stop making kids

Wait, I can solve this ( I hope I can) ok...Umm...show people examples of how raising a family the proper ay is worth while (original post) U might not believe in God but respect others belifs say something like " I think God is fake because....but I know and respect that u believe in him" or "For me....But that might not be the case with you ( to salmon4me) C'mon guy, peace, love, prosperity, no being mean

 

Well, you can call me stupid if you like,but I think the answers/decisions concerning this discussion will be self-evident to those for whom critical reasoning is important to understand and put to use.There are those here who have been much more informative than I.The beauty of being open-minded on matters of discussion, is that one can actually LEARN.Your statements are specious,static and occasionally ridiculous.Nothing to learn here.You have not, and my guess is,you will not learn much more of anything in your life.You already have all the answers.I don't.Never have.Never will.

 

Pronatalist, calling every environmentalist a wacko is absurd, even from your point of view. Many of them are doing things that are directly connected to keeping the water, air, oceans, land, etc clean, so that people can can breath the air and drink water and food, that isn't polluted, so they can have healthy lives. Since you are advocating for more people, a place for them to live, that has the essentials for living is required. If some people lose their jobs because the industry they work in is causing more damage to other humans (via polluting air, water,land,etc) then the industry is supporting, then so be it. People live in and are a part of the environment and need it for survival. You seem to think all environmentalists care about is endangered gnats and stuff, but that is only a small part of it.

In the current situtation, promoting an increase in overall population is the same as sentencing millions to poverty, starvation and death. Unless we solve the problems as in the previously mentioned posts first, then thats what population increase means. You can't add the people first, and then try to figure out what to do, because then people starve and die before anything is fixed. Have you ever considered compassion? I know Jesus was big on that.

 

coming soon to this topic:

an entire page of nonsensical bullshit that can be vaguely summarized as 'vain, arrogant, ignorant, submissive, anti-scientific, anti-environmental christian propaganda.'

 

Agreed. Overpopulation is a problem, just look at China. Humans will need to expand into space, we can't stay on Earth forever. Eventually, Earth will be in ruins, an asteroid or comet [forget which] will hit Earth and we'll witness somewhat of what the Dinosaurs saw ... If the universe ends with the "Big Crunch" then does it matter what we do? Can that be stopped? hmm I shall create a thread!

 

I am not calling every environmentalist a wacko. Like I said, no doubt there are some environmentalists who are into having big or natural or "unplanned" families, and I would add, some might even be pro-business and pro-people. But the term "environmentalist" has become tainted as to pretty much mean absurd and extremist. Ever hear the term "watermellon environmentalist?" "Green" on the outside and red on the inside. They pretend to "care" for "the environmental," almost more than anybody else imaginable, but really inside they are "red" communists looking for an excuse to lord over everybody and shut down business. Well some program I saw on PBS, about land rights battle with environmental extremists, brings up the term "green nazis," as some so-called "environmentalists" seem like they could care less about people, as if we somehow are either not a part of the environment, or else some insideous or illegitimate part, something that I, being a human, couldn't possibly logically agree with.

And I advocate for sensible reforms, that I never hear "environmentalists" promoting, such as humans populate up denser and more numerous, with all the more assholes releasing feces every day, I would say that the need for more people to modernize and get such simple adaptations as toilets, steadily grows. As I heard on some PBS TV program, it isn't very smart to poop in your drinking water. But such basic sanitation as keeping drinking water and waste water separate, and water purification treatment plants, are almost like old news, and if we didn't have corrupt dictators and greedy corporations hijacking the economy away from serving the needs of the poor, don't you think that the developing nations might be more modernized by now, and that more people could pay for properly treated and piped potable water? I would much rather take a nice hot bath in clean running water, than in some cold river of questionable cleanliness. In order to insure that there can be more people alive, and that they have some proper place to live, there is a need for a pronatalist attitude that welcomes natural human population expansion, as that more readily leads to the needed reforms, infrastructure expansions, dams to insure adequate water availability even during drought, and better respect for the dignity and freedom of so many people, and the necessary expansion of human territory and cities and towns, so that all the more people can comfortably fit onto the planet.

I expect as human numbers rise, pollution per person should decrease. In time, as population-driven technology naturally accelerates anyway. More people living closer together, requires better management of wastes and resources. But draconian non-solutions that people don't want, isn't what is needed, but rather natural and gradual changes, of the sort that people do want. For example, who wouldn't want indoor plumbing, as they come to be able to afford it? Who wouldn't want to replace messy and inconvenient millions of smoky cooking fires in growing cities, with modern clean gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens? So so-called "environmentalists" are against technology and increased consumption, by the supposed "rich" nations, and think less resources would be consumed, if more people remained poor, but that is such an anti-progress, anti-people crock of lies. As the human race naturally populates denser and more efficiently, more "artificial" technology is needed to adequately support it, and so modern plumbing should be promoted, people should have a "right" to decent-paying jobs and to be their own sovereigns and run their own businesses as much as possible or that they prefer, and there should be modern vaccines available, increased numbers of birthing centers in growing cities, more midwives for people who are into home-birthing for whatever reasons, and decreased contraceptive pushing and increased emphasis on the importance of family, and the promotion that is quite natural and proper for mothers to breastfeed in public places as they may need to or prefer because parents are obligated to provide for their children whether they be many children or few.

But do all logging jobs have to be destroyed, when people still want wood furniture that is more solid than glued-together sawdust crumbly particle-board, and want natural wood floors? I myself like wall-to-wall carpet, but hardwood floors are still quite fashionable to many people. I would like to see some wood substitutes take over more, that insects and termites don't like, and that won't rot in weather, so that we don't really have to worry too much about repainting the exteriors of our homes to slow the natural rotting process, but such transitions take time, and alternate products must be as workable and competitively priced to make them available to perhaps the growing numbers of underpaid working poor. If we can't raise wages all that much, then reduce the cost of many of the things that people really need via better materials and technology.

"Uncontrolled" human population growth, could even be a handy excuse to build more nuclear power plants and push along technology, because an increasingly populous world needs cheap energy for the numerous and growing cities and towns, without polluting the air too much in the process. And think of the pronatalist reasons. People, such as I who don't believe in the anti-life use of shoddy and unreliable and highly experiment potions and poisons as "birth control," obviously need for the lights to reliably come on at night, in order to make it easy to change all those baby diapers.

Come to think of it, wasn't the era of Star Trek probably preceeded by a worldwide "population explosion" of humanity? Why are humans spreading in Star Trek to other worlds? Why do most people eat "copies" of food from "food replicators?" Why invent warp drive? Because it makes it all the easier for human numbers to expand, as they may need or desire to, and to resettle more people to other worlds, if or as they wish. I do commend much of sci-fi, for taking a nearly "optimistic" view of human population expansion, in assuming that somehow it becomes almost naturally accomodated for, by the societal changes it inevitably brings, as I would hope that most humans would at least try, to be friendly towards their other fellow humans with which they must share an increasingly populous world.

That is the major part of it. It is very much "religion" with them. Why do "environmental" publications such as Sierra magazine whine about global population growth? As some major pro-life poster on the Philippines pro-life forum I often frequent says, "What's wrong with population growth?" Yeah, more people to benefit from and to enjoy being alive. I would love to see more "environmental" publications encouraging natural human population growth, as the obvious alternative to nasty and highly experimental contraceptives. If people claim to be concerned about pollution, then why would they even want to contemplate directly polluting their very own bodies, with nasty cancer stick cigarettes or anti-life experimental contraceptives? The most natural way of "spacing" babies, is the natural breastfeeding that God must have intended for most babies, until they can move on to cow's milk and solid food, and welcoming babies to happen whenever they can happen. I would think that people who claim to "care" for nature so much, ought to advocate that humans reproduce more naturally also.

What? So you can't have your cake, and eat it too? But can't somebody simply bake more cakes? Malthusians are just way too pessimistic for anybody's good. Thomas Malthus claimed that human populations grow exponentially, while food supplies can only grow arithmatically. I would say, at least by now, hasn't history already proved him wrong? Isn't it obscene to throw staggering tons of food into the ocean, and pay farmers to produce less, to prop up prices and ease a food glut, when more mouths to eat all that food, could have a similar effect, all the while benefitting all the more people?

Have you heard of the "lifeboat ethic" popularized by Garett Hardin I think it was? Supposedly the world is like a "lifeboat" that can only hold but so many people before capsizing under all the weight. Therefore, helping the developing countries by giving (or selling or trading) food and medicine, is counterproductive. Supposedly, the argument goes, by making more food and medicine available, infant mortality is reduced, longevity is increased, and women are encouraged to have more babies. All of which goes to worsen their supposed "overpopulation." What a cruel philosophy! And it isn't even true. Some "environmental" extremists like to claim that if humans don't control their numbers, nature will. Now I don't like lying A-B options. What about the far-better option C? If humans don't control their numbers, neither will nature. Humans will adapt. The world will become increasingly human, and human dominated, probably even more human-friendly as growing numbers of humans increasingly tame and alter nature to serve humans all the more. An increasingly populous world, will just become all the more, just the "normal" thing and to be expected. Many of the sci-fi writers already seem to much accept this notion, and I really love some of the "optimistic" ideas in sci-fi, such that spaceships will become far faster and more practical, perhaps even more affordable, and that spaceships can be big, comfortable, and be equipped with wall-to-wall carpet.

Sorry, but nature just doesn't work that way. What for would farmers fill endless silos full of food, that they can't sell? They say that "necessity is the mother of invention." Even in Star Trek, I don't think that "food replicators" came along or were invented, until the numbers of mouths to be fed, grew, perhaps overloading the amount of agricultural land available, as cities and towns continued to expand and fill with ever more people.

Malthus supposedly said, that in order to make room for each birth, somebody must die. Nonsense! There is a rather obvious alternative: natural human population accumulation. If births naturally surpass deaths, all the more so as medical compassion and advancement helps to reduce and control death rates, then there can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from people, to better serve the greater good of the populous many. We wouldn't find it "surprising" for the womb of a pregnant woman to increasingly fill with baby, and so why should it be so "surprising" that the world needs to increasingly fill with people, especially if people are to ever venture out farther to maybe eventually colonize more worlds, which I really don't see happening in the Biblical timeline anyway?

I expect that even population expansion will help to naturally accelerate the solutions to all those problems, so there's no need to blame the babies for the ills of the world.

Compassion of one of the many practical reasons, why I do not ask that people, especially parents who may like to have more children anyway, use any form of "birth control." The planet can more easily bear the rising human "population pressure," than people can be expected to struggle with awkward anti-life "birth control." There are other alternatives, that the evolution/atheism population phobics don't like to much consider. Why exactly, can't the many cities and towns, be allowed to grow larger and closer together, so that more people can be made to comfortably fit onto the planet? What of all the compelling reasons that billions of potential parents insist upon going on to have their precious darling babies? Why not have some compassion and explore more, how all the more people can share and coexist upon the same planet, until such time that God may broaden our horizons and grant us more options? God's commandment to humans to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, implies that it is up to God to determine the proper population size of the human race, and not man's responsibility to unnatural limit our numbers at all. It also implies that humans are not expected to use "preventive measures" to limit natural family growth. Sure, there needs to be some "control" of natural human population growth, but surely people of compassion would prefer the very lax controls found in the Bible, of parents committing to each other in marriage first, and being expected to love and provide for and nurture their children.

Besides, with now billions of human birth canals now inhabitting the planet, so many paths from which more human babies can emerge into the world, and sometimes very large and "unchecked" human populations in many developing countries, isn't it perhaps a bit "late" for "family planning" anyway? There's more women now in their childbearing years now, which should have been to be expected anyway.

 

But it is a simple fact that are many millions of people are currently lacking enough basic resources to live. You are advocating the same for millions more to the same horid fate.

 

HELP!

the tap is stuck on and it can't be turned off!

phew, it just stopped. must have run out of time or something.

 

The bible was written by the very men you call liars. Kinda the ultimate truth huh?

 

I'll try It's just that there is no factual basis for 'god'. I'm sorry but god doesn't exist. If there were a god we should kill it for being such an ass-hole.

 

Why don't they just stop having sex? my gawd don't people learn

 

Please re-read this statement out loud to yourself.
Now repeat after me:
I am not very smart and should do more listening and less talking.
I am not very smart and should do more listening and less talking.
I am not very smart and should do more listening and less talking.
I am not very smart and should do more listening and less talking.
I am not very smart and should do more listening and less talking.
I am not very smart and should do more listening and less talking.
I am not very smart and should do more listening and less talking.
I am not very smart and should do more listening and less talking.
I am not very smart and should do more listening and less talking.
I am not very smart and should do more listening and less talking.

 

Didnt read the whole thing...but do you think we will leave this place on our own??? Reach a state where everybody is somehow eternal , and can decide to die when ready? Then all humanity agree ok now its time haha.

Or can people keep on breeding steadily and some radical change will assure prosperity in this case??? We have to live on many planets though hehe, and we dont have much time!

 

Never wrestle with a pig.You both get dirty,but the pig likes it.I'm done here.

 

Why would people ever "decide to die" if they reach a state where everybody is somehow eternal? That won't happen anyway, in this decaying mortal body, but rather in the hereafter, by God's way. Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, the things that God has prepared for those who love God, the Bible says. Declining deathrates aren't really the population issue anyway, as birthrates matter more to demographics now. For each person who dies, 3 more are born to replace him or her, as the human race is gradually accumulating its population numbers. But that is the ideal way to go, as supposedly Thomas Malthus said that somebody must die to make room for each birth. Why? What parents can wait "until hell freezes over" for the population to finally dip a bit, so that they can have their babies? There's a far simply approach. Welcome all the children God gives, regardless of family or population size.

As far as I can tell, people no longer breed after the resurection, or would that be that they no longer breed, after the final millenium with Jesus returning as King of Kings. Since Luke 20 says that people are no longer given in marriage in heaven, but become as the angels. (which angels can't reproduce as humans can?)

If humans could someday naturally "outgrow" the earth, then we should. Especially since there is no practical nor moral way to "control" or "enforce" population "control." Why fight such a human-beneficial "force of nature" that perhaps we can never expect to be able to "control" anyway? If human reproduction is growing to become a mighty force of nature, then so be it. Because more and more people would be glad to live, and to have more babies promotes the greater good of the many. The universe is a very, very gigantic place, and so if humans were to ever have the option, why keep "all our eggs in one basket" so to speak, and not spread naturally expanding human populations to more and more worlds?

"Birth control" is not naturally and goes against nature. Pronatalism and advocacy of naturally-possibly-large families, far better respects nature and nature's God who commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. What a simple commandment, and yet it implies so much. Not only that people weren't designed to use "birth control," and that married couples ought not to use "preventative measures" to limit naturally family size, but also that as time passes, of course we ought to expect the human race to naturally grow larger and larger. It also implies that it is God's responsibility, not man's, to determine family or population size.

Even human population growth serves to help promote prosperity. Where are people drawn to in search of jobs and opportunity? To the big city, where there are lots of people already. As author Julian Simon claims in a book by the same title, people are The Ultimate Resource.

When I add up all the compelling reasons why people have as many children as they sometimes do, and humanity's powerful reproductive urges, what I get, is a global goal and natural desire to enlarge the entire human race, for the greater good of the many.

There is a very simple way by which to better accomodate the world's burgeoning billions. Scoot over a bit, and welcome most everybody civilized to live somewhere, probably most anywhere they want, because they are people, much the same as we are people. Why should people "already here" supposedly have some "greater" right to live, than the future, more populous generations to come? There could simply come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. Human populations can grow even far denser, if or as need be, merely by supposedly intelligent people, learning and adapting to live and breed in closer proximity to other people. Cities and towns can be built, as we are already used to doing, larger and closer together. Surely the puny 2 or 3% of land occupied by cities, could be welcome to increase.

Sure, there needs to be some "control" to these things, but why not the rather lax controls that the Bible prescribes? Why not in a manner respectful of human life and freedom? Get married first, and then it takes time for human populations to grow anyway. That's one of the practical reasons why I am so comfortable about the natural expansion of the size of the human race, because it doesn't happen "overnight," but rather, gradually, at a natural pace within the rate that supposedly intelligent humans should be able to adapt and prepare.

 

Yeah, that was the old school method. Have less sex, duh?

But it obviously doesn't work all that well, as faced with the prospect of a possibly-large family versus less sex, most people tend to prefer the big families, and besides, having children is probably a bit "habitual" anyway, and once you have just 1 baby, might as well have a bunch, since somebody must watch the children anyway.

"Good" Catholics have religious objections or something to "artificial" "birth control." Well yeah, there are a lot of underreported "side effects," not to mention the cost of shoddy, highly experiment, prone-to-"failure" contraceptives. So what about the more "natural" methods such as Catholic-tolerated rhythm? But isn't the intent still to prevent human life, of those future people who wouldn't want to have been prevented? And the carnal-hedonistic world objects, claiming that most people just don't have enough "self-control." Well that leaves discussing the virtues of the "no method" method, or married people having faith to welcome "all the children God gives." Whatever happened to letting babies happen when they happen, and counting children as a welcome surprise blessing from God?

 

Oh but I am not a liberal. Let the libtards do that.

"You don't have to think to be a liberal." Rush Limbaugh

When liberals do more listening, more learning, and refrain more from rushing to make anti-freedom policy based upon false or half-baked ideas, maybe I won't have quite so much to say.

But since the government and the liberals who so much dominate it, seem to just love to mind everybody's business so much, that they can't even mind their own, why shouldn't I inquire into what mischief they are plotting? Maybe people ought to be less nosy, when the government is less nosy, and less intruding into our lives.

 

I say have your kids, but don't ask others to help you pay for them.