The Over Population Problem

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Liebling, Feb 10, 2009.

  1. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I doubt that. I expect the potential placenta would cease to grow. In all other cases the body has a natural limit to growth. (Sharks may be an exception.) Surely Barr looked into this.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,361
    Hm, pretty much all men want to ejaculate. Then again, I like to ejaculate and I'm a woman. It's just good Christian fun.

    I never understood why devils always had pitchforks, though. There are so many old tyme-y tools you can really hurt yourself with, like those little grabber claw things people in the Victorian ages used because it showed how classy you were if you were too foofoo to touch anything, or a laundry mangle, or one of those things that turns apples into cider. You know that if a demon carried a tiny cider mill around and goaded people into sticking their fingers in there, it would REALLY suck.

    Hahaha. Oh Lord. S/he's everywhere.

    Oh, gather 'round and let me tell you about the period after the Depo shot. No. That's three months also, and I took the shot twice. Most painful period ever.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Was that in one 3 months and another in next 3 months or twice in one three months? I know nothing about Depo. It seems like some strong blocker of normal function in either case. Barrs was a more natural prolongation of the natural cycle with daily homonal doses. I am just courious, not asking for investment purposes as now Barr's womans drugs is lost in the much larger Teva. I think Teva get's large part of it income from it MS drugs but has a few hundred others that significantly contribute.

    I find it very interesting to try to keep up with the amazing things happening in the biotech area - you will probably live to see cancer in the same "was a big problem" status as polio is now for my generation. Most of my stocks are in early drug developer companies - very high risk, but motivates me to learn and I can afford to lose all in 10 for ever one that has something good.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,189
    -=-

    Does Pronatal believe there are billions of people somehow existing before conception who will be killed if there aren't enough pregnancies?
     
  8. Diode-Man Awesome User Title Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    That's a freaky thought.

    If there is a population problem, then it will most likely fix itself in the meanest way.

    Luckily, the Western United States has PLENTY of room for children ( but I'm not so sure on the water needs for a population boom, out here in the desert!)
     
  9. Pronatalist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    750
    If world population is naturally growing so "huge," wouldn't we be wise to more eagerly EMBRACE what "must be?"

    Only 10 reasons? That's easy.

    1. Because more and more people would be glad to live.
    2. Because most everybody wants or ends up having children.
    3. Because most all children are glad to come alive and be born.
    4. Because sex feels good, so more people enjoying sex, means more people then feeling good.
    5. To respect the body's natural reproductive rhythms, and welcome the natural flow of human life.
    6. "Good" Catholics don't believe in using "artificial" contraceptives. Yes, I agree, there's side-effects. But then the world balks, saying that supposedly more natural rhythm requires too much self-control. I also agree. So that leaves discussing the virtues of the "no method" method of "family planning."
    7. Children from large families may often enjoy the experience, and with to repeat it for their children. They may also inherit being well-endowed, higher fertility, greater ease in childbearing, or simply a love for children. Whatever naturally perpetuates more human breeding and spread of DNA.
    8. Religious objections to the use of "birth control."
    9. Bad experiences with "birth control."
    10. I think often what happens, is that a married couple, just had their 4th child, and hasn't gotten around to selecting a "satisfactory" method of "birth control," and may not even realize that their family is starting to get a little "large." Large families often grow on people and sneak up on them, without them originally having planned to have quite so many.
    11. Pronatalist influences and the celebrity glamorization of pregnancy, may entice some to have more children?
    12. More mothers are coming home from the workplace to be Stay-At-Home mothers, or may question the ways of the world, and so then tend to have larger, more "unplanned" families.
    13. Because world population may be naturally getting "beyond control," as the number of women of childbearing age, continues to naturally rise thoughout much of the world.

    The world could easily hold 12 billion people, with present technologies, a little bit better universally applied. Even China and India could find lots of places to put lots more cities and towns.

    BTW, if you were aiming for a ballpark doubling of population figure, 12 billion is a bit dated. Now to double again, 6.8 billion would grow to 13.6 billion. Not that it makes much difference, as either is "quite a lot." But human population, unlike other creatures, tends to readily self-accomodate, so by the time we ever reached a trillion, we would be MORE READY for it, than we are for the numbers we have now. Although demographers only expect to add a few more billions within the forseeable future, no thanks to the rampant contraceptive pushing atrophying our natural increase.

    Smog-filled? I don't recall smog on The Jetsons cartoon. The addition of so many people, would soon lead to the obsolesce of burning fuel for energy, as far more productive and reliable means of energy are soon found, the technology growth driven largely by the population growth.

    While the scenario may imagine "crowded" massive cities, the crowding can be neatly concealed behind walls with spacious housing units inside, making it so easy for future people to get used to. And many people seem already strangely used to hearing the natural music of neighbors having sex, through the thin apartment walls, or through summertime windows open at night. On The Jetsons, the Jetsons apartment has plenty of space within, but I notice that they live in a highrise with a view of other highrises, and seemingly, maybe not much "nature" out there left, except that I would count so much humanity, as the "new nature" that nature then prefers.

    What is the purpose? First of all, such scenarios appear quite unlikely especially within the forseeable future, but even if so, babies can easily be conceived even in cramped living conditions. More and more children would be glad to live, even if it is "crowded." Just another reason I have no plan nor intention to go against nature or God, to reign in the burgeoning human population growth. As a prolife activist and pro-population proponent, I don't set any arbitrary "cap" on just how much human life parents may wish to bring into the world. Shouldn't that be up to them, or even better yet, to God?

    What's the purpose for tilt steering having been invented? So pregnant women can drive. Why should a woman's belly bulge so much, so proudly? Because it's necessary for the proper enlargement of the human race. Similarly, why can't the planet proudly bulge with human life?

    I am not a population control freak. If so many people still want so many children, bring on the unstoppable droves of babies, worldwide. That children are glad to live after the fact, implies it was good to conceive them before the fact, lest you have a logical contradiction. People could see that so much more clearly, if they tried to see things more from God's perspective, and didn't think quite so timeline linearly. So the human population size tends to mushroom wildly towards the endtimes. That's how God designed it to be, for some profound reason. Now, finally, there's enough homes for so many babies to come into, so they can come into the world faster now, with so many more birth canals from which to emerge.

    Another reason I would EMBRACE the "unstoppable droves" of children coming to the world through childbirth, is that the agenda of the NWO population control freaks, is indeed very frightening. Since "too many" people somehow frustrates their wicked plans, that's yet another reason to encourage people to reproduce, to better protect their freedoms, from those who would relegate us to being mere cattle and slaves. I hear of patriots having babies, with the help of midwives, having no social security number nor birth certificate. Which to me sounds amazing. As if their parents are setting up their children, if at all possible, to live with more freedom than they themselves had. I guess they see it as a way to rebel against Big Brother, the NWO, or something? I think it has something to do with the underhanded intrusion of government into our lives, that they now draw blood from babies at the hospitals, to put their DNA into some government database, which is increasing a huge looming invasion of privacy, as medical science promises to tell more and more about us, predicting future health ailments and such, that aren't our employer's business, and definately not any business of Big Brother government.

    If the "droves" of babies being born, continue to grow and grow, and become ever more "unstoppable," then the prospect that anybody could possibly dare to suggest trying to "control" natural human population growth, diminishes, as it once again is simply accepted as a "given" to plan around. So humans really do have no practical incentive to keep our baby booms "in check," but rather welcome everybody properly married, to enjoy having "all the children God gives."

    Perhaps God will do some great things with this new generation of children, as the devil seems all the more intent to destroy the children and cut back on the natural population growth of humanity.

    So why don't you tell me what Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth means, if it doesn't mean what it says? Does it mean married people shouldn't have sex, or that we shouldn't have children? What part of Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, do we not understand?

    You don't really think I expect people will decide to have more children, just because I say so? Not at all. I give them reasons to consider, and then I expect they will find their own reasons to possibly have more children. I defend their freedom to enjoy having "all the children God gives," without guilt. For they are doing a very good and generous thing, in doing their part to help all the more precious human beings, to experience life.
     
  10. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    Chapter 2 here:
    http://www.desertec.org/downloads/articles/trec_white_paper.pdf
    has good review of the Earth's potential "carrying power."

    Whole white-paper, published by the Club of Rome is interesting and informative but somewhat repetative as each chapter is by a different expert and most re-inforce the theme introduced by Jordan's king. - I.e. there is lots of solar power in the deserts and it can also make fresh water from the sea. Meet the two most pressing needs of humanity without release of CO2.
     
  11. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    Meanwhile, we are dangerously close to causing the collapse of our ocean fisheries. Aside from losing a formerly readily available source of high quality protein, such a collapse could have many unknown and unanticipated long term consequences. We heavily depend upon the oceans for the oxygen we breathe, so destabilizing vast ocean ecosystems is an incredibly bad idea.
     
  12. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Disease, plague, famine, war, suffering in general, etc. are natural. Should we embrace those things, too?

    Your list contains some items that are more appropriately termed subjective rather than objective.

    Because more and more people would be glad to live.
    That's your opinion, more or less. You are not only referring to hypothetical persons, but presuming their happiness after birth, through childhood, and in their adulthood. It doesn't always follow that neat, picture-perfect pathway.

    Because most everybody wants or ends up having children.
    Unverifiable, unless you can post some pretty good statistical data.
    Just because someone wants something, doesn't mean they should get it, or that what they want is best for anyone... does it??? Or does that only apply to childbirth?

    Because most all children are glad to come alive and be born.
    With good parents, a good household, and adequate food, sure.

    Because sex feels good, so more people enjoying sex, means more people then feeling good.
    How do you feel about homosexuals? What do you think of homosexuals enjoying sex without the responsibility of procreation or offspring?

    To respect the body's natural reproductive rhythms, and welcome the natural flow of human life.
    Humans are uniquely separate from other species in that they are USUALLY able to control reproductive rhythms when they aren't convenient. And from a Christian standpoint, I would think the ability to refrain from trying to f**k whichever female happens to be available when you're horny would be a GOOD thing.
    Compare to many other animal species where the male may somewhat violently mount as many females as possible in the mating season. Often the male has little if any interest in the offspring apart from just spreading his seed.
    Some humans are like that, too. Should THOSE natural reproductive rhythms be respected? Or only those that conform to a Judeo-Christian morality?

    Religious objections to the use of "birth control."

    Why should a specific religion's objection to birth control be a valid reason for procreation ad nauseam?!?!?!?

    Pronatalist influences and the celebrity glamorization of pregnancy, may entice some to have more children?

    That is more of a potential CAUSE for people having more children, rather than a justifiable REASON. I don't think people should justify their actions by saying "Well, -------- hollywood personality did it, so I think I should do it!"
     
  13. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    Let's try and refrain from bringing a Hannah-Barbera, kid-oriented, cartoon vision of the future into this discussion.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Now I know your musical preferences!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    That seems distinctly voyeuristic. And discriminatory towards people who live in individual houses. They apparently can't fully appreciate these "natural" copulatory concerts.

    Ummm.... errrr.... well... uhhh....
    You got me there!
    Giant high-rise dwellings will replace silly old organic trees as the "new" nature. How could I not have understood the brilliance of that?
     
  14. Giambattista sssssssssssssssssssssssss sssss Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,878
    You're very correct.

    Views like those of Pronatalist are very Utopian and very dependent on a highly idealised vision of the future.

    The reality of an increasing population of humans, is that the destructive and self-centered nature of the human race gets multiplied. One can speak till one expires about moral ideals and hypothetical perfections, but the truth is, none of that changes humanity overnight. You can't just say "Go, procreate as much as possible, and all your troubles will go away!"

    As far as ecosystems and extinction are concerned, it's hard to say how the decimation of a single species or population could affect the larger picture. Some people could find justification for it, and I do think that some species could probably pass into history without creating any major upsets. On the other hand, some systems are very delicate, and I can't say I would ever want to be responsible for causing the extinction of a species or the destruction of a specific ecosystem (example: destruction of rainforests for farm/grazing land).
     
  15. takandjive Killer Queen Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,361
    Yeah, Teva's the MS drug company. =) Very good!

    Depo is a terrible form of BC though. You get the shot once every three months. You are not likely to have a period, but some women do. I just got build-up. It was agonizing. I'm much happier on Ortho Tri Cyclen Lo. I feel confident I'm not going to have an unwanted pregnancy and my body has a more controlled period, although my body is still running its natural cycle. No weight gain. No acne. No nothing.

    Hold the phone. Most of the people I know from large families hated it and have small families or no families. All of my siblings plan on having no more than two.

    I've had some great experiences with birth control.

    Uh, no. You're VERY conscious of giving birth four times. That doesn't sneak up on you.

    I know, right? We can live without plant life!
     
  16. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    If you have read my posts on the Physics section, you may know that I want to build a free energy device... it is relevant if you consider what free energy may do to world populations.

    Overpopulation is a relative issue. If there are resources and strategies to cope with large populations, overpopulation does not take place, whether you have 7 billion or 50 billion people. If you have unlimited energy and resources, then population growth would never cease, according to the rules of ecology (whether or not this applies to humanity).

    As technology progresses there is no limit to how much resources we can get. Unless we eat the earth itself, there will be resources. The mantle has enormous amounts of heat and metal. Deep in the oceans there is many fold the amount of carbon that we have on the surface. Sunlight has tremendous potential whether or not it is harvested on earth.

    As long as we find ways of expanding without damaging the environment there is no limit to how large humanity can grow. And it seems that curbing the amount of children a person can have goes against human nature... but not against reason.

    If we find the resources to keep humanity growing without damaging the planet, then why not?
     
  17. EmmZ It's an animal thing Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    One problem I foresee is the practicalities of where we all fit. The universe may be expanding but the planet isn't. And so even if we had enough energy resources we just don't have the space. Unless we could colonise the oceans too. Waste too. How would we deal with the ever expanding waste people create if we're having difficulties with that now?
     
  18. Cellar_Door Whose Worth's unknown Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,310
    Swine Flu Pandemic = Problem Solved

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. Enmos Staff Member

    Messages:
    43,184
    Only temporarily

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    Well, ambient heat conversion could help us colonize the oceans believe it or not. If you find a way to remove heat and turn it into electricity, you can start freezing sections of the ocean. These could be populated, or act as ships. . . however, living on a chunk of ice in the middle of the sea is not really very attractive.

    As for actual space, there are always solutions. High rises! Everyone wants a home and lawn, but with the appropriate resources large buildings are a realistic option. No one wants to live in the projects, but there are very friendly designs for large scale residences out there. Ambient heat conversion may contribute to this as well. If you freeze water in a gigantic mold, you will get a building. Fires may be an extreme hazard in such a building..

    With appropriate cooling one can make condensers that could supply water to most people. One would have to be careful not to harm the down-wind weather patterns of his neighbors.

    Unlimited energy? Flying cars. Flying homes. Commuting may be more acceptable even in the 500 mile range if these are fast enough. All of the sudden remote nature is no longer remote, or pristine.
     
  21. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    I just love your magical solution. It makes the impossible possible, but making, via genetic engineering, people only 3 inches tall is an equally possible alternative to the space problem.
     
  22. DRZion Theoretical Experimentalist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,046
    If you read the post carefully you will see that I have taken a fair and balanced stance by including the many problems that are still going to have to be worked through, even with unlimited energy.

    Forget that I am trying to build this device. Lets say fusion power becomes the dominant and unlimited source of energy. All of this is still possible. We can use regular refrigeration methods to freeze water, on a large scale. We can power flying cars and populate the earth far more densely than before.

    If humans were 3 inches tall we would get eaten by mosquitoes and our own house cats. We would freeze very quickly in bad weather and die prematurely due to a high metabolism. We would actually have to eat more per kg of human weight than we do nowadays.
     
  23. Mickmeister Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    812
    I, for one, am glad that I was an only child. I got everything I ever asked for. For that reason, I never wanted siblings.
     

Share This Page