Cities are for the best

Without cities, there would be no suburbs.

 

Well why not? Why not synthetic lumber? Haven't I been hearing of some sort of plastic wood made from recycled materials? That doesn't rot, supposedly? Wood warps, and isn't all that fire resistant. Wood also tends to split. But wood and trees are abundant, if we can harvest it and create American jobs.

Pavement and cement and glass and bricks, aren't those made of some of the most abundant resources? Oil, sand, mud, ground up rocks.

Yeah, because those old methods seem cheaper for now. But if there wasn't much hinterlands around anymore, then other options could be found.

Anyway, it sounds like some want to argue for an arbitrarily low population density, that is neither realistic, nor necessary, and that's my point to argue against, in favor of basic, God-given human rights. The world has billions of people not finished having their children, which means billions more people to be born, within the next several decades or so. Will there be enough housing and food or whatever for them? But of course, especially in a pronatalist, pro-family society, that considers such human essentials, a priority.

 

That's ridiculous. Then there would be villages, that then would grow into towns and cities, which cities would then grow suburbs.

What's your point? Ban cities, so that cities can't grow? Get rid of all the people? That's hardly realistic, nor moral, nor natural, nor much of anything desirable.

Ban nature, so that there can be no life nor any natural growth?

Conversely, I would think that cities should be a good thing, to help form the suburbs that many of us live in. Think about it. Suburbs aren't totally self-contained, but depend upon many things within the inner city, or outside elsewhere. The truck depots or truck stops from which trucks come, to bring products to market, often are some place other than the suburb where the supermarket you shop at, is.

 

But low-density suburbs are sometimes criticized for supposedly contributing to excessive traffic and commuting distances. Then some people don't much care for "nature" and having to maintain a lawn, so high-density, well-designed, may be better for them.

There are advantages to both low-density and high-density human habitat, dependent largely upon, people's personal preferences, so let people decide where they want to live, so that there can be place enough for everybody.

 

Yeah, bad religion, or bad world view, contributes to people being excessively close-minded. "Don't confuse me with the facts. My mind's made up," typical perspective of confused liberals

But people on the side of truth, should continue to debate such topics, until the return of Jesus as King of Kings, because if liberals aren't challenged to defend or reject their false claimed beliefs, they too quickly move on to impose evil and poorly-thought-out oppressive policy, and entire nations are impoverished.

It is compassionate to point out the truth. People need room for their growing families, and in a world of so-called vanishing frontiers, the obvious place to put the additional people perhaps to come, is in between all the people already living. Now if that supposedly doesn't leave enough room for "nature" or whatever nonsense, oh well, what else human-friendly can be done? Humans come first, as humans are the top of God's creation pyramid, or the masterpiece of God's creation, whatever you want to call it. Can a pregnant woman wear a girdle so that she doesn't bulge so much? Of course not. That wouldn't be compassionate, nor sensable. No, she should be proud to be visibly bulging "with child," for that's another precious human life, how God designed it, and quite natural. Similarly, if the planet be "bulging" with human life, then let it bulge proudly and put on its "maternity clothes" or whatever it may need. I have even heard that tilt steering was invented so that pregnant women could drive.

I am quite confident of what my position should be, hence my screenname. The pronatalist view of how to make the world better for people, is a view not heard enough anymore, ever since the "free love" immoral nonsense of the rebellious 1960s and "the pill." What a huge "bait-and-switch" to hear views that supposed "freedom of choice" (to not have children) magically transforms itself into "obligation" to not "overbreed," supposedly for the sake of "nature" or "the planet." But don't the children to come, probably want to come alive and be born, regardless?

Infinitely large population? That's absurd, and not what God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, implies. To get to infinite population within a finite rate of growth within a finite amount of time, is pretty much impossible. Multiply and fill the earth, means that as time passes, there should be "more and more" people alive, but that's a far cry from "infinite" population. And yes, especially when people seek God's ways, things do tend to naturally work themselves out over time.

 

I wasn't talking about 'burbs in the technical sense but using it as a metaphor for mid pop. density in discussing patterns of population density.

Without the high concentrated density areas the low density areas would naturally become more densely populated and society must be careful in the design so human habitation is compatible with wildlife habitation.

 

I both agree and disagree. The point is not to keep any portion of the planet, low-density, but rather to insure that there is some place for everybody. Hence, I am not all that concerned about where people would choose to live, especially if they have the proper freedom and wisdom to make choices reasonable for them.

I advocate cities and big cities, as presumably, the planet has way too many people alive now, for everybody to live a quaint "rural" lifestyle, and cities obviously fit more people into limited space. But why would I have any interest in compelling people to live in cities, especially big crowded cities of the developing nations, that are sometimes filling with people who are depopulating the countryside, faster than they are expanding housing and infrastructure?

And I am very much against this globalist UN conspiracy thing, in which supposed the people are to be herded up (yeah, like cattle I imagine), to live in restricted zones, to leave other regions to the neglect of nature. That's outragious and absurd, as perhaps, especially without good leadership and development, it increasingly takes the entire planet, just to hold us all?

Why must human habitation be compatible with wildlife habitation? Do the wildlife pay taxes or vote? Do I have places for birds to nest, on my car? Do I feed the squirrels and birds in my yard? No. No. And yet there is wildlife in my yard, and I do absolutely nothing to accomodate them. If I had no trees in my yard, I probably wouldn't plant any. Whatever for? They drop leaves, clog gutters, and too often need pruning. Most of the wildlife don't seem to need or even want our "help." There's plenty of wild rabbits and such around, and yet they won't let me approach or pet them.

I hear all this talk about the supposed needs of nature. And yet I find so much of it so inconsistant and illogical. What about the natural need of humans to naturally reproduce? On the last Walk for Life I went on, to benefit the local Pregnancy Care Center (pro-life alternative to the abortion mentality), some guy there said he had 4 children, and they don't use any "birth control." Quite many people believe it best to let children come when they come, and not interfere. Isn't that natural? Isn't what people do, to not have children, going against nature? Didn't some old TV commercial selling I forget what, say "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature?"

Over at the Philippines pro-life forum I sometimes visit, they speak against contraception and the hedonistic culture, all the time.

If humans were to spread out over the planet, uniformly, there would still be lots of room for "nature." 5 acres of land per person, or over 20 acres per family. Or would people then want to mow their entire 5 acres? There's around 125 people per square mile of land, not counting Antartica. But most people don't hate other people so much, or like nature so much, as to want to move to "the middle of nowhere" away from the cities that they are used to. Spreading out too uniformly causes problems, not so much for nature, but for people. It puts people too far away from the hospitals and schools, and too far away from the good paying jobs. Also too far from stores and parks and shopping malls.

I don't believe that the elite rich or enviro wackos should hoard all the land, leaving the populous masses to crowd into whatever overcrowded shantytowns might happen to be left. I don't believe that the poor should live with the constant threat that their makeshift tiny shanties, will be bulldozed by the filthy rich. Why can't they get clear title to the land they live on, so that they can be confident to make home improvements as and if they can?

As I have said, as I see it, there's 3 perceptional dimensions that naturally-growing human populations may yet expand into, well enough to take us into the forseeable future and beyond, as or if need be. Outwards, inwards, and upwards. Probably most people prefer outwards, as surely there could come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Why be overcrowded, when it is quite unnecessary, as there is so much land that swelling human populations can push out into. Inwards means infilling underutilized land, high-density housing, apartments, condos, building more roads and streets within the city. As some "environmentalists" complain, many cities are supposed too spread out anyway, so if so, then they obviously can grow thicker with people, so that all the more people may enjoy living and people may go on having all the children they were meant to have. Then obviously, wherever lots of people for whatever reason, all like to live in pretty much the same place, highrises can be built. Obviously, some people have little objection to living on top of each other, which is apparently possible. That's quite a lot of room left yet to grow into, should it ever be needed, which I seriously doubt that humans would grow so numerous anyway.

What's a little urban sprawl, compared to the long list of all the possible benefits of continued population expansion, should God allow?

 

why?

don't you believe that "god" created the earth with the specific purpose of filling it with humans?

strange that "god" also created all kinds of other life forms that are not of any benefit to us. he created them just for us to wipe them out? how cruel.

the contradictions in your argument are a little like "god's" contradictory behavior...

 

www.celdf.org

 

i think living in a city is better for the land in living wise and not using a car as much, but if you live in the country, and have a huge amount of land, you could as well open that land out to have lots of people live there. the land in the country could also be used for farming for vegatation. you could also have everything you need to survive within a one mile radius too.

 

I don't think it matters that much where we live.

While it is true that city people use less space, ironically, it's when all the country people began to move to the cities in the beginning of the century, that the mass industry exploded and bigger damage was done to nature...

Our action have consequence very far away.

So it's not where you live... it's how you live!