cutting down all our forests

ive lived in upstate new york (wappinger falls, dutchess county, east fishkill, hopewell..if youve ever heard of them kinda near poughkeepsie)

anyway, yes ive lived here all my life and grown up here. i remember when i was little there was a bird sanctuary close to my house and i would go there almost everyday and just take a look at it. the other day the totally destroyed all the trees. alot of the forests in my area are being cut down for new housing. they keep putting up these new developments like crazy. its sad

 

Sad? maybe...

The trees will have the last laugh...

 

lol

The trees will have the last laugh...[/QUOTE]

 

This is why overpopulation kills. We got the same problem here, forests and farmlands being replaced by subdivisions. It's causing wildlife homelessness on a grand scale and it's not being sufficiently addressed, not even in the environmental community.

One time I was watching on tv the effects of housing developments on koala bears… they showed this one animal with a young one in its pouch, wandering around ON THE GROUND looking totally overwhelmed as it was looking for a new home, fork lifts and other earth moving equipment are in the background. On the ground these animals are most vulnerable to predators, the sight was very heart-wrenching.

This is a problem that’s happening in a lot of areas and there’s not much being down about it cos nobody wants to grab the bull by the horns and acknowledge that something’s gotta be done about over-population.

Ppl want housing and wildlife need habitat and they compete for the same land, animals lose out every time. The pattern is the same, anytime some environmentalists or concerned citizens complain about the development the excuse given is people need homes. That’s valid but it also highlights the urgent necessity to control our numbers.

I know I harp on this alot but that's cos among environmentalists, this issue is sooo overlooked. This is but just one example where the trees are being cut down to make room for ppl (not livestock as so many leaf-eating enviro's like to put it).

 

what exactly are you proposing? that people who don't already have any wood shouldn't get any? that you should use more oil taking other people's forests? that all wood should be communally piled and redistributed?

 

yeah i dont think its cool their cutting down all our forests either

 

here are some stuff you REALLY can do> stop reading magazines, news papers, if you have to, be restrictive, borrow from others, and recycle..... toilet paper? well, this is a sensitive issue> just look at the asian countries as thailand, india........ no toilet paper here, but a small water jet that showers the specific area, in many of the toilets.... and i can garantee you that is get more clean......
there are SO MANY alternatives of stuff u can REALLY do, even today, think about it....

 

How will the 3R's stop them cutting down forests for housing?
Don't get me wrong, see my sig and you'll understand I'm with you on this. But when it gets down to it housing is a whole other issue.

 

In the U.S., half of the population growth is from immigration. The other half is from new births exceding deaths. We could stop letting people immigrate and encourage people to have more abortions but that would be a hard sell to the public. Education is usually an easier way to get people to reproduce responsively.

 

ATree "screams" when it's cut down.They are supposed to let off an inaudible high-pitched sonic signal detectable on a gyger-counter.

Trees have rights.

 

I'm intrigued, have you got a link to that anywhere? I searched on google but the closest thing I got was tree frogs :|

I don't have much to add to the argument.. I just think what we're doing to the world shows a complete lack of regard to other forms of life. And a complete lack of forethought for our own. On this scale, we may as well be freezing over the oceans so we can build our homes there.

 

The same thing is happening by where i live. these contractors come around and cut down all these trees so they can put up their overpriced houses and ugly malls. It's sickening what they are doing and it's ruining my city.

 

Amen

 

yea i think weve all seen it happen
people care to much about their big house than what gives us oxygen to breathe.

 

No shortage of trees in my neck of the woods, so I'm not too concerned.

 

You're wrong to take that attitude - have you never heard of the one-world concept?

 

Human life should flourish and blossom and spread. Humans are worth more than anything else on the planet!

God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, means not only not to use any "preventative measures" to limit family size, as wouldn't that be "rebellion," but also that each successive generation, is supposed to grow ever larger and more populous than the previous generation. Humans weren't even designed to use any means of "birth control," and that's why most every method is so experimental and shoddy!

Large families should be encouraged worldwide, as more and more people would be glad to live.

To do the most good for the most people, human populations should of course be welcome to grow nearly as large as possible.

More and more people would be glad to live, most everybody wants or ends up with children, most every child is glad to come to life and be born, and the planet isn't getting any bigger. Why isn't the answer more obvious? Humans then, need to populate up denser and denser and more efficiently.

Most all the discussion of supposed "overpopulation" assumes there is no God to provide for us, and reeks of socialist engineering of society, against the obvious wishes and rights of the people.

"How can there be too many people? That's like saying there are too many flowers." Mother Teresa

"It is high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to make an orderly transition, to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist

Where to put all the hypothetical additional people, when not all that many more billions are expected soon? Simple. In between all the people already living. There could simply be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. There's that example of "everybody could live in Texas." It could be more. More cities and towns and suburbs on top of suburbs, can obviously be built, by people needing jobs anyway.

It better show our children, how much they are wanted, when they understand why their parents don't use any awkward, experimental, anti-life means of "birth control," because more children are always welcome, or their parents have faith or the openmindedness to accept "all the children that God gives."

The most natural and elegant outlet for humanity's powerful reproductive urges, is of course, marriage and REPRODUCTION. An already occupied womb, and normal breastfeeding, is the most natural and elegant means of natural child spacing. The body (or God) already sort of "knows" when to get pregnant, even without our help.

Each and every human life is sacred, so we ought not to interfere with its creation.

 

I hate to disagree, but I do.. I believe every form of life deserves as much right to live as we do, and I think god would agree. Life is life, the same as light is light. We are all part of a system which, without other forms of life, would not exist. Cut down all the trees, and we suffocate. Encourage a population boom we and will eventually eat everything and kill ourselves, or at the very least, all go very hungry unless we decide to eat each other.

I do believe that human life is sacred. However, not everyone enjoys life, many many many people are born into suffering and starvation. The more people on this earth, the more likely we are to suffer the same fate. Life is not always good. If you want change the world for the better, the worst thing you can do is be ignorant of that.

 

Well then don't disagree. Be an "optimist" or something. Agree that there can be some place found for more humans. Well at least by disagreeing, I can counter your points with a more pro-life view.

No, I don't agree with that. Because it isn't logical. If every form of life is considered to be = to the value of humans, that only means then that we treat humans no better than mere animals. Everything can't be #1 priority. Would you spend as much money, on a mere pet dog, as a child? Would you send your dog off to "school" to get an "education?" Why not? Why not give your dog a "dog house" the size of a human house? While pets may be also welcome "members" of our families, it is wrong to treat them, just the same, because they aren't the same. They are simpler creatures, and I am not even sure whether God gave them any "soul" or "spirit" anyway. How do you know that an animal, isn't just some walking biological "simulation," something like a sophisticated character in a video game?

If you believe that all forms of life have an equal right to live, are you a vegan? And shouldn't then, vegans grow their own food, because what of all the small animals killed accidently by farm equipment? Do you drive a car? = roadkill. Eventually, some poor disorentiated squirrel is bound to get caught and crushed under your tires? If you find an ant in your home, do you leave it be to leave chemical trails to bring in more ants? Or carry it outside? Or merely crush it? I doubt that ants even "feel" pain or "feel" anything, but merely instintively react to stimulae.

Pro-life, means pro-human-life. While obviously pro-lifers may also often respect other forms of life, the level of respect, obviously can't be the same.

Well what if plants might be "alive?" Then what? Please don't be like that poor woman on some old TV episode of The Outer Limits or was it Tales of the Darkside who thought her food was "talking" to her saying not to eat it, and then she sewed her lips together, and was found dead I think.

Perhaps it's not quite like that. Life isn't the same as all life. There could be different "levels" of life. By talking of human life, I neatly avoid all those complications and abstractions, and compare apples to apples, not to oranges.

And yet there are no trees on spaceships. How could this be?

I get a little tired of some tree huggers out there, harping some nonsense about that trees are the "lungs" of the earth. What? There's no oxygen shortage. If anything, there may be a bit too much oxygen, considering how oxygen torches the forests when they catch fire during a drought. Why state the obvious? Who by now, if they have been to school or anything, doesn't have some idea where oxygen comes from?

Who wants to cut down "all" the trees? Just some trees here and there, for wood, or to clear space for our growing cities and building more homes for more humans.

Eventually? What exactly does that mean? In the year 3000? Never? Do population booms, once started, always go on "forever?" What does "eventually" have to do with the more reasonable time frame for planning, that of the "forseeable future?"

Population control extremists, often like to pull colorful "overpopulation" scare tactic scenarios, out of a hat, that have little relevance to anything. World population can't grow to 100 billion, until it first grows to 10 billion, which it is hardly "certain" to do, according to sagging demographic predictions, based largely upon perhaps "wishful thinking" that the rampant contraceptive peddling of our day, will continue mostly unchallenged. The population bomber freaks, make it out to sound, like babies come to life, with practically no effort at all. As if somebody could just sneeze, and Whoops! Another billion people just magically popped into existence, all by themselves. No mention of all the thought and cares that are invested by 100s of millions of parents, to raise another billion children, or of all the runny noses to wipe, all the babies to rock to sleep or nurse, no mention of all the love that goes into changing all their diapers. While human populations might expand enormously, over great spans of time, in the time frame where real people live, human populations naturally grow so gradually, that intelligent humans have ample time to adapt and prepare for their natural increase.

Malthusians too often like to claim nonsense, like that if we don't control our numbers, nature will. Wrong. Nature won't. Nature doesn't "think" and couldn't "care" how populated we get. In fact, if nature supposedly keeps human numbers "in check," then nature has long been "asleep on the job" or something, as it appears that most anything that could keep human numbers "in check" is fast fading away. Apparently, from reading my Bible, it is not God's will that human numbers be kept "in check," at least not according to the tiny anti-human view of the socialist humanists or atheists who concoct these wacky "overpopulation" theories to begin with, that they can't quite seem to ever prove.

While I have a very logical and abstract mind, I do like simple logic where appropriate. If humans don't control their numbers, then we can probably expect to get more populous. Why add complications to the statement, that aren't particularly likely, nor provable?

I find that nature is resilient, while humans are fragile. And that nature can much more easily withstand the rising human "population pressure," than we humans can be expected to struggle with awkward anti-life "birth control."

Good. Something we agree on. But let's go with that. If human life is sacred, then something must logically follow from that. Not something contrary to that idea. Human life not only has a right to exist, but to naturally spread also. Humans are more valuable that anything else on the planet.

Population size is not to blame for such problems, but rather things like poverty, greed, ignorance, immorality, and political turmoil. Problems that tend to crop up, in populations of any size at all, because humans are naturally sinful, and so need a Savior.

Most people don't try to kill themselves, so most people probably do get some level of enjoyment out of life. And things often improve in time or with reform.

And of course one reason why I believe that poor people should breed also, is that quip about that maybe God gives so many children to the poor, because the rich don't want them. (Also see Ps 107:41)

Then as human numbers swell, shouldn't we be promoting the social graces, morality, promote the Gospel and give people hope, so that people may in fact, populate themselves together more densely, more efficiently, and more comfortably and safely?

Somewhere, I read some population "control" nonsense about "mutural coercion, mutually agreed upon." What sort of dumb oxymoron is that? I have a far better idea. How about mutual pronatalism, mutually agreed upon? Or in other words, I don't mind at all "scooting over" a bit, to make room for more and more people, if they will do the same for me, and my possibly many children. Collectively, humanity's powerful reproductive urges and various compelling reasons to have as many children as people do, add up into a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race. Well we can't make the planet any bigger, and coloning other worlds doesn't appear feasible anytime soon. But we obviously can populate more densely and efficiently, for the good of ALL.

There has always been "too many" bad people, and never enough good people. And I believe the good people, the ones most likely to be persuaded to have more children.

I think I already stated many of the reasons why I believe the world should at least be willing to welcome lots more people, should more people come, in this and a few other discussion threads around here, so I think I need not restate those in this post now?

 

Upstate New York isn't alone, over-development is a big problem everywhere.