cutting down all our forests

Like eating, or the heart pumping blood, is an "addiction." Like staying alive is an "addiction."

"Addiction" just doesn't have the right connonation, to describe the wonderful and essential life process of pregnancy and getting pregnant. People continually getting pregnant all around the world, is a natural process of life, a natural rhythm of life. They don't do it, just because they are "addicted" to living or something, but because it was meant to be.

They say sex is heredity. If your parents didn't do it, neither would you.

 

whoa, i don't come on very often at all anymore but whenever i do, there's some argument involving pronatalist going on.

one request, pronatalist: please shorten your responses. you can't hope that even the most slightly ADD stricken person is going to be able to read all that.

 

I'll do what is in my power to prevent it. Trees die out? So do we.

John Denver said it best for me: Don't try to do it all. Just do the thing that you can do. Then I'll do what I can do. It all adds up.

 

Essentially, it's a quality of life issue. Pronatalist's dream future is a craphole where people eat scientifically mixed nutrients and somehow find enough oxygen to survive, while millions, possibly billions, die all over the world from hunger and thirst and poisoning from the various chemicals we can't seem to stop dumping as our wonderful human species rapes the earth.

Most people don't want that. See my last couple posts. There is a balance between population and quality of life, and I think right now, population is on the up and up, and quality of life is going down. I think a great number for people in the world would be 3 billion, maybe four. It's now at least six, and the wild and wonderful places in the world are rapidly diminishing.

 

Words of wisdom and truth!!!

 

pronat.--this is from a while ago, but i think maybe your anti-contraceptive stuff--well--did you think of stds? perhaps that is god's way of telling us to maybe be more careful (population downer)

 

With the kind of poulation density Pronatalist is advocating, people will bee lucky if they can avoid having to eat each other.

 

More and more people would be glad to live. Most everybody wants or ends up having children. The majority of people aren't finished having their children. Most every child is rather glad to come to life and to be welcomed to be born. Children want very much to be welcome and to be born, regardless how "huge" the population might be already in whatever country they are about to be born into. Colonizing outer space or other worlds doesn't appear feasible anytime soon. And we obviously can't make the planet any bigger, right? Something has to give, right? What can most easily give? How about the ridiculously low population densities of the past? There could simply come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. That's like letting a pregnant woman don maternity clothes, so she can bulge naturally, rather than promoting unneeded shame at bringing yet another precious human to life and trying to "hide" the pregnancy. People can learn to live and breed in closer proximity to other people — to populate the planet more densely and efficiently, on the global scale at least. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land, so obviously quite a lot more cities and towns and villages and suburbs, can be built, in between somewhere all the various growing cities. Urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed, as a very attractive alternative to disparaging fellow humans and stirring up unnecessary conflict in a populous world, seemingly with less and less room for unpleasant things like conflict.

We are already adapting to our rising numbers. Now that China became the world's "population billionaire" how many people even "noticed" in 1999, when India also officially became the world's 2nd "population billionaire?" The world has more people than ever, and yet the average typical Joe on the street, seems to be less and less worried about it. We are getting "used" to being so populous, and obesity is a growing world problem. Even the dogs in China are becoming obese. Whatever happened to the ridiculous predictions that the entire world would starve, if we didn't soon get our burgeoning numbers "under control?"

Various technologies all seem to be converging, to help humans populate more and more densely. What do you think that toilets, modern water and sewer systems, vaccines and such, are all about really? They appear to me, to be population adaptations designed mostly to help the growing world population to more safely and comfortably coelesce into city after city and merging conurbations of megacities, of people, as might be needed here and there to find some place for so many, many people, to live. Another advantage of children growing up in large and possibly "unplanned" families, is that it already better conditions them to both survive and thrive in an increasingly populous world.

And yet for what reason did God bless humans with powerful reproductive urges? To remind us, most all the time it seems?, to marry and reproduce, and how vital it is to the human race, that people go on reproducing.

Not only did God command people to be fruitful and marry and fill the earth, but God made what populates the planet to be extremely pleasurable. He could have made procreation to be a "grievious chore" so that people couldn't possibly be prone to breed "too much." Would that have been better? To take all the fun out of sex? In the bizarre movie, 1984, that was a proposal suggested by Big Brother government. To do away with "the orgasm," because it supposedly distracts from the needs of The State. Is that perhaps the kind of world that you want? A world in which The State is all that matters, and the needs of individuals are largely forgotten?

So "sustainable" is still, growing and growing? I really don't like the term "sustainable," because it is such a vague word, so commonly abused by "environmental" extremists. From listening to their rhetoric, most anything that benefits humans, by some "article of faith," couldn't possibly be "sustainable," nor "good" for the environment. Where did you get your numbers, BTW?

I take issue with your numbers, as they don't jive with my figures. There has been way too much talk, of "stabilizing" world population. (Stagnating is more like it.) And yet human population size, contrary to the "wishful thinking" of population phobics, is inherently "unstable." Population growth naturally leads to further population growth and population accomodation, and lack of population growth, leads to elderly populations too old to reproduce, and a growing and looming prospect of runaway "birth dearths" in various countries that could become a global issue before long, if something isn't soon done about the rampant contraceptive peddling going on by feminists, enviro wackos, and other assorted "overeducated idiots" who claim to believe in such nonsense as human "overpopulation."

I have somewhere, an old issue of The Plain Truth that free magazine promoted by the Worldwide Church of God, back from before when they had that reform away from being a cult. It had some article about "Supercities: Growing Pains of the Population Crisis." One of the main factors they cited, was that the number of women of childbearing age, is now larger than before. Typical "overpopulation" propaganda. "Too many" people surviving long enough to reproduce now, instead of dropping as flies, and yet this is presented as "bad" news, and not "good" news? While making cities bigger and bigger, is one obvious way to accomodate growing populations, it's not the only way. God never commanded people to all pile on top of one another in the biggest cities people can find. There's also the option of spreading out, and building more smaller cities and towns and villages. Anyway, back to the point, that magazine had a side article near the back, something about a possible coming "Baby Blast," depicting a line of baby carriages. It said that contraceptive use would have to increase from around 50% worldwide, to 75% to prevent a growing global "Baby Blast" some time near the end of the 21st century or so.

Okay, it could all be mindless speculation or propaganda, so let's check the numbers, to see if they make any sense. Author and home-schooling advocate, Mary Pride, claims in her book, The Way Home; Beyond Feminism, Back to Reality, that the typical norm for the "unplanned" families that she also advocates, to be around 5 or 6 children per couple, based on what is found in countries that still do not much use "birth control." Her book has such curious chapter titles as "God's Least Wanted Blessing," "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Baby," and "Family Banning and Planned Barrenhood." So let's go with the 75% contraceptive use figure, a rather high? figure perhaps, since as they say, "you can't fool all the people all the time." So we have some "typical" representative sample of the world, a couple that doesn't use any "birth control" at all, and 3 couples that do. The "we trust God" couple, has their "typical" 5 or 6 children. Now how many more babies can the remaining 3 couples add to the mix, to not exceed the paltry 2.1 average children per couple, that supposedly, eventually leads to population "stabilization?" (As the children grow up and just "replace" their parents, 2 people for 2 people.) Remember, if this group of 4 couples is said to be a "representative sample" of the world, and if population "stabilization" is to be the sorry, unimaginative goal, then these 4 couples, "on average," may only have but 8 children, right? (Maybe 9 at most, to compensate for children who die before they can grow up and also reproduce.) Only but 2 or 3 more children, spread among 3 couples, and the magical 8 children figure is already reached! So some people can breed all they want, due to "religious objections" or "alergic to latex condoms" or whatever, while others are restricted somehow to only 1 child, to compensate?! See why I constantly try to expose population "stabilization" as a "fool's dream" or something otherwise impractical, and advocate welcoming the world to adapt and populate more and more densely, as nature dictates or as needed? The remaining 3 couples, may also have all the children they want or that their bodies can produce, if population "stabilization" is not the goal after all, but the common goal of humanity something far more practical, say like the "advancement of the human race."

Of course my point here, was that your figure of 10 or 20% of people not procreating, seems a little low, sort of like the proverbial camel trying to get its head under the edge of the tent, and then the camel, next thing you know, is in the tent. An analogy to how liberals tell lies, to establish some precedent, and then the true cost of "family planning" promotion becomes evident later, such as many some Anti-Christ scolding the developing nations for letting their population "balloon" and then waging some genocidal war against them? But of course, if what you really meant was merely 10 or 20% more people non-procreating, maybe raising the global figure from what? 55%, to 75% contracepting themselves into extinction, that might be more than enough, to plunge the world into some runaway "birth dearth" of atrophying population, that is if God stands by and lets humans do such folly?

I don't make this stuff up. I have many books, on both sides of the issue. I do a lot of reading. I think I pretty well know most all of the supposed "consequences." When have I ever denied the possible or improble prospect of a far more heavily populated world, at some point in the future?

In fact, I just noticed the other day, in some commercial that shows a depiction of The Jetsons, for Electrosol, I think it was, dishwashing detergent, what do we see out the window of the modern highrise living quarters? More highrises, most likely also full of people. Not trees, but more buildings full of people. And yet this is "normal" sci-fi future stuff, and it is not often even viewed as "strange" nor a "problem?" I have thought quite a lot about "the consequences" and it occurs to me, that humans, being a very social creature, were actually designed to be quite capable of both surviving and thriving, even at extremely high population densities. Like naively loyal dogs, humans seem almost to crave being around other humans. Maybe world population has grown so "huge," for very good and logical reasons, not by some "fluke" of nature, but by intelligent design. I sense an intelligence behind such things, that would be folly to dare oppose.

And what's the "alternative" to pronatalism in a populous world? Should we turn on one another and kill each other, like sinful people were doing before the Great Genesis Flood, such that it grieved God that he created people? To behave even worse than the organized ants of an anthill, who for some strange reason, seem to cooperate for mutual benefit? In such examples as the Great Genesis Flood, or the scrambling of the languages at the Tower of Babel, God in effect seems to be saying, "We can do things my way, or we can do things my way." When I read in Ps 107:41 about how God blesses the poor with families like a flock, tell me, is it logical for only but the poor people to have large families? If poor families can have many children, then why can't seemingly more financially prosperous countries, supposedly more financially prepared for raising many children? Why should the poor get to have all the children?

"The developing countries should be more like us and modernize, to better support their burgeoning populations. We should be more like them, and have more children." Pronatalist

And on that note, I think I will close with a particularly relevant quote:

ARE THESE THE LAST DAYS?
http://www.ldolphin.org/3699.html

In watching the sci-fi movie, Artificial Intelligence, what I think destroyed the human race in the end, and probably brought on the "ice age," wasn't "overpopulation" or "pollution" at all, but lack of breeding and the soon absense of humans, who actually serve a useful role not only to themselves and existing to worship God, but also in taming nature. Of course that view would seem to be open to interpretation, as the movie may have intended a different interpretation. Look at the moral decay, and the robotic jigalos. And I rather liked that harsh street preacher in the sport robot destruction arenas, scolding the people for replacing God's children with pretend children (robots that mimic childlike behavior). That movie actually seemed to be a modernized "Pinnochio" story, come to think of it.

 

Quality of life and quantity of life, come hand in hand. It isn't some "tradeoff." When people are optimistic and happy about the future, it's all the more reason for them to go ahead and invest into the future by reproducing. Somebody posting on some forum, said that the rosy predictions of people like author Julian Simon helped convince the Reagan administration to let human populations go on growing. There's some conspiracy theory out there, that the income tax was invented to help reduce population growth, because if people found they have too much money, they might be more prone to have larger families. And like honeybees, people certainly should be capable of producing more than they consume, so as we grow more and more populated, we get more and more inventions, more books, more great DVD collections and movies to watch, and more and better video games. Or at the very least, more crap TV channels to watch, or a shorter distance to the shopping mall and the hospital.

Why assume the future to be a "craphole?" I have suggested while the future might possibly be somewhat more, or maybe a lot more "crowded," the people would have adapted and be largely oblivious to that. The Jetsons cartoon world, is hardly a bad place to live, although I think I see some possible signs, that it is also a rather "crowded" world? It's hard to tell, as its writers seemed to be going more for the "futuristic" look, than to make many "political statements." Most everybody seems to have adequate or spacious housing, and their own flying cars that rarely, if ever, need refueling, and yet when do we see much any "nature" left, in that cartoon? There's no telling how huge the cities are, because nobody seems worried about it or seems to care.

And why do you supposed that the population is on the up and up? I am not one for jumping on bandwagons, nor being a conformist. Often I tend to prefer to blend in with the crowd, as I am a natural introvert, and not seeking fame. But I do not prefer to jump off a cliff, just because everybody is doing it, or because unsubstanciated gloom-and-doom Malthusian thinking, is the "in" thing in some "intellectual" circles. I suspect that unlike the claims of evolution, that things happen "for a reason," not for "no apparent reason." People keep having so many children, for various practical and compelling reasons. Because they love their children, to celebrate life, because sex feels good, because they fail to get around to selecting a "satisfactory" method of "birth control" as they just aren't much concerned that their family might grow sort of uh, "large" or simply haven't even noticed that 4 or more children is what some people might consider "large."

Correlation doesn't equal causation, as they say. The same people making the population go on the up and up, aren't the same people trying to push quality of life down. Many people who have many children, are rather kind people of faith, who do good world, and often aren't wasteful consumers. The people pushing quality of life down, are the war mongers, the corrupt politicians, those rich investors with few children of their own who think the corporation exists only to be be raped to fatten the stock portfolios of the CEO and his cronies who vote themselves raises at the expense of the company that they didn't even build themselves. If it wasn't for all the prolific breedings of the world, I think that the quality of life, would be dropping even faster, as the globalists and enviro wacko resource hoarders and luddites take over faster and wreck things for everybody.

Do you not know that there is a "culture war" going on between the still moral people of faith, and the atheists, intellectuals, and globalists, who want to fashion the world in their own corrupt image, rather than by God's ways?

3 or 4 billion, may have been a nice number, for a past age. I suppose by a few respects, most countries already have "more than enough" people. But 3 or 4 billion, just isn't a realistic figure anymore.

Somebody has said, that "world population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born." A world without me? That would be tragic, for me at least. I just have never been able to much distinguish between "those other people" supposedly doing so much of the "overbreeding," and me. Perhaps because I am a Christian, and my Bible says to defend the poor and those unable to speak. And then I love children and want myself to enjoy having "all the children God gives." Before I became so well read and informed, I used to think that I would prefer the method of "birth control" that was easiest and most "natural." Since then, I have concluded that the "no method" method, is that "ideal" method. Not Catholic-tolerated rhythm, nor early withdrawal, although they are supposedly without money cost and more "natural," but rather just marrying first, and welcoming babies to "happen" whenever they can happen. I love my little nephews, and I want for them to be able to have their children and grandchildren they were meant to have. Even if the world is fast pushing towards some 9 or 10 billion people or more.

The reasons people surely have, for having so many children as they do, are often quite compelling, and in order to insure that each and every human life is properly regarded as sacred and precious, and that people may go on enjoying having all the children they want or were meant to have or "all the children that God gives," the obvious best way to do that, is to actually advocate the natural rise in world population density, that may be required to find or make room for people to go having their "traditionally very large" families, in a world with so many, many people already. As obviously, no other planets that we know of, are yet admitting humans, so more people can simply learn to "share" this world. It's so simple an idea, it confounds those who think themselves to be wise. Like God said, he uses the simple things, to confound the "wise," who really aren't quite so wise as they think, I would add for clarification.

Get with the program. I am hardly the only pronatalist in the world. I am hardly the only person who wants to see the human race naturally expand its numbers and advance, towards more people to populate heaven, or a more mature and a more enlarged or "swollen" human race becoming stronger and more prepared to venture off and maybe someday colonize more worlds? Businesses often love population growth, because it naturally expands their potential customer base, even without advertising. Britney Spears is in the news, with her nude sculture thing, with a baby "crowning" from the birth canal. Yeah, that is just as much "art," if not more so, than those "obligatory" nude model drawing classes, that I have never quite understood the need for. And now pregnant Britney, is featured on the cover of Bizaar magazine I think it is, as reported in the news? Is Britney even pro-life? Or is she just enthralled right now, to have a precious human life, growing within her? Feminists or somebody out there, is quietly, or sometimes noisily?, insisting upon the right to breastfeed in public, which I agree with, because people eat in public, and babies of course should be valued and people have to provide for their children, and some woman can't just go into some dinky tiny little restroom on an airplane, to not "offend" Barbara Walters, who I wonder if she has even had any children? And because it's no big deal to breastfeed in public, in the more pronatalist developing countries, in which up to half the people, may all be children, as they tend to have burgeoning and youthful populations. And of course more Moms are coming back home from the career workplace, to be with their families, and I suspect that Stay-At-Home Moms are increasingly having larger and growing families, as they are less likely to see additional babies, as some "burden" hindering their career plans.

Even some of the things I hear people saying at work, are surprising. Somebody's 3-year old daugher, wants all the girls. Her mother was saying something that her daughter thinks she can just pop out a bunch of babies. I think she said her daugher might settle for a boy though. (And a bunch of girls after the boy, I think is what was meant.) But many children rather like getting new siblings. Another lady said that birthing the children is easy. It's the raising them that is difficult. What? No "pain" in childbirth anymore? Or the sometimes pain is trivial compared to the reward of children? She said something about having to take fertility pills, as she doesn't get pregnant very easy.

Some years ago, a couple of guys were talking, criticizing Catholic rhythm, saying, isn't it still wrong, since the purpose is still to prevent human life?

And some time ago on another job, some guy told me that his wife wants 6 children, but he isn't so sure. Of course I told him to go for it, he wouldn't be sorry. More and more people would be glad to live. It seems that men, aren't the only one who want "large" or "unplanned" families. Some square dance caller told me that it seems like every time he took off his pants, his wife became pregnant. He had 5 children. Some guy at some Christian leadership conference, in casual conversation, told me he hopes sex for pleasure also, isn't a sin, as he was enjoying sex during his wife's 10th pregnancy. May I safely assume that they had practically no interest in "birth control" nor in keeping the burgeoning world population size "under control?"

Surely God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, implies that each successive generation is supposed to naturally grow ever larger and more populous, than the previous generation. In fact, the Bible, as people who actually bother to read it should know, is a surprisingly pronatalist book. Psalm 127:5 says

Whatever could that mean? A quiver is a contained that a soldier carries his arrows in. How many is a "quiverfull?" As many as possible, large and unplanned family size, because what soldier would go into battle, already short on ammo? Even video game players know better than that. Collect as much ammo as possible. Now what is that stuff about speaking with the enemies in the gate? Could it be, that there are then so many people then, that people are living practically almost everywhere, even populated towards the borders and the gates right in front of their neighboring nations? There is also an idea here, I think, that when a person's ways are honorable, even their enemies "respect" them. And it is surely talking of children and large families, as just a few verses back, it says that the "fruit of the womb" (babies) is his reward. And the word "children" is used in the King James Version, and it says that children are the reward from God.

And other passages of scripture, help provide context, to guard against misinterpretation. Proverbs 14:28 says that it is best, for nations to have large population. God promised Abraham descendents so numerous, as to be practically uncountable, like the grains of sand of the seashore, or the stars of the sky. Could God merely have been "joking?" Even Genesis 24:60 forsees "thousands of millions" (KJV) of descendents, for Rebekah. Isn't that litterally the "burgeoning billions" of today, foretold way back in Genesis? See why I don't merely believe the preacher sermons, but have read my Bible from cover to cover? While the Bible can be dry and hard to understand at times, the preachers skip over too much rather curious stuff, in the Bible.

See, I have tried to explain these things the best I can. There are many practical and religious reasons why human population, is supposed to be, designed to be, on the up and up. Author Charles Provan, even claims in his book, The Bible and Birth Control, that it is God who put the natural desire in our hearts, to seek humanity's multiplication and increase. (Oh, so maybe that's why most every baby looks so cute and adorable? Because both on the subconscious and conscious level, most humans really do want for the human race to grow more and more numerous, and babies are an obvious symbol of that.) It's far better than for humans to be dropping dead like flies, for most anything that could keep our rising numbers "in check" to be fast fading away, and for the population control freaks to not be able to find any "handle" on world population growth, as the world is nowhere near "full" of people anyway. You mentioned something, I think, in some other post, about people having nuclear families of 16 people. Well of course I would defend the virtues and rights for such "experienced" parents to go on having supposedly "all the children God gives," because even the 14th child, is just as valuable and precious, as the 1st child. I am not too concerned about whether they "technically" have "enough" space in their homes for so many children, as it is far better to have to share a bed with a sibling, than to have never existed at all, as some survivor of 9-11 admitted to on national TV, and yet he missed his brother, who he had once had to share a bed with because there were so many of us he said. I hear out West, it's common for many Mormon families to have "overflow" bedrooms in their basements, as Mormons are known for having large families too.

 

Pronatalist, how large is your family? Are you even working atm? It just seems funny to me that you're posting here almost every day and every night, when anyone with as large a family as you describe wouldn't have time for writing such long and detailed posts, what with all the working to clothe and feed your numerous children, spending time with the family, etc..

 

I don't see any reason to debate a person like pronatalist and I don't understand why anyone else would either.Adherants to epic myths ,after accepting the BASIC PREMISE of those myths,seem to offer specious and ridiculous ideas such as this person has been offering.These ideas are short sighted and basically ignorant or worst case scenario,stupid..First off,let's reduce this myth to the subjective reality it is. :There is no proof of a being or beings with the power to bring about what has become our objective reality.Then again --maybe there is. Agnostic here.Open mind.I do not accept the BASIC PREMISE of the particular myth from which your beliefs come and therefore my own knowledge,such as it is,..will necessarilly reflect an open mind(hopefully). WE need to deal with more pragmatic ideas NOW that will help us understand what exactly is the nature of humans, relative to life on this little blue ball ,flying thru space.What humans need to decide is ---(going bowling with the grand kiddies-will return)

 

I try to write them shorter, and once in a while I succeed.

But when I think up some 3 points to every point, and respond to a post with many points, well a post can sometimes get long.

Also, I try to come up with meaningful post titles, so that a person can decide which posts they want to read or skim.

 

Population downer? Where do you get that idea? STDs are merely a sign to be faithful and have sex only with the one you marry, as one can't catch a STD from somebody who has none.

Monogamy helps preserve health and fertility, while promiscuity and the STDs is spreads, destroys far more than the reproductive system.

 

Oh---I get it.Great satire,pronatalist.Had me goin' for a while.

 

This question is sort of a misnomer.

This personifies the human race perhaps more than it should, but it can have two goals:

The first is similar to all animals, and it is the increase and survival of the species.

The second comes from being the only rational animal; this goal is to reduce suffering among people as much as possible.

The argument here isn't whether cutting down trees is moral or immoral: its necessary. People need and deserve both lumber and space to live. The question would be better stated as this: What is the best way to do this?

And this question requires more in depth answers than this forum will ever provide.

 

By the human race, growing in numbers, in most every conceivable way, in all 3 perceptional dimensions, outwards, inwards, and upwards, there can be ample room for ALL the babies that billions of fertile women may imaginably be capable of squeezing out between their legs, even if quite a lot of them may prefer not to use any means of "birth control" at all.

Cities could be bigger, have more people in them, and have more high-density highrises, or maybe even a few more people in each housing unit for better population density efficency, to better welcome "all the children God gives," in a world with so many, many people already.

So what population density exactly, am I advocating, BTW? Demographers pretty much predict, only somewhat more people. A few more billions, within our lifetime. Now why couldn't there come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people, for the world to hold more people, when such a world, would still look much the same, as it does now?

I am not seeking crowds, but rather, concerned about the pressing and compelling reasons that people have so many children as they do, and no other planets appear to be admitting humans at the moment, and so obviously, we should come to make better use of this one, populating it more densely and efficiently, to find or make room for all the people who might be to come.

I think you misunderstand the food situation. As the number of human mouths to feed, has grown, food has become more abundant, not less. Thomas Malthus seemed to greatly underestimated the food production potential, claiming that human populations naturally multiply, when "unchecked," exponentially, while food supplies only grow linearly. Wrong. Food supply apparently can also grow exponentially, as there comes to be more and more workers, and more minds finding better ways of doing things. And because there really is a God, who can and would provide for us.

Some stupid anti-population slogan, almost has the right idea: "Population no problem? How dense can we get?" Well as most anything that could possibly keep human populations "in check" fades away, perhaps quite dense? At least in some improbable hypothetical future. I heard somewhere, that they did some "overpopulation" experiment somewhere, in which they gave apes plenty of food, but kept adding more and more of them, to some confined region. The apes reacted in some adaptive and shocking way. They groomed each other, and sought to avoid conflict. Whoops! Not exactly the disfunctional results they were hoping for, as with the even more irrevelevant mice experiment. Does that mean that humans might adapt and become largely oblivious to exactly how "crowded" they are populating to? So we hardly ever hear of the more relevant ape experiment, and always of the mice?

There seems to be very little risk of human developing an appetite for human flesh, as that is just some silly anti-population scare tactic. Humans eat many times their body weight, so eating relative or neighbors, does little to enhance the food supply. Rather, humans face the prospect, not of food shortages, but more of "unlimited" food encouraging us to eventually populate all the more densely. I have even heard "too much" food being proposed, as an "overpopulation" theory, somebody claiming that "too much" food fuels "wild" population growth in the animal kingdom. Well gee, will the population pessimists please make up their minds, what to worry us about? Too little, or too much food? You would think that some of these "gloom and doom" fantasy problems, ought to somehow cancel each other out, every now and then? Hasn't canabalism, always been taboo, in most any civilized society? Why? Well because of religion, and the pronatalist aspects of most religions, and because human naturally prefer to be incredibly numerous anyway. It's not even a particularly interesting aspect of "shocker" horror movies, resorting to more "original" ways of "scaring" us.

One of the best horror movies I think I have seen, was Pulse, suggesting some Twilight Zone-type question, of "what if" the electricity that so often faithfully serves us, was "out to get us?" By telling several "half-truths" about the mysterious nature of electricity, the story could almost seem somewhat "believable." But although my ancient microwave oven could appear to be listening to "the voice in the wires," it doesn't behave sinisterly, but merely forgets what is it doing, and its digital timer sometimes becomes scrambled or frozen. So I flip off the small power strip surge suppressor I added to it, after I am finished using it, so it can't start beeping or singing to me, during the middle of the night. Maybe I should just simply buy a newer microwave oven, but too often I get that "they don't make them like they used to" syndrome. All the microwaves with all the fancy features, and enough cooking power, seem now to have turntables, which makes them just as deep as wide, and then they become huge countertop hogs. So far, I have yet to see, since some years ago, a microwave oven with enough cool "bells and whistles" to appeal to my taste. The ones on the market now, have boring cheap digital clock displays. What? No cool electronic toy gadgetry models? Some years ago, I saw one with a big display that showed pictures of recipes on it, and could be switched to play a cute little melody, instead of just boringly beeping. I might have bought it, but it costed a bit too much, and was too big. And my ancient 1988 model, still, to this day, works, that is, when it isn't "daydreaming" forgetting to time its cooking, that is.

 

What population density are you advocating? You sound as if you don't remember your postion. You're the guy who advocates for destroying farm land and virgin wilderness to make way for residential development, as this recent comment (post #32 of this thread; July 13th) indicates:

And you wanted to get rid of the pleasures that can be enjoyed in the open spaces of our country if they stand in the way of unlimited population growth, as you stated in this exchange that we had a while ago ( post #39 of this thread; July 19th):

 

Part 1 of 2:

So what is your "better" position on the matter? More homelessness? People not being welcomed, to at least live somewhere?

I seem to recall having some elegant question to ask in the forums on this issue of what population density I am supposedly advocating, while I was in bed, contemplating the matter, but of course by the time I get up and start typing, I can't remember exactly what elegant way I was supposed to word it, or what "better" question I meant to ask.

But it is a huge "conflict of interest" to suppose that humans could possibly want to limit the "encroachment" of the growing human race, throughout the planet. "The more the merrier," they sometimes say. Or "what's in it for me," to unnaturally interfere with that which was meant to be?

I believe that any effort to limit the natural increase of humanity, is automatically counterproductive, because that could only limit possible beneficiaries. Even before I read of the connection between the Utilitarian Principle and huge human population size, it occured to me. The Utilitarian Principle suggests that often the best thing to do, is that which most benefits the most people. Well couldn't that also advocate huge or unlimited human population size, so that more people could be around to benefit from whatever? I have consistantly advocated only development and population accomodation, never "limitation." There is more benefit to more people, from adapting to our naturally growing numbers, not in opposing God and being cruel to our fellow neighbors, without any sufficient just cause. And of course, I suspect not so much large families, but quite often "birth control" to be the "burden" to many loving parents, who quite often enjoy or prefer the prospect of having still more children.

Surely I have pointed out, hopefully on this forum somewhere, that the "weight of numbers" easily pushes for "more and more people," and that people are not mere "cogs" in some socialist society "machine," but rather that societies are made up of individual people, and societies exist for the benefit of the people. (I seem to have forgotten yet another elegant idea I meant to put here, about what I have been pointing out, hopefully on this forum already.) Thus, societies can't have any "right" to limit their population size, while people do enjoy a seemingly "unlimited," God-given right and duty, to procreate. And we could never have enjoyed becoming so numerous, had our ancestors not had the faith to breed more according to God's pro-life standards than to the bogus population fears of today. Many children still come from large families, and are already socialize then, for both surviving and thriving in a populous world, and may want or tend to have large families also themselves. The minor and temporary "growing pains" of human population expansion, pale before the great benefit of having so many, many more people alive to enjoy life. While demographers may not expect world population to grow all that much more, we can't just "pick and choose" who gets to live and breed, and who doesn't, nor set any arbitrary "limit" on how numerous nature or God might allow humans to become, and so I tend to welcome possible human population expansion far in excess of what might be considered most probable or likely, at least within the forseeable future, and sometimes perhaps that distinction should be clarified. It is far better for people to live in cramped surroundings, and to be alive, than for people to have never existed at all, because there were too few births. Too few population phobics, give any reasonable consideration to proper priorities. To insist upon "quality of life," without first respecting sanctity of life, results in neither. "Quality of life" and "quantity of life" aren't mutually exclusive, but tend to come hand in hand. People who have freedom and optimism for the future, tend to be prone to breed. People who tend to breed, also tend to want to improve things for their children. So somehow, cities and homes full of people, surely rank higher than space-wasting golf courses, or "empty" of people, inefficiently used land, such as wilderness and forests.

Sure, you can still have your "country picnic" somewhere, but I shouldn't have to give up having my many children, for a mere country picnic. Why can't you drive a little further out? There is also something to be said for increasing the numbers of people throughout the world, who might then like to go on a picnic. It's far easier for humans, already created as social creatures, to "scoot over" a bit, and find or make room for our growing numbers, than to disparage human life, without sufficient or just cause. And that of course, is what I propose. I read on some website somewhere, about "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon." What in the world is that? When does "everybody" ever agree upon anything? I believe in neither population "control" nor "birth control" for humans. There's no point in trying to set any "cap" on world population size, because that only increases the risk that we might someday exceed any such arbitrary cap, and risk infringing upon people's rights, and the sacredness of each and every human life. I have a far better idea. How about "mutual pronatalism." In other words, I don't mind "scooting over" some, in order to make way for humanity's ever growing numbers, if people will do the same, for my own growing family too.

The past landmarks and Biblical or traditional standards of morality, may be a great guide for society in many things, but not on judging the proper human race population size for today. How far back do you want to go? The 2 people of Adam & Eve? Is that enough people for today? No, I see many technologies converging to suggest that human populations could today be far vaster and denser than ever. Modern water treatment plants, the flush toilet for big cities, clean gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens, better food preservation technology, vaccines, etc. Even high-density housing with air conditioning, modern plumbing, many rooms and stacked floors of people, appear somewhat designed for the "warehousing" of huge numbers of people within a limited space of land, although we "disguise" that with carpeting, electricity and other utilities, and curtains and walls in between housing units.

In a modern world of "burgeoning billions," the old population densities of the past, may obviously have to be done away with, in a world with but only so much land. But obviously, human populations may continue on growing, as humans learn and easily adapt, for both the common and individual good, to people living and breeding within closer proximity to their many neighbors, on the global scale at least. If human bodies can in fact be populated more densely together, then obviously, quite a lot more people can enjoy all being alive all at once.

Science-fiction often proposes many ideas of how to fit more and more people into the world, and often doesn't even deal with the issue of "preference" and if that's what humanity should want, but often just assumes such to be "futuristic" or perhaps "inevitable?" I have often thought that is was a "realistic" or even "idealistic" prospect, that people could conceivably be "stacked" into highrises, expanding into the sky, if it ever came to that. I would much prefer that, to imposing "restrictions" on how many children people may have. What can faraway politicians possibly claim to know, about what is best for people?

And it is always people's own homes, that are the most confining, so anytime that parents can possibly find or make room for more children in their homes or hearts, communities and the world is always more spacious, and so society can always then find more room for people too.

But it is not I, who wants to do some "risky" cramming "experiment," but the greater risk, is in whatever powerful force that could possibly stop natural human population growth, and the wars that could stir up. Nor do I propose cramming people into any limited geographical region, but I have always advocated giving humans the free roam of the entire planet, as much as reasonably possible given all these arbitrarily and sometimes unfairly drawn political boundaries, as it may increasingly take nearly the whole planet, just to hold us all?

And I do believe, that if ever humans can "outgrow" the planet, well that should be encouraged as well, as I see the burgeoning growth of the human race, much like a "planetary pregnancy." Pregnancies can't be "stopped," or else the pregnancy is in trouble, and the baby has to "outgrow" the womb, in order to be "born" into whatever is out there, that is better. There is interest in humans maybe someday coming to colonize other worlds, but we aren't ready. The human race is still too small and too immature, to scarcely cross the street without holding the hands of a parent, and we think we can fly off to more worlds? I predict massive increases in world population size, must probably preceed any successful ventures towards spreading the naturally growing human population to more worlds, if ever.

 

Part 2 of 2:

You would be correct, to assume Soylent Green to be a "bit too cheesy." Actually, that's probably a huge understatement. Soylent Green is about the worst possible movie, on "overpopulation" imaginable, based largely on fear and shock value, and very little upon reality nor science. Yes, I have that movie on DVD, as I wondered whatever are people talking about, when they reference that bizarre movie. As I thought, it was a pointless sensationalist farce, based more on the population paranoria of the rebellious counter-culture 1960s, than in any science or reality. And did you notice how much Soylent Green assumed some sort of communist, centralized control, of most everything? Where was the competition, technology, or entreprenuers? All those people, and not one of them, ever has a good idea how to do anything better? The fear promoted by such nonsense as Soylent Green, actually serves to promote treating people as mere cattle, as depicted in that movie. Even the video game, Project Eden has at least a more plausible sci-fi "overpopulation" storyline. Actually, as one could expect, Project Eden passed up all sorts of opportunities to get "preachy" against "overpopulation," but used it more as an excuse to entertain their programmers' apparent desire for really cool scenery of really tall buildings. Which are probably a lot easier to program polygons for, in a video game, than "natural" spaces anyway, since human-created buildings have lots of straight and simple lines, compared to the more complicated or fractal nature of "natural" spaces. Project Eden wasn't even "crowded" with people, unless the many "uncrowded" isolation video games, is to serve as the reference baseline? Presumably, most of the people are never seen, existing on other, multiple floor levels of the structures, never visited in the video game.

And in Project Eden of course, the real problem isn't food, but low society mores, and a typical "caste" system between the haves and the have-nots living in the lower levels of the superstructure. Their "real meat" is some huge slabs of "meat" growing in tanks. Apparently some genetic engineering going on, producing meat without animals anymore. And still, with so many 100s of billions, or trillions of people, as there must be by then, there doesn't seem to be hardly any interest in "controlling" natural population growth, but merely keeping order. People are still, apparently having children, and at least some of the people, living rather comfortable and sheltered lives.

And then of course, The Jetsons is a rather comfortable depiction of the future, in which it's open to interpretation whether there is any supposed "overpopulation" or not, as they don't even bother to say or comment on it, but it seems not strange at all, to see outside one's highrise windows, more highrises, also full of people, and I don't recall seeing much "nature" in The Jetsons, as if humans might just suppose themselves to have a natural God-given right, to largely "fill" most of the land of the planet. And even the huge sky seems to be somewhat "congested" with flying cars, of which most every person who can drive, seems to easily afford. And there's perhaps so many, many people, that Mr. George Jetson only has to work but 3 hours a day, 3 days a week, and that's an ordinary "full-time" job? Is that how they keep everybody employed, or is it because the robots do most of the work anyway? I rather think I could live quite well, with just a 9-hour "work week" and more time to spend with my (growing) family!

And so all the billions of people throughout the world, will kindly refrain from sex, until you say, it's okay? I think not. 4 or 5 babies are being born per second throughout the world, as we speak. So like it or not, some "bulldozing" will have to go on. It's my position, that we will likely never have the necessary adaptations until such time, that they increasingly come to be needed. As they say, "necessity is the mother of invention." Somewhere, I have heard that Thomas Malthus supposedly said, that overpopulation was necessary, to prevent laziness. Of course, I don't know if he really said that. Malthus supposedly also said, perhaps at an earlier time, that somebody must die, to make room for each birth. Nonsense! History has already proved that wrong, that births can actually come faster than deaths, as ridiculously low human population densities, can obviously accumulate and grow and adapt. And parents hardly can affort to wait "until hell freezes over," for the population level to finally go down a bit, to have their precious darling children. Parents must be encouraged to go ahead and have all their children they were meant to have, or "all the children God gives," in spite of the huge and rising population numbers, or even because of, to encourage the human race to advance and grow and progress.

Well I think it is safe to say, that most of us aren't stranded in the middle of nowhere, in freezing weather, from a crashed airplane. There is plenty of food most everywhere, other than our dead comrades, so isn't that largely irrelevant? Besides, what are the population "control" freaks doing, to enhance food supply then? Seems to me that they are too busy preaching their "magic condom" anti-life heresies, to have any time left for doing anything productive to actually help people, nor address their real needs, other than to the minimal extent they might, to hide that they are anti-population and really just selfish and evil contraceptive pushers. And raising our taxes, to pay for their stupid socialist, anti-progress, projects. Or seeking to mire countries in debt, and gain all the more globalist control over the masses.

But if sex is so wonderful as society often makes it out to be, shouldn't there be all the more penises and vaginas throughout the world, populating closer together, so that all the more people may enjoy life, or at the very least, possibly sex? Sure, I am for being sensible and frugal, and simplifying my life, as much as I reasonably can. I get disgusted at all the dumb corporate "Give us money" consumerism commercials on TV. But human life is something far too sacred and precious, to be "rationed" or to be kept back to some unnaturally small quantity. God designed humans to ultimately become incredibly abundant, and that is clearly stated in the Bible, which most people don't bother to read, nearly enough. That to me sounds like even "huge" populations of people, are supposed to be procreating, quite a lot. The world is not yet so full, as to not still have much room for "unchecked," naturally-spreading baby booms.

Other species that don't vote, don't talk, and don't pay taxes? And don't "care" about the matter of the human population size, near as much as we ourselves like to worry our little minds about it? Other species that can't even understand such things, and have more to fear from other wild animals, than from people, usually?

As people naturally expect to go on procreating, in most every house, and most every apartment, in most every grass hut and shantytown and refugee camp, I am quite sure we could do with less wilderness, and more cities and towns and suburbs, to hold all the people in better comfort and safety, with better morals and pronatalism to help us more readily adapt to what perhaps must be. With so many people now on the planet, of course there must be some "sharing" going on, but with other humans, as God's other creatures in the wild, can go on fending for themselves and God can provide for them, if God wants. Feeding the wildlife, makes them more dependent upon us, and makes even more wildlife. Thus, then shouldn't the wildlife be doing some work for us or something, and not get a "free lunch?" Humans are different, and children grow up, to become largely self-reliant, and human population growth, naturally accomodates itself, especially with good leadership and Godly people of vision.

Well me too. Get married, and then have sex. Children need both a mother and father, and not some jerk of a guy who runs off on them, leaving Mom with all the work and care of the children.

But why does the world work so hard, to complicate the simple principles God gives us? "True love waits," or so says the conservative Southern Baptists. Waits for what? Waits and waits and waits, as people procrastinate marriage increasingly into old age? Where's the "reward" for waiting? Awkward "birth control" after faithfully waiting and marrying when they find somebody to marry? No, marriage is "licence" or God's permission to enjoy sex, and "unlimited" procreation, subject only to God's providence or natural human fecundity. As more women throughout the world, come to childbearing age, of course the babies may be added to a society, faster and faster, with more people breeding all at the same time, because now there are more homes and more parents, needed to raise so many children. It's elegant and simple. Why complicate it, and act as if God didn't know what he was doing, when he created humans, and designed sex to be enjoyed naturally, and decided to allow humans to enjoy being constantly "in heat," able to breed year-round without any confined "breeding season" as with his other creatures.