okay and even after reading only the first post I've only got one thing to say... boring
-
Humans are designed to reproduce and multiply.
-
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?
-
oh thank god i stayed out of this
-
he posted three times in a row, but to different people each timeand there is no way I'm reading it... I've got oh'so much better things to do with me time
-
In reply to: me time my time .................LMAO!!! jku and ur uk talk........
-
People like you killed Jesus, with your ideas of the way you think we (everyone in the world) should live. You didn't believe in his teaching and ideas so people like you made lies and had him crucified. So the world could be like you wanted, and now look what you did with it!!! You wiped out numerous culters like the Myans, Incans, Aztecs, majority of African, Asian and North-American native cultures. All because you think we should live a certain way! So reguardless what you interperate the Bible to say, nowhere does it say to go around condeming others for their actions. God says spread his word and where people don't welcome it then dust your feet off and set off in another direction. Not, forceably feed, and enslave other cultures and people, until they fall, collapse or give way to your beliefs just so they can quit suffering! Is that what you want here? For us all to agree with you so we can get you to shut-up? You people (people who share your tenacity about christianity) should be ashamed of yourselves, and should fall before Christ and everyone, to ask for forgiveness for a 800 years of smashing every race, culture, ethnicity, coversation, bulletin board, and probly every chat room with your tanted religious propaganda. Who's to say that you are even worshiping the right God anyway? You only think/believe you are? What if Islam or even Judaism is the way to heaven? But go ahead slam all that I have written because it is in people like you, to never admit that they are wrong and, to keep on with your preaching until every last one of us conform to your Ideas and life-styles. Just remember you people killed Jesus, and elected Bush!"Life is like the ocean, you have to drowned in it to see it for what it really is!" -JIV3
-
Uh, calm down. Don't have a heart attack. Jesus was supposed to die. But he didn't stay dead. Ah, a happy ending!
-
lol sweet post
-
wut is this fourm about anyway looks around blah ...blah,,,blah...
-
In reply to:... Adam 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?...Yeah, isn't that the discredited theory that rationalizes away that humans should act like apes, rather than civilized people?Isn't the world getting a little too populated, for people to go around inventing their own false gods or religions, or to be acting like apes? A sensible adaptation to the world's rising population, would be to expect people to behave as if they were civilized. We can live close to our neighbors, if we need to or choose to, when people are friendly and civilized.In reply to:... 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!I'd probably be sharing a bed with others tonight? So? I would still want to exist, even if in "crowded" conditions. I would still want the world to be pro-people and pro-population.Why would 6 people be sharing a bed anyway? If "birth control" wasn't invented, perhaps due to lack of interest in it?, I imagine the world would be "bursting at the seams" with just 8 billion or so, rather than our present 6.4 billion. Probably only a few "extra" billions by now. Remember, "birth control" is rather new idea, and still nearly half the people of the world do not use it. As late as the 1950s, most people didn't generally bother with anti-life "birth control" and didn't count the cost of having kids. Oh, and children didn't seem to cost much anyway back then, before society conspired to make children seem such an inconvenient "burden," even though most parents don't regret having had so many children after the fact, after they bond and become attached to them. Families didn't have all the STDs and divorces and children being born out of wedlock, before the advent of "The Pill." Taxes weren't so high, when families were more prone to be naturally possibly large. Society spent more on children, and less on the socialistic tax-and-spending addictions of corrupt, special-interest pandering politicians. And the rest of the world lagged after immoral America in peddling its novel and experimental pills and bizarre "birth control" devices. So without "birth control" world population growth may easily have passed its 1970s or 1980s peak of 2% annual growth perhaps pushing its way up to around 3% or so by now, doubling the 4 billion population of 1975 to 8 billion by 2000. Anyways, I don't recall offhand any population predictions of a world population larger than 8 billion by 2000. But 8 billion is hardly any more than 6 billion, as far as the supposed "global crowding" would go. It would be hard to tell much difference, other than populations more prone to be youthful without the anti-life use of "birth control." And I would rather my youngest children share a bed with a sibling for a while, than to have any fewer children than what God would entrust to us when I get married. In fact, if money is limited, I would rather budget to help them buy their own houses and avoid debt, before enlarging my home myself, for a large family. It would then perhaps be "too big" and expensive, after the children grow up and move away.Anyways, humans don't need "birth control" because even without it, it takes time for human population to expand. It still is gradual, and hardly happens "overnight," so there is plenty of time to adapt and prepare especially for welcome population increases. Time to build more housing and roads or whatever the additional people may need. In fact, people need jobs, and they would build or buy what they need themselves.Exact percentage? Does anybody but God know? I hear it is around 1.3% annual growth, which isn't much, but when multiplied by the huge world population of 6.4 billion, yields an annual global population increase of 80 million, or in effect adding almost another Mexico of people to the world every year. Or a city of over 200,000 every day. But it only seems like a lot, because the planet is a huge place, hardly really comprehensible to humans. The populations of our neighborhoods, or its growth, isn't all that much at all. In fact, most people have little idea how huge the world population is, nor how fast it grows. It hardly matters to the normal, everyday existence of most people. That's something that self-appointed overeducated idiots in their air-conditioned ivory towers, find it fashionable to worry about, as if they really care about all the people of the world to begin with? I have tried to become an "expert" on the population issue, because I believe that the excessive negativity about the subject, is very unfairly anti-people biased and racist. And the pro-population experts rarely get enough hearing in the press or the government monopoly school textbooks, so often largely based on the "state religion" of evolution, in violation of the First Amendment.India supposedly added its billionth person in 1999. Growing at 2% annually, I figure they would have grown to 1.1 billion in just the 5 years since then, adding about 21 million more people to their numbers each year by now, I think I heard somewhere. While a "significant" number, I think people in India would scarcely notice the increase. So what of the additional 100 million people in India? Should they somehow have never been born? Are there mere "numbers" or "statistics" to be manipulated by the few population control freaks of the world? Or are they more likely children born to parents who probably wanted them and love and care for them just as much as we would our children? India is supposed to have so many people, as most all of them much want to live, and they have to be welcome to live somewhere, right? The people of India are no less people worthy of life, than we are. Unless you want to rationalize away the great value of their lives, in terms of the bizarre, anti-social theory of evolution, and count anti-human population "control" among the random events of evolution? India and China should be proud to be growing population billionaires, as the value of each and every individual is not dimished by there being so many of us. So what? Most people are glad to live, regardless of such irrelevant statistics. In fact, around 2 out of 5 babies now have to be born into a nation of over a billion people, to be born at all. It's where there are large numbers of parents to have them. People can't very well be born where there are no people, can they?India is interesting, because India adds more people to the world than any other country. And yet India is gaining wealth and modernizing. It seems that people are a great asset and produce wealth, even in India. And that most anti-population theories, are just plain WRONG. People simply don't get to exist at all, with less population. It never was about "more crowded" versus "less crowded," but about discrimination against human life. What good is a "less crowded" world to people who were never born to begin with? And what of all the inventions and other countless contributions that never would have been produced if human population was any less? When human populations were smaller and the world was more spacious, life was harder. There were no CD players. There were no telephones. Not even any cars. I don't see many people eager to run off somewhere and live like the Amish? Most people appear to prefer the modern world, much of its conveniences being much related to our populations having become so large. Had human populations not expanded, technology growth wouldn't likely have accelerated so much, and we wouldn't be having central air conditioning in our homes, computers, cellular phones, nor the Internet. So if people don't like there being so many people around these days, they can move to the countryside. But without the people existing somewhere, might as well figure on living a technologically impaired existence, like the Amish. Oh, although I don't prefer to live like the Amish, I imagine that they have avoided many of society's ills. And I don't imagine that they bother with "birth control" either. They probably have use for many "farmhands" without all that modern equipment.And I figure that the decisions of billions of parents, to reproduce and have children, of course should weigh heavily in any considerations of population policy. Most parents of the world, would probably prefer a neutral or pro-population policy, that accepts human population growth as as much of an inevitable "given" as that people will keep having sex. The obvious and most healthy and elegant outlet for the powerful reproductive urges of humans, must be reproduction.The world population is supposed to be rising by quite a significant number, because so many more people would be glad to be born. It is very good news that our numbers are rising. Would it be better if it was falling? Or if people were dropping dead like flies?Why do you think that world population growth will cause a problem in the future, if it isn't somehow magically slowed or something? Is that what you meant? Why can't simply "accomodation" be the answer. Urban sprawl. Just build more of the housing and stuff that growing numbers of people would need. I notice that the more populated humans become, the better we get at accomodating large populations, so there really isn't much reason to worry about it much.Sharing beds with siblings was common before modern times, and still is common in many other countries. I should hardly want for my brothers and sisters to never have been born, to have a little more personal space. Personal space is nice, but not at the expense of fewer people living. I heard on the news shortly after 9-11 a survivor say that he missed his brother. "We once share a bed because there were so many of us," he said. Sounds like he would rather have a brother than a bed to himself.In America, sharing beds is unlikely, although quite acceptable, especially for young children who wouldn't mind, and are scared of a big, dark, and lonely room at night. But with the typical 3-bedroom house, and the expected norm of around 5 or 6 children per couple without the awkward use of anti-life "birth control," having one's own room may also be unlikely, except for rich families. With the use of bunk beds, up to 2 or 4 children may share a room, before they have to share beds. The typical American home could squeeze in up to 8 children, before it is really all that "crowded," at least by the standards of most of the people of the world.Even if there might somehow be hypothetically "too many" people at sometime in the distant future, that doesn't prove that we have "enough" now. And extrapolating too far into the future, according to the wildly speculative population scare tactics of a few noted self-appointed population pessimists, is rather meaningless anyways, because most any math or statistics student should know that the further out one extrapolates from known data, the less reliable the prediction.I don't know why people have such a difficult time figuring out the obvious. If more and more people would be glad to be alive, and most everybody wants to have children, and we can't make the planet any bigger, and colonizing outer space isn't practical yet with current technology, then what do we do? Simple. World population then must still grow, and so we should grow denser and denser. There should be more places throughout the world with lots of people, and fewer places far away from lots of people. Urbanize the planet to whatever extent necessary. Put the additional people in between all the people already living. It's okay, as cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be a lot more. While the world is no longer "empty" of people, it is nowhere near "full" either. I figure that humans, not even counting other planets, have 3 perceptional dimensions to grow our populations into: outwards, inwards, and upwards. Outwards would seem the most preferable, as in more cities and towns and urban sprawl. Reducing rural areas from 97 or 98% to more like 95% of the land, over the next several decades. Not much "change" there, to hold twice the people. Populations can also grow inwards, and infill underutilized land, with more high density housing like apartment complexes and condos, or simply more streets and houses and less forests running through the middle of our cities. Human population can also grow upwards, stacking people up into highrises. Anyways, that's plenty of room for growth to easily accomodate all the people there likely ever will be on the planet.I hardly think the world could be any better off, with 8 billion rather than 14 billion people, at whatever point in the future. Either seems like a lot of people to me, but neither is anything like "too many." There's plenty of means and available technology to accomodate so many.Many people have been conditioned by their "education" to think of human demographics in an irrational manner. Suppose you took your child to a "doctor," who was alarmed that your child was growing bigger and bigger, and not staying the same size as when he or she was born? Well that's much the same bizarre intepretation promoted by those who favor human population "stabilization." Whatever for? Because they worship a false "god," the earth? The created rather than the Creator? (See Romans 1.) Human population was never meant to stay so small for so long. It is also supposed to "grow up." Why else would God have made sex so pleasurable and then commanded people to multiply and fill the earth? (Gen 1:28, 9:1, Pr 14:28, Deut 30:19) Because human population is supposed to grow, not stagnate. It is not the job of the Christians, to appease the evolutionists' wrong views on the purposes of humans and the planet. I don't think there is much we can do to "hide" the growth of our numbers. We should be proud to count and number our children on the census forms or whatever. As God has some great purpose for every human individual. It is up to those who are wrong, to learn the truth and repent of their error and sins.In reply to: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! ...Well I am not a hedonist, living just for temporary pleasure. What about the pleasures of future generations? Sure, enjoy sex and all, but let it also bring forth life as it was designed. I have nothing against sex during pregnancy or after menopause. Just something against interfering with the sacredness of human life, by trying to hinder normal procreation. We let the other systems of the body function normally. Why can't the reproductive system function normally too, and we welcome to transmit God's precious gift of life? Few couples who choose not to bother with awkward, anti-life contraceptives have dozens of children, but if God will entrust them to raise dozens of children, then it is a worthwhile experience. It's not like the 12th child born to a family, could be born to some other family. It wouldn't be the "same" person, nor would there even be so many people, if all families were small. Some parents are rather good at nurturing children or gain experience, and are quite suited for having lots of children. Somebody has to have the children. I figure since the rich often don't seem to want them, or are too busy chasing materialist greed, "education," or whatever distractions, God give more children to the poor. But shouldn't the rich, be able to "afford" or manage just as many children as the poor? I am no "better" than my children, even though God puts the parents in charge of raising them, so why hinder their possible births? Which of them wouldn't have wanted to have been born? I want them to know why their parents don't use any means of "birth control," because more children are always welcome if they come. Many people don't simply have "religious" objections to the use of "birth control" but prefer to have "all the children God gives." People who live by faith, know that God can expand their means, to provide for more children than they otherwise might have though possible.America should be more like the third world, and have more children. The third world should be more like us, and modernize and build up their infrastruture, and throw out their corrupt Marxist dictators, to better support their growing families and burgeoning populations. All nations should welcome unrestrained human population growth both within and without their borders, not merely for the selfish reasons of more customers or more future taxpayers, but so that all the more people may live and enjoy life. Because humans can adapt to humanity's enlarging numbers, humans are about the only kind of creature, to have little practical use for population "control." (I do like the idea of getting our pets "fixed" if people don't want to breed them, as they have us for families and avoiding the sexual urges helps them be better pets.) Human population should be welcome to rise naturally, to be as populous as God would choose to make us.The obvious purpose of reproductive organs, is to produce more people. Isn't that why they call them "reproductive?" Well that is the best possible outcome of sex. Not simply enjoying it, but achieving another pregnancy. Bringing another precious human life into the world. And not just to maintain human population size, but to enlarge it over time. For population "stabilization" only requires an average of 2.1 children per couple, while most couples can raise or prefer to have more than 2 children. The womb is capable of bringing forth around a half dozen children or so, sometimes more. And usually just 1 baby at a time, well within the range of managability. The normal function of women hardly should be hindered in such a vital function to promoting and maintaining human life. Fertility is a fragile blessing that fades quickly with advancing age, so people would do best to marry and have their children while they still can, not procrastinating for a year for some "perfect time" to have a baby, that may never come when expected anyhow. God didn't make humans too fertile, but wanted people to multiply into great nations and civilization.And "unprotected" sex doesn't assure a pregnancy, nor is pregnancy a "bad" thing to avoid, so people should be welcome to enjoy sex naturally, without irrational fear of pregnancy, as family growth and population growth, are very good things to encourage anyhow. How else can people come to be born and get to live? Besides, to turn relatively cheap food or matter into additional human bodies of immense value, represents a great "investment" as least philosophically. Isn't it better for matter to be converted into people with feeling and emotions, than to just lie around being wasted and "feeling" nothing? Land filled with vibrant communities of people, is worth far more than vacant wilderness.
-
In reply to: Uh, calm down. Don't have a heart attack Just had to put in my two cents....not really trying to get into a debate. I just don't like people that always preach as if their opinions are/should be facts....ya know?
-
In reply to:
Oh really? So then what purpose did God create reproductive urges and ability for? To not reproduce?
so, did "god" also give us the "urge" to kill, and the "urge to hate, and the "urge to steal? as well as tell us not to follow these urges? and i suppose it's everyone's duty to understand the purpose of every thoughtless urge?
why must we know the meaning of every thing instead of enjoying it when conditions allow? people were never "meant" to do anything other than enjoy their lives. if reproducing without end helps you enjoy your life than by all means do it, but let people decide for themselves what they should do.I have one more question for Pronatalist, are you overweight?
