much bigger, to hold lots more people, I promote the more human-friendly approaches. Developing cleaner energy, flying cars to minimize traffic congestion, and welcoming people to go on having their "traditionally very large" families, even if in Jetsons cartoon-like scenic highrises. The people may not be able to avoid being so numerous, but they can be more respectful of one another, and design functional and clean and gleeming cities. Better design the "new nature" all the more dominated by humans. I want to possibly have a large family, and I expect the same for my possibly many children, that they should be encouraged to have naturally large families as well, in a world that could be pushing 9 or 10 billion people by then? I encourage everybody I can, to let their families grow naturally large as well. People having good values, and actually having their children, helps insure a family-friendly and child-friendly world.

    Actually, the human population has doubled, some 31 times. Well make that 32 times, when we soon reach 8 billion, by or before 2025. The last couple of billions were added only 12 years apart. 4 billion is roughly 2^32. But 2 is 2^1. God set the example with the first doubling of human population, making Eve from Adam's rib. Presumably, we wouldn't blame this first doubling, upon man then? And the first human, couldn't reproduce, except there be yet another human of opposite sex. 32-1=31. Oh, you weren't talking exponential growth, by *35 since 2000 years ago. Well I heard that world population was thought to be around 300 million in Jesus's time, not 200 million. But then that likely was a wild guess-imate, so I can understand the disparity here.

    You talk about how "quickly" population is growing? You cited last year's population size. Now it's 6.7 billion. Some people are already "rounding up" to 7 billion. Is it "scary" that world population grows so fast, that people's population figures are often "out of date?" Not really, for most people are rather clueless about population anyway. Anyway, considering the so-called "demographic transition," and applying your *35 to the present 6.7 billion, leads to roughly 200 billion people in the next 2000 years. Now why wouldn't that somehow be "doable" after another 2000 years of technology? Because people are crazy and the Anti-Christ would have risen by then? By then, 200 billion would seem more "normal" that today's 6 billion. Whoops. Make that 7 billion.

    Uh, yeah. Get a bigger cup then. If people in crowded shacks or overcrowded shantytowns can continue to have more children, why can't the world then?

    No, that's wrong. If humans don't control their numbers, neither will nature. The Malthusians are wrong. Why do you think we are getting so numerous now? Humans aren't just a part of nature, but we transcend nature, so when we become more numerous, we dominate nature even more, and nature and humanity, increasingly become "the same thing." That's what I think I was trying to allude to, in my use of the term the "new nature." Something or other of more cities, or growing supercities, that nature has little if any interest in stopping or controlling, especially if they are designed and maintained wisely.

    You may notice that I also am impressed something of how supposedly "huge" world population is getting, but not at all in the usual negative prejudice. I have studied it much, and I have a saying to sum up something of what we ought to think about it:

    "It's high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to move on in an orderly transition, to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist

    And the pronatalist mindset helps us do this better. It's hardly some Herculean effort, but more like a natural transition that we should have expected, especially those that actually bother to read their Bibles these days. God knew it would happen, and allowed and/or caused it to happen. We can keep some of the useful old ways or seek to simplify our lives, but at least some aspects of civil engineering, should respect and consider and welcome that human populations around much of the world, are naturally densifying, for very understandable and practical and religious reasons. I know the planet is limited in size, that's why I advocate welcoming world population density to rise naturally as well, so that the planet can indeed hold the additional people perhaps yet to come.

    The solution is so obvious, but people "educated way beyond their intelligence," seem to prefer complicated, unworkable non-solutions, more worthy of their much "education." If or as human bodies multiply, simply build more homes, more suburbs, more places for people to live. That way, they can indeed grow in numbers, without growing too overcrowded.

    I find it curious, that the way you worded that, you seem to imply there is no "problem" now, nor within the reasonably forseeable future. Do we have a point of agreement here? Go on multiplying human populations, at least for now?

    I read somewhere that it's like some 250,000 women a day, are aiming their wombs, and firing out a volley of some 250,000 babies a day, at the future. I agree with people doing such. We should be investing even more, into our future. The door to life should be left open, and the babies invited to come forth naturally. Mothers should be allowed to breastfeed in public, like they commonly do in the poorer, developing, more pronatalist countries.

    I often say, that the Catholics object to "artificial" forms of "birth control." Some may be said to be "abortifacients." Yeah, I agree, there are some underreported "side effects." So what's left? Catholic-tolerated rhythm? But the world balks at that, and says it takes too much "will-power." I agree as well. Well that leaves discussing the many possible virtues of the "no method" method of "family planning." And shouldn't family planning really mean, "planning" for and welcoming growth?

    I didn't say that you did. But that is a natural implication of such wrong-headed thinking of disparaging the natural population growth of fellow human beings. Didn't you just say something about that maybe humans weren't meant to "control" their population size? That too, is a point I wish to drive home. But then, nations ought not to be criticized, for letting their populations naturally "balloon." It's necessary, for the benefit of the populous many, to let the people become "so many."

    Last edited: Apr 1, 2008
  15. Hipparchia Registered Senior Member

  16. capelli Registered Member

    Ok I don't really have time to reply to all of that, as much as I would like to. I disagree to almost everything you say but you or I will not change our views. I choose to rationalise. In my rationale, if keep putting more things into something than you are taking out then you will eventually run out of space. The Earth is not getting bigger, only its number of inhabitants. Maybe colonization of another planet is an option but something will definitely need to be done eventually. Your arguments are based on hope and belief. You want to have a large family, you want to believe in the bible and so you are blind to how things actually are.

    I am not telling anyone whether they should or should not have a large family. I won't quite see the effects in my life time I expect but future generations will in some way, unless population stops increasing.

    You said "People seem to have this "god" complex by which, they are never satisfied merely being good humans."

    To which I'd say "people seem to have this "human" complex by which, they are never satisfied merely being humans. They are afraid of being in control of themselves and so need a god to guide and justify life."
  17. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    "Earth control" is top-heavy anti-people control. Obviously not all of nature can be "controlled" by man.

    So why would you still disagree, when I am right, and I have spelled out so much sound logic? If you disagree with people freely adding more people to the planet, year after year, then how can you be for right to life, for people having freedom to have their children, and for human benefit at all? If these rights are to be respected, maybe the population increase can't be stopped or isn't going to stop? I have said "let it rise naturally," as I believe in freedom and human benefit. You don't believe in freedom and human benefit? Sure, with freedom comes responsibility, but that responsibility includes making decisions, not having them all made for us by far-away politicians. If "birth control" was to be used, why can't it be the most natural, abstinence or less sex? Presumably of course, such old methods aren't practically enforcable, but then, isn't that quite much of the idea? People take responsibility for their fertility, by providing for their children, whether they be many or few. Now I have also stated that human life, is worth quite a lot, and so I would urge people to keep the door to life open, pair up, marry young if they know who to marry, enjoy "marital relations" without the use of any means of "birth control," and let their babies push out naturally. People probably won't do such, just because I say so, but what I say may get them thinking, and they'll find their own reasons to possibly have more children or to relax and reproduce more naturally.

    Well if you believe that, what do you think about government spending more and more of our taxpayer's money? If you keep taking out, taking out, how long until our economy is bankrupt? What happens when we allow government to just print, print money, and devaluing the money supply, as a "tax" against the poor and the middle class?

    Don't you think I know what the population accumulation that I advocate, means? It means the world, over time, grows fuller and fuller of people. I'm fine with that. As the obvious alternative is not attractive. Humans are amazing adaptable. How many decades ago, were leading scientists, rather than harping about supposed "global warming," touting eugenics? If we didn't do something to ursurp control from parents, we were going to breed countries and a world of idiocy. Supposedly the stupid people breed more than the smart people, so where do we end up after a few generations then? Obviously, I don't believe that, as I say that smart people tend to breed more, more readily finding the practical, moral, religious, logical reasons why we ought to breed. Now if we can't "pick and choose" who gets to breed, then what's the alternative? Be fair and let everybody breed.

    I heard a story some time ago, about some "family planning" workers warning some village, in Africa or something, that at their current growth rate, they would double their numbers in 25 years. To which they all started clapping. Whoops! Somebody apparently forgot to explain to them, that certain Western contraceptive imperilists, consider that to be "bad." Now why would these people spontaneously start clapping, at such an announcement? Is it because they are supposedly "uneducated?" I don't think so, as no doubt some of them are old enough to notice that their numbers are growing, and that their village is possibly growing larger and closer to the neighboring villages, those also growing larger. But if the neighboring villages are friendly, that shouldn't be a problem. I am quite educated, and I would clap as well. To see relatively cheap organic matter, being converted into additional human bodies, much improves my environment, if these people are friendly and helpful to the economy or whatever. Each and every human life is precious and sacred, and so we ought not to interfere with its creation. That was a claim made on that "The Mark of Gideon" episode. I agree with at least that part.

    Well then do something "eventually" then, if we must. But do something natural and according to what people want anyway. Not draconian non-solutions. I know how things are, but I want to be free to have a naturally large family regardless, and not like some inconvenient hypocrite like Al Gore, I don't ask other people to have fewer children so that I can have more, but I invite the public to have just as many or more children, than I would be able to have.

    You claim I base my views upon hope and belief. So do those who seek to destroy basic freedoms. They hope that they are right, presumably, but they aren't. There are opportunity costs to denying people their freedoms. There have been people suggesting wacko ideas such as levying a "carbon tax" on babies. See, much of the "environmental" thinking, is really about a cabal evil sinister conspiracy to depopulate the planet. But possibly not even that will be able to "control" natural human population growth, but will promote rampant and spreading poverty. Now I have long said I am fine with natural human population rise. But more population + more poverty, is hardly the ideal combination. Poverty, especially rich elitist manufactured poverty, breeds disease and revolution. I don't want to see people harmed, so I promote freedom and responsibility. And that means starting where freedom starts, with affirming the great value of human life. And that means, welcoming babies to come alive, and go on pushing out naturally. Obviously, not everybody is going to reproduce naturally anymore. But for those who would consider it, I don't ask that they pollute their bodies directly with nasty experimental contraceptives. Should people have a "choice," should they be made to make the right choice, or be made to make the wrong choice? Forcing parents to deny the lives of their children, shouldn't even be a "choice."

    But the matter is way too important to try to be "neutral" or to "sit on the fence." I encourage people to have naturally large families, so that far more people may live. Also, to combat the flood of liberalism conspiring to undermine our liberty. We need for good people to reproduce more. Those who might be persuaded to reproduce more, tend to be the "good" people, in my view. "The liberals are killing their children, we are having ours," or something to that effect, I sometimes hear. When I go on my annual Walk for Life, I am not there just to stand against abortion. But to encourage people to relax more, and welcome their families to possibly get naturally large. Somebody posted on the Philippines pro-life forum I frequent, something about how marriage is for the survival of civilization, the proliferation of people, and the enhancement of reproduction. I agree. Why is it customary for husband and wife to sleep together in the same bed every night? It's for the maximum temptation and opportunity for people to reproduce, or so I heard somewhere. I agree. There has to be some proper moral outlet, for humanity's powerful reproductive urges? These days, people seem to have lost so much respect for nature and the ways of nature or whatever, while all the while claiming they respect and care about nature. Really? So why so many unnatural ugly tattoos, nasty cancer stick cigarettes, and polluting our bodies with contraceptives? People's powerful reproductive urges, were likely created for some great reason. For people to enjoy them. For more fellow human beings to come alive. Some TV commercial long ago, claimed "It's not nice to fool mother nature." I forget what it was about, but isn't that a slendid description of the highly experimental contraceptives of today? "The pill" attempts to "fool" the body into thinking it is already pregnant. How "unnatural" can you get?

    I speak of this bizarre idea of trying to impose "earth control" to the unnatural and excessive extent as to be clearly detrimental to humans. I oppose any unnatural "cap" on human population size, as it can only be cruel, and there can never be any moral nor any practical means by which to enforce it. It's against nature, and against God, and against people, and against families. It's against personal freedom and responsibility. I don't at all ask that people "control" their fertility, but merely what I see in the Bible, that they take responsibility for providing for and loving their children, a responsibility hampered by trying to impose fines or penalties upon people for supposedly "overbreeding." Government can't reasonably "hold people's hands," intrude into people's bedrooms, and make sure that they don't have "too many" childen, in a world approaching a huge 7 billion people. Government is doing well, just to mind its own business. People need to take responsibility for their actions, and to be free to make choices for themselves.
  18. capelli Registered Member


    I'm not going to try reply to everything, you will just come back with more of your faith-based arguments or you just generally missing the point.

    Your quote here though, I found quite interesting. I don't know how it is in America but here in the UK we have a benefit system in which the government aides parents with children by giving them money based on the number of children they have. Now, due to this, many mothers are having children(as many as they can, and with often more than one father) just so that they can get more money from the government and so that they do not have to work. These people are generally not very nice people, they are lazy and unfortunately their children are often quite likely to grow up and live their life the same way. Some of these people can be nice people, but a lot grow up to be criminals and generally people to avoid, ie not "good" people.
  19. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Just because I am against government-run welfare, doesn't mean that I am not for human benefit for the many.

    How did you know how I would reply? Oh, I understand the point. The world is naturally populating more vastly and densely with people. I advocate this, and would urge nations to populate more densely with people, especially via their natural increase—their very own children!, to do their part to help the planet absorb and hold ever more people. Letting human populations and density rise naturally, is in better keeping with nature, in that life tends to spread to fill every available niche. I really detest some of the "us and them" mentality, as in some respects, we are all in this together, so I want to help the heavily-populated nations naturally expand their populations, help them affirm the great value of each and every human life, and for us to populate more densely like them, out of sympathy and promoting the greater good of the many. It's not just India or wherever that is naturally growing more dense with people, but more of a "global" and natural trend, and so we should have expected for India to get so many people. As human population growth is beautiful, as it allows so many more people to live.

    Funny you come up with that government welfare stuff, about all the "lazy" people that supposedly the government persuades to breed more children, so they can mooch off of the government and the taxpayer. You know how I would come back on that argument, don't you? What of all the people who let their families grow large, and are quite willing to work productively to provide for their many or few children? And shouldn't we blame politicians, much more than beneficiaries, of unjust governnment welfare schemes? Yes, I do want to see more pronatalism in society, and I agree with "paying people to breed." But where is the more proper place for this money to come from? How about from employers. I like to see Europe, how about the whole world?, try to pay more in the form of some "family allowance," in which a work benefit is a higher rate of pay, for having more children. This can be viewed something like a rising "minimum wage" for rising family size. I like to see this benefit be a volutary or competive employer work benefit if possible. If it's supposedly so expensive to have large families, then increasing pay with rising family size, would count towards employee retention.

    What could be better than being paid to breed more children? But then the government shouldn't be some "absentee" father. I don't believe in government welfare. Charity is not the responsibility of the taxpayer, but of people or organizations that want to give. Sure, encourage married people to have as many children as they can, with just a single father in stable marriage relationships. Why have people for so long, been urged to marry first, then have their children? Probably one practical reason, is so that society and government doesn't get saddled with the problems and the bills. I think government and culture has contributed towards the "double income no kids" stupidity of today. "DINKS." It's a bad trend, because all that money is going to go to something. If people won't spend it on growing families and raising kids, then the government or greedy corporations will find some ways to devour it. People in general, are not going to long prosper by disobeying God's commandment to people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the world. Would we rather, that the Muslims do all the multiplying, and just take over?

    What quote of mine, did you find interesting? As you know, I do not believe in "earth control," which means also that I believe in neither population "control" nor "birth control" of human beings. I believe that pregnancy is the natural remedy for powerful human reproductive urges, and childbirth is the natural remedy for pregnancy. Let the babies push out, at the full level of human fecundity. Just as fast as people's bodies want to make their babies. I am not at all impressed by the bewildering array of shoddy contraceptives, and actually do like some of the older and simpler ways, that worked so well for our ancestors, like letting babies happen when they happen. But they say that families are the basic building blocks of society. I want to see people reproducing naturally, organized into stable families, for a stable society that can better deal with and cope then, with the naturally rising overall population size. A pronatalist society, that breeds on purpose and states the reasons why, should do a better job at making whatever proper alterations, may come to be needed, for lands to become all the more heavily populated by people.

    And in my experience, those people I know of who have let their families get conspicuously "large" in size, tend to be rather curious and wonderful people, and so of course, I would hope that their many children would do the same, have also large families when they grow up, and get married. Adding all the more people to the planet, does nothing to help "stabilize" (stagnate) overall human population size, the naturally enlarging numbers of women of childbearing age, yet another reason, why we shouldn't even bother to try somehow to unnaturally "limit" our "huge" numbers. Let baby booms long persist and grow and spread bigger, naturally.
  20. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Because we are all trapped in this planetary gravity well together, is a profound reason to populate more and more heavily together.

    No, it's not the same, although I understand your metaphor.

    Let's say that The Philippines had as many people as they do, I think about 90 million people by now, a person for every acre of land, on their national island, but the rest of the planet was empty of people? To me, that sounds like an island perhaps getting too full of people, that should start "overflowing" or "overspilling" into other colonies or other lands. Start loading up the ships and boats, exporting the growing "surplus" population. But what happens, when the rest of the world has so many people too, and the rest of the world population is growing as well? Do we then export the growing "surplus" people? Maybe not, as other countries have their own growing populations to absorb. Because we are all trapped upon this "island Earth" gravity well, is a reason to encourage the various islands to go on growing in human numbers, even if not "exporting" the growing numbers to elsewhere. They should be encouraged to naturally populate denser and denser, as perhaps there's not so much "elsewhere," politically or practically, to send so many people? Or is underpopulated Australia begging for more people to come and settle their continent?

    You seemed to have missed my point, when I spoke of "critical mass." Islands, by definition, tend to be rather small, and rather limited in resources. But the entire planet, is resource-rich, and rather big. So by giving, selling, trading technologies and resources, all places can more comfortably and safely be more heavily populated by people. You said the world population is now 6.3 billion and rising. Uh, that was half a decade ago. One of the funny things about a rising population, is how quickly population figures can get out of date. Now the "official" figure seems to be 6.7 billion. Factoring in all the suspected undercounting, and babies already in the womb, we could easily have over 7 billion people on the planet now. I agree that such a number can in a few respects be considered "huge." So I would simply say, that maybe it takes the entire planet now to hold us all? While an island may be a bit too confining, in a growing world of people, even "crowded" islands can reasonably expect to be able to import the needed technologies to populate even denser with people. Look at Singapore, encouraging people now to have more children, afraid of losing their workforce. Singapore already has 40 times the population density of China. Some 12,000 people per square mile. Where do they live? In highrises? That's just too many people to cram onto a little island, well unless they can have some help or resources or technology from the outside. With some level of global cooperation and trade, I don't see why even the entire planet, couldn't be populated so densely with people.

    In order to have so many people living closer together, certain proper things must be changed. People need to learn to install toilets within their homes, so that all that human wastes of naturally growing cities, can be safely hauled away by sewer systems, and properly handled. People must be able to work productive decent-paying jobs, so that they can afford decent housing, trash collection, and running water. So corruption in government must be rooted out, and good leaders who serve the people, put in. People must use clean gas and electric cookstoves, to eliminate millions of smoky cooking fires from growing cities. Human population growth already contains the seeds of its own accomodation, so any filling "islands" of people, must practically be enlarged to the size of the planet, in order to have sufficient "critical mass" to better accomodate all the people. I don't advocate the improper consolidation of political power, into the hands of the unaccountable few, but rather the less popular sort of "globalism," by which the world naturally populates itself into each other, fading national borders in that manner towards a more continuous "global neighborhood," bursting naturally cooperatively at the seams, with people.

    Can you begin to see why I say, that it isn't actually the same? Some population accomodations, just aren't built so easily, on the small scale, as on the macroscopic (global) scale.
  21. draqon Banned Banned

    this block of text is like a bullet in a head
  22. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    dragon, surely you don't expect every book to be "easy-reading" do you?

    What do you want? More subtitles, or maybe more eye-candy pictures?

    I'm trying to be really helpful with the encouraging things I say, but it's not easy going against some of the trendy, but wrong, dogmas of the day.

    People seem to have a resistance to admitting that they have been lied to, for so many years.

    Or were you complaining about something else?
  23. capelli Registered Member


Share This Page