Repo Man said:
The planet wasn't empty when early man came on the scene Pronatalist. As our large brains and our ability to make tools allowed us to spread, we displaced species that were already here. Sabertooth tigers were still in North America very recently in geologic time. Scientists feel it is probable that they were exterminated by humans. We Homo Sapiens may have been responsible for the extinction of Homo Neanderthalis.
Well sure the planet wasn't completely "empty." Should God have made the earth a vast, barren desert, so we wouldn't feel "guilty" about expanding our populations across the globe? Ever since humans grew beyond the original 2 people that God created, Adam and Eve, we probably have been "displacing" something. Surely you don't suggest that a world population of 2 humans would be anywhere near enough? As I read in the Bible, it appears everywhere that God fully intended for humans to fill cities and the land. Our large brains? That sounds like some sort of "evolutionary" reference? Actually, I do think because humans are intelligent, and can adapt to accomodate our population growth, is a good reason for there to be so many billions of people on the planet, and a compelling reason for humans to continue enjoying having big families. Humans are worth far more than cattle, foxes, squirrels, or whatever wildlife we might be "displacing" as our cities and towns grow and need more room. And other kinds of creatures don't even see it as "displacement," as they don't live forever anyways, and use territory very inefficiently. Humans are social creatures and can both survive and thrive, even at high and efficient population densities, far in excess of other mammals. Thus, not only are humans worth so much more, and thus worthy to fill the land, but humans can use land efficiently, allowing for all the more life to exist at once in confined places. Often those wildlife "displaced" simply fail to reproduce to keep up their former numbers before man encroached upon the wild areas. And the planet hardly needs to be "empty" to have room for humans to grow into, as human populations can grow denser and more widespread.
Repo Man said:
Your love for fellow humans seems to be coupled with a complete indifference to the natural world. I like children, but if I ever have any, I want them to grow up in a world that has forests and lakes, and wildlife. Maybe you would be happy in some sort of globe girdling city, but I would view it as a hell on Earth.
Complete indifference? Nah. I have been hiking and camping, and think that forests and hiking trails are beautiful. But where from that, shall I somehow assume that humans should go against nature and use anti-life "birth control?" I often find what is "natural" to be more elegant and practical. I don't like the idea of women wearing much make-up, uncomfortable high heels, people feeling like there is any need for "birth control," tattoos, and body piercings, as all those things are so artificial and of little value or benefit to humans. I think in many cases, it is more practical to let forest fires burn themselves out, rather than fight them, if we don't have to. Human population growth is natural. Sex is natural. Not everything "natural" is "good." Poison ivy or disease might be said to be "natural." Food preservatives are greatly to be preferred over "natural" food poisoning. I believe that medical care should not only state as its objective to help people be healthier and live longer, but to also help enlarge the human population so that all the more people may enjoy life as a result of restricting death rates, but leaving birth rates unhindered.
If people really cared about other people like they should, shouldn't they rather than worry excessively about human population expansion, prefer to stack people up in highrises to make room for more people, rather than diss population or wish somehow for fewer people to be able to live? Why should I have any objection to some "globe girding city" if that's where we are headed? I like living, so I must also defend the value of all those other lives too, since those people are much like me, no matter if human populations might eventually someday become enormous. What mere human is qualified to decide who should be born, and who shouldn't? Why do you think some continous global city should be "hell on earth." If that's where you had been born, would you know anything else? Wouldn't it be like some great city/spaceship? Rarely does the "worst" or "best" happen in our human experience, but something in between, so I doubt that the land would ever be 100% urban some day. Rather, we could more realistically expect more of the same, as human history goes on, assuming time before the Biblical endtimes, should they tarry. That cities and towns will continue to grow, somewhat from natural increase, that they would grow a little larger and closer together, and that the rise in population would "crowd" the hiking trails and campgrounds a little, or that humans would encroach into more such places. But so what? When I go camping or hiking, I don't go to "get away from it all," but with some Church group or something, to meet people and do something different. So it shouldn't bother me if the hiking trails are rather "crowded" at that time of year, or if people pass by every few minutes. To extrapolate to the most ridiculous extreme, isn't a likely scenario, so why talk about that much? If the world can hold today's 6 billion+ population, then it probably can hold tomorrow's 9 or 10 billion, nearly as easily and comfortably. That most everybody wants to live, and most everybody wants children, are very compelling reasons for population growth, as those things are very important to people, and so of course whatever might serve as restrictions on the size or speed of human population growth, should be rather week, to respect human freedom and dignity, and welcome every individual to live and experience life. But far into the forseeable future, there is likely to be forests and lakes, even if the human population manages to grow far larger. I like children, and I think it rather far more important that the children of the future be born, than that there be lots of forests and lakes and wildlife. Of what use are those natural things, without lots of people around to enjoy them? To worry about forests and lakes first, before people, is to get the "cart before the horse." Rather, one of the best things we can do for future generations, is to have lots of children. How else will they be born? If a woman is pregnant, you don't tighten her clothes to restrict or hide her swelling belly. She wears loose maternity clothes. Likewise with the burgeoning human population. If the world is "pregnant" with people, let it wear loose "maternity clothes," and let the world "show" with people. Be proud to bring forth valuable human life. Dream of colonizing other planets, should we ever get the chance, which I don't really think we will. I don't want to contemplate at what point I turn into some communist population control freak, and rant about "too many" people, as if I am somehow more important to continue living, than all those multipling masses. It is not man's place to tell his neighbor not to have so many children, but rather to celebrate with one's neighbor at the birth of a child, because God says we are to love our neighbors as ourselves. Surely that implies somehow that it shouldn't bother us, if our neighbors manage to grow more numerous, especially if they are friendly and easy to coexist with.
Repo Man said:
Yes, we humans are in control of our destiny, barring some sort of comet or asteroid strike along the lines of the one that caused the extermination of the dinosaurs. Either we populate until we wipe out, or we plan ahead. Refusing to decide is also a choice, but not a good one.
We are in control of our destiny? We are more like puny wimps at God's mercy. We don't even seem so sure we can control even our population size. We seem to like sex too much? I read in some book, that the natural affection in our hearts to seek our kind's multiplication and increase, is implanted by God.
You suggest we should "plan ahead?" I think I agree with that. Rather than populating "by accident," I think it is smarter to populate "on purpose." To plan for and enjoy growing more and more populous. As long as censuses aren't used for negative population dissing, I am rather in favor of monitoring the build-up of human populations, if it is done to help human populations keep growing. The main reason for censuses, is mainly just for proper proportional political representation, and to keep the DemocRATS from cheating and trying to gain undue influence by inventing phony population "estimate" numbers. But censuses could also serve to better build infrastructure for expanding human populations, giving demographic data to better determine where to build new water mains, sewer lines, roads, schools, businesses, etc. All nations should be proud to welcome large and growing populations both within and without their borders, not merely for the selfish reasons of more taxpayers or customers, but for the common societal goal to allow all the more people to live. Thus, all the nations should be encouraged to welcome baby boom, and to allow their human populations to balloon. (In the "Left Behind" series, a fictional account of Biblical endtimes, the Anti-Christ scolded the third world nations for letting their populations "balloon." It seems that people who reject God, tend to think too small?)
Refusing to decide is a choice? What kind of choice? A choice to grow more populous, without doing as much to accomodate the growth? While that probably isn't the best choice, it still is far better than anti-life, anti-freedom, anti-human population "control." The best choice would be to welcome growth, and plan for it, and encourage it. And to promote the freedom and tax cuts and reform, that would better help parents be better able to care for larger and more "unplanned" families. We shouldn't merely grow, but plan to grow on purpose, and list the many great reasons to do so. So I partially agree with you there?
Repo Man said:
Nature doesn't care care how large the population of humans becomes. The planet is utterly indifferent, as is the universe. There is no good reason to suppose that the universe cares any more for the fate of the human species than it does for E. Coli bacteria. The fate of humans is only important to other humans. And we already know that this planet won't last forever. ...
I am glad you agree with me there. Some pessimists speak as if nature is vengeful, and is just waiting and seeking to "strike back" at humans for growing so numerous and "out of balance" with nature. As if nature could think, or was vengeful. But rather, as I see it, nature is indifferent, and could care less how populous humans become. That could be largely why there as so many of us now. Because nature has little ability to restrict our numbers. And no "desire" to do so. If nature could think, shouldn't or wouldn't nature think human population growth to be rather "natural", as aren't we supposedly "part of nature?" I see human population expansion sort of like inflating a balloon. The more air blown in, and the bigger the balloon gets, the
less able the balloon becomes to resist the expansion as it stretches thinner and its volume enlarges. And the more people, the more people there are "blowing" (or having sex and having babies). The balloon can't really "pop" because there is nowhere for it to "pop" into, as the atmosphere or ecosystem is constrained by gravity, not some fragile membrane. I think human population "pressure" tends to cancel out, much like how the atmospheric pressure "cancels" out, pushing equally in all directions. Oh, it is there, and makes humans dominant upon the planet, but it is not necessarily a "negative" effect. Nature is not the finely-tuned fragile instrument the evolutionists so often make it out to be, but a highly resilient system that naturally tries to promote abundantly, perhaps even "over populating" all over the place. All the plants and animals have the seed inside, as Genesis says that God created them that way, and try to grow and fill every niche they can, to grow more and more food for humans, or for forests to overgrow until they succumb to the occasional forest fires having filled the forest with too much fuel for the periodic droughts. We have to repeatedly mow our yards and constantly trim our bushes, to keep the jungle from moving back into our yards. We can't even "destroy" habitat, but merely make it more attractive to certain kinds of creatures (i.e. humans) than to others.
And as humans are better fed, and population growth accelerates technology, I think even in the minds of the public or the masses, the population issue has become less and less a matter of worry over survival, but more of a social issue, of just how populous might we like to be? It increasingly appears that adding more and more mouths to feed to the world, does not tend towards hunger after all. Just more food production and more obesity, as the news reports are showing. Considering that most everybody marries and has children, I think most people wouldn't mind for the world to continue to grow more and more populous, for quite some time at least. Certainly most everybody seems rather to be glad to have been born, even if into a world of billions. Most of the time, most other people are really an asset to us anyways. People still depopulate the countryside, to move to the cities. Human populations still seem to prefer greatly to cluster together for various benefits such as access to utilities, stores, and modern comforts, and jobs.
Repo Man said:
You're always on about more people who would enjoy living. What, do you feel that there is some sort of netherworld where people are eagerly awaiting being born, and are bitterly disappointed by family planning measures that prevent their corporeal existence?
Yes, in a way, I think that is correct. I don't believe in the Mormom "pre-existence" where souls supposedly "wait" to be born. But I do think it far better for a person to exist, than to not exist. Even if "existing" means being born into crowded shantytowns for a while, or young children having to share beds for a while, because there are so many and their family is poor. Those conditions can be improved later, as long as people can be born when the opportunity is available. The larger human populations get, the more people there are, who are enjoying life. That is a compelling argument for large population, to benefit "the many." There is some sort of Utilitarian Principle that advocates doing that which does the most good for the most people. Contrary to the vain hopes of the population pessimists, that does rather seem to imply that large population, is a rather "good" thing to benefit the most people. Also, considering the great value of each and every person, I think it a very good thing to leave the door to life wide open, and welcome as many babies that can naturally come to life, to come. Since most every child would be rather glad to be born, and most all children are very much loved and "wanted," at least by the time they are in fact born, that is a very good reason to not interfere with the sacredness of human life, and to welcome families to grow possibly large, without preventative "family planning" measures to limit family size. I would not want to have been "family planned" out of existence. And likewise for my children. I would like to have "all the children that God gives," not to mention not having to bother with nasty contraceptives. I would much rather have a "bonus" child or two, and have the typically "unplanned" family size of 5 or 6 children, than a "perfect" little "planned" family of 3 or 4 children, as I believe children are a precious blessing from God and love kids.
It is not so much to "plan" to have large families, but rather that "unprotected" sex, doesn't guarantee
more children, and yet
more children are not some "bad" thing worth any effort to prevent. Thus, for married couples to enjoy natural sex, without contraceptives nor rhythm, is natural and elegant, as is welcoming any children that come to life, to come naturally. To be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, doesn't seem to really mean to have large families, so much as to not use "preventative measures" to limit family size, as for most all of history family size was thought to be rather uncontrollable. Now that we have all of these options and choices, which perversely seem to transform themselves into "obligations" to limit family size, I still find them to be impractical, and to go against God's ways of life and living by faith.
Why do people so conveniently forget that if the human population expands, that also expands the number of people enjoying living, who prefer to keep doing so? Thus, we can't hardly call human population expansion anything "bad," but rather more like great "progress" for humanity.
Repo Man said:
And what of the millions already on this planet who's lives are lived in misery and squalor? Day after day of grinding poverty, malnourishment, disease, until death seems a welcome alternative? Your solution is to bring even more people onboard? ...
Exactly. If
more people are welcome, then it stands to reason that more is likely to be done to accomodate
more people, and thus those already here, would also be more accepted and better accomodated. Do you think that the poor don't also love their children? Don't they say of poor people, that children are their only wealth? Should we take away their "only wealth?" You help the poor by helping them or teaching them how to be less poor, not by getting rid of them.
Some socialist utopia for the few, can't possibly work, because all the people it seeks to exclude, would seek to bring it down. Not to mention what an anti-God pipe-dream it is. If we really want to improve things for society, it must be for "the many," as humans are already rather numerous. I notice that population growth does help accelerate technology growth, so why does it not occur to more people, that populations may even be able to "grow" themselves out of poverty? In fact, isn't that a large part of the history of the world? Much of the progress and modern conveniences that we so often take for granted, perhaps may have come about via population growth, or by God's grace to allow our growing populations to survive and thrive. Do you really think that toilets were invented solely to avoid cold trips outside to the outhouse? Could it not also be because the cities were getting so full of millions of people? Could not the modern, clean, electric and gas cooking stoves, be to avoid smoking up big cities with burning wood, dung, and trash for cooking fires? Even perhaps the Internet and virtual community forum discussions, came about because the human population is growing so big? Otherwise, it would be hard to find many people willing to carry on extended discussions on "your subject" of interest. Wouldn't modernization be more in the interests of burgeoning third world populations rather than "birth control," so that they may better enjoy and provide for their children, and so their nations may comfortably hold all the more people? I say we should be more like the third world and have more children ourselves, and that they should modernize to better provide for their growing populations.
I would much rather live on a populous world that is child- and family-friendly, than a cruel world that is more sparsely populated. As even a "crowded" world, could be rather human-friendly and safe. In fact, it seems that adding more people, makes the world more adapted for humans, or more human-friendly.
