cutting down all our forests

Most all cities and towns should all be growing, all at the same time, although perhaps more from natural increase, and less from rural people depopulating the countryside being drawn into already crowded cities in search of jobs, due to poor planning and greedy corporate giants owning so much of the country. Of course most every city and towns needs to grow, because they are full of people, who want and need and end up having children. So naturally, over time, human habitation, must spread over more land to prevent needless overcrowding.

But I think, here in the U.S. at least, too much sprawl comes not so much from quite understandable natural population increase, but from building lots of usually empty buildings for a Western consumerist, wasteful lifestyle. What if I told you that the typical American owns some 5 or 6 houses? Wouldn't that seem "extravagant" or wasteful? Well let's see. We live (or sleep) one place, we work someplace else, we worship God someplace else, we play someplace else, our children get educated someplace else, and with the cellular phone, the car is a "mobile office." Isn't that around 5 or 6 "homes" or so? Can't a few of those be consolidated? Home-school, or home-business, or home-Church fellowships. Why does every separate thing, need a separate, usually empty building?

 

Wow. I have to say you have some interesting viewpoints.. I respect you have put some thought in to things.

How do you know that you have a spirit, or that other humans aren't walking biological simulations? We DON'T know these things. I'm not saying that we don't..

but I do not think that just because animals aren't as adept at communication, or that they are less smart, or that WE AREN'T THEM, that they don't have 'souls' or emotions. You are making a huge assumtion about them, and it is simply for the fact they can't communicate to you in language how they feel.. If there was a human which never talked or gave any indication of emotion, would you assume they have no soul? No... so ask yourself why you are judging animals in the way in which you are?

No I don't drive a car. It's bad for the environment which blesses us with the right to live. If there are ants in my house, to get rid of them I leave some food outside.. and if I do have to kill them, I feel guilty. I have spent a lot of time close to animals, and in my experience they are emotional creatures, if not MORE emotional than we are.. if they feel threatened, they run away.. that is fear... if they feel attracted to another animal and wish to reproduce.. that is love... how does one believe that they can understand ANY form of life, when they make the automatic assumption that the human race is simply 'better'?

You have posted a lot, and while I've taken it in I'm not going to reply to it all, as I think the underlying problem is this, and forgive me if I'm wrong :

but what I really think, is that you simply want those you judge to be 'good' to have babies, while those who you deem 'unworthy' don't really matter.. you want your world to be more ideal, you want everything and everyone to be more like you, and more of you ... I think everyone has felt that way, and it IS perfectly natural... but we don't know enough about the world to make those kind of self-righteous descisions. I also think that a population boom isn't the ideal solution just because people are special.

That is just my viewpoint, though. What I really wouldn't like is to live in a purely concrete, dead world, which is what is slowly happening. Our WORLD is alive, it is what helped give rise to us. To concrete it over would have the same implications as a virus in a human body.. over population would have the same implications as a boom in white-blood cells. I believe that to be ignorant of those facts would be sucidal.

 

Thanks for the compliment. Yes, I put a lot of time and thought into my viewpoints, and try to make them as logically consistant as I can, and also to try to make them more understandable to more people.

I know I have spirit or soul, because I "feel." A clever computer program could mimic, but never truly "feel." That's something special. The gift of God breathing life into us. I can't tell for sure whether other people "feel," because I don't have that sensual perception for them. So I assume them to be much the same as me. Because I like living, and so do they, and so do my children, my nephews, or their children, or friends or whoever, we can't possibly do much to "limit" our numbers. But only to accomodate them, however God would allow us to. I don't criticize people for having "too many" children, because what is "too many" children? I can't pick and choose which humans should have been born, and which shouldn't, or who should breed more and who shouldn't. I am not God. I don't have that ability. I don't have enough information to judge such things. Unlike other creatures, God allowed for most all humans to marry, and most all humans to breed, apparently without regard for how "huge" the population may be already. God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, is open-ended. It has no "expiration" clause or date. Only God can decide when the earth is "full." What does it say to do, when human populations become "huge?" Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. How about when some pessimists claim the earth to be "full" already? Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. (Gen 1:28,9:1)

But surely God gave humans common sense and a brain? Yeah, then to find ways to accomodate all the people then, as they keep on multiplying. There's some nutcase in the news, saying that 90% of the world population should be eliminated, perhaps by some disease. Gee, what's the odds that both you and I would make the 10% cut, and survive long enough to bury the 9 dead to 1 persons alive? Wouldn't it be far easier, to leave the population to be naturally "huge?" If people having a brain, means to use contraceptives, then what are all these disposable diapers, flush toilets, and modern clean gas and electric cookstove and microwave ovens for eliminating millions of smoky cooking fires from growing cities for then?

I'm making too many assumptions? No, not at all. Surely there's already way too many people on the earth, for every other animal to have the same status as people. People have to come first. There's so many of us, that we are rather needy. But then I think God likes for us to depend on him, and to find reason to pray often. Humans are obviously much different than mere animals. We are created in God's image, the Bible says, while other animals are not. That means, not that we are "gods," but that we have some, somewhat God-like properties to us. There's only room for but 1 God, but plenty of room for billions of humans who unite to all serve and worship the same God.

So? It's within reason to drive a car. Sure, go ahead and be frugal if you want, or don't have the money. Cars are expensive. If you don't have to often travel far, or have good public transit, it may not be cost-effective for everybody to own cars. But people in India and China are getting cars, whether you get one or not. There will be more cars on more roads regardless, so why feel guilty. Drive if you need to. Carpool if you can. Combine trips. I often drive alone, but that's because nobody is going my way. I prefer to ride with other people, on long trips, so I don't have to navigate and get lost anyway. I prefer other people's company, and I would rather ride than drive, as then I notice more scenery. Cars are no more "bad" for the environment, than forest fires, and they often claim that forest fires are "natural" and not always preventable or stoppable.

Feeding the ants or stray wild animals, does no good, because they just get hungry again, and food attracts them, and they breed, and you get more. You only feed the birds in your yard, if you want to see more birds in your yard. Otherwise, there's plenty of ants and birds, and they can fend for themselves easily enough. For humans to feed wild critters, often isn't good, because they lose their natural fear of people, which can be bad for both them and people. Wild bears can become problem bears, breaking into people's cars, when stupid vacationers feed them, and they get too used to people. The world has so many ants, that stomping them, squashing them, or spraying against them, is fine. The world will never miss a few ants, that are quickly replaced anyway. Sometimes I toss harmless spiders out the door, because I figure insects are stupid, and just wander around and get "lost," and probably won't seek to invade my home again. But often the trash can and the squashing toilet paper is closer than the door and unlocking the door. And if a creature is too small, why toss out an ant, just to have a fly get inside?

Guilty for what? I don't think anybody will put you on trial for your "crime," because most humans know that insects and wild animals, individually, aren't worth much at all.

That is love? Or lust? I think animals probably don't even know why they get pregnant. They just have these "urges" sometimes. Even computers "protect" themselves, as a animal might. Computer programs make security checks to block unauthorized users. Computer hard drives park their heads, when shutting down, to guard against data loss. And animals can't adapt to having reproduced "too much" as humans can, and so we generally just go get our pets fixed, because they don't have "human rights" (to have sex), and they have us for families, and so they don't need offspring. Many pets probably don't even "want" offspring, but often are kind enough to accept any puppies or kittens that happen to "happen" by some mysterious process they don't even understand.

Because every human life is so sacred and special, but of course any baby booms that break out, should be welcome to persist and spread, and blossom into wildly booming population expansion, increasingly spreading to inhabit most every available place on earth. It's much the same idea as welcoming a visably pregnant woman to wear maternity clothes, because her belly is growing too large for ordinary clothes. We don't ask her to wear tight cloths to hide the growing "population pressure" within her. She should be proud to show off, that she is doing her part to add yet another precious and immensely valuable human life to the world. Well if world population could get so big, it too can don its "maternity clothes" and just bulge naturally. Cities can in fact, balloon into the countryside, and naturally growing closer together, building more and more homes to house so many, many people. I am not trying to judge who may have babies, but that anybody who has commited in marriage, is entitled to have "all the babies God gives," or just as many babies as their bodies can squeeze out. It's their own homes they are first populating, which are always more confining than their communities or nations or the world, so if they can find room in the corner of a bed for another child, or room in their hearts, for another child, then there's always room for more people, somewhere.

Concrete is just "man-made" rock. There's really not much difference. And there are other building materials, like glass and steel too. And there will long be natural forests and campgrounds, although sometimes a few more people may come to share them, until they can open more campgrounds or add onto existing semi-"wild" places, to accomodate more people. Our world is slowly becoming more ALIVE with people, and that surely is a good thing. It shows we must be doing at least something right.

Even an overcrowded world of people piled into population archology highrises, is far better than a hostile world into which children aren't welcome. Remember, we were all once babies and children. How would we have wanted to be treated and welcomed?

When it was your turn to be born, you would want to be welcomed, right? Not be told to go to some other planet, because the earth is getting just too full and crazy. The planet isn't getting any bigger. And colonizing other worlds doesn't appear feasible anytime soon. And yet more and more people would be glad to live, and most everybody want or ends up having children. In the dramaticized CD version of the fictional Biblical endtimes book series Left Behind, the Anti-Christ scolded the developing countries for letting their population "balloon" in size. Conversely then, what's the humane and kind thing to do then? Just that. Let the various nations balloon their growing human populations, so that everybody may have a place and be welcome. Humans are intelligent, and so we can learn and adapt to populate denser and more efficiently, as needed. And most of the population expansion, is outwards into former rural areas, as cities grow slightly beyond the present pidly 2 or 3% of land usage, to cover more land than ever before. So it really changes very little for most people, who often already live in the city or town regardless.

I should point out, that demographers don't expect that the world will be adding all that many more billions, all that soon. I am not so sure about their rather "iffy" predictions, based on lots of assumptions, but if world population was to expand enormously, it would take so much time to do so, that by that time, we should be far more ready for so many people.

 

It's not true. Some types of trees do make a 'screeching' sound because the soft wood in the middle expands.

Trees don't have any more emotions then potatoes. Anyone who suggest otherwise is dumbing down the issue.

 

This is ridiculous and selfish! In my opinion, God does not exist. Therefore, he didn't command us anything at all. It is up to humans and only to humans to be responsible about our actions.
I agree humans were not designed for birth control... humans were not designed!!! They evolved to a great technological state and they make choices.
Your choice is to beleive in "God". Good for you, but by doing so you're very selfish. After what you said, it seems in your perfect world humans will be all that's left on earth... What will you do then? Pray to God?

 

Most of the over-development is not from people using to many buildings, but from greedy developers leveling farm land and wildernes to put up commercial buildings in the hope that they may be able to sell of lease them in the future. Many of these sit empty for years with no prospective buyers or tennants.

I do agree with you that cosolidation would help the problem, but in many cases it can't be done. For example if you try to start a home business chances are you won't be able to do it because of anti-small business regulations. Of course that would depend on what part of the country you live in, but the anti-small business mentality seems to be sweeping the nation like a plague.

Home-church fellowships (what we used to call home Bible study) has been gaining in popularity over the past 20 or so years and would be a very good option for the type of consolidation you have in mind.

People like the home congregation because the atmosphere is more casual and involves more interactive between the Clergy and the fellowship members because these groups are smaller and the meetings are often framed as a group conversation rather than a preacher givng a sermon.

Home schooling is also catching on maily due to the horible nature of public schools.

Also if developers would focus on revitalizing section of inner city that are mostly abandoned, they could focus growth in previously developed areas rather than continually expanding onto virgin land in the rural areas.

 

Talk about the tail wagging the dog! How is promoting a pronatalist human-life-friendly view in an ever more populous world, "selfish?" It's about the most fair and generous viewpoint I could possibly take. It's the most logical way to allow for people to have all the children they were meant to have, in a world with so many, many people alive already. Refusing to give life to any children, that is what is "selfish." Relegating children to something to get around to having, after having done everything else, and then on a whim, having a baby, much like one may buy a pet. That is "selfish." Having large families is not selfish, but very generous and loving.

False assumptions. But even from the "athiest" viewpoint, there are some athiests who also are pro-life and favor the expansion of the human race, to advance the human race, or perhaps for more technological progress, or perhaps because it may be sort of "inevitable" anyway, or perhaps, because they just aren't much worried about the world being able to absorb still more people.

And biology, would also seem to "command" humans to reproduce too. Even the technologies are converging, to help humans populate more densely and efficiently, largely themselves driven and naturally accelerated by human population growth.

Morality applies, no matter what may claim to believe.

Aren't you sidestepping the issue here? The point is, not so much whether God designed us, which of course would add the strength of my argument, if God did, but rather in noticing that human reproductive systems are not designed for "birth control" management. That's why people are having so many problems with awkward "birth control," and they forever keep coming out with ever more new methods, because all the previous methods are flawed, because humans weren't designed to use any "birth control." Of course most all human couples who copulate, would prefer natural and reproductive sex, except for the new trendy irration fear of pregnancy and it supposedly being a "burden" to the feminist "career woman" way of thinking.

While I don't consider myself an "environmentalist," as notable "environmentalists" have given the movement a bad, anti-progress, anti-business, anti-people name; I do like many things natural and elegant and simple. And for humans, natural increase is quite natural and respectful to nature and nature's God, because we see in nature that most all life, seeks to spread and enlarge itself, and so why not humans too, especially since we seem to be so good at it?

Why don't more "environmentalists" want to more "get back to nature," in not directly polluting their bodies with nasty cancer stick cigarettes, nor poisoning their bodies with experimental contraceptives? Surely a "good" environmentalist, like a "good" Catholic, can have a large family, doing their part, to help enlarge the entire human race, for the greater good of all.

Think about it. What's the whole point, of trying to reduce pollution, in theory at least? To get rid of things that hinder life. To allow human life to naturally grow more and more abundant, more comfortably and safely. A more "cleaned up" environment, should be one that can be more comfortably and safely populated more densely with people. By being just a little careful to wisely use resources for human benefit, and wisely manage wastes, humans can learn and adapt to populate themselves all the more densely together, as need be. So we can advance in a way that fully allows humans to steadily grow ever more numerous, as they may want or be inclined to do. And since humans are a part of nature, and nature seeks to expand life into every niche, why should nature be "bothered" or consider growing cities full of humans, to be anything "unnatural" or an "intrusion?" If nature could "think," then nature would prefer human baby booms and natural human population growth, in order that the planet be able to become more and more alive with people. And collectively, the powerful reproductive urges of humanity and all the compelling reasons why we have as many children as we do, add up into a global goal and natural desire to naturally enlarge the entire human race. That of course, is a practical reason why I advocate natural population growth in other countries, and not just my own, as I recognize it to be a universal human desire and goal, to enlarge our numbers, for the good of ALL.

And now that you mention "choice," I have something to say about that too. Paul Ehrlich, in his sensational and highly discredited and obsolete book, The Population Bomb, rails against "choice" in some section about Family Planning and Other Failures, I think it was. He claims that "choice" for individuals, denies any "choice" for society, as one family will decide to have three children, and another family, seven. So they both add to the growing population, rather than help to "control" it. Rather, I would approach from more the "human life is sacred" side, and that of freedom, and cite that as a possible reason, why population "stabilization" (Stagnation is more like it.) may be such a crock, non-goal, as it isn't what the populous people want.

I think the huge increases in human population, have been largely responsible or related to the huge technological advances, that coincidently enough, appear to have come at about the same time, and all this modern technology, in turn, helps make even huge megacities teeming with people, all the more possible and feasible.

But if humans insist upon taking all the credit, then they become more self-centered and humanistic, not looking to God's ways and morality, making themselves more likely to become a curse to each other, rather than a benefit to each other. So I prefer to thank God for allowing so many people to come to life, especially me among them, and don't try to steal away the credit and claim that I, or we, did it ourselves, my way.

I think I already explained that promoting the good in favor of human life, is not "selfish." Where's just the "selfish" benefit for me only? I could go ahead and have a big family if I can, and not bother to explain to people why big and "unplanned" families actually tend to be quite good for the earth and human culture and civilization. I believe that my time here in trying to explain why pronatalism helps an increasingly populous world to adapt more readily to its rising human numbers, is a rather generous thing to do.

Actually, pronatalism is quite a logical adaptation, even to population growth, as with all the more people and our own progeny all around us, wouldn't it be prudent to promote the social graces, and look for ways to more deliberately be found of people, as perhaps it becomes just a little more difficult to escape the common presense of other people? Now is not a particularly good time, to become a hermit or a xenophobe.

I should also point out that most religions tend to promote big families. Even basic morality relates to people having possibly big families. People who love children, tend to have more of them. People who love Jesus, a pastor I once had, said, tend to have lots of children, as Jesus loved children, and said of such, is the kingdom of heaven.

Woahhh! Back the cart up a minute.

In my "perfect world?"

That seems a rather vague term here. Let's try applying a few definitions here, and then in your reply, you can clarify what you actually meant by that.

What exactly is "my perfect world?"

Is that like when I become world king and rule for some 500 years, during which reign, I probably will banish all contraceptives, not being able to keep people from having less sex, pulling out early, nor attempting rhythm?

How exactly do I have the power, to populate up the entire world to the point, in which there are only humans? Are my ideas so compelling and convincing, that practically everybody will throw away their nasty contraceptives, just because I say so?

Or wasn't "my perfect world," largely what existed for most all of history, until the rebellious "free love" 1960s of "the pill?" Up until then, family size was considered to be "uncontrollable," as there just wasn't much for contraceptive "options," and less sex, obviously didn't much appeal to people who needed "farmhands" as some people like to point out, anyway. So why isn't the entire world, only people, already?

And if humans are supposedly headed, towards growing and growing in numbers, until there is litle other life other than humans throughout the world, who are you or I or anybody, to try somehow to stop what may prove to be "inevitable" anyway? It's a serious "conflict of interest" to oppose one entire kind. Of course humans should favor humans. There is no "we" that can get together to decide what the population should be, nor any practical nor moral means by which to enforce it. When will the socialist power mongers, come to realize their practical limitations?

In fact, shouldn't it be more left up to the billions of parents doing all the reproducing? With so many people in the world, corrupt politicians have no practical ability to try to hold everybody's hands, and tell them how many children they ought to have. It's their own homes they are first populating, which are always more confining than their communities or nations or the world, so the world can always find room somewhere, for everybody's children. People do not exist as mere "cogs" in some socialist society machine, but rather society exists as a collection of individuals for individual and collective good. Therefore, society has no right at all, to limit its population size nor natural rate of growth, and human population sizes should be considered to be some "untouchable" or "unchangable" "given."

I have no moral authority to limit how many children my neighbor may have, as my neighbor is my "equal," who has just as much right to live and procreate as I. Similarly, human governments can't logically decide such matters, as they are "equal" humans too. Only a "higher power" can decide such things. For humans, that higher power is God, who specifically commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth. For pets, we are their "higher power," so we are free to get them fixed if we want, since pets have no "human rights" to procreate, and they have us for families and so they don't need offspring.

And yes, I invite people to naturally grow and grow in numbers, until people are practically "everywhere," should it ever come to that, which demographers think to be quite unlikely anyway, especially within the forseeable future, in which the 8 or 9 billion to come within my lifetime, will only raise the average population density by a rather small amount, from 125 people per square mile of non-Antartica land, to around 165 people per square mile. That's hardly even noticable, over the many decades that will take. I see no need to set any "cap" on world population size, when such things work themselves out better in a more natural and relaxed way, or by God's providence. The Bible even warns us to not lean to our own understanding, in case our poorly-trained are minds are too small to understand anyway, I would add.

What will I do then? Well I think, pray as always, and turn down the TV or music late at night, so my neighbors above and below and on every side, aren't bothered. What kind of question is that? I won't even be around anymore, by that time.

I am just trying to get people to open their minds, and consider the great value of each and every human life, more fairly, and encourage them to find their own reasons to have more children, if they will. I hardly think that everybody will just go off and breed "like rabbits," just because I might seem to think it a good idea. I expect they will find their own reasons, to decide not to be so scared after all, and to trust God for how many children they were meant to have.

Here's a link I would encourage you to carefully read, also click the full story link within that discussion page, if you want to understand where I am coming from in my pro-life, pro-population views:

No insemination, No bond

http://forums.prolife.org.ph/yabbse/index.php/topic,1336.0.html

Biologically, the woman's body is designed to receive her husband's seed. The Bible even calls it the "seed of copulation," because it is about promoting the natural transmission of human life.

Also, there are many other good articles in that folder criticizing the modern, trendy, anti-life mentality of "Contraception Everywhere Everyday."

 

I think author Julian Simon said something about that, as being one of the many great benefits of human population growth. An expanding human population, can come to fill various "overdeveloped" areas.

And often when a business does decide to move in, they may prefer an existing structure, and if it isn't there, the sale or lease is lost, and they move elsewhere.

I don't claim that consolidation of wasteful uses of buildings, ends sprawl, but rather, that there is 2 types of sprawl, population-driven, the best sort in which sprawl is necessary to prevent overcrowding from rising numbers of people, who themselve much benefit by being alive in such great numbers. And building lots of usually empty buildings to promote waste and consumerism, a perhaps excessive or poor efficiency sort of sprawl. Too many usually empty buildings, also promotes utility energy waste, in the running of air conditioning and hot lights, to benefit rather few people. Better design can't realistically "stop" population-driven sprawl, but can slow it some, and make for greater efficiency. As I am pro-life, of course I much favor the population-driven sort of sprawl, as people have to live somewhere.

Nowhere in the Bible, are we commanded to build impressive Church "buildings." The example in Acts, seems to be of people meeting in somebody's home, an obvious choice for a meetingplace, since it is already there and is practically "free." I once went to a home-Church, and they thought that they were able to do a lot more for the community and supporting missionaries, because we had no costly building to support, which often takes up most of the budget otherwise. We did have fold-up chair and tables for meals together. We met in the basement of this really nice home.

Actually, I think the home-Church, the more effective model for reaching the community. While obviously buildings have some use, such as for Churchs that also run a Christian school, home-Churches tend to be small, and then divide to form more home-Churchs. While big Church building congregations, try to fill up their pews, then pat themselves on the back at how many people they are reaching. But the big Churches can become impersonal, and full pews still mean most people of the community aren't there. While the great number of dividing and dividing home-Churches, may grow faster, reach more people, and sometimes even be closer to their homes.

And it was cool that we were expected to participate, rather than such a huge clergy, laity, distinction, which I think is unbiblical anyhow, as didn't God call us all to be preachers and kings? Why dump all the work of promoting the gospel onto the "preacher?"

It's also the natural remedy to liberal politicians ever crying for more money to fix the "overcrowded" schools. Well of course government schools are prone to overcrowding. What can we realistically expect to happen, when we pile all the children of an entire city, into a few government monopoly buildings? By scattering the children in the people's own homes, and promoting parents teaching, self-teaching, internet-learning, or whatever all home-schooling can include, the "crowds" are gone. Plus the commuting time to "school," is very short, so the time can be used more productively. And home-schools have "small class size."

Another benefit I think, is that children of different ages, mix more, and aren't segregated by age. I think we separate people into their own age groups, too much in the American culture. But what can we really learn, from people our own age, who know little more than we do? It's good for children to be among different age groups, and adults, so that they learn more, and learn respect and morals and stuff.

But we should be expanding onto virgin land anyway, although perhaps at a somewhat slower and leisurely rate. As the populations of cities go on multiplying, perhaps making entire new populations of additional cities, we can't really cram them all into the inner city. A combination of tools should be used, as the people would choose for themselves, to accomodate more and more people into the world. High density housing, revitalization if it's not just some expensive boondoggle liberal gimmick, urban sprawl, building additional cities and towns with plans early on when reasonable for future growth phases, taller buildings with more floors, widely spread houses in new suburban developments for people who want that and all that grass to mow, etc.

 

when i first moved to Berkeley CA i think it was a requirement to save the trees or something, so i did the whole canvassing door to door thing and lobbying cuz i have some vested interest in it as a camper, and i mean it's our earth! anyway, in the 4 days that i lasted doing that, i learned a lot about the crap that happens to our trees around here! i wish there was a better way though than "Forests Forever"

 

Well.. maybe not.. but then do nerve endings have feelings? I don't know I just get the feeling that they are part of a larger system that we may not be aware of..

 

The problem with that is eventually we are going to run out of land. The farm land being destroyed by suburban development should rightfully be used for growing crops to feed the people.

Overpopulation is not a single problem, it's two problems in one. Not only are we running out of land to expand onto, the act of expansion is destroying our ability to feed the oversized population.

And the whole thing can be stopped if people simply learn to control their reproductive habits.

Whenever people decide they want a kid, it seems like reproduction is the first and only thought that ever enters their minds, as if no one has ever heard of adoption.

By adopting a child, you're not only helping the overcrowded planet, your also helping the overcrowded ophanages, which are filled with children waiting for good homes.

 

So we will "eventually" run out of land? One problem I see here, is that "eventually" is a very vague word here, probably extending far out beyond the predictable "forseeable future" of which I often refer.

And housing people, is a far more efficient use of land, than is agriculture. Quite a lot of land could "eventually" be liberated for housing greatly enlarged human population of the future, merely by switching, as population-driven technology advancement may naturally lead to anyway, to more efficiently, synthetically produced foods. And that in some distant hypothetical future that may never happen anyway.

The world is already largely dominated by grass and trees. Why not people too? Grass and trees don't "think" and don't "care" about anything. People do. People rather like living, and apparently like reproducing too.

Farmlands, rightfully could be put to better use, to house naturally spreading and thickening human population growth.

I don't believe in Nazi-like eugenics. No human is even qualified, to decide what supposedly might be an "oversized" human population. Now sure, we can have some opinions, over that people should not be too obese or fat, because that isn't healthy, and a fat person, doesn't form "more person" to enjoy life, obviously. But the size of human populations is completely different. We can't help that we are so numerous. Most all peope, understandably, rather like living, regardless of the overall size of the population. I have lived in the small town, the countryside, and the big city, and in most respects that really matter, they are much the same. It simply does not matter much to "quality of life," how many people there are who happen to live nearby, when communities are properly organized and people are moral and friendly.

I would think in an age, in which 1/3rd the world population now lives in a country with over a billion people within its borders, "big" population shouldn't be so much a "scary" deal anymore, but more like the natural expected "trend" of the future?

"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

"Pro-life is more consistantly pro-life, when it is also pro-population." Pronatalist

I wish to point out, that even "huge" human populations, is not sufficient enough excuse, to deny the basic God-given right and duty of procreation, because for one thing, there are yet so many ways humans may better adapt to the modern "huge" population sizes of the modern-day world, in which babies can be born far more easily and prolifically, than people should expect to die off in old age. That's "good" news, not bad. It's very "good" news, that humans need not "limit" their numbers, but that so many people can in fact be grateful to God, to all live together in harmony, simutaneously. Isn't that a basic part of "loving thy neighbor as thyself," as Jesus commanded?

Maybe even the scary "supercities" of the day, could be made more habitable and enjoyable to the masses, with more completely developed technologies, such as nuclear power plants, and flying cars with safe miniture nuclear reactors, something like the futuristic The Jetsons cartoon world.

That's too much of an "one size fits all" non-solution. How do you really think, that some 3 billion+ human penises, throughout the world, can somehow be "controlled?" Governments can't reasonably "hold people's hands," nor be in their private bedrooms, to be sure that they don't breed "too much." There is a human birth canal now, for every 10 acres of land on the planet. Now obviously not all human females are fertile yet, but some are and will undoubtably have still more children, and more children will become fertile. They say that the world now has a billion teenagers. Many of whom, I expect, come from large families, and will hopefully want large families too.

There are many virtues of the "no method" method of "family planning," that it favors highly human life, it seeks to trust God and live according to his ways that are above our ways, and it obviously avoids many complications and "side effects" of trying to interfere with the body's natural "spacing" of children. Future generations would not want for their ancestors to have more "limited" their reproduction, but rather to be abundant and welcomed and provided for as children.

Why be a "party pooper?" If people can somehow manage to love and provide for more children, let them welcome and enjoy their children? Why go against Romans 1, to go against nature regarding human sexuality, when more humans would rather be glad to live instead of such "narrow" unimaginative gloom-and-doom Malthusians thinking. It's not too much to "scoot over" a bit, to welcome ALL moral and responsible humans to live, at least somewhere.

I am pro-life, so of course I like adoption. My genes probably aren't much any better than anybody else's genes. But what about the furthering of the human race? A child not adopted, lives another day, to be adopted by somebody else. But a child not conceived, doesn't get to live at all. So procreation should naturally come before adoption. Procreate, and then adopt on top of that. Population phobic "environmental" extremists, sometimes suggest adoption as an alternate means of enjoying large families, without further enlarging the human race. But enlarging the entire human race, allows all the more people to live and experience life. So I like adoption, not to "limit" world population size, but rather to help it expand all the more. As a pro-life alternative to "birth control," and not as an alternative to procreation.

Any lifeboat should be "crowded," because the goal is to save as many lives as possible. Lifeboats aren't designed for comfort, but for survival. The ship itself, is often more designed for comfort, and that's why most ships are far bigger than they really "have to be," to hold so many people. But a lifeboat may be a poor metaphor, because it has little to do with the realities of the present world situation. People find all sorts of means to pursue comfort, and not merely survival. Most every house and building, in developed countries at least, and most every car, has air conditioning. Air conditioning is hardly essential, as people somehow survived by rolling down the windows not long ago. Perhaps a better metaphor might be some big fancy spacecraft, evacuating people from some doomed planet. Even on Star Trek Voyager, would it make sense to the people on board, to tell them that they may not have any or many children, because only half the crew quarter units, are empty? In the scenario even of Star Trek Voyager, even "overcrowded" crew quarters, would be much to be preferred, to a dwindling crew, that can barely keep the ship working and defend themselves from attacking aliens. Even "overcrowded" quarters, aren't really so bad, when people can put in their requests or make arrangements, to trade out "bad" roommates for more suitable roommates, or pair up into "families" and such. But the earth is still far more spacious than any of those metaphors, so there's plenty of resources for ALL to work with, if people would simply try more to "love thy neighbor as thyself" as Jesus commanded us. The planet isn't "crowded," but currently, no other planets are accepting humans just yet, and so we must all somehow, share this planet, for the time being. Why is that so complicated for people to understand?

 

And how do you suggest we feed this ever expanding population? People have to eat something. Unless your one of these people who thinks food just magically appears in the grocery store, you have to realize that it has to be grown somewhere.

So after we've bulldozed every last farm, erected suburbs and subdivisions everywhere, and turned the entire U.S. into greater New Jersey, what then, do we use for a food supply?

 

I see human population "control," as about as practical or effective, as trying to push in on a bulging woman's belly, so that her pregnancy won't "show" so much. Why bother to "restrain" a bulging pregnant woman's belly? Isn't it supposed to bulge? Shouldn't pregnancy even be "fashionable," to better promote the needed social graces for a modern, populous world? No, it needs to "bulge." She can't help it. She has another precious human being inside her, that needs his or her room too, so her body bulges and her body organs are pushed aside somewhat. I have heard that even "tilt steering" in cars, was invented for pregnant women. Similarly, why can't a seemingly, increasingly "pregnant" world, be allowed to don its "maternity clothes?" Why not go ahead and do away with the ridiculously low population densities of the past, to better deal with present-day realities? Bringing forth precious human life, especially within the proper family nest of marriage and buying a home with a few bedrooms pretty much built for that purpose anyway, is hardly "shameful," but commendable and should always be encouraged. Regardless of overall population size, which can be mediated in many ways, without actually "limiting" human numbers.

Of course some countries like China, have so many people, that of course they should be welcome to make their plans to before too long, welcome their "2 billionth citizen." Many Americans are critical of China for having a barbaric 1-child policy. And rightfully so. But couldn't China in turn in effect say, "Well you don't have over a billion people within your borders. What if you did? Would you still allow people to have all the children they want or can have?" The correct answer then would be, yes, we would still encourage large families, even if we did populate to over a billion people also. It's not necessary that we do so, as I seriously doubt that everybody in China would want to come to the U.S., if they were free to have their "traditionally very large" families where they already live, but what is necessary, is to have the proper, pro-life, pro-population attitude. That people still matter, quite a lot actually, even individuals, even when national populations naturally in time, grow "huge." In order to non-hypocritically criticize China for oppressing its people, and denying their God-given right to procreate, we must also have any population policy to welcome the U.S. naturally "supersizing" into joining the prestigeous and growing "population billionaire" club. If China can obviously find more room for more people, then surely, we can also. In fact, by most any reasonable estimation, most all countries could come to be able to hold, quite a lot more people, all at once, to allow for humanity's natural tendencies and powerful urges and desires, to enlarge the entire human race.

There is an interesting "overpopulation" theory, that the human race, rather than having too little food, actually may have "too much" food, which supposedly fuels "wild" population growth in the wild animal kingdom. Well gee, can't the enviro wackos please make up their minds? Is it too little or too much food, that they would needlessly or excessively worry us about? A few decades ago, it wasn't "global warming" that was the trendy worry, but maybe another "ice age." These wacky theories appear so permanent and rational, promoted by a liberal "bad news" seeking news media, but I already recognize how "trendy" and fickle they tend to be, from decade to decade. Those "scientists" don't have near the idea what they are talking about, as they make themselves to sound like they do.

And food isn't merely for the selfish comfort of people already living, but also for being converted into additional human bodies. Surely that is a far better use for food, than dumping glutted food products into the ocean to prop up sagging prices? To convert relatively cheap organic matter or food into additional human bodies of immense worth, represents a great "investment," at least philosophically.

And "ever expanding" human population, is the obvious approach of how to welcome people to go on having all the children they were meant to have, or "all the children God gives," in a world with so many, many people alive already. Countless billions more may be added, as needed, merely by humans exploring how they may in fact, be able to populate more and more densely and efficiently together.

"Necessity is the mother of invention," and I expect that natural human population growth, already is largely what drives the acceleration of technology growth, and that human population growth, especially under wise leadership, naturally accomodates itself. So as the number of human mouths to feed expands, food production in time becomes ever more efficient and effective, as humans increasingly figure out how to more effectively "eat the planet," as may be needed.

People may eat almost anything they want, anything except other humans. Meat, plants, even insects, if they want or find them to be nutritious or edible. Who's to say that chocolote-covered ants or grasshoppers, won't catch on some day? I hear in some survival video or book, that humans generally only eat but a tiny fraction of the plants and things that are edible. In that case, as human populations naturally thicken upon the land, well why couldn't some cultures find ways to "broaden" their diets? Humans are omnivores. That we can eat almost anything, itself is a sign that we were probably designed to become eventually incredibly populous.

Have you not seen any sci-fi movies or played any sci-fi video games? Project Eden a video game about a future "overpopulated" world, didn't appear really all that "crowded," and was likely more an excuse for really tall buildings in the scenery. Tall buildings probably are easier to map the polygons for, in a video game, than for realistic outdoor "wild" environments, because buildings have all sorts of orderly straight lines in them. In Project Eden their "real meat" was some GMO thing growing in some tank. Which presumably could be produced in quantities far in excess of normal agriculture. It could have been a better video game, had they bothered to get the bugs out of it. I played it to the end, but had to visit the manufacture's website to find the necessary workarounds to the game freezing up all the time on my PS2. And the game was too hard. I used the hidden "cheat" menu, like crazy, but at least I completed every level. And sometimes science fiction is really confused with science fantasy, as many of the "science fiction" scenarios, aren't particularly likely.

And while contemplating how the world might "eventually" be heading to become like some "greater New Jersey," what of all the "more comfortable" intermediate population levels? If 500 billion people on the planet, by some estimate might be "a bit much," then surely a mere 30 billion people, shouldn't be "too too much?" After all, 500 billion isn't possible, until world population grows to 10 billion, and are we even sure that that will ever happen?

 

That's an interesting point about the pregnant woman:

You got that right. Like I said, it's an addiction.

 

Pronatalist - you seem to be overlooking a lot of facts of life. Humans need to eat. As it is right now, many countries can't feed the number of people they have, and many, even in the US, die are starving. Increasing development and the human population can only fan those flames. We are all part of a larger ecosystem on this earth, and to many people will toss it out of balance. I would even go as far as to say it's out of balance now, and action needs to be taken. Humans need to eat, right? Meat and plants, and sometimes a fungus or two. Those organisms we eat need nutrients to live. If you want a crowded world, you're going to have to be ok with using people as fertilizer when they die. Also, a major result of development and technology is runoff and pollution. Runoff can suffocate many organisms that feed us indirectly or supply us with oxygen, and also remove arable soil from the land. If the bottom of the food chain is poisoned by pollutants, then there will either be a loss of food, or we will be poisoned when we eat it. Like mercury in fish. Also, the percentage of atmospheric oxygen is something like half of what it was 200 years ago.

All in all, the more the human population increases, the more human misery there will be, in numbers and percentage, and you're counting on some mysterious future technology to save us. To alleviate the pain from your actions. That's a lot like going around and chopping people limbs off for kicks with the reasoning that the future will be a wonderful place where they can grow new ones for you in a laboratory. There's gonna be pain now and later, and the longer you continue what you do, the more pain there will be.

Expand our diet? The human diet is pretty wide as it is. Some people like to eat tripe, ants, monkey, rat, shark, pufferfish, horse, and pretty much everything that has a low probability of killing you when you eat it. Sure, at a high enough population, humans may habe to get nutrients from food cubes made from easily digestible, no-waste vitamins and proteins and whatever else, but I don't want that. I want there to be orchards, corn fields, cocoa trees, strawberries, chickens and cows, and all these great-tasting things that have the nutrients we need. Who do you think you are to want to impose your low quality of life on the billions of people here now and the billions yet to come? It's not as if there's a queue of unborn babies waiting for the next spot in a womb. Nobody is deprived of life if procreation is reduced. I don't support eugenics, certainly, but something needs to be done, because there are plenty of people like you who would love to see the world cemented over for their frickin' 16-person nuclear families. But you know what? That's bad for the world, and I have little doubt that it's also bad for the kids in those families.

Life is worth more than how much sex you have and how many babies you're responsible, so get over yourself, get snipped, and adopt one of those frickin' miserable kids from one of the many orphanages all over the world.

 

That's the kind of world I want as well, not only to be able to feed the human race, but also to preserve enough open, natural land so that the people who are here can enjoy life.

There is alot to be said for a picnic in a fresh-cut hay field, or for a casual stroll through a meadow of wildflowers.

Many of us are fortunate enough to live in a rural environment, and alot of city folks have opportunities to come to the countyside to experience these things as well.

I don't see that as a possibility in the world envisioned by Pronatalist, with it's concrete jungles and suburban developments as far as the eye can see.

​

I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify my position on population control.
I personally am not in favor of government madated limits, instead I advocate a philosophy of consious self-control, where people realize that they have the power to not procreate.

I am for making people aware of their options, such as adoption, or the fact that they can live healthy productive lives without children. The final decision, of course, would be up to the individual.

There is a "procreate at any cost" mentality at work in the world today, and that's what I advocate against. I beleive educating the people is the key.

However, I do see regulation as a possibilty if the population explodes to intolerable levels.

 

I don't argue that trees scream its just that you have chosen the wrong tool to measure it with. Gyger-counter measures ionizing radiation (alpha, beta, gamma rays) and not sound of any frequency high or low.

 

But of course for people to enjoy life, surely it helps for each and every person to always be welcomed to be born?

There really isn't much point to such things, if they come at the terrible expense of somehow, perhaps cruelly, "restricting" human birthrates.

And why should such experiences, require "smaller" numbers of people? Why can't the trailer being pulled on a hayride, be "full" of people? I went on a hayride, in which there were so many of us people there, that we had to take turns, and couldn't go on "every" sequential ride.

I have experienced both the rural and the urban, and either one, is fine and survivable. If more of the world increasingly populates itself to urban densities, well there's lots that people can do, to make the cities feel more comfortable to them, as well. Plant flowers and gardens, or make some effort to meet one's many neighbors, perhaps by hosting some block party, etc.

 

No we don't. That's my whole point. We have a finite amount of land to work with.While the powers of the human race are many, the abilities to make the planet larger or to cause new continents to rise from the sea are not among them.

We do however have the ability to adapt, not to our rising numbers, but to our natural land limitations. This adaptation is accomplished by the conscious decision to not procreate.

I'm not saying everyone needs to adopt the non-procreation lifestyle. It would only need to be done by a percentage of the population. While birth is needed to maintain the existence of the race, we must also realize that conscious self-limitation is the key to long term survival. If as little as 10 to 20 percent of the people would embrace their natural ability to not have children, we can hold the population at sustainable levels.

Your plan of 'have as many kids as you want and don't worry about the consequences' simply cannot work.

We, as a race, must realize that we have to limit ourselves in order to sustain our long term existence on the resources we have available.