I wish some day god will give me that kinda freetime...over population is a serious issue, and i dont think it should be takin lightly, however opinions are just that opinions...
-
Humans are designed to reproduce and multiply.
-
Can I just say your posts gave me this huge knot in my stomach and now I'm feeling like I need to throw up. Your opinions do not make sense to me at all. I've done a lot of research for a college written essay about over population. Statistics from more than one source say population rates are threateningly high. There are so many people, in fact, that it causes grief in the world, and a lot of people commit suicide. Sex is a natural thing, but if reproduction can be prevented, than why not enjoy sex with that alternative? Sex, and this is not an opinion, boosts everyone's moods. Those who do not get any tend to be grumpy, desperate people, just like those priests in Catholic churches. I still feel angry when I hear those stories. People who frequently have SAFE, LEGAL sexual intercourse with their partners are happier, healthier, and more satisfied in relationships. Marriage is bullshit. Take a look at the divorce rates today. Marriage can put a damper on relationships sometimes. I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to it, but you say there should be more marriages. WHYYYYY??? That doesn't guarentee someone's spouse won't go out, cheat, and bring home an STD. THat's why condoms are great, and they are still really useful when two people are married. Oh, and about the Bible. It can be interpreted in many different ways. Don't act like your interpretation or your church's interpretation is the right and only one. Perhaps by "fill" God meant fill with love. Who the hell knows? No one.
-
In reply to: Can I just say your posts gave me this huge knot in my stomach and now I'm feeling like I need to throw up. Your opinions do not make sense to me at all.Perhaps you have not heard enough of pronatalist or pro-population views. No doubt there are probably authors that can articulate them in more understandable ways than me, with more objectivity, statistics, examples, and less seeming "wishful thinking" optimism, and less religious "dogma."Society often has biases that aren't very logical, and much of what people believe is based on what hearsay they have heard the most of. Adolf Hitler said if you tell a lie often enough, people will believe it. "Over population" is largely hearsay dogma, with little conclusive evidence to back it up. Much of what is often called "over population" is really just poverty, that existed long before humans populations grew so much as they have in modern times. I heard somewhere that around 80% of "the poor" in America, own their own homes, own their cars, have air conditioning, or cable TV, or something to that effect. And that is a good point, as often "the poor" in the world, aren't quite as poor as "the poor" used to be.Why "the poor" are even getting cellular phones? Huh?I believe there are very simple reasons that human population ought to be quite large, because more and more people would be glad to exist, and because most everybody wants to have children. A world in which humans are welcome to be incrediably numerous, is one less likely to infringe upon respect for individuals, nor to deny the God-given right to procreate. So I believe there do exist compelling arguments for welcoming even huge human populations to grow that should be given a serious and fair hearing, something that is difficult, given the emotional charge of the issue, and the lack of objectivity in the media or society.In reply to:I've done a lot of research for a college written essay about over population. Statistics from more than one source say population rates are threateningly high. There are so many people, in fact, that it causes grief in the world, and a lot of people commit suicide.Simply reading writings and books is rather superficial "research." Sort of like a popular opinion poll, which could slant either way, but isn't reliable. But it is an obvious place to start, and far more useful, if one tries to cover the various perspectives, and not just one dogmatic one, neglecting to explore the others.To say that population rates are "threatening high" sounds very much like an opinion. Compared to what? Compared to how many people could potentially be crammed onto the planet, human population isn't "much" at all. Compared to what it used to be, population levels are "higher" than they have been previously. But that is nothing new, as human populations have been expanding all through history. The evolution time distortion exxagerates the boom in population towards the endtimes, but most Creationists and Bible believers believe the planet to be only around 6000 years old, which helps explain why the human population hasn't already grown far larger than it is today. Because it simply hasn't had time to go that far.Perhaps there are so many people now, that we have become more dependent on technology to sustain so many than might have seemed necessary in the past, but so what? Not many people want to go back to the old primative ways anyway, because they were harder and less convenient.I think it is really cool that the world has "so many people" as most of them seem to prefer to keep living, and world population is barely large enough for you and I to have been born. I see it as a great measure of success and progress for humanity. I just don't see the queues of people lining up to commit suicide, and very few people do, compared to how many people there are. And there was "grief" in the world, ever since Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit, and when Cain killed his brother Abel. Perhaps 4 people was "too many?"I think the world does have its "growing pains" from so much population, but I see them as being rather minor, especially where proper freedom and development to accomodate people's needs is allowed and encouraged. Say like a decline in skinny dipping, because not as many places where people swim are as secluded anymore? But even that is probably more of a cultural shift than a population shift, as people moved to cities, more places went co-ed, and people prefer to swim in artificially sanitized community swimming pools rather than old muddy ponds or rivers. In the city, people are more likely to have swimming pools, than rivers in their backyards.In reply to:Sex is a natural thing, but if reproduction can be prevented, than why not enjoy sex with that alternative?Because bringing force valuable human life, is the best aspect of sex. Of course humans can still enjoy sex after menopause, during pregnancy, and during periods of breastfeeding. But I don't see any benefit in actively trying to prevent pregnancy. Humans aren't all that fertile, and it can take 100s or 1000s of acts of intercourse, per pregnancy achieved, and I hardly expect people to stop having sex because their family is getting a little "big." So those parents with so many children, have more experience raising children. Up until around the 1950s, people just had children and didn't count the cost, I read in some humorous book about culture called 13th Gen; Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail? (old DOS computer lingo). Family size was thought to be uncontrollable. Sex of course is such a given, that large families were common, as not many married couples considered reducing frequency of sexual encounters, withdrawal, or rhythm all that practical.In reply to:Sex, and this is not an opinion, boosts everyone's moods.Oh, I agree with that, but that guy on one of those Viagra or Viagra clone commercials who goes around grinning or glowing, is an absurd exxageration of that. And of course that is a reason for more people to marry, to marry younger, and for society to welcome a lot of moral and healthy sex. Sex is said to be good "exercise" too isn't it? And if a person passes away, in the midst of having sex, it is often seen as among the best ways to go?In reply to:Those who do not get any tend to be grumpy, desperate people, just like those priests in Catholic churches.Well that sounds very steotypical and unfair. However, I do disagree with the Catholic requirement that their priests be celebate. Is that realistic? Where is that requirement found in the Bible? The Bible says that a bishop shall be the husband of one wife, and have good reputation. To have marriage or sex, is not such a distraction that one couldn't also be a priest. And it seems hypocritical for priests to promote large families, and not be more willing to make their "fair contributions" to the population growth then, themselves. I heard a couple of guys discussing the Catholic position on "natural family planning" at work, a while back, talking about doesn't even natural family planning seek to not produce children? Then why should it be condoned? I don't see it is "practical," while letting families grow naturally, is practical and elegant, and still wouldn't often result in families that are all that "large." Why should having a "bonus" baby or two, be any harder, in the long term, than struggling with various unsatisfactory contraceptive methods for years or decades? Fertility soon declines with advancing age anyhow, so I think it unlikely that many couples would achieve more than 5 or 6 children, especially if they didn't marry to begin with very young. And if they do have more children, generally the older children help with the younger children some, and they don't all (usually) come at once, so there is time to adapt and adjust.While the commandment to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth doesn't necessarily mean to have a "large" family, as to do such can easily be beyond one's control, and up to God to allow it, it does imply not to use "preventative measures" to limit family size, as wouldn't that be some sort of obvious "rebellion" against that commandment? But then those with faith have less reason to fear that they could possibly have "too many" children, but are more likely to believe it was meant to be, or to be willing to depend on God and pray.In reply to:I still feel angry when I hear those stories. People who frequently have SAFE, LEGAL sexual intercourse with their partners are happier, healthier, and more satisfied in relationships. Marriage is bullshit. Take a look at the divorce rates today. Marriage can put a damper on relationships sometimes. I'm not saying I'm completely opposed to it, but you say there should be more marriages. WHYYYYY??? That doesn't guarentee someone's spouse won't go out, cheat, and bring home an STD. THat's why condoms are great, and they are still really useful when two people are married.Why were divorce rates so much lower, before "the pill?"Here's an old link I found that makes a good religous or spiritual case as to the damage contraceptives bring to a relationship:http://www.cyfl.ca/whynotcontraception.htmlIn reply to:Oh, and about the Bible. It can be interpreted in many different ways. Don't act like your interpretation or your church's interpretation is the right and only one. Perhaps by "fill" God meant fill with love. Who the hell knows? No one. The interpretation of the Bible isn't really so open. Those who take the time to study it, find it says many things very clearly, unless one is some liberal looking for excuses rather than truth."Fill" might mean many things, but to become more numerous, is obviously not excluded in the context of Genesis 1:28, 9:1. The KJV uses the word "replenish" which the dictionary says means "fill." Other versions use the word "fill." And in case there is any mistake, it is further confirmed in the verse Genesis 24:60, in which "thousands of millions" as the KJV version says, is litterally "billions" of people, prophecized way back in Genesis. How many billions? It doesn't say. But the context may be counting decendents that are but a portion of the total world population. How "full" is "full?" That also is not indicated. A "full" gasoline tank on a car, is probably "nearly as full as possible." A "full" car would probably be a carload of 5 or 6 people, but probably not people sitting on each other's laps, nor a phone booth stuffing contest. By any reasonable or objective standard, not based on vague feelings of "crowdedness" which don't belong in any serious population discussion, the world is far from "full."Here's a good workable definition of "overpopulation" that I like, which seems hardly descriptive of the world's current population level at all.What is Overpopulation?They say that children are the fruit of love. Children enrich people's lives. Being fruitful isn't just having children, or having lots of children, but having children is part of being fruitful. But people are valuable, regardless of how many or few children they might someday have. But once I have got to live, I don't want to slam the door on anybody else. I want to pass on God's precious gift of life, and I like kids, and so "the more the merrier," as they say. Life is too sacred to hinder its creation. If babies happen, they happen. It's not some "bad" thing worth any effort to prevent.
-
Before you write your book, let me help you out.First, you imply that cities and densely populated countries provide examples of the population capacity of this planet. On the contrary, most densely populated countries and cities are forced to import huge quantities of food and other raw goods; they are anything but self-sufficient. Japan, for example, is only able to sustain its population because other countries, such as the US, have devoted large tracts of land to agriculture. If you take a look at importing data from Japan, Korea, and India, just to name a few, you'll note that their agricultural imports vastly outnumber their agricultural exports. Korea, and particularly Japan, import virtually all of their raw goods, including food. They maintain a favorable trade balance only by exporting finished products, but this is not a self-sustaining enterprise unless other countries are able to provide them with raw material. The same can be said of cities. Bombay, Tokyo, Mexico City, New York, Hong Kong, Seoul, etc. are not self-sufficient bubbles. This couldn't be further from the truth. None of those cities produce any raw materials; they depend upon less inhabited areas devoted to resource procurement (e.g. farming). You also try to subtly link voluntary birth control and involuntary birth control (China's one child policy). The essence of freedom is choice, and I fail to see how having the choice to use birth control decreases freedom. On the other hand, you suggest a somewhat oppressive society, where people are not allowed to choose how many children they want. [As an aside, you suggest that China has plenty of room to expand, as its population density is lower than nearby countries. You've obviously never been to China; most of it is uninhabitable, and the areas that aren't are extremely densely populated].You further suggest a link between people's fears of population growth and birth control on an individual level. It's a strikingly weak point, because most people who use birth control couldn't care less about population management on a macro level. When I don a condom, it's not because I subscribe to Malthus' beliefs; it's because I want to have sex, and I'd prefer not to have a child. God? Lol---your "urges" and "organs" argument proves too much. Obesity demonstrates this, as does violence and nearly every crime. Each arises from an urge. History demonstrates that our most important organ is our brain, and our most important urge is self-control. Your frequent swipes at education and intellectualism suggest that you disagree, but I'd dare say that any God who gave me one head must have given me the other, and I enjoy using both when I put on the "ballon," as you call it.Finally, your constant Malthus references are out of touch, and generally non-responsive to the above arguments (I suggest you re-read focus’ post). If you’re looking for a disease, you might start with AIDS---a well known by-product of certain “urges.” Before you give me the line about sex before marriage being the cause of AIDS and other STIs, ask yourself whether your abstinence argument fits with your “God-given urges” argument. Nothing about our sexual organs or physiques requires monogamy and marriage (I haven’t checked recently, but I don’t think my penis came with a wedding ring). In fact, both women and men (men in particular) could enhance their reproductive success through multiple partners. But all of that Malthus talk is beside the point. You don’t need to fear disease (and I don’t- I'm married and blissfully monogamous) to not want kids. We all have our own goals and dreams, and no one appreciates being forced to follow a particular life path (the 12 kids path, for instance) just because you think the Earth needs more people.
-
One more thing: In reply to:I believe there are very simple reasons that human population ought to be quite large, because more and more people would be glad to exist, and because most everybody wants to have children. A world in which humans are welcome to be incrediably numerous, is one less likely to infringe upon respect for individuals If you really thought that everyone already wanted to have more children, why would you write the above propoganda? And how can people who don't yet exist be glad to exist? At some point you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that your dream-world includes infringing on the rights of others by forcing them to have children.
-
LOL.. I was thinking about writing the same thing. You can't assume you know the feelings of a person before they even exist... how absurd.
-
I am slightly frightened by the length of Pronatalist's posts. You must have written 6000 words in this thread alone! Taken ages, I expect. Have a break, would you? Have a kit kat
-
THEN DON'T USE A CONDOM! But don't tell us not too. A board that talks about sex over half of the time is NOT the right board to post this on. People who talk about sex with other people they don't know are not going to stop using condoms or pills just because that's not they way God intended things to happen. Did God intend Adam and Eve to disobey him and eat the fruit? No. But he gave us free will to do as we please. And if people choose to use birth control, then what right do you have to tell tham not to?
-
Nice picture. I do take it that you are usually a little happier than that?In reply to:Before you write your book, let me help you out.Why thank you. Would you like to be listed in the credits or acknowlegements?In reply to:First, you imply that cities and densely populated countries provide examples of the population capacity of this planet. On the contrary, most densely populated countries and cities are forced to import huge quantities of food and other raw goods; they are anything but self-sufficient. Japan, for example, is only able to sustain its population because other countries, such as the US, have devoted large tracts of land to agriculture. If you take a look at importing data from Japan, Korea, and India, just to name a few, you'll note that their agricultural imports vastly outnumber their agricultural exports. Korea, and particularly Japan, import virtually all of their raw goods, including food. They maintain a favorable trade balance only by exporting finished products, but this is not a self-sustaining enterprise unless other countries are able to provide them with raw material. The same can be said of cities. Bombay, Tokyo, Mexico City, New York, Hong Kong, Seoul, etc. are not self-sufficient bubbles. This couldn't be further from the truth. None of those cities produce any raw materials; they depend upon less inhabited areas devoted to resource procurement (e.g. farming).Oh not the tired old "ecological footprint" argument? Let's go ahead and admit that humans have probably trampled most all the planet by now. There are so many of us it is hard not to. But nature didn't much care and in most places it doesn't show, unless the people who hiked the highest mountain peaks, and ventured to Antartica, left their trash all over, as evidence that man has been there. Our "ecological footprints" are so big, that we would need, oh what do they say?, 4 earths for everybody to live like Americans? Ha! It's pretty clear some enviro radical just made that up, off the top of his head. Or that they don't want the entire world to ever get as rich as Americans, so we can hog "the top of the hill," like little children playing "king of the hill" or being mean bullies knocking off all challengers off the "top" of the hill. "Ecological footprints" are nothing more than somebody's guess of how much land each person somehow affects, but that land isn't "destroyed" or anything, and can have many overlapping uses. It's not like it is "consumed" or "used up."Don't you think I know that humans need far more than just "living space?" Although "living space" is one of the easiest resources to prove is not in short supply. The Malthusian argument that humans would outgrow their food supply, has lost credibility, as it has increasingly been written off as sensational, the world has proved to have plenty of food at least for those with money to buy it, food production has increased more than previously though possible, and population growth rates have sagged. Most resources have much ability to be reused, recycled, or harvested in much heavier amounts, or to be substituted for by other things; which has been a historical trend as the world has grown richer in spite of or perhaps because of its rising human population.So if Japan, Korea, or India doesn't produce its own "fair share" in raw resouces, why do they keep getting richer when they must import most everything, as you say? And why do the same things, cost a little more in places like Hawaii? Because of Hawaii's teeming population? (that nobody has ever heard of) Most raw resources are quite cheap, because they are abundant, and at that level, little human labor has yet went into handling them. More water can always be obtained by building more dams, draining more wells, or desalinating the oceans as needed. If we someday pave over all the farmlands to make way for our growing cities, I imagine people will still eat, it just will be more synthetic food, and less natural foods. And the food would be just as good, we just wouldn't wait for months for fickle weather and slow land to produce it. But with cities only occupying but 2 or 3% of the land, they would have to grow a lot more, before they could possibly crowd out all the farmland. The "ecological footprint" analysis is bogus, because I don't see people growing their gardens all the way out to the curb, desperate to grow more and more food. Much forest is neglected, not even logged, and left to nature and often to the natural wildfires. I kn ow cities "suck" resources, but the obvious place to put rising human populations, is wherever the people want to go. Or in between all the people already living on a "finite" planet. More people in the cities, more cities and towns, urban sprawl, whatever the people might need. World population isn't so big as to make people live in big cities, they can move to small towns if they choose, but the grown of human numbers probably contributes to the rise of big cities, as people have to live somewhere. Not everybody moves to the big city, but no doubt a few people were already there when it was a smaller town or city, and the city just grew on them, but they chose to stay.Why do you think that a city should be self-sufficient? Isn't that a little obsolete? Don't we buy bananas from other countries, so we can have fresh produce out-of-season? What country produces all their own stuff anymore? See we benefit much from the large population and the beneficial trade it encourages. For a city to produce as much as it consumes, or more, means something entirely different than "self-sufficiency" does. Self-sufficiency implies an ability to disconnect from the global economy, and run in isolation, much like a spaceship might have to for a while. Cars sort of do that, but only until the gasoline tank needs refilling.And as I am pro-life and more consistantly than merely anti-abortion, pro-population, I have no objection to the peoples of the world populating themselves up closer together. Humans are social creatures who can both survive and thrive, even at high population densities. And I think even population growth can help nations "grow" their way out of poverty, especially if the people would seek that which is good, and more populous nations should be able to produce more good leaders. At least they have the numerical odds to help them, if all their decisions aren't centrally made by communist thugs.Yes, I do think the world has so many people, that we should be more intent on developing most all the economically viable resources. We should be drilling for oil in all the places it can profitably be harvested, building more nuclear power plants, building a few more dams here and there, building those ugly wind turbines that spoiled-rich brat Ted Turner doesn't seem to like how they spoil the view now that they have finally become cost effective and so can serve human interests, etc.People also shouldn't be "trapped," landless, or in places they don't want to be, by crooked land-ownership laws, made by the rich or lawyers, leaving the poor completely out. Maybe there would be fewer makeshift shantytowns in the world, if the poor could somehow get clear title to their land, and reasonable protection that if they should improve their homes, they won't be later torn down to displace them off the land. As all people should of course be welcome, growing populations should be welcome to "overflow" out of areas that just can't seem easily absorb more people, to migrate most anywhere they choose, at least for "civilized" people willing to learn the language and assimulate to their new areas they might emmigrate to or immigrate into. And keep on breeding wherever they happen to live. But countries have the first responsibility to absorb and welcome their own population increase, so the Chinese must be welcome to have all their babies in China, and not have to flee elsewhere to have their God-given rights to have children, respected. Of course we should welcome Chinese people fleeing forced abortions, as we should do anything to oppose such barbarism throughout the world, but it makes more sense to encourage people to stay where they already if they want and by allowing them freedom to build prosperity, and then let them migrate for whatever reasons they would choose being free, such as to go to college, they make friends and stay, etc. And I would like for a world with so many people, to have accurate censuses, assuming that they might actually be used for entreprenuers choosing locations for their businesses, or for infrastructure expansion planning, than for rampant population undercounting to occur as may be occuring in China because people's rights to have children are oppressed. I think population expansion can be benignly be monitored for the public good, without actually being "limited" in any way. Welcome the baby booms to persist or spread wherever they will, as it benefits "the many" people who could be born no other way. It should be no embarassment for a nation to have a "booming" or dense human population, but something to be much proud of, to allow all the more people to live and experience life. Large families should be encouraged worldwide, even in India or Bombay or Mexico City or Toyko, because it is good for many people to experience life. Human life is too sacred to interfere with its creation.In reply to:You also try to subtly link voluntary birth control and involuntary birth control (China's one child policy). The essence of freedom is choice, and I fail to see how having the choice to use birth control decreases freedom.Good point I suppose, to not confuse the two, but the two aren't really as distinct as it would seem. "Choices" often are rigged and coerced," and I notice how few decades go by in which the "choice" to not have children, soon becomes the "obligation" to not have many children, "for the sake of the planet" or whatever nonsense. They got "the pill" in the rebellious "free love" 1960s, and just by 1979, the crazy Chinese suddenly decide that a large and growing population won't make them strong after all, and slap a terribly oppressive "one-child policy" on the people, because their stupid census suddenly tells them that they have topped a billion people, a nice-round number, and they weren't ready for the honor to be the world's population "poster child" or a few communist bosses didn't quite grasp how they could meet the needs of so many people. Never mind that they also had 100s of millions of women who much still wanted children, nor the cultural preference for very large families. I seriously doubt that their population grew so much more than they had expected, just because idiot Chairman Mao, thought it a good idea, or got just one thing right. And in a world of billions, I hardly think that for billions of parents to add still more billions of children, would really make all that much of a perceptional change to the world as we know it. Population would still be large for some time, if people could magically be convinced to have no children at all. We would still need to develop and modernize more, to fix a lot of the sorry poverty throughout the world.Before "the pill" men used to earn a "family wage" that would support a family. Now thanks to greedy corporations, oppressive tax rates, and career women flooding and glutting the labor market, and also "keeping up with the Jones" habits promoted by obnoxious commercials that pretty much say "Buy! Buy! Buy! and then you will be happy," it's more of a challenge to support a family on only a single income. Thus, we are coerced to have smaller families, by a society that has become more family-unfriendly. Excessive taxes, regulations, and litigation are driving our jobs overseas.How "voluntary" the use of "birth control" really is, in a complicated web of incentives and disincentives, isn't so clear as it would seem to the liberals who promote the prevention of human life. Some guy I onced worked with said his wife wants 6 children, but he isn't so sure. So what is their "voluntary" "choice?" 2 children? 6 children? Maybe more if they come? Perhaps any of those, perhaps more than 6, in a society friendly towards people having "all the children God gives." How about the "choice" to use no means of "birth control" being more respected. Why is the "no method" method of contraception, often missing from contraceptive method comparison charts? Almost every one I have seen reads like contraceptive sales propaganda. Why some 80-something % success rate at pregnancy for the "no method" method? (within a year of "unprotected" and regular sex, is the usually assumption?) To get a number that high, they surely must have excluded older people, and people who happen to already be pregnant or still breastfeeding.In reply to:On the other hand, you suggest a somewhat oppressive society, where people are not allowed to choose how many children they want.That is unfair. Even if I was "king" how could I make married people have sex? Put a camera in every bedroom, to make sure they do it only in the "reproductive" way and never "pull out?"Okay, I admit in the unlikely event I ever saw it on the ballot whether to ban the sale of contraceptives in my community, I would vote to ban contraceptives, because of all the damage they have done to society, and all the deception and anti-life propaganda associated with them. When Margaret Sanger first promoted contraceptives, they were thought highly experimental, bizarre, and associated with "dirty sex." Considering the evidence of rampant STDs, the AIDS pandemic, and the divorce and abortion epidemics, that assessment still seems fairly accurate in today's day and age. Hey, if my community wants to ban contraceptives, as some attack against public morality, being indecent, or whatever, why should I mind, since I wouldn't use them anyhow? A society without abortion couldn't impose population "control," which is another reason to oppose abortion to protect everybody. A society without contraceptives would consider unusually large or "unplanned" families, just the normal thing to be accomodate and accepted, not disparaged. A world without contraception, would have to by default, be more accepting of natural population growth as a "given" that obviously must need accomodation and development to adjust to. A world without contraception must logically be more child-friendly, family-friendly, and would be forced to more eagerly accomodate its inevitable growth in numbers over time.So is there any big movement to ban contraceptives anywhere that I should support? Can I do it all by myself? I of course will do my part and abstain from their use, since they seek to deny or prevent human life.If people worship the idol of "choice," then how often can husband and wife really agree on how many children to have? Doesn't that suggest just another area of possible conflict, when "choice" is so highly exalted? "Choice" in how many children to have, would make more sense, if people could just pop out babies on demand. But we don't really seem to have much "choice" about the matter to begin with. It can take years to conceive a baby. And what children would really "choose" not to exist or have been born? I don't consider that we parents should be any "better" than our children, even though God put us in charge, and so for their sakes, I would always want to leave sex open to the possibility of pregnancy, or trust how many children to have, to what God would entrust to us.In reply to:[As an aside, you suggest that China has plenty of room to expand, as its population density is lower than nearby countries. You've obviously never been to China; most of it is uninhabitable, and the areas that aren't are extremely densely populated].Most "uninhabitable" land is actually quite inhabitable. It's just that it is less desirable than the land already inhabited. People inhabit the most desirable land first. And a large part of what makes lands undesirable, is the lack of people in the region. Not a lot of people want to be the first to go live "in the middle of nowhere." Where are the stores and the jobs? Who wants the rugged life of a "pioneer" or a new settler? People prefer the crowds more often, than the empty and wild wilderness. I suggest that it would be far easier on the Chinese people to let them spread into the less populated regions if they need to, than to ask them to limit their childbearing, when so many people want more children. What happened to that "choice" you were defending just a sentence or two ago?Also, isn't China communist? Where the government makes all the decisions, builds the housing, etc.? It would seem that they would have a few more options then? Perhaps build the apartment building taller to make room for more family units, decide where to locate new cities and towns, etc. And if people want more children and there is some housing shortage, perhaps it can be worked out later. Let them increase the number of individuals in each room if that's what they really want. After all, even liberals know you can't make people stop having sex, right? And how are you supposed to police over a billion people to make sure they use nasty anti-life contraceptives? And our space exploration programs seem to have stagnated. Couldn't a nation with over a billion people (China) mount some inititive towards sending people to Mars, at least to explore, and perhaps colonize later?Actually, it is the communist nations that have the most confining, small housing units, because they do just enough for the people to keep them from revolting. There is lots to spend money on, rather than merely fat consumer demand, for the greedy politicians to manipulate. Like militaries and conquering the world? Regardless, China has the options of more high-density housing and huge cities, or spacious urban sprawl, as they would choose. They have plenty of land to do both.But I do accept the world has so many people that we need more places with lots of people, and fewer places far away from people. We can't make the planet bigger, so we need human populations to grow denser, or for people to spread out more widely across the land, to accomodate more and more people being glad to live, and all their children they would like to have. And if some people might be encouraged to have more children, or fewer people to use awkward, anti-life contraception, so much the better for "the many."No, I haven't been to China, but to South Korea, with 4 times the population density of China, and twice that of India. Only I never noticed until later, when I became interested in the population issue, and looked it up in an almanac. Nobody bothered to tell me that it was required to be miserable in Korea, because they have so many people. They didn't seem crowded or anything. But then in the military, you don't travel trying to "get away from it all."In reply to:You further suggest a link between people's fears of population growth and birth control on an individual level. It's a strikingly weak point, because most people who use birth control couldn't care less about population management on a macro level. When I don a condom, it's not because I subscribe to Malthus' beliefs; it's because I want to have sex, and I'd prefer not to have a child.Yeah, that's probably a good point, and yet then why is the management of the world's burgeoning populations, such a driving motivation among the contraceptive pushers? So much that they go out of their way to "manufacture" unmet demand for contraceptives? And yet when I hear that third world medical clinics have more contraceptives than they know what to do with, but don't have basic supplies like clean needles, there is some embarrassing anti-life agenda at work. I don't see population growth is being much of a logical factor at all in whether people should still have large families, because more and more people would be glad to live, even if in an extremely populous world. We have lost one of the reasons for having large families in modern times, that of filling an "empty" world. Well it isn't so "empty" anymore, is it? And yet most every other reason to have children, or many children, still exists, just about as much as back when God commanded people to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. I think human populations should outgrow the earth and fill more planets, if ever we could, but I think that fairly unlikely. Whether or not people using "birth control" could care less about population management on a macro level, it is a factor clouding their judgement. Much of the population rhetoric has insulted people's desires to have children, and our (socialist) "cost-of-living" fears, haven't helped matters any. If the world ever had "too many" people, it wouldn't be clear what to do about it, as I reject the eugenics thinking of a few elite people deciding who should breed and who shouldn't. Population management, especially on a macro level, is the jurisdiction of God, and not even of man. But I do think that the cloud of supposed "over population" has cast an unfair damper on people's enjoyment of sex, and their otherwise more likely desire for larger or perhaps even "unplanned" families. Obviously, most people would prefer for sex to be natural and spontaneous within marriage, if not for the irrational fear of possible pregnancy. Back when children were considered more valuable, possible farmhands or "old age security," and not such a "burden" as they are too often considered today, there just wasn't much reason for people to worry about regulating their fertility. People just had children and didn't count the cost. And many families were "big," but it was no big deal, as big families were common. I hardly think the world population to now be so big that there isn't still room for lots of people to still have big families. In fact, to grow up in a "big" family better conditions or socializes children to thrive in a populous world. In reply to:God? Lol---your "urges" and "organs" argument proves too much. Obesity demonstrates this, as does violence and nearly every crime. Each arises from an urge. History demonstrates that our most important organ is our brain, and our most important urge is self-control. Your frequent swipes at education and intellectualism suggest that you disagree, but I'd dare say that any God who gave me one head must have given me the other, and I enjoy using both when I put on the "ballon," as you call it.Yes, self-control is one of the virtues of "natural family planning." Or not expending any money to feed the anti-child industry of contraception. Rhythm or "pulling out." But I hardly consider "natural family planning" to be "natural" as not wanting to be blessed with children isn't very "natural," and it still seeks to prevent human life, something I would not want to bother to do. Self-control should mean abstinence until marriage, as God commanded, but to provide care and love for all the children that occur after marriage. I can't find a single verse that suggests that God ever intended for humans to use "birth control" or fear having children, as children were much regarded as blessings throughout the Bible. Fertility is a fragile blessing that quickly fades with advancing age, so people best have their children while they still can. There is nothing wrong with the nations ballooning in population, as long as they limit sex to marriage, because God already provided the needed resources to accomodate growing human populations, if people would but work together and develop and harvest them. Self-control is limiting sex to marriage, and providing for one's family. It doesn't mean that people need to use "birth control" or forgo sex once they marry. God never intended for humans to "control" their overall population growth, but it is up to God to expand our numbers as he sees fit.In reply to:Finally, your constant Malthus references are out of touch, and generally non-responsive to the above arguments (I suggest you re-read focus’ post). If you’re looking for a disease, you might start with AIDS---a well known by-product of certain “urges.” Before you give me the line about sex before marriage being the cause of AIDS and other STIs, ask yourself whether your abstinence argument fits with your “God-given urges” argument. Nothing about our sexual organs or physiques requires monogamy and marriage (I haven’t checked recently, but I don’t think my penis came with a wedding ring). In fact, both women and men (men in particular) could enhance their reproductive success through multiple partners. But all of that Malthus talk is beside the point. You don’t need to fear disease (and I don’t- I'm married and blissfully monogamous) to not want kids. We all have our own goals and dreams, and no one appreciates being forced to follow a particular life path (the 12 kids path, for instance) just because you think the Earth needs more people.Out of touch? Does that mean out-of-date? Few people think we should have starved-to-death by now, at present population levels, but "over population" is now more of a "social" issue (not a "survival" issue) of whether we want society to be "over crowded?" Monogamy is the obvious preventative to STDs and AIDS. Which should be no surprise as the Bible prohibits the activities that spread such diseases, and even gives examples as diseases sometimes being direct punishments for sin. Even the plague of frogs was a punishment for Egypt's sin. But if Malthusism is out-of-date, and population is more of an issue of "just how crowded do we want to be" now, as nature just doesn't seem to much "care" how populated people get, then that means that there is even less reason to worry about limiting birthrates than in the days of the sensationalistic "scare tactics" or more reason to leave it up to the billions of parents, who likely have very good reasons to have their children, and possibly swell the overall population some more.Just because a couple may not desire children, or more children, doesn't at all mean that they need bother with anti-life "birth control." "Unprotected" sex does not assure pregnancy, nor does contraception assure that pregnancy won't still occur. God may give them the number of children they desire (even 0?), or help them change their desires to what God chooses to give them. Most "unintended" pregnancies are still very much wanted by the time they are born. Most people don't regret having had "too many" children after the fact once they have had opportunity to adjust and bond to their children.Somebody posted something like, on another forum: Let's face it. People like to have sex, and ooops, out pops baby. Now multiply that times 6 billion.And if sex is so great as society makes it out to be, then surely penises should be helping making still more penises and vaginas in the world, which should then be welcome to come together and make still more babies, in the future. The ultimate purpose of sex shouldn't be denied and people welcome to proliferate throughout the world over time, as they have time to adapt and adjust to their natural increase. And it would seem that the most natural and healthy outlet for our powerful or potent reproductive urges, is, reproduction. (Want me to go find the quote about it, by Martin Luther?)But surely the sex drive is for some great purpose. God didn't create humans too fertile, but obviously intended for humans to grow over time to be abundantly numerous. God intended for humans to build civilizations and great nations, which would be impossible without there exising many people. I think that is very much what mankind having God-given dominion over nature implies, not just intelligence and ability, but also being among the most populous of the large mammals, such that we can't help but "dominate" the world some. God creates each person for some purpose, not as some "accident." Who is forcing anybody to have children? I am saying that children aren't some "bad" thing worth any effort to prevent. If they come, they come. Why should we need to discriminate against people not yet born or conceived? They are fellow humans so welcome them too. Weren't we all once babies not long ago?
-
In reply to:
Oh not the tired old "ecological footprint" argument?
I never made that argument. You simply used it to draw focus away from one of the weak and unsupported pillars of your initial posts. The point made was that the cities and the nations you cited as examples provide misleading models; that point stands. Your post was almost totally non-responsive to my arguments or any of the above arguments. This is why I said that your Malthus references were out of touch: you persistently use Malthus as a straw man despite the fact that no-one has actually quoted him to advance their arguments. With one possible exception (focus---and I say possible, because I think you misread him), most of the above arguments focus on choice and liberty. I find it quite revealing that you use Malthus as bogeyman to avoid the actual issues. Here's one of the few responsive parts of you post:
In reply to:
If people worship the idol of "choice," then how often can husband and wife really agree on how many children to have? Doesn't that suggest just another area of possible conflict, when "choice" is so highly exalted? "Choice" in how many children to have, would make more sense, if people could just pop out babies on demand. But we don't really seem to have much "choice" about the matter to begin with. It can take years to conceive a baby. And what children would really "choose" not to exist or have been born? I don't consider that we parents should be any "better" than our children, even though God put us in charge, and so for their sakes, I would always want to leave sex open to the possibility of pregnancy, or trust how many children to have, to what God would entrust to us.
At its core, your argument is against choice and liberty--- the choice to have sex without conception. It's a distasteful argument, which is why you always argue about Malthus--- you wish to distract the reader from your frontal attack on liberty. I also find your reference to the choice of non-existent people ridiculous at best, and a deceptive and misleading use of "choice" at worst. Even you must know that a non-existent thing cannot "choose" anything, so I have no problem disregarding that nonsense when I discuss liberty. I also have no problem pointing out that you used the phrase "idol of 'choice'" to give negative religious connotations to liberty. It's troubling that you associate liberty with idolatry. Finally, does disagreement, conflict or dissent (between spouses, or anyone for that matter) really undermine the value of choice? I have heard that argument before, but only from oppressors and tyrants.
You can use this quote for your book: Pronatalist is more than long winded; he's intellectually dishonest, and uses long posts, meandering writing, and quotes out of context to obfuscate the non-responsiveness of his arguments.
No wonder you don't like education; it's a shield against dishonest debating tactics. Say what you mean, Pronatalist. Drop the Malthus nonsense. Let's hear your argument against liberty!
-
okay and even after reading only the first post I've only got one thing to say... boring
-
This is what I think. Most of the people living right now have the bad habits of acting disrespectful, rude, ignorant, and obnoxious. A lot of parents do not discipline their children and ignore them in several different ways. Instead of taking the time out for their children (perhaps they have a busy work schedule or they're just lazy) to love them and teach them right and wrong, parents will let their children get away with murder. Kids need a lot of attention, and a lot of parents do not provide that for them because they're either selfish, poor, or both. My generation, and I'll admit it, is a group of spoiled, lazy, selfish individuals who grow up not caring about their futures. I blame the parents for this. That being said, I think birth control is a blessing. Not everyone knows how to be a good parent and not everyone is intelligent enough to make good decisions. ONe of the best and most intelligent decisions would be to use some freakin protection. That way they don't have to worry about diseases or starting a new life they could possibly fuck up. I'm sure if non-existent beings new who their parents were going to be, they'd say, "there's no way I'm being born if I'm born to that family". If a couple is poor, selfish, and unstable, they are not suitable to be a parent. That's why so many children end up in foster care. I've seen this so many times from all of my friends. Every friend I've had comes to my mom because their parents suck ass. They are among the many who have tried killing themselves. And I know you're probably thinking I need new friends, but there are rarely any kids who don't have a bad homelife. I agree with you when you say kids are wonderful and they make life better, but there are just a lot of adults who cannot or do not want to shower them with love and attention like they deserve. It's just reality, deal with it. Life is not that show 7th Heaven! So go and have your 12 children. See if you can keep up with them.
-
the best thing to say is that Pronatalist is right, the earth can fit everyone on it. The question is, will the planet support us? Think of it we will push all the animals off the planet, there will be homes, but no farmland. We cannot harry Potter style conjure up a feast from thin air. We must grow the food and also think of the amt of pounds of food the average peson eats. multiply by 14, 15, 20 billion, where are we going to farm all of this. Will space colonization be able to occur, if so how many people will wish to go into deep space to farm. As i see it we will fit on the planet, will the planet support us. Most likely not.9imagine the riots and revolutions, and corruption)
-
Dang. BIG POSTS !
-
OMFG! Pronatalist must have more free time than any1 ive ever met! hey bud I think u shud order a new keyboard, i'd be suprised if it hasn't worn out after typing all that!I only read ur 1st post and just looked at the replies to your others so I have a little understanding of what they were babblin on about 4 ages.At 1st I thought your extreme religious beliefs were rather amusing...but as I read on I came to believe you are 1 of the biggest morons ive come accross (no offence, I do try and respect other peoples beliefs)But seriously, how can you believe all that sh**? As you probably guessed im not very religious, infact I don't believe in God at all.Instead of spending hours typing up incredibly long pieces of rubbish I suggest you look in2 astronomy (recommended for every1, its very interesting)Anyway, it will certainly point alot of religious people in another direction and they'll think twice about a 'God'.Way back when the earth hadn't long been formed the atmosphere was made up of mostly carbon dioxide and only tiny amounts of oxygen even existed. If god created this earth you'd think he would of filled it with gases that weren't going to kill us in a few seconds!However, wat caused the atmosphere to change were the 1st 'living things' (plant type things, cant temember the proper name) as you know plants change carbon dioxide into oxygen and thats how the atmosphere started changing.Don't say something like 'So how did the plant things get there?' its not down to God! Its way to complicated to go in2 and I couldn't explain anyway...im not that educated...just tryin 2 remember the few major things :PAdam and Eve being the first 2 people on earth is an insane theory! Humans developed after 100's of years...a little something called 'evolution' heard of it?Oh and if you'd like to know how the universe was started; - Hydrogen! 2 hydrogen atoms form 2 make a hydrogen molecule...that can then form to make helium, the 2nd element to ever exist (I think) and all the other elements were formed like that...different reactions getting more and more complicated molecules and thats how the universe started.The ONLY unexplained thing is how hydrogen came 2 exist...but theres no doubt to some1 who is well educated in astronomy how everything else developed from that 1 element.Sorry for the chemistry/astronomy lesson and I know that may seem like my opinion/belief of things but if you study the subject you'll see that its alot more realistic than any religious beliefs. When I hear about people talking about God and the Devil I really wonder whether they were given a brain or not. I mean seriously, think about it. You talk about things in the bible, that thing has been re-wriitten/exagerated so many times that even if it was true to begin with 99% of it now wud be total bo!!ocks.Back on topic a little more, the earth's population is rising by quite a significant number. Can't remember exact percentage but its going to cause a problem in the future if something isn't done about it...and thats with birth control! If birth control wasn't invented you'd probably be sharing a bed with 5 other people 2nite!Why can't you see it like any normal people would?...reproductive organs can be for pleasure and don't alwayz have to be used for having dozens of children!Anyway, im going to shut up now, this is my longest post ever!. Its kinda late so I apologize if some of my points were unclear...most of the post was probably unclear but hey! take it easy on me Thread starter (religous freak) - I'm sorry I didn't read all your posts but it seriously wud of taken me until 10am 2morro! But i'm sorry if I missed something important that I shud of taken in.I could go on forever with this post if I wanted but im sure u all don't wanna be bored to death again. Sorry about the length. Nite all
-
Sorry I took so long to respond. I have been busy doing other things, and neglected to get my response actually posted.In reply to:I never made that argument. You simply used it to draw focus away from one of the weak and unsupported pillars of your initial posts. The point made was that the cities and the nations you cited as examples provide misleading models; that point stands. Your post was almost totally non-responsive to my arguments or any of the above arguments. This is why I said that your Malthus references were out of touch: you persistently use Malthus as a straw man despite the fact that no-one has actually quoted him to advance their arguments. With one possible exception (focus---and I say possible, because I think you misread him), most of the above arguments focus on choice and liberty. I find it quite revealing that you use Malthus as bogeyman to avoid the actual issues. Here’s one of the few responsive parts of you post:I am not sure I understand your objection. Huge cities aren't the way to support burgeoning populations? Perhaps not. But it is one of many possible ways. And I do think that the prosperity and success even of countries with huge human populations or high density, do provide evidence that more countries could probably do well with far larger human populations than they have had in the past. And that growing human populations in effect "shrinking" the world, is not necessarily a "bad" thing. Some enviro wackos actually argue for high population density, as a way to keep humans from spilling out into ever more wilderness and wildlands. But I would argue for density and spreading out, so the overall population numbers can be just as high as they might need to be, and all people welcome to be born and live, at least somewhere. What do I care if humans spread over more land? I am not the "wildlife" that supposedly might be displaced. I want the people to multiply and spread out, if that's how they might best be accomodated. I want the people to crowd up in huge cities, if that's how they can best be accomodated, due to lack of land. Stack people into highrises to make more room for more people. Whatever. Let the people grow ever more numerous, as that much benefits "the many." Let the people decide where they want to live. Whether they want to mow grass and have their own separate houses, or live in high density apartment and condo complexes, or little apartment complexes, etc. The unlikely possibility that there might someday be so many people that we have to put them most everyplace imaginable, is very low on my list of things I prefer to worry about. I would much rather my great-grandchildren have enough freedom to enjoy having "all the children that God gives," than that the world somehow be more "spacious" or rural. I see increased urbanization of the world, as the obvious answer to population growth. Population is what it is.People like me, who believe that people are created in God's image, for some purpose, are more likely to look at a world population growth graph, and say "Cool!," and not "Oh no!--It's the 'end of the world' as we know it," like the people who lack understanding and reject God. Cool, that the human kind appears to be prospering so well that it can burgeon its numbers too. Well one's religious "world view" colors most everything they see, and evolution must be a (false) "religion" too, as it sure isn't "science." I can't see what possible good it can do a world, for large numbers of people to believe that people exist for no apparent purpose, and don't have to give account for their actions (or wickedness), to any God who can hold them accountable. There's room for countless billions of people on this huge planet, but not for billions of little (false) "gods" running around making up their own false religions as they go. Such error rather than truth, tends to maximize the chances for conflict and erode the decaying social mores that help keep us safe from each other. The "lowest common demoninator" can't be a suitable foundation for public morality, but we need a higher stable standard, such as God and the Bible. You know if God can take care of 6 billion people, why not 12 billion? Or 30 billion? Is anything too hard for God? And I wouldn't want my great-grandchildren to have imposed on them any limits on how many children they are allowed to have, even in a hypothetical world population soaring past 30 billion. If parents are willing to keep reproducing, that is a very important consideration, and the world must needs then grow even more populated to accomodate all their children. It's good for society to welcome that which benefits "the many," not the rich elite, over-educated, corrupt politician or conspirators, power-monger "few."You never made that "ecological footprint" argument? Then what exactly was your point? You pointed out that many densely populated areas aren't self-sufficient, as if just because we can find lots more places to put more people, doesn't mean they will have resources or food to eat? Sounds sort of like the "ecological footprint" argument, even if you didn't call it that. But I have found most all mentions of "ecological footprints," by their proponents, to be amazingly sloppy. They never bother to explain very well how exactly the size of one's (or that of a nation or the world population) "ecological footprint" might be calculated, or what exactly it means. To me, a huge "ecological footprint" doesn't likely mean "running out" of resources, but far more likely, a more "artificial" engineered world, and one that grows less "natural." (Well I suppose I would prefer for the world not to become as "artificial" as the Borg cubes (a Star Trek sci-fi fiction), but then the Borg probably would like living too. Of course I would reject their form of "government" though. But even skyscrapers can be a nice and beautiful place to live. I lived in a highrise college dorm for a while, and it was okay.) But then didn't God say that humans should "tend the garden" and excercise "dominion" over nature? If technology allows us to lighten our footprint without being any less numerous, with minimal cost to human conveniences, well then isn't that "peachy-keen?" If not, oh well, humans have to come first over the spotted owls and snail darters, or whatever aspects of nature the "tree huggers" find it fashionable to pretend like they care about.Malthus was the one who supposedly said that somebody must die to make way for each new birth. Now if you also reject the idealogy of Malthus, and find his "unthinkable" alternative "thinkable" after all, that what he said just isn't true, that human populations can be allowed to accumulate after all, as birthrates are allowed to or welcomed to exceed deathrates, not being "controlled" after all, then that would suggest that you may agree with me that if humans fail to limit their numbers, nature won't do it either. We'll just end up with a more populous world, which is probably what many people would want anyways.So what is it in your view? Is "overpopulation" a "social" issue, not concerned with survival, as perhaps survival is a "given" as humans will likely survive and thrive regardless, so the concern is more along the lines of less important concerns like "crowding" or pollution?Or is it "choice" of how many children to have? That people should some how magically have exactly the number of children they think they "choose" at the moment. Even though there seems no adequate way to insure that that is what happens? Perhaps if we have all babies as being "designer" engineered babies, or they are produced in the laboratory and not by the old natural way.In reply to:If people worship the idol of "choice," then how often can husband and wife really agree on how many children to have? Doesn't that suggest just another area of possible conflict, when "choice" is so highly exalted? "Choice" in how many children to have, would make more sense, if people could just pop out babies on demand. But we don't really seem to have much "choice" about the matter to begin with. It can take years to conceive a baby. And what children would really "choose" not to exist or have been born? I don't consider that we parents should be any "better" than our children, even though God put us in charge, and so for their sakes, I would always want to leave sex open to the possibility of pregnancy, or trust how many children to have, to what God would entrust to us.In reply to:At its core, your argument is against choice and liberty--- the choice to have sex without conception. It’s a distasteful argument, which is why you always argue about Malthus--- you wish to distract the reader from your frontal attack on liberty. I also find your reference to the choice of non-existent people ridiculous at best, and a deceptive and misleading use of “choice” at worst. Even you must know that a non-existent thing cannot “choose” anything, so I have no problem disregarding that nonsense when I discuss liberty. I also have no problem pointing out that you used the phrase “idol of ‘choice’” to give negative religious connotations to liberty. It’s troubling that you associate liberty with idolatry. Finally, does disagreement, conflict or dissent (between spouses, or anyone for that matter) really undermine the value of choice? I have heard that argument before, but only from oppressors and tyrants.My argument is against choice and liberty? Hmmm. Let's see. How can I interpret it in that narrow way? What is this master plan conspiracy I must somehow have, to "make" people reproduce?Perhaps I have some secret potion I can put in the water, to make people more fertile, or some secret magical aphrodesiac? Maybe I have some secret super-Viagra stashed away somewhere? Or maybe my ideas are just so compelling, that a few people will read them, tell all their friends, "Hey you gotta read this," and they tell a few of their friends, and next thing you know the entire world is getting married and reproducing without nasty anti-life "birth control?" Maybe I have some wonderful charm that people will want to make me "king" someday? Maybe if somebody I know fails to have as many children as I think they should, I can throw a temper tantrum, and of course they will relent and have another child?How in the world do you think I am taking away people's idol of "choice?"Perhaps I am leaning in God's ear and praying, and God will just do my bidding and arrange it?Well I did say I would sign a petition or vote to ban contraceptives. But doesn't that assume it to already be on a petition or ballot? What are the chances of that? Would it pass? If a community thinks that contraceptives are undermining their values, then why shouldn't they be able to ban them? Many cultures don't take kindly to outside "family planning" propaganda. Is their cultural values, irrelevant, and we can just impose Western or contraceptive imperilism, and "manufacture" an "unmet demand" for contraceptives, that may just not happen to exist just yet?If contraceptives were someday banned, how would that force anybody to reproduce? Does even the Bible define how often a married couple should have sex? It does say that husband and wife should have sex whenever either feels like it, to avoid temptation, but doesn't define how often that would have to be. (1 Cor. 7:1-6) How could rhythm and withdrawal be effectively banned? How would anybody know? Even married couples who regularly engage in natural sex, attempting no effect to limit family size or space children, could go for years or decades, and fail to conceive, for whatever unknown reasons.I say that you have no case to accuse me of somehow undermining "choice" and "liberty." My simple attempts to persuade people by sharing my reasons and opinions, in no way take away people's "liberty."What about all the "undecideds" out there, who think they would like to have more children, except that... What harm can there be in encouraging them to go ahead and enjoy their dreams? How am I "harming" their "liberty" in encouraging them to breed?A few examples: A friend of mine, one day told me that they had decided to try for a 5th child. I had shared my views with him numerous times, on many issues, before that. Did he decide for a 5th child, because of anything I had previously said? He neglected to say. Perhaps I could look up his phone number and ask, but I haven't seen him since I moved. Did they get a 5th child? I don't know. I do know they had 4 and I have been to their home. That guy who's wife wanted 6 children. Did he go along with his wife, because I encourage him to "go for it?" I don't know. I haven't heard. I did hear that some lady who I never met, did decide to keep her baby, because of some pro-life literature that the laundramat attendant gave to her, that I happened to leave when I was doing my laundry. The laundramat attendant was telling this story to the next-door business owner, when I came in to do laundry again one morning. It's a wonder I ever heard of it at all. He said that lady came back later, visably pregnant, and he said "I see you made the right decision." Perhaps I "made" that lady reproduce?Yes, I am not merely pro-life, but I do argue for a more populous world. Not that the planet "needs" more people, but that an enlarged population benefits "the many." I believe that people (or even more people) can be, at least potentially, a great asset, that can enrich other people's lives, and over the long term, increase the standard of living for the masses. I believe the planet can in fact withstand, the needs and demands of a much larger human population, if ever need be. The planet just doesn't seem very "full" to me. Supposedly "scientific" estimations of human population "capacity" for the planet, range from anywhere from 2 billion, to 100s of billions or more. Such a sloppy, wild range of estimation is hardly "scientific" but wild speculation.What I really despise, is how people who seek knowledge apart from God, the problem all the way back to the Garden of Eden, so think that their wild speculations, must be accepted as "gospel truth," or at least regarded as "scientific." Why? ("Over population" theories are a spendid example of wild speculation or "knowledge apart from God.")What I find so absurd or perplexing about the gloom and doom Malthusian religion, is how they think that humanity can multiply its numbers magically, with practically no effort, as if all the work of raising billions of children is irrelevant, and so one day we could just suddenly wake up into a world with "too many" people, like practically overnight? Perhaps they just think they can't handle their sexual urges because they are immoral and don't know God? Or that they supposedly being "scientists" or at least having lots of degrees to wave around, are so sure what will happen if human populations just spiral "out of control." Given that assumption, how can anybody be so sure of what will happen, unless they have Bible prophecy to back them up? Maybe humans will outgrow the planet, and merely be forced to colonize other worlds. Maybe humans will become selfish and "lovers of themselves" as the Bible speaks of, and become too lazy, selfish, or preoccupied with other distractions, to reproduce all that much in the latter days. Maybe it will just work itself out. Perhaps humans will still survive and thrive even if we pack the planet with beehive-like housing units everywhere imaginable. Regardless of all the speculation, I think most any sensible person could imagine there being room for lots more people, if they just look. I find it perplexing how the Malthusians think that somebody has just died and left them in charge, as if the desires of billions of parents, many of whom no doubt want to have large families for various reasons, should count for nothing.Those who are against "choice" and "liberty," are not the pronatalists of the world, but the antinatalists, such as the pretty much discredited sensational author, Dr. Paul R. Ehrlich. Who said in his book, The Population Bomb that "family planning" was a "failure," because while it gives the individual "choice," it denies the society the means to "control" population growth, as one family will choose to have 7 children, and another family 3. But in both cases, they both add to population growth. That most all people would "choose" to have a number of children to keep the population growing. So either he is arguing against "choice," or else arguing that the human "Population Bomb" simply be allowed to "explode" unrestrained? Well the latter isn't likely for him, as it would be against the sensational, anti-choice position of his book. But then in his later sensational, and similarly illogical book, The Population Explosion, I notice he had to tone down his population "scare tactics" in order to preserve the tiny credibility he may have had left, as the world doesn't seem to have "ended" quite as soon and readily, as he predicted in his earlier book. Of course what does it matter if his predictions are socially responsible to make, or accurate? Isn't his goal more like to make a name for himself and to sell books? Is "all is well" a message that translates well into "buy my book?" And he asks more "social" questions, as opposed to "survival" questions, I think, in accordance with "over population" not really being the important or "crisis" issue it has been made out to be, like "How Dense Can We Be?" Well I say humans are social creatures and we can be pretty dense, and still people depopulate the countryside to move to the big cities, in search of economic opportunity. And while the "population bomb" does seem to have "fizzled," even in the loss of "shock value" of today's population writings, I do think Paul Ehrlich is correct to note that the overall human numbers grow almost as fast as ever, as while birthrates are sagging, the population base by which they are multiplied, is now much larger than it was decades ago. But then as is so often the case with people who seek knowledge apart from God, Paul Ehrlich totally misses the point, that Julian Simon was often eager to make in his book, of how humans are The Ultimate Resource, as the same title of one of his books obviously points out. If people really are such an important "resource" to society, then why set any "limit" on their numbers at all?, is an obvious question I wish far more people had the sense to ask. Those who are unwilling to set any arbitrary "cap" on world population size, who argue against human population "control," and encourage childbearing (pronatalists), tend to best defend the sacredness and sancitity of human life, and do much to defend the "choice" and "liberty" of both the individuals, and of the overall burgeoning populations of the masses. It also is good for a society, to look upon babies, sperm, natural population growth, etc., all as "good" things, promoting freedom and life. Sperm is a symbol of the continuation of human life, or "seed" of future human lives, and should not regarded as some "poison," to be avoided at all costs. Rather, it is the contraceptives, that are much more like anti-life "poison" and that seek to hinder human life. For those married "undecideds" who might be willing to or prefer to have more children, if society didn't try to scare them into thinking what a "burden" children might be, wouldn't it be better for them to be free to not bother with contraceptives? Family growth isn't a "bad" thing, but a healthy thing for both families and society. Children are said to be the fruit of love. Idealistically, or realistically, a pronatalist society that encourages people to have large families, in effect also encourages people to keep their wealth, to invest into their growing families, as children do tend to "cost" effort and money to raise. This encourages "choice" and "liberty." An antinatalist society, tends to waste all the money it supposedly "saves" on having fewer children, for the politicians to spend instead, as it is often said that "nature abhors a vaccuum." A socialist or communist society revolving around big government, can't so easily "afford" a lot of children, as there isn't a lot of wealth left over, after the government wastes it, and discourages the very activities that build wealth with excessive taxes, excessive regulations, and excessive litigation and favoritism. Would you rather the government, or the families spend the wealth? Doesn't "choice" mean that growing families should spend their own money? Should wealth be squandered on material things that don't last long, or be invested into "our future," our children?In reply to:You can use this quote for your book: Pronatalist is more than long winded; he’s intellectually dishonest, and uses long posts, meandering writing, and quotes out of context to obfuscate the non-responsiveness of his arguments.I am a little perplexed how you think I might integrate that quote, into the purpose behind writing my book? What does your strange delusion have to do with anything?In reply to:No wonder you don't like education; it's a shield against dishonest debating tactics. Say what you mean, Pronatalist. Drop the Malthus nonsense. Let’s hear your argument against liberty!Education is often used as a clever "bait and switch" to replace truth.I want to encourage people to exercise their liberty to enjoy having big families, especially if they will train their children with good values, to undermine the anti-liberty liberalism infecting our society, running up our taxes, encouragine people to abort their babies and engage in risky behavior, etc. A world where big families are common, is one in which any idea of enforcing anti-people population "control" would likely prove fairly unworkable. If anybody is going to "control" humanity's numbers, it should only be God. Nobody else can be trusted to deny the masses their God-given right to procreate. They say that denying the right to procreate, is but one small step from denying the right to live.
-
So how do you plan on supporting your large family if you have one?
-
and just how long do you spend writing those posts?
-
those are like some way long posts. whoaa
-
Some one should either lock, delete or move this topic. And hasnt anyone noticed he posted 3 times in a row? Isnt it against the rules?