Humans are designed to reproduce and multiply.

---

In reply to: "And then if people would have sense enough to enjoy sex the way God designed it to be: abstinence until marriage, naturally after marriage, they wouldn't need worry about finding a condom of the right size to fit. Humans were never designed to use "birth control" nor to have sex with silly balloons, but to multiply as God entrusts us with children"In reply to:That's a total opinion. You don't know if that's what god wanted or even if there is one. Oh really? So then what purpose did God create reproductive urges and ability for? To not reproduce?And if you deny that God exists, then what "god" shall we talk about? Man, nature, the earth? Why should any of those, have any objection to humans being numerous? Nature doesn't "care" how populated people get, because nature doesn't "think." And there must be some logical reason why there are so many people in the world. That it is the natural order of things, or meant to be, fits the evidence pretty well.Mere opinion, ha!Most everything posted in most every forum, is mere opinion. Writing off something as an "opinion," doesn't prove it isn't so.

Your long-winded extremist Bible-thumping drivel is really nauseating. If every person on this planet thought the way you do, well... thankfully they don't. Your type lives life with blinders on, like a horse pulling a carriage. You only see what you were told and you go straight ahead. You have no sense to look around.

I couldn't have said it better. I don't beleive in god to begin with...i have no problem with people believing what they want..but your posts pretty much to try slam religion down others throats. So as far as god goes, no I don't believe any of it...and quite frankly nobody on here can say there's truth in it since nobody knows. Everything you say revolves around religion. It's almost as if you don't have a mind of your own..religion controls you...and that shouldn't be.

i agree with Pronatalist. okay yeah there is proof and all u other people are dumb. like u said people have their opinions and mine is u are all dumb

what's the proof?

In reply to:Oh really? So then what purpose did God create reproductive urges and ability for? To not reproduce?The reproductive urges and ability are for propogation of the species and to ensure the human race lives on, just like reproduction urges are in every living thing. Did God create these urges? Certainly possible. Does that mean God intended for us to act on every one of these reproductive urges whenever they come up? I don't think so. Think about it: a fertile male and a fertile female can produce approximately 40 children in their reproductive lifetimes, limited only by the gestation period of 9 months, and by the fertile period of the woman of approximately 30 years (men are fertile from puberty until they die). Assuming you marry young (which you kind of need to under your 'plan' since you can't have sex until you marry) and have sex regularly, and are fertile, you can expect to have at least 20-30 children without birth control. That's an insane amount of children for this day and age. And most people can't afford to support that many children, or have the time to properly raise them. That many children worked fine thousands of years ago when the life expectancy was only 25 years or so and the chances of a baby surviving to adulthood were much lower. God gave us this level of fertility back then to ensure the survival of the species, which was necessary due to the relatively high rate of death due to natural causes and disasters such as from hunting wild animals, disease, weather, etc. Today, the human species has advanced considerably so these natural disaster deaths are MUCH lower and the life expectancy is now in the 70's and 80's, yet our reproductive abilities are still very potent - more potent than they need to be given our advancement of society and knowledge. Fortunately, God gave us the power of thought and intellect, and with our brains came the concept of birth control. If God didn't want us to have and use birth control, He wouldn't have given our brains the power to figure it out. If everyone followed your plan, you would have a huge over population problem, incredible levels of poverty, illness, hunger and just pure misery. If you want to know first hand what your no birth control plan will lead to, take a tour of India. There you will see what happens when people let "God's will" determine how many children they have and do not use birth control. Many religious organization preach no birth control to their members. Catholics, some Jewish sects, and Muslims are some examples who preach this. The purpose is not God's will. The purpose is to naturally increase the membership, wealth, and power of the religion through strength in numbers. Its in the best interest of the religion to have their members reproduce as often as possible to spread their gospel, and ensure the survival of the religion for generations to come. The more members, the more likely the religion is to survive thousands of years from now. Its really quite simple. Take a step back from what your church is teaching you and read between the lines. There are alteriave motives here that you haven't realized yet.

In reply to:Oh really? So then what purpose did God create reproductive urges and ability for? To not reproduce?In reply to:The reproductive urges and ability are for propogation of the species and to ensure the human race lives on, just like reproduction urges are in every living thing. Did God create these urges? Certainly possible.If God created living things, and people, then God certainly created our reproductive urges. God gave clear direction in what to do with them. Marry and "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth." (Gen. 1:28, 9:1) What part of "fill" do you not understand? Surely fill (The KJV Bible uses the word "replenish" which the dictionary says means fill, while other versions use the word "fill.") means that successive generations are supposed to grow larger and more populous than previous generations. World population is supposed to grow and grow over time, not to "stabilize" or stagnate. If the world "fills" with people, then doesn't that mean that human populations are supposed to get denser, or more urban, than they used to be? It is an open-ended commandment, hardly specifying any point at which people should stop filling the world, because people were meant to keep on multiplying right up to the Biblical endtimes. And I find it silly to imagine that humans could be too successful, or that "too many" people might get to live. Hey, "the more the merrier" they say. As long as people would be friendly, it seems easy enough to live in "crowded" conditions even, if ever need be. Poverty and dense population, are two completely different things. There are many places in the world, such as Singapore or Japan, with large or dense populations, where the people aren't poor.In reply to:Does that mean God intended for us to act on every one of these reproductive urges whenever they come up? I don't think so. Think about it: a fertile male and a fertile female can produce approximately 40 children in their reproductive lifetimes, limited only by the gestation period of 9 months, and by the fertile period of the woman of approximately 30 years (men are fertile from puberty until they die).Then isn't it interesting that unlike other animals, humans are pretty much constantly "in heat," able to breed or mate, year-round. For what reason is that? I saw a cartoon drawing in some newspaper article about values, that shows the serpent in the Garden of Eden, offering Eve a condom. Well I don't imagine "birth control" would come from God but from the devil who hates people, when God encouraged, even commanded people to multiply so that people would be abundant.In reply to:Assuming you marry young (which you kind of need to under your 'plan' since you can't have sex until you marry) and have sex regularly, and are fertile, you can expect to have at least 20-30 children without birth control. That's an insane amount of children for this day and age. And most people can't afford to support that many children, or have the time to properly raise them.Marry young? How did you know I encourage that too, for many people? Puberty comes earlier than it used to, probably due to better nutrition, and yet we as a society, delay marriage later and later, such that many people now have to wait for decades for sex. Is that really so realistic? Parents used to marry off their children young, even in teenage years, to avoid things like sex outside of wedlock. I don't see why more people who know who they are to marry and are ready for the commitment of marriage, couldn't marry younger. It would be good for more people to be married, and for more people to be enjoying sex, and to have the proper, natural outlet for their reproductive urges. And marrying younger would give people more time for their families to possibly grow large, which would allow all the more fellow humans to be born.And why is it that I observe that the more money people have, the less able they seem to be to "afford" children? For one saying says that the rich get richer and the poor get babies. Another saying says that children are the only wealth of the poor. So why take away their only wealth? Wouldn't children be more "affordable" if taxation was under 10% of income as it was before the First World War, and the creation of the unconstitutional Federal Reserve System that creates "money" out of thin air, or out of debt, and deliberately causes "inflation" by printing or "creating" money faster than the supply of goods and services can increase in the economy? Wouldn't larger and more "unplanned" families once again be more "affordable" if society was more family and child-friendly? If anything, in today's "day and age," should be able to "afford" the largest families ever, what with all the technology and options to better support the world's burgeoning billions. It's an exciting time to be alive, what with all the electronic gadgets, computers, and video games. It's a better time than ever, to have a world getting "pregnant with people," than it would have been at some time in the past, with fewer means of managing a global population so large as it is today. So if anything, I say it is more "responsible" for people to have big and "unplanned" families in today's "day and age," than it was for our ancestors to do in the past. People get their worth imputed to them by God, and they also value themselves. Thus each individual is just as valuable, no matter the size of the overall population. That also means that a huge human population, likely is no valid reason not to have many children, as every individual is just as precious and valuable, no matter how many people there are, total, somewhere in the world. There are no less resources or love to go around, for another child, born to parents who probably would love all their children, just because the overall human or national population might happen to be "huge." So babies need not be any less welcome or accepted into a heavily populated society. Population growth is great progress for humanity, not some success to mourn and worry and fret over. Sure, it may be a "challenge," but humans need some challenges.You say 20 or 30 children is an "insane number" of children? You said it, I didn't. It is not "insane" for the few people that God might give so many children to. Mary Pride in her book, The Way Home; Beyond Feminism Back to Reality talks about that very issue, in one of the 3 chapters encouraging large or "unplanned" families, "Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Baby," "God's Least Wanted Blessing," and "Family Banning and Planned Barrenhood." The population bombers have us convinced that without birth control, out would pop a baby every year. But is that likely? God does not dispense his blessing so automatically. The norm in countries where birth control is not commonly used, is 5 or 6 children. In reply to:That many children worked fine thousands of years ago when the life expectancy was only 25 years or so and the chances of a baby surviving to adulthood were much lower. God gave us this level of fertility back then to ensure the survival of the species, which was necessary due to the relatively high rate of death due to natural causes and disasters such as from hunting wild animals, disease, weather, etc. Today, the human species has advanced considerably so these natural disaster deaths are MUCH lower and the life expectancy is now in the 70's and 80's, yet our reproductive abilities are still very potent - more potent than they need to be given our advancement of society and knowledge. Fortunately, God gave us the power of thought and intellect, and with our brains came the concept of birth control. If God didn't want us to have and use birth control, He wouldn't have given our brains the power to figure it out.If everyone followed your plan, you would have a huge over population problem, incredible levels of poverty, illness, hunger and just pure misery. If you want to know first hand what your no birth control plan will lead to, take a tour of India. There you will see what happens when people let "God's will" determine how many children they have and do not use birth control.Hmmm. Is everybody just waiting to follow "my plan?" First of all, it isn't "my" plan, but God's plan. In fact, don't most religions and positions of faith, tend to encourage large families, and the idea that "God will provide" as the common response to the irrational "over population" worry?Don't you think I would much rather live in a hugely overpopulated world, than not at all, because there weren't enough births for me to be born? It isn't really about "more crowded" versus "less crowded," but about whether people are valuable or not, and deserving of life. We don't have other worlds to populate just yet, if ever, so we need large human populations on this one, to benefit "the many." People from my Church have been to India, and they said that the people were just as happy as we Americans are. Although they haven't seem to grasp the concept of using trash cans just yet. I don't think India has "too many" people at all. They need over a billion people, because we can't pick and choose which people are deserving of having been born, and which aren't. India does have too much poverty, but that is reducing, even as their huge population is continuing to grow. There are even articles I see about India beginning to prosper, in the business magazines. Due to our runaway taxes, regulations, and litigation, computer programming jobs are fleeing the United States to go to India where labor is cheaper, because we can't compete so well, with our taxes so out-of-sight, to feed the politicians' tax-and-spend habits. China has 100s of millions of women who want more children. Do there desires to bring forth human life of immense value, count for nothing? If India can have over a billion people, why can't China have 2 or 3 billion? China has lots more land. I have never been to India, but I have been to South Korea. I never noticed that Korea has twice the population density of India, and 4 times that of China, until I looked it up years later in an almanac. Nobody told me that Korea was "over populated" and that I am required to be misable there, as a result. Population density is often rather irrelevant to people's well being, as population density also brings opportunity, and people are socialable creatures, well able to both survive and thrive, even at very high population densities. Why do people gravitate toward the big cities and depopulate the countryside anyways? Because life for many people, is better in the teeming cities, than in the rural countryside, full of poverty.Which is really better for the masses? For population to "stabilize" at a pidly 8 or 9 billion, about what the demographers now predict, or to swell to some 14 billion people, and perhaps just keep rising and rising, perhaps gradually, perhaps more rapidly? Isn't it obvious that if the world gained another 5 or 6 billion people than it might otherwise have had, that those people would be very glad to have been born and exist too?That more and more people would be glad to have been born and to enjoy life, and that most everybody wants to have children, should have been the #1 population concern, to accomodate, if at all possible. That's why I encourage large families, worldwide, for the good of "the many." The population issue really is simple. More and more people would be glad to exist, and most everybody feels urges to reproduce. We can't make the planet any bigger, and colonizing other worlds just isn't practical with current technology yet. So the obvious answer, is for human populations to grow denser and denser upon the earth. We can put all the additional people in between all the people already living. That is practical since cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. There is plenty of room for urban sprawl and the building of new cities and towns, so the human population still has much room to enlarge into. To convert relatively cheap food or matter into additional human bodies of immense value, represents a great "investment," at least philosophically. For the good and progress of humanity, there should be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far away from people, so that all the more people may be welcome to exist and enjoy life, and so that large families can be welcome into our increasingly populous world.The gloom and doom anti-people Malthusians claim that if man doesn't limit his numbers, nature will do it for him. I believe they are wrong. If man doesn't limit his numbers, nature won't do it either, because nature doesn't "care" how populous humans become, because nature doesn't "think." Why do you think there are so many of us now? That people live longer and that most all babies now grow up to marry and have children of their own, is no reason to "compensate" by having fewer children. I think that many modern conveniences, aren't provided to us by God merely for our comfort, but rather, one would have to admit, that they could also be accomodations for our now large population size, to help make it safer and more comfortable for human populations to continue to grow. Are indoor flush toilets really just invented for "comfort?" No, but because smelly outhouses aren't so practical anymore for big, densely populated cities. How about refrigerators, gas and electric stoves and microwave ovens? They help feed large populations, without the pollution of smoky cooking fires (of the third world) of wood, trash, or dung. I notice that human population growth perpetuates itself, not in the negative way too often portrayed, but in a "positive" feedback loop, as I call it. The more populated we get, the better we get at accomodating large population. Human population growth contains within itself, the seeds of its own accomodation. As the work force naturally swells, most jobs in some way, indirectly accomodate large population and growth, by helping people meet their needs and wants. Thus, the more populated we get, the less "over populated" we tend to get, over time. We get used to higher population levels and adapt, and nature is forced to adapt too, something that mere animals can't do. Thus, humans are the only creature that doesn't need any population "control" or "birth control." Even in Genesis, where God gave dominion to humans over nature, I think that also is an invitation for humans, over time, to grow to be among the most populous of the large mammals. It's not just in intelligence, but the superior numbers that the intelligence, or God's provision may allow, that causes humans to "dominate" the planet. I see it sort of like filling a balloon with air. As the balloon inflates and stretches, doesn't it lose resistance to oppose more air being inserted, and the balloon, once started, because even easier to inflate? But it can't "pop" because there is nowhere for it to "pop" to. The planet won't crumble under the weight of humans, nor the atmosphere explode. "Natural increase" for humans is "natural," and nature has no opposition, but simply fills every niche that humans neglect with grass, weeds, and trees, not "caring" how many humans there are. While littering is bad because there are so many people, and it is a careless eyesore for our many neighbors, the weeds just engulf and grow around the litter and don't care. They say the grass grows greenest around the septic tank. Nature is resilient and is unphased by human population growth, although not able to resist it. Nature isn't "fragile" as many enviro wackos claim, because I notice that a little procrastination in mowing the grass in my lawn, allows the jungle to soon start moving in again. Nature isn't "harmed" in being suppressed or tamed by humans.In reply to:Many religious organization preach no birth control to their members. Catholics, some Jewish sects, and Muslims are some examples who preach this. The purpose is not God's will. The purpose is to naturally increase the membership, wealth, and power of the religion through strength in numbers. Its in the best interest of the religion to have their members reproduce as often as possible to spread their gospel, and ensure the survival of the religion for generations to come. The more members, the more likely the religion is to survive thousands of years from now.Its really quite simple. Take a step back from what your church is teaching you and read between the lines. There are alteriave motives here that you haven't realized yet.I have studied the population issues for years, and know enough about it, to understand the various possible religious "ulterior" motives, that you suggest. But your outlook on them, really is too simplistic. They don't simply want to "enlarge their flock," but faith in God, doesn't leave much room for faith in the unscientific and unproven anti-population theories of atheists, who want to form "god" in our image, and figure out everything that God has already figured out for us. I am neither Catholic, Mormon, nor Muslim, but Protestant Christian. I notice that my Bible clearly encourages large families, and large population (Proverbs 14:28, Deut 30:19). Even the Utilitarian Principle, hardly a "Christian" concept?, advocates doing that which does the most good for the most people. Well that seems to have the distinct side effect of implying that human population should probably be more like "nearly as large as possible," rather than as "small as possible," so that all the more people might be around to benefit from whatever. So if a few dozen, a few hundred, a few thousand, or a few million people listen to me, and somehow decide they wouldn't mind for their families to possibly grow larger than they might otherwise have planned, then the world is all the better off. Many people wouldn't mind having more children, but society scares them out of their blessing of children they were meant to have. They should go ahead and dare to live their dreams. What's a few more children in a world of billions? Not much different perceptionally, but a world of difference to those children who might never have been born. Growing up with siblings is good conditioning for living in a populous world. What contributions might future people have to bring? Can't we give people the benefit of the doubt and assume that people should be able to contribute more to society than they consume? Thus, a more populous society can also be more prosperous. Did you notice that my apparent motive is not to "enlarge my flock," but rather to enlarge everybody's flock, as my audience is everybody? I can't have enough children to better populate the world, all by myself. God intended reproduction, for the common masses. Better nutrition, medical care, vaccines, or whatever might be helping people live longer, isn't just for their confort and health, but to help enlarge the world population so that all the more people may live and experience life.Sure, we have lost but one reason to multiply, that of "filling an empty world." The world isn't so "empty" anymore. But it is also far from "full." There still exist most every other reason people have ever had to have many children. That of allowing more people to live, giving one's children brothers and sisters, the sanctity and sacredness of life, parents desiring children, powerful reproductive urges needing the most obvious natural and healthy outlet -- reproduction, the benefit to society of future people's possible contributions, inability or unwillingness to find "suitable" contraceptives, getting "carried away in the heat of the moment" (spontaneous sex among husband and wife), forgetting leaving the contraceptives at home on some camping or other trip, running out of contraceptives, lack of "self-control" in practicing "natural family planning" of rhythm or withdrawal that while somewhat more "natural" and more free of side effects and with no expense is also less reliable supposedly, and that fellow humans should automatically be welcomed to join the world's burgeoning billions just for being human.I find it quite offensive for the UN to talk in one of their stupid population conferences, of finding "culturally appropriate" means of promoting "family planning" in regions of the world where "family planning" generally isn't done. What an oxymoron! What an anti-family, anti-life agenda. Does it possibly dawn on them, that maybe there are no "culturally appropriate" means of imposing the use of the trendy contraception, anti-life religion on them? Maybe it would be more prudent, to just plan for the population growth, and to prefer to grow on purpose, stating our reasons, than by accident, like "animals" who can't help themselves. Humans were destined to be populous, and it is the natural order of things. Good thing too, lest you or I might never had been born, had our ancestors been more "responsible" to worry about limiting their reproduction. Yes, I advocate "huge" and incrediably widespread human populations, even filling more planets, if it ever comes to that, "nearly as many people existing as can be artificially accomodated," but I don't think there ever will be so many people, nor is there any such thing as human "over population," because that only implies that some people aren't worthy of living. Until proven guilty of some terrible crime, we have to assume that all human lives are incrediably valuable. (Gen. 9:6) And I don't believe humans need to "control" everything anyways. Once they meet God's standard of marriage, and stick around to care for their children, they have license to let the sperm naturally spurt without a lot of thought to prevent it from having every opportunity to reach where it was designed to go in hopes of bringing forth another precious human life, enjoy sex whenever they feel the urge or to pleasure their spouse, and whatever children come, come. I would want to show my children how much they are "wanted" by explaining to them why their parents don't use any means of anti-life "birth control," because children are always welcome if they come, and because as many people want, I want to have "all the children God gives." I would even consider adopting some more, to help give some other people's "unplanned" children a good home where they would be loved and welcome.Why does society so often get it backwards? They want sex before marriage, without proper love and commitment to insure the welfare of the children that might result, and then they marry and are scared to have children? Wouldn't world population remain large, whether or not people have many children, for quite some decades? Isn't development and good economic policy and freedom much more relevant to meeting people's needs than any unecessary anti-life effort to suppress birthrates? As I see it, "the pill" and most every other form of anti-life contraception, has failed to deliver on most every promise it could be said to have made. Divorces, STDs, AIDs, broken hearts, etc., are rampant, and marriage and society have only been weekened by the promiscuity and immorality that they promoted. The whole idea of "birth control" is really that of selfishness, that our whims are somehow more important than the prospect of being able to bring forth life into the world. Although God puts the parents in charge of the children, I don't feel that I am "better" than my children, and thus don't have much "right" to try to hinder their possible births. They aren't inconveniencing my family by making it larger or the home more "crowded," if they are meant to be part of our family, and just as much a part of it as we are. It doesn't hurt a small child to share a bed with a sibling for a while, because there are so many of them, and some homes just too small. Homes are temporary and might be upgraded later. Children used to share beds with siblings all the time, until recently in history. And with bunkbeds, most American children could still have a bed to themselves, although having a bedroom all to themselves might still be unrealistic. I don't consider having children so much an "obligation" as a great opportunity. I want to encourage more people to have "all the children that God gives," because, I believe that is best, not because the Pope, or my pastor might say so, because the Bible says so, and it really is the better position of hope for the future and faith, that best benefits "the many." Besides, isn't the world population now so large, that it is a little late for "family planning" anyhow? It would be far better to go ahead into the future, and adapt all the more to our large population, than whining and complaining about so many people having opportunity to live. I see it as a great success of humanity, or great progress, that we came to be so many. God's destiny for us.

Again I'll repeat myself:

_Your long-winded extremist Bible-thumping drivel is really nauseating. If every person on this planet thought the way you do, well... thankfully they don't. Your type lives life with blinders on, like a horse pulling a carriage. You only see what you were told and you go straight ahead. You have no sense to look around. _

What annoys me the most is that your responses always tend to migrate to your extremist religeous drivel. Please refrain from hijacking peoples threads with your religeous rants as they usually have noting to do with the original question. If you wish argue your extremist views, post it in the General Forum. Future off topic post like all of these will be deleted.

But it is a "religious" issue.Do I sense some religion-phobia, or perhaps just some objection to a well-explained, logical argument, in some fantasy discussion thread, to make excuse for baseless "off-topic" accusations?

Pronatalist - Congratulations on posting the longest message I have ever seen on a message board! I would love to respond to just about every comment you made, but I simply don't have the time (it would take me at least 3 hours to respond to everything). Instead, I'll summarize my thoughts:Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and viewpoints, and I respect that. However, I think you're an idealist. Your concepts and thoughts and theories only make sense in a perfect world. That perfect world does not exist and never will. I, on the other hand, am a realist. I look at the world we live in as the cards we were dealt, and try to make the best of it. I don't expect the world to be perfect, and I don't try to fit my life into a perfect world. And another thing: you've got population density confused with over population. There is a distinct difference. A high population density does not mean its an over crowded population, and an over crowded population is not necessarily the most densely populated. Case in point: Tokyo Japan is densely populated. Yet it is not over populated. Bombay, India is over populated, yet its not as densely populated as Tokyo is. Over population is the source of poverty, disease, starvation, high rates of death, short life spans, and often pure misery. Is this what God intended? That's basically what you're saying. And I completely disagree that this is His intention. To say that an entire society practicing no birth control whatsoever won't lead to over population is not only idealistic, its factually WRONG, because it will lead to over population! As to your friends who went to India and claim there isn't much poverty there, tell them they need to go back and take a REAL tour of India. Not the propaganda tour while staying at a Hyatt. There you will find poverty, death, disease, hunger, starvation, and all the other pitiful things that go along with an over populated land. Are they happy? Well, the only reason these people can live with themselves is because of the caste system there. They simply don't know any better and are not permitted to improve themselves unless they happen to be born into the correct caste. They were born to accept the poverty they have and to never even think there is anything better than that that they could possibly live in. You need to learn more about other cultures and other religions and societies to understand what you're looking at. Your church friends took the typical 'stupid American' approach when evaluating the Indian society. I believe nature has its own way of curing over population problems: killer diseases. History is filled with periods of rogue viruses and bacteria that wipe out huge quantities of population, and they typically happen in over populated areas. The Bubonic Plague, or the Black Death is the most recent killer disease that wiped out a good portion of the population in Europe in the 1300's. Most scientists agree that its just a matter of time before another mutant killer virus surfaces in an over populated area and starts wiping out millions of people, and there may not be anything they can do about it. If you get a disease like SARS that can pass around as easily as the common cold, and you've got instant population correction. If God intended us to be over populated, how do you explain such diseases? I know, the work of the devil, right? Puhleeez.Frankly, your level of religious extremism is frightening. Its people like you who are the source of a lot of conflict in this world - people who twist things in their mind, and even justify doing horrible things, all in the name of God's will, while they really don't have a clue what God's will really is.

good job focus

I'm glad someone has the time and patience to provide a good response.

God wants, most of all, for more people to know God. Some people think they know God, but don't and they do terrible things, eg. kill abortionists. I'm sure God's not keen on abortion, but don't go around killing the people who do it! Likewise, I think Pronatalist's views are a bit extreme. In a world where, if each family has 5 children, and due to apparently increasing medical care, 4 survive to adulthood, the population will double every generation. No way is that a reasonable expectation. 24 billion people in 60 years time? Not likely! Clearly we've done quite well, since the human population was about 1 million in Jesus' time and is now 6 billion+ so filling the Earth seems to have happened!

go live in china, and then tell us all to have 5 kids...

In reply to:Congratulations on posting the longest message I have ever seen on a message board!Thank you. It must have taken me some time to compose it.In reply to:I would love to respond to just about every comment you made, but I simply don't have the time (it would take me at least 3 hours to respond to everything). Instead, I'll summarize my thoughts:I should write a book someday to outline my views on the matter.In reply to:Everyone's entitled to their own opinions and viewpoints, and I respect that. However, I think you're an idealist. Your concepts and thoughts and theories only make sense in a perfect world. That perfect world does not exist and never will.An idealist. Interesting observation.But the world needs more idealists. I saw long ago a motivational posters that said, "Those who say it can't be done, are often interrupted by those doing it." It probably showed a picture of some snow skiers or something?What do realists ever accomplish? Perhaps realists would look at the concept of the invention of a computer, and say, it can't be built, or it is too expensive, or what would people ever do with a computer? I saw some poster in a Math department at college, with various quotes, culled from history, poo-pooing students that could no longer operate their own chalk-board, who couldn't refill a fountain pen?, and ending with their modern dependence on calculators. I wish I could find the quotes. I think I took it down and photocopied it and put it all back up, but I don't know where I have put my copy.I think it better to be an idealist, and accomplish but 10% of what I dream, than to be a realist and accomplish 100% of nothing that one dares dream. 10% of something is more than 100% of nothing, one reason that one can make more money sharing with others or only taking a commission, than insisting on it all, and failing at the prospect.And it is hardly the idealists and God's prophets who mess up the world, but the intellectuals who separate knowledge from God, the very problem with partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden, something I recently heard some preaching talking about. People like Karl Marx, founder of communism, a great -ism devoid of God or truth, Stalin, Lenin, and other various butchers of humanity throughout history. People like Malthus who claimed that somebody must die to make room for each birth. Well since Malthus' day, humanity has multiplied 6-fold, and we have more wealth than we did back then. Good thing few people followed Malthus' "advice," and yet how many contraceptive pushers, cling to an old dying gloom and doom "religion" of Malthusianism, that claims that humanity just "can't" expand its numbers without "bad" things happening as a result?How can I possibly be talking about a "perfect world?" I am talking about our world that may never get a "handle" on its population growth, because people of course won't stop having sex. I am talking about a world that perhaps can't get its population growth under "control," and why it probably doesn't need to and shouldn't anyhow. A world that now has so many people, that any concept of building any utopia on earth, had better include "the many" and not only the elite few. I am talking about the contributions from a growing human population, benefitting this world, in ways that don't need to be fully explained or understood just yet, to welcome the inevitable, as I believe that human population growth naturally accomodates itself, one reason it is so hard to stop our habit of growth.I notice that the more "educated" people are, the more objections they tend to raise to population growth, while simple folk or poor people, often are fine with the concepts of big families and rising population, because they don't insist on "understanding" everything to its nth degree. Often our "education" isn't rooted in truth, and becomes a vehicle of propaganda, and obstacle to understanding.In reply to:I, on the other hand, am a realist. I look at the world we live in as the cards we were dealt, and try to make the best of it. I don't expect the world to be perfect, and I don't try to fit my life into a perfect world.In those cards we are dealt, as you say, wouldn't that include the matter of humans having a potent drive to reproduce, and a long or lengthening lifespan? The prospect that most every baby now born, is highly likely to live long enough to grow up and marry, and to reproduce? Even a "realist" should do something practical with that and admit that population "stabilization" isn't all that realistic. That a growing population has a tendency to keep growing due to population "momentum" and so many young people entering their reproductive years, and perhaps a shrinking, "graying" population to keep shrinking precariously. The 2.1 average children per couple for an eventually "stabilized" population size, is a paltry number compared to what many couples would like to have, or are likely to have, or are capable of supporting and raising. Many people would like to have at least 3 children. Mathmatically it takes an average of 3 children to produce both a boy and a girl for a family. And that doesn't even count "unintended" pregnancies, twins, or triplets. I say that population growth would be prudent to factor into any plans for the future, since most nations on the face of the planet, are all growing in population. And it is quite understanding and to be expected, that parents may very well wish to invest their wealth, into bringing more precious human life into the world. In reply to:And another thing: you've got population density confused with over population. There is a distinct difference. A high population density does not mean its an over crowded population, and an over crowded population is not necessarily the most densely populated. Case in point: Tokyo Japan is densely populated. Yet it is not over populated. Bombay, India is over populated, yet its not as densely populated as Tokyo is.I've got population density confused with over population? In what way? I am glad you correctly notice that there are distinct differences between high density and over population or over crowding. That is one reason I reject the concept of "over population" for humans. Because most any condition of "over population" of people, can be transformed into "high density" prosperity, with the proper use of technology, education, faith in God, or whatever. What if the overcrowded shantytowns are torn down, and the people can become able to afford to live in spacious highrises, stacked on top of one another. The number of people living isn't reduced, but they become "high density" rather than "over crowded," and have all the more room to have more children. What if the people of crowded neighborhoods could afford to spread out into expanding suburbs and new towns, and afford nicer homes? People would become more widespread over the land, but not be "crowded" anymore, as their numbers continue to rise. I think many people confuse "over population" with poverty. Poverty is caused by bad government, bad monetary policy of inflating the "money" by printing excesses of it as a "hidden tax" to fuel wasteful government spending to benefit special interests rather than the common masses. And then by other factors such as lack of education, false religion, conflict, etc. Why can't Bombay then become more like Tokyo? The people are already there. They have to go or live somewhere. We can't just wish them away, and why should we want to? We already have examples of how large human populations can be accomodated, even if in some confined space, of which confinement is often artificial or by the people's own choice.In reply to:Over population is the source of poverty, disease, starvation, high rates of death, short life spans, and often pure misery. Is this what God intended? That's basically what you're saying. And I completely disagree that this is His intention. To say that an entire society practicing no birth control whatsoever won't lead to over population is not only idealistic, its factually WRONG, because it will lead to over population!What "over population?" The earth isn't "full" yet. Aren't you really talking of poverty and oppression?An entire society practicing no birth control whatsoever won't lead to "over population" within the forseeable future, as it takes time for human populations to expand. There isn't much point in extrapolating much beyond the "forseeable future" (roughly my remaining lifespan), because any math or statistics student should know the farther out one extrapolates from known data, the less reliable the prediction. An entire society practicing no birth control, in today's age and time, would probably be a deliberate act, for well stated reasons, not by "accident." Such a trend would lead to a family-friendly culture, a youthful population, a society that values its children and youth, and must have some sort of faith in something. Of course you can't have infinite growth on a finite planet, contrary to what population optimist and author Julian Simon might claim. But you can have continued population growth, for some finite time, on some finite planet, in accordance with the limited time humans have on the earth by Biblical prophecy. Even the sci-fi vision has humans expanding outwards to inhabit more worlds, something I would expect must happen eventually, except for the limited time for humans to exist as humans rather than as the angels, by Bible prophecy. Eventually, within so many more 100s of years, I would expect humans may finally "fill" the planet if we could, with people living most every place imaginable, but we aren't anywhere close to that level just yet, so there is little reason to worry about it. And I don't think there ever will be so many people, although I have no desire to set any "cap" on world population size. I am not smart enough to explain how or at what level any arbitrary "cap" could be set at.In reply to:As to your friends who went to India and claim there isn't much poverty there, tell them they need to go back and take a REAL tour of India. Not the propaganda tour while staying at a Hyatt. There you will find poverty, death, disease, hunger, starvation, and all the other pitiful things that go along with an over populated land. Are they happy? Well, the only reason these people can live with themselves is because of the caste system there. They simply don't know any better and are not permitted to improve themselves unless they happen to be born into the correct caste. They were born to accept the poverty they have and to never even think there is anything better than that that they could possibly live in. You need to learn more about other cultures and other religions and societies to understand what you're looking at. Your church friends took the typical 'stupid American' approach when evaluating the Indian society.As to my friends who went to India: They didn't say there wasn't any poverty, rather that everybody wasn't as miserable as the population pessimists would have us believe. I hardly think they only saw the "richy hotel view." The land is hardly "over populated," but under-developed. The view of finding problems and matching solutions, is the view of the entreprenuer who makes his own job making money solving problems, a view not well supported by the "education" of our government monopoly schools, which tend to promote the view that more government is the solution to every problem.I would think that the "stupid American view" would be not "What 'overpopulation'?," but more like "Gasp! Look at the over population!," and the people of India would say, "What overpopulation? We are used to having many people around. No big deal. You Americans are just so pampered and spoiled. You don't know how real life is."Now we Americans have a "caste" system too, in which we use technology to deny access to poor people, of things that don't cost anything to share and that aren't "consumed" leaving less of it for everybody else, such as with pay TV channels. Fortunately for the poor, the technology itself does tend to make itself available, even to the poor, such as websites that don't charge fees and are available to most everybody in the world, the huge drop in the costs of electronic gadgets that don't come with monthly fees as cellular phones do, etc. But the American caste system isn't as pronounced or obvious, as it probably still is in India.In reply to:I believe nature has its own way of curing over population problems: killer diseases. History is filled with periods of rogue viruses and bacteria that wipe out huge quantities of population, and they typically happen in over populated areas. The Bubonic Plague, or the Black Death is the most recent killer disease that wiped out a good portion of the population in Europe in the 1300's. Most scientists agree that its just a matter of time before another mutant killer virus surfaces in an over populated area and starts wiping out millions of people, and there may not be anything they can do about it. If you get a disease like SARS that can pass around as easily as the common cold, and you've got instant population correction. If God intended us to be over populated, how do you explain such diseases? I know, the work of the devil, right? Puhleeez.Killer diseases? Interesting theory of the Malthusians. Well if nature regulates human population, then nature must have been asleep for decades, ever since the better sanitation and medical care revolution of the 1950s. Nature sure hasn't done much to effectively reign in burgeoning human populations in recent times, that couldn't be fixed with a few vaccines, and practical sanitation measures, like keeping waste water out of drinking water, basic technology that is well known now. Better nutrition also helps boost people's immune systems such that they aren't as susceptable to disease as starving people. And there is plenty of food for everybody with money to buy it, making it more an economic policy problem of over-taxation and bad government, and not a "too many" people problem. You know I get sick and tire of the Malthusians or the enviro wackos whining that there are "too many" people, and that the Big Bad Wolf of "over population" correction is surely right around the corner. In the childhood fable, of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" cried for attention one too many times, and when the wolf finally came to devour the sheep, they paid him no mind, saying, "Oh it's not really a wolf, but a bored little kid wanting attention." The enviro wackos and/or gloom and doom Malthusians have done the same thing. "Oh, so the wolf didn't come this time, so that means it will really be the wolf next time? Ha! Don't think so." Since the 1950s, world population has more than doubled, and yet human lifespan is still getting longer? Perhaps nature forgot about that "killer disease" wildcard ace up the sleeve? Perhaps because nature can't be vengeful against humans for growing "out of balance," because nature can't "think." Or maybe it is stupid humans that bring the diseases to themselves, by their immoral sexual promiscuity, encouraged by the condom peddlers? And smoking and drinking doesn't help much either. I notice that the people worried about "over population" sometimes seem to lament that diseases, starvation, and even war, don't seem to do much to keep human populations "in check" anymore. But why should anybody assume it to be a "bad" thing that humans aren't dropping dead like flies? As I don't subscribe to the gloom and doom Malthusian religion, I simply don't believe there is any real need for human populations to be kept "in check." Population is what it is, and if it can grow, so much the better for the sakes of "the many" who then get to live as a result. The planet may not seem in need of more people, but it looks like it could hold a lot more people, if ever need be, so why should people be scared to enjoy having large or "unplanned" families or worry that there could someday be "too many" people? I don't think God would create "too many" people, whatever that is supposed to be. God creates each person for some purpose, while evolution and its related "over population" theories, claim that people have no significant purpose. Well people must decide which of the contradictory theories, they really believe.SARS wouldn't be such a "big disease" if somebody hadn't tacked on a name, like we know something now. In the "good ol' days," before all this supposed "over population" people died of all sorts of things with no name, and they didn't know why. We still lump a lot of ailments under "old age." But because it has a name like "SARS," we get all worked up about some "killer disease?" (So most "diseases" aren't some minor inconvenience like the common cold? Don't many disease victimes recover and build some increased immunity to the common diseases? They say "don't drink the water" when visiting some backward country. Well then why doesn't the water make the locals sick more often? Because they are used to it, and have immunity.) Probably more people have died of Syphilis or something, than of SARS, but Syphilis is an old and boring disease. SARS has sensational news headline impact, because it has a "new" name. Wow. We cure more and more diseases, so more people get cancer, and then we blame cancer on the environment. That's silly. More people would have got cancer way back when, had they simply lived long enough to get it before up and dying of something else preventable or curable. People get sunburned more easily, not due to some ozone depletion hoax, but because they are so pampered and used to air conditioned buildings, rather than rugged from years of working in the fields, that our skin doesn't get much used to the sun's harmful rays, and so needs extra protection (sunscreen or more clothing) from "sudden" exposures. God ordained that people would not live in their mortal, fallen state "forever," perhaps because this life, before the resurection, is a painful one, where it isn't after people are resurected. Death entered the world, when Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which the Bible never says to be an apple, contrary to popular opinion.In reply to:Frankly, your level of religious extremism is frightening. Its people like you who are the source of a lot of conflict in this world - people who twist things in their mind, and even justify doing horrible things, all in the name of God's will, while they really don't have a clue what God's will really is.I'm the "extremist?" Huh? Because I take the rare position of truth and optimism, that happens to best line up with the Bible? Oh, then I suppose the people thought God's prophets to be "extremist" too, because they didn't seem to grasp the concept of "political correctness" and go along with the commonly accepted delusions of the masses and the false prophets of the day who know how to tickle people's ears with ever some new thing along the lines of "education" but not truth. I am the one saying "live and let live," and "let the world grow more and more populous if it must." I am the one trying to "include" everybody. Not to prevent births of future human beings of great value, needlessly. Human life is so valuable and sacred, I think it is high time for people to explain why it is probably okay if future generations continue the historical trend to tend to grow larger and more populous, than past generations had managed. That new people should be accepted into the world, just for being human. That China should not reject its many children that its people want to have, nor have any anti-life system of human population "control." If China has a huge population, they should be proud to have a huge population, and let their people be free, and let them continue to grow in numbers. What conflict am I supporting? I suggest that managing reproduction is the jurisdiction of God, or at least of the parents, and not some excuse for governments to impose draconian and impractical restrictions on child-bearing. I argue for freedom and personal responsibility. I am suggesting some reason to avoid conflict and for the peoples of the world to possibly get along. I am suggesting that gloom and doom Malthusianism is wrong, very wrong for a growing world, and gives too much excuse to oppress people needlessly, and not work for better accomodation of and development for growing populations. What ever happened to "make love and not war." Whoops! I guess that was some liberal slogan by liberal pacifists, with little concept of responsibility or justice? Wrong context? Perhaps conservatives shouldn't "steal" liberal slogans? What horrible thing have I suggested people do? Breed? And like having a precious little tyke dependent on me or his Mom to change his or her diapers is "the end of the world?" No, it is more like just the beginning. People need dependents and family, to have a good role in the world and to find a sense of importance and significance.You know it is such an important issue, that I found a few years ago that an entire website/forum exists on the matter, at www.overpopulation.com , and surprise! surprise! it doesn't promote the idea that "overpopulation" is a "problem" needed to be fixed by smaller human numbers at all. It is far more objective than that, and often posts news articles, that quite often discredit the "overpopulation" idea. No surprise, because human "over population" is an article of faith, and certainly isn't rooted in "science." It seems to favor accomodation and development, over any real control of the growth of human numbers. And many people believe the numbers will work themselves out, without the need for any "control," as not everybody is liberal or communist leaning, and tend to trust the judgement of parents. But that website doesn't delve so much into all the religious idealogy about the matter, unless it makes it into a newstory, which religious beliefs is certainly a big part of why people believe as they do, and why human populations tend to ever keep growing. Religion gives hope for the future, and purpose to life, factors that would encourage optimism and continued population growth. Most religions tend to favor and encourage population growth, for fairly logical/spiritual reasons. Posters aren't asked to avoid religion though. As it is also a forum. Perhaps devoted to helping people debate and come to a better understanding and reasonable consensus on such an important matter.

In reply to:God wants, most of all, for more people to know God. Some people think they know God, but don't and they do terrible things, eg. kill abortionists. I'm sure God's not keen on abortion, but don't go around killing the people who do it! Likewise, I think Pronatalist's views are a bit extreme. In a world where, if each family has 5 children, and due to apparently increasing medical care, 4 survive to adulthood, the population will double every generation. No way is that a reasonable expectation. 24 billion people in 60 years time? Not likely! Clearly we've done quite well, since the human population was about 1 million in Jesus' time and is now 6 billion+ so filling the Earth seems to have happened!I don't judge people who end abortions by ending the abortionist, because it wouldn't be fair to not judge the abortionist, just as harshly. There is a third position, not simply do you agree or disagree with that sort of behavior. If you disagree, then you must want for the abortions to have continued. Certainly not the position of a pro-lifer. If you agree, then you are a terrorist?Most Christians or people with values, don't condone such violence, and yet we condone soldiers going to war? Pro-lifers protesting abortion go out of their way to avoid any "violence," but in a place of violence such as an abortion clinic, well violence begats violence. The Bible says that those who live by the sword, die by the sword. And such "loose cannons" coming out to finally "solve" the problem are encouraged that their way is the only way, when peaceful protests are "outlawed," a dangerous trend in the courts that at least one pro-life leader has warned about. Most all pro-lifers I have seen, are there to witness to the love of God, and suggest better alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, and to show that we care. We aren't there to prove how much courage we have, or to break "the law," but usually to make "legal" protests to show people alternatives to abortion. To save lives, not to take them.I say we try those who kill abortionists, after we bring all the abortionists to their deserved trials, before punishing them or executing them after conviction for their serial crimes of murder (See Gen. 9:6, Ex. 20:13) by a jury of their peers or whatever? Why should the abortionists be exempted from obeying laws or justice? Abortion never was "legalized," because courts can't make law, and if man's "law" contradict's God's law, then it is no "law" at all, but only man's mischief framed in the guise of a "law."My views are hardly "extreme" but well-reasoned.Do you really think that everybody is going to have 5 children, just because I say so? No, if they do, they will have more good reasons than simply that I say so.In a world where everybody has 5 children, wouldn't it be more like 4.8 of them surviving to become parents themselves? Or 5.5 if people marry younger, and have 5, 6, or 7 children on average? But then 4 children surviving to adulthood, makes for a simplistic, more conservative example?I see you avoided the error that people commonly make, of forgetting to divide by 2 parents, in calculating the multiplicative factor of population growth. They say what if everybody had 10 children, and their children have 10 children and ..., and before you know it just one family has produced 1000 great-grandchildren. But with each generation, 2 parents are required, so the multiplicative factor then must be 101010 /2 /2 /2 = not 1000 but 125 times as many people, 3 generations later, with each generation multiplying not by *10, but by 5. So as you correctly stated, parents must have 4, not 2 children, to "double" their numbers. Actually more like 4.2 children, to replace those children who don't survive or for whatever reason, don't actually have any children.But did you calculate the proper duration of the generations? When people don't use anti-life "birth control" their babies don't come all at once. At a Church I once attended, where people were into having big families, we had at least one family still having babies while they also had teenagers. That means a generational gap of not 20 years, but more like 30 or 40. Because some of the children come to older parents, by the time their family finally starts getting "large," the population growth is already "slowed" somewhat, as the population bulges in a growing population, among the young not the old.I think the population statistics I have seen, suggest it is "possible" for a nation that isn't fond of anti-life "birth control" to grow at 3% annually. Whether it is "likely" for much of the world, is another matter. World population growth already stagnates at a paltry 1.3% annual growth, so there is hardly any reason to concern ourselves with our population "explosion" of humanity. It certainly is "gradual" enough to be easily managable. Even 3% is a paltry rate of return on an economic investment. 3% population growth results in a "doubling" of population in around 25 years. But 25 years really is a long time for a society to double its infrastructure to meet the needs of its growing numbers. Such a growing society should expect to have lots of new, modern homes and facilities, because that of 25 years ago, probably wouldn't be adequate anymore. Population growth is probably also largely responsible for the recent surges in technology, as I notice both the technological revolution and the global surge in population, occured at roughly the same time, which I think is no mere "coincidence," but that one or the other, probably caused the other, perhaps both fed each other in some positive vicious circle, much beneficial to humanity. More technology better allowed for population growth, which in turn accelerated technology growth, as all those people needed something to do, so they invented new ways to do things better to better meet the needs and wants of more people.And in 60 years, 24 billion just wouldn't seem like so many. Especially when most people alive have never seen a world with less than 15 billion people? It would be much like today's 6+ billion. "Huge" but not too huge for people to prosper and go about their daily business. A future world of 24 billion, 30 billion, or whatever, would probably seem less "over populated" than today's world, because most everybody would be rather used to and rather well adapted to it. Instead of 2 or 3% of the land being occupied by cities, would it then be 10%? Big deal. Perhaps only 7% if people take a liking to their neighbors? Perhaps more than 10% if the flying cars of the future eliminate the long commute from the countryside or the suburbs to the inner city, by flying "as the crow flies" or at 500 mph, encouraging people to spread out more? Most of the land then would still be rural. Not really that profound of a change for humanity, other than 4 times as many people being around to exist and enjoy life.Did the futuristic world of the Jetsons cartoon have much rural land left? Who knows? Who cares? But I notice that the people seem to like living in spacious highrise apartments. They never did bother to say why the people were stacked up in highrises. Could it be the population growth? The need to make more room for expanding populations? Or because the highrise view is so cool? Or so "futuristic?" Perhaps it doesn't matter, so they never did seem to say.And the commonly estimated size of human population in Jesus' day was 300 million. It seems even back then the human population exhibitted quite a propensity towards gradual (and relentless) population growth over time, in just the 2400 years since the Great Genesis Flood (4400 years now). Just 8 survivors of the Great Flood grew to 300 million people in 2400 years. (So it should hardly be surprising or shocking that there should be billions of people by now.) Remember, most people didn't generally use much any means of "birth control" until the rebellious 1960s era of "free love" and the advent of "the pill." Large families in which parents just had children and didn't count the cost, where common up until the 1950s, and still are throughout much of the developing world. Nearly half the world still does not use "birth control" but procreates and multiplies naturally, letting their family "trees" branch out into "forests, or families expanding into "tribes" and communities of people over the decades or centuries. To the poor, having children is about having at least some form of wealth and power, as their children are said to be "old age security."Shouldn't it have been the idealistic non-solution of population "stabilization" to be tossed out as a unrealistic or "idealistic" pipe-dream? What about all those people who would still like to have children, or more children? Don't they count for anything? Wouldn't those people who have the largest families tend to grow towards a larger proportion of the population, undermining any hope of population "stabilization?" Already, to be born, a baby has a 2 in 5 chance of being born into a "population billionaire" country of China or India. Far better to be born into some over crowded shantytown in India, into a big family, than not at all because there were fewer births. Some level of existence is better than never having existed. India adds more people to the planet, annually, than any other nation. 21 million I think is about the current number. Only 2% annual growth. Not a lot for a country with over a billion people. (now 1.1 billion since 1999's "billionth person") Because India is a democracy, somewhat accountable to the people, they have not had much success with anti-human-life population "control," although like most nations, their rate of contraceptive usage is probably increasing, although many poorly informed people would probably think of India as a place where people still don't use "birth control." Of course India should be having "a baby a second" they are said to have (more accurately a net baby in excess of deaths every 1.5 seconds or 0.7 babies per second), because they no doubt have 100s of millions of women of childbearing age, who likely much want children. And in another 60 years, for India to have 2 or 4 babies a second would be fine, in a multi-billion person nation, as they would be far more developed and better prepared to handle a huge, burgeoning population than they are today, and there would be so many more parents to care for all the children, the most obvious restraint on how fast human populations can reasonably grow--lack of enough parents. I think the people really do want to be more populous, because why do you think they keep having so many children? Author Charles Provan says in his book, "The Bible and Birth Control," that God implanted the natural affection in our hearts, to seek humanity's multiplication and increase. Perhaps that's why most every baby looks so cute and adorable? Maybe we have an underlying fondness of our human kind, growing in numbers. It very much is a great measure of success and progress for humanity. The prudent means of managing population growth, is to let it work itself out, or to only accomodate it, not limit it, for the good of "the many" who no doubt pretty much "want" the children they are having. Urban sprawl is the obvious accomodation for an increasingly populous world. Let the people live or move to, wherever they want. Welcome everybody to at least live somewhere and to feel welcomed and important, as fellow human beings, or among the most incrediably prolific type of creatures on the planet.I found it interesting that the Anti-Christ in the fictional protrayal DVD, CD, and book, series of the Biblical endtimes, "Left Behind," scolded the third world nations for letting their populations "balloon." Yeah, typical viewpoint of the devil, who hates people? Well how else do all those people get to be born, except that human populations "balloon" throughout the various nations? Isn't that what a nation is by definition anyway? A rather "large" collection of people organized into a political unit for their governance and protection? I have yet to hear a good case made, for why the world population necessary has to be "stabilized" at the current level. Although the planet doesn't seem to "need" more people, it certainly should be able to hold a lot more people, and parents wanting children, certainly seem to need for the world to be able to hold more, and I think most people think the world could potentially hold a lot more people, as "over population" has lost a lot of the "shock" or "sensational" appeal that it once had, even though the world still has "more people than ever before," as it has had, well pretty much all through history. Population growth has been the expected norm all through history, and I see no need to "stop" now.BTW, in case my posts are too much accused to be too much "off topic" or otherwise deleted I am now archiving them on my "Innovation Station" forum, under the discussion title of " www.afraidtoask.com population discussion achive" or something similar at http://forums.delphiforums.com/innovate1Feel free to discuss it there also, as that is my forum where it would not be judged "off topic," or if it was, I would probably just rename the discussion to reflect the natural topic drift, as I have done just a few times. You will have to create a free user account to post, but Guests can read-only posts.Of course I wouldn't mind if my posts are moved to another area, for "organizational" purposes, if I can find where they went. On my forum, I can only Move entire discussion threads to other folders, not individual posts. And the folder structure is "flatter" on my forum, so Moving a discussion, isn't likely to "bury" it in an inactive folder.

In reply to: go live in china, and then tell us all to have 5 kids... I see you addressed your post to happyhappyjoyjoy.But I wanted to point out that there are many Chinese people, especially in the rural areas where the Chinese communist "government" thugs have less control or don't care?, who have 5 or more children. And they already live in China.And according to some old almanac statistics, China has more children per couple on average, than the United States, or Tiawan, where people supposedly have freedom. What's up with that? Perhaps people can't be "told" how many children they are "allowed" to have?

my goodness...do you have a day job?

EVerytime I read something like what Pronatalist has posted I laugh. Usually I would try and try to argue with him about this but I'm not going to bother.
IF what Pronatalist is saying is so true, why didn't "god" just have genitals come with batteries that have a 9 month chargin period after usage? There are millions of these questions, and NO ONE knows....And nobody can say they do, because again, NO ONE knows.

since we're all into opinions here... here's mine. i think that the person who this post was started over (the first In Reply To:) is some loser who cant get any anyways so he/she is trying to make us feel guilty about it