Indigenious people live in harmony with nature. One of the biggest bullshit lie modern science propagates is the ancient people had killed off entire animal populations or brought about desertification etc. of their lands. Modern scientists are trying to see precedence of their abhorent mind set in our ancestors.
Good answer, I would also have accepted axe or (my personal favourite) crowbar. A chainsaw is a bad idea, for it will spray infected zombie blood everywhere when used as a weapon, and relies on petrol, and is really noisy. The zombies will hear and home in on it. Shotguns are good for close range, but I would stay as far away as possible, so a rifle would be another good item to carry.
Spam, trying to derail the thread. Showing his contempt for what he percieves to be a patriarchal system that has made you think those things.
Duendy, Do you have any references? I do not have any resources regarding native Americans to hand, and I couldn't find anything about it on the internet.
whay'd i put '((((((((((p(((((((((' at end of post? well, my systemis differnt than you average computer. on my screen it is different lookin than computer, also lots i cant do, and IF i dont put any text symbols at end of post, past quote i cant post it. i try and be creative and put a pttern tere about back up for what i am aying? i have notes spread out, but my notes aren't filed. i am on it but jeeeezus it is tedious. shoulda done it when making tem but u know, much is common sense. the world poulation has never been as large as it has been since patriarcal culture and modern world take a g;obal control over the mindset it is tis you need to look at as well. ie., for example, the paradigm of te last 400 years is good start. how Nature and pople and animals become looked more and more as machines. how from this philosophy alientation sprads Much of Indegeous culture, and prepatriarchal culure didn't experience Nature like is te accepted norm now. there was respect for 'Moter Earth' and life death and regeneration For example------When christian missionaries went to proslytize Native American peoples, and tried to indoctriate te concept of 'soul' as their belief system defines it, Native Amercians had a real swtruggle to understand . for them soul IS not separate individual souls destined for Heaven, Hell and 'above' Nature. For them 'spoul' was paert OF nature.........ie., their insight was animistic, realzing matter and spirit intereated as Nature. so tere wasn't the sense of bein superior to Nature and with plan to escape it, and all te other propaganda about sex being only for procreation etd that monotheism pushes on people via its doctrine
You can get the 9 essential amino acids from certain veggies/nuts/etc. I believe, I'm not vegitarian though. Get me some nice red meat and I'm happy.
What should have been the #1 population concern, is that more and more people would be glad to live, a very worthy goal if at all possible. Most everybody wants or ends up having children. Most every child is quite glad to have come to life and to have been born. Therefore, if any such thing as an "ideal"-sized human population could be defined, it wouldn't be nearly as small and pidly as possible, but more like nearly as large as possible. Why not fill most every bedroom and home with people, and build still more cities and towns and expanding suburbs. Growth is so much more exciting than stagnation. And humans, being designed as social creatures by God, are well adaptable to not only survive but also thrive even at extreme population densities. And God also allowed humans to unique enjoy being constantly "in heat," able to breed year-round. Although humans compared to other creatures breed quite gradually, allowing ample time to adapt and prepare for our natural increase, we also can tend to multiply steadily and relentlessly so we also have to use the intelligence God gave us to adapt to our ever rising populations. So we have very practical reasons why world population MUST BE WELCOME to be or become huge, extremely dense and widespread, and still growing, if at all possible. Also, in agreement with Present, I would much favor piling people into vertical highrise cities filling entire continents, than some arbitrary artificial population control, although there would never likely be any need for either. If humans ever grew so populous that there wasn't room both for all the human habitation + agriculture, then obviously agriculture would have to go, as people come first. I figure so many people, if ever the need arises, would push a switch towards synthetically produced food, that would be just as good, more dependable than iffy changing weather to produce crops, and ultimately cheaper. There's no such thing as human "over population," because there are no "surplus" or unnecessary people. (Well except for uncivilized creeps who commit heinous crimes, but then the death penalty is another topic, and is actually pro-life as it gets rid of the incompatible elements of a populous society making it easier for it to be all the more populous and dense. See Genesis 9:6 to see how seriously God regards the protection of especially innocent human life.)
oh, people like you wid yur 'God' --him-up-stairs. YOU are the problem. tis is what we're saying......your concept blinds you to ther actual reality, which is too much quantity degrades quality---in this case of life for ALL species. not just you, who think erself a creature o som e @God' who you ignore-antly believes wants to overpolulate Earh and make all other forms of life extinct, and increase poverty for millions at the expense of a few
Don't you get it? It's far more important to welcome humans to be abundant and to grow more abundant, than to forever maintain a "spacious" planet. Big families should be encouraged even as humans populate closer towards one another on a global scale, because more and more people would be glad to live. The more people there gets to be, the more people there are who both want to live, and to reproduce. The more populated we get, the better we get at supporting large populations. "It is high time to accept as forever gone the spacious world of the past, and to move on and make an orderly transition to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist Stop living in the fantasy "good ol' days" of the past, that never really existed quite the way we romance them anyway. Favor humans, promote peace on earth, goodwill towards man, as our Creator would have us do. Why not a more pronatalist, and child-friendly, family-friendly, human-friendly world? Even if humans become more "alone" in the world increasingly living amonst our own kind in a more urbanized and perhaps somewhat more "artificial" and more comfortable human-dominated world.
Same-gender relationships (homosexual, etc) are naturally good at keeping the population down, without resorting to birth control. Perhaps they should be encouraged instead of discouraged?
Isn't such immorality largely what destroyed the Roman Empire? Often what destroys a society, comes from within, not really from invaders from without. Moral decay is usually what causes the weakness that allows the collapse. Not only does homosexuality not create life, but it takes life, when such vile affections promote activities and promiscuity and short-term relationships that quickly spread STDs and cause many health ailments. There is only but one orifice in the body actually designed for penile penetration, and that is the vagina. Any others causes damage. You really don't want me to dig up any graphic medical descriptions do you? I have some, somewhere around here. And as I have said, the goal should never be to keep population levels down, but rather to accomodate growing populations better. God intended for human populations to grow to become quite abundant, as people would discover that the Bible is surprisingly pronatalist, if they would bother to read it from cover to cover as I have. It encourages large families and early marriage (Ps 127:3-5), large families for the poor (Ps 107:41), large population (Pr 14:28), foretells the world's burgeoning billions of today way back in Genesis 24:60. ("thousands of millions" in the King James Text, is litterally "billions" of descendents.) "... choose life that thou and thy seed may live," in Deut 30:19 could mean many things, including that parents not abort (murder) their innocent children, but couldn't it also be an admonition to breed? In case I haven't explained it clearly enough, why not go read Romans 1 carefully, several times, slowly, taking time to think about it, then consider the pros and cons of going along with nature, or against nature, when it comes to marital sexual relations. I don't think Romans 1 merely speaks against the perversion of homosexuality, a blatant attack against family values, what men are, what women are, and who God is and his plan for us, but also against the modern perversion, or even societal expectation of "Use birth control! Use birth control!" We have been lied to, as anti-life "birth control" has been a huge curse to humanity, and wasn't even necessary. You might find this link interesting in studying the dirty history of the "culture of death" abortion mentality movement for "birth control," which originally, I don't think promoted abortion, but inevitably soon led to abortion to fix all the "mistakes" that still slipped by. Prolifers will prevail
nowhere do i hear you speaking up for othr species----for Nature. you are humancentric. tis is teproblem both for fundamental patriarchal religions, and materialistic science. Both from te same root mindset which believes humans must dominate and proliferate and fuck the rest it is so convenient you dismiss mindsets and insights from the past who experienced Natue and community in a wholly diferent way Look, this relatively small planet has limited resources. use your LOGIC as well as encouraging your feelings potential. see tat when you have limited resources you do not promote more and more pressure on those respurces if ANYone is living in an idealistic dream it is you mate/
I hate when people think like this. Like "we could always store humans vertically, and make farms under the sea, a human body is only *** cubic inches, and there's *** cubic inches of space within our atmosphere. So if we can arrange people from head to toe, saving space by stuffing our faces into the empty crevace between our neighbours buttocks, we should be able to fit 800 billion people on earth blah blah blah". Long before you'd do these crazy things and completely suck the value out of everyone's life, you'd just get rid of a few people. The world is overpopulated. It's not about how many you could concievably stuff into the planet, it's about how many can live in harmony with the rest of the living things on earth. How many people can comfortably be sustained and live a pleasant life per square mile within the specific geographic locations which are suitable for humans. And we are well over that limit currently. Do you really think all the rich people on earth are going to divy up their large estates into "human shelves", and then take their place in one of the 6 x 3 x 2 shelves? No, they'll maintain their comfortable lifestyle, and the poor will perish at their illustrious gates, some squished partially through the bars by the mass of lower class humans behind them. And then the groundskeeper will come along and shave the gate with a hedgetrimmer, while his master leisurely sips alcoholic beverages on a hammock and stretches out in the serenity of his spacious personal wilderness. And all this is as it should be. It's the trash of the world which is becoming overpopulated, they should be confined into metallic domes and if they keep breeding they can just keep expanding untill they've condensed into a concentrated paste within those domes. We could then tap these domes for fertiliser. We need to put our foot down and draw a line in the sand, by which I mean erect metallic domes around populations of poor people.
I agree with Dr. Lou. Why is it that humanity's goal should be to breed as much as possible? Shouldn't quality of life be more of a priority than quantity of life?
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, it is abomination. The men with men work that which is unseemly, because they are given over to vile affections, and therefore given up to Satan. Is it your godly duty to come to a forum populated by what is probably a majority made up of materialists and atheists, to turn their hearts to God? The Christian God, no less? Rather noble, but you will likely find them more entrenched than ever, just because of your pro-problem "problem-solving". Or are you even trying to solve any problem? I can't tell, because childbirth is not going to solve any major problems. Rather it will feed the ones already in existence. Seems like you're prepared to take on all of Sodom! Don't bother. I am quite familiar with what you are referring to. Did I ever advocate anal sex or the like in the first place? Why do people always assume that? I advocated same-gender relationships with homosexuality in parentheses just to make things clearer. There is more to a relationship than sex. I'm sure you're well aware of that, and it's probably in your arsenal of rhetoric to combat any protests along the line of "But we're in love" or "We're faithful to each other". The well-rehearsed reply is something like "But just because you're in love doesn't mean you HAVE to have sex" or even better "Well, PEDOPHILES love little children! Are you saying that they should be allowed to have sex with children just because they CLAIM to be in LOVE???" Even simpler is this "There isn't really any such thing as gay love, only gay LUST!" That's supposed to be the show-stopper, where all the "dirty" faggots realise their great mistake and rebellion against the Creator. In any case, what you would be referring to is most likely a worst-case scenario. Any information that pro-family, anti-homosexual religionists dispense is generally of this kind: find the absolute worst statistics and horror stories, and assure all gay and would-be gay persons that THIS WILL BE THEIR LIFE! The certain outcome of their "immoral" and "sinful" lifestyle is already fact to the god-fearing Christian, so the repentant homosexual must let go of those vile affections and navigate through the rough waters, keeping an eye on the moral beacon that conservative (and apparently, pro-overpopulation!) Christianity provides. Your own Master, Jesus Christ, never married, nor did he father children, according to the Book you treasure. And neither did Paul, who is arguably the most popular (greatest?) apostle. Did not Paul say that it is better to remain single, as he is? Are those two examples an ENCOURAGEMENT of this unchecked, baby-making-at-all-costs mentality??? It certainly doesn't appear that way. Eunuchs will have a name greater than that of sons and daughters. Remember that? Have you FORGOTTEN THAT in your mad rush to populate an already overpopulated planet? Jesus, John the Baptist, and Paul: all eunuchs for the Kingdom of God. I take it you don't enter in to the Holy of Holies? Did that verse fall out of the blessed King James Authorized Version? Were you aware that King James was a sodomite? Are you aware that the word sodomite appears in inappropriate places in that book? Eunuchs will have a name greater than that of sons and daughters. I take it that you wish to be MEDIOCRE and SECOND BEST since you apparently don't take this particular verse all that seriously? You would rather choose the name of a son or a daughter, who make flesh of their own flesh which is not life. In fact, judging by your name, being second best is priority number one. "Let the children come to me" does NOT mean making procreation the highest, or even second highest priority. What are the two greatest commandments? Where is procreation one of those commandments? What are the Ten Commandments? Where is procreation one of those commandments? "Do not give the children's food to the dogs!" How can advocating constant childbirth and overpopulation be loving to thy neighbor, when thy neighbor is poor and his children are hungered? There is a higher duty. In this day and age, those who are without must be provided for FIRST, before you start adding more mouths to feed. Wherein have I sinned? What wrong have I committed?
