"to grow in numbers is great progress for humanity"Ummmm.......yes. And humanity can be expected to "progress" when there is even more pressure on the limited natural resources (read:land, energy, forests, air) earth possesses. A visit to any third-world country, where development has been hindered & families have been impoverished just because of explosive population growth, will show you what a widespread problem this is : the last thing anyone wants is someone actually advocating population GROWTH!The world is a crowded enough place as it is, thank you very much. if we actually decide to make proactive efforts to INCREASE population, God (if such an entity exists) save our forests, wildlife, our planet and ourselves!!
-
Penis Size Question for PRONATALIST
-
In reply to: God (if such an entity exists) save our forests, wildlife, our planet and ourselves!! again, i ask...WHY should he? He gave us a second chance. The first one being the great flood. What did we do? Did we listen to his teachings through the lord Jesus Christ? HELL NAW we took it upon ourselves to label this life ending and final. People expect him to help us, they praise him when things are good, and denounce him when things go awry. Save our trees, animals, and ourselves? I suppose, if He is there to listen to our commands. But since He's not, we shouldn't try to force him, but I bet that if we tried to help this earth, by growing trees, and finding new resources, synthetic, or natural, he will help us then to expand our knowledge enough as not to run those into the ground as well.
-
In reply to:
If you don't already know, through faith, that He's out there, well then you've already missed the whole boat.
i have missed the boat? wow, that statement makes me laugh. let me ask you this 'oh faithful one', would you buy a car you have never seen? so why put faith into something that so obviously does not care about what happens to you in your life. also: the whole idea of heaven and something waiting for you in the end is such bullshit for the simple fact, as you said: is our job to help ourselves. so then, if it's our job to help ourselves, why would this so-called god reward us for a life which he may or may not consider good and right?
sounds like a lot of holes make up this fairytale.
-
In reply to: The first one being the great flood. What did we do? Did we listen to his teachings through the lord Jesus Christ? HELL NAW we took it upon ourselves to label this life ending and final. People expect him to help us, they praise him when things are good, and denounce him when things go awry. Save our trees, animals, and ourselves? I suppose, if He is there to listen to our commands. But since He's not, we shouldn't try to force him, but I bet that if we tried to help this earth, by growing trees, and finding new resources, synthetic, or natural, he will help us then to expand our knowledge enough as not to run those into the ground as well. people like you spoon feed us saturday morning mouthfuls of maggots and lies disguised as your sugary breakfest cereals. The plates you make us clean are filled with your fears. These things have hardened in our soft pink bellies. We are what you have made us. We have grown up watching your television. We are a symtom of your christian world, the biggest satan of all. This is your world in which we grow, and we will grow to hate you.
-
"why would this so-called god reward us for a life which he may or may not consider good and right?" Answer: LOVE.
-
In reply to: "why would this so-called god reward us for a life which he may or may not consider good and right?" Answer: LOVE. prove it to me. prove to me that this fictional charecter exists and that he will reward me because he loves me. if you can prove god, i will take back everything i say.
-
Why don't you guys just start a new thread? This was a dead thread, and it was originally posted way back in July and the last response was the 1st of October.
-
there i started a new thread in the genral archive & communtiy forum area
-
"to grow in numbers is great progress for humanity"In reply to:Ummmm.......yes. And humanity can be expected to "progress" when there is even more pressure on the limited natural resources (read:land, energy, forests, air) earth possesses. A visit to any third-world country, where development has been hindered & families have been impoverished just because of explosive population growth, will show you what a widespread problem this is : the last thing anyone wants is someone actually advocating population GROWTH!To be pro-life is more consistant when one is also pro-population. There is some Utilitarian Principle idea of it being best to do that which most benefits the most people. Well that would include population growth! More people around to benefit from whatever.And I think many people would prefer that there be people out there actually advocating population GROWTH, as nearly half the world still doesn’t use contraception, and big families are still cool as they allow all the more people to live. And many people of religious faith have their various reasons to have lots of children. More people to populate heaven, God will provide, hope and optimism in the future, good nurturers of children, grew up in a large family, don’t really mind if their family does grow large, can’t find any “satisfactory” method of contraception, aren’t convinced that they are too fertile, others do okay with big or “unplanned” families, etc.Julian Simon wrote a book called The Ultimate Resource, naming people as the ultimate resource. He makes a lot of good points and discredits just about every imaginable “overpopulation” argument.The #1 population concern should have been that more and more people would be glad to live. So of course I advocate population GROWTH, even “explosive” growth in heavily populated countries. I read somewhere that the Chinese people traditionally prefer very large families. They should be just as welcome to let their families possibly grow big and naturally without any means of “birth control” as anybody else in the world. Even in the big cities or apartment highrises. For a child to be born into overcrowded housing is still far better than to never have been born at all. People can move or obtain better housing later, but they can’t be born later, or it wouldn’t be the “same” person nor would there be so many people alive simutaneously.I agree to a minor extent that the total world population is incrediably huge and that the planet doesn’t seem in “need” of still more people. Socially, the world seems to have more than enough people to form great nations and civilization. But the people need for there to be more people. Most everybody wants to live and most everybody wants children. The paltry 2.1 children per couple that supposedly, eventually leads to population “stabilization” (stagnation), is far smaller than the ideal family size for most people. It is good for children to grow up with siblings. For people to grow up in big or “unplanned” families would better socialize them to live and thrive in a populous world. It keeps them from being spoiled, some people would say. While the world doesn’t have any “shortage” of people anymore, it certainly could hold, or could be made to hold lots more people. Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more. If China is going to be a population billionaire or population giant, then be proud to be so populous. By definition, some country must be the world’s most populous. So why shouldn’t China or India then be proud to become some day the first nation with 2 or 3 billion people within its borders then? God’s commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the world, doesn’t mean the world will ever become “full” of people, but does imply that each successive generation is supposed to grow larger and ever more populous than the previous, as humans were designed to increasingly be filling the world. God giving mankind dominion over nature, wasn’t just about intelligence or ability to alter nature to benefit humans, but also to dominate through sheer numbers even. An invitation for humans to grow eventually to become among the most populous of the large mammals. That would seem a good explanation why nature seems pretty much unable to limit human population growth. Because it was meant to be. And rather than paint silly gloom and doom scenarios, I would rather suspect that if people keep on having so many babies throughout much of the world, it’s because they either want, or don’t mind very much, that the world may get more populated. I think people do pretty much know what makes babies, and that their reasons for having many children, usually are pretty good reasons. And shouldn’t one even ask if the population increases that may or may not occur, are sort of “inevitable” anyway? Thus we should have no choice but to somehow accomodate or welcome them and let God provide?In reply to:The world is a crowded enough place as it is, thank you very much. if we actually decide to make proactive efforts to INCREASE population, God (if such an entity exists) save our forests, wildlife, our planet and ourselves!!That sounds like an opinion, but I would disagree. More and more people would be glad to be alive, and most everybody wants children. Most every person who ever has a baby, is in effect making their decision that they want to do their part to add to the world’s burgeoning billions What baby could possibly care much about how many people have preceeded their birth? They just want to be born and be loved and cared for too, regardless how large the overall population.I disagree with the Malthusian gloom and doomers. If humans don’t limit their numbers, nature won’t either. We can just expect to become more populous over time. Which is a great benefit to humans and to society, and not the “problem” it is too often made out to be. Generally, the more people there are, the better, at least for the many. We can’t make the planet any bigger. And there are numerous great reasons that parents find to have children. Even if people could magically be convinced to stop loving their children or being such good nurtureres of children to keep having more, wouldn’t the world population remain huge for quite some time? And colonizing other worlds isn’t anywhere near practical yet. The answer to the population concern then should be obvious. World population then should be encouraged to grow denser and denser We can put all the additional people in between all the people already living, as has been done all through history. As the world populates itself closer together, there still is no need for anti-life contraceptives, but rather to promote morality and better social graces.The Biblical example is not anti-life “birth control” nor population control, but for people to spread out. I welcome there to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from people. The earth is nowhere near “full” of people, and could not become so, for the forseeable future, as humans aren’t all that fertile anyways and it takes time for the natural increase of human populations, time enough for people to naturally adapt and prepare to better accomodate their rising numbers.Humans can’t really choose a more crowded versus a less crowded world, anyways. It just doesn’t work that way. Any less people, and rather than it being less crowded for you, you instead wouldn’t have been born at all. So you couldn’t “benefit” from there being any fewer people in the world. It’s not crowding I advocate, but rather welcoming all the more people to be alive simutaneously, so that people may be free to have “all the children God gives them,” to have many children or whatever, without having to promote tyrannical population control nor “stabilize” huge or expanding human populations. I want to be welcome, so shouldn’t I welcome others to exist too? Just because we were here first, isn’t a good argument to war against natural human population growth. Any gains in population size that humanity can manage, is great progress for humanity. It’s cool for so many people to be alive at once. The ideal-sized population for humans, if such a thing could even be defined, is not as small as possible, but more like nearly as large as possible. That that would welcome parents to have families of a (possibly large) size that keeps the human population growing. A little temporary “crowding” or growing pains, seems but a minor price to pay to allow all the more people to enjoy being alive simutaneous. I would advocate urban sprawl, infilling underutilized land in cities, highrise apartments and condos, but not any attempt to needlessly prevent a valuable human life from coming into the world. If classrooms in China are overcrowded, why not break up the government education monopoly and have more home-schooling and Internet-based courses? Wouldn’t the people rather their cities engulf some surrounding villages to hold all the more people, than people be told how many children they may have, as if politicians (or communists) ever know much of anything or care about people? I believe human populations should be welcome to populate themselves to more crowded levels, for the good of the many. Human life is too sacred to interfere with its creation. I would want for my children to know just how much they are wanted, in knowing why their parents don’t use any method of “birth control,” not even rhythm or withdrawal. Because more children are always welcome if they come, we don’t consider ourselves “better” than our children to deny their possible conception on some whim, and we would prefer to have “all the children that God gives.” And the body (or God) sort of “knows” when to get pregnant, even without awkward, experimental, unnatural, contraceptives.A single human being is far more valuable than all the relatively inexpensive and abundant resources they would be expected to use during their lifetime. More flushing toilets is rather unlikely to hurt the planet. Neither would building more cities and towns to hold all the people. Population growth also accelerates the technology growth that helps reduce pollution. As I see it human population growth contains the seeds within it for its own accomodation, or God made humans to be rather populous, and that’s why there are so many people now. Because it was meant to be, not some evolutionary “accident” or anomoly. A much larger world population would still leave room for forests, wildlife and such, although perhaps a little less room. People would be used to it, and would scarcely notice the difference, other than so many people still enjoying having their children. If you are in the city, and the city grows, what has changed really? It’s much the same as before. If you live in the countryside, and the nearby cities and towns grow a little closer as their human numbers swell, not much changes really. You may gain a few more neighbors, or the countryside may shrink a little, but it is still probably rural countryside, for now. I don’t see more people in the world enjoying life, as subtracting from my quality of life. Most “overpopulation” problems are really just poverty problems, which poverty will probably decrease as the world modernizes and grows more populous.There is a saying that the rich get richer and the poor get babies. Well why can’t the rich have more babies, and why take away the only wealth of the poor, their children? Accomodate, never limit human population, as population control is an obvious “conflict of interests” for human interests. God designed humans to marry and then to multiply naturally.Then of course, wouldn’t the natural and most elegant outlet for rather strong human reproductive drives, people with big dicks, or who just love children or are good nurturers of children, (in other words pretty much everybody worldwide), be reproduction?
-
Good lord dude... Oops, I mean Good heavens, wait that won't work either, umm...DAG GUM MAN!