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.
Of course, let the white Christians have "n00ks" and have everyone else destroyed that poses a threat to white Christians with "n00ks". That makes sense.
Do you know what hypocritical means? What about revelation?
"Just a thought"? I am very surprised you had one.
Just a thought, if you're trying to impress people with your supposed wisdom, punctuation is an important factor to persuade anyone with a brain i.e. not you.
Christian and Muslims are not the same, true. But man is man. And no man should have the power to obliterate the world no matter the religion they practice. And Christianity has done the same thing as Muslims in terms of justifying rape and murder. Radicals do these things not because they believe in a certain religion.
Umm, I'm not a liberal. You assume more than your ignorance can back up. In fact, you are suggesting that you are a conservative, but I suggest you stay out of politics.
Congratulations. You won the youtube argument. I'm done. Now, please excuse me while I bang my head against a wall as hard as I can, because it will be more productive than arguing with an idiot. You have thoroughly demonstrated your ignorance, and I have continually pointed out your stupidity. If we take this any further, it will be an exercise in redundancy with absolutely no-fucking-point.
@ninjalex08 So you mean you don't want to go into a link war showing facts that destroy each others facts until we find one right answer we can both agree on through countless hours of research? :P Darn.
Face it; this a problem that can be solved. Why invade Iran? There are plenty of minor targets out there that will fit the bill. A limited tactical nuclear exchange could reduce hungry mouths and allow us to continue with the illusion of sustainable growth. A population reduction is an achievable target and is the only logical choice in the face of overwhelming logistic, supply and demand short term difficulties which this radical move can help alleviate. We are only doing this for you.
This is not news to me. I have watched while business leaders and politicians ignorant of exponential growth keep pushing for perpetual population growth. Nobody has the willpower to stop it as the new growth has so far boosted the economy. Considering how limited Australia's resources are (and pending Peak Oil), this is going to lead to absolute disaster.
Overpopulation is extremely profitable, that is why it has continued for so long. There is massive demand for new housing and for construction workers and all of the building materials and everything that the people who live in those houses will consume. And who profits? Well the whole society sees some of the money, enough to prevent a revolution, but most of the money goes to the top of the pyramid. And when this bubble bursts you better run for cover.
You make it sound as if this was some sinister motive, but most everybody benefits from population growth, a reason I am so much in favor of the progress of the human race in naturally enlarging its numbers.
Families benefit from enjoying their little "bundles of joy." So do toy makers and diaper manufacturers. Babies help create jobs and stimulate growth and innovation in the economy.
Govs and corporations like pop growth, for it's at least more future taxpayers/customers
@pronatalist , That is exactly my point, it is like the credit bubble, everyone gets rich and the people who warn of disaster are dismissed, then when the whole corrupt mess collapses everyone is wondering what went wrong. Only this time we are not just going to lose money, we are degrading the ability of our planet to support life.
Brave calamagro! That is exactly the point. Only an idiot cuts down all his forest in order to make fast money and lives on a piece of barren land for the rest of his live.
Imagine a society, where you had to prove, that you can feed a child, before you can have one.
Rich people would have many children to show off and their wealth would spread over their vast numbers of decendants, while children of poor people would have a better education and more quiet and time to study.
Don't you pay any attention to the rampant political corruption of our age? If people had to prove they can feed babies, before conceiving babies, that would be impractical and greatly abused. Rich people find the most pathetic excuses not to be "bothered" with children, and then scheme to rob poor of children too?
Pop doesn't increase for "no reason" but because childbearing is natural and parents love children.
There is overpop theory that we have "too much" food. So pop grows!
Give me one reason, why a couple without income, living from scraps out of trash cans and a little shoplift here and there should have more than one child (if any)? Just one?
Society will be a lot cheaper off, paying poor women for not having many babies than having to support their countless offspring forever.
Haiti is, where your romantic "happy big family" dream ends. Proof me wrong with figures.
Why do you judge the poor as not worthy of having children, when they say of poor people that children are their only wealth? You wish to rob them of their only wealth? They also sometimes say of poor people, that sex is their only recreation they can afford, and they can't afford the nasty Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons.
No, people aren't having "too many" babies, but rather we should do better ADAPTING the world to better hold more and more people. Let babies come.
@prenatalist: I did not say, the poor are not "worthy" of having children. You are just obsessed with the romantic idea, that they like being poor.
If you pay them enough for not having more than one or two children, I am sure, they would gladly go for it.
The world has only a limited amount of resources. If you overuse them, before ADAPTING the world, you end up with a desert. - and a very low population density. How about life quality?
Who are you, or who is anybody to tell people how to live. They can't be poor, they can't have "too many" children? Why? Who says?
Would I like to share my apartment with 20 others? Actually 2 curious advantages. Tiny cost-of-living per capita, and with 21 people per housing unit, the world could hold a mind-boggling enormous world population, far more than ever there could be within the forseeable future.
Yes, I could live in cramped apartment, with friendly people, and E-books.
Don't have to wait half hour for bathroom. Toilet, sink, bathtub, can all be used at the same time. More than one person can brush teeth, at the same time. Also, facilities can be designed to move along huge pop. Communal shower rooms in schools, gyms, swimming pools. Urine troughs in airport, theater restrooms.
You get well over 2 sq. meters if housing is built right
Half world pop now lives in cities. Yet cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. Simple. Keep building housing
Yes this fits perfectly into your wonderful utopia: People using the bathtub as a toilet, because the pot it occupied. (by 2 people at the same time maybe?)
You will never get over 2 sq. meters if you have no material to build and if you are too busy fighting for food all day long.
What are you going to do, if 100% of the land is city? Putting on a second floor?
Don't worry!
This will never happen. If we overshoot, population will go down to 1 billion people or less.
So the poor can get bathrooms after all, but only but 1? What an absurd assumption. If you have 20 people to an apartment, why couldn't this hopefully big apartment, have 2 bathrooms? Every hear of a chamber pot? The bathtub goes to the same sewer, so why can't it be peed in? Oh yeah, yuck, the bathtub may not be scrubbed out enough
Uh, yeah, put on additional floors. So you have never seen the PS2 video game, Project Eden? Of course it wasn't really about overpop, just a storyline
You were confined in a "prison" of a womb, and yet you were released from it, at the proper time. And yet you still complain? The Bible says we will eventually be released from the confines of our frail bodies. Yet you don't understand?
I already answered your Earth birth question. Humans won't live on earth forever
India has 3 people for every 2 acres. Added 200M more in last decade. You can have free roam of globe, but must SHARE your hiking trails, lake, as we MUST GROW DENSER
When the book of miracles says: "We will eventually be released from the confines of our frail bodies." What else could it mean, that one day we will be dead?
Humans will not live on earth forever. But what makes you think, we had to leave earth within the next 4 generations?
You never explained, why we must grow denser. And what is the gloom-and-doom religion? Catholizism?
The gloom-and-doom poverty religion, is the various forms of disbelief and rebellion against God. Those belief systems that would appear destructive against the interests of humanity. Evolution, atheism, Malthusian, radical environmentalism, paganism, earth worship, and yeah, probably Catholicism, from whence a lot of heresies come from.
Demographers expect at least a few more billions. Planet same size=SOMEWHAT denser.
Bible says time is short. Signs around us say time is short.
Religious fanatics see everything from their very limited point of view. That goes to far, that they think, that not "believing in their dogmas" had to be some sort of another religion.
Actually its the people who believe in miracles and contradictory dogmas who are rebelling against God.
God is pure logic. Miracles are not. Contradictions are not, freely interpretable dogmas are not.
God does not need to be worshiped. He/She is beyond such nonsense.
And you are not a religious fanatic? So why don't you take off the negativity poop-colored glasses, and try some rose-colored glasses? You will see better, at least, than you do now.
You don't know even of Murphy's Law? Take you to the last line, the only point here to make: Murphy was an optimist. (Yeah, right?)
You don't believe in miracles? What if I was "god" over a video game, as programmer made certain CHANGES. Characters inside game would see them as MIRACLES
No, the signs are, a great falling away from faith, NWO conspiracy, govs stirring up trouble/wars.
These are not symptoms of naturally rising pop density, but humans rebelling against God, people in need of a Savior to save us from our sins
Signs of rising pop density, would be a world that glows in overexposed, composited satellite nighttime images of spreading cities. Urban sprawl. More places becoming inhabited. Fewer places far away from lots of people. No need to be negative
Of course, the church will tell you that "the end is near" should you ever try to brake free from its dominance. Only that it would be their end, not yours.
If there really is a NWO conspiracy, there is not much one can do against it. And you can rely on it, that the church is deep in it.
People are not rebelling against god. They might rebell against stupid bible doctrine. Nobody needs to be saved from his sins. That is a convenient invention of the catholic church to make money
Currently, for each person who dies, 3 more are born to replace him or her. Somebody said either we curb our birthrate, or we find more places for more families to live. Most people seem to prefer the latter.
A lot of this growth comes from "demographic momentum" or the youthfulness of pops caused by previous rapid growth. But already Europe is graying with elderly, in an unsustainable fashion. Their socialism is headed towards collapse due to too few young workers
But there is no way to be sure there won't be at least a mild pop race between Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, why probably even Hindus. Nature favors those who reproduce, so larger families may tend to take over as much of the future breeding parents?
If we move foolishly towards socialist redistribute-the-wealth Cap-and-Trade deceit, energy prices would soar, pushing us BACKWARDS back to slavery and animal labor,and away from machines/robots doing the work. Which way do you prefer?
Socialism was born out of the near slavery of brutal capitalism. In a socially organised society there are minimum wages and the mass of people have money to buy robot produced goods.
Bad "capitalists" give capitalism a bad name. Wait! Aren't the bad capitalists, really closet socialists or something other than true capitalists?
Capitalism isn't a perfect system either, that's why it's supposed to be tempered by VOLUNTARY charity.
But when the socialists get grabby, raising our taxes or eying our wallets, people tend to put their wallets away, quit spending, reducing giving to charity, and then we have an Obama Depression
Haiti has 10 million inhabitants. That is 650 people per square kilometer. Since 2000 their economy is not growing any more, although Haitis population has increased a lot since then. They have cut down all their trees to grow food and their fields yield less each year, because of overuse.
Well why does Haiti then, have so many people? 10 million isn't much, however upon a small half an island, the pop could be somewhat dense. Surely, parents find very good reasons to have so many children, sex feels good, more people are glad to come alive and live, etc.
No, not enough babies. People should keep having their precious darling babies.
Why is Dominican Republic so much nicer? Probably better gov. More civilized? Babies don't cause poverty, but pov urges more breeding
Yes, 650 people per km2 is "somewhat dense". Actually it is so dense, that there is no way of feeding all those people, not even with the latest technologies and fertilizers.
Don't you think people in Haiti were better off, if they were only 1 million? If they still had their environment intact, they could own nothing but a T-shirt and still have enough food.
Still think, they need to have more children to have a better life?
So what part of God's commandment to people, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, do you not understand? Does this still apply to today's world? I did an informal survey of my co-workers and friends. Everybody said it still applies. One co-worker said something about world pop now being huge, but yes, it still applies. My sister said God's commandment has never been rescinded.
Your 1 million would deny 9 million life. Nearly as dense as Bangladesh. Let them grow denser!
Don't you think, that people in Bangla Desh would prefer to have food and decent homes, cars and big garden, instead of the slum they live in now?
Once you have overpopulation in a country it is almost impossible to reverse the way down.
By the way. A personal question. Would you mind to share your appartment with 20 others?
I conclude, that you live in a little town in the mid-west. Where there is still plenty of land and people have no idea what overpopulation means. You lucky ones.
Is it not bad enough that people are poor? And yet you want to rob them of their precious darling children too?
You claim that once a country grows overpopulated, it's almost impossible to reverse? Well good then, for I don't believe in population "control" nor "birth control," so I would like for the population to be or become "uncontrollable" in its expansion, so that nobody would dare try to impose "control."
But there is no need for crowded slums with proper development.
No, that's not what I said. High pop does tend to make the world more complex. There are still places with such sparse pops, that people can choose to live primitive levels like the Amish, and let babies come as they will. But more places are naturally crowding up. Education helps to modernize cities, to have proper public sanitation, indoor flush toilets, dependable gas and electricity for cooking without smoky cooking fires.
But education is overrated and misdefined by libtards.
Where do you get this "behaving like animals?" Humans aren't supposed to mate too? In fact, humans are apparently favored by God, over animals, in so many ways. We are allowed to eat animals, and most all humans get to mate, unlike animals in which often only the strong males mate.
We aren't going to "overshoot." But if pops grow dramatically, it simply will take more cities, towns, villages, suburbs upon suburbs, to hold us all. So get busy building them, sense it's good for jobs
There you pop phobics go again. Using your false gloom-and-doom religion words, with no sufficient definition ever supplied. Whatever does "sustainable" really mean? A false poverty religion word to replace "salvation?"
What of the other pro-human side? Can't we alter our environment to better hold more and more people? Why wouldn't that be "sustainable" then?
So nature needs a little help. Isn't that what we have intelligence for? Inventions like toilets, help the pop be DENSER.
"Sustainable" is easily explained: If you have a piece of land and 10 cows, you can have 10 cows forever. If you have 100 cows on the same property, they will eat all the grass and almost all will die of starvation.
That happened in a little village in Afrika, where people had so many cows, that there was no grass left.
Why not have more children, when we have figured out how to feed them and not before?
If you have "sustainability" you don't need "salvation".
Why should Costa Rica have any need for uncrowded beaches? I see nothing in the Bible nor U.S. Constitution, nor Declaration of Independence assuring you any right to solitude upon a beach.
Something I have been meaning to make a point of. Large families are too much blamed for the pop growth. And yet, on the bell curve distribution, more moderate-sized families of 2, 3, 4, 5 children, probably account for the most absolute numbers of pop growth. The Duggars only added but 19 kids
A moderate sized family has not more than 2.25 or so children. If it is more, than population will go up, unless the children die earlier for poverty caused reasons.
Costa Rica should have uncrowded beaches, because it is wonderful to be alone on the beach with your girl friend and friends.
You can make a fire or go fishing or pick some coconuts and there is nobody to disturb you with shouting and taking the best spots.
That "Stop at 2" nonsense is such utter rubbish. Let's say you have your 2, and I have my natural 7 or so. Our average is 4.5, of which you added 2 yourself. You also are growing the pop, aren't you? Shouldn't you have 0 children, so the average will only be but 3.5? What a crock! How about you have your natural 5 or 7 too, and make the best of things. Enjoy your empty beach while you still can. Mate on the beach, if you think it unlikely you will get caught, or people just walk on?
Quite many people think they have good life-quality, if they are free to have all the children they want, "all the children God gives," or all the children their bodies naturally end up pushing out, as they neglect to ever get around to selecting some "satisfactory" method of "birth control"
What do I care about your selfish empty beach for? I rarely go to the beach, but rather place video games. When I do go somewhere, I love to carpool, to meet people, not to "get away from it all"
I have no plan to keep the earth from naturally packing full of people, although I consider that scenario quite unlikely.
A guy at a Walk For Life, a few years ago, said they have 4 children, and don't use birth control. You think they are trying for 8 children? I didn't get that impression. I think many people think like how I expressed, they simply do not believe in using birth control. They aren't afraid of getting pregnant, or the "risk" their family might grow rather large.
Currently for every person who dies, 3 more are born to replace him or her. So births are clearly outpacing deaths, and human being alive are accumulating, at something like 75 million more each and every year
Supposed Thomas Malthus said, Somebody must die to make room for each birth. But a moment's thought shows this can't possibly be true. Births do not have to be "balanced" with deaths, because most everybody really does prefer to grow at least somewhat DENSER. Scoot over a bit
A family at my Church, has 8 children. They invited me over for lunch one time. I asked him why he had so many. He said they didn't really think about it. See? Some people just have children, not trying to "plan" how many. Not everybody got the anti-pop memo saying we now have to "plan" our families. As they say you can't fool all the people all the time. Their upstairs and attic was full of beds. No extra space, just enough.
Typical # of children for "unplanned" family is 5 or 6.
Can you believe there are pop phobics, saying stupid things, like that Great Britain's 60-some million people, and Australia's 30 million, is just getting to be "too many." Compared to what? Sure they are islands, but BIG islands that can easily hold lots more people.
By allowing even more regions to reach "tipping point" of going from multiple acres per person to multiple people per acres, huge additional numbers of humans can easily be absorbed all around the world. Let us GROW.
It's okay to allow people to live in crowded slums and buses. But people can do things, to make them a tad less crowded. How about 40 or 50 people on many buses, rather than 80. How about building more housing, so the growing pop can spread out a bit, as the babies keep right on coming.
You don't give uneducated people enough credit, pretty much calling them stupid?
Education doesn't have to cost a lot, with home-schooling and internet schools. Computers cheaper than tuition.
It is no use to explain to you, that people would rather like to live in decent houses than in slums and have their own cars instead of riding in buses.
Who is going to build the buses, if there is nobody who knows how to do it?
Where is the material to build the buses or the fuel to come from, if there is none left on the planet?
Maybe you think, that it is God's plan to get us all killed and then we go to heaven?
Why do you like to assume, that there's not only "too many" people already, but that the people don't know how to build anything, when most countries are not only increasing in pop, but also improving infrastructure and living standards?
Why do you assume we will run out of everything? By then, wouldn't we have The Jetsons flying cars?
Not everybody has to know how to build those things. A few people can build them for other people, and then everybody gets them through trade.
I've told you enough about the Earth giving birth. If you were anywhere near as smart as me, you could have found the pop video about Gaia needing/wanting to give birth, explained clearly in its info text. And No, I didn't write it. Somebody else's idea. Now if you have a more specific question other than to mock my ideas?
Not just oil, but also hydro-electric electricity, nuclear power. You should be happy about oil, increasing quantity of life, not just humans but animals/pets too
@pronat: If you gave me the address, I could check on it. I hope, you don't mean the Gaia hypothesis as it is basically irrelevant to us.
The key to survival is "sustainability". At the current rate of population growth rate we will run out of all the energy sources you mention in your message within the next 30-50 years.
Then the collapse might very easily happen before we unlock the secrets of nuclear fusion.
Why not wait for another million years? What's the rush?
No, we aren't running out of energy. They say coal will last for several centuries at least. We aren't even drilling for much of the oil available in the U.S., due to enviro-wackos and political stupidity/NWO conspiracy
The current rate of pop growth, at least, is very necessary, because it come from now billions of parents who WANT CHILDREN
How do you think we have any option to "wait" another million years. We don't have that long, and parents want children NOW
1.) My calculator says 6.8B*1.02^100=49B. Do you need some new batteries?
400 years is an estimation. Coal is nearly inexhaustible. Although a good fuel to use for now, coal might be too dirty for a "crowded" world of 49 or 72B, or 2 or 3 people average per acre of land globally. Wouldn't nuclear power plants be more suitable for such a highly populous world?
2.) "Too many" children, or too many people having children, or both? I urge both, for the natural flow of human life.
1.) I calculated with 2%. But I see, that you are trying to reach sort of a "compromise" we could agree on. But sorry, 1.2% is still too high. I could live with a percentage, that is low enough, so that mankind at least has a chance to develop interstellar space travel.
There is by far not enough radioactive material on earth to supply the world with it, or we would do it.
It is nuclear fusion we are looking for. But we will need at least another 40 years to develop it.
Why is 1.2% too high? Would you be satisfied to get only a 1.2% return on your investments? 2 or 3% or more is not too high. The proper rate for humans to multiply at, is the full level of human fecundity, letting babies push out just as fast as the human female body wants to produce them. Respecting the body's reproductive rhythms and not fighting them.
You don't know how long it would take to develop better space travel. But a larger pop would greatly accelerate the technology.
3.) The burgeoning world pop size, is but one sign that we may be near the endtimes. But what about the gathering NWO globalist conspiracy, in which evil elites will mess of the world, even faster if we buy into their pagan poverty pop "control" religion/ideology and use the shoddy Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons
Have you no respect for the simple ways of the Amish? I don't wish to live so technologically impaired as them, but I agree with humans reproducing naturally
I fear, that the amish people will not agree with your super technologized mega-city.
But there is another way: If we all renounced of the achievements of science, we could get back to having as many children as in biblical times.
50% of all the babies would die within their first year of life. People would not become older than 35 years of age and population would develop back to more "natural" numbers.
Why do you think like the enviro-wacko luddites? We are already growing way too dense, to live like our primitive-science ancestors. Do you have any idea how much poop a city of millions makes, that flows in rivers of sewage conveniently hidden underneath our cities? Going back to overflowing outhouses, that's a lot of flies spreading disease
The Amish I think would agree, but not yet. The way they are growing their numbers, they could eventually get so dense THEY HAVE TO MODERNIZE
A baby doesn't grow within the womb, expecting collapse, but to live. Baby can't see what, if anything, is outside the womb. But baby can hear a strange world outside, people talking, thunder, as the sounds of the world somewhat penetrate the womb. You might hear a greater world outside of this one, if you had ears or imagination or belief to hear
For now, humanity is trapped "in the womb," with no option now but to keep right on naturally growing. That's the truth you should tell
You keep basing your conclusions upon evolutionary timetable, gloom-and-doom poverty religion. In a million years, the continents would have eroded into the oceans. Of course by then, probably humans could use machines to rebuild the continents?
Where's your math formulas? If we have 7 billion people, why couldn't the planet last for 3/7 million years, or 400 million years? That's long enough?
A few years? If it all lasts for a few years, why not a few centuries?
A few people have a myth, that our numbers are now so huge, that the majority of people who have ever lived, are alive now still. Statisticians say it isn't so. Total cumulative world pop may be near 100 billion. I think much lower, based on 6000 year timeline. But pop doubling time is shorter than lifespan, so can you see where we are headed maybe, eventually? Majority still alive.
Continents haven't eroded away yet, because the planet is actually rather young. - God's creation.
@pronat: I don't believe it! Haiti: 650 people per km2 and you say: "could be somewhat dense".
And here you are right:
Poor people breed. They have nothing else left to live for. And they are poor because they have many babies.
For the slow ones:
Bringing up children costs money. To educate them costs more money.
Educated people have jobs. If you have 4 children you can hardly feed them and definitely not have them educated. That is the reason why big families are so poor.
Children don't cause poverty. Children are worth far more than money. There are many dense places in the world, that are hardly poor. Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore.
There are many people with 4 or more children, who feed and educate and love them all, quite well. The enviro-radical nonsense about "Stop at 2" children, is absurd. Many parents can easily support and love a naturally large family, much larger than just 2 children.
Don't blame the poor for bad gov and fiat paper money?
@prenatalist: All these places are highly organised and get their resources from outside. I hope, you are not believing, that Honk Kong could survive with the few land that is not under concrete.
There are many people who can feed 4 children. Some of them have even the money to educate them. But, sadly enough, most of them don't. Their chiildren will be doomed to starvation and poverty.
To have a good government, you need educated people, not hungry masses.
It's not so much the number of people, but the amount of STUFF people collect as they become prosperous, that seems to require so much square footage per person of housing space. Used to be, families were large, and homes small, only a room or 2.
High organization, and big numbers of people per housing unit, are viable options for natural population expansion. But building more housing, bigger, more cities, is more comfortable, less crowded option-still making room for our babies!
When I grew up and we moved to another house, the greatest thing was to have my own room. Until that time, my brother and me were always quarreling, because we were disturbing each other.
Using birth control, we could be decreasing population density in cities, until everone can have a garden and a swimming pool. There could be beautiful parks and definitely enough parking space.
But how is having your own bedroom, better than another precious human life, getting to live?
Sure, the ideal, is a big family, and a separate room for everybody. But quite many people don't have that much money for a house so big. A former pastor, had 8 children, had a 6 bedroom house custom built. Probably a few kids still had to share a room?
Sure, decrease city pop density, but by increasing pop, and with more/bigger cities, urban sprawl. Increase pop density of globe instead
Whatever gave you the idea that humans aren't supposed to multiply like rabbits? Or that we were ever designed to use nasty unnatural contraceptive potions and poisons? The reproductive system is a vital life system too. Why is it treated so much different than the necessity of allowing people to breathe or eat?
Genesis 1: 28, 9: 1. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth - Never rescinded, still in effect
Reserve only shrinking gaps between people for animals. ALL for people
Your lack of Bible knowledge is appalling. God said he would not destroy the world with a great global flood again, and signified that with the reminder of a rainbow. (I figure that only leaves God but 999 other ways to destroy the world?)
A flat disk? Verse please, so I may verify. Job says the earth is a sphere and hangs on nothing (in orbit).
Why 3 billion? Some think that's too crowded. Evil Kissinger says we need to eliminate 6B out of the 6.5B. Surely that excludes him?
For what reason would God ever have sent an all devastating flood? When He/She created the universe all was made perfect from the beginning. God is not a bungler.
The "circle of the earth" is mentioned in (Isaiah 40:22). Which could admittedly also mean "sphere".
But then the world has "edges and corners too"? (Matt. 24:31, Mark 13:27)
The bible is not science! I can give you a whole list of scientific errors in the bible, devoid as it is of any kind of valid information.
You think we will use science and technology in heaven? Maybe, but then, maybe not? Bible is roadmap through this life. When Bible written, was there much interest in the world of science? And yet science came from Christian belief that God made orderly universe that operates like clockwork according to seachable rules. But as God knows future, you find some science in Bible.
Devil tempted Jesus, turn rocks into bread. Sounds strangely like "science" of Star Trek food replicator?
It is ok to believe in heaven. It is an optimistic view towards the time after death. But Karl Marx is right, when he said, that this believe can be abused to exploit people.
The comparison is a good one. The bible is a 2,000 year old road map. Isn't it time to get a new one?
Religious fanatics always will try to interprete modern knowledge into the old book, which is not hard, because it is so evasive.
Science requires independence from the restraints of overcome beliefs.
God changes not. Why should we need a new Bible? What heresies would you like to see in this "new" Bible?
Wasn't Marx the one who said Religion is the opiate of the masses? Sounds a tad disrespectful of people's religious beliefs, to say the least, don't you think?
Some pagans see religion as a convenient vehicle to manipulate people, perhaps even more powerful than the political sword? No wonder the Pope took over and brought murders and inquisitions, as Rome fell.
They didn't have sufficient power to resist "nature's pull"?, and resisting only made the problem worse.
There was a mysterious intelligence underlying it, that apparently knew what it wanted to do to them.
Not resisting wasn't an option, because that meant certain destruction. Or did it? Their resistance efforts obviously were not breaking them free of the tightening grip.
Lesson is, relax, let pop growth take hold, work itself out.
I understand the metaphor, but I don't think it applies here.
Like rats we are made to procreate fast, because our ancestors used to die quickly. This natural alance tilted, when scientific progress allowed us to grow older.
There is no higher "intelligence" behind all this. It is all quite natural. Now we have to change our behavior towards our reproductive rate, because it is threatening the existence of our whole race.
Naturally, the makers of the bible could not foresee that
How do you compare human reproduction, to rats? Is that all you think of humans?
Then how come humans (usually) have but 1 baby at a time? Do rats have a 9 month or longer gestational period?
I know the natural balance has tilted towards humans, but that should be counted as progress, and a signal that the world is now better prepared to more comfortably hold, if we but use the right technology and development, more people than ever before.
Our current state of high population is unnatural and therefore dangerous for our species and all other life on earth.
There is no reason to count this as a progress and the beginning destabilisation of the weather and growing social conflicts in the world are clear warning signals.
7 billion people is unnatural? Upon what basis? So are beehives unnatural too? They look a tad "crowded."
Future generations would want to be more populous and dense, otherwise, how else could they all be born? There's nothing that says that only 2 babies can come out of a womb. I hear the Duggars had their 19th child now. My Mom had 4 children, not counting a miscarriage.
A woman has 2 breasts, so she could feed 2 babies AT THE SAME TIME. Either in close succession, or twins.
@pronat: Again you have conveniently forgotten, that I already told you:
Our species was created for a world with high infant death rates and a generally lower life-span. Our urge to have sex might naturally decrease over hundreds of millenia, but in the meantime we have to keep our numbers low enough to keep the planet feeding us.
You can not compare complex organisms like humans to bees.
Sorry, but the rest of the message sounds like the ravings of a maniac.
That's your opinion. You can't prove it. Why should there be so much death to keep our pops "in check." Prove to me, that God didn't make our fertility to exceed deathrates, because it was God who wanted pops to grow. You can't because the Bible promotes large families and large pop. God did not design humans to remain of "stable" pop size, but to GROW. The original 2 people wasn't enough. It was God's idea to multiply us exp, or as some pessimists may claim, a slow "replication bomb"
Now why can't I compare human cities to beehives? Says you? I sure can, if pop phobics can make bad comparisons of humans pop growth to rats or cancer. Tell me where the beehive comparison is bad. What would you rather I compare human cities to? Martian arcologies? Oh wait, we don't have those yet. So how about I use the comparisons I think of, and you could reduce the global WHINING just a tad? Or suggest an improvement.
TV/electricity has already damped reproductive urges a tad.
How does TV and electricity slightly moderate our powerful reproductive urges? Glad you asked. (If I waited for you to ask, I may forget to follow up and explain.)
It's among the many distractions why more wealthy people aren't so much breeding lots of babies as the poor. Ever notice that villages with no electricity tend to have LARGE families? Well what else is there to do at night to stay warm? They don't even have electric blankets
I put 3 billion people, because I estimate, that we could sustain this number for at least for another 10 or 20,000 years.
But if we keep on having a population growth rate of 2%, we will be in trouble in 50 years at the latest and then the wars start.
Mr. Kissinger surely did not mean to murder anyone when he said that. But, then I guess, that in your twisted philosophy not having a child already is murder?
Even the dogs in China are becoming obese. Who says we can't produce enough food? Problem is distribution and economic.
Current rate is 1.3 or 1.2%. You think we may rebound back to 2%? I'm fine with that, as I dislike all methods of "birth control"
6.8*1.02^50, my calculator says is 18B. Easy to fit so many by then
Oh, yes, I'm sure murder what Kissinger meant. Either start the pop wars, or use trickery and deceit. That's not my style as a believer Christian. Truth works BETTER
There you go again with the negativity. Where do you get 1 or 2 generations maximum? Didn't I tell you to get some better glasses, so that you could see better? Even rose-colored glasses would work better.
When/if we reach 18B, you still don't know whether pop will be growing faster than ever, creeping along poking along slowly almost going nowhere, "stabilized" stagnated, or slowly shrinking due to sagging selfish birthrate.
So is this "maximum sustainable limit" more fixed or viable in your view? Doesn't scientific progress vary it a lot, which itself is driven a lot by the pop growth? A vicious self-feeding circle in the positive pro-human sense.
The more populous we get, the more we ADAPT towards becoming more populous.
What exactly is the level of this "limit?" Why are people's estimates all over the board?
We're not going to get that populated anyway. What would be God's purpose in that?
As there is no certainty about possible future scientific progress, I suggest to leave it out of the equation.
In the current situation, civilisation is totally depending on finit resources like oil or coal, which might last for another 500 years, if population numbers do not continue to rise.
This time span decreases exponentially with the yearly % of any population growth.
I oppose population growth, but have no objection against increasing the number of scientists.
Again you try to put words in my mouth? I never objected to the world growing to 15 trillion people. I only say it seems unlikely. Not impossible, but that I don't see God giving us enough time left on this planet to do that. If it occurs during the 1000 year reign of Jesus as King, then who could worry about it?
Doubling time is calculated by "rule of 72" or more accurately, log(2)/log(1.02)=35 years. Log base 10 or natural log? Doesn't matter as long as same in log/log.
That is no answer to my question. How do you estimate that 3 billion people, can last 10,000 years? You are smarter than Kissinger? 3B is a number out of a hat. Show your work. Let's see some facts or some math.
What then did Kissinger mean? I see no possible mild or kind way to get a swollen world pop of near 7 BILLION down to a paltry 500M. That leaves room for all the children I am willing to allow to push out into this world? And my friends' and nephew's many grandchildren?
3 billion people would use up just as much oil and coal, to give us enough time to develop nuclear fusion.
Using the most latest agricultural technologies it should be possible to grow enough food for everyone on the planet without exhausting our resources.
There would be enough space for forests to keep the climate stable and we had time enough to develop the necessary technology in order to leave the planet.
With 7 billion this plan is getting a lot harder to come true.
I agree that the Amish can use outhouses and horses and such if they want. But that's because their numbers have started out small, and they haven't ballooned into huge cities yet
Most people would not agree to half their babies dying by age 1
3B is not an option. We're already near 7 BILLION now! Let China build their 1 or 3 coal-fired power plants a week. They have a huge pop, and every right to work to reduce their poverty
With a smaller pop, we'd get lazy and develop nothing
We are kind of lazy, fat, and developing not much. I guess we aren't multiplying fast enough. Obviously, pop growth isn't the only factor. But already, Europe is dying, because they are selfish, don't believe in much anything anymore, don't much love children , their pop is atrophying as they become elderly without enough younger workers to replace them, and about to collapse under socialism and gov debt.
We need a huger world pop, if ever to develop space colonization technology.
The roads aren't near as clogged on weekends, as during rush-home hour. Not everybody goes out for the weekend, every weekend, at the same time. Some are just going shopping. And they go to different places.
This world is no paradise. This fallen world pales even to the Garden of Eden. This world is a mess. Full of weeds, thorns, liberal-retards, corrupt politicians. What a swamp! Garbage, irrelevant trivia on most every TV channel.
Increase population recklessly by two and scientists and you will not only have double as many scientists, but also by making people's live really miserable, you will create a demand for alleviation.
What a sweet and loving christian attitude!
Only, that by redoubling the number of poor people you are not going to increase the number of scientists. Also they will be working to save people and not have time to work on space projects. fail!
How do you speak so disrespectfully of parents? How is parents having their precious darling children, painting and preparing their bedrooms, getting their jobs, making their investments, improving their job skills, "increasing pop recklessly by 2?" People are but dry number statistics to you? We are just cogs in a socialist machine state, for you to manipulate and "control?"
Pop happens. Natural increase is natural. It's not something we vote on or "control." Pop is a given.
See what happens when the pop remains too small for too long? Their space travel technology wasn't ready yet, and they all died with their dying planet, that their sun baked away.
Had the planet grown "crowded" with people, they might at least had some spaceships by then?
What do we care about another 50 million? We get that many more in less than a year. Well those are people's precious darling babies, friends, families. People much like you. We should care
On Star Trek TNG "Time Squared," a mysterious vortex appeared in outer space suddenly, tugging alarmingly against the Enterprise spaceship, threatening to pull it into the vortex. They tried to fight it, which only tightened its grip and overloaded their engines. Energy bolt struck Captain Piccard. Thinking it was after him, he fled in a shuttlecraft to save his ship. Saw Enterprise destroyed, thrown back in time, tried to warn
My sister answered saying God has not rescinded his commandment to multiply. Guy who said world pop is huge, but Yes, it still applies, perhaps not wanting to be told how many children he can have, that implies he CONSENTS to the huge world pop continuing to grow, even if seemingly naturally "unchecked."
What of India's precious babies? Around a billion and a half people live in countries with less than an acre/person: India, Bangladesh, The Philippines. Their kids don't matter?
God gave commandment, because obviously 2 people, or 8 survivors of The Great Flood, is not enough to build civilizations or fill a planet
Why do you blame Catholicism? Most all religions promote large families
What would be the profit in jumping off a cliff? Why hasten the inevitable? If heaven is beyond time, or an endless expanse of time, then my time in this world can't subtract from such an infinity. Thus, hadn't I wait until God calls me to my final home? Thou shalt not kill
Not even the not-all-knowing god in the bible ever gave the command to overcrowd the planet until we all choke to death. He said: "Be fruitful and multiply".
Ok: We have been very fruitful and multiplied more than enough. That part is over.
The "great flood" is proof, that the bible has nothing to do with God and was man made.
It is time that all religions changed their attitude towards promoting smaller families in order to save the human race from extinction.
What if the Rapture of the Church, or Jesus's second coming, occurs in 2012? Think we might have time before then to grow to 18B? I think not, even if nobody used nasty "birth control" anymore.
Is your imagination, or your mind, so small that you can't even imagine how we might somehow squeeze just a few more billions into the world? When that happens, then we should have a better idea, how to add even more billions, should that be destined to happen.
How is whether I use an unnatural condom or not, or use rhythm or not, any business of yours, or any harm to you?
It's me that will be cold, when my wife, pregnant again, throws off the bed covers, because baby inside is making her hot. As far as you are concerned, world pop will still be rising, regardless how many children we have
Where do you make the leap to accuse me of religious fanaticism, just because I find it very UNDERSTANDABLE why many people tend to have large families?
If mankind is so dangerously high in numbers, please give an account for why India seems to be having some curious successes. I heard villages in Africa grow haphazardly, while in India, they better plan for the growth. What that means, I would have to do more research? But India is a rising economic power, many speak English also, computer programmers, more places getting electricity and running water.
China must have some 350 or 450M women of childbearing age! Need MANY BABIES!
Because as long as there are forests to cut down to gain land and you can dig wells deep enough to obtain water, you have no problem.
The problem starts, when there is no wood left to cook your food, when there is no more water left and when you are surrounded by vast areas with the same problem.
Then, to speak in your language, "God will send a horrible draught and punish these people for rebelling against Him."
Why do we need more people on earth anyway? It does not make sense.
So why do you want to hinder the natural flow of babies into the world, anger parents, and stir up some war? What better reason have people to fight, than to protect their families?
Why is our current state of high population unnatural? Compared to what? Didn't it come mostly by NATURAL increase?
Of course it's progress, for how could more billions experience life, except that our numbers have naturally grown?
The high population levels are not the cause of the social conflicts.
Turning words around makes serves you only if the outcome makes sense.
Do you think the 2nd world war was caused entirely by Adolf Hitler? He came to power, because people were starving. George Bush could start his Irak crusade, because of the oil there. War is all about resources or the lack of them.
High population levels use up more resources, if they are not available, conflicts arise. When people are hungry, do you think they wait until science will have progressed enough?
Sure, large families use more resources. But they use resources more efficiently. Because more people benefit, and they SHARE much of what they have, so they use LESS per capita. But another point. The bulk of pop growth doesn't come from the largest families, but from the moderate-sized families of 2 to 5 children.
And I don't believe in "family planning" nor cherry-picking who gets to be born or not. Let all the babies push out!
One last comment about "Time Squared." Captain Piccard made a serious mistake. He thought there was but 1 option. But he had overlooked a far better option. The Piccard that got thrown back in time, 6 hours prior, although locked in a hopeless timeloop, unable to change, let loose the other "unthinkable" option. DON'T RESIST. So Piccard shut down the engines
They soon sank into the vortex (or the pop exploded naturally). Emerged okay into normal space, vortex vanished mysteriously
Have you no idea what a human life is worth? It would be well worth letting pop density rise naturally in all cities, let numbers of people per housing unit rise, because cities are populated quite inefficiently and could hold lots more people. So far more people may experience life. However, such crowding isn't really necessary, because human numbers can rise, at same time people build more housing for the jobs they need
Complicated hastle swimming pool? And drop your house value?
Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more. A lot more. I have no plans to impose any "cap" upon growing human pops, for fear we might someday soar past any stupid arbitrary cap.
Urbanize the world to whatever extent needed. In the past, people depopulated the countryside to move to the growing cities, in search of jobs, excitement, or shopping malls. I think it cool for people to move back to the countryside, but now at urban densities as we multiply naturally.
Quite many people do not want to poison their bodies directly with awful shoddy "birth control." Quite many people do not think the world is too dense
Why do you need any garden? Do you even garden?
Why should your desire for a car, come before people's progeny getting to live? Sure, people should have freedom of cars, but with freedom comes the responsibility to share the roads for other people and their cars
Lack of parking space is from poor planning, or can do parking garages
But I would like to hear more about your idea that if population density on earth will be high enough, that the planet will give birth and send us to another heaven-like dimension.
I know, that a lot of this kind of stuff is written in the bible. But I don't recall ever heard of this one.
Can you tell me, where you read it?
After all, if you want to turn our garden into a parking garage, I would like to know what for.
Are you mocking my idea of a "pregnant" planet naturally having to give "birth?" Aren't you reading too much into it? I am simply saying that God wouldn't have any purpose to let the planet overcrowd with no good remedy. And if you take the sci-fi interpretation, then we need a far huger pop, to push along the technologies needed to expand to colonize more worlds. Both is a BIRTH into a better realm
But the pop paranoia is like being worried a very pregnant belly will explode. Silly!
I do believe, that God wants us to overcome our animal side, grow up and maybe evolve into a higher form of life.
That includes also to stop pretending, that our 2,000 year old self-fabricated ideas about how God has to look like, or acts or wants us to act, are "God's word"
To think, that God isn't much smarter, than how He/She is being described in those sorry efforts called bible, Quaran or Thora, etc., is sheer blasphemy.
Overcome our animal side? Well yeah, but in what way? Humans are technically classified as animals or mammals, and yet we are so much more than that. People are among the most populous of the large mammals. Because God caused our pops to grow greatly. Don't believe that? Then why did God promise Abraham descendants so numerous as to become uncountable as the grains of sand of the seashore or as the stars? God was joking?
Billions was foretold in Gen 24: 60 KJV "thousands of millions"
But the more we resist the tightening pull of the pop vortex, the more things we can expect to go wrong. Do I really need to spell those things out to you? Even nature wants us reproducing at such a rate, as to keep growing pops everywhere.
How did you miss the point of Gen 24: 60? Today's "burgeoning billions" were foretold all the way back in Genesis. Why didn't it use the word "billions?" Such a mind-boggling huge #, probably rarely used even in the 1600s of the KJV translation
@pronat: The "vortex" hypothesis does not make sense. If we reproduce until there is nothing left to eat, we behave exactly like mindless animals and deserve no better than to become extinct.
Gen 24: Sorry but in biblical times if you wished a woman to have many children it just meant to wish her joy.
God has no reason to write in riddles, to exclusively talk to prophets in remote areas, punish people or break his own laws of nature by doing miracles.
What part don't you understand? Do you try to dry a car, that somebody else is already driving? Can a car have 2 drivers?
Who said anything about reproducing until there is nothing left to eat? I'm not a Malthusian. I said reproducing naturally, not using "birth control." Whatever happened to babies happening when they happen? Why must we humans now "control" everything?
Until very recently, having children was counted a blessing.
To call God "male," may be oversimplification. A book makes some case to call God somewhat "alien," due to special powers and such. But Bible uses the masculine.
Stop pop growth as soon as possible? So you would have been fine with never having been born? No, let world fill fuller and fuller with people. Let island populate denser and denser. If an island gets way too full of people, we have plenty boats and ships to move many millions of people to someplace that can take more.
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
Comment removed
MF0TY 1 year ago
@MF0TY
Of course, let the white Christians have "n00ks" and have everyone else destroyed that poses a threat to white Christians with "n00ks". That makes sense.
Do you know what hypocritical means? What about revelation?
"Just a thought"? I am very surprised you had one.
Just a thought, if you're trying to impress people with your supposed wisdom, punctuation is an important factor to persuade anyone with a brain i.e. not you.
ninjalex08 1 year ago
Comment removed
MF0TY 1 year ago
@MF0TY
Christian and Muslims are not the same, true. But man is man. And no man should have the power to obliterate the world no matter the religion they practice. And Christianity has done the same thing as Muslims in terms of justifying rape and murder. Radicals do these things not because they believe in a certain religion.
Umm, I'm not a liberal. You assume more than your ignorance can back up. In fact, you are suggesting that you are a conservative, but I suggest you stay out of politics.
ninjalex08 1 year ago
Comment removed
MF0TY 1 year ago
@MF0TY
Congratulations. You won the youtube argument. I'm done. Now, please excuse me while I bang my head against a wall as hard as I can, because it will be more productive than arguing with an idiot. You have thoroughly demonstrated your ignorance, and I have continually pointed out your stupidity. If we take this any further, it will be an exercise in redundancy with absolutely no-fucking-point.
ninjalex08 1 year ago
@ninjalex08 So you mean you don't want to go into a link war showing facts that destroy each others facts until we find one right answer we can both agree on through countless hours of research? :P Darn.
MF0TY 1 year ago
Comment removed
MF0TY 1 year ago
Face it; this a problem that can be solved. Why invade Iran? There are plenty of minor targets out there that will fit the bill. A limited tactical nuclear exchange could reduce hungry mouths and allow us to continue with the illusion of sustainable growth. A population reduction is an achievable target and is the only logical choice in the face of overwhelming logistic, supply and demand short term difficulties which this radical move can help alleviate. We are only doing this for you.
thufer50 1 year ago
pigs
sharafudin2 1 year ago
This is not news to me. I have watched while business leaders and politicians ignorant of exponential growth keep pushing for perpetual population growth. Nobody has the willpower to stop it as the new growth has so far boosted the economy. Considering how limited Australia's resources are (and pending Peak Oil), this is going to lead to absolute disaster.
ChristophInns 1 year ago
Overpopulation is extremely profitable, that is why it has continued for so long. There is massive demand for new housing and for construction workers and all of the building materials and everything that the people who live in those houses will consume. And who profits? Well the whole society sees some of the money, enough to prevent a revolution, but most of the money goes to the top of the pyramid. And when this bubble bursts you better run for cover.
calamagrostis88 2 years ago
To calamagrostis88:
You make it sound as if this was some sinister motive, but most everybody benefits from population growth, a reason I am so much in favor of the progress of the human race in naturally enlarging its numbers.
Families benefit from enjoying their little "bundles of joy." So do toy makers and diaper manufacturers. Babies help create jobs and stimulate growth and innovation in the economy.
Govs and corporations like pop growth, for it's at least more future taxpayers/customers
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronatalist , That is exactly my point, it is like the credit bubble, everyone gets rich and the people who warn of disaster are dismissed, then when the whole corrupt mess collapses everyone is wondering what went wrong. Only this time we are not just going to lose money, we are degrading the ability of our planet to support life.
calamagrostis88 2 years ago
Brave calamagro! That is exactly the point. Only an idiot cuts down all his forest in order to make fast money and lives on a piece of barren land for the rest of his live.
Imagine a society, where you had to prove, that you can feed a child, before you can have one.
Rich people would have many children to show off and their wealth would spread over their vast numbers of decendants, while children of poor people would have a better education and more quiet and time to study.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Don't you pay any attention to the rampant political corruption of our age? If people had to prove they can feed babies, before conceiving babies, that would be impractical and greatly abused. Rich people find the most pathetic excuses not to be "bothered" with children, and then scheme to rob poor of children too?
Pop doesn't increase for "no reason" but because childbearing is natural and parents love children.
There is overpop theory that we have "too much" food. So pop grows!
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronatal:
Give me one reason, why a couple without income, living from scraps out of trash cans and a little shoplift here and there should have more than one child (if any)? Just one?
Society will be a lot cheaper off, paying poor women for not having many babies than having to support their countless offspring forever.
Haiti is, where your romantic "happy big family" dream ends. Proof me wrong with figures.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Why do you judge the poor as not worthy of having children, when they say of poor people that children are their only wealth? You wish to rob them of their only wealth? They also sometimes say of poor people, that sex is their only recreation they can afford, and they can't afford the nasty Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons.
No, people aren't having "too many" babies, but rather we should do better ADAPTING the world to better hold more and more people. Let babies come.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@prenatalist: I did not say, the poor are not "worthy" of having children. You are just obsessed with the romantic idea, that they like being poor.
If you pay them enough for not having more than one or two children, I am sure, they would gladly go for it.
The world has only a limited amount of resources. If you overuse them, before ADAPTING the world, you end up with a desert. - and a very low population density. How about life quality?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Who are you, or who is anybody to tell people how to live. They can't be poor, they can't have "too many" children? Why? Who says?
Would I like to share my apartment with 20 others? Actually 2 curious advantages. Tiny cost-of-living per capita, and with 21 people per housing unit, the world could hold a mind-boggling enormous world population, far more than ever there could be within the forseeable future.
Yes, I could live in cramped apartment, with friendly people, and E-books.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@prenatalist: I say so, because I care for people. Ask poor people, if they would like to have a better income.
Good for you, that you don't mind waiting for half an hour to be admitted to the bathroom and that a 2 square metre big cage is big enough for you.
But ask your friends, if 2 square metres would be enough space for them to live on.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Don't have to wait half hour for bathroom. Toilet, sink, bathtub, can all be used at the same time. More than one person can brush teeth, at the same time. Also, facilities can be designed to move along huge pop. Communal shower rooms in schools, gyms, swimming pools. Urine troughs in airport, theater restrooms.
You get well over 2 sq. meters if housing is built right
Half world pop now lives in cities. Yet cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. Simple. Keep building housing
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronatalist:
Yes this fits perfectly into your wonderful utopia: People using the bathtub as a toilet, because the pot it occupied. (by 2 people at the same time maybe?)
You will never get over 2 sq. meters if you have no material to build and if you are too busy fighting for food all day long.
What are you going to do, if 100% of the land is city? Putting on a second floor?
Don't worry!
This will never happen. If we overshoot, population will go down to 1 billion people or less.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer
So the poor can get bathrooms after all, but only but 1? What an absurd assumption. If you have 20 people to an apartment, why couldn't this hopefully big apartment, have 2 bathrooms? Every hear of a chamber pot? The bathtub goes to the same sewer, so why can't it be peed in? Oh yeah, yuck, the bathtub may not be scrubbed out enough
Uh, yeah, put on additional floors. So you have never seen the PS2 video game, Project Eden? Of course it wasn't really about overpop, just a storyline
pronatalist 2 years ago
@profatalist:
So far you have been preaching nothing but a very spartanic life-style combined with the liberty of a common prisoner.
Tell me more about your idea about earth giving birth and where you read about it in the bible.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
You were confined in a "prison" of a womb, and yet you were released from it, at the proper time. And yet you still complain? The Bible says we will eventually be released from the confines of our frail bodies. Yet you don't understand?
I already answered your Earth birth question. Humans won't live on earth forever
India has 3 people for every 2 acres. Added 200M more in last decade. You can have free roam of globe, but must SHARE your hiking trails, lake, as we MUST GROW DENSER
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
When the book of miracles says: "We will eventually be released from the confines of our frail bodies." What else could it mean, that one day we will be dead?
Humans will not live on earth forever. But what makes you think, we had to leave earth within the next 4 generations?
You never explained, why we must grow denser. And what is the gloom-and-doom religion? Catholizism?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
The gloom-and-doom poverty religion, is the various forms of disbelief and rebellion against God. Those belief systems that would appear destructive against the interests of humanity. Evolution, atheism, Malthusian, radical environmentalism, paganism, earth worship, and yeah, probably Catholicism, from whence a lot of heresies come from.
Demographers expect at least a few more billions. Planet same size=SOMEWHAT denser.
Bible says time is short. Signs around us say time is short.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Religious fanatics see everything from their very limited point of view. That goes to far, that they think, that not "believing in their dogmas" had to be some sort of another religion.
Actually its the people who believe in miracles and contradictory dogmas who are rebelling against God.
God is pure logic. Miracles are not. Contradictions are not, freely interpretable dogmas are not.
God does not need to be worshiped. He/She is beyond such nonsense.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
And you are not a religious fanatic? So why don't you take off the negativity poop-colored glasses, and try some rose-colored glasses? You will see better, at least, than you do now.
You don't know even of Murphy's Law? Take you to the last line, the only point here to make: Murphy was an optimist. (Yeah, right?)
You don't believe in miracles? What if I was "god" over a video game, as programmer made certain CHANGES. Characters inside game would see them as MIRACLES
God of Bible
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Ok, here is my point of view: God has created the universe and started evolution with a simple single cell some hundreds of millions of years ago.
God is all-knowing, therefore He/She can not get "angry" or need to be worshipped.
God can be understood by scientific means only. "Miracles" are processes we do not understand yet.
God does not need to make changes to His/Her creation. It is perfect, because He/She is all-knowing.
flamifer 2 years ago
@pronat:
Bible has been saying that "the end is near" since that awful book was created.
What signs are you talking about? Pollution? War over resources? Plagues?
Aren't these rather symptoms of a growing population density on our planet?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
No, the signs are, a great falling away from faith, NWO conspiracy, govs stirring up trouble/wars.
These are not symptoms of naturally rising pop density, but humans rebelling against God, people in need of a Savior to save us from our sins
Signs of rising pop density, would be a world that glows in overexposed, composited satellite nighttime images of spreading cities. Urban sprawl. More places becoming inhabited. Fewer places far away from lots of people. No need to be negative
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Of course, the church will tell you that "the end is near" should you ever try to brake free from its dominance. Only that it would be their end, not yours.
If there really is a NWO conspiracy, there is not much one can do against it. And you can rely on it, that the church is deep in it.
People are not rebelling against god. They might rebell against stupid bible doctrine. Nobody needs to be saved from his sins. That is a convenient invention of the catholic church to make money
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Y grow denser?
Currently, for each person who dies, 3 more are born to replace him or her. Somebody said either we curb our birthrate, or we find more places for more families to live. Most people seem to prefer the latter.
A lot of this growth comes from "demographic momentum" or the youthfulness of pops caused by previous rapid growth. But already Europe is graying with elderly, in an unsustainable fashion. Their socialism is headed towards collapse due to too few young workers
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
As long as there are enough slaves to do the primitive work, investment in robots is hindered.
Only high wages incite the development of robots. Europe could do better without millions of cheap slaves.
One productive worker can easily sustain 10 other people, if his work is backed by robots and available resources.
Immigrants are a liability to the social systems of developed countries, because there is no work for them.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
But there is no way to be sure there won't be at least a mild pop race between Muslims, Catholics, Mormons, why probably even Hindus. Nature favors those who reproduce, so larger families may tend to take over as much of the future breeding parents?
If we move foolishly towards socialist redistribute-the-wealth Cap-and-Trade deceit, energy prices would soar, pushing us BACKWARDS back to slavery and animal labor,and away from machines/robots doing the work. Which way do you prefer?
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Socialism was born out of the near slavery of brutal capitalism. In a socially organised society there are minimum wages and the mass of people have money to buy robot produced goods.
??? I don't understand the question.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Which question do you not understand?
Bad "capitalists" give capitalism a bad name. Wait! Aren't the bad capitalists, really closet socialists or something other than true capitalists?
Capitalism isn't a perfect system either, that's why it's supposed to be tempered by VOLUNTARY charity.
But when the socialists get grabby, raising our taxes or eying our wallets, people tend to put their wallets away, quit spending, reducing giving to charity, and then we have an Obama Depression
pronatalist 2 years ago
ypu can jave jus 2 bundles of joy and is everyone follwow that rules the population remains stable, as long life expectancy doesnt varies
smvuy 2 years ago
Haiti has 10 million inhabitants. That is 650 people per square kilometer. Since 2000 their economy is not growing any more, although Haitis population has increased a lot since then. They have cut down all their trees to grow food and their fields yield less each year, because of overuse.
What went wrong? Weren't there enough babies?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Well why does Haiti then, have so many people? 10 million isn't much, however upon a small half an island, the pop could be somewhat dense. Surely, parents find very good reasons to have so many children, sex feels good, more people are glad to come alive and live, etc.
No, not enough babies. People should keep having their precious darling babies.
Why is Dominican Republic so much nicer? Probably better gov. More civilized? Babies don't cause poverty, but pov urges more breeding
pronatalist 2 years ago
to pronatal:
Yes, 650 people per km2 is "somewhat dense". Actually it is so dense, that there is no way of feeding all those people, not even with the latest technologies and fertilizers.
Don't you think people in Haiti were better off, if they were only 1 million? If they still had their environment intact, they could own nothing but a T-shirt and still have enough food.
Still think, they need to have more children to have a better life?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
So what part of God's commandment to people, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, do you not understand? Does this still apply to today's world? I did an informal survey of my co-workers and friends. Everybody said it still applies. One co-worker said something about world pop now being huge, but yes, it still applies. My sister said God's commandment has never been rescinded.
Your 1 million would deny 9 million life. Nearly as dense as Bangladesh. Let them grow denser!
pronatalist 2 years ago
Don't you think, that people in Bangla Desh would prefer to have food and decent homes, cars and big garden, instead of the slum they live in now?
Once you have overpopulation in a country it is almost impossible to reverse the way down.
By the way. A personal question. Would you mind to share your appartment with 20 others?
I conclude, that you live in a little town in the mid-west. Where there is still plenty of land and people have no idea what overpopulation means. You lucky ones.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Is it not bad enough that people are poor? And yet you want to rob them of their precious darling children too?
You claim that once a country grows overpopulated, it's almost impossible to reverse? Well good then, for I don't believe in population "control" nor "birth control," so I would like for the population to be or become "uncontrollable" in its expansion, so that nobody would dare try to impose "control."
But there is no need for crowded slums with proper development.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@prenatalist:
I can see, that you deny that there is a connection between education and proper development.
You also deny the fact, that a family with 10 children will have less money left for education.
Do children not have a right on regular meals and education?
You are right: There is no need for crowded slums with proper development.
And who can initiate that? Educated people, not masses of people who don't know anything more than how to survive the next day in the streets!
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
No, that's not what I said. High pop does tend to make the world more complex. There are still places with such sparse pops, that people can choose to live primitive levels like the Amish, and let babies come as they will. But more places are naturally crowding up. Education helps to modernize cities, to have proper public sanitation, indoor flush toilets, dependable gas and electricity for cooking without smoky cooking fires.
But education is overrated and misdefined by libtards.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronatalist:
"Education is overrated and misdefined"
Yes, one must really believe that in order to think, that God will reward us for behaving like animals and destroy His/Her creation.
If we overshoot, our decendants will have to pay the bill.
I suppose "libtard" is for "free thinker"? A person who prefers to use rational logic to make decisions rather than religious dogma?
I sincerely hope, you put me into the category "libtard".
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Where do you get this "behaving like animals?" Humans aren't supposed to mate too? In fact, humans are apparently favored by God, over animals, in so many ways. We are allowed to eat animals, and most all humans get to mate, unlike animals in which often only the strong males mate.
We aren't going to "overshoot." But if pops grow dramatically, it simply will take more cities, towns, villages, suburbs upon suburbs, to hold us all. So get busy building them, sense it's good for jobs
pronatalist 2 years ago
@profatalist:
"behaving like animals" means to be unable to keep the population of your own species within sustainable limits.
Sustainable means, that the number of individuals does not surpass the amount of resources that can be provided by nature.
How come, you never mention the rest of God's creation and their needs in your mails? Don't animals have no right to exist?
You won't answer, because you know, that I would ask you for figures then, which does not go with your believs.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
There you pop phobics go again. Using your false gloom-and-doom religion words, with no sufficient definition ever supplied. Whatever does "sustainable" really mean? A false poverty religion word to replace "salvation?"
What of the other pro-human side? Can't we alter our environment to better hold more and more people? Why wouldn't that be "sustainable" then?
So nature needs a little help. Isn't that what we have intelligence for? Inventions like toilets, help the pop be DENSER.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
"Sustainable" is easily explained: If you have a piece of land and 10 cows, you can have 10 cows forever. If you have 100 cows on the same property, they will eat all the grass and almost all will die of starvation.
That happened in a little village in Afrika, where people had so many cows, that there was no grass left.
Why not have more children, when we have figured out how to feed them and not before?
If you have "sustainability" you don't need "salvation".
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Why should Costa Rica have any need for uncrowded beaches? I see nothing in the Bible nor U.S. Constitution, nor Declaration of Independence assuring you any right to solitude upon a beach.
Something I have been meaning to make a point of. Large families are too much blamed for the pop growth. And yet, on the bell curve distribution, more moderate-sized families of 2, 3, 4, 5 children, probably account for the most absolute numbers of pop growth. The Duggars only added but 19 kids
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
A moderate sized family has not more than 2.25 or so children. If it is more, than population will go up, unless the children die earlier for poverty caused reasons.
Costa Rica should have uncrowded beaches, because it is wonderful to be alone on the beach with your girl friend and friends.
You can make a fire or go fishing or pick some coconuts and there is nobody to disturb you with shouting and taking the best spots.
But what do you know of life-quality?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer
That "Stop at 2" nonsense is such utter rubbish. Let's say you have your 2, and I have my natural 7 or so. Our average is 4.5, of which you added 2 yourself. You also are growing the pop, aren't you? Shouldn't you have 0 children, so the average will only be but 3.5? What a crock! How about you have your natural 5 or 7 too, and make the best of things. Enjoy your empty beach while you still can. Mate on the beach, if you think it unlikely you will get caught, or people just walk on?
pronatalist 2 years ago
@flamifer
Quite many people think they have good life-quality, if they are free to have all the children they want, "all the children God gives," or all the children their bodies naturally end up pushing out, as they neglect to ever get around to selecting some "satisfactory" method of "birth control"
What do I care about your selfish empty beach for? I rarely go to the beach, but rather place video games. When I do go somewhere, I love to carpool, to meet people, not to "get away from it all"
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
I love empty beaches, you like video games, other people like to play golf or ride their bicycles.
If we keep our numbers down, I can have my beach, you your video games and everybody else can have and do what he or she wants.
If you pack earth full with people, what is there left to live for?
Ask your co-workers, if they would rather have 10 children or a car, a television set and vacations. They will probably not share your opinon.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
I have no plan to keep the earth from naturally packing full of people, although I consider that scenario quite unlikely.
A guy at a Walk For Life, a few years ago, said they have 4 children, and don't use birth control. You think they are trying for 8 children? I didn't get that impression. I think many people think like how I expressed, they simply do not believe in using birth control. They aren't afraid of getting pregnant, or the "risk" their family might grow rather large.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
If everyone thinks like that and nobody does anything about it, we all deserve no better than what we are in for.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer
Currently for every person who dies, 3 more are born to replace him or her. So births are clearly outpacing deaths, and human being alive are accumulating, at something like 75 million more each and every year
Supposed Thomas Malthus said, Somebody must die to make room for each birth. But a moment's thought shows this can't possibly be true. Births do not have to be "balanced" with deaths, because most everybody really does prefer to grow at least somewhat DENSER. Scoot over a bit
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
For what reason should I "scoot over" and give up my garden. I am not going to scoot over without a good fight. And so will everybody else.
You will not succeed with your philosophy. Ask your co-workers, if they were ready to share their properties, so that "more people can enjoy alive".
They can live some generations later. What does it matter to a soul to wait for some thousand years to be born?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
A family at my Church, has 8 children. They invited me over for lunch one time. I asked him why he had so many. He said they didn't really think about it. See? Some people just have children, not trying to "plan" how many. Not everybody got the anti-pop memo saying we now have to "plan" our families. As they say you can't fool all the people all the time. Their upstairs and attic was full of beds. No extra space, just enough.
Typical # of children for "unplanned" family is 5 or 6.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
When environmental refugees will flood all over the world and wars break out for water, people will ask about the reasons.
When life quality really degrades, especially the spoilt Europeans and Americans will demand a solution.
Then, if the governments decide to introduce birth control instead of starting a nuclear war. Then we have already made real progress.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Can you believe there are pop phobics, saying stupid things, like that Great Britain's 60-some million people, and Australia's 30 million, is just getting to be "too many." Compared to what? Sure they are islands, but BIG islands that can easily hold lots more people.
By allowing even more regions to reach "tipping point" of going from multiple acres per person to multiple people per acres, huge additional numbers of humans can easily be absorbed all around the world. Let us GROW.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer:
It's okay to allow people to live in crowded slums and buses. But people can do things, to make them a tad less crowded. How about 40 or 50 people on many buses, rather than 80. How about building more housing, so the growing pop can spread out a bit, as the babies keep right on coming.
You don't give uneducated people enough credit, pretty much calling them stupid?
Education doesn't have to cost a lot, with home-schooling and internet schools. Computers cheaper than tuition.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronatalist:
It is no use to explain to you, that people would rather like to live in decent houses than in slums and have their own cars instead of riding in buses.
Who is going to build the buses, if there is nobody who knows how to do it?
Where is the material to build the buses or the fuel to come from, if there is none left on the planet?
Maybe you think, that it is God's plan to get us all killed and then we go to heaven?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Why do you like to assume, that there's not only "too many" people already, but that the people don't know how to build anything, when most countries are not only increasing in pop, but also improving infrastructure and living standards?
Why do you assume we will run out of everything? By then, wouldn't we have The Jetsons flying cars?
Not everybody has to know how to build those things. A few people can build them for other people, and then everybody gets them through trade.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@profatalist:
Whereever economies are improving in the world, it is because they have access to resources like oil - a finit resource.
Tell me more about your idea about earth giving birth and where you read about it in the bible.
flamifer 2 years ago
@ flamifer
I've told you enough about the Earth giving birth. If you were anywhere near as smart as me, you could have found the pop video about Gaia needing/wanting to give birth, explained clearly in its info text. And No, I didn't write it. Somebody else's idea. Now if you have a more specific question other than to mock my ideas?
Not just oil, but also hydro-electric electricity, nuclear power. You should be happy about oil, increasing quantity of life, not just humans but animals/pets too
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat: If you gave me the address, I could check on it. I hope, you don't mean the Gaia hypothesis as it is basically irrelevant to us.
The key to survival is "sustainability". At the current rate of population growth rate we will run out of all the energy sources you mention in your message within the next 30-50 years.
Then the collapse might very easily happen before we unlock the secrets of nuclear fusion.
Why not wait for another million years? What's the rush?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer
No, we aren't running out of energy. They say coal will last for several centuries at least. We aren't even drilling for much of the oil available in the U.S., due to enviro-wackos and political stupidity/NWO conspiracy
The current rate of pop growth, at least, is very necessary, because it come from now billions of parents who WANT CHILDREN
How do you think we have any option to "wait" another million years. We don't have that long, and parents want children NOW
Get ready for 9B
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
1.) Calculations about coal being available for 400 more years are based on a world with 10 billion inhabitants.
At the current population growth rate of 2% per year we would be out of coal within 100 years from now on with 72 billion inhabitants on earth.
2.) Population growth is the RESULT of parents having too many children, not a production target.
3.) What makes you think, we can not stay much longer? Is there a deadly comet heading towards earth or something?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
1.) My calculator says 6.8B*1.02^100=49B. Do you need some new batteries?
400 years is an estimation. Coal is nearly inexhaustible. Although a good fuel to use for now, coal might be too dirty for a "crowded" world of 49 or 72B, or 2 or 3 people average per acre of land globally. Wouldn't nuclear power plants be more suitable for such a highly populous world?
2.) "Too many" children, or too many people having children, or both? I urge both, for the natural flow of human life.
pronatalist 2 years ago
1.) I calculated with 2%. But I see, that you are trying to reach sort of a "compromise" we could agree on. But sorry, 1.2% is still too high. I could live with a percentage, that is low enough, so that mankind at least has a chance to develop interstellar space travel.
There is by far not enough radioactive material on earth to supply the world with it, or we would do it.
It is nuclear fusion we are looking for. But we will need at least another 40 years to develop it.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Why is 1.2% too high? Would you be satisfied to get only a 1.2% return on your investments? 2 or 3% or more is not too high. The proper rate for humans to multiply at, is the full level of human fecundity, letting babies push out just as fast as the human female body wants to produce them. Respecting the body's reproductive rhythms and not fighting them.
You don't know how long it would take to develop better space travel. But a larger pop would greatly accelerate the technology.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer:
3.) The burgeoning world pop size, is but one sign that we may be near the endtimes. But what about the gathering NWO globalist conspiracy, in which evil elites will mess of the world, even faster if we buy into their pagan poverty pop "control" religion/ideology and use the shoddy Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons
Have you no respect for the simple ways of the Amish? I don't wish to live so technologically impaired as them, but I agree with humans reproducing naturally
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
I fear, that the amish people will not agree with your super technologized mega-city.
But there is another way: If we all renounced of the achievements of science, we could get back to having as many children as in biblical times.
50% of all the babies would die within their first year of life. People would not become older than 35 years of age and population would develop back to more "natural" numbers.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer
Why do you think like the enviro-wacko luddites? We are already growing way too dense, to live like our primitive-science ancestors. Do you have any idea how much poop a city of millions makes, that flows in rivers of sewage conveniently hidden underneath our cities? Going back to overflowing outhouses, that's a lot of flies spreading disease
The Amish I think would agree, but not yet. The way they are growing their numbers, they could eventually get so dense THEY HAVE TO MODERNIZE
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer:
A baby doesn't grow within the womb, expecting collapse, but to live. Baby can't see what, if anything, is outside the womb. But baby can hear a strange world outside, people talking, thunder, as the sounds of the world somewhat penetrate the womb. You might hear a greater world outside of this one, if you had ears or imagination or belief to hear
For now, humanity is trapped "in the womb," with no option now but to keep right on naturally growing. That's the truth you should tell
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Because a baby can not do anything about it, we have to make sure, that it will have its rightful place on earth before it is conceived.
You can see it like that: If we have 3 billion people on earth, the planet will stay inhabitable for another million years.
That are 5 million generations of 3 billion people = 15,000 billion people to live on earth stretched over time.
If you raise population up to 20 billion people at the same time - all will be over within a few years.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
You keep basing your conclusions upon evolutionary timetable, gloom-and-doom poverty religion. In a million years, the continents would have eroded into the oceans. Of course by then, probably humans could use machines to rebuild the continents?
Where's your math formulas? If we have 7 billion people, why couldn't the planet last for 3/7 million years, or 400 million years? That's long enough?
A few years? If it all lasts for a few years, why not a few centuries?
What a myth!
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
The continents have not eroded that much for hundreds of millions of years, so why should they erode away suddenly so quickly?
You speak about one of those creationist myths. "The continents eroding too fast, earth can not be older than 6,000 years" and all that nonsense?
In 400 million years, our sun will have swallowed earth.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
A few people have a myth, that our numbers are now so huge, that the majority of people who have ever lived, are alive now still. Statisticians say it isn't so. Total cumulative world pop may be near 100 billion. I think much lower, based on 6000 year timeline. But pop doubling time is shorter than lifespan, so can you see where we are headed maybe, eventually? Majority still alive.
Continents haven't eroded away yet, because the planet is actually rather young. - God's creation.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat: I don't believe it! Haiti: 650 people per km2 and you say: "could be somewhat dense".
And here you are right:
Poor people breed. They have nothing else left to live for. And they are poor because they have many babies.
For the slow ones:
Bringing up children costs money. To educate them costs more money.
Educated people have jobs. If you have 4 children you can hardly feed them and definitely not have them educated. That is the reason why big families are so poor.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Children don't cause poverty. Children are worth far more than money. There are many dense places in the world, that are hardly poor. Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore.
There are many people with 4 or more children, who feed and educate and love them all, quite well. The enviro-radical nonsense about "Stop at 2" children, is absurd. Many parents can easily support and love a naturally large family, much larger than just 2 children.
Don't blame the poor for bad gov and fiat paper money?
pronatalist 2 years ago
@prenatalist: All these places are highly organised and get their resources from outside. I hope, you are not believing, that Honk Kong could survive with the few land that is not under concrete.
There are many people who can feed 4 children. Some of them have even the money to educate them. But, sadly enough, most of them don't. Their chiildren will be doomed to starvation and poverty.
To have a good government, you need educated people, not hungry masses.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
It's not so much the number of people, but the amount of STUFF people collect as they become prosperous, that seems to require so much square footage per person of housing space. Used to be, families were large, and homes small, only a room or 2.
High organization, and big numbers of people per housing unit, are viable options for natural population expansion. But building more housing, bigger, more cities, is more comfortable, less crowded option-still making room for our babies!
pronatalist 2 years ago
When I grew up and we moved to another house, the greatest thing was to have my own room. Until that time, my brother and me were always quarreling, because we were disturbing each other.
Using birth control, we could be decreasing population density in cities, until everone can have a garden and a swimming pool. There could be beautiful parks and definitely enough parking space.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
But how is having your own bedroom, better than another precious human life, getting to live?
Sure, the ideal, is a big family, and a separate room for everybody. But quite many people don't have that much money for a house so big. A former pastor, had 8 children, had a 6 bedroom house custom built. Probably a few kids still had to share a room?
Sure, decrease city pop density, but by increasing pop, and with more/bigger cities, urban sprawl. Increase pop density of globe instead
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronatalist:
What on earth gave you the idea, God wants us to multiply like rabbits?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Whatever gave you the idea that humans aren't supposed to multiply like rabbits? Or that we were ever designed to use nasty unnatural contraceptive potions and poisons? The reproductive system is a vital life system too. Why is it treated so much different than the necessity of allowing people to breathe or eat?
Genesis 1: 28, 9: 1. Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth - Never rescinded, still in effect
Reserve only shrinking gaps between people for animals. ALL for people
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronatal:
The Genesis also tells us, that earth is a flat disk, that Eve was cloned out of a rib and that God would punish people by sending floods.
"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth". That was ok, BEFORE we reached 3 billion people on earth.
The bible is NOT god's word. The real god does not punish people or get angry. If He/She did that, how could He/She be all-knowing?
Anger is a feeling of helplessness. Is God helpless?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Your lack of Bible knowledge is appalling. God said he would not destroy the world with a great global flood again, and signified that with the reminder of a rainbow. (I figure that only leaves God but 999 other ways to destroy the world?)
A flat disk? Verse please, so I may verify. Job says the earth is a sphere and hangs on nothing (in orbit).
Why 3 billion? Some think that's too crowded. Evil Kissinger says we need to eliminate 6B out of the 6.5B. Surely that excludes him?
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
For what reason would God ever have sent an all devastating flood? When He/She created the universe all was made perfect from the beginning. God is not a bungler.
The "circle of the earth" is mentioned in (Isaiah 40:22). Which could admittedly also mean "sphere".
But then the world has "edges and corners too"? (Matt. 24:31, Mark 13:27)
The bible is not science! I can give you a whole list of scientific errors in the bible, devoid as it is of any kind of valid information.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
You think we will use science and technology in heaven? Maybe, but then, maybe not? Bible is roadmap through this life. When Bible written, was there much interest in the world of science? And yet science came from Christian belief that God made orderly universe that operates like clockwork according to seachable rules. But as God knows future, you find some science in Bible.
Devil tempted Jesus, turn rocks into bread. Sounds strangely like "science" of Star Trek food replicator?
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
It is ok to believe in heaven. It is an optimistic view towards the time after death. But Karl Marx is right, when he said, that this believe can be abused to exploit people.
The comparison is a good one. The bible is a 2,000 year old road map. Isn't it time to get a new one?
Religious fanatics always will try to interprete modern knowledge into the old book, which is not hard, because it is so evasive.
Science requires independence from the restraints of overcome beliefs.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
God changes not. Why should we need a new Bible? What heresies would you like to see in this "new" Bible?
Wasn't Marx the one who said Religion is the opiate of the masses? Sounds a tad disrespectful of people's religious beliefs, to say the least, don't you think?
Some pagans see religion as a convenient vehicle to manipulate people, perhaps even more powerful than the political sword? No wonder the Pope took over and brought murders and inquisitions, as Rome fell.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Did you understand my Pop Vortex metaphor?
They didn't have sufficient power to resist "nature's pull"?, and resisting only made the problem worse.
There was a mysterious intelligence underlying it, that apparently knew what it wanted to do to them.
Not resisting wasn't an option, because that meant certain destruction. Or did it? Their resistance efforts obviously were not breaking them free of the tightening grip.
Lesson is, relax, let pop growth take hold, work itself out.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
I understand the metaphor, but I don't think it applies here.
Like rats we are made to procreate fast, because our ancestors used to die quickly. This natural alance tilted, when scientific progress allowed us to grow older.
There is no higher "intelligence" behind all this. It is all quite natural. Now we have to change our behavior towards our reproductive rate, because it is threatening the existence of our whole race.
Naturally, the makers of the bible could not foresee that
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
How do you compare human reproduction, to rats? Is that all you think of humans?
Then how come humans (usually) have but 1 baby at a time? Do rats have a 9 month or longer gestational period?
I know the natural balance has tilted towards humans, but that should be counted as progress, and a signal that the world is now better prepared to more comfortably hold, if we but use the right technology and development, more people than ever before.
Our race enjoys ENLARGING for the many
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Our current state of high population is unnatural and therefore dangerous for our species and all other life on earth.
There is no reason to count this as a progress and the beginning destabilisation of the weather and growing social conflicts in the world are clear warning signals.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
7 billion people is unnatural? Upon what basis? So are beehives unnatural too? They look a tad "crowded."
Future generations would want to be more populous and dense, otherwise, how else could they all be born? There's nothing that says that only 2 babies can come out of a womb. I hear the Duggars had their 19th child now. My Mom had 4 children, not counting a miscarriage.
A woman has 2 breasts, so she could feed 2 babies AT THE SAME TIME. Either in close succession, or twins.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat: Again you have conveniently forgotten, that I already told you:
Our species was created for a world with high infant death rates and a generally lower life-span. Our urge to have sex might naturally decrease over hundreds of millenia, but in the meantime we have to keep our numbers low enough to keep the planet feeding us.
You can not compare complex organisms like humans to bees.
Sorry, but the rest of the message sounds like the ravings of a maniac.
flamifer 2 years ago
@flamifer
That's your opinion. You can't prove it. Why should there be so much death to keep our pops "in check." Prove to me, that God didn't make our fertility to exceed deathrates, because it was God who wanted pops to grow. You can't because the Bible promotes large families and large pop. God did not design humans to remain of "stable" pop size, but to GROW. The original 2 people wasn't enough. It was God's idea to multiply us exp, or as some pessimists may claim, a slow "replication bomb"
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Now why can't I compare human cities to beehives? Says you? I sure can, if pop phobics can make bad comparisons of humans pop growth to rats or cancer. Tell me where the beehive comparison is bad. What would you rather I compare human cities to? Martian arcologies? Oh wait, we don't have those yet. So how about I use the comparisons I think of, and you could reduce the global WHINING just a tad? Or suggest an improvement.
TV/electricity has already damped reproductive urges a tad.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@ flamifer
How does TV and electricity slightly moderate our powerful reproductive urges? Glad you asked. (If I waited for you to ask, I may forget to follow up and explain.)
It's among the many distractions why more wealthy people aren't so much breeding lots of babies as the poor. Ever notice that villages with no electricity tend to have LARGE families? Well what else is there to do at night to stay warm? They don't even have electric blankets
Little baby booms 9 months after power outages
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
I put 3 billion people, because I estimate, that we could sustain this number for at least for another 10 or 20,000 years.
But if we keep on having a population growth rate of 2%, we will be in trouble in 50 years at the latest and then the wars start.
Mr. Kissinger surely did not mean to murder anyone when he said that. But, then I guess, that in your twisted philosophy not having a child already is murder?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Even the dogs in China are becoming obese. Who says we can't produce enough food? Problem is distribution and economic.
Current rate is 1.3 or 1.2%. You think we may rebound back to 2%? I'm fine with that, as I dislike all methods of "birth control"
6.8*1.02^50, my calculator says is 18B. Easy to fit so many by then
Oh, yes, I'm sure murder what Kissinger meant. Either start the pop wars, or use trickery and deceit. That's not my style as a believer Christian. Truth works BETTER
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
18 billion people on earth! That would give us, maybe one, or two generation maximum to live on this planet.
Then the wars for the last resources would begin and you will have your Armageddon.
Pray that it may never happen!
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
There you go again with the negativity. Where do you get 1 or 2 generations maximum? Didn't I tell you to get some better glasses, so that you could see better? Even rose-colored glasses would work better.
When/if we reach 18B, you still don't know whether pop will be growing faster than ever, creeping along poking along slowly almost going nowhere, "stabilized" stagnated, or slowly shrinking due to sagging selfish birthrate.
See what I mean about ridiculous extrapolations?
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
There is a maximum sustainable limit for human life on earth, regardless of scientific progress.
Better believe it.
If we stop overpopulation now, we might have a chance to escape the fate of the Rapa Nui and evolve one day to higher beings.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
So is this "maximum sustainable limit" more fixed or viable in your view? Doesn't scientific progress vary it a lot, which itself is driven a lot by the pop growth? A vicious self-feeding circle in the positive pro-human sense.
The more populous we get, the more we ADAPT towards becoming more populous.
What exactly is the level of this "limit?" Why are people's estimates all over the board?
We're not going to get that populated anyway. What would be God's purpose in that?
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
As there is no certainty about possible future scientific progress, I suggest to leave it out of the equation.
In the current situation, civilisation is totally depending on finit resources like oil or coal, which might last for another 500 years, if population numbers do not continue to rise.
This time span decreases exponentially with the yearly % of any population growth.
I oppose population growth, but have no objection against increasing the number of scientists.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Again you try to put words in my mouth? I never objected to the world growing to 15 trillion people. I only say it seems unlikely. Not impossible, but that I don't see God giving us enough time left on this planet to do that. If it occurs during the 1000 year reign of Jesus as King, then who could worry about it?
Doubling time is calculated by "rule of 72" or more accurately, log(2)/log(1.02)=35 years. Log base 10 or natural log? Doesn't matter as long as same in log/log.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer:
That is no answer to my question. How do you estimate that 3 billion people, can last 10,000 years? You are smarter than Kissinger? 3B is a number out of a hat. Show your work. Let's see some facts or some math.
What then did Kissinger mean? I see no possible mild or kind way to get a swollen world pop of near 7 BILLION down to a paltry 500M. That leaves room for all the children I am willing to allow to push out into this world? And my friends' and nephew's many grandchildren?
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
3 billion people would use up just as much oil and coal, to give us enough time to develop nuclear fusion.
Using the most latest agricultural technologies it should be possible to grow enough food for everyone on the planet without exhausting our resources.
There would be enough space for forests to keep the climate stable and we had time enough to develop the necessary technology in order to leave the planet.
With 7 billion this plan is getting a lot harder to come true.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
I agree that the Amish can use outhouses and horses and such if they want. But that's because their numbers have started out small, and they haven't ballooned into huge cities yet
Most people would not agree to half their babies dying by age 1
3B is not an option. We're already near 7 BILLION now! Let China build their 1 or 3 coal-fired power plants a week. They have a huge pop, and every right to work to reduce their poverty
With a smaller pop, we'd get lazy and develop nothing
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
"With a smaller pop, we'd get lazy and develop nothing"
Where would we be now, if that where true?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
We are kind of lazy, fat, and developing not much. I guess we aren't multiplying fast enough. Obviously, pop growth isn't the only factor. But already, Europe is dying, because they are selfish, don't believe in much anything anymore, don't much love children , their pop is atrophying as they become elderly without enough younger workers to replace them, and about to collapse under socialism and gov debt.
We need a huger world pop, if ever to develop space colonization technology.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer:
The roads aren't near as clogged on weekends, as during rush-home hour. Not everybody goes out for the weekend, every weekend, at the same time. Some are just going shopping. And they go to different places.
This world is no paradise. This fallen world pales even to the Garden of Eden. This world is a mess. Full of weeds, thorns, liberal-retards, corrupt politicians. What a swamp! Garbage, irrelevant trivia on most every TV channel.
Have to have children to have grandchildren.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
I suppose, you calculate like that:
Increase population recklessly by two and scientists and you will not only have double as many scientists, but also by making people's live really miserable, you will create a demand for alleviation.
What a sweet and loving christian attitude!
Only, that by redoubling the number of poor people you are not going to increase the number of scientists. Also they will be working to save people and not have time to work on space projects. fail!
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
How do you speak so disrespectfully of parents? How is parents having their precious darling children, painting and preparing their bedrooms, getting their jobs, making their investments, improving their job skills, "increasing pop recklessly by 2?" People are but dry number statistics to you? We are just cogs in a socialist machine state, for you to manipulate and "control?"
Pop happens. Natural increase is natural. It's not something we vote on or "control." Pop is a given.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer: "Inner Light" Part 3:
See what happens when the pop remains too small for too long? Their space travel technology wasn't ready yet, and they all died with their dying planet, that their sun baked away.
Had the planet grown "crowded" with people, they might at least had some spaceships by then?
What do we care about another 50 million? We get that many more in less than a year. Well those are people's precious darling babies, friends, families. People much like you. We should care
pronatalist 2 years ago
@ flamifer
My Population Vortex metaphor
On Star Trek TNG "Time Squared," a mysterious vortex appeared in outer space suddenly, tugging alarmingly against the Enterprise spaceship, threatening to pull it into the vortex. They tried to fight it, which only tightened its grip and overloaded their engines. Energy bolt struck Captain Piccard. Thinking it was after him, he fled in a shuttlecraft to save his ship. Saw Enterprise destroyed, thrown back in time, tried to warn
Answer was, DON'T RESIST
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer:
My sister answered saying God has not rescinded his commandment to multiply. Guy who said world pop is huge, but Yes, it still applies, perhaps not wanting to be told how many children he can have, that implies he CONSENTS to the huge world pop continuing to grow, even if seemingly naturally "unchecked."
What of India's precious babies? Around a billion and a half people live in countries with less than an acre/person: India, Bangladesh, The Philippines. Their kids don't matter?
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Why would God rescing such a command, if He/She never gave it?
Your attitude is testing God, which usually results in a well deserved catastrophy.
If the bible told you to jump off a high cliff, so that you will be free of the restraints of your frail body. Would you do it?
Now, that mankind has grown so dangerously high in numbers, Catholizism has become an intolerable liability.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer
God gave commandment, because obviously 2 people, or 8 survivors of The Great Flood, is not enough to build civilizations or fill a planet
Why do you blame Catholicism? Most all religions promote large families
What would be the profit in jumping off a cliff? Why hasten the inevitable? If heaven is beyond time, or an endless expanse of time, then my time in this world can't subtract from such an infinity. Thus, hadn't I wait until God calls me to my final home? Thou shalt not kill
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Not even the not-all-knowing god in the bible ever gave the command to overcrowd the planet until we all choke to death. He said: "Be fruitful and multiply".
Ok: We have been very fruitful and multiplied more than enough. That part is over.
The "great flood" is proof, that the bible has nothing to do with God and was man made.
It is time that all religions changed their attitude towards promoting smaller families in order to save the human race from extinction.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
What if the Rapture of the Church, or Jesus's second coming, occurs in 2012? Think we might have time before then to grow to 18B? I think not, even if nobody used nasty "birth control" anymore.
Is your imagination, or your mind, so small that you can't even imagine how we might somehow squeeze just a few more billions into the world? When that happens, then we should have a better idea, how to add even more billions, should that be destined to happen.
Scoot over just a bit please
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Don't worry! Jesus has already come back. At least the fat señor, who claims to be him, says so.
There will be no rapture and no Armageddon. This is all but superstition.
flamifer 2 years ago
@pronat:
The question was, if you would jump off a cliff IF the bible told you so.
I am sure, it was easy enough to twist around a few words in the bible to make it seem so.
What I mean is: That we should use our conscience and commons sense rather than blindly follow an overcome set of rules.
Many crimes have been committed in the name of God and bible verses have been used to start wars and condemn people to death.
This has to stop - forever!
flamifer 2 years ago
@flamifer
How is whether I use an unnatural condom or not, or use rhythm or not, any business of yours, or any harm to you?
It's me that will be cold, when my wife, pregnant again, throws off the bed covers, because baby inside is making her hot. As far as you are concerned, world pop will still be rising, regardless how many children we have
Where do you make the leap to accuse me of religious fanaticism, just because I find it very UNDERSTANDABLE why many people tend to have large families?
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer:
If mankind is so dangerously high in numbers, please give an account for why India seems to be having some curious successes. I heard villages in Africa grow haphazardly, while in India, they better plan for the growth. What that means, I would have to do more research? But India is a rising economic power, many speak English also, computer programmers, more places getting electricity and running water.
China must have some 350 or 450M women of childbearing age! Need MANY BABIES!
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Because as long as there are forests to cut down to gain land and you can dig wells deep enough to obtain water, you have no problem.
The problem starts, when there is no wood left to cook your food, when there is no more water left and when you are surrounded by vast areas with the same problem.
Then, to speak in your language, "God will send a horrible draught and punish these people for rebelling against Him."
Why do we need more people on earth anyway? It does not make sense.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
And all that has what to do with the present condition of the world? What relevance does unlikely pop scare tactics have?
Why do we need more people on earth for?
Well what do we need you for? You think you are better than all the people not yet born, just because you happened to be born first?
Well if we need you, we must need all those other people's babies they keep on having. Every human life is sacred and valuable.
Because sex feels good. Condoms don't feel as good, etc.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Everything. I don't see, what is not clear there. There is a maximum sustainable limit of people on earth and that is a fact.
If you wish to minimise the number of human beings that ever lived on earth, then just let them coming and we all go down the Rapa Nui way.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
So why do you want to hinder the natural flow of babies into the world, anger parents, and stir up some war? What better reason have people to fight, than to protect their families?
Why is our current state of high population unnatural? Compared to what? Didn't it come mostly by NATURAL increase?
Of course it's progress, for how could more billions experience life, except that our numbers have naturally grown?
The high population levels are not the cause of the social conflicts.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Turning words around makes serves you only if the outcome makes sense.
Do you think the 2nd world war was caused entirely by Adolf Hitler? He came to power, because people were starving. George Bush could start his Irak crusade, because of the oil there. War is all about resources or the lack of them.
High population levels use up more resources, if they are not available, conflicts arise. When people are hungry, do you think they wait until science will have progressed enough?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Sure, large families use more resources. But they use resources more efficiently. Because more people benefit, and they SHARE much of what they have, so they use LESS per capita. But another point. The bulk of pop growth doesn't come from the largest families, but from the moderate-sized families of 2 to 5 children.
And I don't believe in "family planning" nor cherry-picking who gets to be born or not. Let all the babies push out!
Then let us greatly expand the resources. Duh?
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer:
One last comment about "Time Squared." Captain Piccard made a serious mistake. He thought there was but 1 option. But he had overlooked a far better option. The Piccard that got thrown back in time, 6 hours prior, although locked in a hopeless timeloop, unable to change, let loose the other "unthinkable" option. DON'T RESIST. So Piccard shut down the engines
They soon sank into the vortex (or the pop exploded naturally). Emerged okay into normal space, vortex vanished mysteriously
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer
Have you no idea what a human life is worth? It would be well worth letting pop density rise naturally in all cities, let numbers of people per housing unit rise, because cities are populated quite inefficiently and could hold lots more people. So far more people may experience life. However, such crowding isn't really necessary, because human numbers can rise, at same time people build more housing for the jobs they need
Complicated hastle swimming pool? And drop your house value?
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronatalist:
The value of a human life is reciprocal proportional to the density of its appearance.
How much space do you reserve on planet earth as animal habitat?
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
Cities only occupy but 2 or 3% of the land. It could be more. A lot more. I have no plans to impose any "cap" upon growing human pops, for fear we might someday soar past any stupid arbitrary cap.
Urbanize the world to whatever extent needed. In the past, people depopulated the countryside to move to the growing cities, in search of jobs, excitement, or shopping malls. I think it cool for people to move back to the countryside, but now at urban densities as we multiply naturally.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To flamifer
Quite many people do not want to poison their bodies directly with awful shoddy "birth control." Quite many people do not think the world is too dense
Why do you need any garden? Do you even garden?
Why should your desire for a car, come before people's progeny getting to live? Sure, people should have freedom of cars, but with freedom comes the responsibility to share the roads for other people and their cars
Lack of parking space is from poor planning, or can do parking garages
pronatalist 2 years ago
@prenatal:
But I would like to hear more about your idea that if population density on earth will be high enough, that the planet will give birth and send us to another heaven-like dimension.
I know, that a lot of this kind of stuff is written in the bible. But I don't recall ever heard of this one.
Can you tell me, where you read it?
After all, if you want to turn our garden into a parking garage, I would like to know what for.
flamifer 2 years ago
@flamifer
Are you mocking my idea of a "pregnant" planet naturally having to give "birth?" Aren't you reading too much into it? I am simply saying that God wouldn't have any purpose to let the planet overcrowd with no good remedy. And if you take the sci-fi interpretation, then we need a far huger pop, to push along the technologies needed to expand to colonize more worlds. Both is a BIRTH into a better realm
But the pop paranoia is like being worried a very pregnant belly will explode. Silly!
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
I do believe, that God wants us to overcome our animal side, grow up and maybe evolve into a higher form of life.
That includes also to stop pretending, that our 2,000 year old self-fabricated ideas about how God has to look like, or acts or wants us to act, are "God's word"
To think, that God isn't much smarter, than how He/She is being described in those sorry efforts called bible, Quaran or Thora, etc., is sheer blasphemy.
flamifer 2 years ago
@flamifer
Overcome our animal side? Well yeah, but in what way? Humans are technically classified as animals or mammals, and yet we are so much more than that. People are among the most populous of the large mammals. Because God caused our pops to grow greatly. Don't believe that? Then why did God promise Abraham descendants so numerous as to become uncountable as the grains of sand of the seashore or as the stars? God was joking?
Billions was foretold in Gen 24: 60 KJV "thousands of millions"
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
We are so numerous, because our intelligence has allowed us to grow food, overcome our predators and become older.
Now our natural reproduction rate has turned against us. Our numbers have increased to such a point, that we are destroying the planet.
Of all species on earth mankind is the only one capable of limiting its own numbers and avoid overshooting.
Gen 24: "be thou the mother of thousands of millions" - Nice example of how to "interprete" everything into the bible.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
But the more we resist the tightening pull of the pop vortex, the more things we can expect to go wrong. Do I really need to spell those things out to you? Even nature wants us reproducing at such a rate, as to keep growing pops everywhere.
How did you miss the point of Gen 24: 60? Today's "burgeoning billions" were foretold all the way back in Genesis. Why didn't it use the word "billions?" Such a mind-boggling huge #, probably rarely used even in the 1600s of the KJV translation
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat: The "vortex" hypothesis does not make sense. If we reproduce until there is nothing left to eat, we behave exactly like mindless animals and deserve no better than to become extinct.
Gen 24: Sorry but in biblical times if you wished a woman to have many children it just meant to wish her joy.
God has no reason to write in riddles, to exclusively talk to prophets in remote areas, punish people or break his own laws of nature by doing miracles.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
What part don't you understand? Do you try to dry a car, that somebody else is already driving? Can a car have 2 drivers?
Who said anything about reproducing until there is nothing left to eat? I'm not a Malthusian. I said reproducing naturally, not using "birth control." Whatever happened to babies happening when they happen? Why must we humans now "control" everything?
Until very recently, having children was counted a blessing.
To Rose in Titanic movie: Have lots of babies.
pronatalist 2 years ago
@pronat:
Once more and for the last time. Our race is tuned to have many babies because our ancestors lost many children and did not grow old.
In order to avoid a world-wide Rapa Nui we have to stop populaton growth as soon as possible.
Until very recently nobody took overpopulation seriously. Now more and more people wake up.
flamifer 2 years ago
To flamifer:
To call God "male," may be oversimplification. A book makes some case to call God somewhat "alien," due to special powers and such. But Bible uses the masculine.
Stop pop growth as soon as possible? So you would have been fine with never having been born? No, let world fill fuller and fuller with people. Let island populate denser and denser. If an island gets way too full of people, we have plenty boats and ships to move many millions of people to someplace that can take more.
pronatalist 2 years ago