Should we be allowed to eat Humans?

Ah ok.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't know how a city appears to a dog. Relevance ?

I really don't think dogs give these things much thought, do you ?
And we are not like gods to dogs. Dogs typically have a dog-perspective on life.. that means that they view things from their doggy-world understanding.
Humans are fellow packmembers to them, they just low in rank compared to most humans. The owner, of course, would be the alfa male.

Ranking animals in importance makes no sense period. Perhaps only from an arrogant human perspective. By the way, I asked because you placed dogs below cows earlier. That is the arrogant human perspective I was talking about a second ago.

Like it or not, humans ARE animals. Other animals have morals too you know.
From dog moral persective it is not ok to kill and eat your owner. But this is because they see us as equal species (see second alinea).
From wolf perspective it's perfectly alright to kill and eat a human.

If you are going to nitpick.. isn't it really a legal question ?
Granted, morals make their way into legal process of course. But you seem to be taking the typical arrogant human stance that our morals are vastly superior to other animals morals. This is natural but not realistic.
Morality only applies to same species creatures, all the other species are outsiders with which we either have alternate "agreements" outside of morality or not.
So I agree with you that humans should not be eating each other, this is not my disagreement with you.
I am in disagreement with you about your blatant disregard for life other than humans and in second place species directly beneficial to humans.
This is of course the way nature operates, but you can't hide behind limited intelligence. Humans can contemplate the results of their actions, other animals are unable to do such a thing or are limited in that ability.
Pick a random animal species and imagine they have the same reasoning skills and intelligence as humans have. Now imagine you ask them if they think it would be a good thing if their numbers were to explode like our numbers did in the past. Think about that and then tell me what they would reply to you.

I don't see what anyone could have against cremation on moral grounds.
Burial grounds do take up too much space and are vastly harmful to the environment.
I think the dead should be recycled. Cremated and then processed to retrieve valuable elements such as iron etc. The leftovers can be used as fertilizer or ground fill or whatever.

Yes REALLY !
"small negative impacts" ?? Are you serious ?
You really should broaden you horizon dude.. there is more life on this Earth than only humans.
Respect for humans means that humans should earn that respect by respecting life in general. Humans should respect themselves by respecting life in general, but they don't. They are superior to all other life so why respect it.. well, it's going to backfire. Hard.

Sorry, I didn't read this bit. You seem to be under the impression that I am attacking you stance on eating humans. I am not.
I am attacking you because you are a human supremacist that feels that everything must bow for humankind.
The FACT that this is eventually going to backfire on humanity is little comfort to me, because the irreversible damage will by long done by then.

You obviously don't know shit about biology or have much common sense.
What about the MILLIONS of years, make that BILLIONS of years, before humans arose on this planet. Nature was doing pretty damn fine, wasn't it ?
How is it doing now, huh ? :bugeye:

That is the way it is supposed to be, moron !
Stopping natural forest fires is BAD for the natural balance.

Nasty vermin ? The only vermin on this planet are humans.
How many "homes" have we invaded ? And unlike rats we slaughter our hosts. really nice guests we are huh. Invade, slash and burn, kill most inhabitants, cover all with brick and concrete, call the survivers vermin.

How old are you ? Seriously..

You live in a cave or what ? The world is not doing well at all. We are not helping nature out at all. We are only helping out ourselves. For the time being, I might add.

Yes, pets also like our companionship. Dogs perhaps more so than cats. So what ?
I respect cats a lot more than dogs for the same reason you like dogs more than cats.
Anyway.. pets are not nature. I really don't get why you won't stop talking about pets.

Most wild animals are afraid of humans and for good reason.
Pets have learned that we won't harm them (the lucky ones) and provide food for them. In any case they didn't have much choice did they ? Virtually all pets have been brought up in captivity. They don't know any better.
By the way, humans slaves behave much better than free humans as well, don't you think ? :bugeye:

Most of this is too dumb for me to answer. Sorry.

No one would disappear, simpleton.
And quit throwing out crap like the Lone Ranger, The Jetsons and man-eating aliens.

You can stick your pets up your ass. We are talking about nature here, not pets.
Reducing the human population over time and taking care and respecting our natural environment is 'life-centric'. 'Life-centric' is also 'human-centric'.

You arrogant asshole. Expand on this and show your true colors.

Who is dumb? Surely you meant that these humans are dumb ?
or did you mean that these animals are actively deceiving humans ? lol

Shallow prick.
I demand you tell me you age and why you think humans should engulf the Earth. Do you think God wants us to ?
Or are you just lying and trying to get a rise out of me ? If that's the case you succeeded, congratulations.

Birth control ? Ring a bell perhaps ?
People could be restricted to one child by law.. no body needs to die.

And ?

I can't blame people for it.
You don't enjoy nature ? Have you ever been completely alone in the forest and just sat down and watch, listen to and feel your surroundings ?
I tell you, it's a completely different experience with groups of other people around, or when you step in a dog turd every 15 minutes.

No you're not. You are pro-human. And you are so ridiculously pro-human that your are almost anti-life.

I almost feel sorry for you.

Tough luck. Odds are that you also dislike a thing or two more about the decisions the government makes.
Sometimes unpopular measure are necessary, don't you agree ?

Idiot.

Good question. Try answering that yourself.

I asked you your age.
Perhaps you are not some naive school kid but you sure sound like one. Perhaps you are starting to go senile ?

And that "magical" world is going down the drain as we speak, taking the wonder with it.
You deny your children and your children's children the beauty of nature.
Instead you provide for them a sea of humans, concrete and toxic waste.
You and your wonderful human supremacist views are disgusting to me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I take your answers seriously you should be at least 43.
Now what is your actual age ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is safe to discount the opinion of someone who considers humans to be vermin.

 

Would you like to demonstrate why humans are not vermin ?

 

You made the fantastic claim first.

 

I'll take that as a no. Good day sir.

 

People who attack humanity the way that you do make themselves vermin.

 

I am. You are too. We all are

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Anyway, I wasn't talking to you now was I ? So Shush.

 

You have a truly sick outlook on life there, and you are attempting to disguise mental illness as high moral philosophy. Cut it out. People who hold to your philosophy become very violent and destructive, and a worse problem than existed before.

 

Not so. On all accounts. Nice try though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Humans are an invasive species. True or not ?

 

Not true.

 

Explain ?

 

Metakron and Pronatalist - there are too many people in this world, no argument about it. Even rabbits recognise when their environment has become too crowded, the fact you have lower IQ and foresight than a bunny is not something I would shout around the internet.

 

You're the one who made the affirmative claim. Prove it. Which planet did humans fly in from?

 

Oh right.. so if a species is an invasive species it must have come from another planet. LOL
Show some intelligence.. please.

 

Perhaps naturally-growing cities appear like magical wonderlands, to a dog?​

It may have some relevance, if you want to question as to whether a human-centric view of the world, tells the whole story. Somehow humans favoring humans, overlooks certain supposed human-caused problems? I don't think I buy that line of logic, as being a human, of course I am human-centric. Aren't I supposed to be? The natural growth of cities is also having effects upon people, not necessarily for the bad, but effects regardless. Many cities are now so large, even a human could not walk outside the city limits, withing a reasonably long walk. It takes a car or a bus or something, to escape the city.

Obviously, we don't know if dogs might think their "world" is just completely filled with humans. But part of my point would be, that if that's how they might be said to perhaps see things, then they seem to be fine with it. They are simple creatures, that know no better anyway, so how could they question "the way things are." We could learn something, from such a simple perspective, and maybe not so much whine and complain about what we can't reasonably "control" anyway.

Well if we aren't "gods" to dogs, then perhaps dogs better respect God than we do? In the simple mind of a dog, what then ranks above humans? Do they even know of anything above humans? What is it about a dog, that makes them like living in the "alien" realm of humans? Pet dogs live with aliens who don't even speak their own language, and don't even look like dogs. Pet dogs like to "visit" the outdoors, but they seem to rather like living in our homes. I would only have an indoor dog, as what for do I have to feed it, if it's not going to keep me company, but just bark at all the neighbors and passers by and drop turds all over my yard? I like a medium-sized dog, because the big ones eat too much, and yet do usually no work, and I have to buy their doggy stuff for them. Dogs too small probably aren't so great, because they get stepped on, and may be too yappy. A dog should be quiet, kind, friendly, confident. Not like some little dancing windup toy, or like a little running rabbit underfoot.

Okay.

Dogs sometimes follow instructions, "too well." I recall seeing something about them rescuing dogs from Hurricane Katrina. Dogs trapped inside a flooded house, by only a window screen. They could get out, but they won't, because for fear they will damage their master's stuff, and yet their master has long since fled the scene.

I also figure, the human must be the obvious pack leader, because he's the smart one with all the food. Besides, being taller in stature, probably also helps indicate who's the boss. And I think that dogs do know, that humans are much different than dogs.

Dogs below cows? Huh? Dogs are above cows, if they are pets. If not, then about the same.

Humans are mammals. Humans are animals in the biological sense, but we are so much more. We both share the category, but need an entire category unto ourselves.

Anyway, I am curious, where do human rank in as far as being among the most populous large mammals? Aren't there perhaps more humans on the planet, than cows? Yet another way in which humans are special and should be favored by humans. Since there's so many of us, human needs have to come first. But that's not even hardly the best reason, just a reason.

Other animals have morals? So where is their Bible? Where are their Churches? Where are their courtrooms, to put them on trial for eating other animals? Animals feel no "shame" to have sex in public. It's natural, they have urges too. Animals don't care about "privacy" unless they think they are going to be disturbed. Animals may have some primitive sense of morality, but in comparison with humans, animals are almost amoral. (Means not being described in terms of morality. Plants can poison one another, without committing sin, because they have no souls, no morality, as they are amoral.) If a bear breaks into people's cars and such, you move or destroy it. You don't ask it why, put it on trial, make it do restitution. We can do those things with humans, because humans are supposed to be moral creatures. Or are you suggesting we lower our standards and behave like primitive apes? Even if so, there's way too many people upon the planet for us to live like that anymore. Moral standards are essential to properly running today's populous societies.

Probably so, but even dogs may see other reasons as well. I would not be surprised, if some child-tolerant dogs, may actually be less likely to anger or bite, at a child abusing it, pulling on its tail, than if another member of the dog pack did that, although I am not aware of any studies to prove my point. It is possible, that even dogs may see humans as "special" creatures. The old generation robots in iRobot, certainly saw humans as "special." What about the old Disney movie, Old Yeller? (about a dog) Is it just possible, that dogs may be more willing to fight to the death, to protect its humans from some dangerous creature, than it might for other dog members of the pack? If so, why? If dogs perhaps in some way, saw humans something like gods, that might explain for some of it. Now of course, maybe Old Yeller didn't really understand death so well, and though he would be victorious AND live. Or maybe Old Yeller cared more about protecting his humans, than his own life? But since it's just a story, we really don't know the author's intent?

Not necessarily, if there's easier prey to be found, or if the humans have a reputation for carrying guns, or also running in dangerous packs. Most animals even, seem to be a little fearful of attacking creatures bigger and more powerful than themselves.

Anyway, that relates to the issue of certain "environmentalists" trying to "restore" nature and reintroduce wolves to forests. I think I may have to oppose that, as I don't want some evil wolf running off with one of my children. What's wrong with having forests, free of creatures dangerous to humans? Isn't that part of humans exercising the dominion that God gave us over nature and other creatures?

And why would it be a legal question? Who doesn't already know, that it's "illegal" to kill or to eat people? It sounds like a curious moral question to me. Why is it, that most any animal or plant, is quite possibly fair game for humans to eat, except for humans? What makes humans so special? Well if we can answer that correctly, then we have some basic proper framework by which to defend freedom and personal responsibility. The answer is largely that humans are created in God's image, and that we are "special." That is a prime reason why humans have been allowed to grow to such incredibly "huge" numbers throughout the planet, and we are not allowed to eat them. It's a moral and a pronatalist tenet. Humans are not supposed to have any preditors, and we weren't designed to use birth control. We are supposedly intelligent, very capable of altering nature to support more and more people, and we are social creatures, presumably quite readily adaptable to both survive and thrive, even at extreme population densities, if or as need be. Humans are very curious and strange and wondrous creatures, capable of such highly abstract levels of thought, as to use written language, computers, global communications, books. Have you considered, that the human ability to speedily transmit knowledge and data throughtout the globe, is one of the factors helping our population levels to rise so supposedly "uncontrollably?"

Some pro-life Prime Minister of The Philippines, kind of dismissed "overpopulation" worries for their island nation by saying the rest of the world is growing too, so it will be okay. Some may see such remarks, sorry I don't recall the exact quote, as flippant, but I see at actually rather wise. Already, The Philippines has more people than acres of land, nearly as densely populated as India. But I do think they are correct, that because the rest of the globe is also growing in population, they can reasonably expect to import whatever technology and means would help them mitigate and cope with a population supposedly growing so large for the island. If the world was only The Philippines island, they might be "breeding themselves into a corner," so to speak, but actually, the transfer of global data and trade, is actually helping much to redesign countries to better absorb the rising population levels they are finding themselves with, all the more reason why people should be encouraged not to bother with birth control, respect the natural flow of human life unhindered, and keep pushing their babies out naturally.

Like it or not, quite many people believe this. Why don't you go and learn as to why?

So in other words, if aliens land on our planet, and want to be our friends, we are free to eat them? Perhaps the aliens won't mind that we don't extend to them any "human rights?" Too bad we didn't steal all their technology before we ate them, but then, greedy selfish humans sometimes don't think that far ahead?

Now we are getting somewhere. (laughing in jest)

But I am not some pinko tree hugger. Why wouldn't I think humans are superior? Don't most Christians sort of think something along those lines?

I'm not into going out and slaughter all the buffalo for target practice, just so the savage Indians can't benefit. I simply don't have time nor resources to make everything my top priority. Some friend of mine wanted to help a rabbit out on the street that got hit by a car. I urged him not to. Lots of rabbits everywhere, too many people with more important needs. We can't help all the rabbits. Rabbits are cheap, nature will make more. Okay, it's sad, but we walked on by. Had we wasted big money and took the rabbit to a vet, the vet might have said, Why? That rabbit's a goner anyway, nothing we can do.

Then that hypothetical animal, would be humans, and the answer would be, Yes, our numbers should "explode" because not only "we can," but so many more people then would benefit.

Even rabbits would like to be most everywhere, if they could build cities and highrises, obtain more food, build civilizations, and if they have any sort of souls or traits much like humans. Why would rabbits be opposed to having a rabbit for every square meter of land, if rabbit society could somehow be fashioned to operate like that?

And quite many animals will "explode" in numbers, if we humans set them in artificial environments designed for just that, giving them unlimited food and keep urging them to breed. One reason why I likely would not have a pet that has not been "fixed." Deciding to have a pet, doesn't mean I want a dozen pets stinking up the place. Human children are so much different. Usually, they move out and get their own jobs, before having children themselves, so by having children, I'm mainly commiting to my children, not to supporting all my great-great- grandchildren. Presumably, their more direct parents will take care of them, and I will help in whatever I can.

But then, yet another curious thing about humans. For most animals, sex seems to be very strangely utilitarian. Pretty much only for reproduction, quite many animals engage in almost "quickies." Just get the sperm in, and a lot of that romance mushy stuff, is sometimes almost irrelevant. Humans like to take their time, enjoy the extreme pleasure of what populates the planet, and may have sex maybe 1000 times per baby produced, even during pregnancy. Isn't that sort of strange? Sex is not only for procreation, with humans, but for spiritual bonding and relationship. So humans don't just reproduce, because nature played a trick upon us, as animals might, not even knowing what makes babies, but we generally reproduce, on purpose, knowing and planning for the consequences. Quite often, human married couples may buy a house before their 1st baby arrives, as they plan to welcome their family to grow. But then birds build nests too, so you will counterclaim that we are just "animals?"

Says you. Like I said, a main reason for burials and expensive caskets and vaults, is quite possibly tradition or "superstition." But burial does seem to be the "Christian" way or tradition, and I really don't see it as an important enough issue to worry too much about. If people want to bury, that is their choice. If or when it comes my turn, my family members can decide what they think best, I imagine. I don't expect that "I" will be lingering around some old gravesite anyway, so who cares what the view is like, and all that superstitious nonsense. However, funerals are much more about the living survivors, than the dead. And some reasonable honor should be showed towards dead loved ones, well unless society is going to say human life is trivial, and move to abolish all reasonable freedoms, and turn us into but mere cogs in some cruel socialist machine state?

In my view, cremation seems more simple and elegant and cheaper, but just may not pass the "tradition" test. Not so sure I want to be the one to challenge every possibly useful tradition. I definitely would be more for cremation or something, in the hypothetical example we couldn't quite seem to find enough room for all the living though. But currently, the doubling time of human populations, is shorter than expected human lifespan. Suggests the curious question, do all the people now alive, outnumber all the people who have lived previously? Almost always, the answers is estimated to be No, as something like 100 billion people or so, may have lived total. However, I suspect those numbers are flawed, based upon a ridiculously long evolution-based timescale. On the Creation planetary timescale, we are probably closer to that mark, of the living outnumbering the previously lived. Or of having over half of all the people who have ever lived, still being alive now. And of course, at current rates, eventually, the number of people alive would have to surpass all the people in every grave, cummulative total, even counting long forgotten or built-over graves. In that sense, space for burying dead people is sort of trivial, as their numbers would be small in comparison to all the people needing housing now. And individual gravesites already are far smaller than a house.

But what does it really matter? Why trample upon people's traditions, without a better or more compelling reason? Is there any symbolic reason for creamation? Does it make us any more "one with nature?" I doubt it. Can't see that nature would care one way or another. And quite many people, perhaps don't want to be "pushing up daisies." Yuck!

Then you won't understand what I mean about nature and humanity, becoming somewhat "one and the same?" See, that's an example by which I mean that nature isn't "harmed" by such a natural process as the natural increase of humans, but actually altered and "enhanced." Nature can "grow up" as well, and come to be more human-friendly and tamed and accept the naturally-growing human dominance.

You should know I am not going to accept the evolutionary timeline of amazingly vague "millions and billions" of years. The planet is only about 6000 years old. If the planet was so old, there should be quite a lot more people by now. Even human population growth is one of the many "clocks" indicating the planet to be rather "young."

And I suspect that many people may take issue with, or dispute how "fine" nature was doing, before humans arrived on the scene. Is a primevial mythical world reaking of sulfur, belching volcanos all over the place, hardly if any plant life, "doing fine?"

How's the planet doing now? In my view, the planet is beginning to proudly "bulge" having become "pregnant" with people. Even somebody else said on their YouTube video info text, that Gaia is pregnant, and really does want and need to have this baby. Why must every "environmental" view, be tilted against humans? How do we know that it isn't nature, that's egging the human race on, go ahead, grow even more populous if/as you can? Seems to me, it could be counted part of nature, as why so many people keep pushing out the babies. Sex isn't natural? Life isn't natural? If life isn't natural, then you admit life was planted upon this planet by God? How could life not be natural, and proper?

What part didn't I explain clear enough? Yes, I agree it's okay sometimes to have smoky summers, and some wildfires growing naturally, not being challenged, even spread over millions of acres in unpopulated portions of Siberia or Canada, sometimes raging firestorms making their own wind, letting natural forest fires spread over 100,000s acres in Alaska. But stopping natural forest fires is not bad for the natural balance, except where we waste huge amounts of taxpayer money for little or no benefit. Some areas have people and property, and understandably, people don't want for nature to be left so "wild" anymore. Some places are remote and unpopulated and inaccessible, and sometimes by the time firefighters can be sent, the fire is already too large to cost-effectively fight. Backburns may be very effective at protecting areas of interest to humans, but they also seem to make the fire bigger, and supposedly as I read somewhere, may burn more severely. So the value of deliberately cutting firebreaks or defending natural firebreaks from wildfires slopping over them, becomes diminished out in wild wilderness, apparently not so much in need of human intervention anyway.

It's not the place of humans to remove all fire from forests, as of yet, we can't possibly afford the pricetag. But we can certainly take some steps towards reducing the number of acres that burn, to help old people who already can't breathe so well, and to reduce natural air pollutions towards properly adapting the planet to hold more and more people. Just like there's less place remaining for wild elephants, due to human population growth, there's also becoming less places to let wildfires "do their thing" without human intervention.

In recent decades, it does seem that public perception has come around, that maybe allowing a creeping wildfire to spread through some forests and clear out some ground litter, before it accumulates to dangerous firestorm levels, could be a good thing. Anyway, some time when I went on a hike with my Church group, somebody pointed out that there had been some forest fire. Some bark on some tree was charred? Huh? I could hardly see it. Didn't look like it did any "damage" at all?

I don't think forest fires are so much "good" or "bad," but "inconvenient" to humans, a reason why we must sometimes, at least partially, intervene.

Also incidently, humans seem about the only creatures, smart enough to use fire to better our lives. Fire warms our homes, energizes our power plants, even propels our cars and truck. It's technically a "fire" (or explosion, being a really fast fire) that shoves the pistons around inside your car engine. Setting the fuel/air mixture on fire with a properly timed spark from the spark plug, drastically increases the pressure inside the piston chamber, and with the proper timing of valves, transforms the engine into an air pump with quite a lot of power to push a car cruising easily up a hill.

Are you trying to be funny? How can we "invade" the homes that we built and bought? Don't you know humans have dominion? The earth is the Lord's, the good book says, and God owns it for or towards what? At least for now, the natural proliferation of humans.

Are squirrels vermin?

Your point? You debate me, and yet you have no idea when world population was supposedly half of what it is now? About the time I said I was born? In 1960, world population is said to have been only 3 billion. Now it's said to be 6.7 billion. Do the math. That puts me being born sometime during the 1960s, and me around 40-something. Is that old enough for you? Besides, can't you tell I know way too much, to be some little naive highschool kid using his Mom's computer?

If you want to "help nature," whatever that means, do it on your own dime. Don't ask me, Joe-taxpayer, or Joe plumber, to pay for the latest fad "environmental" boondoggle. Last I looked, there's still a lot of needy people in the world, so I just don't have time trying to "help" every little squirrel and rabbit, that doesn't appear to need nor to have asked for our "help" to begin with.

I mow my lawn, trim my bushes, pick up other people's thoughtlessly discarded litter. Why is that not enough? What do you expect of me? I don't even smoke nasty cigarettes, with more and more people having to breathe and share the same air, so that other people can enjoy the nice fine clean air.

If human are part of nature, as I insist, and as more cities come to treat their wastewater, then we are INDEED helping nature along. Many animals leave their wastes for nature to rot. Humans perhaps could do the same as well, except that there's getting to be so many of us. So we help nature out, to better absorb so many people. Rather than peeing in the street, we put in sewer lines or bury a septic tank. Makes the process more efficient, out of respect for our other fellow humans. In a small village, people could probably throw their trash and garbage down some hill. But as human populations have naturally surged and grown, we get a bit more professional and operate land fills, and trash collection systems, to rid our growing cities of trash and litter all over the place.

When the cute little wild rabbits want to start helping us pay the bills, maybe we can do something for them. But what could they want? Carrots?

How are pets not nature? If humans are part of nature, why not pets? Pets aren't domesticated versions of formerly wild creatures? Being good to pets, is being good to nature. Being good to humans, is REALLY being good to nature.

Okay, pets probably didn't have much choice. Similar to how you supposedly might have been denied any choice as to whether to be born and exist or not? But if pets did have a fair choice, one in which they could understand, I think most would choose to stay with their humans. It's the only life they know. It's easier, more pleasant, safer. The weather outside often isn't so nice, and the food availability isn't so plentiful. We are their "family." And most working dog handicapped assistance trained pets, would choose to keep their "jobs." They seem to like being appreciated. Pets respect people sometimes better than people respect people. Their supposed love seems less conditional. They don't mock and say, "Look at the cripple," or "Look at the retard." Or hold a person's skin color against them.

Sounds like a copout excuse to me. But then, what can I say, to a dumb answer like that?

So where would they go then? Into another dimension? I point out how people take one another, and the many benefits for granted. But easing back on the planetary population dial, and terrible things start to happen nearly immediately. So many inventions that we like, didn't get invented, because the inventor that you never met, didn't get born. Freeway bypasses and asumement parks, didn't get built, because there wasn't enough customers, or enough people to use them. Oh, but wait! We eliminated the waiting lines at that amusement park?

In fact, better not let me at that magical population dial. I would probably crank it up a bit, as it should be fun what happens. Maybe it would even help self-solve some of the Big Pharma chronic commercial peddling some pill for all these people that supposedly now have problems with ED. I imagine more people would love to be able to "get it up" a bit more easily? More people enjoying more natural sex. Baby booms arising spontaneously. New booms in construction. More good jobs. More stores and shopping malls. Cities hastening a bit their pace at growing into and engulfing the surrounding countryside. The current rate of population growth is not natural. It's too slow. It should be more according to more people enjoying natural sex without any means of birth control. Quite many families could be a bit bigger. Babies are very good for the economy. Far better than war for stimulating productive and beneficial economic activities.

As I consider a pidly little "planned" family of 3 or 4 children, versus a naturally-planned family of 5 or 6 children, based upon what's typical in countries where birth control generally still is not used, why wouldn't I much prefer a "bonus" child or 2, versuses having to use Big Pharmas crappy contraceptive potions and poisons, with seriously underreported side-effects?

So Star Trek references then are okay?

None of the proposed ideas for "reducing" human population, pay any reasonable respect for basic human dignity and freedom. That's partly why I am not at all interested in "reducing" human populations. Maybe we should also "reduce" how much pregnant women's bellies bulge? But whatever for? Isn't it just simply easier, to invent tilt-steering, so that pregnant women can still drive their mommy-wagons, family vans, and home school buses?

... Who is dumb? Surely you meant that these humans are dumb ?
or did you mean that these animals are actively deceiving humans ? lol[/QUOTE]

Yes, I call a wild animals that confuses humans with food, so that it becomes a problem animal, and loses its fear to stay away from humans, a "dumb" animal. Why would I not be entitled to my opinion here? Do you have a counterargument, showing how smart these dumb animals are? There are some smarter animals, that we humans can feed, if we want to. Like maybe the birds or geese? Stop feeding them, and they stop coming up to you. But they don't all turn into pests and have to be relocated or destroyed.

Call me names if you want, but doesn't that really reflect more upon you? What sort of intelligent response do you want from me, to add to the discussion, from your name-calling?

I welcome the villages to grow larger and closer together, and to spread into wildlife refuges. Is it the poor people's fault, that maybe they got cheated with the land allocations? How did a few wild animals that don't vote and don't pay taxes, get so much representation, when how do we even know what they want. Many animals are too busy trying to avoid being eaten by other animals, to be concerned about the comparitively quite gradual "encroachment" of humans upon their territory. Oh, excuse me, did I use the word, "their," implying that animals can own territory? Silly mistake, ownership of land is a distinctly human right. Wild animals, the last I checked, don't negotiate and buy land, and don't draw up and file land deeds. Let's just cut to the chase, and spell out that the humans own their land and countries, and animals are to fill the gaps that we haven't yet found a better use for.

I know the human populations in some supposedly "sensitive" wild areas, are growing larger, and the human presense becoming bigger. But it's a natural process, and why wouldn't those people be just as worthy of having their babies, as we Americans would? A good friend of mine, has 3 children. That's as some pessimists might try to say, a 50% enlargement of the size of the next generation, in that family's individual case. Did he have 1 more child than his "fair share?" Not at all, as I don't subscribe to that superstitious "environmental" religion Deep Ecology nonsense. I believe all 3 of his children, to be wonderful people quite worthy of life. So in the next few decades, as a resulte, assuming the hypothetic case that my example is representative of the natural trend of Americans in general, also our cities and towns will have to grow somewhat larger and/or more numerous, and there will also be somewhat less "wild" areas remaining. Where do you draw the line? People in those African villages, or in India, or wherever, may have 5 children, but not 10? Or at least not too many of them to have 10 children? Or they may only have but 2 children, but we Americans are "special" so we get to have 5? Maybe we should just locate all the fancy wildlife refuges in Africa, so we may enjoy families of "unlimited" size, but let's not add too many of those "colored" people over yonder?

Can you see why I am not an evil eugenisist? We humans have no basis to "pick and choose" which of our neighbors get to live and reproduce, and which don't. Eugenics is way too messy and complicated, to possibly apply it to people. We can only selective breed lowly creatures like cattle, that are too dumb to have any reason to protest. With people, we have to allow EVERYBODY to breed. And our ancestors seemed to understand that. So why don't we?

Should we let humans to naturally "engulf" the earth? Well why not, if that's where it's going anyway? Are people precious, cute and adorable babies, any less cute or adorable or precious, just because there's more people alive now, than before? I'm quite sure their parents would have to say, No. They should still love and welcome their children as much as ever. How do you know then, that there's anything reasonable we can do to stop it? With the huge number of people now living upon the planet, don't you suppose it just possible, that population growth can naturally do "endruns" around any attempt to "control" or "contain" it? Can we get every single country on board with whatever evil depopulation scheme? What sort of global tyranny do you propose? Wouldn't it be so much simpler and elegant, to let people be free to make some of their own decisions?

Well I was hoping to promote more global understanding of the issues, but if all I can munster is a rise out of you, then at least that's something.

Point of logic. The "huge" numbers of people are ALREADY here. Or were you perhaps referring to "retroactive birth control," whatever that is supposed to mean? Maybe that's what the evil NWOers are proposing, if "voluntary" "birth control" fails to work?

And didn't you know, nearly half the world population has various practical and "religious" objections to use of "birth control?" Have you ever even tried to understand any of the many, many objections? For some people, somehow it just doesn't "click" in their minds, "time to use birth control," now that the 4th child has just been born. They may not even notice hardly, that their family is starting to get a bit "large." Some people love their children still, so what does it worry them, if a 5th or 6th child manages to come along? In spite of all the rampant contraceptive pushing, some people just aren't fooled, or just "didn't get the memo." Have you seen many of the websites devoted to discouraging the unnatural use of birth control? Here is just one:

quiverfull.com

And why would you want to stir up an awful bloody revolution? What better reason could people band together to take up arms and fight, but to defend their families?

And do you expect such illegal "law" to be passed by an honest popular vote? (Hint: Most people in most countries, are Gasp! "breeders." They either already have childen, quite often more than 1 as around 3 is the global average, or soon are likely to have children.) Ha! I kind of doubt voters are that stupid yet? Even many politicians either have, or come from large families, especially in some of the fastest-growing countries.

And why single out the babies anyway? Maybe we could get rid of some useless old "eaters," say like maybe you, when you become too old to work a job anymore? You won't need your Social "Security" and your pension, when you are no longer with us. Or maybe we could get rid of some liberals, or some people who don't vote right, or maybe the Chinese won't mind if we get rid of a few 100s of millions of their people? What makes little cute innocent babies, such a popular target for elimination? Especially since they apparently have parents oh so ready to "sponsor" them and welcome their babies into their very own homes.

See? I'm trying to warm people of the perils of that road, long before we hazard to go down it, as any good Christian preacher or prophet should, out of concern for serving God and God's people he created. Old sick people in nursing homes, are a lot more expensive to keep around, than the babies being born, so as the world says, "What goes around comes around." We had better not start "picking and choosing" which "surplus" people the world supposedly is or is not better off without.

Dogs who live in human homes, don't at all mind that the dog population has similarly "mushroomed" due to humans, as they trust we humans, that we probably pretty much know what we are doing, and that they will not lose their place, and be fed. Not only humans, but ever our pets hugely benefit from the natural proliferation of human numbers. Come on, the idea of a "static" or "stable" (stagnant) world population size, is so seriously quaint, outdated, discredited, out-of-touch. At the very least, we can expect to see a few more billions added during our lifetimes, and there's nothing reasonable we can do to stop it. So why not embrace all those birthdays, and celebrate?

You can't blame people for what? For some hiking trails being "crowded?" Are we finally getting somewhere? I don't blame people for existing, I don't blame people for having become so numerous. I don't ask people to use any means of birth control. Population is what it is. To think of human population size as something we can manipulate or negotiate, only shows to what terrible degree our minds have been corrupted by so much of the communistic, socialist, dogmas of the day. We could simply cut more hiking trails, but people seem almost drawn to the crowds, like a moth to the light. So many people want to go, where other people are going. Few people are wild free spirits, willing to go where their is no trail, and blaze their own. So many urban folk like me, would probably just get lost in the woods, without somebody previously having laid out a trail for the populous masses to hike.

Of course I have, but this sometimes hectic life, doesn't allow much time for such "watching the time go back," or "watching the sun set." But then, I don't want to be a Grizzly Adams and eat nuts and berries all day, and try to stay warm in a damp cave, so it seems I have bills to pay.

Well watch your step then. Would you be so similarly disturbed to visit a farm? Always stepping in cow pies or horse turds? Why must your hike be so hunky-dory anyway? Ironic you mentioned your "crowded" hike, as that's actually something I liked about my hike. All those friendly people around, and no, they weren't all in the way, they weren't all the time noisy, nor was I stepping in dog poop.

Almost anti-life? What could that possibly mean? I like a person running for political office, say like Alan Keyes, who is 100% pro-life, more talk of pro-life, and doesn't make exceptions. Isn't that so much more refreshing than typical liberal, deceptive, scheming politicians that talk out both sides of their mouths, saying one thing to one group, and something else to another group? Any sensible person has to know such liberal politicians are lying, for they even contradict their own selves.

And why shouldn't I be so "pro-human?" With some estimate 6.7 billion human beings now upon the planet, isn't that like some 6.7 billion reasons to be pro-human? I sure don't think I want some 6.7 billion "enemies?"

Besides, did I mention that I like babies?

Why? For having to live in some backwards, repressed, crazy world like this one? Well sometime ago, I thought if the aliens came to pay us a visit, I would ask them to take me away with them. Since then, I decided, know what? I don't think there are any such aliens planning to pay us a visit anytime soon. It was worth a try. Oh well, I guess you are stuck with me then. I am in no hurry to go to heaven, as I logically deduce, God will call me home, at his appointed time. Besides, think of the mathmatical meanings of "infinity." If time ends or is eternal in heaven, then whatever years I spend on earth, do not "subtract" from my time in heaven. So then, what's the rush? Nowhere else I can think of to go right now, to escape Earth's deep gravity well.

I often feel like a foreigner in my own country, as this country just gets more and more strange. But that's actually a good sign, according to some passage I have read in the Bible, a sign of being counted among God's people, to oversimplify. Christians have a "dual" citizenship, not just of our nations, but of God's kingdom too. I think it actually ends up being like sort of a "universal" citizenship, in the best sort of ways. Makes me a national citizen, a global citizen, and a heavenly citizen. As my nation isn't really my real home, I probably could be "home" then, in most any country.

Free countries can't pass birthing restrictions, without resorting to terrible evil schemes of deception. Anti-child politicians have a habit of soon becoming unpopular and unelectable. And politicians with 5 or more children, may not the first ones to contemplate birth restrictions, as wouldn't that be sort of hypocritical? I actually look at how many children a person running for office has, as one of the many criteria by which I choose to vote for them. The more children the better, as there is a saying that a person must first be able to rule his family, to rule a nation. So I suspect parents of big families, are more likely to make pro-family decisions for an increasingly populous nation.

Yes, I do agree sometimes unpopular measures are necessary, provided they are pro-population, pro-people, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-personal responsibility. For example, I do think people should be forcably removed from the flooded land path of the Three Gorges Dam in China. The greater good of the many, of the growing population, does rather trump the presumed right of a few villages to remain in familiar surroundings. If the people are to keep breeding and having so many babies, then the people will need water, and their farms will need water. Dams also often produce much-needed electricity to power growing cities. But the people relocated, deserve fair compensation, and deserve land or money compensation comparible to what they had before, under logical and tradition interpretation of "imminent domain" proceedings. Which should be used rather sparingly, mainly for public works projects like freeways and dams, that can't simply be moved elsewhere. Not for uprooting people out of their homes and communities for the tax benefits of another low wages always Wal-Mart, that can obviously be located someplace else.

Why do you blame all that on me? Don't most all humans continually feel powerful reproductive urges? Where do you think they came from? Apparently part of God's design, for some grand purpose. Why is there such a demonic agenda towards depopulation? I would much rather for my children, or my children's children, to live in a "sea of humans," than not at all, because they didn't get to be born. I see the natural flow of human life as natural and beneficial, and we are foolish to think we can so much tamper against it. And I have given you many reasons and examples of the perils of trying to unnaturally stop up the flow? Do you think we puny humans can stop a volcano by putting a plug in the top? Actually might be more dangerous, as then soon the mountain explodes, rather than oozing some lava down one side? If human reproduction be a bit like a volcano about to blow its top, might it help to help the babies just come right on out, and relieve some of the tremendous pressure deforming the sides of the mountain bulging and rumbling outwards in an ominous manner? Or do you think we should keep tampering unwisely with powerful "forces of nature" we can't really reasonably expect to humanely control?

 

Wow! So elegant and concise. Good job.

 

How can humans be "invasive" if we belong here? This is OUR world, or more accurately, God's world.

"Invasive" implies coming from "outside" to "invade." Since humans started upon this planet, and are supposed to multiply here, what else could "outside" be, but another planet? There are stories BTW, about aliens planting humans onto the earth, as if we didn't originally come from here, but I think such ridiculous stories are a handy cover to explain away the Rapture of the Church, soon to happen.

Another property of a presumed "invasive species," is rapid and aggressive growth, such that it crowds most everything out. Humans may not quite meet that definition either, as among God's creatures, while we do tend to grow steady and relentless, we are also among the slowest multiplying of God's creatures.

Ever since the first 2 people, humans have been growing and "invading" surrounding territories. "Invading" implies a moral dimension, as in "not supposed to." But are we, or are we not, supposed to? God said that we are to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. God also said, "Thou shalt not kill." It's God's planet, so why wouldn't we do what God told us to? Both commandments clearly imply that humans are not allowed to eat other humans. "Thou shalt not kill," does not pertain to animals, for the Bible clearly says that people are allowed to eat animals/meat. But it does prohibit murder, canibalism, abortion, and of course, even suicide. We are not our own, but we have been bought with a price, some verse says.

So is there anybody around here who could tell me with a straight face, that 2 people is enough for this day and time? Presumably, humans can't be blamed for having an original population of 2, male and female, because God did that. If 2 people isn't enough, then how many? 2000? If 6 billion, why not 10 billion? Humans "invading" a little territory to make way for a few small villages or a few families, is okay, but "invading" a lot of land for massive national populations is not okay? Who decides these things, and why was I not consulted for my input or vote?

 

I've read all you crap above and you know what Pronatalist ?
Since you are obviously too retarded or too deluded to understand what I'm trying to tell you, you can shove your demonic God and your freaking babies up your stinking shithole. I hope you choke on them..
And another thing, you might want to start apologizing to your kids, and grandchildren if you have them, for lobbying to take away the beauty of nature from them.
Idiot.