stop making kids

Interesting.

 

Pronatalist, what will our swelling population eat? how will they heat their homes? how will they cool their homes? how will they power their transportation? how will they cleanse their water? how will they do anything that requires electricity? how will they cope with drought, soaring temperatures, flooded coasts and rampant, mosquito-spread disease?

the kind of world you are advocating sounds ghastly, purely because the planet does not have the available resources to accomodate such a population. space is not the issue... do you understand that?

i feel sorry for you because you clearly have no sense of wonder. nature, unspoiled, is one of the most precious things we are lucky enough to experience. i can't see how anyone would advocate its utter annihilation based on a book of bronze-age myths. justify yourself.


Benther Dondata:
fundamental conceptual paradigm of nature. you said it. worship of god is a misplaced worship of the earth, our one home. peace.

 

Uh, food. Duh?

Let me guess. That isn't what you meant to ask, but rather, how would there still be enough food? That's one of the beauties of capitalism. As long as profits aren't "evil" and markets are fair, there will always be people able to produce more, for more profits, as when it comes to making money, many people can be quite creative.

Don't you do any reading? Surely authors such as Julian Simon or Ben J. Wattenberg, or some technological optimists, have written something of their ideas what people might eat, if and when we ever manage to outgrow our agricultural lands. I imagine the next step, if ever, would be more "synthetic" foods. And please don't go off telling me how gross or bad-tasting that would be. With that many billions of people on the planet, there has got to be lots and lots of recipe books for "synthetic" foods of the future?

I have a few ideas, but will the population ever manage to get so large? In the PS2 game Project Eden, their "real" meat, was something that looked like meat, growing in a tank. Maybe a plant/animal hybrid? Oh, the wonders of genetic engineering, huh? Yeah, that might be a suggestive way to go, but as long as they aren't too hasty before they know what they are doing.

How about by body heat? More shared walls in huge housing complexes, and less heat would be needed anyway. My home tends to linger around 10 degrees Farenheit, above outside temperature, even without running heat, due to body heat, heat from the refrigerator and TV and computer, and maybe a little waning afternoon sun.

I'm not sure, but I think a 40-watt light bulb was said to the the equivalent to the body heat of 1 person. Seems to me, that adding more people, solves the problem. In fact, that's sort of how they did it, back in "the good ol' days." You don't think families shared beds, merely because "they like each other?" More likely, because they didn't have enough boys to chop enough firewood to keep them warm all night.

Oh, do you want a more serious answer? How about by nuclear power. Nuclear power seems capable of powering vast cities, without all the smoke of coal-burning plants. Then of course, there's "green-design" homes, that make use of solar panels and stuff, but I rather imagine them forever being much too complicated or expensive to build, run, and design, for many of the common people to own them. Part of the problem, is all these windows people like. Anybody know the R-value of even a modern double-pane window? It's much lower than for normal walls. What will we need windows for anyway, as we move towards computer monitors in every room, whole house computer servers, and too many people stay up too late at night anyway? At least "virtual windows" wouldn't be drafty. Just mach up what color security cam you want, to which computer monitor desktop background you want, and presto, no longer do "windows" actually have to face out to where they are looking.

Ever hear of the "whole house fan?" Put one in any window, or into a hallway vented into the attic, and your whole house, can "suck." Run it on exhaust, and every open window pulls in a steady constant breeze. Whole house fans have a steep pitch on the blades, unlike cheap little toy box fans, so that they suck air more, and beat the air and make noise, far less.

Come on, we have more air conditioning than ever. Upon what basis now, do you expect a reversal. Corporate mismanagement of electrical utilities?

Didn't you ever watch The Jetsons cartoon. Maybe they didn't want to get into the controversy, but I deduced that those "power pellets" that power their flying cars, are actually nuclear. Because you don't get that many flying miles per pellet, at such high speeds, via "normal" chemical reactions, such as burning gasoline.

Simple. By doing away with all that Malthusian gloom-and-doom nonsense. Sorry, out of time. I will have to finish this up later.

 

you seem to be looking at each issue in a vacuum, not realizing that one problem inevitably affects everything around it. example: food production requires water. a lot of food means a lot of water. that's just for the plants and animals, don't forget a lot of people need it too. water takes time to purify.

i'm all for synthetic foods. instead of eliminating rainforest to make more room for cattle, we could be eating stem-cell beef. that way we can have total control over the product and reduce methane, etc. still, i don't imagine this would be cheap.

heating: i'm sure huddling together is cosy, but do you honestly think that modern humans will do something so archaic when they can just crank up the heat? what, the electricity is too expensive? oh... there is a limit to body warmth in more extreme climates and it is only good for people living in groups. what about the lonely old widow?

it's amusing that you think eco-homes are too expensive for the masses, yet advocate "virtual windows" for everyone. i'm pretty sure giant LCD screens in every room would be too expensive for most people. on the other hand, eco-homes are not cheap to build, but they eventually pay for themselves by utilizing renewable energy and actually putting excess power into the grid. of course, if one could afford virtual windows, why would one want to look outside and be reminded of how shitty and polluted it is?

nuclear power is a great energy source, but it isn't clean. there is no solution for the problem of nuclear waste. at the moment we have drums of the stuff sitting there waiting for a storage facility to appear. they can only stay in this state for so long. yes, we can make storage facilities, but how many locations/eco-systems will be destroyed when we need to do this on a massive scale? there are alternatives like windfarms and solar feilds that are 100% clean yet are being ignored by people like you.

it would be lovely to do away with the doom and gloom, but if you bother to look at the science, you'll know we have reason to be concerned about drought and disease. instead of being in denial about the problem, some of us focus on the cause= human beings. people like you do the reverse. you look to an obsolete book for answers, and conclude that the world needs more people, simply because life itself is so wonderfully special.

did it occur to you that for millions of starving, suffering people, life is absolute misery? there is a direct link between alienation from nature and depression. put simply, quality of life will reduce alongside the reducing health of the biosphere. we could spare people from the abyss of being born with no future, or encourage more births to satisfy some outdated superstition. hmmm.

go capitalism: the most efficient way to consume all our resources in the shortest time possible. what you want is more important than what you need.

the point which you don't seem to grasp is that earth's resources are finite. therefore, we should manage them responsibly by limiting our numbers and taking only what we can replace. contraception is no more or less unnatural than any of our adaptations to life on this planet. deal with it.

 

More and more of the world, is getting electricity. Actually, I advocate development and cheap, abundant energy, because I believe even more so, an increasingly populous world has need of cheap energy, to power the growing cities.

How will they cleanse their water? Well how do we do it know? I am quite sure the technology, already in use, already fairly understood by some, is scalable towards most any imaginable-sized population.

No doubt water will be cleased somehow, on the spaceships of the future. About what they do now, on the Space Shuttles, is use of a waterless toilet. But that's because water is prohibitably expensive, on the Space Shuttle.

Soaring temperatures, flooded coasts? Simple. Just stop listening to that liar, Al Gore.

"If anything is going to cause global warming, it's all the hot air coming from Congress."

Mosquito-spread-disease? Well who banned DDT? The developers, or the enviro wackos? What happened to spraying our neighborhoods, to control insect populations? Was that a good idea, to just end that, without much any explanation?

So why do you think, that we have some "choice" here? Was it I, or you, that designed human beings, to multiply exponentially? Why is it, that certain atheists or hedonists, deny that there is any God, and then start trying to invent "god," knowing that there must be some God, to keep everything in order? God commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and then made all our offspring, to inherit that same ability, to also reproduce. That way, Adam & Eve wouldn't be ridiculously overwhelmed, having to raise billions of babies themselves.

If the planet, as you claim, doesn't have enough raw resources to accomodate such a population, then we must be near the Biblical endtimes. Because it wouldn't make sense for God to create so many people, and to have no purpose for them. That's more what enviro wackos and athiests believe, that things happen pretty much "for no apparent purpose."

What is with this "ghasty" jumping to conclusions? If world population doubles, triples, quadruples, what? maybe within my lifetime, why again, would that be "ghastly?" I already know much of what it would look like. It would look much like "today." Before I lived in the city, now the city has grown, still I live in the city. What's the difference really? More people + planet stays the same size = increased worldwide population density. Increased urbanization of the planet, can easily accomodate that, even without increasing apparent "crowding."

I believe the resources are available, but that "enviromental" extremists have some religious phobia against developing them to better serve the populous masses.

How many technologies, such as satelite or cable TV, could more universally be made available to everybody, and yet are hoarded into various price-point tiers, just so that some rich people can imagine themselves to be "better" than other people and play "king of the mountain," by enjoying what they deny to others? Especially with satelite TV, since the signals are sent to everybody anyway. That's one reason why I have a bunny ear antenna on my TV, because I want all I can get for free. I don't like some of the economic models, because they often don't make much sense, not being based upon the simple concept that people should pay for what they use. Why should I pay more for more channels? Still, how many channels can I watch at once? Only one? Cable TV was said to eliminate commercials, and then they put the commercials back on. Let the commercials pay, so as to get a bathroom break.

Who's advocating "utter annihilation?" For people to go on and reproduce as God commanded, without unnatural, anti-life, awkward "birth control" better respects nature. Does it not occur to people, that if nature could have its preference, that it could be "nature" that is multiplying the people all the more? As people are part of nature too, then so to, must be the cities it takes to hold so many people. I hardly think that nature is afraid of some little ol' natural urban sprawl, but rather that fear is a luddite enviro wacko idea.

And you speak of wonder. What about the wonder, of how a precious human being can grow inside of his or her mother.

The earth is not great enough, to have any concept of receiving worship. Too many people seem to like to worship idols of their own making, "gods" too small to possibly even be worthy of worship.

 

IDIOT.

 

I guess fundamentalist Christians don't understand that they can keep it in their pant. But then it's only their subservient wives that actually do the breeding so why stop when it feels so gooooood! When she can't have anymore babies I am sure they are out there looking for new breeders.

 

Looking at issues in a vacuum? I see "the big picture" far more clearly, than most everybody around me. With so many people now alive, surely the many needs and some of the wants of people, must count for something?

So water takes time to purify? So there can never be any such thing as factory production speed water? Water in most properly developed places, is so cheap, that we waste quite a lot. Would I need an entire bathtub of hot water, to bathe, if water was scarce? With a wash cloth, one can bathe easily, in less than a gallon of water. But the hot water is also good, for relaxing my muscles. Surely you wouldn't claim that more water treatment plants couldn't be built, which creates job BTW.

What is this "stem-cell" nonsense? A code-word for rationalizing away the immorality of abortion? Or some sloppy catch-all word for anything genetically modified? I'm for synthetic foods, if and when their proper time comes. Waiting around for just the right sunshine and rain, would seem to be becoming too unproductive, too uncertain, and increasingly obsolete. Microwave ovens still look to me, like something "magical" out of the future, that cook by "magic" (radio waves), while agriculture looks terribly quaint and old-fashioned. Why wait for cows to make their cow pies and moo all the time, for months to become fat enough to go to market for slaughter, when we can maybe someday just speed up the process and grow meat in a tank? Well one reason could be, that cows feed themselves and can graze on poor soil grass. That works for now, but if in the future, more land is needed merely for human housing, better methods can then be found.

Uh, No. If I am cold, yeah I crank up the heat.

I heat mostly with my gas logs, so I don't have to pay to heat my basement, nor for heat to go up the chimney, and can easily zone off rooms that I don't need warm right now merely by closing the door. I have the wall-thermostat, so that makes it easy. No remote to sit on, no getting too hot, and no interuption in heat during a power outage since the thermostat is powered by the thermocouple above the pilot light, which I turn off, during the summer.

And there's not a lot of activities, that people can reasonably do very productive huddled together that I can think of, well except for sleep and mate.

Huddling together is one of many possible ideas. I even suggested others, such as massive buildings could be heated by body heat alone, because the internal volume would be so great, in comparison with the rather small surface area. When, presumably due to the so-called "population explosion," more people perhaps come to live in taller buildings and skyscrapers, stacking housing units against and on top of each other, leads at least somewhat, to heat accumulation. Not just body heat, but heat from refrigerators, stoves, TVs, etc.

My main idea, was the need for cheap and abundant energy for the populous masses, and to power the vast cities. The future likely will trend towards even more power consumption, not less. Ever notice how the spaceship in Star Trek typical consume more energy than a huge city? Warp Drive is hardly a gas-sipping miser.

There must be over 100 ways to generate electricity, so there's no (technological) excuse for electricity to be expensive. According to E=mc^2, there's enough energy in a penny, to provide for my electricity use, for my entire lifetime.

I want for energy development to seek towards cheap energy, so that the loney old widow, can afford to stay warm. In fact, in the early days of electricity, encouraging electricity consumption, and getting as many people connected up as possible, was key to cheap electricity. And building really big generators, which allowed for capacity to be shared amongst many people, who didn't need full capacity all at once, cutting costs.

Just 1 of many ideas. No need to rush towards that, when all that is needed, for the forseeable future, is a little urban sprawl here and there, and better pro-life pronatalist attitude. The main application for "virtual windows" would be for massive population archologies, in which most housing units don't border any exterior walls. After all, "virtual windows" are quite "sharable."

Actually, I do sort of think that most houses, are maybe a bit too "boxy" and could look more "natural" were they shaped a bit more "round" something like geodesics or hexagons, which would seem to be more common shapes in nature. But if I have to pay more for such a house, forget that! "Square" probably has its advantages, like more simple measurements for cutting sheetrock for walls. And getting square furniture with square drawers to fit in better along the walls. And then I really don't think nature "cares" whether human homes look "natural" or not.

Oh really? Where do you live? China? Where everything is mismanaged by the communist thugs?

But maybe that raises an interesting point. What for, do we need windows anyway? So our neighbors can watch or spy on us? Tradition? Do windows really bring in much light, for all that many hours? No doubt windows were invented way back when the only light was fire, or maybe a dim oil lamp or a few candles. Why not free light from the sun, and yet a physical barrier to keep the cold air at bay?

One of the first and obvious objections I have to an eco-home, whatever that is supposed to be, is complexity. Just look how simple it is to almost mass-produce a bunch of houses, just slap in a 200 Amp power feeder wire from the nearest telephone pole into a circuit breaker panel octopus with wires running all over the home. Connect it, and it works. Simple. But with an eco-home, one must have collectors of low-energy density energy or heat, and then pipe it somewhere and figure out how to store it, and then have backup systems for when the weather doesn't cooperate. All sorts of potential for leaks and malfunctions. Who but an eco-freak, would want such a complicated piece of machinery? When I go home, I want to relax and turn on a good DVD or video game, not do the technological-equivalent of piloting the space shuttle.

But nuclear is getting better and safer, and reacting hydrogen by nuclear fusion, would release merely harmless helium. Nuclear fission still has some problems, but nuclear fusion is what's supposed to be clean, and maybe finally deliver on the age-old promise of "electricity too cheap to meter." There may yet be incredibly safe ways to control such reactions, such that the only failure, would be loss of power, leading to "portable" nuclear reactors to power the flying cars of the future (with a "backup" module, but of course).

But that is such a grand reason, why don't you consider that a while longer? Yeah, life is so wonderfully special.

Sorry, but I seem to be out of time. I will have to finish this later.

 

I stumbled onto this forum by accident, I can't even remember what I was looking for. I read this whole thread and there are some very insightful posts on here. I just wanted to add several ideas as food for thought since I haven't seen them mentioned.

I've seen the concern expressed that overpopulation will tax the planet's resources. The human mind is one of the most valuable resources on the planet, and the more of them, the more chance that one or more of those minds will be able to solve our existing problems. In a similar vein, I've seen people talk about not wanting to bring a child into a world with such problems, but I believe the world needs as many good, decent people as it can get. The more good people, the more likely the minds that solve these problems will do so in a just and humane manner.

Most of the concern for the environmental impact on the planet relates to the technology at our disposal today. We're assuming that the earth will be our only home in the future. We're assuming that the only way to counteract the expenditure of resources is to stop consuming them, rather than that technology will find a way to expand those resources or our ability to utilize them. The universe, and the future, are infinite places full of amazing discoveries that we can't even begin to imagine.

I don't believe we're going to kill the planet. The idea that man can destroy the very planet is a facet of his age-old belief that he is the center of the universe. It's possible we may make life inhospitable for ourselves in the short run, but the planet was here long before us and will continue to be whether we're here or not. That sense of power feels good, though, in a perverse sort of way. It may be unpleasant to think we're destroying the planet but it's also secretly reassuring to believe we have that kind of control over something as raw and powerful as the earth itself. It's innate to the human psyche that we need to feel control over our surroundings. I live in Los Angeles and every time there's an earthquake I'm reminded very forcefully that control is an illusion and we're pretty damn small in the scheme of things. It's a stressful feeling that kind of shakes me at the source (no pun intended), and I can understand why it would be attractive to believe that I have control over the planet, albeit negative control.

As I said I think humans may make life inhospitable for themselves, but I doubt this will result in our destruction as a species. I think it'll instigate new technology that'll work to correct the problem, necessity being the mother of invention and all. Though if we do nuke the planet, who knows? Maybe human-instigated global disaster is the planet's way of starting over with a clean slate. While that might make a fun sci-fi story, I doubt that'll happen. I don't think mankind will let it reach that level. Eventually our sun's life cycle will destroy the planet anyway, and it would be in our best interest to start branching out into new territory before that happens.

The upshot of this is that I don't think the solution is less children, but better technology. It may be "selfish" to want to reproduce, but it's part of our inherent makeup as a species. We're designed for it and in the vast majority of people our minds and souls crave it once we reach a certain age. I think it's better to put our minds toward finding a technological solution to the problem of overpopulation than it is to try to change human nature. When those in authority try to re-engineer human nature for an ideal, people suffer. Maybe the rapidly increasing population of earth isn't a sign we should stop being what we are, but a sign it's time to start spreading out. It's an interesting coincidence that our population is growing exponentially right about the same time our technology is starting to advance enough to open space up as a new frontier.

 

There is ALREADY an overabundance of technological solutions to the overpopulation problem. They are typically found in the vast military complexes of any of the wide array of competitive, conformist, consumer driven economies world wide. If not there then certainly in the exhausts of high tech industrial complexes…don’t forget the commuters tail pipes!

Oh! I forgot…Jesus saves!

Our problem is that In God we Trust to protect Mother Nature and in reality the followers of monotheism are all asleep at the wheel with their eyes wide open. God is ripping Mother Nature a new ass hole and we hem-and-haw. You might consider the profound pollution spewing from the industrial and technological complexes

Mother Nature is the nature in human nature and the mother of nature is the garden.

The salvation of civilization rests in the hands of our youth and the most irresponsible people on the planet today are their parents...parents that never seriously lift a hand to help resolve overpopulation or the suffering of the children that are already here...parents that figure the best way to save the planet is to produce more kids that will join the rest of us to consume what is left of this wondrous planet...parents that spend their life punching the time clock, watching TV and teaching their kids to compete with the Jones...and worst of all parents that send their kids to schools without gardens!

 

Meat in a tank!hahahahahahhahaha-fuck'n hell.Pronatalist-if you want to see your perfect world,rent THX_1138.

 

You should stick around the forums. I like the fresh perspective and I think you will find other threads that will be intresting to you. Hope to seee ya around more.

 

Pronatalist, have you heard the expression "the death of birth"?

this doesn't relate to abortion, but the increasing level of extinction caused by human activities. if life is as precious as you claim, where is your respect for every other creature that lives on this planet? are humans so special that we should carry on while everything except rats and cockroaches dies?

from looking at your fantastic "solutions" to the issues i raise, it's clear that you don't have a realistic picture of technology, or biology, or anything else besides the contents of an old book. example: you propose technology from science fiction tv programs 'the jetsons' and 'star trek'. dude, the word FICTION is there for a reason.

your response to these very real problems is to say: "so what? in the future, technology will MAYBE be able to (add miracle-fix here)."

you and your kind are so blinded by faith that you dismiss anything that conflicts with the bible, because the bible is the word of god, and everything in the bible is true so it must be the word of god... something wrong with the logic here.

the lies of al gore... don't blame the messenger man, blame the SCIENCE. science that clearly indicates global warming to be a major problem. did you actually bother to watch his film? i doubt it. polar bears are endangered because their habitat of sea ice is melting. if this trend continues, and enough ice melts, the water level will rise. result: flood. do you have some hypothetical solution to this REALITY?

you've always lived in the city so you have no idea what the effect of development is. the city always looks the same. development means clearing land, eliminating ecosystems, reducing the diversity of life. we need a diverse ecosystem to discover cures for disease.

"the earth is not great enough to merit worship." dude, where would you live if not for this planet? respect it. the earth does not belong to us, we belong to it. your thinking is so narrowminded.

atheists and other rational-minded people have realized that you have to create your own purpose in life. your god is a safety-net. a way of changing the rules so that existence isn't terrifying, thrilling, a mystery, exhilarating, because you can't cope with these uncertainties. according to you, god created millions of people in africa with the sole purpose of dying from AIDS.

stem-cell meat is effectively "meat in a tank". by manipulating stem cells, you can grow any part of an animal. you can grow pork chops without the pig. we're talking about the same thing, but because i used an anti-life buzzword you are afraid. if you don't understand something, it might be a good idea not to type epic posts about it. example: eco-homes are not complicated, you think they are because you've never bothered to read about them.

finally, in your ideal, mass-populated earth, every human would innhabit a small capsule. his every living need would be provided for, presumaby by processing all his bolidy waste into energy SOMEHOW. he wouldn't need windows, or a view of any kind, because the mere fact of his existence would be so wonderful that he would happily spend his entire life worshipping the god that put him in his little life-support-system. the entire planet would be covered in these capsules, housed in massive skyscrapers. when we ran out of room, we would start building underground capsule facilities and cramming humans in there, so they may enjoy the incredible gift of life.

do you have the balls to deny this future?

 

p.s: nuclear power that is "to cheap to meter"?

oh, come on. with capitalism, nothing is free. there are countries where you have to pay for drinking water. you whine about paying for cable tv while supporting capitalism. seems the tv commercials have successfully brainwashed you into becoming another mindless comsumer.

this might come as a surprise but TV IS SHIT!

 

Mondoglove...with all due respect shit can be composted...the vile filth programmed by TV into the minds of our youth is a disgrace that scrambles any sense of connectedness and mutual responsibilities.

(Conform...consume...compete...breed; Conform...consume...compete...breed; Conform... consume...)

Parents that allow kids to watch TV have crossed the line from irresponsible to abusive!

Turn it off...throw it out...apologize to our kids for allowing it and teach our kids the ways of the garden!

Damn God! Embrace Mother Nature!

 

Sports rule.

 

Well I have a few minutes right now, so I will try to answer a few more points.

Another reason why the world should go on adding still more people, is to keep people on the right track, of serving and caring about the needs of other fellow people like themselves. Does nobody but me, give much thought to what a sad day it would be, when few, if any people, want to "bother" to have children anymore?

If the population is huge, then it is huge. Deal with it, or ignore it, but don't use it as some handy scapegoat to dismiss people's rights and interests to live as God designed them to. Why do I have any more right to live, than the babies yet to come? Doesn't the concept of "equal rights" presume most all people to be pretty much the same?

And how do you assume it to get any better, without basic respect for the sanctity of each and every sacred human life? Encouraging more births, goes hand in hand with respect for human life, and various moral reforms. And if one is born, they likely have a future, but where is the future of those denied any reasonable chance to come to life and be born?

And I would think, to at least some extent, the sheer numbers of people now alive, requires some level of "alienation from nature" in order for people to properly adapt to better becoming so numerous for the greater good of the many. Not to say that people can't go hiking or have decorative plants in their homes, but rather, that not everything can still be completely "natural," and yet also consider the needs of the many. There's nothing to prevent even "unnatural" or more "modern" technologies, from helping to accomodate so many humans now alive.

Gotta go.

 

With all due respect,and possibly my opinion only,I frankly think you are quite insane.I'll just say that your "ideas" are not as horrendous as the currant ,totally immoral admiistration we have had foisted on us----but close.

 

Yeah, that's about what people thought of God's true prophets, too. So I am quite likely in good company.

If there is to be any population "control," God wisely distributed it among the billions of potential parents, so that people could enjoy freedom, or better yet, reserved it to himself, to decide how populous humans shall be, or shall become.

Otherwise, one must act the very logical question, who then can we trust, to do any of the "controlling?" No mere human(s), is worthy of such a profound impossibility or absurdity.

 

Rent? I own that movie. And I also own 1984. You think I don't know of dystopian books and movies? Of which I speak, I am well-read and educated.

BTW, I am not so sure that the futuristic world of Project Eden, is really all that bad, especially for the "priviledged" or more wealthy classes. It's just really very heavily populated, and far better adapted than many Malthusians would dare admit possible. (Apparently, most of the common people much prefered extreme population density, and stacking people in tall buildings, as it slowly and inevitably? came to that, to coercive or by-trickery, population "control.") Actually, it didn't appear all that "crowded" at all, but more "an excuse" for simplifying the polygon design of the game world, large buildings with lots of simple straight lines, being far easier to design, than "realistic"-looking natural landscapes. Much the same as Star Wars is but "an excuse" for lots of irrevent special movies effects, in place of a good or useful complex sci-fi story. Also, video games seem to love to exploit stories of "disaster" and danger, for the fun and "be-the-hero" aspects of them.

Meat in a tank, is but one of many possible futuristic or sci-fi examples. They already produce cheese in a tank, so what's the difference really? If you were to do some research, you might be surprised or shocked, how many foods or food products, are already produced "in tanks." Yogurt has bacteria cultures in it. Gasp! Cheese is pretty much curddled and concentrated milk. They are probably already producing insulin for people, via some bacteria genetic modification, as it's a lot cheaper than animal insulin, if I heard right.

In THX 1138, a dystopian view of perhaps some future world is depicted, in which most everybody is but a number, or some production unit. But who is advocating for that view? I find it to be the "overpopulation" Malthusians, who seem to argue for such a world, with their inordinate focus on numbers. It is pronatalists or prolifers like me, who so often claim, that each and every individual, is so valuable and precious, that humans can't possibly morally nor practically, be subjected to something so low and cruel as population "control."

Enviro wackos like to make colorful or specious claims, that if humans don't control their numbers, nature will. WRONG. Nature won't. Why do you think we are getting so populous now? Because if nature had any designs on "limiting" our numbers, then "nature" has been asleep on the job, for quite some time. Why? A better explanation is citing in Genesis, how that God commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, and gave humans dominion over nature and other creatures. Why? To dominate, just because "we can?" Or because we are supposedly so intelligent? No, I think to dominate from sheer numbers having exhausted all other options, and that it was God's invitation and expectation to humans, to grow to become among the most populous of the large mammals. Why? To bless us, and to multiply humans, to provide all the more people to worship God. As I see it, if humans fail to or refuse to limit their numbers, then expect humans to grow all the more numeous, and to adapt. Now there's better sensible logic, and not hastily jumping to conclusions, not well-supported by the evidence.

I have even heard the idea, that maybe humans adapt too well to their environment, a supposed reason why our burgeoning numbers seem so "out of control" to some population phobics.

I also find it ironic, that the huge roaring crowd of people, out in the hallway, in THX 1138, as claimed in the commentary track or something, was a piddly-small group of people going round and round, in front of the camera again and again. How easily they fake a little "camera magic" along with some highly suggestive sound effects. Just like the faked flim-flam job delusions of the population phobics.

Somehow, I seriously doubt that they will still be trying to sell us on their "overpopulation" fable, when the sky is rolled away like a scroll, and the terrified wicked cry for the rocks to fall on them to hide them from their Creator, if it were even possible, in the foretold Biblical endtimes.