Of course another 7 billion could squeeze onto Russian empty lands. I don't see any reason why that couldn't be doable. Billions more could live in Africa. Australia could hold billions. There's so many places that could hold lots more people.
The problem is small little unimaginative minds, damaged by NWO criminal elitist gov monopoly "education."
China could hold lots more people, billions more, if they would simply fill their "empty cities," build more cities.
This video is a clear example of people who feel educated and informed, however it is what it is...only a feeling. They are being educated by the modern mass media and have almost lost all critical thinking...but of course they dont see it. I would recommend reading more books than swallowing down newspapers climate change-world end scenarios-evil CO2 hoaxes. And by the way...the western world with the rest of industrialized world is FAST dieing out just so you know...
industrial countries are facing demographic crisis because they don't have enough kids which will lead to economical collapse, they have to boost their birth rate
you should promote family planing for Africa and some parts of Asia where people are breeding like rabbits NOT for industrial counties
People. People! If it's any consolation, I'm doing MY part. I never had kids and I never will. I never married and I never will. I never had sex and I never will.
Nicely done! It's about time we had a few cute animations to counter those cute propaganda-pushing animations by "overpopulationisamyth" claiming the population explosion's no problem at all.
u mention all the bad that might happen due to over population, but u fail to say how the earth is overpopulating. think about how many people r on the planet now, all couples have an average of two children, there r families who hav more but there r also families who choose not to hav kids, and think about famin and war, unfortunatly. i dont see how the earth can overpopulate unless every couple had 4 kids each and there were no disasters
I know, I could have picked a better caption! It's too vague! :P But basically, the easiest way to reduce overpopulation is to simply stop having lots of children. It's been done in China, where families were restricted to one child (or two in rural areas), and has successfully reduced the population growth dramatically since it started. I can't see legislation ever happening in the Western world, but all people need to do is say: Two children are enough for me, thanks! :)
They do have less than 2 children, it's the immigration that's increasing the population for those countries like France, U.K. North America, and probably even Australia and New Zealand but all other Western countries have a decreasing population.
I presume your question, "And what would you consider the 'green choice'?," refers to a line near the end of the video. I consider "the green choice" to be, not hindering the natural flow of human life, or the rejection of use of any kind of "birth control." Why pollute the body directly? Of course, enviro-wackos may differ with my assessment, due to their "green nazi" control freak agenda
You would think by now, there should be more thought, that today's high pop is natural/normal
A SOLUTION TO OVERPOPULATION HAS BEEN DISCOVERED! what is it? AQUAPONICS! - a method of growing fruits and vegetables and with fish that utilizes fertilizer from the fish (their waste) which is pumped to the plants which in turn use it as fertilizer, and purify the water for the fish. it operates at relatively no cost once you get it going and has the potential to feed the world. blooms are 2x more productive compared to conventional hydroponics using mineral salts fertilizers.
This problem fixes itself. Look at areas in the world where there is over population and not enough resources: you will find genocide, war, disease running rampant, and strife. All built in defense mechanisms against our over populating. The moment the resources run low, war clears out the chaff while giving us new technologies that get us one step closer to colonizing other worlds. That is the ultimate goal, I think - Manifest Destiny across the Universe. The future is bright.
In today's culture of profit, we do not produce goods based on human need. We do not build houses based on population needs. We do not grow food to feed people. Industry's major motivation is profit. The monetary system is now an impediment to survival rather than a means of facilitating individual existence and growth. This imaginary tool has outlived its usefulness.
But wouldn't most normal people, think that not having sex, is absurd for married people? Of course they are going to have sex? They say you can't stop people from having sex. I don't expect married people to have to go with no sex or less sex, as I don't believe in pushing "birth control" nor imposing pop "control" upon people. Whatever happened to letting babies happen when they happen?
It's enough to properly pair up, marry, and take responsibility for children coming alive.
@pronatalist I know. I completely agree with you on the birth control. But like I said, not having sex is the best birth control. Any other birth control is just degrading the person you are with. Not having sex just cherishes that person even more because you respect that person enough to say, "If I don't have sex with you, it's not because you are ugly or something, but I respect all your being, and not put anything in between our love for each other."
Sure, there's times for not having sex, say like for people who AREN'T MARRIED. But I don't expect married people to go without sex, as they have made their commitment to take responsibility and to form a stable family nest, implied within their marriage vows/union. I don't expect married people to "control" their fertility, as having their possibly "traditionally very large" families is a viable option/blessings.
Faith, love welcomes its "overflow" in a child coming to life.
Not long ago, it was just a "given," the natural increase of human beings. People had "issue" of children, the words chosen, almost as if God was generously handing out his precious blessings of children. Nowadays, so many people have been corrupted with communist and NWO anti-freedom thinking.
Why should people have to fight against their very own body's natural reproductive rhythms? Spurting semen into one's wife, doesn't assure a baby, but allows it to happen when it will.
Sure, self-control is a virtue, and certainly some practicers of "natural family planning," or rhythm, may attempt to explain its virtues over the unnatural, nasty, Big Pharma, poisoning-the-body-directly ARTIFICIAL contraceptive methods. But the world balks saying "natural" methods require too much self-control, and rhythm supposedly trends towards LARGE families
Movies 1984 future bans "orgasm," Demolition Man bans sharing of bodily fluids (sperm). Why not enjoy reproduction?
I wish to make the point, that human birthrates do not need to be "controlled," and so I defend the right of responsible parents to reproduce naturally without any means of "birth control," and also against imposing pop "control" upon human beings.
I object to the whole concept of the modern expectation to select a shoddy method of "birth control." Rather than promote the more "natural" methods, what could be a more natural means of child spacing, than an already-occupied womb?
@pronatalist I love all your insights. I myself came from a large family of 9 kids, and the number of grandkids are growing as well. One day when I get married I hope to enjoy all these insights.
5. Growing families naturally, helps avoid distractions from how to better accommodate growing numbers of people upon the earth, that come with the nasty anti-family contraceptives.
6. Lack of "birth control" use, relates to higher sexual morality, as when sex=babies, people tend to be less casual and careless about who they have sex with. Monogamy/marriage is hopefully more promoted. Birth control promotes reckless promiscuity
8. Truth be told, there are no good methods of "family planning," other than of course, abstinence until marriage. Artificial contraceptives have side effects, are inconvenient, and have too much expense. Condoms can easily cost over $1/each, only usable once. Will-power rhythm may be better, but why not pull out during most fertile time of month? Many drops of precum can make a baby before pulling out, so why not cum inside then, all times of month? Let life happen naturally.
Early withdrawal may seem to make the most sense, during the most fertile time of the month, what is that? The "risky rhythm method?" But considering what a joy and blessing a baby is or could be, what's wrong with "taking one's chances?" What do people really want, but the most and most natural sex, without worrying too much about getting pregnant? But if pregnancy isn't feared, why not just let pregnancies come as they will?
Rather than leaking precum, let semen shoot freely!
Of course, don't pull out during the less fertile times of the month, as rhythm allows. The world laughs at rhythm, claiming it doesn't really works so well. Joke: What do you call people who use rhythm. Answer: Parents.
But we have forgotten the point. Until "the pill" of 1960, people just had children and didn't count the cost. Family size was thought uncontrollable. Why? People knew what made babies, but sex was well worth it, even though it sometimes meant LARGE families.
Anyway, my point was, why does one's method of "family planning" need to be all that effective at reducing births, when children are a great blessing? So why not more natural and more "risky" methods then? Some guy at work, was saying to some other guy, If (Catholic-tolerated) rhythm is about preventing children, then isn't it still wrong? I agree,as it would be far better to welcome children to come to life as they do or can
Occupied womb is most natural means of child spacing
@pronatalist - Adopt children that are already here. Adopt the children that have already been born through your "natrual" methods, whose parents couldn't take care of them. I suggest you take a trip to India and tell me why moms are cutting their children, burning them, and letting them walk alone on the streets to get money. Tell me that working in horrible conditions are worth it, that the sex trade isn't real, and there are not enough people in this world.
I've heard that many American parents prefer to adopt foreign children, because adoption is too complicated in the U.S. Not only is it expensive and complicated, but the rights of the biological parents, extend for too long. Parents don't want to face the prospect, that the biological parents will one day decide they want to take their new addition to their family, back
Also, a more pronatalist world, that welcomes babies to flow out naturally, is friendlier and more adopt eagerly
@pronatalist - I understand that people adopt kids overseas, due to the fact that it simply is easier to adopt. I don't welcome babies to "flow out natually" into the world... Simply and hopefully, that a child has a good life they are born to.
If people have the right to select a method of "birth control," then wouldn't the "no method" method, still be on the list of options? If not, what more proof do we need, that it's about manipulation and "control" of people, and not a true "choice" at all?
I do not consider myself "better" than my children, another reason why I do not believe in closing the door to their possible conception. Let it happen as God allows
Prolife/pronatalism is good morality for good life for babies
@pronatalist - Using that reasoning, you are saying god allows children to be born into a family that cannot take care of them/abusive family. If got has anything to do with it, its that he give people a choice.... Hopefully a responsible one. Yeah, people do plan for big families... You know what happens once you get pregnant once. Either that, or apparently the few pregencies before, the concept just didn't click. . If you love children, adopt then. Kids out there need someone good.
People already have enough moral choices. We don't need to complicate things by promoting bad immoral choices. People can choose to wait for marriage for sex, or to marry younger. I think desire for sex, is a major factor that reminds or sometimes urges people naturally to marry younger than they might otherwise had done.
God commanded people Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Most everybody answered me, saying commandment has not expired, still applies. So ADAPT to pop.
Yeah, no doubt quite many people do plan to have big families, and they certainly have their God-given right to let their babies push out naturally without any means of "birth control." Some want big families for religious reasons, some just love children. Some may not want to bother with birth control, so a big family may just seem inevitable, or to run in the family.
But what I meant to say, is that large families often "grow" on people, just sort of happens, they got used to it
Yes, adoption of children needing good homes, is good, but those who actually love children enough to adopt, may also see no need to object to the natural flow of human life, and desiring children, may choose to shun the use of any means of birth control. Some adopt because they just can't quite seem to conceive any more children.
Pregnancy is a healthy condition, and contraceptives have side effects. People who love children, may be open to having a big family, mating naturally.
If we aren't to let babies "flow out naturally," then there has to be a good reason for hindering the natural way that God must have intended? What might it be? Fear of pregnancy? Is this really something that good responsible parents must need be afraid of? I think quite many parents didn't actually "plan" to have so many children, but often big families sneak up upon them. 4th child just born, still haven't selected "satisfactory" method. Love children, then let them come alive!
@pronatalist - I suggest looking at India or China. To look at thier poor and middle class and tell me that, that is how life should be lived. Look at the Philippines, Thailand and the Middle East for references too. God said be fruitful and multiply. Not to overfill the world...
Why not "overfill" the world? For it really does not take all that much imagination, to explore how the world could actually be made to hold mind-boggling numbers of people, if ever it had to. I agree very much with China and India having allowed or been unable to prevent, their populations from growing so huge. Huge pops help the planet hold lots more people.
But I don't advocate the poverty, as wealth provides more options for safely, comfortably expanding/densifying human pops.
Overeducated idiots, or people educated way beyond their intelligence, may look to India and China, as portending where the entire world may be headed, if we don't soon get a bit more of a handle upon our naturally-rising numbers. But I say, that rising density is what's required to make room for everybody's progeny and to preserve freedom to live and procreate. Technology does much to allow far higher world pop levels.
Children don't make people poor, but poverty urges breeding.
i think people need to stop complaining about the colour of their egg yolks and start worrying about something that matters! like over population, global warming, poverty etc.
@NeonRocks377 why care for overpopulation, global warming when you have kidspies and big brother rape your life ? Without a society that appreciates freedom and responsibility, how should society be able to care for clean water, healthy food and plants , but through fanatism, which finally leads to a vicious circle of fashism ? There is a very simple mechanism against overpopulation, which will act on its own. its called nature and evolution. Its the most fair mechanism on top.
overpopulation is no threat as most children per women is 1.6 and to overpopulate we need more than 2.1. in 30 years the population will begin to DECREASE. I frankly think this is nonsense.
xD I had a teacher that said the world is technically filled with idiots.
The smart people wait and have one or two children, while the stupid uneducated people have like more than five and at very young ages. While the smart people begin to die out, the idiots will take over the world. I thought she was being irrational lol but who knows?
@GloomMidoriHikkuko She is partially right. In nature, the best animals have fewer offspring because their couplings produce high quality offspring with a good chance of survival and finding a mate. Alternately, not so smart or good animals fuck a lot and make tons of offspring to mitigate the loss of some/most of the litter. See the top animals like lions and elephants as compared to rodents. Eventually, the extra die off and the best among them continue, bettering even the idiots.
The primary problem with the overpopulation myth is that certain people erronesouly think that the world, and its food supply, are like a pie; a finite supply which must increasingly de divided among more and more people. When, in fact, the world's food supply has grown with each generation. Why? Because we make our own food, we don't wait for someone to bring it to us. As for those starving now, their starvation has nothing to do with limited supply and everything to do with politics.
That's an interesting point, but unfortunately resource consumption isn't limited to food. One issue I personally feel is pressing is the oil supply, for instance. When that starts to run out, societies are going to feel much greater pressure than simple transport issues - oils are used to make plastics as well. Sadly, oil reserves *are* a finite resource. Forests and timber is another. Hybrid and sustainable technology is invaluable, but we may not be able to develop enough for when we need it.
If humanity gave up every time there was a challenge (such as developing renewable resource supplies) we'd still be in the caves and trees. When weneed it, we will figure it out, without having to "control" our population.
Remember, more power strikes the earth in one day (in the form of solar energy) than we could ever use. All we have to do is harness it. There is an endless amount of energy in the universe.
@Frostlight you can already use potatoes for things we normally use plastik for. Instead concentrating to develop weapons of mass destruction and declaring the internet or similar normal stuff as... weapons of mass destruction, a restructure of economic interests would do the job. overpopulation may cause problems for humans.superbombs can turn this planet into an eternal desert. just fire all abombs and waterbombs at once and overpopulation will be a tiny , sweet puppy.
Hi lezvarthok, thanks for your comment, but I don't really follow what you're saying. Where do weapons of mass destruction come into this? Personally, I'm very much *against* WMDs, and I certainly wouldn't consider the internet to be one (I love the internet)! I see overpopulation as a problem for several reasons - resource consumption is one, pollution is another. The problem with biofuels is that they are notoriously inefficient, and huge tracts of land are being cleared to make them.
Of course not - that would be terrible! I would never condone anyone's murder, especially of a child. No, there's a much simpler way to prevent overpopulation, which is for people to make the decision not to have more than two children per family, or a number of children below the population sustainability rate for a given country. Basically, birth control. There's no need for murder to come into it anywhere.
Well...it's unclear, according to your video, it seems that you portray babies as an inconvenient enemy, rather than the gifts that they truly are. Birth control is not the answer...LOVE is.
I'm sorry you got that impression from my video. I intended it to be a light-hearted take on a serious issue, using metaphors rather than hard facts. While I honestly do believe that birth control is the answer (and is by no means mutually exclusive to love), I never intended for my video to promote any kind of violence.
Your answer is simple and elegant, and correct. What the world needs, is not nasty unnatural "birth control," but love
When people love one another, they more readily pair up, marry, and reproduce even more babies. But people are intelligent, and when they follow in God's ways, reduce sin, love one another, thus becoming more pronatalist and accepting of the need of human life to naturally spread, and then ADAPT far more readily to our rising numbers
Why can't more people open their minds, reject the deceptions of the devil, and think outside the box?
How can parents go on enjoying having their precious darling babies, in a world with so many people alive already? Isn't it obvious? We need to populate the world more densely, then place can be found or made for everybody and all their progeny. Build more/bigger cities and towns, closer together.
In the past we could spread out, we can also spread together and build highrises
Overpopulation is a myth!!! The greatest lie of the boomer generation. Watch Demographic Winter among other information available. Think economy, too - we do not have enough workers, inventors, etc. to support the aging population. I repeat: OVERPOPULATION IS A MYTH, A LIE!
If we take away the imagined lines drawnon the map (the countries), we find that world population is projected to grow from 6.8 billion to 9 billion people by 2050. It's not sustainable, it's madness. Name one problem we can solve by adding more people to the global population. A larger population only uses more resources, faster, while exacerbating every other problem you can think of.
I agree with the natural "globalization" of letting countries populate themselves into one another, such that countries lines may seem to fade. However, that's a process that takes time to occur naturally, and I oppose the corruption political merging of countries under unaccountable dictators of the sort usually associated with "globalization."
Name 1 problem solved by growing world pop? Ridiculous lib propaganda line. How about several? Freedom! More people to enjoy life. It happens
A larger population also has more, supposedly intelligent minds, and more people working jobs, working together to develop more resources, and find better and more ways to use resources more efficiently for the populous many. I very much disagree with the bizarre bias of focusing only on the negatives and ignoring possible positives to a naturally swelling global population.
By adding more billions, we counter question of "How do we control the pop growth?" We don't. Let babies come!
@pronatalist First question: do you recognize that the Earth has a limited carrying capacity for humans? I mean, you wouldn't try to argue that the Earth could sustain a hypothetical population of some absurd number like 300 trillion people at our current level of technology, would you?
Not near as limited as you seem to think. Why not 300 trillion? If it ever comes to that, not a mathematical possibility within our lifetimes at least, so much the better, the more people to benefit within the populous many. Certainly that many people could fit, especially as people learn and adapt to live on multiple floors of highrises, built to better provide adequate living space for so many.
It's absurd to assume that technology would be held back at current level, with so many.
@pronatalist You are clearly a fool. Mere existance in an over-crowded environment is not the way to go. There must be a Quality of Life. There will be no god to come and save us; there will be no pre-designated end-time.
There will be only an increasingly difficult existance, greater competition for GOOD, QUALITY food, clean water, heat in the winter (since there will be almost no trees). I know this sounds gloomy, but it is what you see everywhere else in NATURE of which we are a part.
Why not allow people to exist first, and then worry about the details? How can people have human rights, if their very right to exist is called into question, due to vague and poorly-defined notions of supposed "overpopulation?" "Overpop" implies that some people are unnecessary or of trivial value. But the Bible says that people are created in God's image. That's hardly trivial, now is it?
Difficulties are caused by bad governance and unsound fiat paper currency, not by pop growth.
If you wish to deny the existence of God, then you make my pro-life argument more difficult to make. But still not impossible. If God is presumed to maybe not exist, then where's the assurance that everything will or can work out okay? But still that doesn't prove that the world can't somehow hold or be made to hold, many more billions of people. (Still the questions of moral codes to follow remains.)
Trees for heat? Wood's already obsolete. Heat with oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear.
@pronatalist As long as trees grow, wood will be used for fuel. The other sources depend on advanced technology to extract and utilize them.
I'm sure you're a good person. There is much wisdom in The Bible. But just face it, there are no gods. The endtime comes when the brain dies.
We don't have to remove life or liberty, just make good decisions. There are limited resources. When they're gone that's it. Humans, great as we are, still animals,same rules apply. Future people will suffer.
Wood is an inferior fuel. It's not convenient. However, one reason for wood's continued popularity as fuel, is that nature grows trees/wood for free, naturally, and wood is simple for even the poor to harvest. If you have land of much any size, you may not necessarily have oil wells on your land, but who doesn't have trees to cut or thin out? Why are gas logs so popular? Much the same benefit, but with none of the mess of smoke and ashes.
An environment "overcrowded" with people, ceases to be so apparently overcrowded, as it is better designed to hold lots more people. Or did you think that all those people almost never have any good ideas how to ADAPT to what must be?
We already have technologies to clean potable water, scalable to most any size population imaginable. Energy can be quite cheap and abundant, if we go with the best most productive technologies, avoid the enviro- "green" nazis anti-business propaganda.
@pronatalist - Wow, your right. Humans aren't reproducing and moving thier homes into the wilderness/ animal's habitat. Animals have PLENTY of room to just be cute in our back yards. There are no wild animal attacks that could happen. There's no reason to have the enviro-"green" nazis anti-business propaganda among us. I'm sure that the gas will never go away, water won't be limited, the air will always be clean, people won't be on the streets, and taxes might end.
I think even liberals say that you can't stop people from having sex. So why should I desire for fewer people to have sex? Sure, let more people enjoy sex as world pop naturally grows. There has to be a proper outlet for humanity's powerful reproductive urges. What I encourage, is what I see in the Bible. Do it the right way, get married, take responsibility for children. Why does the world so insist upon getting it all backwards?
When we allow evil politicians to use "population" as a scapegoat for the very problems that corrupt governments cause themselves, then contraceptives become a huge "cure-all" distraction from needed real reforms. As the real issues are not addressed, the problems aren't solved, and so taxes are jacked up higher to address the multiplying problems of government waste and corruption. As people seek more ways to escape the tyranny, the people become more ungovernable, prone to revolt
@pronatalist - Who said anything about abstinence? I'm all for having fun, however, responsiblity is the key. Really?? Do you think ANY of those parents let their child get MARRIED in HIGH SCHOOL? I mean, kids already have enough stress on thier plates with school, homework, parents, friends, and trying to figure out who they are. Add a kid to the mix??? Kids are expensive, and you have to be ready for them... Financially, spiritually (if applicable), emotionally and physically.
I'm for abstinence, or for marrying younger. If people want to have sex, there's a right way to go about it. If they think they are adult enough for sex, then get married and start a family. Having fun? Let's not be too hedonistic. What about choice and responsibility? If they want the responsibility of sex and raising children, let them do it the right way.
Do any of those parents let their child get married in high school? Oh, probably a few of them at least? Some grow up young?
Did I say the children must marry young? No, I simply defended the option and choice, should they decide marrying younger is right for them.
I heard some time ago that more young people are waiting longer for sex, if not until marriage, at least until college. That could be an encouraging sign. Perhaps the prolife message is getting through to people? Sex too early, puts undue pressure upon the relationship, before it's stable. Pregnant? Do they hurry up and marry, or break it up?
"Teenager" is a modern invention. Not long ago, there was no such thing as "teenagers." Teenagers were adults, many already married and having children in their later teens. These days way too many are awfully immature for their age. Children used to be expected to do chores, and when they came of age, they were expected to soon take a mate, marry, and start their families. Now we tell children that they have few duties, but to maybe do their homework, play, and play video games.
@pronatalist - Roles have changed, and in the world that we live in... A mom goes to work the same as the father. A child goes to school to educate him/herself to get ready for the modern world. Marriage nowdays is a joke. If you love someone and marry them, that could still be a wrong desision. If you are old enough to engage in sex, then you should be mature enough to handle what happens. And often, an innocent child/children is caught up in the mess. Child rasing isn't what is was before.
Roles have changed, but the Bible says there is no new thing under the sun. In other words, the sins people commit are much the same, and few ideas people have are all that original. Roles have changed? So what? Doesn't change what ought to be. Many Moms prefer to be stay-at-home Moms, but our wicked depraved culture and runaway taxes, makes it a challenge how to then make the finances work
Marriage is not a joke,to many happily married couples. If agree with, if sex,expect babies
You said often, an innocent child, or children, is caught up in the mess. But wouldn't you have to admit, it's far better to be born into less-than-perfect circumstances, than to not be born at all? To exist, is far better than to never have lived at all. Bad circumstances can be improved. People can repent. Poor people might find opportunities, or a better job, especially in a culture that seeks to do right, becomes more pronatalist, more willing to give all children their chance.
@pronatalist - Funny that you say that... Sins? The Bible has reduced woman to the 2ed class citizen. Would you rather go to that? Role have changed, time and technogy has changed. It depends on who you are asking, "far better to be born in less than perfect circumstances". That's like saying, "better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all." It would all depend on who you are talking to. "A wicked depraved culture"? Now, we are more tolerant than we have ever been.
... Wicked? Depends on your beliefs. - You don't seem to care about poverty or the enviorment. Do you think that a foster home is best for the child whose parents cannot make a good enough living to feed themselves? Or that finances who are already stressed alone without child, now have to provide 2 decades of care, time, and finances to one night of passion? Back when times were simpler, you had to raise your herds and garden. Nowdays, you are lucky to find a mediocre job in this economy.
So where's all the volunteers lining up to cease living, so as to make the population level lower? No, it seems the more "educated" and comfortable people become, sometimes the less they care about their neighbors, and entertain ridiculous human "overpopulation" theories. While the people most poor and "overcrowded," seem to be among those most "unaware" of their supposed "overpopulation," supposedly in need of "education" (indoctrination) of the latest overpopulation fad theories.
Even judging from the video, where's the mass disaster it portends? You think families don't actually enjoy outgrowing their homes? People, if they are allowed freedom, can build additional rooms or floors onto their homes, or build bigger homes, to make way for their naturally-growing families.
A few people get squeezed out of being alive, by just "too many" people, in the video. And yet I notice, most people survive and thrive and somehow ADAPT? The scare tactics don't convince me.
I do hope for the foretold endtimes, hopefully even a pre-Great Tribulation rapture of God's people who accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior of their lives, and repented of their sins. It's not an "overflowing" planet of people that concerns me, as population can't really get so high anyway within my lifetime, but the rampant corruption and multiplication of tyrannical laws of arrogant governments. Instead of using technology more to alter planet for more people, it's used to spy on us?
Why try to place any arbitrary number limit anyway? With human population growing, expanding naturally, wildly, or "out of control," who really knows what number, but God? It has to be "out of control" or "beyond control," as some population control freaks may choose to view it, because what alternative is there but tyranny?
People don't want to be told how many children they can have. Something has to give? How about the sparse pop level of the past? Let pops grow denser naturally.
People think that a "few more" children makes little difference. Problem is, the world has a billion families that think the same thing? I disagree, as there is ample ways to accommodate "everybody" having their naturally big families.
World thinks sex is most wonderful thing? Oh really? Why can't liberals every logically complete even simple ideas? If so, why not a world with many billions more human penises and vaginas, populating closer together to make room for all? Reproduce!
World could hold "mind boggling" numbers of people, if ever it had to. We can't keep adding more and more people, and keep doing things the same old way? I agree with that idea, somewhat. Put all effort then, into only population accommodation, never anti-freedom, unnatural population "control"
"It is high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to move on in an orderly fashion, to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist
Don't most people think along the lines of, There's lots of places all around to put more people? Doesn't that really imply, that most people naturally prefer growing denser and denser, to forced population "control" or anti-family restrictions upon childbearing? I agree! There's side effects to contraceptives, and I neither ask nor expect people to use any "birth control"
Obvious answer is to let people fill gaps in between cities. Let burgeoning crowds flow out of everybody's homes
So there has to be some "limit" imposed upon the natural expansion of the already "huge" human race, as the planet is but so big? But the natural limits I see are ENOUGH. It takes time for humans to multiply. While humans may be said to be among the most horny of God's creatures, we are also among the slowest at multiplying. We grow in numbers GRADUALLY, allowing ample time to ADAPT and prepare. It's God who commanded people to multiply, and it's God who decides how populous we shouldB
@pronatalist - That's like saying that God wants us to only do missionary style, for all others are a sin. Or have you forgotten... God did destroy the world because he didn't like it. Believe in your deity and your view that the world can sustain all the people by 2050. Don't worry about the water supply that dwindles in the summer, or the teen dads that can't take care of thier babies. Not a crisis at all like global warming.
I don't recall much anything specific about what "position" people should do sex in, mentioned in the Bible. But rather Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, which would imply that the "seed of copulation" should go where baby conception is possible. I presume "missionary" is a good position, perhaps the most common?, but then, I don't know a lot about sex positions.
If the world already holds 7 billion, why can't you imagine how a few more billions can fit by 2050?
I'm not impressed with sex positions that don't spread human life. In the movie, Demolition Man, in the future, transfer of body fluids is thought weird or not allowed? What? Sex is wearing some sex brain interface helmet, that hardly even connects or works. No, it's the natural procreation that largely justifies the sex act of intercourse. Without the prospect of pregnancy, why not question more just how sanitary the exchange of body fluids is? Among even married couples?
The Great Flood/Noah's Ark, wasn't because people were becoming too numerous, but so sinful as to grieve God for creating people. God wanted/commanded/caused/designed people to grow very numerous. I think that's what's it's talking about in Genesis 1, about God giving man dominion over nature and other creatures, meaning largely, due to necessity/sheer numbers of people.
Denying babies life won't help water supply, but rather, more dams/infrastructure.
It's unfair to judge people prematurely, just for being a "teen dad." I heard that in the U.S., we supposedly have a million teenage pregnancies a year. However, what the pro-aborts don't tell you, is that half of those "teens" are 18 or 19 and MARRIED. Now is that really a teenage pregnancy "problem," or twisting of propaganda to promote an anti-life agenda?
Radio talk show host Sean Hannity talks how if it snows it's global warming. Everything is g.w.? Defined to mean anything?
@pronatalist - There are some teen dads that do take care of thier kids, however the majority are the mothers. Half those teens are married? Okay, that will account for around 50% divorce rate in the U.S. Right now, 90 teenage girls at one public high school in Memphis, Tenn., are either pregnant or have had a baby this school year, according to media reports. I'm sure lots of those teen moms are married to the father, have a job, balance school and are doing just dandy.
I'm not saying that all teen parents are as responsible as they should be. But rather, we could allow, expect, or accept, that some of them really are ready for children, and are, or could be encouraged, to be more responsible
90 teenage girls pregnant? I suspect the result of lax morals and/or shoddy "sex ed." We don't need the "everybody's doing it" nonsense, so much as abstinence, responsible marriage message. Perhaps a few of them ARE married, a reason to allow swollen bellies
I think this video was awesome, if only more people would open their eyes to the problems associated with overpopulation in the world....Even though I do live in the states, I'm not one of the blind walking around, I've always strived to do my part but I'm only one person. How do you get more people involved?
if you really want to affect the world around you and you truly believe the world is over populated you can start with eliminating your own useless life
@culturaldissident if your life is just that useless then find something your good at. otherwise if you can't, don't worry. it will happen one day. by that i mean either:
I apologise for the negative response to your comment - my video's had an influx of them in the last 24 hours, which might be either a sudden spike in popularity or a coordinated attack. Either way, it's not very nice of them to attack other commenters like yourself.
In response to your question (I just noticed it, sorry!), I have to admit it's very difficult to get others involved. This video was my attempt at doing so. In general, I think that just raising the topic must be a good start.
Oh, why do you say that? I put a lot of effort into this animation, so if I could get some more specific feedback on what I did wrong, that would be very helpful to me for next time.
Please also know that I'm just a beginner. This was my first animation ever - which I made for a university assignment -and so naturally I'm far from professional. I'm sorry to hear that you hated my video so much, but I hope that you can take my lack of experience into consideration.
Are you fuckin stupid ! The Population will soon start decreasing !!
jose7778 1 month ago
Question: Can you squeeze 7 billion people on Russian territory?
TheMaster4534 2 months ago
@TheMaster4534
Of course another 7 billion could squeeze onto Russian empty lands. I don't see any reason why that couldn't be doable. Billions more could live in Africa. Australia could hold billions. There's so many places that could hold lots more people.
The problem is small little unimaginative minds, damaged by NWO criminal elitist gov monopoly "education."
China could hold lots more people, billions more, if they would simply fill their "empty cities," build more cities.
pronatalist 1 month ago
Comment removed
TheMaster4534 2 months ago
Comment removed
TheMaster4534 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheMaster4534 4 months ago
This video is a clear example of people who feel educated and informed, however it is what it is...only a feeling. They are being educated by the modern mass media and have almost lost all critical thinking...but of course they dont see it. I would recommend reading more books than swallowing down newspapers climate change-world end scenarios-evil CO2 hoaxes. And by the way...the western world with the rest of industrialized world is FAST dieing out just so you know...
VoteDrRonPaul 7 months ago
Question, Why are fertility rates dropping?
shinokiba 8 months ago
WHY IT IS A WHITE BABY IN THIS video, don't you know that Africans are the one who breed like insects !!!!!!! not white and chines
personutile 9 months ago
industrial countries are facing demographic crisis because they don't have enough kids which will lead to economical collapse, they have to boost their birth rate
you should promote family planing for Africa and some parts of Asia where people are breeding like rabbits NOT for industrial counties
personutile 9 months ago
I'm not going to have a kid. Not even one.
MusicAmidstTheTrees 10 months ago
@MusicAmidstTheTrees you will regret when you become older and you will feel miserable . i hope you don't promote this idea to other people
no children = no future for our nation
we must have a stable population growth (not zero growth) in order to have economic growth
personutile 9 months ago
people solve everything, we need more people....
human pollute the planet = economic interest mandated by the people that buy the crap made by polluting corps .. there is choice...
educate Yourself´s...
how many of this over pop bullshit is in the Internet is everyone brainless????
SEVANAL 10 months ago
People. People! If it's any consolation, I'm doing MY part. I never had kids and I never will. I never married and I never will. I never had sex and I never will.
1958boomergirl 11 months ago
@1958boomergirl you will regret when you become older and you will feel miserable . i hope you don't promote this idea to other people
no children = no future for our nation
we must have a stable population growth (not zero growth) in order to have economic growth
personutile 9 months ago
Funny,
I thought when the Earth asked the Sun, 'Is there anything you can do?' the Sun should have blown up.
Overpopulation is not a science, it's popular science.
Cienstin 1 year ago
@Cienstin popular science, another way of saying it's a myth.
Cienstin 1 year ago
@Cienstin No. But population ecology is.
zenflesh 1 year ago
.....A supervirus can increase the mortality rate by 56%.......enough to control the
swelling population.........
TheMaster4534 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you save the environment, you save the human race.
After you read this sentence, there are:
56,789,900 people died,
9,875,785,476 babies born!
Imagine that, laid end to end, the babies born will line from the state of Michigan to the Falkland Islands in South America!!!!
Or, the entire human population, will wrap the earth 780x!
Choice: The Green Choice OR Hoping a gargantuan meteor to hit Earth and 7/8 of the population will die , including you?
TheMaster4534 1 year ago
Comment removed
TheMaster4534 1 year ago
Quite a few mixed messages there. Watch 2.1 Kids: Stable population on here. It's in the right column just there > ...up a bit. There you go.
Over population is a myth and the world temperature was always on the rise.
AlexZanda 1 year ago
Dude, Thomas Malthus is as dead as his ideas. Move on.
mldemond 1 year ago
Nicely done! It's about time we had a few cute animations to counter those cute propaganda-pushing animations by "overpopulationisamyth" claiming the population explosion's no problem at all.
SPAnsw 1 year ago
u mention all the bad that might happen due to over population, but u fail to say how the earth is overpopulating. think about how many people r on the planet now, all couples have an average of two children, there r families who hav more but there r also families who choose not to hav kids, and think about famin and war, unfortunatly. i dont see how the earth can overpopulate unless every couple had 4 kids each and there were no disasters
Tommygun456 1 year ago
And what would you consider the 'green choice'
Stargaezr0 1 year ago
@Stargaezr0
I know, I could have picked a better caption! It's too vague! :P But basically, the easiest way to reduce overpopulation is to simply stop having lots of children. It's been done in China, where families were restricted to one child (or two in rural areas), and has successfully reduced the population growth dramatically since it started. I can't see legislation ever happening in the Western world, but all people need to do is say: Two children are enough for me, thanks! :)
Frostlight 1 year ago 3
@Frostlight
It's not the western world at ALL.
They do have less than 2 children, it's the immigration that's increasing the population for those countries like France, U.K. North America, and probably even Australia and New Zealand but all other Western countries have a decreasing population.
Scoinsoffaterocks 1 year ago
@Frostlight Do you vote for the Nazi Party?
shinokiba 8 months ago
Comment removed
TheMaster4534 4 months ago
@Stargaezr0 - Condum. Saves energy, helps the whales and baby seals. Its the ultimate green choice.
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
@Stargaezr0
I presume your question, "And what would you consider the 'green choice'?," refers to a line near the end of the video. I consider "the green choice" to be, not hindering the natural flow of human life, or the rejection of use of any kind of "birth control." Why pollute the body directly? Of course, enviro-wackos may differ with my assessment, due to their "green nazi" control freak agenda
You would think by now, there should be more thought, that today's high pop is natural/normal
pronatalist 1 year ago
A SOLUTION TO OVERPOPULATION HAS BEEN DISCOVERED! what is it? AQUAPONICS! - a method of growing fruits and vegetables and with fish that utilizes fertilizer from the fish (their waste) which is pumped to the plants which in turn use it as fertilizer, and purify the water for the fish. it operates at relatively no cost once you get it going and has the potential to feed the world. blooms are 2x more productive compared to conventional hydroponics using mineral salts fertilizers.
BAMFeldman 1 year ago 3
This problem fixes itself. Look at areas in the world where there is over population and not enough resources: you will find genocide, war, disease running rampant, and strife. All built in defense mechanisms against our over populating. The moment the resources run low, war clears out the chaff while giving us new technologies that get us one step closer to colonizing other worlds. That is the ultimate goal, I think - Manifest Destiny across the Universe. The future is bright.
Cajaquarius 1 year ago
In today's culture of profit, we do not produce goods based on human need. We do not build houses based on population needs. We do not grow food to feed people. Industry's major motivation is profit. The monetary system is now an impediment to survival rather than a means of facilitating individual existence and growth. This imaginary tool has outlived its usefulness.
earthling151 1 year ago
Theres NO Such thing as overpopulation- just Bad Science.
Theres abundance for all on the planet- ! its just a poor management of the earths resources !
earthling151 1 year ago
See the animation on my channel
CREAVOLUTIONthemovie 1 year ago
it should be "You can help prevent this.... wear a condom"
Daniel39363 1 year ago 18
@Daniel39363 or not have sex, that is the best birth control.
TommonSensePro 1 year ago
@TommonSensePro
But wouldn't most normal people, think that not having sex, is absurd for married people? Of course they are going to have sex? They say you can't stop people from having sex. I don't expect married people to have to go with no sex or less sex, as I don't believe in pushing "birth control" nor imposing pop "control" upon people. Whatever happened to letting babies happen when they happen?
It's enough to properly pair up, marry, and take responsibility for children coming alive.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist I know. I completely agree with you on the birth control. But like I said, not having sex is the best birth control. Any other birth control is just degrading the person you are with. Not having sex just cherishes that person even more because you respect that person enough to say, "If I don't have sex with you, it's not because you are ugly or something, but I respect all your being, and not put anything in between our love for each other."
TommonSensePro 1 year ago
@TommonSensePro
Sure, there's times for not having sex, say like for people who AREN'T MARRIED. But I don't expect married people to go without sex, as they have made their commitment to take responsibility and to form a stable family nest, implied within their marriage vows/union. I don't expect married people to "control" their fertility, as having their possibly "traditionally very large" families is a viable option/blessings.
Faith, love welcomes its "overflow" in a child coming to life.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@TommonSensePro
Not long ago, it was just a "given," the natural increase of human beings. People had "issue" of children, the words chosen, almost as if God was generously handing out his precious blessings of children. Nowadays, so many people have been corrupted with communist and NWO anti-freedom thinking.
Why should people have to fight against their very own body's natural reproductive rhythms? Spurting semen into one's wife, doesn't assure a baby, but allows it to happen when it will.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@TommonSensePro
Sure, self-control is a virtue, and certainly some practicers of "natural family planning," or rhythm, may attempt to explain its virtues over the unnatural, nasty, Big Pharma, poisoning-the-body-directly ARTIFICIAL contraceptive methods. But the world balks saying "natural" methods require too much self-control, and rhythm supposedly trends towards LARGE families
Movies 1984 future bans "orgasm," Demolition Man bans sharing of bodily fluids (sperm). Why not enjoy reproduction?
pronatalist 1 year ago
@TommonSensePro
I wish to make the point, that human birthrates do not need to be "controlled," and so I defend the right of responsible parents to reproduce naturally without any means of "birth control," and also against imposing pop "control" upon human beings.
I object to the whole concept of the modern expectation to select a shoddy method of "birth control." Rather than promote the more "natural" methods, what could be a more natural means of child spacing, than an already-occupied womb?
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist I love all your insights. I myself came from a large family of 9 kids, and the number of grandkids are growing as well. One day when I get married I hope to enjoy all these insights.
TommonSensePro 1 year ago
@TommonSensePro
Let's list a few benefits of letting babies come as they come, without any means of "birth control."
1. Avoiding the side effects and poisoning of the body directly, of nasty unnatural Big Pharma contraceptives.
2. No fighting among husband and wife as to how many children to have, when it's God's choice, or however many babies happen, happens.
3. Less chance of lamenting infertility problems later, after one's family is already quite big?
4. Elegant simplicity, faith, love.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@TommonSensePro
5. Growing families naturally, helps avoid distractions from how to better accommodate growing numbers of people upon the earth, that come with the nasty anti-family contraceptives.
6. Lack of "birth control" use, relates to higher sexual morality, as when sex=babies, people tend to be less casual and careless about who they have sex with. Monogamy/marriage is hopefully more promoted. Birth control promotes reckless promiscuity
7. I am not better than my kids, so let them come
pronatalist 1 year ago
@TommonSensePro
8. Truth be told, there are no good methods of "family planning," other than of course, abstinence until marriage. Artificial contraceptives have side effects, are inconvenient, and have too much expense. Condoms can easily cost over $1/each, only usable once. Will-power rhythm may be better, but why not pull out during most fertile time of month? Many drops of precum can make a baby before pulling out, so why not cum inside then, all times of month? Let life happen naturally.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist I agree.
TommonSensePro 1 year ago
@TommonSensePro
Early withdrawal may seem to make the most sense, during the most fertile time of the month, what is that? The "risky rhythm method?" But considering what a joy and blessing a baby is or could be, what's wrong with "taking one's chances?" What do people really want, but the most and most natural sex, without worrying too much about getting pregnant? But if pregnancy isn't feared, why not just let pregnancies come as they will?
Rather than leaking precum, let semen shoot freely!
pronatalist 1 year ago
@TommonSensePro
Of course, don't pull out during the less fertile times of the month, as rhythm allows. The world laughs at rhythm, claiming it doesn't really works so well. Joke: What do you call people who use rhythm. Answer: Parents.
But we have forgotten the point. Until "the pill" of 1960, people just had children and didn't count the cost. Family size was thought uncontrollable. Why? People knew what made babies, but sex was well worth it, even though it sometimes meant LARGE families.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@TommonSensePro
Anyway, my point was, why does one's method of "family planning" need to be all that effective at reducing births, when children are a great blessing? So why not more natural and more "risky" methods then? Some guy at work, was saying to some other guy, If (Catholic-tolerated) rhythm is about preventing children, then isn't it still wrong? I agree,as it would be far better to welcome children to come to life as they do or can
Occupied womb is most natural means of child spacing
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist - Adopt children that are already here. Adopt the children that have already been born through your "natrual" methods, whose parents couldn't take care of them. I suggest you take a trip to India and tell me why moms are cutting their children, burning them, and letting them walk alone on the streets to get money. Tell me that working in horrible conditions are worth it, that the sex trade isn't real, and there are not enough people in this world.
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
I've heard that many American parents prefer to adopt foreign children, because adoption is too complicated in the U.S. Not only is it expensive and complicated, but the rights of the biological parents, extend for too long. Parents don't want to face the prospect, that the biological parents will one day decide they want to take their new addition to their family, back
Also, a more pronatalist world, that welcomes babies to flow out naturally, is friendlier and more adopt eagerly
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist - I understand that people adopt kids overseas, due to the fact that it simply is easier to adopt. I don't welcome babies to "flow out natually" into the world... Simply and hopefully, that a child has a good life they are born to.
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
If people have the right to select a method of "birth control," then wouldn't the "no method" method, still be on the list of options? If not, what more proof do we need, that it's about manipulation and "control" of people, and not a true "choice" at all?
I do not consider myself "better" than my children, another reason why I do not believe in closing the door to their possible conception. Let it happen as God allows
Prolife/pronatalism is good morality for good life for babies
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist - Using that reasoning, you are saying god allows children to be born into a family that cannot take care of them/abusive family. If got has anything to do with it, its that he give people a choice.... Hopefully a responsible one. Yeah, people do plan for big families... You know what happens once you get pregnant once. Either that, or apparently the few pregencies before, the concept just didn't click. . If you love children, adopt then. Kids out there need someone good.
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
People already have enough moral choices. We don't need to complicate things by promoting bad immoral choices. People can choose to wait for marriage for sex, or to marry younger. I think desire for sex, is a major factor that reminds or sometimes urges people naturally to marry younger than they might otherwise had done.
God commanded people Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Most everybody answered me, saying commandment has not expired, still applies. So ADAPT to pop.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
Yeah, no doubt quite many people do plan to have big families, and they certainly have their God-given right to let their babies push out naturally without any means of "birth control." Some want big families for religious reasons, some just love children. Some may not want to bother with birth control, so a big family may just seem inevitable, or to run in the family.
But what I meant to say, is that large families often "grow" on people, just sort of happens, they got used to it
pronatalist 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
Yes, adoption of children needing good homes, is good, but those who actually love children enough to adopt, may also see no need to object to the natural flow of human life, and desiring children, may choose to shun the use of any means of birth control. Some adopt because they just can't quite seem to conceive any more children.
Pregnancy is a healthy condition, and contraceptives have side effects. People who love children, may be open to having a big family, mating naturally.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
If we aren't to let babies "flow out naturally," then there has to be a good reason for hindering the natural way that God must have intended? What might it be? Fear of pregnancy? Is this really something that good responsible parents must need be afraid of? I think quite many parents didn't actually "plan" to have so many children, but often big families sneak up upon them. 4th child just born, still haven't selected "satisfactory" method. Love children, then let them come alive!
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist - I suggest looking at India or China. To look at thier poor and middle class and tell me that, that is how life should be lived. Look at the Philippines, Thailand and the Middle East for references too. God said be fruitful and multiply. Not to overfill the world...
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
Why not "overfill" the world? For it really does not take all that much imagination, to explore how the world could actually be made to hold mind-boggling numbers of people, if ever it had to. I agree very much with China and India having allowed or been unable to prevent, their populations from growing so huge. Huge pops help the planet hold lots more people.
But I don't advocate the poverty, as wealth provides more options for safely, comfortably expanding/densifying human pops.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
Overeducated idiots, or people educated way beyond their intelligence, may look to India and China, as portending where the entire world may be headed, if we don't soon get a bit more of a handle upon our naturally-rising numbers. But I say, that rising density is what's required to make room for everybody's progeny and to preserve freedom to live and procreate. Technology does much to allow far higher world pop levels.
Children don't make people poor, but poverty urges breeding.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist Hope that makes sense. The comment was joking and completely serious at the same time.
TommonSensePro 1 year ago
i think people need to stop complaining about the colour of their egg yolks and start worrying about something that matters! like over population, global warming, poverty etc.
NeonRocks377 1 year ago
@NeonRocks377 why care for overpopulation, global warming when you have kidspies and big brother rape your life ? Without a society that appreciates freedom and responsibility, how should society be able to care for clean water, healthy food and plants , but through fanatism, which finally leads to a vicious circle of fashism ? There is a very simple mechanism against overpopulation, which will act on its own. its called nature and evolution. Its the most fair mechanism on top.
lezvarthok 1 year ago
overpopulation is no threat as most children per women is 1.6 and to overpopulate we need more than 2.1. in 30 years the population will begin to DECREASE. I frankly think this is nonsense.
euand1 2 years ago
Do not be afraid this is very inaccurate. Overpopulation is not a threat to us.
euand1 2 years ago
kill all the gooks they take the most space
jtr10411 2 years ago
xD I had a teacher that said the world is technically filled with idiots.
The smart people wait and have one or two children, while the stupid uneducated people have like more than five and at very young ages. While the smart people begin to die out, the idiots will take over the world. I thought she was being irrational lol but who knows?
GloomMidoriHikkuko 1 year ago
@GloomMidoriHikkuko She is partially right. In nature, the best animals have fewer offspring because their couplings produce high quality offspring with a good chance of survival and finding a mate. Alternately, not so smart or good animals fuck a lot and make tons of offspring to mitigate the loss of some/most of the litter. See the top animals like lions and elephants as compared to rodents. Eventually, the extra die off and the best among them continue, bettering even the idiots.
Cajaquarius 1 year ago
The primary problem with the overpopulation myth is that certain people erronesouly think that the world, and its food supply, are like a pie; a finite supply which must increasingly de divided among more and more people. When, in fact, the world's food supply has grown with each generation. Why? Because we make our own food, we don't wait for someone to bring it to us. As for those starving now, their starvation has nothing to do with limited supply and everything to do with politics.
tagginos 2 years ago 2
That's an interesting point, but unfortunately resource consumption isn't limited to food. One issue I personally feel is pressing is the oil supply, for instance. When that starts to run out, societies are going to feel much greater pressure than simple transport issues - oils are used to make plastics as well. Sadly, oil reserves *are* a finite resource. Forests and timber is another. Hybrid and sustainable technology is invaluable, but we may not be able to develop enough for when we need it.
Frostlight 2 years ago
If humanity gave up every time there was a challenge (such as developing renewable resource supplies) we'd still be in the caves and trees. When weneed it, we will figure it out, without having to "control" our population.
Remember, more power strikes the earth in one day (in the form of solar energy) than we could ever use. All we have to do is harness it. There is an endless amount of energy in the universe.
tagginos 2 years ago
@Frostlight you can already use potatoes for things we normally use plastik for. Instead concentrating to develop weapons of mass destruction and declaring the internet or similar normal stuff as... weapons of mass destruction, a restructure of economic interests would do the job. overpopulation may cause problems for humans.superbombs can turn this planet into an eternal desert. just fire all abombs and waterbombs at once and overpopulation will be a tiny , sweet puppy.
lezvarthok 1 year ago
Hi lezvarthok, thanks for your comment, but I don't really follow what you're saying. Where do weapons of mass destruction come into this? Personally, I'm very much *against* WMDs, and I certainly wouldn't consider the internet to be one (I love the internet)! I see overpopulation as a problem for several reasons - resource consumption is one, pollution is another. The problem with biofuels is that they are notoriously inefficient, and huge tracts of land are being cleared to make them.
Frostlight 1 year ago
So...killing babies is your answer?
"It is a great poverty to decide that a child must die....so that you may live as you wish."~ Mother Theresa
shepherdess10 2 years ago
Of course not - that would be terrible! I would never condone anyone's murder, especially of a child. No, there's a much simpler way to prevent overpopulation, which is for people to make the decision not to have more than two children per family, or a number of children below the population sustainability rate for a given country. Basically, birth control. There's no need for murder to come into it anywhere.
Frostlight 2 years ago
Well...it's unclear, according to your video, it seems that you portray babies as an inconvenient enemy, rather than the gifts that they truly are. Birth control is not the answer...LOVE is.
shepherdess10 2 years ago
I'm sorry you got that impression from my video. I intended it to be a light-hearted take on a serious issue, using metaphors rather than hard facts. While I honestly do believe that birth control is the answer (and is by no means mutually exclusive to love), I never intended for my video to promote any kind of violence.
Frostlight 2 years ago
@shepherdess10
Your answer is simple and elegant, and correct. What the world needs, is not nasty unnatural "birth control," but love
When people love one another, they more readily pair up, marry, and reproduce even more babies. But people are intelligent, and when they follow in God's ways, reduce sin, love one another, thus becoming more pronatalist and accepting of the need of human life to naturally spread, and then ADAPT far more readily to our rising numbers
Let more humans come alive!
pronatalist 1 year ago
@shepherdess10
Why can't more people open their minds, reject the deceptions of the devil, and think outside the box?
How can parents go on enjoying having their precious darling babies, in a world with so many people alive already? Isn't it obvious? We need to populate the world more densely, then place can be found or made for everybody and all their progeny. Build more/bigger cities and towns, closer together.
In the past we could spread out, we can also spread together and build highrises
pronatalist 1 year ago
Overpopulation is a myth!!! The greatest lie of the boomer generation. Watch Demographic Winter among other information available. Think economy, too - we do not have enough workers, inventors, etc. to support the aging population. I repeat: OVERPOPULATION IS A MYTH, A LIE!
webdizzlemom 2 years ago
If we take away the imagined lines drawnon the map (the countries), we find that world population is projected to grow from 6.8 billion to 9 billion people by 2050. It's not sustainable, it's madness. Name one problem we can solve by adding more people to the global population. A larger population only uses more resources, faster, while exacerbating every other problem you can think of.
pgdevil 2 years ago 8
@pgdevil
I agree with the natural "globalization" of letting countries populate themselves into one another, such that countries lines may seem to fade. However, that's a process that takes time to occur naturally, and I oppose the corruption political merging of countries under unaccountable dictators of the sort usually associated with "globalization."
Name 1 problem solved by growing world pop? Ridiculous lib propaganda line. How about several? Freedom! More people to enjoy life. It happens
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pgdevil
A larger population also has more, supposedly intelligent minds, and more people working jobs, working together to develop more resources, and find better and more ways to use resources more efficiently for the populous many. I very much disagree with the bizarre bias of focusing only on the negatives and ignoring possible positives to a naturally swelling global population.
By adding more billions, we counter question of "How do we control the pop growth?" We don't. Let babies come!
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist First question: do you recognize that the Earth has a limited carrying capacity for humans? I mean, you wouldn't try to argue that the Earth could sustain a hypothetical population of some absurd number like 300 trillion people at our current level of technology, would you?
pgdevil 1 year ago
@pgdevil
Not near as limited as you seem to think. Why not 300 trillion? If it ever comes to that, not a mathematical possibility within our lifetimes at least, so much the better, the more people to benefit within the populous many. Certainly that many people could fit, especially as people learn and adapt to live on multiple floors of highrises, built to better provide adequate living space for so many.
It's absurd to assume that technology would be held back at current level, with so many.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist You are clearly a fool. Mere existance in an over-crowded environment is not the way to go. There must be a Quality of Life. There will be no god to come and save us; there will be no pre-designated end-time.
There will be only an increasingly difficult existance, greater competition for GOOD, QUALITY food, clean water, heat in the winter (since there will be almost no trees). I know this sounds gloomy, but it is what you see everywhere else in NATURE of which we are a part.
zenflesh 1 year ago
@zenflesh
Why not allow people to exist first, and then worry about the details? How can people have human rights, if their very right to exist is called into question, due to vague and poorly-defined notions of supposed "overpopulation?" "Overpop" implies that some people are unnecessary or of trivial value. But the Bible says that people are created in God's image. That's hardly trivial, now is it?
Difficulties are caused by bad governance and unsound fiat paper currency, not by pop growth.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@zenflesh
If you wish to deny the existence of God, then you make my pro-life argument more difficult to make. But still not impossible. If God is presumed to maybe not exist, then where's the assurance that everything will or can work out okay? But still that doesn't prove that the world can't somehow hold or be made to hold, many more billions of people. (Still the questions of moral codes to follow remains.)
Trees for heat? Wood's already obsolete. Heat with oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist As long as trees grow, wood will be used for fuel. The other sources depend on advanced technology to extract and utilize them.
I'm sure you're a good person. There is much wisdom in The Bible. But just face it, there are no gods. The endtime comes when the brain dies.
We don't have to remove life or liberty, just make good decisions. There are limited resources. When they're gone that's it. Humans, great as we are, still animals,same rules apply. Future people will suffer.
zenflesh 1 year ago
@zenflesh
Wood is an inferior fuel. It's not convenient. However, one reason for wood's continued popularity as fuel, is that nature grows trees/wood for free, naturally, and wood is simple for even the poor to harvest. If you have land of much any size, you may not necessarily have oil wells on your land, but who doesn't have trees to cut or thin out? Why are gas logs so popular? Much the same benefit, but with none of the mess of smoke and ashes.
Bad info doesn't tend towards good decisions.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@zenflesh
An environment "overcrowded" with people, ceases to be so apparently overcrowded, as it is better designed to hold lots more people. Or did you think that all those people almost never have any good ideas how to ADAPT to what must be?
We already have technologies to clean potable water, scalable to most any size population imaginable. Energy can be quite cheap and abundant, if we go with the best most productive technologies, avoid the enviro- "green" nazis anti-business propaganda.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist - Wow, your right. Humans aren't reproducing and moving thier homes into the wilderness/ animal's habitat. Animals have PLENTY of room to just be cute in our back yards. There are no wild animal attacks that could happen. There's no reason to have the enviro-"green" nazis anti-business propaganda among us. I'm sure that the gas will never go away, water won't be limited, the air will always be clean, people won't be on the streets, and taxes might end.
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
I think even liberals say that you can't stop people from having sex. So why should I desire for fewer people to have sex? Sure, let more people enjoy sex as world pop naturally grows. There has to be a proper outlet for humanity's powerful reproductive urges. What I encourage, is what I see in the Bible. Do it the right way, get married, take responsibility for children. Why does the world so insist upon getting it all backwards?
With more pronatalism, we can ADAPT more readily.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
When we allow evil politicians to use "population" as a scapegoat for the very problems that corrupt governments cause themselves, then contraceptives become a huge "cure-all" distraction from needed real reforms. As the real issues are not addressed, the problems aren't solved, and so taxes are jacked up higher to address the multiplying problems of government waste and corruption. As people seek more ways to escape the tyranny, the people become more ungovernable, prone to revolt
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist - Who said anything about abstinence? I'm all for having fun, however, responsiblity is the key. Really?? Do you think ANY of those parents let their child get MARRIED in HIGH SCHOOL? I mean, kids already have enough stress on thier plates with school, homework, parents, friends, and trying to figure out who they are. Add a kid to the mix??? Kids are expensive, and you have to be ready for them... Financially, spiritually (if applicable), emotionally and physically.
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
I'm for abstinence, or for marrying younger. If people want to have sex, there's a right way to go about it. If they think they are adult enough for sex, then get married and start a family. Having fun? Let's not be too hedonistic. What about choice and responsibility? If they want the responsibility of sex and raising children, let them do it the right way.
Do any of those parents let their child get married in high school? Oh, probably a few of them at least? Some grow up young?
pronatalist 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
Did I say the children must marry young? No, I simply defended the option and choice, should they decide marrying younger is right for them.
I heard some time ago that more young people are waiting longer for sex, if not until marriage, at least until college. That could be an encouraging sign. Perhaps the prolife message is getting through to people? Sex too early, puts undue pressure upon the relationship, before it's stable. Pregnant? Do they hurry up and marry, or break it up?
pronatalist 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
"Teenager" is a modern invention. Not long ago, there was no such thing as "teenagers." Teenagers were adults, many already married and having children in their later teens. These days way too many are awfully immature for their age. Children used to be expected to do chores, and when they came of age, they were expected to soon take a mate, marry, and start their families. Now we tell children that they have few duties, but to maybe do their homework, play, and play video games.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist - Roles have changed, and in the world that we live in... A mom goes to work the same as the father. A child goes to school to educate him/herself to get ready for the modern world. Marriage nowdays is a joke. If you love someone and marry them, that could still be a wrong desision. If you are old enough to engage in sex, then you should be mature enough to handle what happens. And often, an innocent child/children is caught up in the mess. Child rasing isn't what is was before.
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
Roles have changed, but the Bible says there is no new thing under the sun. In other words, the sins people commit are much the same, and few ideas people have are all that original. Roles have changed? So what? Doesn't change what ought to be. Many Moms prefer to be stay-at-home Moms, but our wicked depraved culture and runaway taxes, makes it a challenge how to then make the finances work
Marriage is not a joke,to many happily married couples. If agree with, if sex,expect babies
pronatalist 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
You said often, an innocent child, or children, is caught up in the mess. But wouldn't you have to admit, it's far better to be born into less-than-perfect circumstances, than to not be born at all? To exist, is far better than to never have lived at all. Bad circumstances can be improved. People can repent. Poor people might find opportunities, or a better job, especially in a culture that seeks to do right, becomes more pronatalist, more willing to give all children their chance.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist - Funny that you say that... Sins? The Bible has reduced woman to the 2ed class citizen. Would you rather go to that? Role have changed, time and technogy has changed. It depends on who you are asking, "far better to be born in less than perfect circumstances". That's like saying, "better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all." It would all depend on who you are talking to. "A wicked depraved culture"? Now, we are more tolerant than we have ever been.
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
Comment removed
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
... Wicked? Depends on your beliefs. - You don't seem to care about poverty or the enviorment. Do you think that a foster home is best for the child whose parents cannot make a good enough living to feed themselves? Or that finances who are already stressed alone without child, now have to provide 2 decades of care, time, and finances to one night of passion? Back when times were simpler, you had to raise your herds and garden. Nowdays, you are lucky to find a mediocre job in this economy.
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
@zenflesh
So where's all the volunteers lining up to cease living, so as to make the population level lower? No, it seems the more "educated" and comfortable people become, sometimes the less they care about their neighbors, and entertain ridiculous human "overpopulation" theories. While the people most poor and "overcrowded," seem to be among those most "unaware" of their supposed "overpopulation," supposedly in need of "education" (indoctrination) of the latest overpopulation fad theories.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@zenflesh
Even judging from the video, where's the mass disaster it portends? You think families don't actually enjoy outgrowing their homes? People, if they are allowed freedom, can build additional rooms or floors onto their homes, or build bigger homes, to make way for their naturally-growing families.
A few people get squeezed out of being alive, by just "too many" people, in the video. And yet I notice, most people survive and thrive and somehow ADAPT? The scare tactics don't convince me.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@zenflesh
I do hope for the foretold endtimes, hopefully even a pre-Great Tribulation rapture of God's people who accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior of their lives, and repented of their sins. It's not an "overflowing" planet of people that concerns me, as population can't really get so high anyway within my lifetime, but the rampant corruption and multiplication of tyrannical laws of arrogant governments. Instead of using technology more to alter planet for more people, it's used to spy on us?
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pgdevil
Why try to place any arbitrary number limit anyway? With human population growing, expanding naturally, wildly, or "out of control," who really knows what number, but God? It has to be "out of control" or "beyond control," as some population control freaks may choose to view it, because what alternative is there but tyranny?
People don't want to be told how many children they can have. Something has to give? How about the sparse pop level of the past? Let pops grow denser naturally.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pgdevil
People think that a "few more" children makes little difference. Problem is, the world has a billion families that think the same thing? I disagree, as there is ample ways to accommodate "everybody" having their naturally big families.
World thinks sex is most wonderful thing? Oh really? Why can't liberals every logically complete even simple ideas? If so, why not a world with many billions more human penises and vaginas, populating closer together to make room for all? Reproduce!
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pgdevil
World could hold "mind boggling" numbers of people, if ever it had to. We can't keep adding more and more people, and keep doing things the same old way? I agree with that idea, somewhat. Put all effort then, into only population accommodation, never anti-freedom, unnatural population "control"
"It is high time to accept as forever gone, the sparsely populated world of the past, and to move on in an orderly fashion, to the populous world of the future." Pronatalist
Let us grow denser
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pgdevil:
Don't most people think along the lines of, There's lots of places all around to put more people? Doesn't that really imply, that most people naturally prefer growing denser and denser, to forced population "control" or anti-family restrictions upon childbearing? I agree! There's side effects to contraceptives, and I neither ask nor expect people to use any "birth control"
Obvious answer is to let people fill gaps in between cities. Let burgeoning crowds flow out of everybody's homes
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pgdevil
So there has to be some "limit" imposed upon the natural expansion of the already "huge" human race, as the planet is but so big? But the natural limits I see are ENOUGH. It takes time for humans to multiply. While humans may be said to be among the most horny of God's creatures, we are also among the slowest at multiplying. We grow in numbers GRADUALLY, allowing ample time to ADAPT and prepare. It's God who commanded people to multiply, and it's God who decides how populous we shouldB
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist - That's like saying that God wants us to only do missionary style, for all others are a sin. Or have you forgotten... God did destroy the world because he didn't like it. Believe in your deity and your view that the world can sustain all the people by 2050. Don't worry about the water supply that dwindles in the summer, or the teen dads that can't take care of thier babies. Not a crisis at all like global warming.
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
I don't recall much anything specific about what "position" people should do sex in, mentioned in the Bible. But rather Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, which would imply that the "seed of copulation" should go where baby conception is possible. I presume "missionary" is a good position, perhaps the most common?, but then, I don't know a lot about sex positions.
If the world already holds 7 billion, why can't you imagine how a few more billions can fit by 2050?
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist - No, I said "It's like saying", ie. its not in the bible. No, actually, the bible encourages genocide.
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
I'm not impressed with sex positions that don't spread human life. In the movie, Demolition Man, in the future, transfer of body fluids is thought weird or not allowed? What? Sex is wearing some sex brain interface helmet, that hardly even connects or works. No, it's the natural procreation that largely justifies the sex act of intercourse. Without the prospect of pregnancy, why not question more just how sanitary the exchange of body fluids is? Among even married couples?
pronatalist 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
The Great Flood/Noah's Ark, wasn't because people were becoming too numerous, but so sinful as to grieve God for creating people. God wanted/commanded/caused/designed people to grow very numerous. I think that's what's it's talking about in Genesis 1, about God giving man dominion over nature and other creatures, meaning largely, due to necessity/sheer numbers of people.
Denying babies life won't help water supply, but rather, more dams/infrastructure.
Some teen dads can do well.
pronatalist 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
It's unfair to judge people prematurely, just for being a "teen dad." I heard that in the U.S., we supposedly have a million teenage pregnancies a year. However, what the pro-aborts don't tell you, is that half of those "teens" are 18 or 19 and MARRIED. Now is that really a teenage pregnancy "problem," or twisting of propaganda to promote an anti-life agenda?
Radio talk show host Sean Hannity talks how if it snows it's global warming. Everything is g.w.? Defined to mean anything?
pronatalist 1 year ago
@pronatalist - There are some teen dads that do take care of thier kids, however the majority are the mothers. Half those teens are married? Okay, that will account for around 50% divorce rate in the U.S. Right now, 90 teenage girls at one public high school in Memphis, Tenn., are either pregnant or have had a baby this school year, according to media reports. I'm sure lots of those teen moms are married to the father, have a job, balance school and are doing just dandy.
ksniveegirl 1 year ago
@ksniveegirl
I'm not saying that all teen parents are as responsible as they should be. But rather, we could allow, expect, or accept, that some of them really are ready for children, and are, or could be encouraged, to be more responsible
90 teenage girls pregnant? I suspect the result of lax morals and/or shoddy "sex ed." We don't need the "everybody's doing it" nonsense, so much as abstinence, responsible marriage message. Perhaps a few of them ARE married, a reason to allow swollen bellies
pronatalist 1 year ago
I think this video was awesome, if only more people would open their eyes to the problems associated with overpopulation in the world....Even though I do live in the states, I'm not one of the blind walking around, I've always strived to do my part but I'm only one person. How do you get more people involved?
Tinoalexander22 2 years ago
if you really want to affect the world around you and you truly believe the world is over populated you can start with eliminating your own useless life
culturaldissident 2 years ago
@culturaldissident if your life is just that useless then find something your good at. otherwise if you can't, don't worry. it will happen one day. by that i mean either:
1:you get hit by a bus
2:you find a good life
consider waht i have said
laynedel123 2 years ago
I apologise for the negative response to your comment - my video's had an influx of them in the last 24 hours, which might be either a sudden spike in popularity or a coordinated attack. Either way, it's not very nice of them to attack other commenters like yourself.
In response to your question (I just noticed it, sorry!), I have to admit it's very difficult to get others involved. This video was my attempt at doing so. In general, I think that just raising the topic must be a good start.
Frostlight 2 years ago
Thanks for sharing this. Can you tell me how to make a film like this?
NgocThao0602 2 years ago
Sure! The character limit is too short to explain here, though, so I'll give you a summary in a message.
Frostlight 2 years ago
an absolutely despicable video
dab4949 2 years ago
Oh, why do you say that? I put a lot of effort into this animation, so if I could get some more specific feedback on what I did wrong, that would be very helpful to me for next time.
Frostlight 2 years ago
Please also know that I'm just a beginner. This was my first animation ever - which I made for a university assignment -and so naturally I'm far from professional. I'm sorry to hear that you hated my video so much, but I hope that you can take my lack of experience into consideration.
Frostlight 2 years ago
cute!!!
slantwisehumour 2 years ago