Huge sections of it are outback and wilderness. You can not economically build a large modern city in these areas. The world really only has so many ideal city sites.
Vegas is completely unsustainable on its own. It requires vast amounts of water every day. Dubai has similar sustainability problems... they are wealthy cities so they can afford it... for now. There is reason why Egyptian civilization was great... the Nile.
People say, oh just change the water systems, drain this here and that there and we're good. The Soviets tried this with the Aral sea. That ended up backfiring on them very, very badly. It is now more like the Aral puddle.
@AspiringPotato Man I just see human potential at this point as above the problem of water. Human beings can find a way to live in the most hostile, unsustainable areas. Point that I was trying to make was that over-population is not the real problem. We can do anything. And we will either be used as peasants or as kings.
Population is a contributing factor. Resources are limited. Obviously the systems are complex and a large differences can be made by making efficient decisions here or improving engineering there, but number of people is still part of a this very complex equation. So far the only known method for living in a "hostile unsustainable" area is to constantly bring in supplies from outside, which is the opposite of sustainable.
@AspiringPotato Not with our grid layout current city cutout platform human beings have enslaved themselves with. Look, you could make a floating city, you could make wireless energy (sun). You could filter water, run it down magnetic pipes, grow fields... I mean we haven't grown SHIT. We haven't solved the problems of the planet because we CANT because we are RULED, but I promise you, we live on the most fertile, most rich, most living orb in a great distance
SO many ignorant people on the street. BUT don't trust a journalist. They PICK the stupidest people's COMMENTS. People know that the solution is simple, as one mans in this video said, "Increse the water supply, stupid". What amazes me is just how many ABSOLUTLY STUPID people there really are on the street where you live! They have no concept of the maths of compound growth. And they are the reason why PLANNING is perpetually stuffed up! But at least Nature will be Nature. People have no idea.
During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, biologist Dr. Eric R. Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.
Chapter 1 : An Intact Woman : “You don't need a hysterectomy. It can do you more harm than good. /// Those are strong words, but the fact is that more than 90 percent of hysterectomies are unnecessary. Worse, the surgery can have long-lasting physical, emotional, and sexual consequences that may undermine your health and well-being...” Fr. "The Hysterectomy Hoax" (1994) by Stanley West, M.D. with Paula Dranov
Water can be recycled and reused indefinitely if the infra-technostructure is correctly planned and designed and constructed. Such a system has been in used in Southern California for decades and nobody ever gave it any notice nor copied it because of vested geopolitical and economic interests. Atmospheric water generators powered by safe nuclear power (Russian BREST reactors) can add to the supply, our reactors consumes it's nuclear wastes and recycles it's nuclear fuel indefinitely.
Using primitive agriculture the population sustained is around 7 to 10 million. Using advanced organic mechanized agriculture (chinampas, terra-preta soil, rock dust remineralization, agricultural recycling, vertical farming, organic non-circulating hydroponics, multiple-cropping, insecticidal plants, etc) 20 to 200 billion can be sustained indefinitely. We Russians knew about such things a long time ago but human selfishness-induced power mad ideology like Malthus stands in the way of plenty!
@meadowfabricsdotcom - Wrong. It can be twisted by such ideology, but the idea of overpopulation is from straightforward practicality, and altuisim i.e preventing the dark side of human nature that emerges from excessive competition for scarce resources.
Is it not possible to have a more intelligent debate? How stupid is the argument that the price of oil is increasing or the number of cars are too many so LET'S REDUCE POPULATION???? That's like saying we have a classroom with 100 students and 50 books. REDUCE THE STUDENTS!! uhh, how about increase the books.
but that means cutting down trees, which means no more Oxygen, which means no more students.
There's only so much material on earth and so much useable energy coming in.
You might think you're the smartest species that ever lived but nature has spen tbillions of years using a parallel supercomputer (i.e. the physical world) coming up with methods of harnessing all the energy.
Its designs are still beyond anything we can engineer.
@walter0bz well let's get there. the problem is with ingenuity, not population. if people are hungry, it's not because there is not enough food on the planet. it's only because they are not getting it. there were starving people when the population was half a billion. at that point people could have said let's reduce the population, that's the problem! well, we are feeding far more than half a billion now.
@phil8888 - so, whilst fossil fuels remain, we can have people limited only by inginuity.
When they deplete, we are back to the limit based on the biosphere (rainwater, sunlight..). Estimates vary. most optimistic is 2billion.
Its all about energy.
The biosphere is like a steady income. Fossil fuels are like a lottery win.. which we've blown foolishly becoming used to a lifestyle we can't sustain.
>>"there were starving people when the population was half a billion. at that point people could have said let's reduce the population, that's the problem! "
- What they should have done is counted: for every death allow one birth. Then population would have remained stable instead of exploding and landing us with this disaster.
It is like taking on lots of debt, then having lots of kids and letting them inherit it... "I spent it, paying it off is your problem!"
Thumbs up if you think aquariousprincess85 and NewPeaceOrder are retarded. Fuck!!! Go read your strar charts or pray to your invisible friend in the sky, or go fuck and make little baby morons or something. "We'll all be fine if we don't throw stuff away...we could fit everyone in Australia..." Do you imbeciles READ? I mean, things other than comics, the bible and Youtube?
The political doctrine of Multiculturalism enjoys its current supremacy due to the confluence of commercial interests and those of the transnational governing oligarchy. Large Corporations benefit from cheap immigrant labor and from the downward push on regional wage rates caused by the influx of poor immigrants to wealthier countries.The transnational oligarchy benefit from the shifting and churning of populations, which tends to dilute national identities and atomize the population.
Agreed. If only people in the West would wake up & DEMAND their governments to stop catering to businesses & STOP immigration, it's destroying & impoverishing the countries.
Australia's population is going to stop growing and then decline within a hundred years. Its going to happen. The sooner this happens though, the easier the transition will be. Whats the point of growing our population to 50 million, then 100 million in the meantime? Will it improve our quality of life?
Govts want MORE people to increase the tax collection. Churches want more people so they can brainwash their children and fill their coffers. Corporations want more people so they can lower the wages of all industrialized civilizations and increase their bottom lines. Overpopulation is horrible for every country on the planet. And since we have ignored the warnings we are now seeing huge immigration issues that will not be solved without conflict. Its time to grow up and silence the idiots.
After reading many of these responses, I can't help but feel sad. So many people just don't understand the gravity of the problem. Many people are expecting science to save them. Many of these religious philosophies are even worse. "God wants us to populate the world".....and what not use our brains? It is a mathematical fact that if we don't address overpopulation now, our existence could be in jeopardy. We have great minds in this world and this is not an issue to simply brush off.
It's nice to hear ourselves referred to as a "peak research body" here- and nicer still would be if the government actually listened. The two great levers the government uses to push our numbers ever upwards, against the will of most Australians, are immigration and baby bonuses. How interesting that the interview with Jenny Goldie cut any reference to the first of those two factors...
Yeah fuck it lets drop the borders let every cunt in. Don't even worry about a flag we'll just put up a welcome matt. Fly that. Nothings better then ecnomic growth I get richer everytime someone crosses the border.
You can't have a sustainable population without a sustainable economy! You cant have a sustainable anything without a sustainable economy!! Perpetual economy, perpetual growth!
ur an idiot. perpetual growth? so what will you do when population ecceeds the balance between agriculture land and animals? people think of perpetual growth and they dont think about population growth... if this continues there will be a time when we use more space of whats needed for us to produce... therefore we cant grow because we cant produce because of overpopulation. Read more and learn more... ignorant. perpetual growth can only work with 100million ppl, nor more.
Man haha, I think you need to learn more. The economic system is a perpetual growth system, it means the more it grows the more it needs to grow, if it doesn't grow then we have a recession or a great depression. This is why we consume more and more and need mass immigration. The average Australian birth rate is not enough to keep up with the growth of the economy.
You've hit the nail on the head. We all benefit from this crazy perpetual-growth system, so no one really wants it to stop. But stop it must. Nothing can grow forever.
@JuanJoseFaOrTi Ignorant, it has been shown that you can fit 7billion people into a portion of Australia. Not as an ideal living situation, but as a measure of just how few people there are for how much space there is on this planet. It would take possibly hundreds of thousands of years of furious baby making for our physical presence to rival that of land itself. A ridiculous argument.
@JuanJoseFaOrTi The Earth can only sustain so much. It's not like we'll all be standing shoulder to shoulder from one end of the Earth to the other with no room to move. There's plenty more water and food, and we have the capability to build megafarms but we don't. What you call perpetual growth is just your hoping that you'll be chosen to survive if the govt decides to murder lots of people for supporting their agenda.
They probably don't mind that in this struggle against Nature, we won't always win. We'll suffer great losses because we are disrupting the planet's natural mechanisms. Our presence here in such large numbers can only be imposed artificially, and at great cost. It's the cost one has to pay for... keeping sex "natural". That's the big priority. At least according to pronatalist's words.
Why would you buy into the pagan nonsense that living "naturally" must mean living in poverty or without some "artificial" means in support of our already huge pop size? Are you willing to give up the natural gas or electricity that allows you to cook your food cleanly in big cities without respiratory-problem smoke? Or would you give up your denser-pop-accommodating toilet? Whatever for?
We need a proper mix of artificial and natural. Chosen for good of people, Go on multiplying!
It's you who prefers poverty over "artificiality" (i.e. contraception). A couple with limited resources may have the means to live comfortably with one child, but not with five or six or ten or whatever "God bestows" upon them as the result of not using contraception. The result is poverty. The same analogy can be used for us as a whole. The planet IS limited, the more of us there are, the poorer the planet becomes in terms of natural biodiversity, and each one of us becomes poorer too.
Why do you insist upon believing in nothing, or believing in the wrong things? Why you do buy into a "fixed pie" world view? Resources aren't something for you to steal from others. So why not make more useful things to go around for more people, or for yourself? The world is not a "fixed pie."
Contraceptives cost money, money poor people lack.
Yes, I know the planet is limited, that's why I advocate for populous planet, and allowing the world to naturally grow denser and denser.
What about today's bewildering array of shoddy Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons, would logically compel us to use any of them? Nothing. On the list of "family planning" options, there still is the "no method" method. Why all the deception? Even if removed from the list, isn't the natural "no method" method still there, even if some radicals try to hide it? Shouldn't it be at the top of the list, and not the bottom? Can't balkers protest against hindering flow of babies?
@pronatalist the government shouldnt be the one to impose this... we should be intelligent enough to do so... im not saying dont have kids... im saying be responsble and dont have 20 kids... the government should say that were only allowed to have 1. UNTIL THIS OVERPOPULATION CRISIS IS OVER... not forever. or maybe make the birth rate a little lower than the death rate... when we reach a good balance then we equal it. and we stay the same number forever from then on.
A way that even this populous planet can be made to hold quite a lot more people. There can simply come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. People naturally figure this out, especially people with a proper sense of truth and who are smart. People with freedom tend to figure such things out. Put more people into more places. When they say There's places all around to put more people, doesn't that really mean, they want to pop denser?
@pronatalist u have to understand that u cant only fill the world... u have to let room for agriculture, mining, fishing, etc etc... if u get a denser pop, then there wont be enough resourses for everyone just like today. And getting more and more resourses starts to get more expensive than selling them.
@JuanJoseFaOrTi african and asian population will never stop. what would u recomend? we all stop and they hrow until they invade us.??? we need to think the space we live. less feminism ,and let mens do they job.
stop growing food to feed food : Go Vegan - Feed the world
WATER... are we kidding... WATER?!?!?!? its everywhere.. if the military has technology and is able to filter 1000sss of gallons with REVERSE OSMOSIS.. this is not new people... then we can use it everywhere to clean water and hydrate people and crops... WAKE UP
@JuanJoseFaOrTi You have to understand that the reason there isn't enough for everyone now is because we throw away 90% of everything we create and then just bury it in the ground or drop it in the ocean. There would be enough resouces if we would stop living like pigs.
@NewPeaceOrder While decreasing consumption will go so far it won't touch the other half of the equation. The equation I mean is IMPACT (as in total resource use)= consumption per capita multiplied by population. It is easier to reduce the population (this is happening in some countries) through voluntary contraception and education access than it is to reduce someones consumption. (which rarely happens in any country).
@phillips78 There are thousands of alternatives and solutions to the consumtion issue. Do your homework before jumping to conclusions. There are easily renewable materials that can replace petroleum products, and there are multiple means of recycling all of the resources we've already used. If you are dead set on reducing population, start with yourself. Us smart folks have already figured out ways to have our cake and eat it, too. Just have to get the retards out of power.
there are measures that can be taken, the single most important is population control - if we can do that by educating eachother then we can avert the next Stalin, Hitler, Mao doing it retroactively 20 years from now.
If you are so gung ho about renewables - PROVE it. set up/join a renewable powered commune, and SHOW what population density you can support.
if you can't afford the land... thats a function of excessive demand (population)
Its quite simple. earth can support maybe 1billion, 2billion best case 0.5billion worst case when we remove the effect of fossil fuels. roman civ supported 300m peak, pre-industrial cib peaked at 800m but they were still using Fossil Fuels to extend carryingcapacity i.e. Coal (heating, metal extraction..);
steam engine was developed first to pump water out of coal-mines I do beleive.
For ecofriendly living, we need to get back to number that was possible before we used coal.
it should be fairly obvious that switching farmland to solar panels can't multiply crop yields.
You're probably using a stat that solar could provide all electricity & we could use elec more efficiently - This fails to account for the most important uses of FF based energy i.e. chemical warfare on rival lifeforms (pesticides) & turning fossil-fuel into surpluss humans (fertilizer)
@NewPeaceOrder I have done my homework, 15 years of it. read the oregon state university report on family planning, an environmental perspective. In addition look up jevons paradox. Your ad hominems weaken your argument. Voluntary Family planning reduces impact many more times than any other environmentally friendly ethical practice you would care to name. Any consumer consumes, only a lack of an extra consumer through voluntary contraception means no consumption. p.s. it's cheaper too.
@NewPeaceOrder You have just written what is known as a non sequitur. While solar power has the potential to be greater than fossil fuels (which are themselves stored solar energy) it does not follow that producing less worthless crap (a subjective statement) has a greater effect than voluntary contraception on reducing our impact on the Earth. I say again read the OSU report on family planning. Thanks.
@phillips78 Any argument for population reduction is just as subjective as worthless consumer products. The difference is, one puts value on human life, and the other puts equal and in many cases, greater value on consumer products. 1 inheirently has the potential to help with the enourmous clean up that is inevitable if we ever stop our careless production practices, the other provides no positive side effects and increases the problem. Tough call? Thanks.
@NewPeaceOrder An argument for population reduction through voluntray contraception is based on objective peer reviewed science in the millennium ecosystem assessment, and many other studies. Please note, I am not disagreeing that we need to consume less, we do need to use less, but to ignore the other side of the coin i.e. population is foolish.
@phillips78 My primary issue with population control/reduction is that it implies continuing current wasteful practices into the next 5 decades or more, when it's quite obvious that we needed extreme reform 5 decades ago. Pushing for changes that lessen the obligation for companies to practice more eco-friendly methods now, instead of in the next 50years or so, is foolish.
@NewPeaceOrder As i said three times or more already, i am not against improving eco-friendly methods right now, but by ignoring population you neglect half of the equation of impact. Impact=population multiplied by consumption per capita. You cannot ignore population, do you see what I mean?
@phillips78 Do you see that there is no serious movement towards stopping excessive waste and pollution, but huge steps in population control have been emplimented throughout the world for decades? No one is ignoring population. The problem is, no one is doing anything to curb the amount of waste and pollution. Keep in mind that the vast majority of consumers also have the lowest population densities. America = 4% population and 40% resource consumption.
@NewPeaceOrder If you look at the number of NGO's and govt's spending money on reducing waste and pollution it is far in exces of NGO's spending money on voluntray contraception. As i said before both issues need looking at but reducing population through voluntray means is both easier and more effective at reducing impact than trying to reduce waste alone and ignoring population. No one is ignoring waste, it's just hard to deal with with 7 billion of us.
@phillips78 You missed the primary point of my last comment. The people reproducing the most are also using the least resources. So how can reducing their numbers be more effective than reducing the amount of waste being produced by industry?
Voluntary contraception is not the primary means of population control being utilized. Funding for it pales in comparison to vaccination and clandestine government ops designed to create instability in developing nations.
@NewPeaceOrder To clarify:1) I would like to see a fall in TFR in ALL countries, not just poor ones, one less high consumption kid means 5 or more in poverty will then have the resources to escape it. Voluntary contraception/education in how to use it will drop TFR's further and have a bigger effect than trying to just reduce waste. Voluntray contraception is the highest funded method for reducing TFR's. Vaccinations help reduce child mortality which reduces need for big families-fact.
>>"no serious movement towards stopping excessive waste and pollution,"
er......have you heard of global warming, carbon taxes copenhagen summit etc ?
you might have noticed this in the media "occasionally".
infact,
the pollution issue is brought up more frequently than peak oil and the overpopulation issue. few leaders are brave enough to specify that rising population is the problem (except in china)
@walter0bz There is an enourmous difference between making money from waste and trying to stop it. You should look into the numerous blatant contradictions in all of the examples you listed. Hint: You probably won't find it on tv.
>>"There is an enourmous difference between making money from waste and trying to stop it."
- when you *consume* you're *wasting* money.
So: there is already strong financial incentive for everyone to minimize their consumption.. the more spartan a life you lead, the greater your *personal* profit & hence future security.
We had a problem with credit lately; perhaps the population is mentally deficient not to figure out the above?
even if 99% of the oil was being wasted on worthless crap,
that wouldn't change the fact that when you lose the 1% oil that multiplies Crop yields, the surpluss people (~5billion) will starve.
oh,
and Fossil Fuels ARE solar power, that accumulated for millions of years.
Also:- i'm interested to know if solar panels can be constructed without using fossil fuels for mining & manufacture... if they could desert nations would be self-sufficient utopias LMAO
@walter0bz There is no waste product from harnessing direct solar radiation.
The GMO monocrops that are malnurishing the world goes mostly to waste and not to feeding the people who can't afford to buy them. There IS enough food, most of it simply gets thrown away.
>>"There IS enough food, most of it simply gets thrown away."
only while we have fossil fuels to make it - overproduction is possible.
its like in a high performance CPU which performs redundant calculations in branching situations, 'thrown away' to acheive maximum performance. (takes more energy to sort that out).
@walter0bz People who demand worthless crap are the ones fueling the destruction of the world, not people starving with nothing. You are the surplus. Kill yourself.
@walter0bz The majority of people in the most crowded areas don't even have electricity. Let alone video games. You have no idea what is going on in the rest of the world.
People instinctively need space to themselves.. its a well known fact. Thats why, given the choice, they have seperate appartments/houses seperating out families instead of living in one big happy commune.
Obviously having a desert island to yourself would be no fun,but theres' a balance to be struck.
@borthwey Exactly, this has nothing to do with money... "kindof" the more ppl there is, the more resourses used and the more money and energy used to process those products... anyway if u overpopulate, then everything becomes scarse therefore becomes expensive and thats when rich get richer and poor get poorer.
Some claim to have reverence for God and yet have no reverence at all for this planet, which is God's greatest gift. They are willing to destroy all of its incredible biodiversity. They probably have no interest at all in the many species of animals and plants that exist, and all the natural ecosystems. Their views on human reproduction just reflect their egoism and short-sightedness. If everything is just turned into farms, factories and huge, endless cities everything is fine with them.
Do you not believe in freedom, the individual, self-determination, respecting the dignity of people? If so, there is no moral nor practical way of imposing any arbitrary "limit" upon other people's childbearing. Biblical ethics clearly places responsibility for providing for and loving children, but not in imposing any unnatural "limit" upon rising numbers.
If we are headed towards huge, endless cities, no proper way to stop it, need to embrace, although growth likely more modest.
You also fail to consider, that humans are just as able to enjoy having their traditionally very large families, inside of huge megacities, and that the more spacious land of the past, is not necessary for continued natural family growth. The natural growth of huge cities, does not reduce the basic human right to procreate, one iota
While people are free to spread out if/as they can, there's also the perceptional dimensions of naturally spreading closer together and into highrises
Yes, the Bible is really useless in what concerns many of today's problems. I mean, a first grade child knows more about the planet we live in than the highest scholar back then possibly could. They certainly didn't have a clue of what the future would bring.
What do you know of the Bible? How much have you read?
Your 1st grader is confused by enviro-wacko propaganda. Your 1st grader has no idea of his or her own family budget.
The more of us there are, the more of us there are who want to live, and the more people there are who want children. Thus, our natural pop growth should be thought "uncontrollable" and unstoppable. Our ancestors were fine with that, because they believed to multiply, and more in freedom, than today's Marxism.
What I know about the Bible is that it is a collection of texts whose supposedly "divine" origin is highly questionable. Actually, they can't even be traced back to their supposed authors. Besides Jesus, only Judas knew how to write. The texts which came to us trace from many centuries later and are filled with errors and falsifications, many of them deliberate. They just served as a tool for the cults which have since emerged to gain immense wealth and unlimited power.
So in other words, you know little or nothing about the Bible? Noah Webster (of dictionary fame), said that the things around us could not have made themselves. So what excuse have you?, for even nature tells you there must be some Creator God.
Aren't you being awfully liberal or sloppy with the evolution idea that people used to be stupid, and are evolving to be smarter? Many people were literate enough to write, even back 2000 years ago. News tells us we are as stupid as ever!
I make no argument over the existence of a Creator. But one thing is the real, original Creator or Originator, and another thing is what we create in our heads. Actually in this regard, we are the creators of God. Not of the real God, but of this God that we have made up and which is full of humans traits. That actually is THE biggest heresy, to claim that God is this and that when in fact, we don't have a clue, and neither did those who wrote those ancient scribblings that you hold so dear.
These cults have lasted to this very day. One of the things that Jmmanuel (the real name of the person that was later called "Jesus") taught was about reincarnation. Each person has a spirit that doesn't die and which, over thousands of lifetimes with different personalities, keeps accumulating abilities that each new incarnation receives unconsciously. This is called the human stage of the spirit's evolution. But without damnation and hell, how could the church have power over the believers?
If you knew much anything about religion, you would know that reincarnation heresy comes from false Eastern religions, also there is a huge connection between Eastern superstition/religion, and radical UNSCIENTIFIC "environmentalism." Not really about care for people or nature, but rebellious worship of God's creation, and not of God
Bible clearly says it is given unto man once to die, then the judgment. No hopeless life-misery reincarnation cycle - Was it somebody's idea of hell?
All that this massive swelling of our numbers has made is that spirits are able to spend less time in the beyond. Thus, the experiences of the previous life have not been completely assimilated by the time the spirit returns to enliven a new personality. In some cases, this causes children to vividly remember their previous lives and to identify themselves with their previous personality.
Why are you still alluding to reincarnation?, after I already showed you it is a heresy. If you make wrong assumptions, wouldn't that perhaps lead to even more wrong conclusions? In finding truth, seek out the correct information, to better reason clearly.
Why do you assume "this massive swelling of our numbers," to be unnatural or to be abnormal? I find it consistent with God's commandment, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Human pop "stabilization," is abnormal.
Now is not the time to fight against our huge human numbers. Why make enemies of so many people who could be our allies or friends?
"It is high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to move on in an orderly transition to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist
We don't have much choice anyway. Nature favors growth. God apparently does also. The huge numbers are already here, want to be free, want to have children. We must GO FORWARD.
In 1999, officially, India grew to the "population billionaire" prestigious level. Now I hear, they have 1.2 billion people. Apparently, even a developing poor country already with "plenty" of people, somehow found place for another 200 million people. Only 7% of people live in countries where pop isn't growing, I read somewhere.
Don't you suppose there could be very good reasons why so many parents just have to keep having their darling precious babies? I do. Have a heart, ADAPT.
This planet will last for many millions of years more. There is enough time for everyone to be born. There is no need to rush things and try to turn every egg that every woman produces into another human. We have brains and a reasoning ability, and we are meant to use them. We are meant to become smarter, that is the whole purpose for our existence. As we become smarter, we are able to control more and more aspects of our lives. It's this reasoning ability that distinguishes us from animals.
Your assumptions are highly questionable. I find your claim that the planet will last for many more millions of years, quite improbable, and unreasonable, because it doesn't fit the Biblical timeline, and runaway comets, asteroids, or human error, is far more fallible than that.
Large families allow more unique human lives to be lived, than if fewer babies are born. It is far better to live even upon an overcrowded urbanized world, than to not live at all, due to too few births.
"runaway comets, asteroids, or human error" don't invalidate the fact that the planet will stand. Civilization may end and the human race may become extinct (or not). Nevertheless, a few tens of millions of years is enough time for the planet to be refurbished with new life and a new breed of humans to come along, whether they have evolved from small mammals after thousands of generations or have been "instantaneously created by God".
This "massive swelling of our numbers," now is necessary, for our continued experiencing of life. We can't reasonably help we are now so numerous. Can a person be half a person? Of course not.
Who cares about the planet, if I am gone, if you are gone, if everybody is gone? There you go with the pagan nature worship. Worship God, not his creation.
Human life is no evolutionary "accident." It is valuable, fragile, created by God.
@pronatalist , still pushing the same BS even here right pronatalist? Maybe if you would stop pushing your religion that is uncivilized and full of idiocy, you could actually take the time and learn the truth. Anyone who does not support limiting population is a fool and quite stupid. Hows the ministry treating you these days?
Remember also that life exists across the Universe, in millions of planets during briefer or longer periods (even if the Bible doesn't mention it). There will never be lack of opportunities for spirits to incarnate and attain their evolution into higher realms, until they finally merge with Creation (or God, if you want to call it such).
Why do you claim, as if fact, life exists across the universe? Not a shred of evidence to support your claim. You don't know the difference between fact, religion, superstition, wishful thinking, confusion, or outright deception?
We know there is opportunity for babies to be born NOW. What do you know about -later? Will you be alive tomorrow? Will your country exist unconquered next year? Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says Earth destroyed to make way for hyper-galactic bypass.
Have you not noticed how humans are figuring out how to builder huger and denser cities that actually function better? People need not be so crowded, for they can also be allowed to keep the fruits of their labors, build economies and freedom, reduce poverty, spread out or stack people up into highrises and skyscrapers.
Pop phobics promote not playing nice together. We pronatalists/pro-lifers promote the social graces, and how we can better ADAPT to growing more dense, if need be
The increase of large dense cities and industrialization are causing high carbon emissions, and lower food/water quality and safety issues among other human rights violations in developing countries. This results in larger amounts of disease and large destructive weather events. How can you promote "social gracies" without considering that overpopulation reduces the quality of life of your children? That is selfish?
I am not saying for everybody to live in large dense cities. And God scrambled the languages and scattered the people who rebelled at Babel. Natural growth of huge human pop isn't the only reason for the increase of large dense cities, although it could seem to be a factor.
But for babies to continue to be born into a world with already so many people, letting cities grow larger and denser, is an obvious way to find/make/allow place for everybody and their possibly many children
Human rights violations, surely must give fair consideration to the basic and primal right to procreate. They say that denying the right to procreate is but one small step from denying the right to live.
Our ancestors, easily accepted pop is what it is. It wasn't something we could "control" or manipulate. People used to believe in freedom, and used to have some faith in God and his ways. Now socialism and paganism is rampant, and reasoning sloppy.
If we don't reproduce, what of all the other millions and billions of people living in cities, who will reproduce regardless? It's not fair to blame all the babies coming to life, for the dense urbanization. They aren't the ones doing the infrastructure building, or lack of, or deciding where it is they will come to be born into.
Letting babies die is cruel. The artificial can be used, where beneficial to man, such as artificial pop supports - example: vaccines, toilets, faucets.
Who's asking anybody to change? Aren't I advocating more for the traditional childbearing? I say those who are reproducing babies, are free to go on doing so.
I like my freedom to reproduce, and would rather not reduce natural childbearing, to accommodate your less important desire for a bit of personal space and open nature
There's plenty of spacious spaces left for you, for the foreseeable future, but in a world steadily filling with people, expect some sprawl + more neighbors
If you were the 10th child born to a family with 10 children, would you dare criticize your parents for letting their family grow so large? Wouldn't they simply respond, If we didn't have so many children, where would you be? No, "you" wouldn't be born to somebody else, for it wouldn't be "you," nor would there be so many people alive.
Similar, how dare we criticize God for letting the world pop grow huge? Most of us were among those last born. What purpose for 7B? So we can live
How can you turn on your maker and say that God "let" the world pop grow large? What about slavery, famine, etc.? He gave us free will. It is irresponsible and disrespectful to make decisions and then say God "let" it happen so we dare not "criticize" it. We humans individually made our population. If we all thought about the legacy we leave our children then we would reduce our birthrates and raise the quality of life for our offspring, promoting the advancement of man and environment.
Turn on my maker? Sounds like you are making inferences assuming a different maker God, than the one I believe in. Read the Bible carefully, and find it does indeed promote large families and the natural growth of world pop.
I want to leave our children a great legacy, all the more reason to welcome babies to happen as they happen and welcome human pops to rise naturally.
God commanded we humans multiply, so that makes God responsible for determining our pop size. Let us GROW!
We don't have the reasonable option of eliminating half the world's people. Will China accept we get rid of all Chinese? We don't have the option of limiting married couples to only a child or two. Sometimes more come. They insist babies come from God, not gov.
Why can't people understand anymore, pop is what it is? There is no option but to allow it bulge and swell, as a naturally advancing pregnancy would. How can I explain it for your better understanding? Await your reply.
@pronatalist I cannot understand because I control population growth by claiming the gift of free will and intelligence that God has given me. It offends me that you choose to blame God as if you are not in active participant in this life. Are you sure God in his merciful wisdom would prefer his people destroy the earth, his creatures, & cause their children to suffer due to a lack of basic resources versus control their population creating a life of abundance and sustainability for all?
What sense is there in letting world pop swell to the present 7 Billion? Well we are here now. Not much can be done about it, but to make the best of things. Which half of the people do you want to eliminate? What purpose is there in having a world with so many? Well people just had to have their offspring, and nobody wanted to be told how many they would be allowed to have. So successive generations naturally grew ever larger and more populous
What is this hyping of the word "finite?" How can people enjoy having "all the children that God gives," in a world of so many people alive already? Simple. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. In a "finite" world, far more people can easily fit or be made to fit, by allowing human bodies to live and procreate, closer and closer together as numbers eagerly rise. No nasty unnatural "birth control" needed. Let babies push out!
If the world was headed towards becoming "a sardine can," I see no practical nor moral way to stop the natural process. The most fertile people would go on multiplying regardless. Already, people are becoming more used to high pop density and adapting.
Don't confuse poverty with rising density. The world can hold or be made to hold lots more people, and allowing density to rise is the alternative to needless tyranny and baseless "Use birth control" hype. Let humans grow denser!
It's sad that overpopulation having been talked about back in the '70's has evaporated in the heat of this global warming scam. No new dams were built, drought ensued. Build a dam now & you're pelted with insults because they say there's no rain to fill it. Nobody wants a desalination plant in their town either. When it rains again the naysayers won't be found. Australia's last Prime Minister said "populate or perish" without the good sense to understand this arid country can't support it.
Sooner or later, most all the fearmongering lies are found to be scams. The world has more people alive than ever, and yet the fashionability of overpop talk has faded. How is it that it seems most everybody just instictively seems to know, we are supposed to allow mothers to breastfeed in public? Because people are now in every room and there is little privacy? Or is it simply that people also eat in public and it's politically incorrect to be so anti-child to object?
It's politically incorrect. Much like it's virtually a moral and personal insult to use a mobile phone on a train or bus in Japan.
My problem with overpopulation is this:
We have barely the oil reserves to last until 2050. At a growth of a mere 7% the population doubles every 10 years. In the next 40-50 years there'll be 9 billion people that need resources. Do we continue until each person occupies a mere square metre on which to live? At that rate it won't be long.
So then there is at least one small benefit to "political correct" groupthink? Somehow liberal retards have figured out that it is natural and proper to allow breastfeeding in public places? I agree with allowing breastfeeding most anywhere, but because I believe families should be welcome to grow large, naturally, and "unplanned," and such pro-life people may be rather "relaxed" about continually having so many babies.
I think we can "overlook" breast exposure in public, if there is a hungry baby around to explain for it. I hear mothers commonly breastfeed in public in developing countries, and don't we happen to live in an increasingly populous world? So why not make some reasonable accommodations for human life to go on naturally expanding?
Even if lots more people just let their babies "pop out" as they come, 7% annual growth is quite unlikely. But a few more Bs will come! Allow urban sprawl.
Fear of overpop is so overrated. People ought to be far more concerned about the explosion of government debt and related economic fraud linked to fiat paper currency back by little or nothing of real value.
If people can continue to reproduce at only a sq. meter, more power to them. Poor people often are cramped, husband and wife sleep on top of each other, so obviously babies happen!
Artificial methods have side effects, more natural requires too much willpower. Let babies come!
Only 12% of the Earth's surface is arable land, the rest is desert, frozen mountains and oceans.
If you put one bacterium in a bottle at 11am which had a doubling rate of 1 minute, the bottle's half full at 1159 and choked at 1200. If you then find 3 more bottles for this to grow into, you have only 2 minutes until all 4 bottles are full. Population might seem relaxed now, but when the problem happens it'll happen fast! China's 1 child policy doesn't help them in their bottle.
You think I don't know about exponential growth? Surely it was God's idea from the start, as Adam and Eve's many descendants also apparently inherited the natural ability to reproduce.
I agree with urging huge, burgeoning country populations to grow naturally and rapidly, as more and more people would be glad to live.
Surely even clueless liberals would agree that as human pops grow, we have to let growing numbers become sexually active. Fine with me, within responsible families.
Not forgetting that this 12% of arable land we also live on in our urban sprawls. At this rate of population growth it'll be impossible for technology to find a way to get us billions off this planet and find another. This planet has a remaining habitability of 0.5Bn years, which we won't make unless we control population growth. If we don't keep it in check, nature will do it for us with wars, famine and disease. A disastrous consequence for all.
There is no need to impose pop "control" upon humans. It's their own homes that they are populating first. Like they don't know what makes babies nor what they are doing? There are ample ways to better accomodate vaster and denser pops.
Technology so far, hasn't moved much in the direction of transporting blossoming billions to more worlds, but rather towards more densely and efficiently settling this one. So let the planet naturally become "pregnant" with people, bulging proudly.
Finally, with everyone occupying their square metre on all our arable land, where do we grow our crops? We'll be akin to a seething mass of maggots in roadkill. But if the food runs out before we can grow wings, we're a dead mass of maggots.
In poor countries, the results are already seen. They've outgrown their bottles and the stronger kill the weaker. Not fair.
To pander to your own selfish instincts while ignoring the consequences becomes a disaster for all.
And isn't it the evil pop phobics who encourage corrupt economics, destroy jobs by debasing paper fiat currencies, and promote "survival of the fittest," exploitation of the poor? I say Let's be reasonable and Adapt, and if people so much like having so many babies, let them spread out and grow denser, as may come to be needed.
3 perceptional dimensions yet to grow into: Outwards, Inwards, and Upwards. People can have their big families, even in overcrowded growing huge megacities.
I don't buy the pop scare tactics. Yes, expect more billions during our lifetimes if the Lord Jesus doesn't come back or the Rapture occurs during the next few years. But a little urban sprawl here and there easily accommodates that, well into the foreseeable future.
Growing numbers of countries now have more people than acres of land. They should do their part to help the world hold far more people, by growing denser via their own natural increase. So many benefit, so keep GROWING
Forseeable future? For you maybe. That's just INSANE. You say you understand exponential growth, but I see no evidence of it except a complete disregard of the ramifications.
Further, if you expect your god to save you, and he has never and isn't saving anyone that's starving or mass-murdered, you're on your own. Mass population is the problem, not the solution. So I see your idea of solving the problem is to become it? Damn!
To consider foreseeable future is enough, as any basic student of statistics should know, extrapolating too far from known data, results in wildly inaccurate predictions.
You think natural growth in numbers of women of childbearing age, helps slow growth? No, rather it's a reason to expect and allow for growth, as the number of birth canal paths naturally rises.
I have no plan to "control" the growth, as I am not God, nor have any more control than the naturally breeding parents.
Huge, swollen pop, is a lot more comfortable and relaxed, easier to accommodate, in a pronatalist society fond of people, families, and babies. A pregnant mother's belly, should be allowed to bulge naturally in maternity clothes, or even poofed naturally/proudly out of her shirt, if she for some reason lacks maternity clothes. Same with a swollen/pregnant pop naturally "bursting at the seams."
Unless contraceptive use is increased to 75%, we may face a Baby Blast? Bring it on then!
With all the scientists and supposedly educated people the world now has, why is there so little reasonable thought about how huger, vaster, denser pops might possibly be better accommodated?
The populous multitudes are already here, and at somewhat for the time-being, numbers continue to gradually mount. The people aren't the problem, but rather the evil control freaks and corrupt politicians. If the world grows more dense/urbanized and people still want large families, why not?
Why do you accuse me of pandering to my own selfish interests?
When I consider the long list of compelling reasons why parents may have or wish to have so many children as they do, + very powerful reproductive urges we constantly "in heat" commonly feel, what I come up with is a natural global desire to ENLARGE the entire human race for the greater good of the many
I detest lib illogical inconsistencies. HAVE MORE SEX they say. Really? So why not then more people coming alive then?
It's not about pandering to selfish interests. It's about understanding and compassion. You think human pops grow so much, just because natural sex feels so good? I think not, for who really doesn't know what makes babies? I think quite many, for whatever reasons, know what they are doing, and let their families sometimes grow naturally quite large, on purpose.
No apology for huge #s needed. A person can't be half a person. Huge pop is no excuse to reject babies, nor family growth.
You're far too comfortable in the US to make blind assumptions on how FANTASTIC it is to live in a crowded house, crowded street, crowded city without proper sanitation, jobs or food supply.
I suggest you take a long sabbatical to the poorer countries who overpopulated before they could understand the ramifications. You'll be sleeping & washing in your own filth and that of others. I urge you to try and sleep amongst thousands of crying, emaciated children, let alone the dead.
Of course I haven't been to an India slum. You think I am made of money? Airplane tickets around the world aren't cheap. But author P.J. O'Rourke of the book All the Trouble in the World; the lighter side of ... HAS. Unlike discredited pop phobic Paul Ehrlich, O'Rourke had a good time no matter it was crowded. Ehrlich only wanted to find misery and stinky people, and seemed to find it.
The people WANT to reproduce, so if they can't spread out enough, let them grow DENSE naturally
You just don't get it, do you? Even a condom would interfere with the natural flow of human life. And even condoms have the side effects of dulling sensitivity, condoms cost money, tend to not fit well, slip off, leak, etc. And certainly condoms are ARTIFICIAL.
Ideally, growing urban populations should spread out. But there is only but so much land, and human pops are now higher than ever, so letting people grow denser and denser, is a valid way to let more and more people live.
Just because human bodies are getting closer together, on average, throughout the world, doesn't obligate people to slow down their natural babymaking, nor to bother with using unnatural rubbers. It only obligates them to somehow tolerate being populated more densely together, as everybody has a right to live and procreate.
Pop growth is helping drive technology growth, which in turn expands options for denser, huger cities to operate cleaner, better. Build more cities, suburbs.
Isnt australia like...HUGE?!
deneco4 9 months ago
@deneco4
Huge sections of it are outback and wilderness. You can not economically build a large modern city in these areas. The world really only has so many ideal city sites.
AspiringPotato 9 months ago
@AspiringPotato Some asshole said that about Vegas when it was first being built in the middle of a goddamned desert.
deneco4 9 months ago
@deneco4
Vegas is completely unsustainable on its own. It requires vast amounts of water every day. Dubai has similar sustainability problems... they are wealthy cities so they can afford it... for now. There is reason why Egyptian civilization was great... the Nile.
People say, oh just change the water systems, drain this here and that there and we're good. The Soviets tried this with the Aral sea. That ended up backfiring on them very, very badly. It is now more like the Aral puddle.
AspiringPotato 9 months ago
@AspiringPotato Man I just see human potential at this point as above the problem of water. Human beings can find a way to live in the most hostile, unsustainable areas. Point that I was trying to make was that over-population is not the real problem. We can do anything. And we will either be used as peasants or as kings.
deneco4 9 months ago
@deneco4
Population is a contributing factor. Resources are limited. Obviously the systems are complex and a large differences can be made by making efficient decisions here or improving engineering there, but number of people is still part of a this very complex equation. So far the only known method for living in a "hostile unsustainable" area is to constantly bring in supplies from outside, which is the opposite of sustainable.
AspiringPotato 9 months ago
@deneco4 Exactly. People have been dupped into believing that overpopulation is a problem.
1StoryImageFigure1 1 month ago
@AspiringPotato Not with our grid layout current city cutout platform human beings have enslaved themselves with. Look, you could make a floating city, you could make wireless energy (sun). You could filter water, run it down magnetic pipes, grow fields... I mean we haven't grown SHIT. We haven't solved the problems of the planet because we CANT because we are RULED, but I promise you, we live on the most fertile, most rich, most living orb in a great distance
deneco4 1 month ago
SO many ignorant people on the street. BUT don't trust a journalist. They PICK the stupidest people's COMMENTS. People know that the solution is simple, as one mans in this video said, "Increse the water supply, stupid". What amazes me is just how many ABSOLUTLY STUPID people there really are on the street where you live! They have no concept of the maths of compound growth. And they are the reason why PLANNING is perpetually stuffed up! But at least Nature will be Nature. People have no idea.
sydneybb 10 months ago
It looks obvious on that, that females hesitant to breed and males eager for it.. :p
vishva8kumara 11 months ago
When will we stop the growth lobby?
mongbatfromhell 1 year ago
During a speech to the Texas Academy of Science in March 2006, biologist Dr. Eric R. Pianka advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the world’s population through the airborne ebola virus. The reaction from scores of top scientists and professors in attendance was not one of shock or revulsion – they stood and applauded Pianka’s call for mass genocide.
esther19741974 1 year ago
Chapter 1 : An Intact Woman : “You don't need a hysterectomy. It can do you more harm than good. /// Those are strong words, but the fact is that more than 90 percent of hysterectomies are unnecessary. Worse, the surgery can have long-lasting physical, emotional, and sexual consequences that may undermine your health and well-being...” Fr. "The Hysterectomy Hoax" (1994) by Stanley West, M.D. with Paula Dranov
AgonyInCrisis 1 year ago
Water can be recycled and reused indefinitely if the infra-technostructure is correctly planned and designed and constructed. Such a system has been in used in Southern California for decades and nobody ever gave it any notice nor copied it because of vested geopolitical and economic interests. Atmospheric water generators powered by safe nuclear power (Russian BREST reactors) can add to the supply, our reactors consumes it's nuclear wastes and recycles it's nuclear fuel indefinitely.
darthvader5300 1 year ago
Using primitive agriculture the population sustained is around 7 to 10 million. Using advanced organic mechanized agriculture (chinampas, terra-preta soil, rock dust remineralization, agricultural recycling, vertical farming, organic non-circulating hydroponics, multiple-cropping, insecticidal plants, etc) 20 to 200 billion can be sustained indefinitely. We Russians knew about such things a long time ago but human selfishness-induced power mad ideology like Malthus stands in the way of plenty!
darthvader5300 1 year ago
Are you aware that overpopulation is an idea based in racist and fascist ideology?
If not, a trip to the history section of your local library would be a good idea.
meadowfabricsdotcom 1 year ago
@meadowfabricsdotcom - Wrong. It can be twisted by such ideology, but the idea of overpopulation is from straightforward practicality, and altuisim i.e preventing the dark side of human nature that emerges from excessive competition for scarce resources.
walter0bz 1 year ago
Is it not possible to have a more intelligent debate? How stupid is the argument that the price of oil is increasing or the number of cars are too many so LET'S REDUCE POPULATION???? That's like saying we have a classroom with 100 students and 50 books. REDUCE THE STUDENTS!! uhh, how about increase the books.
phil8888 1 year ago
@phil8888 -"how about increase the books"...
but that means cutting down trees, which means no more Oxygen, which means no more students.
There's only so much material on earth and so much useable energy coming in.
You might think you're the smartest species that ever lived but nature has spen tbillions of years using a parallel supercomputer (i.e. the physical world) coming up with methods of harnessing all the energy.
Its designs are still beyond anything we can engineer.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz well let's get there. the problem is with ingenuity, not population. if people are hungry, it's not because there is not enough food on the planet. it's only because they are not getting it. there were starving people when the population was half a billion. at that point people could have said let's reduce the population, that's the problem! well, we are feeding far more than half a billion now.
phil8888 1 year ago
@phil8888
>>"there were starving people when the population was half a billion."
Yes. you are still missing the process.
before oil/coal:-
[1] Population was stable, roughly 0.5b. it took several centuries to double.
[2] TFR was maybe 3.5. 1-2 kids would die of disease, famine, or war.
high birth rate produced upward population pressure, and resource limits kept it stable.
AFTER fossil fuel age,
we used enginuity to turn fossil fuels into more people, allowing exponential growth.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@phil8888 - so, whilst fossil fuels remain, we can have people limited only by inginuity.
When they deplete, we are back to the limit based on the biosphere (rainwater, sunlight..). Estimates vary. most optimistic is 2billion.
Its all about energy.
The biosphere is like a steady income. Fossil fuels are like a lottery win.. which we've blown foolishly becoming used to a lifestyle we can't sustain.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@phil8888
>>"there were starving people when the population was half a billion. at that point people could have said let's reduce the population, that's the problem! "
- What they should have done is counted: for every death allow one birth. Then population would have remained stable instead of exploding and landing us with this disaster.
It is like taking on lots of debt, then having lots of kids and letting them inherit it... "I spent it, paying it off is your problem!"
walter0bz 1 year ago
@phil8888 -
>>"there were staring people.."
The problem isnot that there are starving people.
The problem is: we are producing many more than we can possibly feed in the future without oil.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@phil8888
"Is it not possible to have a more intelligent debate? "
- intelligent = accepting earth has finite limits and learning to live within them. doing more with less. not flooding it with people.
walter0bz 1 year ago
Thumbs up if you think aquariousprincess85 and NewPeaceOrder are retarded. Fuck!!! Go read your strar charts or pray to your invisible friend in the sky, or go fuck and make little baby morons or something. "We'll all be fine if we don't throw stuff away...we could fit everyone in Australia..." Do you imbeciles READ? I mean, things other than comics, the bible and Youtube?
crashishlaroche 1 year ago 2
@crashishlaroche
they are nutbags ignore them.
ExposingLiarsFrauds 1 year ago
The political doctrine of Multiculturalism enjoys its current supremacy due to the confluence of commercial interests and those of the transnational governing oligarchy. Large Corporations benefit from cheap immigrant labor and from the downward push on regional wage rates caused by the influx of poor immigrants to wealthier countries.The transnational oligarchy benefit from the shifting and churning of populations, which tends to dilute national identities and atomize the population.
Celtic450 1 year ago 2
@Celtic450
Agreed. If only people in the West would wake up & DEMAND their governments to stop catering to businesses & STOP immigration, it's destroying & impoverishing the countries.
lomocan 1 year ago
capping the population is not killing people, idiots. it's simply asking people to have less babies. they should even lower it then cap it.
davetista 1 year ago
Use mighty power of nature
In the northwestern Australia, we have huge tides,
huge evaporation and huge dry rivers and lakes.
Evaporation is up to 4m per year.
Huge 12m tidal erosion can revive old dry paleo dormant once mighty rivers, creeks and lakes,
desalinate the country and change deserts to rain forests to provide more rain across Australia.
World population is growing rapidly and we need more land, energy, food, water.
see: Mitic CLIMATE ENGINEERING
33noa33 1 year ago
What a bunch of dumb motherfuckers.
Christianitylol 1 year ago
no no, dont cap it!!!! 350 000 is small.
GO AFTER THE WATER , not to stop your natural destiny,. australia is big and doenst need a population freeze.
StewartBrasil 1 year ago
no no, dont cap it!!!! 350 000 is small.
StewartBrasil 1 year ago
Australia's population is going to stop growing and then decline within a hundred years. Its going to happen. The sooner this happens though, the easier the transition will be. Whats the point of growing our population to 50 million, then 100 million in the meantime? Will it improve our quality of life?
ChristophInns 1 year ago 2
I love how she talked about the lack of water with a lake in the background.
kubaniski 1 year ago
Govts want MORE people to increase the tax collection. Churches want more people so they can brainwash their children and fill their coffers. Corporations want more people so they can lower the wages of all industrialized civilizations and increase their bottom lines. Overpopulation is horrible for every country on the planet. And since we have ignored the warnings we are now seeing huge immigration issues that will not be solved without conflict. Its time to grow up and silence the idiots.
controlpopulation 1 year ago
After reading many of these responses, I can't help but feel sad. So many people just don't understand the gravity of the problem. Many people are expecting science to save them. Many of these religious philosophies are even worse. "God wants us to populate the world".....and what not use our brains? It is a mathematical fact that if we don't address overpopulation now, our existence could be in jeopardy. We have great minds in this world and this is not an issue to simply brush off.
Matt32583 1 year ago
@Matt32583 I do not believe in overpopulation and I never seen "God wants us to populate the world" written anywhere.
singlaprety12 1 year ago
Never had a problem with water; I wake up in it every day... But then I am a dolphin.
thufer50 1 year ago
You're a dumb bitch human hating killer lady... if you're so concerned about population, why don't you help the cause and jump off a bridge?!
zdrux 1 year ago
It's nice to hear ourselves referred to as a "peak research body" here- and nicer still would be if the government actually listened. The two great levers the government uses to push our numbers ever upwards, against the will of most Australians, are immigration and baby bonuses. How interesting that the interview with Jenny Goldie cut any reference to the first of those two factors...
SPAnsw 1 year ago 2
I'd like to meet me one of these proper-acting Aussie broads. Crickey, you've got some purdy ones down under!
HorseCents 1 year ago
The only peoples who are overpopulated are Mexicans in the southwest U.S. of A. and some blacks down in Georgia.
HorseCents 1 year ago
Yeah fuck it lets drop the borders let every cunt in. Don't even worry about a flag we'll just put up a welcome matt. Fly that. Nothings better then ecnomic growth I get richer everytime someone crosses the border.
fuknjojak 2 years ago
You can't have a sustainable population without a sustainable economy! You cant have a sustainable anything without a sustainable economy!! Perpetual economy, perpetual growth!
Tuphut 2 years ago
ur an idiot. perpetual growth? so what will you do when population ecceeds the balance between agriculture land and animals? people think of perpetual growth and they dont think about population growth... if this continues there will be a time when we use more space of whats needed for us to produce... therefore we cant grow because we cant produce because of overpopulation. Read more and learn more... ignorant. perpetual growth can only work with 100million ppl, nor more.
JuanJoseFaOrTi 1 year ago 5
Man haha, I think you need to learn more. The economic system is a perpetual growth system, it means the more it grows the more it needs to grow, if it doesn't grow then we have a recession or a great depression. This is why we consume more and more and need mass immigration. The average Australian birth rate is not enough to keep up with the growth of the economy.
Tuphut 1 year ago
You've hit the nail on the head. We all benefit from this crazy perpetual-growth system, so no one really wants it to stop. But stop it must. Nothing can grow forever.
ChristophInns 1 year ago 2
@JuanJoseFaOrTi Ignorant, it has been shown that you can fit 7billion people into a portion of Australia. Not as an ideal living situation, but as a measure of just how few people there are for how much space there is on this planet. It would take possibly hundreds of thousands of years of furious baby making for our physical presence to rival that of land itself. A ridiculous argument.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@JuanJoseFaOrTi The Earth can only sustain so much. It's not like we'll all be standing shoulder to shoulder from one end of the Earth to the other with no room to move. There's plenty more water and food, and we have the capability to build megafarms but we don't. What you call perpetual growth is just your hoping that you'll be chosen to survive if the govt decides to murder lots of people for supporting their agenda.
AdamPhosphor 1 year ago
They probably don't mind that in this struggle against Nature, we won't always win. We'll suffer great losses because we are disrupting the planet's natural mechanisms. Our presence here in such large numbers can only be imposed artificially, and at great cost. It's the cost one has to pay for... keeping sex "natural". That's the big priority. At least according to pronatalist's words.
borthwey 2 years ago
To borthwey:
Why would you buy into the pagan nonsense that living "naturally" must mean living in poverty or without some "artificial" means in support of our already huge pop size? Are you willing to give up the natural gas or electricity that allows you to cook your food cleanly in big cities without respiratory-problem smoke? Or would you give up your denser-pop-accommodating toilet? Whatever for?
We need a proper mix of artificial and natural. Chosen for good of people, Go on multiplying!
pronatalist 2 years ago
It's you who prefers poverty over "artificiality" (i.e. contraception). A couple with limited resources may have the means to live comfortably with one child, but not with five or six or ten or whatever "God bestows" upon them as the result of not using contraception. The result is poverty. The same analogy can be used for us as a whole. The planet IS limited, the more of us there are, the poorer the planet becomes in terms of natural biodiversity, and each one of us becomes poorer too.
borthwey 2 years ago
To borthwey:
Why do you insist upon believing in nothing, or believing in the wrong things? Why you do buy into a "fixed pie" world view? Resources aren't something for you to steal from others. So why not make more useful things to go around for more people, or for yourself? The world is not a "fixed pie."
Contraceptives cost money, money poor people lack.
Yes, I know the planet is limited, that's why I advocate for populous planet, and allowing the world to naturally grow denser and denser.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To borthwey:
What about today's bewildering array of shoddy Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons, would logically compel us to use any of them? Nothing. On the list of "family planning" options, there still is the "no method" method. Why all the deception? Even if removed from the list, isn't the natural "no method" method still there, even if some radicals try to hide it? Shouldn't it be at the top of the list, and not the bottom? Can't balkers protest against hindering flow of babies?
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronatalist the government shouldnt be the one to impose this... we should be intelligent enough to do so... im not saying dont have kids... im saying be responsble and dont have 20 kids... the government should say that were only allowed to have 1. UNTIL THIS OVERPOPULATION CRISIS IS OVER... not forever. or maybe make the birth rate a little lower than the death rate... when we reach a good balance then we equal it. and we stay the same number forever from then on.
JuanJoseFaOrTi 1 year ago
To borthwey:
A way that even this populous planet can be made to hold quite a lot more people. There can simply come to be more places with lots of people, and fewer places far from lots of people. People naturally figure this out, especially people with a proper sense of truth and who are smart. People with freedom tend to figure such things out. Put more people into more places. When they say There's places all around to put more people, doesn't that really mean, they want to pop denser?
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronatalist u have to understand that u cant only fill the world... u have to let room for agriculture, mining, fishing, etc etc... if u get a denser pop, then there wont be enough resourses for everyone just like today. And getting more and more resourses starts to get more expensive than selling them.
JuanJoseFaOrTi 1 year ago 11
@JuanJoseFaOrTi african and asian population will never stop. what would u recomend? we all stop and they hrow until they invade us.??? we need to think the space we live. less feminism ,and let mens do they job.
StewartBrasil 1 year ago
@JuanJoseFaOrTi
WRONG
stop growing food to feed food : Go Vegan - Feed the world
WATER... are we kidding... WATER?!?!?!? its everywhere.. if the military has technology and is able to filter 1000sss of gallons with REVERSE OSMOSIS.. this is not new people... then we can use it everywhere to clean water and hydrate people and crops... WAKE UP
aquariousprincess85 1 year ago
@aquariousprincess85 OMG!! Finally some common sense! It's sad how rare it is.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@aquariousprincess85 -
Reverse osmosis requires energy imput.
Any ordering process (i.e. sorting the atoms to remove polutants) does and always will require energy input.
hence, peak oil affects availability of fresh water.
Not all resources are in the right place or form to be usefull to us.
vegan = low quality diet. (vegans = healthy due to being actively health conscious)
we are definitely omnivores but agree meat consumption is too extreme for most.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@JuanJoseFaOrTi You have to understand that the reason there isn't enough for everyone now is because we throw away 90% of everything we create and then just bury it in the ground or drop it in the ocean. There would be enough resouces if we would stop living like pigs.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder While decreasing consumption will go so far it won't touch the other half of the equation. The equation I mean is IMPACT (as in total resource use)= consumption per capita multiplied by population. It is easier to reduce the population (this is happening in some countries) through voluntary contraception and education access than it is to reduce someones consumption. (which rarely happens in any country).
phillips78 1 year ago
@phillips78 There are thousands of alternatives and solutions to the consumtion issue. Do your homework before jumping to conclusions. There are easily renewable materials that can replace petroleum products, and there are multiple means of recycling all of the resources we've already used. If you are dead set on reducing population, start with yourself. Us smart folks have already figured out ways to have our cake and eat it, too. Just have to get the retards out of power.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder -
"plenty of alternatives"
yes, for a small elite,maybe peeps owning ample land, but not for all 6+billion of us.
no alternatives can match the widespread high quality of life that oil has delivered i.e. C20th proles living better than kings of middle ages.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz Sounds like you've already given up. Go back to your cell and keep quiet. Yelling, "All is lost!", is counter productive.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder -
no, I haven't given up.
there are measures that can be taken, the single most important is population control - if we can do that by educating eachother then we can avert the next Stalin, Hitler, Mao doing it retroactively 20 years from now.
If you are so gung ho about renewables - PROVE it. set up/join a renewable powered commune, and SHOW what population density you can support.
if you can't afford the land... thats a function of excessive demand (population)
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz You have my pity.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder -
Its quite simple. earth can support maybe 1billion, 2billion best case 0.5billion worst case when we remove the effect of fossil fuels. roman civ supported 300m peak, pre-industrial cib peaked at 800m but they were still using Fossil Fuels to extend carryingcapacity i.e. Coal (heating, metal extraction..);
steam engine was developed first to pump water out of coal-mines I do beleive.
For ecofriendly living, we need to get back to number that was possible before we used coal.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz Solar.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder -
Solar = growing crops.
currently oil multiplies crop yields 5X
it should be fairly obvious that switching farmland to solar panels can't multiply crop yields.
You're probably using a stat that solar could provide all electricity & we could use elec more efficiently - This fails to account for the most important uses of FF based energy i.e. chemical warfare on rival lifeforms (pesticides) & turning fossil-fuel into surpluss humans (fertilizer)
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz Please do the world a favor and put yourself out of your misery.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
Comment removed
walter0bz 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder
>>"Please do the world a favor and put yourself out of your misery."
- what... you mean you think there aren't enough resources to go around?
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz Your willful ignorance is what the world can do without. You are the textbook definition of an idiot.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder I have done my homework, 15 years of it. read the oregon state university report on family planning, an environmental perspective. In addition look up jevons paradox. Your ad hominems weaken your argument. Voluntary Family planning reduces impact many more times than any other environmentally friendly ethical practice you would care to name. Any consumer consumes, only a lack of an extra consumer through voluntary contraception means no consumption. p.s. it's cheaper too.
phillips78 1 year ago
@phillips78 Solar power > fossil fuels. Produce less worthless crap > population control.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder You have just written what is known as a non sequitur. While solar power has the potential to be greater than fossil fuels (which are themselves stored solar energy) it does not follow that producing less worthless crap (a subjective statement) has a greater effect than voluntary contraception on reducing our impact on the Earth. I say again read the OSU report on family planning. Thanks.
phillips78 1 year ago
@phillips78 Any argument for population reduction is just as subjective as worthless consumer products. The difference is, one puts value on human life, and the other puts equal and in many cases, greater value on consumer products. 1 inheirently has the potential to help with the enourmous clean up that is inevitable if we ever stop our careless production practices, the other provides no positive side effects and increases the problem. Tough call? Thanks.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder An argument for population reduction through voluntray contraception is based on objective peer reviewed science in the millennium ecosystem assessment, and many other studies. Please note, I am not disagreeing that we need to consume less, we do need to use less, but to ignore the other side of the coin i.e. population is foolish.
phillips78 1 year ago
@phillips78 My primary issue with population control/reduction is that it implies continuing current wasteful practices into the next 5 decades or more, when it's quite obvious that we needed extreme reform 5 decades ago. Pushing for changes that lessen the obligation for companies to practice more eco-friendly methods now, instead of in the next 50years or so, is foolish.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder As i said three times or more already, i am not against improving eco-friendly methods right now, but by ignoring population you neglect half of the equation of impact. Impact=population multiplied by consumption per capita. You cannot ignore population, do you see what I mean?
phillips78 1 year ago
@phillips78 Do you see that there is no serious movement towards stopping excessive waste and pollution, but huge steps in population control have been emplimented throughout the world for decades? No one is ignoring population. The problem is, no one is doing anything to curb the amount of waste and pollution. Keep in mind that the vast majority of consumers also have the lowest population densities. America = 4% population and 40% resource consumption.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder If you look at the number of NGO's and govt's spending money on reducing waste and pollution it is far in exces of NGO's spending money on voluntray contraception. As i said before both issues need looking at but reducing population through voluntray means is both easier and more effective at reducing impact than trying to reduce waste alone and ignoring population. No one is ignoring waste, it's just hard to deal with with 7 billion of us.
phillips78 1 year ago
@phillips78 You missed the primary point of my last comment. The people reproducing the most are also using the least resources. So how can reducing their numbers be more effective than reducing the amount of waste being produced by industry?
Voluntary contraception is not the primary means of population control being utilized. Funding for it pales in comparison to vaccination and clandestine government ops designed to create instability in developing nations.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder To clarify:1) I would like to see a fall in TFR in ALL countries, not just poor ones, one less high consumption kid means 5 or more in poverty will then have the resources to escape it. Voluntary contraception/education in how to use it will drop TFR's further and have a bigger effect than trying to just reduce waste. Voluntray contraception is the highest funded method for reducing TFR's. Vaccinations help reduce child mortality which reduces need for big families-fact.
phillips78 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder
>>"no serious movement towards stopping excessive waste and pollution,"
er......have you heard of global warming, carbon taxes copenhagen summit etc ?
you might have noticed this in the media "occasionally".
infact,
the pollution issue is brought up more frequently than peak oil and the overpopulation issue. few leaders are brave enough to specify that rising population is the problem (except in china)
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz There is an enourmous difference between making money from waste and trying to stop it. You should look into the numerous blatant contradictions in all of the examples you listed. Hint: You probably won't find it on tv.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder
>>"There is an enourmous difference between making money from waste and trying to stop it."
- when you *consume* you're *wasting* money.
So: there is already strong financial incentive for everyone to minimize their consumption.. the more spartan a life you lead, the greater your *personal* profit & hence future security.
We had a problem with credit lately; perhaps the population is mentally deficient not to figure out the above?
A restrictive breeding licence might help.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder -
even if 99% of the oil was being wasted on worthless crap,
that wouldn't change the fact that when you lose the 1% oil that multiplies Crop yields, the surpluss people (~5billion) will starve.
oh,
and Fossil Fuels ARE solar power, that accumulated for millions of years.
Also:- i'm interested to know if solar panels can be constructed without using fossil fuels for mining & manufacture... if they could desert nations would be self-sufficient utopias LMAO
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz There is no waste product from harnessing direct solar radiation.
The GMO monocrops that are malnurishing the world goes mostly to waste and not to feeding the people who can't afford to buy them. There IS enough food, most of it simply gets thrown away.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder
>>"There IS enough food, most of it simply gets thrown away."
only while we have fossil fuels to make it - overproduction is possible.
its like in a high performance CPU which performs redundant calculations in branching situations, 'thrown away' to acheive maximum performance. (takes more energy to sort that out).
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz Your analogies are bogus.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder -
yes, produce less worthless crap... i.e. less surplus people :)
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz People who demand worthless crap are the ones fueling the destruction of the world, not people starving with nothing. You are the surplus. Kill yourself.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder -
no, the surpluss is the people who breed too much.
"worthless crap" is sometimes necassery to stay sane in this overcrowded hell hole.
at 2billion we'd have more land to enjoy, and wouldn't need videogames etc.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz The majority of people in the most crowded areas don't even have electricity. Let alone video games. You have no idea what is going on in the rest of the world.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder -
well i do live in a fairly highly populated area, and life would be much more dull without electronic amusements.
I guess in the even more crowded areas they rely on making yet more kids for amusement
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz If you had any social skills you wouldn't be so isolated and bored surrounded by people.
NewPeaceOrder 1 year ago
@NewPeaceOrder -
People instinctively need space to themselves.. its a well known fact. Thats why, given the choice, they have seperate appartments/houses seperating out families instead of living in one big happy commune.
Obviously having a desert island to yourself would be no fun,but theres' a balance to be struck.
walter0bz 1 year ago
@JuanJoseFaOrTi This is of course very obvious. Good luck...
crashishlaroche 1 year ago
@borthwey Exactly, this has nothing to do with money... "kindof" the more ppl there is, the more resourses used and the more money and energy used to process those products... anyway if u overpopulate, then everything becomes scarse therefore becomes expensive and thats when rich get richer and poor get poorer.
JuanJoseFaOrTi 1 year ago
Some claim to have reverence for God and yet have no reverence at all for this planet, which is God's greatest gift. They are willing to destroy all of its incredible biodiversity. They probably have no interest at all in the many species of animals and plants that exist, and all the natural ecosystems. Their views on human reproduction just reflect their egoism and short-sightedness. If everything is just turned into farms, factories and huge, endless cities everything is fine with them.
borthwey 2 years ago
To borthwey:
Do you not believe in freedom, the individual, self-determination, respecting the dignity of people? If so, there is no moral nor practical way of imposing any arbitrary "limit" upon other people's childbearing. Biblical ethics clearly places responsibility for providing for and loving children, but not in imposing any unnatural "limit" upon rising numbers.
If we are headed towards huge, endless cities, no proper way to stop it, need to embrace, although growth likely more modest.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To borthwey:
You also fail to consider, that humans are just as able to enjoy having their traditionally very large families, inside of huge megacities, and that the more spacious land of the past, is not necessary for continued natural family growth. The natural growth of huge cities, does not reduce the basic human right to procreate, one iota
While people are free to spread out if/as they can, there's also the perceptional dimensions of naturally spreading closer together and into highrises
pronatalist 2 years ago
Yes, the Bible is really useless in what concerns many of today's problems. I mean, a first grade child knows more about the planet we live in than the highest scholar back then possibly could. They certainly didn't have a clue of what the future would bring.
borthwey 2 years ago
To borthwey:
What do you know of the Bible? How much have you read?
Your 1st grader is confused by enviro-wacko propaganda. Your 1st grader has no idea of his or her own family budget.
The more of us there are, the more of us there are who want to live, and the more people there are who want children. Thus, our natural pop growth should be thought "uncontrollable" and unstoppable. Our ancestors were fine with that, because they believed to multiply, and more in freedom, than today's Marxism.
pronatalist 2 years ago
What I know about the Bible is that it is a collection of texts whose supposedly "divine" origin is highly questionable. Actually, they can't even be traced back to their supposed authors. Besides Jesus, only Judas knew how to write. The texts which came to us trace from many centuries later and are filled with errors and falsifications, many of them deliberate. They just served as a tool for the cults which have since emerged to gain immense wealth and unlimited power.
borthwey 2 years ago
To borthwey:
So in other words, you know little or nothing about the Bible? Noah Webster (of dictionary fame), said that the things around us could not have made themselves. So what excuse have you?, for even nature tells you there must be some Creator God.
Aren't you being awfully liberal or sloppy with the evolution idea that people used to be stupid, and are evolving to be smarter? Many people were literate enough to write, even back 2000 years ago. News tells us we are as stupid as ever!
pronatalist 2 years ago
I make no argument over the existence of a Creator. But one thing is the real, original Creator or Originator, and another thing is what we create in our heads. Actually in this regard, we are the creators of God. Not of the real God, but of this God that we have made up and which is full of humans traits. That actually is THE biggest heresy, to claim that God is this and that when in fact, we don't have a clue, and neither did those who wrote those ancient scribblings that you hold so dear.
borthwey 2 years ago
These cults have lasted to this very day. One of the things that Jmmanuel (the real name of the person that was later called "Jesus") taught was about reincarnation. Each person has a spirit that doesn't die and which, over thousands of lifetimes with different personalities, keeps accumulating abilities that each new incarnation receives unconsciously. This is called the human stage of the spirit's evolution. But without damnation and hell, how could the church have power over the believers?
borthwey 2 years ago
To borthwey:
If you knew much anything about religion, you would know that reincarnation heresy comes from false Eastern religions, also there is a huge connection between Eastern superstition/religion, and radical UNSCIENTIFIC "environmentalism." Not really about care for people or nature, but rebellious worship of God's creation, and not of God
Bible clearly says it is given unto man once to die, then the judgment. No hopeless life-misery reincarnation cycle - Was it somebody's idea of hell?
pronatalist 2 years ago
All that this massive swelling of our numbers has made is that spirits are able to spend less time in the beyond. Thus, the experiences of the previous life have not been completely assimilated by the time the spirit returns to enliven a new personality. In some cases, this causes children to vividly remember their previous lives and to identify themselves with their previous personality.
borthwey 2 years ago
To borthwey:
Why are you still alluding to reincarnation?, after I already showed you it is a heresy. If you make wrong assumptions, wouldn't that perhaps lead to even more wrong conclusions? In finding truth, seek out the correct information, to better reason clearly.
Why do you assume "this massive swelling of our numbers," to be unnatural or to be abnormal? I find it consistent with God's commandment, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Human pop "stabilization," is abnormal.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To borthwey:
Now is not the time to fight against our huge human numbers. Why make enemies of so many people who could be our allies or friends?
"It is high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to move on in an orderly transition to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist
We don't have much choice anyway. Nature favors growth. God apparently does also. The huge numbers are already here, want to be free, want to have children. We must GO FORWARD.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To borthwey:
In 1999, officially, India grew to the "population billionaire" prestigious level. Now I hear, they have 1.2 billion people. Apparently, even a developing poor country already with "plenty" of people, somehow found place for another 200 million people. Only 7% of people live in countries where pop isn't growing, I read somewhere.
Don't you suppose there could be very good reasons why so many parents just have to keep having their darling precious babies? I do. Have a heart, ADAPT.
pronatalist 2 years ago
This planet will last for many millions of years more. There is enough time for everyone to be born. There is no need to rush things and try to turn every egg that every woman produces into another human. We have brains and a reasoning ability, and we are meant to use them. We are meant to become smarter, that is the whole purpose for our existence. As we become smarter, we are able to control more and more aspects of our lives. It's this reasoning ability that distinguishes us from animals.
borthwey 2 years ago
To borthwey:
Your assumptions are highly questionable. I find your claim that the planet will last for many more millions of years, quite improbable, and unreasonable, because it doesn't fit the Biblical timeline, and runaway comets, asteroids, or human error, is far more fallible than that.
Large families allow more unique human lives to be lived, than if fewer babies are born. It is far better to live even upon an overcrowded urbanized world, than to not live at all, due to too few births.
pronatalist 2 years ago
"runaway comets, asteroids, or human error" don't invalidate the fact that the planet will stand. Civilization may end and the human race may become extinct (or not). Nevertheless, a few tens of millions of years is enough time for the planet to be refurbished with new life and a new breed of humans to come along, whether they have evolved from small mammals after thousands of generations or have been "instantaneously created by God".
borthwey 2 years ago
To borthwey:
This "massive swelling of our numbers," now is necessary, for our continued experiencing of life. We can't reasonably help we are now so numerous. Can a person be half a person? Of course not.
Who cares about the planet, if I am gone, if you are gone, if everybody is gone? There you go with the pagan nature worship. Worship God, not his creation.
Human life is no evolutionary "accident." It is valuable, fragile, created by God.
Why wouldn't humans value human life? Deception!
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronatalist , still pushing the same BS even here right pronatalist? Maybe if you would stop pushing your religion that is uncivilized and full of idiocy, you could actually take the time and learn the truth. Anyone who does not support limiting population is a fool and quite stupid. Hows the ministry treating you these days?
controlpopulation 1 year ago
Remember also that life exists across the Universe, in millions of planets during briefer or longer periods (even if the Bible doesn't mention it). There will never be lack of opportunities for spirits to incarnate and attain their evolution into higher realms, until they finally merge with Creation (or God, if you want to call it such).
borthwey 2 years ago
To borthwey:
Why do you claim, as if fact, life exists across the universe? Not a shred of evidence to support your claim. You don't know the difference between fact, religion, superstition, wishful thinking, confusion, or outright deception?
We know there is opportunity for babies to be born NOW. What do you know about -later? Will you be alive tomorrow? Will your country exist unconquered next year? Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy says Earth destroyed to make way for hyper-galactic bypass.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To acvossius:
Have you not noticed how humans are figuring out how to builder huger and denser cities that actually function better? People need not be so crowded, for they can also be allowed to keep the fruits of their labors, build economies and freedom, reduce poverty, spread out or stack people up into highrises and skyscrapers.
Pop phobics promote not playing nice together. We pronatalists/pro-lifers promote the social graces, and how we can better ADAPT to growing more dense, if need be
pronatalist 2 years ago
The increase of large dense cities and industrialization are causing high carbon emissions, and lower food/water quality and safety issues among other human rights violations in developing countries. This results in larger amounts of disease and large destructive weather events. How can you promote "social gracies" without considering that overpopulation reduces the quality of life of your children? That is selfish?
Audiowings 2 years ago
To Audiowings:
I am not saying for everybody to live in large dense cities. And God scrambled the languages and scattered the people who rebelled at Babel. Natural growth of huge human pop isn't the only reason for the increase of large dense cities, although it could seem to be a factor.
But for babies to continue to be born into a world with already so many people, letting cities grow larger and denser, is an obvious way to find/make/allow place for everybody and their possibly many children
pronatalist 2 years ago
To Audiowings:
Human rights violations, surely must give fair consideration to the basic and primal right to procreate. They say that denying the right to procreate is but one small step from denying the right to live.
Our ancestors, easily accepted pop is what it is. It wasn't something we could "control" or manipulate. People used to believe in freedom, and used to have some faith in God and his ways. Now socialism and paganism is rampant, and reasoning sloppy.
Not overpop, all are valuable
pronatalist 2 years ago
To acvossius:
If we don't reproduce, what of all the other millions and billions of people living in cities, who will reproduce regardless? It's not fair to blame all the babies coming to life, for the dense urbanization. They aren't the ones doing the infrastructure building, or lack of, or deciding where it is they will come to be born into.
Letting babies die is cruel. The artificial can be used, where beneficial to man, such as artificial pop supports - example: vaccines, toilets, faucets.
pronatalist 2 years ago
Comment removed
acvossius 2 years ago
To acvossius:
Who's asking anybody to change? Aren't I advocating more for the traditional childbearing? I say those who are reproducing babies, are free to go on doing so.
I like my freedom to reproduce, and would rather not reduce natural childbearing, to accommodate your less important desire for a bit of personal space and open nature
There's plenty of spacious spaces left for you, for the foreseeable future, but in a world steadily filling with people, expect some sprawl + more neighbors
pronatalist 2 years ago
To acvossius:
If you were the 10th child born to a family with 10 children, would you dare criticize your parents for letting their family grow so large? Wouldn't they simply respond, If we didn't have so many children, where would you be? No, "you" wouldn't be born to somebody else, for it wouldn't be "you," nor would there be so many people alive.
Similar, how dare we criticize God for letting the world pop grow huge? Most of us were among those last born. What purpose for 7B? So we can live
pronatalist 2 years ago
How can you turn on your maker and say that God "let" the world pop grow large? What about slavery, famine, etc.? He gave us free will. It is irresponsible and disrespectful to make decisions and then say God "let" it happen so we dare not "criticize" it. We humans individually made our population. If we all thought about the legacy we leave our children then we would reduce our birthrates and raise the quality of life for our offspring, promoting the advancement of man and environment.
Audiowings 2 years ago
To Audiowings:
Turn on my maker? Sounds like you are making inferences assuming a different maker God, than the one I believe in. Read the Bible carefully, and find it does indeed promote large families and the natural growth of world pop.
I want to leave our children a great legacy, all the more reason to welcome babies to happen as they happen and welcome human pops to rise naturally.
God commanded we humans multiply, so that makes God responsible for determining our pop size. Let us GROW!
pronatalist 2 years ago
To Audiowings:
We don't have the reasonable option of eliminating half the world's people. Will China accept we get rid of all Chinese? We don't have the option of limiting married couples to only a child or two. Sometimes more come. They insist babies come from God, not gov.
Why can't people understand anymore, pop is what it is? There is no option but to allow it bulge and swell, as a naturally advancing pregnancy would. How can I explain it for your better understanding? Await your reply.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronatalist I cannot understand because I control population growth by claiming the gift of free will and intelligence that God has given me. It offends me that you choose to blame God as if you are not in active participant in this life. Are you sure God in his merciful wisdom would prefer his people destroy the earth, his creatures, & cause their children to suffer due to a lack of basic resources versus control their population creating a life of abundance and sustainability for all?
Audiowings 9 months ago
To acvossius:
What sense is there in letting world pop swell to the present 7 Billion? Well we are here now. Not much can be done about it, but to make the best of things. Which half of the people do you want to eliminate? What purpose is there in having a world with so many? Well people just had to have their offspring, and nobody wanted to be told how many they would be allowed to have. So successive generations naturally grew ever larger and more populous
Same argument in a century for 30B?
pronatalist 2 years ago
To acavideo:
What is this hyping of the word "finite?" How can people enjoy having "all the children that God gives," in a world of so many people alive already? Simple. There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. In a "finite" world, far more people can easily fit or be made to fit, by allowing human bodies to live and procreate, closer and closer together as numbers eagerly rise. No nasty unnatural "birth control" needed. Let babies push out!
pronatalist 2 years ago
To acavideo:
If the world was headed towards becoming "a sardine can," I see no practical nor moral way to stop the natural process. The most fertile people would go on multiplying regardless. Already, people are becoming more used to high pop density and adapting.
Don't confuse poverty with rising density. The world can hold or be made to hold lots more people, and allowing density to rise is the alternative to needless tyranny and baseless "Use birth control" hype. Let humans grow denser!
pronatalist 2 years ago
It's sad that overpopulation having been talked about back in the '70's has evaporated in the heat of this global warming scam. No new dams were built, drought ensued. Build a dam now & you're pelted with insults because they say there's no rain to fill it. Nobody wants a desalination plant in their town either. When it rains again the naysayers won't be found. Australia's last Prime Minister said "populate or perish" without the good sense to understand this arid country can't support it.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
To MrOllyK:
Sooner or later, most all the fearmongering lies are found to be scams. The world has more people alive than ever, and yet the fashionability of overpop talk has faded. How is it that it seems most everybody just instictively seems to know, we are supposed to allow mothers to breastfeed in public? Because people are now in every room and there is little privacy? Or is it simply that people also eat in public and it's politically incorrect to be so anti-child to object?
Let us ADAPT
pronatalist 2 years ago
Pronatalist..
It's politically incorrect. Much like it's virtually a moral and personal insult to use a mobile phone on a train or bus in Japan.
My problem with overpopulation is this:
We have barely the oil reserves to last until 2050. At a growth of a mere 7% the population doubles every 10 years. In the next 40-50 years there'll be 9 billion people that need resources. Do we continue until each person occupies a mere square metre on which to live? At that rate it won't be long.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
To MrOllyK:
So then there is at least one small benefit to "political correct" groupthink? Somehow liberal retards have figured out that it is natural and proper to allow breastfeeding in public places? I agree with allowing breastfeeding most anywhere, but because I believe families should be welcome to grow large, naturally, and "unplanned," and such pro-life people may be rather "relaxed" about continually having so many babies.
Yes we continue to grow as God allows us!
9B isn't much more.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To MrOllyK:
I think we can "overlook" breast exposure in public, if there is a hungry baby around to explain for it. I hear mothers commonly breastfeed in public in developing countries, and don't we happen to live in an increasingly populous world? So why not make some reasonable accommodations for human life to go on naturally expanding?
Even if lots more people just let their babies "pop out" as they come, 7% annual growth is quite unlikely. But a few more Bs will come! Allow urban sprawl.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To MrOllyK:
Fear of overpop is so overrated. People ought to be far more concerned about the explosion of government debt and related economic fraud linked to fiat paper currency back by little or nothing of real value.
If people can continue to reproduce at only a sq. meter, more power to them. Poor people often are cramped, husband and wife sleep on top of each other, so obviously babies happen!
Artificial methods have side effects, more natural requires too much willpower. Let babies come!
pronatalist 2 years ago
Pronatalist..
Only 12% of the Earth's surface is arable land, the rest is desert, frozen mountains and oceans.
If you put one bacterium in a bottle at 11am which had a doubling rate of 1 minute, the bottle's half full at 1159 and choked at 1200. If you then find 3 more bottles for this to grow into, you have only 2 minutes until all 4 bottles are full. Population might seem relaxed now, but when the problem happens it'll happen fast! China's 1 child policy doesn't help them in their bottle.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
To MrOllyK:
You think I don't know about exponential growth? Surely it was God's idea from the start, as Adam and Eve's many descendants also apparently inherited the natural ability to reproduce.
I agree with urging huge, burgeoning country populations to grow naturally and rapidly, as more and more people would be glad to live.
Surely even clueless liberals would agree that as human pops grow, we have to let growing numbers become sexually active. Fine with me, within responsible families.
pronatalist 2 years ago
Pronatalist..
Not forgetting that this 12% of arable land we also live on in our urban sprawls. At this rate of population growth it'll be impossible for technology to find a way to get us billions off this planet and find another. This planet has a remaining habitability of 0.5Bn years, which we won't make unless we control population growth. If we don't keep it in check, nature will do it for us with wars, famine and disease. A disastrous consequence for all.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
To MrOllyK:
There is no need to impose pop "control" upon humans. It's their own homes that they are populating first. Like they don't know what makes babies nor what they are doing? There are ample ways to better accomodate vaster and denser pops.
Technology so far, hasn't moved much in the direction of transporting blossoming billions to more worlds, but rather towards more densely and efficiently settling this one. So let the planet naturally become "pregnant" with people, bulging proudly.
pronatalist 2 years ago
Pronatalist..
Finally, with everyone occupying their square metre on all our arable land, where do we grow our crops? We'll be akin to a seething mass of maggots in roadkill. But if the food runs out before we can grow wings, we're a dead mass of maggots.
In poor countries, the results are already seen. They've outgrown their bottles and the stronger kill the weaker. Not fair.
To pander to your own selfish instincts while ignoring the consequences becomes a disaster for all.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
To MrOllyK:
And isn't it the evil pop phobics who encourage corrupt economics, destroy jobs by debasing paper fiat currencies, and promote "survival of the fittest," exploitation of the poor? I say Let's be reasonable and Adapt, and if people so much like having so many babies, let them spread out and grow denser, as may come to be needed.
3 perceptional dimensions yet to grow into: Outwards, Inwards, and Upwards. People can have their big families, even in overcrowded growing huge megacities.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To MrOllyK:
I don't buy the pop scare tactics. Yes, expect more billions during our lifetimes if the Lord Jesus doesn't come back or the Rapture occurs during the next few years. But a little urban sprawl here and there easily accommodates that, well into the foreseeable future.
Growing numbers of countries now have more people than acres of land. They should do their part to help the world hold far more people, by growing denser via their own natural increase. So many benefit, so keep GROWING
pronatalist 2 years ago
Pronatalist..
Forseeable future? For you maybe. That's just INSANE. You say you understand exponential growth, but I see no evidence of it except a complete disregard of the ramifications.
Further, if you expect your god to save you, and he has never and isn't saving anyone that's starving or mass-murdered, you're on your own. Mass population is the problem, not the solution. So I see your idea of solving the problem is to become it? Damn!
MrOllyK 2 years ago
To MrOllyK:
To consider foreseeable future is enough, as any basic student of statistics should know, extrapolating too far from known data, results in wildly inaccurate predictions.
You think natural growth in numbers of women of childbearing age, helps slow growth? No, rather it's a reason to expect and allow for growth, as the number of birth canal paths naturally rises.
I have no plan to "control" the growth, as I am not God, nor have any more control than the naturally breeding parents.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To MrOllyK:
Huge, swollen pop, is a lot more comfortable and relaxed, easier to accommodate, in a pronatalist society fond of people, families, and babies. A pregnant mother's belly, should be allowed to bulge naturally in maternity clothes, or even poofed naturally/proudly out of her shirt, if she for some reason lacks maternity clothes. Same with a swollen/pregnant pop naturally "bursting at the seams."
Unless contraceptive use is increased to 75%, we may face a Baby Blast? Bring it on then!
pronatalist 2 years ago
To MrOllyK:
With all the scientists and supposedly educated people the world now has, why is there so little reasonable thought about how huger, vaster, denser pops might possibly be better accommodated?
The populous multitudes are already here, and at somewhat for the time-being, numbers continue to gradually mount. The people aren't the problem, but rather the evil control freaks and corrupt politicians. If the world grows more dense/urbanized and people still want large families, why not?
pronatalist 2 years ago
To MrOllyK
Why do you accuse me of pandering to my own selfish interests?
When I consider the long list of compelling reasons why parents may have or wish to have so many children as they do, + very powerful reproductive urges we constantly "in heat" commonly feel, what I come up with is a natural global desire to ENLARGE the entire human race for the greater good of the many
I detest lib illogical inconsistencies. HAVE MORE SEX they say. Really? So why not then more people coming alive then?
pronatalist 2 years ago
To MrOllyK:
It's not about pandering to selfish interests. It's about understanding and compassion. You think human pops grow so much, just because natural sex feels so good? I think not, for who really doesn't know what makes babies? I think quite many, for whatever reasons, know what they are doing, and let their families sometimes grow naturally quite large, on purpose.
No apology for huge #s needed. A person can't be half a person. Huge pop is no excuse to reject babies, nor family growth.
pronatalist 2 years ago
Pronatalist..
You're far too comfortable in the US to make blind assumptions on how FANTASTIC it is to live in a crowded house, crowded street, crowded city without proper sanitation, jobs or food supply.
I suggest you take a long sabbatical to the poorer countries who overpopulated before they could understand the ramifications. You'll be sleeping & washing in your own filth and that of others. I urge you to try and sleep amongst thousands of crying, emaciated children, let alone the dead.
MrOllyK 2 years ago
Comment removed
acvossius 2 years ago
To acvossius:
Of course I haven't been to an India slum. You think I am made of money? Airplane tickets around the world aren't cheap. But author P.J. O'Rourke of the book All the Trouble in the World; the lighter side of ... HAS. Unlike discredited pop phobic Paul Ehrlich, O'Rourke had a good time no matter it was crowded. Ehrlich only wanted to find misery and stinky people, and seemed to find it.
The people WANT to reproduce, so if they can't spread out enough, let them grow DENSE naturally
pronatalist 2 years ago
Comment removed
acvossius 2 years ago
To acvossius:
You just don't get it, do you? Even a condom would interfere with the natural flow of human life. And even condoms have the side effects of dulling sensitivity, condoms cost money, tend to not fit well, slip off, leak, etc. And certainly condoms are ARTIFICIAL.
Ideally, growing urban populations should spread out. But there is only but so much land, and human pops are now higher than ever, so letting people grow denser and denser, is a valid way to let more and more people live.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To acvossius:
Just because human bodies are getting closer together, on average, throughout the world, doesn't obligate people to slow down their natural babymaking, nor to bother with using unnatural rubbers. It only obligates them to somehow tolerate being populated more densely together, as everybody has a right to live and procreate.
Pop growth is helping drive technology growth, which in turn expands options for denser, huger cities to operate cleaner, better. Build more cities, suburbs.
pronatalist 2 years ago
Comment removed
acvossius 2 years ago