Ideal number of humans

[Pronatalist]

And why must a world naturally swollen with people, be dystopian? What if it's a bit more like "paradise?"​

Could that be partly why the people are still breeding so much?

Not really, at least not to me. Asimov also wrote a dystopian sci fi story based on his projection. The main character was a caretaker of the last "zoo" on Earth. He had a few plants, and a few small mammals. He was forced to exterminate them because it had been determined that a few more humans could be brought on board in the space that they took, and calories they consumed. So he did, and that was that. An entire planet of nothing but humans occupying a global city. Truly a vision of hell.

Still, that's too much of the "zero sum argument." You don't always have to get rid of something, to find or make room for more people. Things that still matter to people, would likely still be around. House pets, house plants, etc. But some space-wasting, food-devouring, garden-raiding elephants might have to go, as India's huge human population continues to naturally expand. There would still be plenty of zoos, if they can attract people to visit them and keep them in business.

But look at all the people who say "Look around. There's all sorts of place you can put more people." Well how do you argue against that? I wouldn't dare, as I happen to agree. "Well have at it then. Fill all those places with people if you can, it's all the more people to experience life." I want for people to go on having their precious darling babies, and I would much like to have a "large" family as well. It would be cruel and strange to ask people to "hide" their pregnancies. No, let them bulge naturally. Relax and be proud to bring more precious people to live. I heard that's what tilt steering was invented for, so that pregnant women could drive. If the planet is becoming "pregnant" with people, let it bulge proudly, put its maternity clothes on. No on second thought, the pregnant bulging belly naturally poofing out, is fine as well. We should be more actively pronatalist, agreeing with the many compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do. A more pronatalist culture should ADAPT more readily to "what must be."

Let the cities grow larger and closer together, especially if or as driven by the natural increase of all the people within and around them. Whether or not "the more the merrier," it is all the more people around who can benefit from living.

 

[Pronatalist]

Promote family. Promote natural family growth. Promote extended family. Promote what accomodates the growth.​

I think living in a 50 person tribe/ extended family a mile away from the next 50 person tribe / extended family is the most natural and satisfactory way for humans to live.

It was not safe for babies to sleep alone. A animal might sneak in, run off into the woods with them and eat them.

Actually, I agree with part of what you say. American family households are much too small. Not only do we not have enough children, but not enough generations under one roof either, at least judging by what seems to work in other cultures. I would like to see more of family "clans," is that the word, and growing "tribes" of people, united in community of course.

But with the present huge size of the world population, you really can't do 50 people a mile from the next 50 people, at least not everywhere. World population density is about 125 people per square mile, and rising by another nearly 2 people a year. So 50 people a half mile from the next 50 people, and you could have 200 some people per square mile. But then it's absurd to suggest that everybody spread out "equally." Just wouldn't work with personal preferences and economic considerations, and with rich elites sometimes hoarding far more than "their fair share" of the land.

And then with the natural population growth that I advocate, or the natural propensity for growth, some of these "family tribes" are going to be far larger than 50 people, but numbering into the 100s of closely related people. Family tribes used to get so much larger, but people are just too mobile these days and move to other states.

 

[nirakar]

Overpopulation: Just enough of me. Way too much of you?​

Why do people think we can just "pick and choose?" 1 billion people would be most pleasant? Ha! I don't think so. Let's just take a peek at a world with 1 billion people, not so long ago. No electricity, no video games, few books beyond just maybe a family Bible, no computers, no internet, no refrigerators, no air conditioning. The stove was a big wood stove, if you could afford one. You had to have children, unless you wanted to chop all the wood, yourself? Homes were small, people had less stuff. We could live that way today. But how many people with the means not to have to, are choosing to live "technology impaired" like the Amish?

Without the crowds, you can't have amusement parks. Without the traffic, freeways would cost way too much per capita to build. Without all the morons? with iPod headphones in their ears, there would be no iPods, because those things simply can't be engineered and built at affordable costs, on a small scale. They must be mass-produced, to make them affordable. Same thing with computer chips.

Why didn't we get all these nifty inventions, when there was just 1 billion people in the world? People were around for thousands of years prior, so what were they doing, that they didn't get around to inventing all this stuff? Well quite a lot of the inventions are really small incremental improvements. With the burgeoning of overall human population size, the pace of such increments naturally sped up. Actually, I see quite a lot of inventions, not really so much about personal comfort, as more technically natural intelligence-driven population accumodations. Is the refrigerator really for convenience, or for feeding lots more people more efficiently. Well you get the idea? Enough for this posting?

WE would not lose the technology just because we lost the people. The USA has plenty of amusement parks and it only has 300 million people.

When I was twenty, I lived in Manhattan; and that was great and exiting for a 20 year old. It gets old. For me Manhattan is a nice place to visit but overstimulating to live there.

Let there be a high density 100 million person city for those who want they excitement of crowds. Let their be 30 high density more exciting than Manhattan, 10 million person cities scattered around the world so that nobody has to travel to far to get a massive dose of culture. Let there by 400 low density 100,000 person cities for the suburban style people. Then let the remaining 200 million farmers, nature lovers, and people haters spread out over the remainder of the Earth.

We can all be happy with out the stress of having to pay a lot for the right to call some place our home. Technology won't have to race to find new ways of supporting the ever increasing population. We get to relax, have more free time, pull out our instruments and make music together.

What is the point to being around people if we all are to stressed out to play together?

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

And why must a world naturally swollen with people, be dystopian? What if it's a bit more like "paradise?"​

. Things that still matter to people, would likely still be around. House pets, house plants, etc. But some space-wasting, food-devouring, garden-raiding elephants might have to go, as India's huge human population continues to naturally expand. There would still be plenty of zoos, if they can attract people to visit them and keep them in business.

WHAT you say that we cannot enforce Growth control on our own species yet we can decide which lifeforms stay and go,

A more pronatalist culture should ADAPT more readily to "what must be."

If you truley believe in promoting policies for childbearing and talk of ADAPTION then you must also be ready to have less children when the situation calls for it I.E. Places where resources are low. Otherwise you are single-minded without respect to circumstance (all are the same). I think it is better to give 2 children a good quality of life than 10 a bad one. If there is not enough food for 4 why have 5,6or 7 it's not fair on them or you?

Let the cities grow larger and closer together, especially if or as driven by the natural increase of all the people within and around them. Whether or not "the more the merrier," it is all the more people around who can benefit from living.

If mankind is really the most dominant and intelligent species on the planet should't we act like that with more respect to what keeps us alive (as opposed to brings us into the world) rather than randy hippies (if it all goes wrong God will save us.:bugeye:

 

[Pronatalist]

I'm a natural introvert. What use have I for "crowds?" But I neither fear the crowds either, so long as they behave.​

I am placing this part of your post out of sequence because you make a valid point. People complain about me being wordy! I had to read this because he was responding to my own posts so it would have been rude not to. But in the future I will not be able to offer this courtesy. Please donate my $100 to Planned Parenthood.

Note, in this post I am replying to, much of it was a reply to me, but some parts, replies to other people's post. I wish I could do the double-nested quotebacks more easily, but then that only makes my post longer in total text.

That's not so much the reason I find to actually read everything. I read everything as much as I can, because I want to. If I write a post "too long," I understand some people may skim, or not reply at all, as is their right. When somebody writes something, actually to me, it's generally more interesting, than something to other people, or to people in general. And then of course, it depends on the topic, as I obviously can't respond on every topic and every discussion thread.

Before I respond to your post I am going to complete the remark I began above. Please try to be more concise. A lot more concise. Just about everyone on SciForums regards my posts as too long to read, so you can use mine as a yardstick. If you type one up that is longer, then start cutting things out of it. There's no rule about this, but if nobody reads your posts then you're just wasting your energy, not to mention our bandwidth. As I noted above, I will not be able to read the next one like this no matter how important it might be.

I like to be more consise. But a good answer, is as long, as it is long. There is no obvious section to cut out. I am not some movie director. I can't just force the "movie" to be 90 or 120 minutes long. I try to write good posts, as I do want more people to read them. I write them one by one, which takes quite a bit of my time and thinking. I enjoy the challenge of writing hopefully, persuasive posts.

You can start right off by being more of a scientist. Too much of what you write is opinion and proselytism.

That's largely because much of the topic, is actually quite subjective. "Ideal number of humans." What can "science" say, other than just how many people can "fit" onto the planet. Whether that number is "desirable," is a subject more of philosophy and estimation and opinion. Societal interaction, and the morals that help even dense vast societies proper, just don't fit into the "scientific" test tube or laboratory so well. I just don't see how such a vague "religious" topic, can avoid endless opining as well. Just look at all the other posters, making their opinions about it.

This is not an official science journal so some of that is allowed in the interest of us being able to establish a sense of personal camaraderie. But too much is too much, and the measure of "too much" is when people start complaining.

People on the wrong side, have quite a habit of whining and complaining. But that's hardly the basis to determine appropriate family size. After all, the people breeding, are largely populating their own homes first, which by definition, must always be more confining than communities or the world.

I wouldn't mind having a bumper sticker, "Stop global whining," but then, how to enforce it?

Please be more focused in the future.No. Prosperity has been found to be the best contraceptive. Since the dawn of civilization, raising children has not been the only rewarding pursuit in life. With the advance of civilization, a larger number of people have the resources to avail themselves of those other pursuits.

Yeah, the so-called "demographic transition." But underlying it is rampant contraceptive pushing. It's not necessarily such a "natural" transition. Either way, it serves as an example by which pushing contraception isn't necessary. There's other natural mechanisms that limit by how fast humans can multiply, which I imagine to be more of the natural limited fertility of humans and how long it takes us to multiply, and the long generational gaps in comparison with other kinds of creatures, and the womb bottleneck of women usually having but one baby at a time within the womb. If in many places of the world, the "demographic transition" just turns out appearing not to work, and birthrates just naturally remain high, I am fine with that, I encourage/advocate that, as I believe the natural flow of human life should remain natural and unhindered, in more keeping with nature, God's will, or simply the natural order of things or what must be. And I don't believe in imposing unnatural "limits" on childbearing, a largely personal matter that parents or nature (or God) or whatever can more properly and naturally determine. The natural "no method" method of "family planning," is far more legitimate than some people pushing "family planning" would like to admit.

Furthermore, in the Stone Age the driving reason to have large families was the horrible infant mortality. If everybody didn't reproduce to their maximum potential, the tribe or even the whole species could have died out. That motivation is far behind us.

Not really, as more children surviving to adulthood, is all the more reason to make the effort into raising children. Who wants to have children, only to see them die later? Infant mortality and a supposedly "empty" world to fill, are only but a few of the great reasons to have children. However, most other reasons people have, are as relevant as ever, and particularly and strangely, not affected much at all by "oh by the way," overall population size. That more and more people would be glad to live, most everybody wants or ends up having children, most people aren't done having children, etc. Most of the compelling reasons simply do not change as the population continually enlarges, and I am sensitive to such compelling, profound, convincing reasons.

Then in the early years of civilization, people needed large families to make sure that when they reached old age, the burden of supporting them would be spread over enough people that it would not be a hardship. That motivation is also gone, now that an industrial and post-industrial economy creates so much surplus wealth ("capital") that everyone can easily salt away enough of it to provide for their own retirement. Well unless they work for the wrong corporation. This lesson is slow to take root because traditions die hard, nonetheless in countries where people used to have twelve kids they now have eight, and where they had eight they now have six.

If what you say here is true, then the "transition" to having fewer children, would tend to be "natural" and not something that anti-freedom people have to push at all. But the anti-child movement is largely deceitful, and not very much interested in what people might actually want, and has little or no respect for people's religious beliefs, a huge driving factor in typical family size.

If you call a life in which a person can travel, produce art, engage in his country's political system, master a sport, or *gasp* have a little fun, instead of devoting every non-productive moment to wiping baby butts, "SELFISH," then so be it.

Even people who breed naturally, never using any means of unnatural "birth control," just aren't always wiping a baby's butt. That's unfair and many parents of large families would obviously disagree with such a portrayal of them. Some people also have practical or religious objections to the experimental use of shoddy contraceptives, or just don't irrationally fear the prospect of pregnancy.

What you complain against here, I would imagine would be excuse also, to not even have 1 baby. But we were all once babies, so to get our life, and not pass it on to others, I see as "selfish." I would say, don't we, in effect, "repay" our parents for having raised us, by giving our parents grandchildren?

Personally I reserve that word for the people who claim their religion demands that they keep increasing the population, so my view of the mountains is blocked by the condomiums that their damn children are going to live in when they grow up.

But your out-your-window view isn't nearly as important, as all those people's lives. If people like breeding so much, the natural "penalty" is that they at some point, find themselves having to live more densely populated together. As they say, the planet isn't getting any bigger. But why add any additional penalty and disparage human life? Most any other problem can be mitigated somehow, without actually limiting numbers.

And isn't it perhaps a bit absurd to think that small homes or condo buildings, can block the view of an entire big mountain? I just don't have much practical respect for rich elites, who build themselves huge air-conditioned mansions, and then don't want their view "blocked" so slightly, by wind energy turbines to generate the electricity, or other people's homes, and yet they don't want to be told how many children they may have. Al Gore claims there are "too many" people in the world. So where does he get off, living in a mansion and having 4 children himself? What a hypocrite! Expecting all the poor people to make the unnecessary sacrifices for him.

Go find some other mountain, if you want, if you can. We humans simply can't help that we are becoming so numerous, so you are intelligent aren't you? Deal with it.

A 2500 year old written transcription of the oral legends of a Stone Age tribe doesn't carry any weight around here.

And yet without paying the religious texts some respect, you would be at a loss to explain the continued population growth. So you want to bash the Bible. Not only is that unfair and insensitive, but most all religions promote large families and natural population expansion. It's not just to "enlarge the flock" of believers, but also, out of moral sense of how to treat other people and the great value of human beings. In my debates, I even come across claimed athiests, who are for human population growth, relating it to "progess" of the human race, or something or other. It's very "unscientific" to so handily dismiss a major motivator of the population growth. Excluding "religion" leaves too great a gaping hole, in explaining the world.

Especially when it postulates the existence of a supernatural universe. As I said last time, using such a postulate to support a hypothesis on this website is trolling.

That's your opinion and it happens to be wrong. As I clearly explained, "Ideal number of humans" is a highly "religious" and philosophic question. It's hardly the sort of question that can neatly be pigeonholed into some test tube in some "science" laboratory.

Without some "religion," atheists then, using their "state religion" soon catagorizes humans to be just mere animals, and any notion of "human rights" soon fades away, and all sorts of barbarisms are unleashed. One of the practical reasons why some 7 billion human beings, get along as well as we do, and at least try to live "by the rules," is because we imagine ourselves to be far better and greater in worth, than the animals, an essentially "religious" idea.

BTW, I haven't started any discussion thread yet on this forum, so it wasn't even I, who named these topic threads.

If the only evidence you have to support your claim is the bible, then your claim has failed to pass peer review and you have to stop promoting it until you can do better.

I don't consider "peer review" a valid process by which to base my personal beliefs. There are many things publicly believed, that I find to be baseless and illogical. Simply parroting things over and over, from one person to the next, doesn't make things like supposedly human-caused "global warming," true.

Nor do I subscibe to the "politically correct" modern fad of criticism or bashing those who don't get on board with the current incorrect fads. Dissention is a valid tool, encouraging those who hold to a deviant view other than that of the dissenters, to better explain their views. If they can't, perhaps they are wrong after all?

Or else take it to our Religion subforum where the rules are relaxed.The word is "extraordinary," and one of the cornerstones of the scientific method is the rule that extraordinary claims must be supported by extraordinary evidence. You have not provided this evidence so no one is obligated to treat your claim with respect.

And where I might then be accused of trying to go "off topic" to bring up the population issue. Religion is relevant, and I have clearly explained that. I am deeply religious in many things, as you will find quite a lot of people are actually, and I choose not to dwell on that so much, as I do like to talk of science and philosophy as well. But I can't simply deny my faith and be a hippocrite, because some wrong opinions about such profound things as the great value of each and every human life, require often a "religious" sort of answer, as those things can't exactly be calculated on a calculator or be shoved into a test tube, the narrow perspective of what "science" is often portrayed to be.

I host 4 forums on the internet, and my main forum, does have some sort of "religion" folder, but religion is not at all limited to that folder, as neither do polls get their own folder. Actually, all folders are the "religion" folder, because religion pervades everything. Folders are merely loose groupings, as any real open conversation can easily drift "off topic" at times.

And I don't expect people to "respect" my views by just always agreeing with them, but by first giving them a fair hearing, and then they will reply how they like. I do hope they agree, but it is the people's duties themselves to find the truth and find their own reasons to agree.

I am not obliged to provide all the evidence, as I am not paid for my time here, and it's not my duty to "make" people believe truth. They themselves are personally responsible for that. If they vote to deny people their rights, then that is their own sin, that they themselves have done. In a growing world of 7 billion people, I can't personally hold everybody's hands to help them make their proper decisions, and neither can government. People need to take personal responsibility for such things.

Let human populations rise naturally in the rural areas as well, and spontaneously form even new towns and villages as their numbers also rise.

Then there won't be too many "rural" areas anymore, will there? You come to a conflict of rights. Your alleged right to cram several billion more little religious fundamentalists onto this planet in order to satisfy the allegedly literal word of your deity conflicts with my right to enjoy the peaceful, quiet surroundings of my rural home in the redwood forest that I spent my life planning for.

What a bummer. Not a good time to be a hermit or xenophobe? And what am I, or anybody, to do about it? You yourself made the world more vastly and densely populated with your own birth, so deal with it.

"Population no problem. How dense can we get?" Exactly. How did liberals miss the very answer, right under their snobbish noses? Populate denser. Then lots more people can somehow fit onto the planet. I have long entertained the notion of a continuous "global city," of people living practically "everywhere." That's part of the idea. To eliminate more of the previously "rural" areas and put them to better use, filling them with people. It's natural for human populations to naturally grow, most everywhere people live. I meant to make that point. I don't see it coming to that, that being most rural areas becoming urban-densified, especially anytime within the forseeable future, but how else are people to enjoy having their precious darling babies, in a world with so many people living already?

A conflict of rights? Nonsense. You should read more about rights. People must have their right-to-life respected, because without that most basic right, most all the other rights become trivial and arbitrary. How can you "own" property, if you don't even have the basic right to live? But the right to "privacy" and to live far away from all your neighbors, is largely imagined and human-invented. It's hardly a basic right at all. I cite as evidence, that we are born naked. So much for always having "privacy." So the rather minor "growing pains" of natural human population growth, are handily trumped by right-to-life and sanctity of life. It's not merely a "religious" idea, but foundational legal basis to rights as well.

Sure, you may buy up some land to keep your neighbors at a distance, and reserve the space for your own children. But such "land hoarding" must be within reason of your ability to utilize that land somehow, and in reasonable keeping with the population needs of the planet. If by some financial trickery, Bill Gates was able to buy up the entire planet, obviously I wouldn't agree with being shoved off into the oceans. I must be allowed to live somewhere, presumably, within my already my own home. My children must have some place to live and have their families, so all the land can't be converted into golf courses for rich yuppies.

I follow my wife's wise counsel on this subject. I don't pay attention to any man's ravings about abortion until, as she puts it, "One of you assholes gets pregnant." If she were a Moderator, all posts containing the word "abortion" by members with penises would be deleted.

There's some weirdo bumper sticker, that seems to show up at bizarre places, like at an abortion clinic, that says if men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. Whatever is it talking about? If men could get pregnant, it would be so much different? Ha! What a stupid invalid point, for many pro-lifers, happen to be women! So to consider pro-life to be a "male" perspective, is absurd. So why should having a penis, disqualify anybody to express their views?

These calculations are not genius-level and their accuracy is not in dispute. As for your "future adaptation," this requires falsifying some of the basic laws of the natural universe.

Not necessarily, and especially as the population growth may not be headed for the ridiculous extremes of these supposedly "scientifically" calculated extrapolations. "Future adaptations," are a huge unknown, that many optimists see as being potentialy far more adaptable, than the pessimists do. But the pessimists hardly offer anything useful, so they aren't to be trusted.

As I noted before, if you're going to hypothesize something that extraordinary in order to promote your argument, it must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence to support your hypothesis. This is the second time you've done this and I still see no evidence on the table. If you do it one more time, as a Moderator I will do my duty and initiate the process for dealing with violations of the rule against trolling.

Your imagined accusations of "trolling" are not valid. Trying to bash me with accusations of "trolling," itself is more so "trolling," than anything I have said so far.

Now back to topic, one huge burden that the population "control" freaks have been utterly unable to answer satisfactorily, is there simply is no practical nor moral ways to enforce population "control" upon humans. Perhaps that's why they resort to deception and religion-bashing so much in their arguments. They aren't fair, as their logical arguments are incredibly weak, and easily dismantled by those actually in the know.

The more populated we get, the more people there are around wanting children. Adding all the more birth canal holes to the world, don't help "stabilized" (stagnate) the natural human population growth. Nature appears to prefer and egg on our population growth such, and why can't the "science" acknowledge better, such practical reasons why human population growth must be allowed to continue naturally, if at all possible?

Only 7% of people, as I read somewhere, live in countries where the population is not growing. Humans are accused of adapting "too well" to their environment. Well there you go. Let people do what they do so well then. Adapt.

Now I have clearly qualified my arugments with the phrase "for the forseeable future." And yet noted author Julian Simon, claims that human population growth can go on "forever." I respect much his views, but I don't agree with all of them. So at which point do I flip into a communist, and disparage human life, when we finally have "enough" people? No point. I am not God, and not obliged to do such. The Bible clearly says that I don't have to answer foolish questions. The world even has a saying, "Don't argue with a fool, as people may not be able to tell the difference." But some verse says I think to argue, lest they become wise in their own conceits. Another says not to in some circumstance? At some point, I must make a choice. And entertaining ridiculous population extrapolations, leads to some "foolish" questions. But aren't they largely irrelevant, since it's probably never going to happen anyway? Especially within God's universe, created for some purpose?

Therefore, I choose to be "intentionally vague," about certain human-unknowable topics, such as to exactly what number of people, might the planet be made to hold. Who really knows but God? I don't wish to play like I am "God."

The real "extraordinary" claim, is that of the population control freaks, that they claim that they have any basis to impose on people against their will, population "control." Why don't you accuse them of "trolling" or something, since their view is wrong and anti-freedom?

But then you would think that a public internet discussion, would invite views of both and other sides, well unless it is some immature insecure childish clique of fan-club yes-men?

Civilization has been a 12,000-year exercise in overcoming our primitive nature. Homo sapiens's uniquely massive forebrain allows us to do what no other animal can do to any important extent, which is to replace instinctive behavior with reasoned and learned behavior. Remember that in the Mesolithic Era it was "natural" for each tribe to guard its precious low-tech low-yield hunting and gathering range from incursion by other tribes in order to secure the tribe's very survival. This was both instinctive and rational. Yet it led to a world in which 60% of adults died by murder. We have overcome that pack-social instinct to a remarkable degree and are well on our way to becoming herd-social, respecting the right to survival, comfort and decency of our anonymous herd-mates. This is what makes civilization work and it is also what makes civilization possible.

So what's your point, by extension? That we must shed all our emotions, and become purely "logical" like the Vulcans of Star Trek? No, we are still human, and we still have some sort of "primitive animal" side, that of having both conscious and subconscious goals and desires, to mate and produce offspring. Doing so, within marriage and stable families, helps immensely promote stable culture and civilization. Because we are supposedly civilized, we don't just mate without thought and planning, but we work jobs, to support our progeny and families. We even find ways to be less "territorial," so that we, like the people around us, may go on having children in a world that grows all the more populous. As we improve ability to liberate resources to better support our burgeoning numbers, pretecting our "territory" becomes more and more irrelevant, and human bodies can increasingly be stacked closer together into high-density housing, condos, apartment complexes, as people may choose.

Even our animals seem to respect this natural and civilized anti-territorial trend. How many pet dogs, don't actually bark and go crazy, any time a stranger "invades" their territory. Dogs learn not to do this, if they don't want to be shut up in some back room, every time a guest comes. There's little need to be "territorial," when most visitors are friendly, and they get fed regardless. By getting in good with humans, pets get to become more numerous over time, as well, far more so, than they could do on their own, in the wild. As the human pet owner is, in theory, the dog's "pack leader," I think even pets like to see human babies come into the family, as it "grows the pack." Our pets don't mind that the human race continues to grow denser and vaster, as it's no threat to them anyway, and they can't even understand such things as to notice that increasingly, perhaps in their perspective if they even have one, the entire world "reeks" of humans. It must, if one has a dog's powerful sense of smell? But smell to a pet, is much like face recognition is to humans. It's a big part of how they ID people, and they associate such smells with good things, like being fed or being liked by humans.

Some website opined that a new "paradigm" is needed. Here's mine then. As the world gains in population, cities must also be a welcome place for people to raise their "traditionally very large" families, as the world becomes more urban. Families may remain just as large as ever, but more people may find themselves living in cities, as the rural countryside slowly begins to fade a bit more away. People can in fact, learn to and adapt to, breed in closer proximity to their many neighbors, as overall world population density is welcomed to rise naturally as well, so that so many people's progeny can fit onto the planet also.

Other primitive instincts must also be overcome along the way. One is faith in imaginary creatures from a supernatural universe to solve our problems, and another is unfettered reproduction.

It's not logical to hinder man's "unfettered reproduction," just so long as people marry and form themselves stable families, to help assure society that all those children will be cared for somehow. Limiting human numbers unnaturally, only reduces the number of beneficiaries, so benefit can only be reduced by such interference with the natural order of things. And many people simply aren't going to be convinced by such unscientific faith-bashing.

Not exactly. Perhaps only a small number of people have studied them, but the beauty of science is that once it is discovered it is not too difficult for the next person in line to understand it. This is why the peer review process works, which is another of the cornerstones of the scientific method. You don't have to be as brilliant as the person who discovered a theory to be able to review his work and make sure there are no errors. I was able to understand the theory of relativity in high school. Any reasonably bright person can understand most scientific theories if they're interested enough to gather the background knowledge. This is what keeps science and scientists honest.As I've said before, science is woefully lacking in a rhetorical vocabulary to facilitate communication with laymen. I borrow the legal term, "true beyond a reasonable doubt," to apply to our canonical theories such as the four elementary forces of the universe. (You named two of them; the other two are the strong and weak nuclear force.) Any particular canonical theory has a finite probability of being falsified one day, and we've seen it happen. Our job is to test those theories thoroughly enough that that finite probability is acceptably small. That way if one or two canonical theories are disproved in a century (or more likely revised, e.g. for extreme conditions, like Newton's laws of motion being superseded by relativity at velocities that could not be measured in Newton's time) the canon itself is robust enough to not collapse on itself.As I implied above, it is the nature of man to transcend nature. We've been doing it since long before the 12,000 year era that marks our endeavor to civilize ourselves. Creating sparks to start a fire, sharpening pieces of bone and lashing them to the end of a stick to make a more powerful hunting weapon, cooking food to enable our digestion to extract more nutrients from it, sewing hides together and wrapping ourselves in them so we could hunt the beasts of the tundra... none of these activities are "natural" in your sense of the word, yet they are "natural" for man because we have the brainpower to conceive of things that do not occur in nature. The same is true of domesticated dogs, hybridized plants, furniture, drawings, written language, refined metal and most of what you see in your home. None of it is natural. It's our destiny to use our own nature to transcend the nature of the world. Contraception is simply part of that: part of our nature.

No contraception isn't in keeping with nature. It's obviously unnatural. Yes, we humans do transcend nature, and as we grow in population, not only do we dominate more, but nature and humanity increasingly become the same thing. Nature benefits too, a side so sorely lacking in the debate. Contraception is sold by deception, and there's a sinister anti-human agenda behind it. Don't believe me? Read of the nasty history by which the modern contraceptive pushing came about, what a nasty immoral character Margaret Sanger was, and all the ties to immorality and Nazi-like eugenics.

I agree with selective breeding farm livestock and pets, but not at all with humans, as humans are special and have far more rights than other creatures. We are complex creatures, and in many respects, have far more needs and wants as well.

That's why it's called science fiction. Some of it merely predicts things that we will probably figure out how to do in the future. But the stories about routine interstellar travel are all based on an ability to violate relativity.[/QUOTE]

So what? So now I can't enjoy the Star Trek movies? I don't even advocate that we send a human to Mars anytime soon. Too costly. Too risky. It's too far. Robots are so much cheaper to send, don't require costly life support, and don't expect a return trip. I am very open to the prospects of humans spreading to more world, if ever they can, but for some time, it doesn't even appear practical. It's far easier to cram "several planet's worth" of people onto this planet, than to make other worlds habitable to humans. At least then we don't have the difficulties of figuring out how to trasport so many billions out of this gravity well. As I have said, current technology is scarcely even moving towards spreading people to other worlds, but rather, at least for now, moving very much towards finding better ways to populate this world more and more densely and vastly with people. That's a practical reason why "burgeoning" and huge populations in the various countries, simply doesn't alarm me, but I see as beautiful. So many people coming to life, helps "force along" the innovations and improvements to better accomodate them.

I have posted several references to the article that was mentioned earlier in this thread. Postulating only advances in technology that are scientifically realistic, without speaking to the social issues, this planet could support many quadrillions of people. At that point the limiting factor becomes the radiation of the biosphere's waste heat. The temperature of the living quarters will rise to the point that people die before they can have more than an average of one child per person.This was dealt with in the essay to which I refer. (And since it was forty years ago it's not on the web and since I had no idea someday there would be a place like SciForums where I'd be expected to post a URL I can't even find my Xerox copy of it. But be patient, I will find it eventually.)

I have read such claims, and the problem wasn't presented of people dying due to the waste heat of their bodies. The "hard" limit actually is more that the world roof would ultimately get so hot, that it wouldn't be able to withstand the heat anymore, glowing cherry red from all the heat pumped from within. And even there might be some future solution to that, I suggested. You can't posit that people would just bake in the heat, because air conditioning has already been invented, and surely would be used, if or as needed. Obviously these "warrens" are going to have electricity and energy, right? Even astronauts spacesuits have air-conditioning, don't they? Didn't I read somewhere of them wearing some sort of undergarments with water tubes to carry body heat away? But isn't outer space very cold? Maybe not, on the sunny side of the moon? No air to carry away the heat?

Anyway we won't be growing crops on land. It will be hydroponics or something even more efficient.I love Asimov because he always came up with a different way of looking at a problem. In his solution the limiting factor is the total mass of organic material on earth.

Which I pointed out, must necessarily be increased to account for carbon in oil and coal, that is being converted to human life, not just human, but life in general. The ways we already produce fertilizers, suggests that we are probably doing this already, so it's hardly a "zero sum" game, saying that an increase in human life, reduces other life around us. Not necessarily, and so what if it does? Good thing I am human, and not some space-wasting elephant or a tree in the way of another house to be built, or a blade of grass in the way of a sidewalk to be built for children and families to walk on.

Since as I noted we haven't found the key to abiogenesis yet nor have we unlocked the secret to photosynthesis, presumably all of our food must be made from existing organic matter. However he overlooks fossilized organic matter: petroleum and natural gas. (Not coal, that's pure carbon and no longer organic.) I don't know the mass of our reserves of those substances, but we're already using them in the manufacture of food. Perhaps it will make a huge difference in his calculations, enough to add three more zeroes to his figure and bring it in line with mine. If not, then his deadline for solving mankind's overbreeding problem (which may not be as likely as it was when he wrote that) is coming up twice as fast as mine.Asimov was famous for his witty curmudgeonliness and he was writing for the popular press. So he could get away with calling someone an "optimist dead to reality." But we Moderators have higher standards on SciForums so we discourage our members from calling each other "hopelessly insane."

Adding 3 zeros is actually quite significant, as it gives all the more "breathing room" for whatever imagine natural transition that may or may not be occuring.

And no, humans do not have an "overbreeding" problem, but rather our unnatural underbreeding, is devastating, at the very least in terms of "what could have been." And what of all the people who might have liked to have more children, but were scared out of it, by an irration society fear of "excessive" childbearing?

Please try to keep the discourse civil. I have warned Pro to curtail his excessive religious trolling on the science boards, so you can respond respectfully and try to dial back the insults. That way neither of you will be guilty of a rule violation.

I'm not super-sensitive, as I have been debating such things, since I became active in the pro-life movement way back in 1991. I don't really care so much what people say to me, as long as they try to be fair and consider my points as well. No need to "walk on eggshells" with me. I kind of like to hear people's fears, so that I might try to dispell them. I do like it when people chime in and agree with me, but that doesn't always happen in every aspect.

I try to keep to science and logic, but such subjects also easily get into philosophy and personal opinions as well, and any fair discussion must respect that. Omitting such aspects, makes it impossible to even have a fair debate.

 

[Avatar]

An ideal number of people is 2, as created by our Father in Heaven, mighty God himself.

Sorry, had to say it!

 

[kmguru]

We can easily handle 100 Billion people as long as all move up and live in the atmosphere like in 3001 (Clarke's novel)

 

[Jozen-Bo]

Short of culling humans down to more Earth sustainable numbers, the world's population is set to double within 50 years.

The most important research that governments worldwide ought to be funding and promoting are renewable energy, atmospheric pollution reversal and climate technology

And R they?

 

[q0101]

The way how we are wasting resources tells me that we have either too many people or too many idiots. Probably both. I think 7 billion humans is pushing it. Poor Earth...

My estimate for a decent carrying capacity is 4 billions people. That could be sustained without energy wars, food shortages or lack of drinking water.

What is your estimate?

There is no ideal estimate. There are many things to consider when you’re having a conversation about the ideal human population. (Quality of life, the amount of natural resources, technology) It all depends on what kind of world you would like the future generations of humans to live in. I can’t give you my ideal estimate because I would have to use computer simulations to give you an answer. I can tell you that it would probably be somewhere between 1 – 5 billion.

 

[q0101]

And why must a world naturally swollen with people, be dystopian? What if it's a bit more like "paradise?"​

I read everything that you wrote in this thread, and you seem like an intelligent person. It is a shame that you have been corrupted by the cultural ignorance that we call organized religion. Your posts on this website reminds me of something that was said by the main character in the movie Thank You For Smoking. “If you argue correctly you are never wrong” You may have the intelligence to argue correctly but you are basically saying that we should continue to increase our population without worrying about the problems that will arise because god will take care of everything. You might as well be saying that we should breed ourselves into extinction. But you probably aren’t worried about our extinction either because you believe in ancient fantasies like heaven and paradise earth. The future that you desire would definitely be my version of a dystopia. You may not want to admit it, but a larger population can only lead to more competition for the limited number of resources on this planet. More competition means more conflicts, inequality, and human suffering.

My Dad had problems with Star Trek, claiming it's too far-fetched. So I told him, what I think is really so far-fetched about it, is this silly notion that people get along so well with one another, without "religion."

I don't believe in such "earth control." That's trying to "play God" and "tamper" with God's creation or with nature, and being human is hard enough already.

Logic and the continuous pursuit of knowledge is the only thing that people will need to get along with each other in a futuristic world. I believe that we will have to become gods if we want to avoid our inevitable extinction. It is something that I discussed in previous threads about eugenics. It seems that you like to argue with people that have anti-pronatalist beliefs, so feel free to respond by criticizing my beliefs and desires in one of the old eugenic threads, but please try to omit any religious (god will take care of everything) comments.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1203018#post1203018

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1232775#post1232775

 

[Chatha]

I think there's still plenty of space, just not plenty of food and resources, like I said before- birth licensing. if things get too bad.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

I'm a natural introvert. What use have I for "crowds?" But I neither fear the crowds either, so long as they behave.​

.

that must be the longest post in history.........you should write books you could prob' write 6 a month........

I think there's still plenty of space, just not plenty of food and resources, like I said before- birth licensing. if things get too bad.

Food and resources that is the problem........If we can't balance the food/resources to the people......then balancing the people to the food/resources would be better.....

An Example could be, places with fammine and lack of water in areas (i.e. [africa] oman, sudan, ethiopia) instead of continualy plowing in money to dead soil [keeping them on the edge of existence) why, not relocate them to areas of africa which is fertile.......empty space is vast in some areas...(teach a man to fish and all that). If climate change has come about then that would be pro-active with acceptence of change, we all no its not going to rain there enough for crops to grow again.....?

 

[Pronatalist]

Maybe the world will naturally grow more populous, regardless? Why not deal with it, better?​

And why must a world naturally swollen with people, be dystopian? What if it's a bit more like "paradise?"

I read everything that you wrote in this thread, and you seem like an intelligent person. It is a shame that you have been corrupted by the cultural ignorance that we call organized religion. Your posts on this website reminds me of something that was said by the main character in the movie Thank You For Smoking. “If you argue correctly you are never wrong” You may have the intelligence to argue correctly but you are basically saying that we should continue to increase our population without worrying about the problems that will arise because god will take care of everything. You might as well be saying that we should breed ourselves into extinction.

So why do you so oversimplify my position? I don't at all say to "throw caution to the wind." I say world population is "huge" and growing huger. I understand why, and I agree with most all reasons that could be listed for naturally enlarging human populations, both for individual benefit, the benefit of families, and of the greater good of the many. I say that the population phobics deliberately overlook far too much that should have also been considered. Like aren't there numerous "risks" also to trying to impose unnatural population "control" upon humans? Humans supposedly tend to be highly intelligent, and sometimes surprisingly clever. Parents tend to get hopping mad when denied their God-given right to have children. Why make people needlessly an enemy, without just cause? Why stir up people to revolt or make war for liberation, when there are numerous ways to accomodate people's needs as their numbers predictably and gradually rise, naturally? Let them push out their babies, let their babies grow up and push out more babies. It's rather hypocritical to continue to live, and deny other people from coming to life. Everybody "added" to the world population size, with their own birth. And yet we would want to be welcomed to come to life as well?

God will take care of everything? Well we should hope so. Wouldn't it be nice if humans actually don't have to figure out everything in advance? But one practical reason why human populations have become so incredibly large, is that especially under good leadership, human population growth tends to naturally accomodate itself. Growth fuels more growth, but also the changes and adjustments to allow for humans to become all the more numerous.

We should continue to increase our population, without regard to how "huge" it already is, because the more people there are the more people there are who rather like to or need to, reproduce. Because the reasons for people to multiply are generally so compelling. Out of respect for nature and for families. Because "pregnancies" should be welcome to "bulge" naturally. Problems that may arise supposedly, due to our "huge" numbers should be minimized, not only by pronatalist thinking and promotion, but also by proper use of technology. Massive or dense human populations, could be practical reasont to push forward with certain technologies like nuclear power plants, because there's so many people needing the many benefits of electricity, affordably, reliably, with low pollution due to the vastness and high density of people. Why can't such supposed problems that might arise, be mitigated by faith and development, and not by disparaging "huge" human numbers needlessly?

Humans, as I read somewhere, are accused of adapting "too well" to their environment. Well wouldn't that be an asset then, not a detriment? If our population is naturally rising, wouldn't it be so much easier to sell the public on minor proper adaptations, rather than a hugely unpopular and needless attack on the people's natural childbearing? People in certain developing countries like reproducing so much? Fine. Let them put indoor flush toilets inside their homes. They like being so numerous or dense in their population size? Make whatever needed adjustments to allow for that. Much of medical science probably came about due to rising global human population density. Why else have better food production, storage, vaccines, improved public sanitation methods, other than to help along the natural enlargement of human numbers, so that all the more precious sacred human lives may be experienced?

Some try to claim that the population issue shouldn't be about some "maximum" number of people that the planet might theoretically be able to hold, but what of what level of living conditions? But if they really wanted to look at it logically, what if people go on breeding "like crazy" or whatever nonsensical description of what is actually quite natural and proper, and they don't go extinct? Some population phobics seem a bit loathe to admit, that they fear humans will adapt and the entire planet just steadily grow more and more "crowded." Surely a more pronatalist culture would more readily make the needed adaptations for what humans may either prove to be unwilling, or perhaps unable to "control." Our rising population size. There seems to be numerous examples in sci-fi, where human populations have risen in size, far beyond the present level, and in the future, most everybody is fine with that, and they have adapted, and it's just as natural and normal for their time, if not more so, than it seems today.

But you probably aren’t worried about our extinction either because you believe in ancient fantasies like heaven and paradise earth. The future that you desire would definitely be my version of a dystopia. You may not want to admit it, but a larger population can only lead to more competition for the limited number of resources on this planet. More competition means more conflicts, inequality, and human suffering.

But we are far beyond that point already, and adding more billions wouldn't significantly change it. My vote doesn't count for much, with so many other people voting wrong. Adding more people, has so much as proven by history, led to a great expansion of options available to the public. Electricity is most cheaply produced, on the massive scale. In the early history of the development of electricity, there was a push to sell appliances that use electricity, to build up the sort of scale that could make electricity cheap per unit of consumption or per capita.

The real problem is the inflated power-grabbing nature of poorly limited corporations, seeking to reduce "competition" in the markets, so they can price-gouge the prices of whatever they can manipulate. In free markets, the profit motive naturally drives people to produce ever more of most everything, and if they can't, find creative ways around any such roadblocks. More humans mouths to feed, is good for farmer's profits. But with more people, comes also, naturally, perhaps more farmers as well. If somebody jacks up prices, some competitor can undercut his prices and gain marketshare. From the perspective of a farmer, I wouldn't want my crops to go too much into feeding people's selfishness and making them obese, but towards more so, converting all the more organic matter into human bodies, creating something so beautiful. I don't have to rip them off with unaffordable high prices, but can increase profits by selling to more people. If I was a baby diaper manufacturer, I would see it as being good for the populous people, good for my company, and for my employees, for the number of babies' bottoms to be diapered, to be naturally increasing. I would want to encourage people not to use any "birth control" at all, as I see it for the greater good, for all the more people to be able to experience life. It's hardly a "problem" to have to, if we would want, expand production facilities. In a growing market, most everybody can win. Win-win for everybody. Room for more competitors to come in as well.

More people can mean, more job opportunities, more good jobs closer to home. More stores to choose from, as to where to shop. More hospitals and schools, perhaps closer together.

My Dad had problems with Star Trek, claiming it's too far-fetched. So I told him, what I think is really so far-fetched about it, is this silly notion that people get along so well with one another, without "religion."

I don't believe in such "earth control." That's trying to "play God" and "tamper" with God's creation or with nature, and being human is hard enough already.

Logic and the continuous pursuit of knowledge is the only thing that people will need to get along with each other in a futuristic world. I believe that we will have to become gods if we want to avoid our inevitable extinction. It is something that I discussed in previous threads about eugenics. It seems that you like to argue with people that have anti-pronatalist beliefs, so feel free to respond by criticizing my beliefs and desires in one of the old eugenic threads, but please try to omit any religious (god will take care of everything) comments.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1203018#post1203018

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1232775#post1232775

What good are the useful tools, if people don't know how or why to use them? People don't live on bread alone, they need cause for hope, an explanation as to what life is all about, and guidance as to how they ought to behave, and why. People need to be "Saved" and transformed. We need to be less carnal, and less selfish, perhaps even a bit more so, in an increasingly populous world. A moral and just and faithful society, can be far more easily be populated more vastly and densely. When people are more unified in purpose and direction, they can more easily live vaster and denser populated together.

How can additional billions of people that may be coming along regardless of what you or I claim to think, be found some place, or made some place to also fit into the world? How about by promoting philosophy or culture or whatever, that makes population accomodation more a priority. If it's really a priority, then that naturally downplays or displaces the anti-people corrupt status-quo alternative, of trying somehow to impose unnatural "birth control." Sure, there has to be some "control," by why not more along the lines of the rather lax control of the sort I see in the Bible? Marry first, then enjoy sex and the babies that come with it. See to it, that morality is promoted, so that although the children may become quite numerous supposedly, that they can be provided for and loved.

Avoid "God will provide" sort of comments? I try to explain it more rationally, and less upon "faith," faith and vision being something so sorely lacking in society these days, but can you see that people saying that people ought to breed naturally, unhindered, according to historical norm or "tradition," and the idea that "God will provide," tend to go hand-in-hand? What if there is no God, or God doesn't care, or doesn't provide? Presumably, judging by past adjustments and adaptations, people may still adapt and deal with it, but explaining how this may occur, is hardly to picture and imagine, without God's hand in it somehow. If I didn't have faith myself, why even bother to sell my points? Maybe I can just adapt myself, and sit back and let the world "go to hell in a handbasket," except where I can conveniently make a profit in interfering with the natural decay of social mores, rooted in the Bible-prophecied falling-away-from-faith in the latter days. I see there is a better way, and I want to spread that hope and vision. I want for people to be less selfish, and stop finding crutches for their evil and selfish behaviors. Evolution and population pessimism isn't helping matters any, for the greater good of the masses. People need something to believe in, or they likely will accomplish even less and be more cruel to one another. I think you said somewhere, in the post I am replying to, a stated concern about increased "competition?" Well why not steer it towards the more constructive sort, in which people find ways to more more together, for everybody's benefit then? In a populous world, hold doors open for strangers. Even liberals have their saying, "Practice random acts of kindness." Isn't there a bumper sticker something like that? It could be a good idea?

 

[Pronatalist]

The natural scheme of things, doesn't leave any room for the unnatural anti-family manipulation of "birth licensing."​

I think there's still plenty of space, just not plenty of food and resources, like I said before- birth licensing. if things get too bad.

... Food and resources that is the problem........If we can't balance the food/resources to the people......then balancing the people to the food/resources would be better.....

An Example could be, places with fammine and lack of water in areas (i.e. [africa] oman, sudan, ethiopia) instead of continualy plowing in money to dead soil [keeping them on the edge of existence) why, not relocate them to areas of africa which is fertile.......empty space is vast in some areas...(teach a man to fish and all that). If climate change has come about then that would be pro-active with acceptence of change, we all no its not going to rain there enough for crops to grow again.....?

You're thinking sort of like how I think. The example shown in the Bible of how to accomodate natural human population growth, is to spread out. More people may enjoy living, by enlarging human habitat. The planet is quite large, so let people spread throughout the world. But some supposedly educated self-appointed "experts" opine that people have already done that, and that the "frontiers" are fading. On a finite sphere of a planet, there's only but so far that people can spread before they run into themselves again. Well as I see it, there's actually 3 perceptional dimension that people can yet spread into, outwards, inwards, and upwards. Ample room for naturally expanding human populations to spread into, well into the forseeable future. If places for humans to expand outwards into, are diminishing slightly, well there's still inwards and upwards. Presumably, the most comfortable option for most people, and what you seem to be promoting, is to expand outwards.

I suspect that many so-called "environmentalists" are against that, because it supposedly leads to, as in that stupid claim by the cartoon "Captain Planet," if we keep growing like we have been, there soon will be too many people everywhere. Some environmentalists have advocated high-density housing, supposedly to keep people out of rural areas or wilderness or whatever, to leave at least some of the planet to nature. I say let people live in high-density housing if they want to, or find it to be more convenient or affordable, but it's wrong to "confine" people to all live in "human zones," as maybe we are getting so incredibly populous that it takes the entire planet to hold us all? If or if not so, shouldn't people have pretty much the whole roam of the planet, so that we not needlessly feel "confined in some little pen," and take to aggression or violence rather than helping each other out, and trading resources and goods and services? Of course that is in keeping with the high value and sacredness of each and every human life, generally promoted or respected by religion, but diminished and disrespected by "Deep Ecology" or nature worship or evolution.

Why not relocate people to vast "empty" areas? I am very much in favor of that, if the people want to go, which could be a big question mark to raise. I have long advocated large families worldwide, so that far more people could experience life. But some "environmentalists" may object, saying that supposedly it could lead to ever worse "overpopulation," if nothing is done to "control" birthrates. Less populated areas grow not only from natural increase then, but from the influx of people from other areas who don't want to "control" their childbearing. More places may grow as dense as India in population, but I hardly think that India really is all that dense with people. I thought I heard that Indonesia is relocating people from the "crowded" island of Java, to other islands of their nation. So does that mean that before long, all their islands will be "crowded?" Well we ought to hope so then, because that means more people are alive to benefit. We should welcome for there to come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far away from lots of people, as that's the obvious way in order to fit lots more people onto a planet, that as they say, isn't getting any bigger. I want to encourage people to go on having their precious darling children, and yet with wise leadership and planning and such, it should be quite possible to do all that, without people growing needlessly "crowded" or poor. But that may mean there needs to be big cities growing bigger, new suburbs on top of suburbs, more cities and towns and villages, some natural and "nothing new" level of urban sprawl, just to hold somehow so many people. People can have their big families in the big city too, why not? People need to live somewhere.

Yes, there's plenty of space, but why can't we explore how to use it more effectively to benefit more people, if or as we may come to need to? I want to have possibly a large family, or at least one that grows in size naturally, as I don't believe in making any effort to prevent or limit births to deny possible human life, contrary to God's will and the ways of nature, and I expect the same for everybody else as well. I don't expect people to have to bother with shoddy contraceptives when the body (or God) already sort of "knows" when to get pregnant. Rather than "control" our population growth, we can just all grow together, and help each other out. There's plenty of space to spread out yet into, but if not perhaps at some unlikely hypothetical time in the future, we can also grow inwards and upwards. High-density housing or more people perhaps choosing to live in highrises, isn't so bad, if it helps protect our freedom/duty to go on having the children we were meant to have.

 

[Pronatalist]

Wouldn't it be so much easier and beautiful to explore naturally populating denser, than to impose "growth control" upon humans?​

And why must a world naturally swollen with people, be dystopian? What if it's a bit more like "paradise?"​

Things that still matter to people, would likely still be around. House pets, house plants, etc. But some space-wasting, food-devouring, garden-raiding elephants might have to go, as India's huge human population continues to naturally expand. There would still be plenty of zoos, if they can attract people to visit them and keep them in business.

WHAT you say that we cannot enforce Growth control on our own species yet we can decide which lifeforms stay and go,

Yeah, pretty much. Growth control doesn't apply to humans, as we have a God-given right/duty, to enjoy a seemingly "unlimited" basic right to procreate, that our children inherit as well. It's even encoded into our constitutional citizenship. All our babies automatically become citizens of our nation as well. It's not about "control," but freedom.

Such profound matters as population size, can only properly and morally be made, by "a higher power." For our pets and livestock, their humans will do. We are smarter and responsible for them, so we decide for them. They don't have "human rights," so we are free to get them "fixed" if we want, besides, ending the distraction of sex helps them be better pets. Humans were not designed to be "pets." We are both more "wild," but also civilized and responsible than that. Our "higher power" is God, who made it clear that we humans are to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That means we should naturally expect for each successive generation to naturally grow ever larger and more populous than the previous. Even our demographic terms admit to that. It's called "natural increase," and in geneology, parents had "issue" of children. As if God is "handing out" our children.

Even some population article I read years ago in some magazine, got it partially right. "Supercities: Growing Pains of the Population Crisis." It cited a main reason why human population numbers are accumulating so much, that the numbers of women of childbearing age is larger than it has previously been. Well that so many people want and yearn for children, what better reason can there be, to build more "supercities," if need be, to hold so many people? As more children grow up, and become fertile fathers and mothers, and there's all the more birth canal paths from which babies may emerge, that's hardly a situation conducive to "control," but rather towards encouraging and welcoming all the more births. I want for my human kind to benefit, so I have long argued for freedom and against any sort of imposition of human "growth control."

Elephants don't have "human rights," and one elephant raiding some Indian's persons garden can steal 400 pounds of food in a night. That isn't efficient, and it isn't civilized. If wild elephants and other animals can no longer find a niche, then they can be converted into steaks to feed humans. In comparison, people are so much smaller, can live so much more densely together, and we don't even eat all that much. And we grow and store our food.

A more pronatalist culture should ADAPT more readily to "what must be."

If you truley believe in promoting policies for childbearing and talk of ADAPTION then you must also be ready to have less children when the situation calls for it I.E. Places where resources are low. Otherwise you are single-minded without respect to circumstance (all are the same). I think it is better to give 2 children a good quality of life than 10 a bad one. If there is not enough food for 4 why have 5,6or 7 it's not fair on them or you?

Morality isn't so ambiguous. It's possible to give 10 children a great quality of life. There's ample resources that can developed, to feed 7 children or more. Resources get low, because of bad government, stupid policies, and because people aren't even put first. Too much feigned concern for spotted owls and snail darters or ridiculously huge wildlife refuges. With so many "burgeoning billions" of people on the planet, you would think that humans could be given more priority. But too many rich elites like to play sick games, like who can be king of the little molehill, pretend that they are better than other people, by squeezing people out of their rightful place in the economy, or stepping on them, promoting only their petty special interests and not the good of people in general.

Each and every person is valuable and sacred, and so we should more respect the natural flow of life, and not at all expect people to have to bother with any means of anti-life, anti-family "birth control" at all. More and more people would be glad to live, so of course large families should be encouraged worldwide. There's ample ways to accomodate human population growth, other than actually "limiting" numbers. So let the babies push out naturally, out of more and more birth canals as people naturally grow up and marry, and insist whatever that "You can't stop people from having sex." Well why don't they complete the idea then? You can't stop people from having babies. By populating the planet more densely and efficiently, far more people can somehow be made to fit. Build more cities and towns, and let them naturally grow closer together. Then people can all the better enjoy having all their progeny that they were meant to have, on a planet that isn't getting any bigger, as they say. A more pronatalist culture should want to develop resources properly, to benefit the populous masses.

Let the cities grow larger and closer together, especially if or as driven by the natural increase of all the people within and around them. Whether or not "the more the merrier," it is all the more people around who can benefit from living.

If mankind is really the most dominant and intelligent species on the planet should't we act like that with more respect to what keeps us alive (as opposed to brings us into the world) rather than randy hippies (if it all goes wrong God will save us.:bugeye:

I really detest how the rampant contraceptive pushing has corrupted people's minds. Back as recently as the 1950s, according to a humorous book on culture I have, people just had children and didn't even count the cost. Why should natural human reproduction be considered much different than the natural functions of breathing or hearts beating? Isn't it all important and vital? The natural remedy for our powerful reproductive urges, is of course, pregnancy. The natural remedy for pregnancy is childbirth. How can you really put what keeps us alive, in a different category than what brings us into the world? Aren't they much the same, or fairly similar? I am not at all impressed with the bewildering array of contraceptive "options." Why are there so many? Simple. Because every method has soon been found out, to be unnatural and to have problems and side effects, so rather than coming to the obvious conclusion that humans simply weren't designed to use any means of "birth control" at all, they keep coming out with more shoddy and experimental methods. But the body (or God) already sort of "knows" when to get pregnant. Monthly periods are the result of a woman's body's failure to achieve a pregnancy during her fertile time. By seeking to hinder natural human reproduction with nasty contraceptive potions and poisons, if the reproductive system isn't too damaged, then an artificially long period of fertility is prolonged, by seeking to hinder the natural function. Conversely, what could be more natural and elegant a means of "spacing" children, than an already occupied womb? If society still promoted that families can just be possibly "large," then there should be less perceived "need" for unnatural contraception.

Some supposed self-appointed "experts" like to make specious claims that there are "too many" people in the world, but are too intellectually lazy to determine which "surplus" people we then ought to slay or somehow get rid of. But aren't those "other people over yonder," quite often conveniently of a different skin color (yes, racism), much the same as us? And largely indistinguishable from us, in the great and sacred value of each and every human life? Why do we, or our children, have any more right to live, than they? Where are the philosophers and religious folk, talking more about respect for the natural flow of human life, and advocating that it be unhindered, as was long the historical norm? In demographic age pyramid diagrams, the most beautiful and natural shape, is those of developing countries still more pronatalist than us, in which the base mushrooms out naturally, with each cohort of children growing larger and more populous than the previous generation, as isn't that largely what God's commandment to people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, would imply?

They say that what populates the planet is extremely pleasurable. Really? So why wouldn't we expect for the planet to ultimately become heavily populated by people? Have we no respect for nature, not even the aspects of nature that most naturally benefit us?

Why is it that the population cartoons so often just don't quite get it? One depicts an "earth bowl" filling rather close to the brim with humans, leaving not much room supposedly, for other wildlife. And shows a population "spigot" just gushing with more population being added. What's wrong with that picture? The most conspicuous glaring flaw that I see, is that inside that spigot nozzle, there's just no "control" mechanism for unnatural reducing the flow, contrary to what God has determined. The faucet handle, would seem to be missing. There's no moral nor practical ways, by which to impose population "control" against nature and the apparent will of the people. So hadn't we then, be exploring how to welcome the "earth bowl" to fill even fuller with people? Let the cities and towns grow larger and closer together, so that some place can be found or made for all the people, without subjecting them to needless excessive poverty or "crowding."

At least one cartoon got it about right, that I saw in a newspaper clipping. It shows the serpert (symbol for the devil) in the Garden of Eden, handing Eve a condom, to spoil her innocence. Yeah, that's about where I figure the whole anti-human-race idea of contraception, came from. Doctrines of demons, a phrase the Bible uses, talking of deception of the latter days, seeking to seduce the gullible and unfaithful. The Bible says that when a couple marries, they become "one flesh." What could that possibly mean? Probably a lot of things, but one application I see, is the vanishing of any effective physical "barrier" between the man's sperm and his wife's eggs. If 2 bodies "unite" into seemingly one, then love "overflows" and babies often result. If they are to really "share" themselves with each other and "consumate" their marriage and not hold back, then the exchange of the reproductive fluids, would be naturally expected.

There are many natural limits in nature, that we don't begin to understand, and I'm not speaking of the harsh Malthusian variety either. We don't impose "height control" on humans, and yet we don't see many people growing up into "giants." Wild animals don't practice unnatural shoddy "birth control," and yet do we see many skinny squirrels and birds? Part of what keeps nature in check, according to some Bible verse I recall reading some time ago, is actually humanity. That there's so many of us, that we hunt or displace certain animals and help keep them "in check." But what keeps us "in check." Apparently the time it takes us to multiply, and while we seem to be among the most horny of God's creatures, we are also among the slowest-growing, having usually, but one baby at a time, with a rather long gestational period, and babies requiring much care and love. I say that such natural limits, are sufficient to keep our natural gradual population growth, within a managable range for supposedly intelligent humans, were it to be considered a priority again, to favor and welcome our God-given progeny.

When I was younger and more naive, I thought that the best form of "birth control" for me to later use upon marriage, would likely be that which seemed the easiest or the most natural. Later, I came to more believe that God didn't create humans "too fertile" after all, and that the "no method" method of "family planning," really is about the easiest and most elegant and the most natural, and the most pro-life. I like children, and if God should allow me to have a "large" family, then wouldn't God also be obligated somehow to provide the means to provide for my possibly many children? And I expect the same for everybody else as well. Obviously, if "too many" people somehow decide or allow for their families to grow more naturally, without imposing unnatural, unelegant "growth control," societies and the planet will steadily grow ever denser with people. So why not use the intelligence that God gave us, to explore how to do just that, to populate more densely and efficiently, but also more comfortably and safely. If people like reproducing so much, on a planet that isn't getting any bigger, then at least on the global scale, we are going to have to allow, even welcome human bodies to live and breed in closer proximity to each other, so that all the more people can somehow fit onto the planet. But "scooting over" a bit, in order to be free to enjoy having "all the children that God gives," is but a small price to pay, for the great benefits of respecting the sacred and precious value of each and every human life.

Thomas Malthus supposedly said, that somebody must die to make room for each birth. Why? Hasn't history already much proven him wrong? More people naturally benefitted, by allowing and welcoming human populations to naturally accumulate instead. "Growth control" would have been so counterproductive, as some poster has claimed, world population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born. I don't like the Nazi-like eugenics thinking, that would seem to come with pushing anti-growth propaganda. It's just too messing and unworkable, having to decide who to get rid of, or who gets to have the babies, and who doesn't. The fair and compassionate way, is to welcome everybody to breed, and we can just populate ourselves more densely together as we find we have or want to, and make the best of things. Some population phobics seem to fear that we will ADAPT. But don't they realize, that we really would seem to have little choice, but to have to adapt? What must be, ought to be.

 

[Pinocchio's Hoof]

Wouldn't it be so much easier and beautiful to explore naturally populating denser, than to impose "growth control" upon humans?​

It would be but how are you going to get past this-

Resources get low, because of bad government, stupid policies, and because people aren't even put first. Too much feigned concern for spotted owls and snail darters or ridiculously huge wildlife refuges. With so many "burgeoning billions" of people on the planet, you would think that humans could be given more priority. But too many rich elites like to play sick games, like who can be king of the little molehill, pretend that they are better than other people, by squeezing people out of their rightful place in the economy, or stepping on them, promoting only their petty special interests and not the good of people in general.

.

 

[Xelios]

Pronatalist, have you read Island by Aldous Huxley? If not, I think you should.

I think one of the big points you're missing is that there's nothing natural about current human population growth. It's a consequence of many unnatural things we've invented, like sanitation, medicine, agriculture and technology in general. All of these things help to sidestep nature's defenses against overpopulation; disease, food shortage, natural predators, climate barriers, infant deaths etc.

 

[Pronatalist]

So when did Aldous Huxley become a pronatalist writer, if ever?​

Pronatalist, have you read Island by Aldous Huxley? If not, I think you should.

I think one of the big points you're missing is that there's nothing natural about current human population growth. It's a consequence of many unnatural things we've invented, like sanitation, medicine, agriculture and technology in general. All of these things help to sidestep nature's defenses against overpopulation; disease, food shortage, natural predators, climate barriers, infant deaths etc.

Aldous Huxley? Isn't that the guy who was quoted in my dictionary, for "huge cities steadily grow huger?" Perhaps he speaks negatively about such a trend, I speak positively about it, as I want for the number of human beings experiencing life, to be able to rise naturally, and growing cities would seem one of the ways of somehow accomodating so many people and their progeny.

I can't read his books, because I have none. Wasn't Aldous Huxley the author of "Brave New World," a bizarre book I had to read in some government monopoly English class? In which people in the "civilized" zones or cities worn contraceptives on their belts, people were incredibly promiscous, some sort of perfume or cologne came in sink faucets I think, and the "civilized" zones where most everybody was stoned on "soma" (a supposedly "safe" tranquilizer of some sort) and the "uncivilized" outside-the-city zones weren't really much different? Strangely, I don't recall much about whether that imaginary futuristic world was "overpopulated" or not, as really wasn't aware of the controversial debate, so long ago when I have to read that book.

Sure the recent huge rise in human populations is quite natural. Or are all those population accomodations some alien "intrusion," something which supposedly intelligent human beings couldn't possibly reasonably come up with? I would ever hazard to suggest, that so much of the technology, could have come because, God sees or causes that we have become so numerous, and God, because it was God who commanded people to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, either allows it, or is partly responsible logically even, to provide for so many. What parent would have a big family, and then just let their children starve? Isn't God a bit like that? God allows us to get so numerous, and he feeds us, and encourages especially people of faith, to go on having still more children. The just shall live by faith, how many times is that found in the Bible? I have the DVD, "The Island," but I think that's probably about something much different. More on my pronatalist side actually. Plot spoiler alert: People find that they are clones of real people in the world, being grown in some buried heavily-manipulated city, fed some sort of "religious" lie, that going to "The Island," the one place left in the world not damaged, is really a cover for their death, the harvesting of the human organs for which their rich clone-sources, had paid for. The corporation had lied to the world, claiming that these clones are in some sort of "vegetative" state, but they couldn't get the clones to grow properly, in such a state. We find out in this movie, apparently, that the clones are real people too, with presumably the same rights as other free people, and in the end, they escape and find their freedom. Oooops, plot spoiler.

Also, "GATTAGA" warned against the trendy genetic engineering concept of "designer babies," or "enhancing" certain music or math or other traits, that it according to this movie, actually made little difference other than taking institutionalize discrimination to the level of a "science." But I don't think it would be too much a stretch, to include in the apparent message of GATTAGA, the engineering of "birth control," also seeking to hinder the natural flow of human life.

I hardly find a future, incredibly-populated world to be either "unnatural" nor disturbing, if only people would stay on that natural path of using the technology, much of it actually population-driven, I should add, to better accomocate the natural increase of our progeny, for the greater good of the many. People were never under any obligation to somehow "compensate" for now more people living well beyond their years of possible parenthood, by curtailing their natural fertility or fecundity. Who wants to have children just to see them die? The expectation that children will grow up to have still more children, is all the more reason to make the natural investment of effort into having our children and to welcome more families to grow possibly and naturally "large."

If nature is unwilling or unable to erect any "walls" to keep human populations from spreading and thickening, wouldn't we be foolish not to take advantage of what naturally benefits so many fellow human beings? Humans are part of nature, but also humans transcend and alter nature, so we aren't "intrusions," and nature could be said to "like" our growing cities, especially as they are built and maintained and ruled more wisely, for the greater good of the many. And growing cities, mild population archologies in a sense, should try to keep some of the "nature" in ways much helpful to people. For example, people do have house plants and green lawns and gardens and animal pets sometimes. And even some "natural" scenery in video games. And humans can still reproduce naturally in the growing cities as well. People ought not to be thinking themselves better than other people, but working not only for their own good, but common good as well, creating societies and economies that are more fair, welcome people to participate and prosper, and allowing for poverty to decrease as population sizes naturally increase. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, isn't that something like what Jesus said? Well I would like to see people relax and let their families grow more naturally. I want to be free to have a potentially, naturally large family, and so I welcome everybody else, to do the same. There's no way I can possibly have all the children who might like to come alive, as that takes, pretty much everybody breeding naturally, so I encourage even the most populous nations to let their huge human population naturally densify as well. I would like to see more cooperation in such a shared and vital human concern, and so I would invent stuff or help in most any pronatalist/pro-life way that I can. Especially in the area sore lacking these days. In people defending the little ones, and those yet to be born. Did you know that "fetus" is Latin for simply saying a little human?

When Deut. 30:19 says to choose life, that thou and thy seed may live, couldn't that mean that the modern "death control" of sanitation and vaccines, agriculture and affordable? medical care, are much to be preferred, but the unnatural shoddy "birth control" is to be shunned? Choose life, would include not needlessly impeding the natural flow of human life. I don't know how well this analogy may work, but maybe it could be useful? Sort of like how a man "gets it up." Floodflow into it, is naturally unrestricted, but blood outflow is naturally restricted. Erections aren't a "bad" thing, are they? They are at least natural. Well why can't human populations become "swollen" in size as well, so that all the more people can become alive to benefit from living?