Overpopulation

Have you thought about that? SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE KIDS!!! Some people want only one or two kids, and that's fine!!!

 

The decision of having babies or not is not abstract at all.

 

In most of the cases, in most of the world, having a baby (or not) is not a decision.

 

Okay, Pronatalist, let me get one thing straight: Let's not hate each other here. We're cool, right? Peace. Cool, I just wanted to get that out of the way so that we may respect each other on a personal level.

Now, back to the topic, I'm sorry if I came off in a way that suggested that I disliked your opposition to the group. That's good. Adds spice.

However, I can't help but disagree with you. Yes, I love children, (most), but I do not believe that we should be blindly having them like crazy, especially in this day and age, in which we are kept alive far longer than is usually normal because of medication and such.

I don't like that you would marry for the sole purpose of having children. Yes, the hippies said "Make love.." but that's different. There's also a bond between two people that, even though you may say it's solely for reproduction, most could not live without because they love it so much.

Many people cannot afford nor do they want children. If they can't support the kid well, they should probably not be having huge families.

I don't want tons more people. It is the quality of the bunch, not the quality, no? I'd rather be living with five good people in a too-big house than 50 bad people--who lie, cheat, steal... One man can be accountable for 50 rapes...but then again, that would just make the world a bit more fruitful, right?

And yes, much of the reason that a few of us fight for Nature is because of enjoyment. But for many, it's more than that. It's compassion, and respect. I want other forms of life to flourish and live, as well. Believe me, I have doggies and they show personality and love to me and each other like no other.

And yes, I think that as Earthly beings, we have as much of the duty to worship Earth and Nature as the Universal God. I don't know why you are so resistant to this, or so not-liking of going outside and stuff, but hey we're different. I love the outdoors. Maybe if you got out and watched the sunset you'd agree with me more.

Yes, human life is beautiful and we are beautiful, but so is all the other life on this planet, which we must respect and dignify. And it's NOT here for just human enjoyment.

Ill be back in few days maybe Monday or so.

 

Well I do want tons more people, because we can't just pick and choose who gets to live and breed, and who doesn't. Eugenics can only be evil, because humans are way too great of creatures, to be subjected to such "animal" treatment. One man isn't above another, to decide who to selectively breed. And quality and quantity of life go together when it comes to human life. I have sometimes thought I might like some of the larger, extended family, or community arrangements, such at the Kabutz is it?, in Israel? Why not have 50 people in a too-big house? As long as they are friendly, and can work together. Why cook for only myself, when the chore duties could be widely divided to make life easier or more interesting?

I don't "worship" the earth, because God specifically says he is a jealous God, and we are to worship him only. The earth can't "appreciate" anything I could do for it. I don't thank my computer for what it does for me, because my computer can't be aware of any appreciation I could have for it. Why worship a false or lesser "god" that is smaller than I? Now I would thank a child for doing something, because they like that.

I believe people should be encouraged to breed aggressively or eagerly, because more and more people would be glad to live. And it better respects God and nature, and people too, to let the body push out its babies, at its full rate of fecundity.

I believe humans need not make any "apology" for having become so incredibly numerous, because that is our God-given destiny that we ought to be more grateful for. Nor need we feel "guilty" for using so many disposable diapers, to make it easier to go on breeding naturally. But of course, we ought to feel a little "guilty" if we do thoughtless things, like toss our trash in our neighbor's yard.

Each and every human life is sacred, and so of course, humans should enjoy a God-given natural desire to seek humanity's multiplication and increase, for the good of ALL.

 

I really don't see the connection God has to the enviroment.

 

I believe nature will straighten out the overpopulation problem through natural diasters and such. A government should not tell a person how many children they can have. That's control. It's scarey when a government has that type of control over it's people.

 

No, the population phobic Malthusians are just plain wrong. If humans don't control their numbers, neither will nature. Nature doesn't "think" and so couldn't "care" just how populous humans may become. If nature could "care," nature would prefer for humans to go on reproducing naturally, and for human life to grow all the more incredibly abundant. I see no mechanism by which nature could, or would even bother to try to restrain the gradual encroachment of humanity's burgeoning cities of people, into the naturally receeding countryside. Humans largely produce quite of lot of our resources, and can plan and adapt for the future. Urbanize the planet to whatever extent needed, and there's plenty of room for all the people who could be expected to come, within the forseeable future.

If nature was supposedly to keep human numbers "under control" than hasn't nature long been "asleep on the job?" Nature has no objection to humans being numerous, because God created nature and humans and destined humans to become numerous.

Societies have no right to limit their numbers, because people don't exist as mere "cogs" in some great socialist society "machine," but rather society exists as an organization of individuals for both individual and collective benefit, responsibility, and cooperation. How many children married couples may have, well that's God's destiny, nature, what was meant to be, or something. The obvious? answer to the population concern, is not "control" at all, but that humans can adapt and populate more densely and efficiently, to welcome and celebrate life for the great benefit of ALL.

 

God obviously would be the one to define the purpose for his environment.

 

There really isn't an set nature to humans that isn't intergral to the functioning of the brain. Birth rates of countries where education levels are higher usually have lower birth rates such as in Europe. Countries were education levels are lower have much higher birth rates such as parts of Africa and Asia. If you believe in a god, then it must have given humans a brain for a purpose, to use it responsibly and to act wisely, not by living by acting like an animal by using the lower primative brain functions. The single thing that makes humans different from other animals is the brain and intelligence. There are animals that can see better, hear better, smell better, run faster, etc. Education is the single most influential factor in helping people make a responsible choice in their reproduction.

There are many millions of people starving and suffering, right at this moment in various parts of the world. If the natural enviroment cannot support them, due to lack of resources such as aridable land for farming, drinking water and other nessecities, how can you say it is not overpopulated? If the world as a whole can't support the people in has right now, how can it be good to add more people?

The beautiful outside world is god's natural cathedral.

 

Actually there is. If you are talking of only the "higher" or "conscious" brain functions. Heartbeat is controlled by the autonomous (spelling?) brain function. As too, is the actual ejaculation of semen. And ovulation. It's not something we just directly think of or "will" to happen.

Well what of places like Israel? Don't they have both the prosperity and "education," and also the high birthrates?

I read something in some blog or something on the internet, the of the poor attitude people tend to have about large families in the U.S., I think it was. "Too bad you didn't have a girl," people would tell some woman, as if it was somehow "too late" to have more children, now that she seemingly had "enough." But in Israel it was different. "You'll have a girl next time," people would say. Or something to that effect.

I would say that the so-called "demographic transition" is really a bit of a myth. As some population website claimed, there is nothing about having money in one's pockets, that magically sterilizes the reproductive organs. The huge dirty secret of the "demographic transition," is the rampant contraceptive peddling underlying it. Sure, sexual activity may decrease somewhat, along with people getting TVs and electricity and something else to do at night, other than what is known to make babies. But even that isn't enough to account for it, and many people of faith, maintain the high birthrates of the developing countries, even with more income and most all the modern conveniences of life. I would have thought it should be the other way around. More prosperity and technology, should encourage people all the more, to go ahead and breed naturally. I believe a more technologically advanced world, is far more prepared to be potentially populated extremely densely with people. But naturally rising population along with rampant poverty, doesn't appear a particularly attractive combination, and yet is that what the population phobics want? But for only "poor" people to go on reproducing, while all the "smart" people withhold their genes from the gene pool?

"Educated" people don't suddenly "learn" that babies are "worthless." No, rather they say of poor people that "children are their only wealth." So it ought to be understandable how they don't want to use condoms, because they actually want children and want to get pregnant. Also, they sometimes say of poor people that sex is their only recreation, and that the expense of contraceptives is out of the question. Condoms don't grow on trees, but food does. So in some respects, feeding growing numbers of mouths, is far cheaper for poor people, than nasty, experiment contraceptives, that sometimes don't seem to work anyway.

When have I ever denied that sex = babies? Rather, isn't that the point? More and more people would be glad to live, and society benefits, so society should encourage there to always be lots of baby making going on. And that parents be responsible, marry, and of course provide for and love their children, and train them up in God's ways. We let the heart beat naturally, and we let people breathe naturally, why not let human wombs push out fellow human beings naturally too? Why shame or profane the human reproductive system, that God must have provided humans for some very good reason? Who really would campaign for less sex throughout the world? If the sex-obsessed society thinks that sex is so wonderful, then why shouldn't there be all the more penises and vaginas, naturally multiplying and populating closer together, to enjoy it? Why shouldn't all the more people be welcome to come alive, to enjoy life? Who are we puny humans to say, that God can't make human life to be abundant, as he promised to in the Bible?

People should use their brains? Sure. Rather than breeding "by accident" or "without thinking," rather than the "innocence" of the past, might it be even wiser for people to have possibly large families "on purpose and state the many compelling and great reasons why?" That's using the brain!

That's a common definition people try to use, but is it really accurate? Yes, human intelligence is one of the many great reasons why I propose humans need not "control" their numbers, and that human populations can be both simutaneously vast and rather dense, to much benefit the many people. As "intelligent" creatures should be quite able to do such things as adapt and share, to make sure there is plenty for ALL. Here's the scenario. What if humans created some "robotic race," as envisioned in a few sci-fi stories. What if the computers of the future, somehow by very clever programming, done by humans of course, manage to "learn" far faster than humans can? Remember "Johny 5" in the movie Short Circuit, I don't remember whether the original or the sequel, when he got loose in the bookstore? He was sitting in a pile of books, and reading book after book, in a matter of seconds each. "Input! Input!" said Johny 5, I think his name was. So then might the robots be "better" than humans? Apparently not, as in some episode of The Outer Limits a couple of robots "conspired" to help a couple of humans, the few that were left after the robots took over, take back the planet. Sort of a new "Adam & Eve." Why would a couple of robots, "conspire" against their entire robotic race, to hide a couple of humans, for a human dream to repopulate the earth? I would suggest because they knew that humans have a soul or spirit, and because robots, really can't "care" one way or another about anything, but merely run their "computer programs" to only mimic life, which they can never truly experience. Without humans, robots are worthless. So the male human, managed to shut down some old failsafe, that only a human hand could unlock, that shut down the entire network of robots, including those "conspiring" robots that had helped them. Even K.I.T.T. of Knight Rider seemed to understand this basic truth, that humans are always more valuable that mere replacable or human-created computers or robots, when KITT, the automaticed computer wonder car, ejected Michael, and said "forgive me," just before being nearly destroyed and being hit by a missile. Just like a loyal dog, any good robot, or a well-designed car, would "give its life" to save its human occupant. Even now, cars are designed to take the abuse and damage, in order to save the human. They have "crumple zones," auto-deploying air bags, seat belts, etc.

And that's not at all because of "too many" mouths to feed, but due to poverty, greed, ignorance, immorality, and political turmoil. How many times do we hear that's there's plenty of food, but it's not distributed properly? Poor people may have nearly enough food in the times of plenty, but not enough money to buy food when their crops fail? Do you think it right, for the IMF and World Bank, to create money out of thin air or out of debt (stealing from everybody's savings by the "inflation" that they create in the process), to impoverish the already poor people, and favor whoever they want, with "loans," often that suck away people's wealth, and that "buy" influence but often can't realistically ever be paid back? Where's the true compassion and missionaries, rather than all the rampant socialism that serves to trap people into poverty and exploit them? What of corrupt dictators? Might the people eat better, if they had good leaders? What if people were to respect their neighbors better? What if more people feared God, and wanted to do good to the many people that God has created?

The world already can't support so many people, by purely "natural" means. That's why we have such things as building dam reserviors, nuclear power plants, drill for oil, and of course agriculture. Hunting and gathering, is no longer near enough, to insure an adequate food supply for everybody. What of "crowded" places like Singapore? With 40 times the population density of China. Should they realistically be expected to produce all their own food? With around 12000 people per square mile? Why? These days, most all developed countries import food from other countries, so that they may enjoy good nutrition, even "out of season." Is Singapore a true "country" or more like a "city island?" Densely settled places like India or Japan, probably larged do produce most of their own food, but they can obviously produce banking or electronics, and sell such things for food. Perhaps God distributed many of the resources we need, unequally, so that we would come to have to cooperate and trade, giving up what we can produce to overabundance, for that we lack. Usually in fair trade, both sides can benefit immensely. People become far wealthier, in general, when they can trade what they are good at, for that which they aren't so good at producing. And that's why so many people would much rather work jobs, than do all their work at home, building their own home and furniture and such, like how people did more in the past, when they lived in tiny little primitive log cabins and such.

We already can't "go back." There's too many people in the world now, to "go back." We can only go forward. More technology, and hopefully, more people being welcomed to come to life also. The "weight of numbers" strongly pushes for "going forward." If a human population yet doubles in size, that's twice as many people around then, rather glad to live, and probably wanting to reproduce too, for only minor "growing pains" that can soon ease and pass, along with the proper development and accomodation of naturally expanding human populations. The majority of people are simply not finished, having their children. I believe that collectively, the adding up of humanity's powerful reproductive urges and all the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they do, amounts to a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race, and so humans should respect nature and nature's God that created all we see, and do just that. Let the baby booms persist and spread. We can't make the planet any bigger, and colonizing other worlds doesn't appear feasible anytime soon, so why not do what the technology all around us is converging to do anyway, populate denser and more efficiently, so that there can be room and respect for all our children? There can simply come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Obviously, more cities and suburbs can be built, in between all the growing cities and towns. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more. Why not? The world is nowhere near "full" of people.

The world can easily support far more people than there is right now, but we then must do away with the progress-distracting contraceptives, and get busy with development, and allow people to be free and to make honest profits, so that they can better support their growing families. The pronatalist mindset, goes along with the optimism and ideas, that actually could have there coming to be more places with lots of people, and the ideas of building beautiful cities with gardens or whatever helps the people feel more like they belong and not be cynical, as humans continue to dominate the environment and grow in numbers. It's foolhardy for population phobics to try to build some "utopia" for the elite few, with just enough unquestioning "slaves" kept to service their ease and laziness. If there is to be any such future "utopia," wouldn't it far more likely work, if it seeks to serve the populous masses and not the elite few? If people are to be excluded unfairly, I will likely be among the first of the people tearing it down. I already promote the U.S. getting out of the UN, because it rarely serves any good interests of humanity in general.

I support the "artificial" means even, to serve humans, such as more ocean water desalination plants, so that they may be free to go on and reproduce "naturally," to favor human life. "Natural" isn't always better, but rather when it serves to benefit humans.

On an Episode of The Twilight Zone entitled "A Night at Mercy," I think, they had a patient who was "Death." The guy who's job it was, to take people away, when their time is up, went through some phase in which he wanted to quit. He tried to hang himself or something because "they" just aren't going to let him quit. After being confronted with the newpaper headlines, "No Obituaries Because Nobody Died Today," and such, a doctor comes to believe that this guy is no ordinary psychopath. Then some patients came in, from some accident with a gasoline truck and bus, crying in agony, charred, having no heartbeats on the monitors, and yet unable to die. "Death" points out that there could be "drawbacks." The doctor suggests "overpopulation" as one. "It could get pretty crowded," Death says. (With people only being born, but nobody ever dying.) "We can deal with that," exclaims the doctor, most doctors of course, only wanting to do good for people. "I like your attitude," Death replies. Anyway, it turned out that the doctor's time himself was up, and so he died on the rooftop, after them debating all the pros and cons of whether people ought to die anymore or not, and Death being persuaded that his role was still needed. It's not fair or something the doctor protests. His patients need him. (And it was the doctor, who did save a life, that would otherwise have been in Death's little book.) "Now you know why I get so depressed," says Death.

So I agree with some of the point they are making, that there is some apparent purpose for death, but I don't completely agree. Death is part of today's fallen world, and heaven, and the Garden of Eden, were not like that. Actually, I think that plants and animals may not necessarily have originally reproduced themselves so agressively, because they didn't always have to stay a few steps ahead of death and extinction. The world was more orderly, before the fall of man. There wouldn't have been droughts and famine and probably no "natural" forest fires due to lack of rain. I think Adam & Eve's bodies may have possessed remarkable abilities to heal themselves, far beyond what we see today. Even the atmophere was denser and more humid it seems, and people in the Bible were known to live to over 900 years old. The Bible says that Death is one of the last enemies to be finally be defeated in the Biblical endtimes, so it's not that nonsense of "balance" and "Yin and Yang" or whatever stuff people too often think. And BTW, Death has little to do with population size anymore, as for each person who dies, around 3 more are born to replace him or her. Birthrates are more relevant, as the older generations now dying off from old age, were much smaller in their day anyway. And I do agree that Death should be opposed and delayed, and treated as "premature" and "not natural," in order to favor goodwill and the doctor's Hippocratic Oath and whatever standards of the proper promotion of the healing arts, while human birthrates should be unrestricted, to favor human life. Of course, if it ever happens to get "pretty crowded," well why can't we deal with that?

That's what my Dad sometimes says. Only make that God with a capital G.

Who really is talking about getting rid of all the forests? No, merely expanding human territory, so that there can be plenty of room for all the houses and apartment and condos to house so many, many people, as there might get to be. That still leaves some wilderness and forests, well into the forseeable future.

But what would even a wild "God's natural cathedral" need too? How about more people around, to worship God? Even if they do manage to populate some formerly "wild" places to "wild" urban densities. God wants people to worship God, not merely God's creation which is forbidden to worship anything other than the true God, in God's Ten Commandments.

 

Pronatalist, you yourself have listed many of the problems with food/resource/wealth distribution but don't you think we should solve those problems first, for the millions of people already here, that are suffering and starving, before encouraging people to increase the population. If we don't solve the problems first, they are only going to get much worse and maybe become unsolvable/unfixable. Have some compassion for future millions that are going to be born to starve to death.

Also, a person can alter their autonomic brain functions. It is well documented.

 

No, I don't think we should try to solve better all those problems first, because to do so, is too much like trying to get the "proverbial cart before the horse." For they say that "necessity is the mother of invention." There may never be enough interest in population accomodation, without the natural population growth that would seem to make it seem more "necessary." So if we are to find more efficient ways to grow more food, perhaps it helps to first increase the number of mouths to feed. They are corequisites, not prerequisites, as humans populations may increase, even while various problems are being improved or fixed. Parents can't reasonably wait "until hell freezes over," to have their children, after every "problem" imaginable has finally been fixed. Fertility wanes rapidly with advancing age.

The human race is not populated together so tightly, that we can't somehow find room for still more people.

You say that a person can alter their autonomic brain functions. True, but what about in the case, where rational logic, doesn't really suggest doing so? I don't expect married couples, to somehow stop themselves from semen cumming into people's wive's vaginas, because it goes against nature, and there are powerful and compelling reasons to favor the furtherance of the human race. And "birth control" can easily get in the way of normal and enjoyable marital relations. Many people love children and still naturally desire possibly large families, for all sorts of rational reasons ranging from tradition or experience, to religious, or even "secular" furtherance of the human race. We don't limit people's heartbeats, nor their breathing, nor ration food, so why in the world would we want to entertain ideas of the "rationing" of the naturally rising quantity of human life throughout the world?

It is the population phobics, who contribute to the non-solutions and neglect that make problems likely to get worse. If the stated "goal" was to actually enlarge the entire human race, in accordance to basic ideas of freedom and with what most people seem to rather want anyway, don't you suppose humans would tend to adapt to becoming more populous, more readily and quickly?

They say there are no more frontiers perhaps? Well except for outer space, the "final frontier." But outer space doesn't appear all that reachable, any time soon. But there is yet another frontier, into which countless billions of people may spread into. That is the frontier of humanity naturally populating denser and denser. There could come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. That helps insure plenty of room for all the people to come, within the forseeable future, if cities can reasonably expect to go on growing and growing, and more cities and towns can be formed, in between all the growing cities and towns. If people expect a seemingly "unlimited" God-given right to procreation, then perhaps they can't reasonably expect to live so far away, on average from their neighbors, as in the past, when human populations were smaller. What I suggest, is the most humane and most practical and most pro-life way I can think of to regard human life. To suggest that why can't human populations grow just as large as they need or want to be? We can't make the planet any bigger, but the world is hardly anywhere close to being "full" of people.

God's commandment to people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, suggests not so much an end goal, as much as a process. By which we should naturally expect the world to grow fuller and fuller of people, with each successive generation. God's commandment to humans to multiply, also implies that people should marry, and avoid any "preventative measures" to limit family size, as wouldn't most all children be quite glad to have naturally come to life and live? I also don't expect that God would much expect humans to breed much faster than that of their natural fecundity level, because wouldn't an intelligent Creator, already have chosen around the "ideal" fertility level for the human race, a level that would both be reasonably "managable" by means God provides to us, such as population-driven technology and urban growth, and sufficient to promote the growth to make human life incredibly abundant throughout the world? And who's to say, that the planet wasn't actually designed to ultimately become seemingly "pregnant" with people?

 

Be fruitful and multiply and fill the Earth - that has already been done. There is virtually no place in the world where there are not lots of people except Antartica. The Earth only has a finite amount of resources. There is only so much aridible land for farming, basically all the land that is farmable is already being farmed. In fact, in some places land prices have gotten so high that past farm land is being developed for housing. So farm land in some areas is decreasing. Technological solutions can only do so much and already is far behind solving any of these problems.

I think you underestimate how many problems there are. By federal U.S. census data - 35 million people in the U.S. are living at or below the poverty level. 3.5 million people are homeless (39% children) in the U.S. and average of 30% of the requests for shelter went unmet.38.2 million people—including 14 million children—live in households that experience hunger or the risk of hunger. This represents more than one in ten households in the United States (11.9 percent). This is an increase of 1.9 million, from 36.3, million in 2003. If probelms like this exist in the U.S., the supposedly richest country in the world then think of how bad it is in other places. These problems are not getting better, they are getting worse. I don't think that these problems are trival. They are basic requirments for life. Food and shelter. If the U.S. can't even provide that to every one of its citizens (with all of its money) then some thing is seriously wrong.

"Did you know that more than 800 million people all over the world know what it means to go to bed hungry every night? Sadly, about 25,000 people die from the effects of hunger each day. That's about one person every four seconds. " - United Nations World Food Program

 

It's just too often that I see that objection come up. Some dubious claim that the earth is already "full" enough, such that the Biblical admonitions to humans to multiply, supposedly, no longer apply. And yet I see no "expiration" on God's commandments, at least not in the present age. Only God can decide at what level the world is "full" of people.

Okay, I agree that we have indeed lost a reason for humans to multiply. There no longer is an "empty" world to fill. There's no "shortage" of people anymore, and in a few respects, most countries have "more than enough" people already, based on the bare minimum number of pawns, or cogs, it may take to build some socialist society "machine" at least. But as I see it, perhaps there could be 100 compelling reasons for people to have as many children as they do, and then 100 - 1 reason, still equals 99 remaining reasons for people to multiply. That more and more people would be glad to live, that most every child imaginable is glad to come to life and live, that most every person wants to go on living regardless how large the overall population may be, that the more people there are the more people there are then that rather like living and probably want to reproduce too, that having children helps people become less selfish and more conservative, that "experienced" parents probably make better parents for raising children, and on and on, make for numerous compelling reasons, for people to go possibly having large or "unplanned" families even in today's populous world. Little has changed in that regard, other than that humanity is already adapting to both survive and thrive, even with modern huge and growing populations.

I suggest doing away with the ridiculously low population densities of the past, because for world population to steadily grow denser and denser, seems to be about the only way for people to go on and enjoying having as many children as they were meant to have, in a world with so many, many people already. There is plenty of room for lots more people, most everywhere in the world, if people can simply learn to live and breed in closer proximity to other people, on the global scale at least. By that, I mean that people don't necessarily need to live "closer" together on the local scale, as they are still free to spread out as they may want, but rather that I expect the world to become increasing urbanized, as humans hopefully continue to grow more and more numerous. Since no other planets seem to be admitting humans at the moment, surely it isn't too much to ask, that most all countries, can in fact, find or make room, for more people, especially their own natural increase. There is an obvious? frontier left for naturally expanding human populations to spread into, and that is the frontier of putting the additional people, in between all the people already living, as humans have always done historically. As human life becomes more abundant throughout the world, since as they say, they aren't making any more land, surely it should be apparent, that we may have to "share" the limited land more efficiently. That means possibly a bit less land for ridiculously huge wildlife refuges, and more land being made available for human habitation, so that even the poor may afford decent housing. Perhaps the rich, do-nothing-productive yuppies, could get by with just 1 less golf course, due to new housing developments or something?

Well that to me, is just all the more reason to be drilling more oil wells, as we might as well use the resources God has provided us, as oil will eventually become obsolete anyway. Of what use would gasoline in the future be, to the flying cars of the future, running on minature and safe nuclear reactors? I find it curious, that I don't think I can recall ever seeing a gas pump, at all in the futuristic The Jetsons cartoon world. While their cars do run on "power pellets," they don't seem to need "refueling," well hardly ever. Don't their "cars" fly even to another planet, without needing to stop along the way for "gas?" I don't think they made much mention of things like which cars might be equipped for outer space "life support" though. Perhaps a mere "detail" between the "better" cars, and the little dinky "economy" models?

Then why aren't people planting their gardens/farms, all the way out to the street curb? Much of the "aridible" farmland, is being used, pretty much for growing grass to be mowed. What a huge "waste." But then food has become so cheap, that most people prefer not to grow their own. The farmer has the equipment to harvest the food cheaply, while we would have less time to work profitable jobs, if we had to grow our own food. Computers and all sorts of electronic gadgets, have been made possible, by getting the vast majority of the burgeoning human population, out of tedious food production, and into jobs producing a myriad of other things that people increasingly want or even claim to "need."

Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land of the planet, so while human population "pressure" upon the land may still be growing, it isn't yet any serious "threat" to agricultural potential. Not all available productive farmland, is in demand for expanding human housing, but rather that which happens to be in prime suburban sprawl regions, near large and growing cities. Actually, I think it would be better for cities to grow more from the natural increase of all the people within them, and not so much from drawing in ever more people in search of jobs. Why can't more people work their jobs, wherever they happen to be already? By telecommuting, "telepresense," etc. Why can't more people work at home, in a nice, perhaps small?, home office? The available technology should increasingly allow for more people to work at home. Why can't that corporate "call center," actually be people answering the telephones, right in their own homes? Simply with better phone service, even the simplest telephones could easily "transfer" calls to "other departments" and such, even from a tiny "office" in one's own home. Phone calls could still be "recorded" to insure proper customer service, and "secure" home computer customer account inquiry activity be logged, to help insure it is limited to proper company customer service functions. Money can be saved on not having to provide corporate office space, and in reducing turnover from people who need more flexibility in work schedules, or find the high gasoline prices and the daily traffic congestion commute, too much of a burden, opting instead for better paying jobs or a job closer to home. I do think something can be done, to help slow the trend of depopulating the countryside in order for more people to crowd into already "crowded" cities. Surely there are ways to better "distribute" the jobs, to where people live already?

As I believe that humans can in fact, consider the natural transition from being able to live most anywhere, to increasingly, perhaps having to live "everywhere," as there gets to be more and more humans throughout the world. I believe there exists very attractive alternatives to awkward, experimental, anti-life "birth control," that welcome humans to grow all the more numerous, wherever and whenever they can, for the great benefit of the populous many.

Here's an article that somebody posted in my forum, related to the idea that people should be fruitful and multiply, even apparently, in today's populous age.

everyday economics
Be Fruitful and Multiply
Do the world a favor: Have more children.
By Steven E. Landsburg
Updated Sunday, April 13, 1997, at 12:30 AM PT

The day you were born, you brought both costs and benefits into this world. The costs include the demands you made (and continue to make) on the world's resources. The benefits include your ongoing contributions to the world's stock of ideas, love, friendship, and diversity.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/innovate1/messages?msg=577.1

(You can log in as a "Guest" if you have no delphiforums.com free account, required for posting Replies.)

To continue: Be fruitful and multiply

http://slate.msn.com/id/2037/

And "birth control" does absolutely nothing, to reform any of these largely economic and political problems. Too much of our world is controlled by idiot and corrupt politicians, and by greedy corporations. There is way too little emphasis on empowering the sovereign individuals, to find problems and be their own enterprenuers to profit by providing solutions to any "problems" they can find.

Food is cheap, at least for those with decent jobs who can afford it. Shelter even for burgeoning billions of humans, shouldn't really be much of a problem, as housing units can be built of practically anything durable that can withstand the weather and wind. Homes or apartment and condo units can be built of concrete, pressure-treated or naturally decay-resistant wood, plastic, metal, brick made from abundant clay, glass, alloys, "recycled" crap and plastic as even some "wood" now is really reclaimed plastic that resists rot far better than actual wood, etc. Obviously, there are a few restrictions, if homes are to be closely spaced or stacked on top of one another, that water sprinkler systems and fire resistance then must also be considered. And better sound insulation between housing units too, as while it doesn't much hurt people to hear their neighbor's toilet flush at night, should people really have to or want to know too much of their neighbor's lifestyles or the natural sounds of their sex life?

And the population "control" freaks aim to make it even worse, in their insane pretense, that condoms are like a bottle of old "Dr. Good," a wonder cure that can supposedly magically "cure," well most anything at all. But what if all the contraceptives in the world, can't stop the world's billions of people from continuing to burgeon? What if billions of potential parents, can't be convinced why they should have to give up enjoying having their God-given children? Then hadn't maybe a few civic engineers, actually prudently plan for some further natural growth of the human race?

Here's a discussion topic I posted in the past, on my forum, which I entitled "Americans probably don't like children?" As I believe it quite normal and natural and proper for humans to multiply to even seemingly "huge," and incredibly abundant proportions, and that if the world seemingly is becoming "pregnant" with people, then why not simply allow the planet to don its "maternity clothes" and celebrate life and anticipate whatever wonderous "birth" to come?

http://forums.delphiforums.com/innovate1/messages?msg=511.1

Are People The Problem

http://www.bethel.edu/~kisrob/ges325k/Resources/CT1994/ct1994.html

A CT Institute Essay On World Population

Some population experts predict apocalyptic scenarios. Others argue that human ingenuity can meet the challenge. Deciding who is right has as much to do with faith as with facts.

We ought to be wary, then, of statistical targets, and any program that begins with the assumption that government knows best.

Human beings have, each one, an irreducible value. We cannot in any way view humanity as a pest species.

When I lived in Kenya, which had at that time the highest birth rate in the world, I had a conversation with a university- educated friend of mine about children. My wife and I had just had our first child, and we wanted to know whether breast- feeding in public would offend people.

"No," our friend said. "In fact, it would be good. People would be surprised that you want to be so close to the baby."

"Why would that surprise them?" I asked.

"Well, you know, we tend to think that white people don't like children."

"But why would you think that?"

He thought a while. "Maybe because you people brought birth control, and since you don't want to have children, you probably don't like them."

 

Everytime I read your posts, I can't help but think you're joking, but I don't think you would put that much effort into a joke, so here's my reply: Your opinion is stupid, shortsighted, and, if you procreational wishes were carried out, would lead the world, or at least the human population, to disaster. You're basing your desire for a world without leg room on the fantasy that the world will look like a jetsons cartoon, and the "Mr. Fusion" from back to the future will become a reality so that we can run cars on banana peels and napkins. In fact, you may have the single dumbest argument I've heard for anything in at least the last 365 days.

Contraception isn't some mystical shield to keep some mystical human spirit from animating itself. There is no human spirit reservoir. A higher population density will not result in a world glowing with human spirit. If anything, the world will get duller. Smog and asphalt aren't very nice to look at.

You need to realize that without the natural wonders of this earth, which you would so quickly do away with, we would not be here. If you want to live in a 1984 world, you can go start a commune somewhere and have an awful time with your six hundred kids. You can eat bran cubes for breakfast, drink dirty water, breathe rancid air, and have no trees to climb, ponds to swim in, trails to hike, or wildlife to see in your little cement world. But don't come crying to the rest of us when you have no resources left.

 

I could not have said it any better myself, FreakerSoup. I could not tell if Pronatalist was trolling or honestly trying to debate overpopulation. His argument has drove me away from this website for about two weeks.

Everybody is entitled to an opinion, but when you clog up every thread on this forum arguing population growth and flooding everbody with delusioned ideas of a utopian society where people and God can flourish easily, when everybody disagrees, is saying something.

 

Pronatalists ideas are based on faith not reality. It would require many major miracles for the world to be able to sustain that type of population growth. It would also take major revolutions in governments to redistribute resources equally (most likely major wars). The Earth, currently, is not sustaining its population, roughly 1 in 7 people are not getting enough to eat let alone other nessesities. I am in no way saying people shouldn't have children but just to be responsible about it.

 

Two words to contradict your whole false reality, Pronatalist: peak oil.