oh thank god i stayed out of this
-
Humans are designed to reproduce and multiply.
-
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?
-
not everyone has the urge to kill, you know.
-
In reply to: Oh really? So then what purpose did God create reproductive urges and ability for? To not reproduce?In reply to: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? I think I see where you are going with that.No, I don't suggest that people have big families, just because sex feels good, and people supposedly can't control their urges. Self-control is a virtue. But I don't agree with the Catholic concept of "natural family planning," as it still seeks to prevent births, in opposition to its apparent purpose.If eating "feels good," eating too much, doesn't make more of me to love and experience life. Just more weight to lug around and make it hard to stand up.But with procreation, there are other people to think about. Because the future generations would much want to live, and my children probably would be much glad to have been conceived and born, I believe it is practical for human populations not to be as small as possible, but "nearly as large as possible."The natural and healthy outlet for the powerful reproductive urges of humans, is hardly rhythm or withdrawal, but marriage and reproduction. Because more and more people would be glad to be alive, I would encourage large families worldwide, and welcome even massive human population growth, if God would allow it.While of course we should not always act on our urges, we should of course be encouraged to breed, for the sakes of "the many" and future generations. I think the future people of the world, would not mind being so populous, if that's what it takes to be born. It's nothing to be ashamed of that there are so many people in the world. Rather a great measure of progress that so many people can all live and enjoy life.
-
In reply to: 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. Oh, I know there is more to consider than merely whether there is enough living space for everybody.But have you ever heard the saying that nature abhors a vacuum? Well things aren't designed in a vaccuum either. If the world has so many people that it has now, it probably was designed to hold so many people, and that's why there are so many. It's not some fluke of nature, but the planet was actually designed to be so populous. That's why God commanded humans to multiply and fill the earth, and made sex so pleasurable. Such a commandment must necessarily imply that the needed resources for such expanding populations, must somehow be available, if only people would work together and develop and harvest them. And that the planet can likely withstand our "population pressure" easier than couples can be expected to struggle with anti-life "birth control." I would much rather that nature be altered or adapted, than that there be fewer people alive in the world. I have heard that there are now so many people in the world that we can't really go backwards to the old ways of doing things. The old ways were inefficient and would no longer feed everybody without some use of modern technology? We have to go forwards. Which of course includes humans being free to make room for all the more human population, as most all jobs automatically do in some way, and so an expanding workforce, naturally helps accomodate rising human populations. The world would be much "incomplete" without huge human populations to build nations and civilization. After all, the Earth is the most human-friendly planet we know of.What are the enviro wackos more afraid of when it comes to human population? That the planet can't hold so many people? Or that perhaps it can after all? Do we hypothetically face starvation or global overcrowding, if human populations continue to grow "unchecked?"Well you suggest that the planet can probably fit even some 20 billion people, so probably "overcrowding" isn't much the issue?I observe that if humans fail to limit their numbers, nature probably won't do it either. Malthus was much wrong about his gloom and doom population pessimism. Malthus said that somebody must die to make room for each birth. Nonsense. Here we are some 2 centuries later, with some 6 times the world population. And people living longer, in better health and nutrition, and gaining wealth. Good thing our ancestors didn't follow his pathetic "advice" lest we all wouldn't have had opportunity to be born.I do think the world is growing more urban and more "artificial" with its ever rising human population. But humans seem to be better off for it, and people are better fed. In fact, better nutrition seems the most likely factor for the earlier puberty people are having now. Obesity is a growing problem even in China. I heard a news report not long ago, that even the dogs in China are becoming obese. And some poster on another forum, suggested a new population theory, that "too much" food encourages "wild" population growth, at least in the animal kingdom. Perhaps it might be similar with humans? Well which is it? "Too much" or "too little" food? Or is it just an obsession to find or make up bad news?Adding more mouths to the world, most likely will lead to more food production, not more hunger. I saw something about the rate of hunger declining through the world, probably at www.overpopulation.comI think it cool to see former farmland converted to suburbs and human housing. I think it is cool to see more areas inhabited, more cities and towns being built and urban sprawl gobbling up ever more land especially if driven naturally by natural increase, or urban areas growing closer together or even coelescing, so that all the more people may live and experience life, at least somewhere. Agriculture is rather "old" technology, and if it ever came to be needed, I think food production in the future could tend towards becoming more synthetic and less agricultural, freeing up land not to give back to forests or nature, but to be inhabited by the rising human population. The Biblical solution to population growth, way back in Genesis, is not "birth control" but to spread out, as Abraham and Lot's growing tribes did, to better accomodate their welcome growth. Well in today's world, as the frontiers are pretty much "gone," that means more urbanized areas, and somewhat less rural areas.People keep leaving and depopulating the countryside, in search of the opportunity and jobs of the cities. I think it would be cool for people to move back to the rural areas, but now at urban densities, because there is getting to be so many of us.Not only will all the future people "fit" on the planet, but the people can both survive and thrive, at least with good leadership. Wouldn't it be prudent to plan for and welcome population growth, as there is perhaps no civilized way to stop it?In reply to:9imagine the riots and revolutions, and corruption) that human population "control" would bring? Procreating gives the people something to do, to keep them out of trouble. Parents with dependents, tend to be more conservative and responsible members of society, as they have dependents dependent on them, and they care for the welfare of their children.
-
In every forum you have avoided my question...how do you plan on supporting your large family?
-
You're all walking us in circles with you're babbling Pronatalist, making up shit so you can at least sound like you're right. Well whatever your opinion is, no one agrees with you yet, so I suggest you quit. You keep insisting future generations would love to live. How do you know? They don't exist yet you freak! We already talked about this. I know you just want to have the last word because you're a control freak, but just quit it already. Dammit!
-
In reply to:
I think it cool to see former farmland converted to suburbs and human housing. I think it is cool to see more areas inhabited, more cities and towns being built and urban sprawl gobbling up ever more land especially if driven naturally by natural increase, or urban areas growing closer together or even coelescing, so that all the more people may live and experience life, at least somewhere
You are a fricken idiot. Yeah I just love seeing expanses of tract home, streets and cars. Why don't we just pave over every possible inch of earth. You should just go stick your head in a hole in the ground and go live in your own fantasy world. Your endless babble is really tiring as noone agrees with your nonsense. Go argue your nonsense with your own circle of wackos.
How about this?
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&e=3&u=/nm/environment_europe_warming_dc
Maybe more people would help???
-
In reply to: just quit it already. Dammit! word! when people go on, and on, and on....just do like I do my girlfriend...smile and nod! lol
-
I agree with you SDP... I mean, all that farmland used up... imagine, 30% less farmland to fit 50% more people in... oh crap. Now they haven't got enough food. Too bad, now the population is going down because people are starving!