stop making kids

Discussion in 'The Environment' started by freakon, Dec 14, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Benther Dondat

    Benther Dondat Member

    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    0
    Brother Pronatalist

    Been watching a lot of TV lately...haven't you?

    Why would Mother Nature want to harm her sacred children???

    When is the last time you smelled the sweet fragrance of fresh flowers or heard the lyrical song of a mocking bird...spend some time in the garden? Introduce yourself to your Mother.

    It blows my mind...infants are sweet souls born to love and live and share.

    Do we teach them the most fundamental of all truths...that the garden is our mother?

    No! we sit their young, loving, trusting, innocent little asses in front of the great-big-glowing-box-thingy...turn the channel to the Pit bull Bible Thumper's latest rendition of the Hypnotic Zombie Drone Chant...set the timer to a lifetime...flip the program switch to ON and distract them while we go away to have more me-me’s.

    Our babies learn to hear the words even when there is no sound!

    The circle is unbroken and the voice of God rings clear...

    …conform…compete…consume…breed…conform…compete…consume…breed…conform …compete…consume…breed…conform…compete…consume…breed…conform

    The nature of human nature is Mother Nature and the mother of nature is the garden.
     
  2. mondoglove

    mondoglove Member

    Messages:
    208
    Likes Received:
    73
    pronatalist- there you go again, looking to films and television for your 'insight' into the future.

    newsflash: human beings hate eachother. we detest the greed and stupidity we see in others, just as we detest it within ourselves. prompting things like gennocide, racism, sexism, etc. we are not special.

    a simple question (please don't mention supernatural beings): why do you despise all the other creatures that must be annihilated in order to make way for one species of fumbling bipeds?

    one more question: did it occur to you that most people cannot afford to continually breed? bringing up children is becoming increasingly expensive, thus some kids have fewer oppourtunities (education, health, etc).


    short, logical answers please.
     
  3. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,551
    Likes Received:
    10,141
    So right. Don't know about the culling part though, what do you mean with that exactly?

    Adopt a child from the third world? Maybe you can have multiple solutions if you don't think too straight.

    Eh, because we pissed her off? To save herself? To keep balance? Not that 'Mother Nature' wants anything in my opinion, but if it was the case.
     
  4. Maggie Sugar

    Maggie Sugar Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,001
    Likes Received:
    11
    Benthar, PurpleGel and the OP, PLEASE don't YOU have any children.

    Some people are good parents, but those who are obviously off ther meds and talking crazy obviously shouldn't breed.

    What I see is people who would make HORRIBLE parents assuming everyone is as messed up as they are, so they assume that no one should have children.Not all parents plop their chidlren in front of your hated tele all day, either. Yeah, Benthar, some people with kids DO have "gardens" does that count? You seem to have a lot of assumptions about something you know NOTHING about. Some of us actually contribute to the Planet by having good, accoutable, open minded children. We don't need the permission of the less-than-together to do so.

    One thing I did learn in college, you can't argue with Psychosis. And a LOT of the anti-baby posts sound similar to this.

    Some people need to get back on their meds..................
     
  5. Maggie Sugar

    Maggie Sugar Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,001
    Likes Received:
    11
    Actually, the planet is now in the Fifth Major Extinction. True. The problem is, with modern medicine, even used in Third World Countries, not to mention our own, the Extinction, which would naturally limit the human population is being taken down by the medicines that help mostly Third World people with thier medical problems.

    It isn't having babies that is the problem, it's not naturally allowing the sick to die that is. Anyone want to take on the AIDS drug Industry and see what happens? One could be cold and cruel and say "No AIDS drugs for Asia and Africa." and "overpopulation would be solved in a generation. But, once we have a technology, we have an obligation to use it. Many HIV pos womyn in these countries (who not only have the highest birth rates, but also the highest HIV rates) are still having babies, (because they are living long enough to, with the drugs) many of whom will be born with HIV or get it by the age of 13 or so when they become sexually active (the age of sexual activity in China is actually older, but much of Asia where there is much HIV, is where the hotbeds of child prostitution is, so the HIV spreads even faster.) But, who of you, in favor of telling ME I have no right to have children is going to take the unpopular side of refusing to treat HIV in Third World Nations? My guess would be NONE of you.

    In the 14th century, there was the beginings of overpopulation. BAM. The Black Plague. (and no treatment or cure for it then) The population then stabilized and it ushered in the Reformation. One can look all over the world all over history and see these attempts of the Planet to heal itself from overpopulation. The problem is now, humans can nearly prevent these purges. That is perhaps the problem. But, WHO would be brave enough to say that this is the problem?

    None of the Zero Pop people. Why? Because it is easier to attack parents. Cowards. Put the blame where it belongs, if you really beleive we are "over populated." And I am not all that convinved that we are......and I certainly don't favor holding back life saving treatments from 3rd World Continents, yet THIS, not telling middle class Westerners not to have a few kids, is what will really stop "overpopulation." THINK.
     
  6. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,551
    Likes Received:
    10,141
    No right to have children is nonsense indeed. But since letting all people with aids and hunger in the 3rd world die isn't an option, people should consider adoption or stop having children after two childs for example.
    If we want all people to live long and happy we have to change something. It may not look like it where you live, but earth is getting full through people and their waste.
     
  7. Maggie Sugar

    Maggie Sugar Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,001
    Likes Received:
    11
    But the ONLY people paying attention to Zero Population Growth are Educated, Intelligent, Westerners. Who does that leave to continue to have babies, and if all the smart, aware people STOP having babies, who is the next generation going to be populated by?
     
  8. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,551
    Likes Received:
    10,141
    No right to have children at all is nonsense indeed. We agree on that. Looks to me that if families had only one or two children there still is a next generation. Adoption from the third world is still an option.
     
  9. Benther Dondat

    Benther Dondat Member

    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  10. MaximusXXX

    MaximusXXX Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,929
    Likes Received:
    5
    I wouldn't mind adopting one or two kids but I want to have a few of my own too, that's the whole point of being able to have children. The fact that about 3 Billion people in our world are uneducated and living in poverty with little to do but have sex and no condoms around, I'm sorry, but I seriously think we should forget about Food Aid and start creating a fund called CONDOM AID!!! CONDOMS FOR EVERYBODY!!!!

    Is it that crazy?
     
  11. salmon4me

    salmon4me Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    4
    I don't the people are asking you not to have a few kids. I think they are saying to ONLY have a few.
     
  12. salmon4me

    salmon4me Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,099
    Likes Received:
    4
    ^^ Good point. [​IMG]
     
  13. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,551
    Likes Received:
    10,141
    You're right, it probably isn't enough because the majority of the population will go on with what they do without thinking. But doesn't a better world start with yourself?
    You can't expect the people in the third world, the not so intelligent and uneducated not to have more than two children while you have like seven because you're 'seeing the whole picture' and they can't see it.
     
  14. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,693
    Likes Received:
    4,504
    i think the title of this thread is a very good idea. one of the best things just about all of us have access to doing for the environment, and that means ulitmately for ourselves.

    i probably need not mention that everyone realizes it isn't quite that simple.
    this is why we need to put something in the water supply, or someother how, that every human person will be affected by it. not to completely and perminently stirilize anyone, but to lower the probability, accross the board, without bias or exception, of pregnancies taking occuring.

    with the medical tecnologies and understanding we have now, even to the degree that we have had for several hunderd years, humanity as a species is just too damd fertile for it's own, and the rest of life on this planet's, own good.

    should we stop using medicine to releive suffering and or extend life?
    that would of course be one approach, but that is not a world i would wish to look forward to. neither is one in a constant state of war. though to hear some people talk, however much they deny it with the other side of their mouths, i rather suspect there are many who seem to immagine it might be.

    but a world in which people live nearly twice as long was we, on average do now, and yet in which there would be in total less then half, perhapse a LOT less then half, let's say, arround 1/20th as many humans on the planet as there are now, THAT IS i would i can and eagerly would and do, look forward to.

    not that i'm expecting too in THIS life. which is to me one of the great saddnessess of it.

    other worlds i believe i may in previous lives have lived on, and those in future lives i look forward to, are by far and away not nearly so plagued by this problem.

    =^^=
    .../\...
     
  15. Asmodean

    Asmodean Slo motion rider

    Messages:
    50,551
    Likes Received:
    10,141
    Me too, man. I bet it would really lighten up my heart. I'm afraid it just won't happen at all.
     
  16. Maggie Sugar

    Maggie Sugar Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,001
    Likes Received:
    11
    Stem Cell Meat???? Wouldn't that be, like, Soylent Green? I'm serious. Stem cells are human cells.
     
  17. Maggie Sugar

    Maggie Sugar Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,001
    Likes Received:
    11
    I am NOT advocating it. It would be as cruel as telling people not to have children.

    BUT, disease and normal decrease in fertility and natural extinctions, when animals are in an overcrowded enviroment are NATURE'S way of controlling population. Whether that is insects, or mice or pigeons or humans, this is how the planet heals itself.

    The "Too Many People On the Earth" people are telling a select few members of the human race to stop breeding, when this tactic will do NOTHING to solve the problem. NONE of them have addressed the attempts of the planet to cure herself, and our medical and "enviromental" technology uses to circumvent these tactics. All I am saying is IF you believe the planet is over populated with humans, you should be in favor or NATURAL methods of population control. Mainly disease and world wide drops in fertility. I am not saying this,(because I am not a misanthrope) but I understand that only the upper classes, the educated and the Westerners are going to participate in any unnatural attempts to control population. The majority of the people breeding, probaby most of the population, has no interest, no knowlege and will not participate. SO, who then will the Earth be populated by in 2 generations, if all those who have actually Contributed to the Planet's health have stopped breeding? Those who slash and burn, those who think 12 kids are a regular family, those who can't even feed themselves, much less the children they bring into the world, whose who depend on US to feed, clothe and help them when the planet tries to heal itself by wiping them out. HOW can you expect to control the entire population if only a smalll percentage will ever even think of participating in your tactics? It won't work. (Again I am NOT in favor of not helping the Poor and the downtrodden, but doing so (helping them) only does contribute to overpopulation much more than ME having four kids.)

    IF you feel that population needs to be controlled, then allow the Planet to heal herself. Which includes doing nothing about disease, nothing about natural disasters, nothing about World Wide drop in fertility, nothing about suffering the the Third World. The "First World" has nearly Zero population Growth the way it is. Look at the growth in the most disease ridden areas of the world, and you will see where most of your "overpopulation" is coming from.

    What do you intend to do about that?

    Because trying to intimidate a few middle class Westerners not to breed won't be a drop in the bucket of "overpopulation."
     
  18. Maggie Sugar

    Maggie Sugar Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,001
    Likes Received:
    11
    I could quote a thousand pieces of data, but this is very clear:


    So, how are First World People to blame?
     
  19. Pronatalist

    Pronatalist Banned

    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh really? Well it's an absurd suggestion, that I wouldn't at all expect for sensible people to take seriously. Stop making kids? Huh? Whatever for? That's much like suggesting that people stop breathing, or that their hearts stop pumping. God created people and commanded his people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and furthermore made what populates the planet, to be extremely pleasurable, to remind us of the urgency that human life go and and spread throughout his earth that he created.

    Why is the human reproductive system so shamed, to begin with? We don't set quotas usually, on how much people may breathe, nor how often people may visit the toilet, nor on how much food they eat, so why in the world should anybody want to "limit" how much other people (often of a different skin color BTW = racism) may breed?

    If humans are increasingly filling the ecosystem with fellow humans, so much the better, at least for the many humans who then get to live.

    In fact, that should be a rather obvious purpose of food, not merely for selfish consumption, but also for being converted into additional human bodies. To convert relatively cheap biomatter or food into additional people, each of immense and unmeasurable and sacred value, represents a great "investment," at least philosophically.

    They say that you can't stop people from having sex. Well then, why don't "they" complete the idea, that you can't stop people from having babies then. Sex = babies, and that's something that people well understood, until all these anti-freedom, anti-life, anti-nature contraceptive pushers confused the issue.

    Well if world population growth is perhaps supposedly, said by some population phobics, to be "out of control," then leave it be "out of control." "Birth control" or population "control" ought to be detestable to sensible people, because that raises the logical question of who then can we trust to do all that "controlling?" (Answer: Only God, who commanded his people to multiply, and to go on and multiply all the more.)

    I thought "something in the water supply" was a cute excuse for to explain away why some people seem to like having so many babies? Just some casual explanation about how baby booms tend to be "contagious."

    How can you speak of such anti-freedom nonsense? Whatever happened to "choice" (to not have children, if you believe the lies of the rampant contraceptive pushers)? As author Paul Erhlich, of the pretty-much-now-discredited book The Population Bomb, opined, "family planning" is a miserable "failure." By giving people "choice" in how many children to have, in his view at least, society is denied any choice. One family may choose to have 3 children, and another family 7. But in both cases, they both add to the population growth, helping to produce the next generation, being larger and more populous, than the previous. Now I think that people aren't completely stupid. If they keep breeding so much, surely people have some idea of the "consequences" and so most people, really do prefer a more populous future world, so that they may have the children they supposedly want, or all the children they were meant to have, or "all the children God gives." I know I would want for my children to be welcome to enjoy having "all the children God gives," even in a world pushing past 9 or 10 billion people or whatever.

    No, we don't need any secret, deceptive contraceptives, because people rather like being alive, even if that means being incredibly numerous, and there are other ways to accomodate or mitigate world population growth, without actually bothering to "limit" numbers. Supposedly intelligent people, should be quite capable of gradually adapting to live and breed in closer proximity to other people, in order that all the people there might get to be, may be properly welcomed and respected. There could obviously come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Cities and towns obviously can be welcomed to grow larger and closer together, so that there might be a proper place for everybody. After all, how much space do human beings really need? Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. Human beings should be the most capable creatures, at naturally learning to populate more densely and efficiently, for the greater good of the many. In fact, I have read somewhere the "environmental" lament that humans adapt too well to their environment. Well I would count that as an asset, as that suggests that an increasingly densely settled world, should be all fine and good, for humans. I think some poster on another forum, likes to use some term "overcrowding syndrome," or crowd tolerance, or something or other, which suggests to me, as humans populate more densely, they often don't hardly notice, and think it to be "normal." So much the better. In a world with so many people, I should hope that humans would naturally adapt to be more compatible with living amongst vast populous multitudes.

    We ought to be more grateful, for our God-given fertility. Would it be better, if suddenly, all humans became infertile, and the population grew more and more elderly, with no young people to care for the aging in the nursing homes? Or if humans started dropping dead like flies?

    Actually, large families should be encouraged worldwide. What's the alternative? A more hostile and cynical world? That's hardly the ideal for such a populous world as we are naturally becoming. Why the strange population phobic obsession with advocacy of a stagnant world? I find a growing world of people, to be far more interesting and exciting. The sort of world that better leads to compassion, moral reform, innovation, and hopefully if or as possible, more space exploration and perhaps even colonization of more worlds for humans to also fill.

    Also, what kind of sense does it make, to suggest that a higher percentage of children, should be born to parents with practically no experience raising children? Or be raised to be a spoiled brat only child? No, it's the parents who already have many children, that rank among the best candidates, for conceiving still more children. Surely by then, they have figured out, which they likely knew already, what's making all those babies. If large families continue to grow naturally, then it's probably because they love their children, or as the over-educated idiot Paul Ehrlich fears, "too many" people are figuring out that they are especially good at nurturing children.

    Why take away what so many people are good at? Not all people are all that talented. People need something that they can do well. Well one thing that quite a lot of people seem to be good at, is making kids. Think about it. Sex is hereditory, as they say. If your parents didn't do it, neither would you.

    The stupid "free love" hippies of the rebellious 1960s, were actually onto something, when they said "Make love, not war." What they should have said, is to make babies, not war, and not played around with sexual immorality and "the pill." People need something to do, to keep them out of trouble, and having children, is a great thing for the populous masses to do, as it allows all the more fellow people, to also enjoy life, and is one of the most generous things people can do for mankind.

    Or more likely, humans enjoy fertility, at God's wonderous blessing, because God's commandment to humans to have dominion over nature and other creatures, actually implied that God destined humans to grow and grow to become among the most populous of the large mammals. Why was man to tend and tame nature? Not that nature really much cares, but so that man could ultimately grow incredibly numerous, as God promised to do with the descendents of Abraham, to make them so populous as to be nearly as uncountable as the grains of sand of the seashore or the stars of the sky.

    And human fertility is a fickle and fragile blessing, that can quickly fade with age, and so people would be quite wise, to go ahead and have their children as God allows or grants, as to have childen "later" is not often assured. In fact, quite a lot of infertility problems could easily trace to procrastinating marriage too long on average as a society, and to sloppy and reckless experimentation with shoddy, side-effect-ridden contraceptives.

    Without all these "burgeoning billions" of people on the planet, I really think that computers and the internet and DVDs and so forth, would long have remained impossible, as not many people really think of such innovations and inventions, and so it takes some "critical mass" of world population to accelerate along such technologies, which in turn, help accomodate human population growth all the better. And such things as computer chips, can't possibly be produce economically, in small quantities, and so huge human populations, are quite essential, just to make much of what we now take for granted, even possible.

    Well some population phobics would argue for such barbarism, because they worship "nature," or because their atheism leaves them morally challenged, or because they think some level of cruelity is perhaps necessary to "reign in" the world's naturally burgeoning billions.

    I have read of "the lifeboat ethic" promoted by Garrett Hardin I think, in some pathetic college textbook. Supposedly, helping the developing nations, with food and medicine, is counterproductive, because it decreases infant mortality, increases longevity, and encourages more childbearing, all of which serve to supposedly worsen those countries so-called "overpopulation." But I want to decrease infant mortality, increase longevity, and encourage childbearing, because I already believe the world should be populated all the more densely and efficiently, so all those nations should be encourage to populate more and more densely, and to modernize, to better server the greater good of the populous many.

    Then promote a more kind and pronatalist world. There's already lots of people alive now, why stop now?

    Out of time, gotta go. But I believe humans really are an asset or The Ultimate Resource as author Julian Simon claims, and that adding more people to the world, will help make the world a better place, especially into the future, as the world more learns how to better cope with rising human numbers.
     
  20. Inquiring-Mind

    Inquiring-Mind Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,244
    Likes Received:
    0
    People doing the most damage in the world are the upper classes you speak off. They hold the wealth and exploit the planet. Who slash and burn without care and for the sake of profit? The upper class, they control production and produce all the junk and brainwash people into buying it. Third world countries wanna be independent it is western countries and corporations that want them depended on them so they can exploit their resources.

    What we call the "First World" today was once the the third world. First world has zero growth not because they are following zero population growth, they just have better things to do with their time than sex and breeding.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice