overpopulation

if everything that exists is natural, then the term ceases to exist. even young children have a concept of "man-made" being apart from "natural". you don't. what is synthetic? what is anything in happy-magic-land, where you live?

the point is that unpolluted nature has value of its own. i'm sure you know the famous expression "you can't buy happiness". being able to enjoy the beauty of nature for its own sake is one of the most profound, yet simple ways of enhancing your life. and it's free! i feel sorry for people who don't realize, and look to man-made idolatory for a similar (inferior) experience.

umm... this has absolutely nothing to do with the environment. again, stick to the point. it's becoming clearer to me that you have trouble distinguishing between television and reality. but, what is reality to a person who makes up their own rules?

i rest my case. your original analogy was that taking the life of an unborn fetus was the same as taking a million dollars from me that i didn't know about. now: how exactly does a non existant entity become aware of its non-existence? sorry, i'll dumb it down for you: the fetus is dead. the fetus will never know what kind of life it may have had because it is dead. do i need to elaborate further? go back to school.

oh, so holier than thou! i suggest you go to university and learn something about making an argument. you aren't protecting the right to choose, you're eliminating the option of choosing. result: fewer options. you should also get some life experience, as you have no understanding of basic human nature. read something that isn't officially endorsed by the church. realize that most of the human race doesn't base their entire system of logic on religious dogma. open your own mind. spend some time in the wild, get aquainted with the rugged natural world from which we came. realize that the world you are advocating is in opposition to the wonderous world in which we evolved. :shower:

 

I have already proved there is overpopulation. If large amounts of people are dying of starvation and/or otherwise suffering from lack of basic resources (numbers and references to the U.N. and official government stats. are given in my previous posts on this thread), then there are too many people for the world to support (and in world, beside physical amounts of resources, I mean the human aspects (greed, etc) as well, economic, govermental factors, etc). It does not matter if you say that resources are not distrubited evenly or under-utilised because that is just the way things are. That could change, in the future sometime, but it is not the case right now.

 

I simply don't agree with the excessive interpretation of everything "man-made" as somehow being apart from nature. How exactly, is it not "nature" if humans are also a part of nature?

And as I see it, the term "natural" still exists, but I prefer a more useful more broad definition, not the distorted and narrow definition that eco-freaks seem to prefer. Humans and cities are natural too, but "birth control" goes against nature, and bizarre ugly tattoos and body piercings are not natural, because they have not natural nor logical purpose, other than to pretty much rebel against God, make people to look like freaks, and to defile the "temple" of the soul often said to be perhaps the body.

What is "synthetic?" Well it technically means something else, other than whether it is "natural" or not. "Synthetic" does not define, whether something is natural or not, as it may be also, both or neither. Synthetic merely means, producing something via other, generally more efficient, processes, than the old "natural" way, even though the end result may be scarcely or not detectably different. "Food replicator" food may be completely "natural" although the means of production, are not. "Synthetic" is a means of making things, whether "natural" or not, more affordable to the common working poor, rather than only affordable to the rich elites.

"Natural" is teeth green with rot. "Natural" is not necessarily, always synonymous with "good" or "bad." A world with so many people in it, as there is today, is not a world that can be completely "natural" or "pristine." I think most people don't want to pave over the entire planet, but rather, to pave over, where people need roads and sidewalks. Nature is fine, well until it gets in the way, of the needs of so many people. "Environmentalists" earn themselves a bad name, because of their blantant disregard of the many needs of so many people. Rather than "worshipping" nature, people can bring a bit of nature into their homes or cities, if or as they wish, as nature has no "wish" to be completely "natural" or "pristine." Actually, I think nature could appear to prefer, to be groomed and tended by man, as they say a garden looks better than overgrown jungle.

Remember my broader, more accurate definition of "nature?" Similarly, the human environment isn't just "nature," but also what's on TV. It's part of the natural cultural environment. And quite often, the cutural pollution can be far worse, than even the thoughtless, careless littering.

And what am I making up? Just because I see some things far more clearly than most people in general, doesn't mean I am "making up" anything at all.

When a human baby becomes alive, it becomes aware of its existence, or at least soon after, long before birth. Babies in the womb, subjected to abortion, do feel pain. Nor is it fair to snatch a human life away, after the baby has already been investing in growing and maturing towards being able to survive outside his or her mother. "Fetus" is merely Latin for "little one," it does not at all mean "dead." Don't believe the convenient lies of the pro-aborts. Lack of foreknowledge on the part of man, does not change the reality of the future conditions.

If you don't like the anology of the million dollars (or should we make it 10 million dollars since some people say a million dollars isn't even all that much anymore?), how about I, for example, hypothetically, travel back in time, and somehow throw a monkeywrench into your father and mother meeting each other, such that you could never have been born, as with the fading photograph in the movie, Back to the Future. Is that okay with you, since you presumably would lack foreknowledge of your natural desire to live, at that point in time? Or how would you have like for the population control freaks/family planners, to have run into your parents, before your conception?

We didn't come from the natural world, but from God's deliberate Creation. The Bible says that humans are created in the "image" of God, which means we aren't god, but neither are we "nature." We are in some sort of transcindent state, such that God commanded people to have dominion over nature, for we shall outlast nature, as humans have eternal souls, while nature does not.

Interesting that the last word in your post was "evolved," as isn't that what the population controversy is really about, about whether one's world view is a divine Creation event, for some great purpose, with the prospect of there also being some divinely-appointed purpose to each and every human life, or some happenstance, freak-of-nature gradual "evolution" event?

 

Your argument is based on a flawed definition of the term "natural". What we 'eco-freaks' really mean, is a life in harmony with other forms of life. While cars and nuclear bombs may be a product of human thought and therefore loosely connected to *your* definition of nature, and quite obviously impressive feats, they're also quite obviously 'against' life, human or otherwise.

Teeth rot is mainly caused by our acidic and sugary modern diet. We wouldn't need toothpaste if we didn't eat the synthetic food we eat. Also, I say that an overgrown jungle looks better than a garden : the difference between the two is a bit like the difference between working sexual organs, and a flattened and hollowed out testicle which we hang up on the wall because it looks pretty. Think about that.

I also think that your honourable, endearing yet somewhat tragic trait of passionate and unquestioning reinforcment of your idea of yourself (the bible), is going to be a hurdle in relating to the ideas of other humans, and much much more so in regards to the understanding of other forms of life. Sorry if that sounds slightly harsh, it's just in the past couple of weeks I've realised that being nice isn't always synonymous with respect.

 

Thank you dude! I couldnt of said it better myself. I am so tired of seeing people basing their whole arguments off of something that makes you blind to the few things we can explain and draw a connection to. I dont mind the bible but sometimes you have to look past what others tell you and just open your eyes.

 

Depending on what you mean by "harmony," I can go along with some ideas of living more simply or frugally, by choice, but the sheer numbers of people now alive in the world, simply don't allow for extreme views of harmonious living with nature, so I am very much against such "environmental" interpretations. I am only for human population accomodation, never human population "control" that obviously goes against God's will and purpose for man. The many compelling reasons people have for having children, even the "weight of numbers" greatly outweighs any natural reasons nature could possibly supposedly have, for human numbers being more modest and pidly, as in the past. It's high time to move on towards what will be, or our God-ordained destiny.

Tooth rot actually corresponds sharply to the lack of floridation in community water, in many regions of the world, or in the past. Obviously, some of it is also dietary related. It also relates to lack of basic dental care or lack of brushing teeth.

Overgrown jungles tend to be unpenetratable, diminishing their presumed beauty, because fewer people can then see it. And even nature could be said to perhaps "prefer" the maintained gardens that humans produce, rather than the neglect.

 

Pronatalist:
You had one good point, the likening of television to a sewage outlet.
As for the rest, I used to think I was the dumbest poster of information on this whole site. Now I feel better.
The way I see it, the optimum number of people meant to inhabit this planet might be around 100 million. That's 1/60 our current population. You don't get there from here by mindless breeding. The Chinese are doing what they can to slow down natural increase, with mixed results.
Ecologically speaking, the best thing I can do for this planet is to die. I'm programmed to do that in about twenty years. In the meantime the best thing I can do is have no children at all.

 

you are still missing the gaping hole in your argument. if this is truly an analogy for abortion, then there is NO POSSIBLE WAY i could know what i was missing out on. i understand what you're trying to say here, but you will never be able to prove that a fetus can be unhappy about missing out on the life it might have had, because there's no way it could ever have that knowledge.

what i'm getting at is: to a person who bases their strongest beliefs in unprovable myth, which crumbles under the test of science, why do you bother even making an argument at all? you often rant about dubious concepts such as food replicators, but wouldn't it be easier to say: "if people are hungry, food will fall from the sky as a gift from god." then you don't have to go to the trouble of providing a shred of evidence.

"making things up" refers to the way in which religion writes its own rules, in order to create a delusional reality in which things are exactly as you want them to be. you can choose whichever delusion best suits your needs. example: a person with low self esteem might benefit from the christian beleif that we are more than animals, we are actually semi-divine beings who have the right to do whatever we want to all other forms of life.

so my question is: why do you bother with the trappings of philosophy and science, when your most fundamental beleif cannot be proven?

on this we agree, although it's clear that you don't understand evolution. evolution does not claim to solve the mystery of how life began, but shows how life adapts to the changing world, its weather conditions and the threats/oppourtunities that other species present. i'm most curious to hear what you think of dinosaurs, pre-historic animals and our ancestors: the early hominids. fossils of all these life forms have been found in the earth, where they originated. indeed: what can the bible tell us about the experience of cave-men? please share the divine knowledge that explains everything.

 

I agree. I agree that whether you believe in god or not, our natural purpose, the meaning of life if you like, is to *replicate ourselves*. In fact the discussions/arguments going on here are kind of an abstract mirror of that, the result of the desire for more people to be (me). I think it's sad that we've become so disconnected from our purpose, and also I think that modern society is no more than a artificial womb beckoning us away from the truth. The fact of the matter is though, and what I don't understand about your argument, is that the modern world is the *only* thing which encourages birth control. Take away the rat race, live in harmony with nature, and people would have NO reason to want to use contraception. There's no evidence to suggest that a purely natural world couldn't support a population as large as ours. The point is that a more harmonious life is a less suicidal one, the world could support more life (as we wouldn't be choking ourselves with pollution), and would do better for the general well being of all life.

So, when we were 'savages' who didn't rely on processed foods and didn't mess with the water supply (I know some natural supplies have a certain level of fluoride already but still), you mean to say that our teeth would rot away before we had a chance to chew on a tasty bit of meat? What about all the animals in the world? Do they just have better teeth?

Really? Could you direct me to where nature gives an indication of it's preference? You sure it's not that you just want to believe it because it reinforces your position? In any case, I'm sure nature prefers not having it's womb removed (I recall you mentioning in an earlier post that population control in pets was valid as it was 'convenient' for the modern human).

 

It's a natural purpose of human life, but not the only purpose. There would be no use to replication, if human life was otherwise meaningless. Which is pretty much the view that evolution promotes.

But even basic nature tells us that humans should multiply, since every baby is born with a penis or a vagina. And God must have had some design purpose in making what populates the planet, to be extremely pleasurable. To remind us of our duty to pass on the precious gift of human life that God gave us, to our children, and onwards to their children. All the more people to experience life and worship God.

I want for more people to exist, because all the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, and the powerful reproductive urges that people commonly feel, all add up to a global goal and natural desire, to enlarge the entire human race. It's not just to benefit my own family or country, but humanity in general, so I delight to see human populations worldwide, to naturally expand. Apparently it is God's will, that people go on multiplying. Some saying says that a baby is God's will for the world to go on.

A bewildering array of false, made-up religions, when the truth is knowable and searchable, so where is the excuse?

And of what truth are you speaking? The same, or something different from that of which I speak? I promote the Christian worldview, because I see it as true and human-friendly. Jesus said if you continue in my word, then you shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free. John 8 I think is where I read that.

And I am not all that fond of nature, and I do think that people should "disconnect" themselves from nature, somewhat. Not by making themselves to be bizarre guinea pigs for shoddy contraceptive experimentation, but by living in homes to protect them from the weather and such. Out in the wild wilderness, it often is too wet, too cold, too hot, to many nasty bugs and mosquitoes, too muddy, too dirty, etc. The "natural" world can also be the cities in which people live, perhaps necessary to populate people densely enough that so many billions of people can live harmoniously at once. Sure people should visit "nature" and go hiking and such, but that really isn't the "natural" world where humans belong, most of the time, especially now that our numbers have naturally grown so huge.

Don't believe the lies of the eco-freaks. People living more primitive lives, don't necessarily pollute less. I heard somewhere, that it isn't smart to poop in your drinking water. Well what do you think that people with no modern sanitation facilities, commonly do? Like the population phobics, I don't think humans can just keep adding more and more people to the world, and keep doing things the same old way. But conversely, and unlike the view of the population phobics, people can go on adding more people to the world, and intelligently adapt and change their ways, in order to better accomodate, comfortably and safely, more and more people onto the planet. Many people actually do not want to bother to use contraception. They need not deny human life needlessly, so long as they provide for their children, and naturally and intelligently adapt and funish their homes with such basics as the flush toilet and modern plumbing. Similarly, how many more people can we keep cramming into growing cities, and retain millions of smoky cooking fires? No, more people can more comfortably populate closer together, by merely switching to modern clean gas and electric cookstoves. And people ought to quit smoking nasty cancer stick cigarettes, since they rob people of their breath and life, and more people now have to breathe the same air.

While there are more seemingly "natural" adaptations to human population growth, such that bad water doesn't always make people sick right away, since they have immune systems, and human populations seem to grow all the more, among the poor and primitive-living people, some of the seemingly more "artificial" adaptations are also needed. Growing cities need plenty of clean piped water, even if it must come partially from modern water desalination plants. I don't prefer a "purely natural world," because that sounds like one sorely lacking in needed population-accomodation technology. Do you really think that farmers could grow enough food to feed reliably so many billions of hungry mouths, without more modern irrigation and pesticides and fertilizer? Is even agriculture "natural?" Hunting and gathering just doesn't do the job anymore, with the sheer numbers of people crowding the cities, needing to eat everyday.

If you don't want a world choking on pollution and crowds of people, then surely we would also want, some of the modern "artificial" adaptations also, to help nature along, to more efficiently reprocess our wastes and such. I would think that those who prefer nature, would of course prefer natural human reproduction, and not all these bizarre, experimental, shoddy, artificial, awkward, anti-life contraceptives.

I do think life could be simpler, and more frugal, but that can be accomplished by design, by offloading some of our work to computers, and refusing to buy some of the junk that the greedy corporations tell us in their ads, that we simply can't be happy without. We could choose to have more free time, to simplify, and be more frugal. We could make more things ourselves. But modern electricity and modern plumbing does need to spread to more of the world, to help it better accomodate the burgeoning world population. Technology is a tool, that can much help people, when applied to serve the greater good of the populous masses.

The other animals don't usually have as long of lifespan as humans, nor do they eat all the sugar nor all the sugary soda. Some mammals have teeth that never stop growing, such as hamsters and other rodents, and have to knaw them down all the time. In order for humans to enjoy long lifespan, it helps to "unnaturally" purify our drinking water, and add floride to help preserve our teeth.

I'm not so sure that pets really want to reproduce. Do they really want to care for offspring, or do they get tricked by nature, into having them? Humans give conscious thought to reproducing, while animals might not have much idea what makes babies. Animals are not able to adapt to provide for more and more of themselves, as there is only so much territory or land available, and they have pretty much filled it to their low natural density levels already. But God created humans to be intelligent and highly adaptable and socialable, such that we are able to both survive and thrive even at extreme population densities if or as need be. We get our pets "fixed," because we are their "higher power" to decide for them. For us, our "higher power" is God, who commands us to multiply.

 

Words of wisdom. Read it twice people.

 

...

 

PRONATALIST: I'm still waiting for the divine knowledge, dude.

 

no problem will ever be solved with this meaningless population boom.
we need not this much people. what are we? rodents?

 

Sure we need these many people, and more. If not, are you offering yourself to reduce the population, by ceasing to live? I didn't think so, or at least I hope not. But if not, then isn't it hypocritical to want to reduce population, but to expect conveniently somebody else to make that sacrifice for you?

And you are talking about people's precious darling children, not dry population statistics, well unless you suggest that we can just pretend that the world isn't so populous. So how can you call their precious, loved children, "meaningless?"

The population phobics are much like the lying naysayers trying to scare God's people out of building their city wall, in Neahmia 6 (spelling?) in the Old Testament. Same with the globalist agenda "global warming" crowd, which is about the same crowd, incidently.

If the world supposedly doesn't "need" so many people, for the minimal amount to build some socialist society "machine," neither does the world "need" for there to be fewer people alive either. People don't exist but to be cogs in some socialist society "machine," but rather society exists as a collection of people, for the benefit of the many individuals. So society doesn't even have any right to "limit" its population size, as that is automatically counterproductive to the natural interest of the people.

And so what if we breed slightly like the rodents, supposedly? Would you rather the rodents grow to become the dominant creatures, rather than man? Or how about the ravenous dinosaurs, as suggested in some Godzilla movie? In comparison, most civilized people are rather docile, easy to get along with, don't take up much space, and have some useful social skills that make it easy for humans to enjoy being incredibly populous. At least humans put a lot of thought and planning into our breeding, unlike the rodents.

 

Human beings are the most wasteful and destructive animals on the planet. Why do we need more of them around, causing more destruction per individual than any other species? 6 billion is enough for me. I'd honestly prefer it if people had less children in America and that they did it later on in life (late 20's, early 30's at the earliest) when they've accumulated some knowledge on the subject. Too many young people are just not fit to handle the responsibility of raising children IMO. What does the average 18 year old know about the responsibilities of child raising? In this age of extended adolescence, he or she is still a child his or herself.

I mean I know several kids my age and younger who've had children solely because they think they're cute and that it'd be a fun experience, or because they think it will make their boyfriend stick around. We're talking about bringing another life into the world, not a toy or something you can use as leverage to selfishly extend a relationship.

I'm more concerned about how satisfied everyone is and how dignified an existence they live than how many people there are. If we can add to the population and have everyone retain their dignity, then great. If it means the quality of life is compromised then what's the point? Bring more suffering into the world?

Then again, this echoes my feelings about my own life. I know I'd rather live for 30 enjoyable years than go on for 80's years of toil and unfulfilled misery.

The biosphere is struggling to get by with 6 billion. We've already destroyed countless species of flora and fauna, polluted the air, water, and soil, and require enormous concentration camps of livestock to support us.

We're already choking this planet with misery, and people want us to increase the rate at which we do so?

 

post title: Don't contracept. Populate more densely and efficiently.

"Family planning" is quite unnecessary, when many of the populous masses, would much rather naturally populate more densely and efficiently.

Well doesn't that depend on how you measure it? Actually, humans easily and naturally populate more densely and efficiently than quite a lot of other creatures, so that isn't so "wasteful," at least in that respect.

But I would agree that quite a lot of people could be said to be guilty of "conspicuous consumerism." But I tend to be quite frugal myself.

Why do we need you around, taking up space or whatever? Well maybe we need all these burgeoning billions of people around, for much the same reason that we need you around. You like living, right? I imagine they like living, like I like living. What makes you or I, worth more than all those other people taking up space on the planet?

And why assume that more people = more destruction? That sounds far more like a behavior problem, and not at all a "population" problem. People could learn to put their trash in the proper trash can receptacle, right? If you want to discriminate against various countless of billions of humans, well why not get rid of litterbugs or corrupt politicians and welcome everybody else to procreate as much as God would allow? Otherwise, what makes you any better than anybody else, to get to continue to live? Aren't you one of those countless billions of strangers taking up space on the planet, in the view of other people?

Oh really? So how do you get to decide? What about your children or grandchildren? Awfully convenient for you, that you got to be born before the world populated to over 6 billion. But that option isn't available anymore. Now children must be born into a world over 6 billion. Surely you don't think that parents can wait "until hell freezes over" for the world population level to finally dip a little bit, if ever?

And have you ever given much though, as to why that is? It's because so many Americans grow up now in pidly little tiny families, and so they know almost nothing of how to care for children and babies. Conversely, those who grow up in the sometimes large families, trusting God for the best number of children to have (not using anti-life "protection"), often have older children helping with the younger children, so they mature quicker, and aren't "shocked" when the first baby comes along, that life isn't just a 24-7 party, just fun and games all the time. Large families also better condition children to both survive and thrive in an increasingly populous world.

Judging by such indicators as the rampant premarital sex of the day, and people procrastinating marriage later and later, people on average are marrying too late in life. Many people actually are fairly ready to marry young, especially if they already know who they would like to spend the rest of their life living with. And parents used to marry off their children young, to help prevent things like sex outside of wedlock. If people supposedly can't contain themselves, and wait until marriage for sex, then didn't Newton or somebody say that for every force, there is an equal and opposite force? If marriage pulls towards delaying sex until the wedding date, then why can't the natural desire to reproduce pull for sometimes younger marriages?

I advocate larger families, and people starting younger, because more and more people would be glad to live, and because larger families means more children being born to nurturing parenst with experience already raising children. And because each and every human life is sacred, and so of course maybe we best not interfere with the natural creation of additional human life. One profound purpose of human life is to create more human life.

I believe a more pronatalist mindset, also promotes more sense of responsibility when it comes to childbearing. Children are cute, and that of course is one natural reason why we are getting so populous. Author Charles Provan says in his book, The Bible and Birth Control, that it is God who gives us the natural desire to seek the natural increase and growth of the human race. Yeah, that could be a practical reason why most every baby seems to be so "cute and adorable." Because inside, both subconsciously and consciously, humans naturally really do want to grow more and more numerous, and babies could be a natural symbol of that natural desire. Also a reason why baby booms tend to be "contagious" and to naturally persist and spread.

And I have read, probably some Catholic-perspective article arguing against "family planning," making various points, that having children does tend to spiritually bond a couple together more tightly, and often they work out their problems rather than splitting up, even if "for the sakes of the children." Having children helps build character, reduce selfishness, and promotes maturity and responsibility. It also promotes a more loving and friendly world, while excessive singleness and family breakup promotes a selfish and hedonistic world.

Well why wouldn't both be possible? Welcoming people to breed naturally, even though the total world population is huge, affirms the dignity of people and the many individuals, all important throughout the world. I recognize that people have so many compelling reasons to have as many children as they do, that I wouldn't dare argue against. If the population increases further, why can't we just "scoot over" and make room, so to speak? Isn't that the easiest and most painless way to adapt and make the best of things?

Population "control" is sure to damage that "quality of life." How can there be "quality of life" anyway, without quantity of life? When people are optimistic about the future, it naturally encourages them to enlarge their numbers further. How can there long be "quality of life," without sanctity of life?

I recognize that the pro-life message does absolutely nothing to help keep the burgeoning human population size under "control." Well then, wouldn't it then be prudent for at least some pro-lifers to explain why more human population is quite likely a good thing to encourage anyway?

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

The most natural and elegant outlet for humanity's powerful reproductive urges, is of course, reproduction. So surely, doesn't it help reduce suffering to promote the pronatalist mindset, that we can actually find or make room, for so many of the populous masses, precious darling babies?

I read in some article years ago, "Supercities--Growing Pains of the Population Crisis," where it cited that the number of women of childbearing age, is now larger than it has previously been, as a main reason why human populations seem to be growing so fast. More parents, but of course. Well what better reason could there be then, to build supercities if necessary, but that so many women are yearning to have children? Do not their life desires and dreams, count for anything? The world no longer has room for everybody to live miles from their nearest neighbor, so how can people have their precious darling children, in a world with so many people already? Simple. The big city must also be seen as an appropriate place for people to have their sometimes "traditionally very large" families. Babies can still be welcome to come naturally, if supposedly intelligent people can learn to and adapt to live and breed in closer proximity to other people, well at least on the global scale. There can simply come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Also, in some little side article, it warned of a coming "Baby Blast," that could only be prevented, or so it said, by increasing the number of people using (shoddy, experimental, unnatural) contraception, from around 1/2 to 75%. Well that's too great a price to pay! Many of the people throughout the world having children, came from often large families themselves, and not everybody wants pidly small "planned" family sizes. Who's to say that a supposed future "baby blast" would be "bad" for humanity anyway? When people have more babies, they promote the greater good of the many. And I predict that massive human population increases must be a prelude, to the development of the technology to colonize other worlds, if ever, because technology itself is largely naturally population-driven. And these articles were in a religious magazine, The Plain Truth. Didn't they used to be a cult or something? Anyway, you would think that a "religious" magazine would be a little more willing to entertain the idea that "God will provide," rather than rebellion against God's commandment to humans to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

And supercities aren't the only way to accomodate more population. Just one of the many tools available. There's also the "spreading out" options, lots of smaller cities closer together, blurring the distinction between city and rural areas as all areas fill with more people, population arcologies or vertical cities, underground cities, larger households or family-clan households or whatever co-operative communities (i.e. Israeli kabutzes? (spelling?)), etc.

And then where do you go, after your "30 years" has expired? Longevity doesn't affect population size anyway, near as much as birth rates. Currently or recently, I estimate that there are 3 human births to "replace" each person who dies, so in a growing world, the young will always outnumber the old, so the young easily outnumber the old, such that people living to natural old age, don't add all that much to the overall population size anyway, well except for backwards atrophying Europe, where too many people have become too selfish and faithless to even breed enough to maintain their population size.

Who really wants to live in a boring static, population "stabilized" (stagnated) world? Isn't it quite possible, that a growing world of people, actually makes the world a lot more interesting, and better allows for innovation and new construction? Most people don't seem so population phobic, when it comes to going to fairs, festivals, sport events, concerts, etc. And why do people still depopulate the countryside, to move to the big city? I would rather they didn't do that so much, but rather more often, go ahead and populate more, where they already live. Cities should grow, but grow more from natural increase, not from people flooding in chasing better jobs and excitement, faster than the cities can expand their infrastructure to better support so many. I think that recent technological developments, should allow for more people to hopefully work at home, and stay where they are, if they like. Why empty out the countryside, and make it a barren wasteland? God commanded people to multiply, but not necessarily to all pile and live on top of one another, when there might yet be more suitable places humans can yet spread into.

Not really. The biosphere doesn't even "know" that there are so many people. Do you really think it cares one way or another, when nature doesn't even "think?" If nature could think, it would consider people part of nature and multiply us all the more. God gave man a mind, and commanded people to tend the earth, for the good of humans. That means that it is quite appropriate, to continually alter nature to better support more and more people, since there are so many people that it is necessary, to reduce suffering, out of goodwill towards man, etc. Why do you think God gave dominion over nature and other creatures to man, and commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, set no apparent "expiration date" upon that command other than the obvious Biblical endtimes when man becomes as the angels, apparently no longer able to multiply at some point (See Luke 20.), and gave humans no practical means of "birth control," well other than the obvious "no sex until marriage."

If there's now so many people breathing the same air, well that would be a great reason to give up smoking nasty cancer stick cigarettes, but not at all a reason to stop breeding, as the world can hold, or be made to hold, lots more people still. While the earth is no longer "empty" of people, it is nowhere near "full" either, so there's still ample room for people worldwide to reproduce naturally, as God designed us to.

People were sometimes misable, from the time that Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, or when Cain killed Abel. Would you really say that a world population of just 2 or 4 people is "too many?" If it is a sin problem, then let's call it sin, and deal with sin. Using "population" as a scapegoat, does nothing to promote needed reforms, but distract from the real problems. The population-driven technology has already shown remarkable progress in reducing pollution. Perhaps in the future, more food will be synthecized somehow, which won't help the livestock anyway, since people then would have increasingly less use for farm animals. In the PS2 video game Project Eden, I saw their "real meat" growing in tanks. Rather than supposedly suffering somehow, chickens and cows don't get to live at all anymore? Maybe animal "heaven" is a human's dinner plate anyway? I don't see anything in the Bible saying that "All Dogs Go To Heaven" (a children's movie title), or any such thing. How are we to know, if cows enjoy getting rained on, or mooing in the field all day, with little or nothing to do?

Contrary to the narrow, selfish claims of the population phobics, contraception isn't the only option. Well into the forseeable future, humans can in fact, populate more densely and efficiently, promote goodwill, and find or make room for most everybody, especially those people who might be persuaded to be more pronatalist or more deliberately fond of people.

 

I do think overpopulation is a probem, not a major one at the moment but over the next centuary it will be. But it will only get to a certain limit, nature has systems in place to control over population, thats why such a diversity of life has survived for so long. With greater overpopulation of a species population density increases and with that diseases spread alot easier and faster and mutate alot easier amongst that species and our ability to combat and control them falls. So basically if the population of the earth overall continues to rise like it is it won't be long before one or several plagues sweep the globe and thin it out again.

 

Humans are essentially a disease. We are a lot that reproduce and consume insatiably, contribute nothing back to our environment, and have no natural predators. 'Survival of the Fittest' is no longer even applicable, as our ass-backward society goes out of it's way to reward and coddle the idiots. Unfortunately all of the current mega-theologies say "Contraception is Murder!!!" and thanks to that, the problem isn't going to be solved at the root anytime soon.

Still, I trust the planet will self-correct things sooner or later and we'll be trimmed down to reasonable numbers, and our society forced into a more balanced shape.

 

You attack my argument because I used a healthy dose of my own personal opinion but at least I am a real person with an inquisitive mind who's formed opinions on a variety of subjects that are often at odds with my peers, whereas you are basing much of your arguments on a work of literature.

Maybe I should respond with quotes from Soylent Green?