The world needs to do something.They changed the birth rate in China.They need to do it with Africa too.But it wont happen and the white people will suffer.We will be slaves.
Never trust anybody who says the world is overpopulated and needs fewer people since they logically aren't talking about themselves or they'd have committed suicide,,,which leaves you and the rest of the human race they're planning to murder at the first opportunity most likely to steal all your property for themselves.
blue chicken,by all means,you go first and depopulate!don;t be a hypocrite!by 2010,its all white in certain areas?what a bunch of crock!i've been to those areas many times for business and i can tell you theres so much space out there in many areas!the cities are very crowded i admit but this inaccurate map is greatly exaggerated!the depopulation agenda is to have only about 1billion people but what happens to the other 5 billion?
Why should it be "disgusting" that there's so many people in the world? They have just as much right to live and procreate their children, as you do.
So aren't you pointing the finger of blame back at yourself, when you opine against your fellow humans, merely for supposedly having grown "too numerous?"
What's disgusting is nasty awkward unnatural contrary-to-nature Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons.
An important function of human life is to make more human life.
@pronatalist What is disgusting is millions of children in latin america, asia and africa growing up on the streets without ever having known their parents who were street children too.
Are you taking care of these children, providing them with food, shelter and education?
No, all you want to do is have more children born into complete despair.
You should visit the slums of Rio, Mumbay, Djakarta or Johannesburg and see the suffering with your own eyes.
@Cyanide 187 someone, doesnt like slum cities. well not to worry, all these cities are but 1 percent of global population. i suggest you stay out of slums because its not world population you dont enjoy , its slums. the rest of the world doesn't need these slum cities to exist. We might wise up and outlaw them.
Contraceptives do nothing to help parents take responsibility for their sometimes many children, for contraceptives imply that children aren't even worth the "burden" of raising, and many people won't use the nasty Big Pharma contraceptive devices and drugs anyway.
Babies should always be welcome to push out at the full natural fertility rate unhindered.
People should not have to live in slums, but have jobs, but evil NWO criminal elites destroy economy and jobs.
@pronatalist It is disgusting. Are you kidding me? We reached 7,000,000,000 PEOPLE. We need sex SO much that this happened. Guess what. We are already dead. We destroyed ourselves and no god is going to save us. There is no hope left, we are already gone.
It's not disgusting that so many people are alive now. To expand pop is great progress for the human race, for more and more people would be glad to live.
Birthing babies is as natural as the heart beating, and hindering the natural flow and spread of human life, is unhealthy, much like clogged arteries.
I agree with married parents enjoying "unlimited" sex without any "birth control," letting babies push out however fast God may allow. Of course we need much sex.
@pronatalist How is this a progress? We are all going to make our world more disgusting and crowded by all these people. There will be no space whatsoever. You know what? Just because of our stupid sex addiction, people are planning on decreasing the population by 95%. People are going to die now because of this.
Global density has to increase, for the world to hold more billions. But local density doesn't have to increase very much. We could prepare and plan, and make economic reforms, so that people can have jobs again, and be able to afford to buy or build new homes, in new cities or suburbs of growing cities, or in the countryside.
Our "huge" numbers are in no way responsible for the evil depop agenda of the NWO criminal elites. We are "too many" to govern, they claim.
Now let's talk about our "stupid sex addiction." Where did it come from, that what populates the planet is extremely pleasurable? God designed and commanded people to multiply. Seems good so far.
But where did we get idea that married people are entitled to "unlimited" sex? Yes, they are, but wasn't it Margaret Sanger, the founder of American Birth Control League, later renamed Planned Parenthood, who promoted "unlimited" sex without "burden" of "unwanted" children?
I've had even a claimed atheist, tell me he agrees that pop growth represents progress for the human race. It's possible that quite many benefits can come from having so many people alive. There's more individuals to benefit, bigger society to benefit, even more inventions and innovations.
But without assuming that God exists, it's harder to explain or prove how it all works out for good. Not impossible, but harder.
@pronatalist Okay okay, you have a good point. This is good for the human race but it is also bad. If we keep populating the earth, we will need to find a new place to live. I am just worried that because more and more people are being born, we wont be able to find a new place in time.
It's both good and bad? No, I think we can go further than that, and say, it's only for the good. Is it both good and bad, for a baby to outgrow the womb? That's silly, isn't it, for we know that the womb is but a TEMPORARY home for the baby. Well Bible says that people won't live on earth forever, at least not in this fallen state.
There really is no huge rush to spread to colonize other worlds, for there's enough room here, for the foreseeable future.
Let's say that hypothetically, Mars, the moon, or some faraway planet was just begging for colonists. "Make your stake to free land." Would I go? As much as the corrupt politics of this world disgusts me, I'd hesitate, have to weigh my options. I've seen movie Total Recall. I think we could depend on technology, but technology + corrupt rulers could = disaster? The journey may also be long, and they might not allow many suitcases. Do we really want to go so bad?
Multiplying naturally in the "crowded" Old World, might seem a lot easier, than the grand adventure of migrating to a New World, that may be too far away to ever return? But if so, than this "old world" really isn't yet so "crowded," is it, or more people would be desperate to sign up for a ticket lottery or whatever?
If we keep populating the earth, then the world will simply grow more dense and urbanized. But still cheaper to live here than to travel elsewhere.
@pronatalist We will run out of water eventually. We will run out of space eventually. We polute our earth so badly that we might even run out of air eventually.
How will we run out of water? The majority of the planet is covered with water. Ocean water can be desalinated if needed. All the unutilized water drains to the oceans.
There's 3 perceptional dimensions we can yet grow into: Outwards, Inwards, and Upwards. That's plenty of space, well into the foreseeable future.
There is no shortage of air.
To say that there aren't enough resources to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, isn't that to say there is no God?
As the world has turned away from God, have you noticed how much crazier the world is becoming? Isn't there a verse that says that the fool has said in his heart, there is no God. What is the cause of all the mass insanity of our age? We are so "smart," we need no God anymore?
If the world continues to fill with people, what is the end of that? It pushes us towards "birth" into a far better era. World is better than confined womb? To heaven or colonize more planets?
@pronatalist We are too smart, use common sense. Noah's Ark: Animals would freeze and need water. God said "let there be light" and THEN he created stars. Makes no sense.
We are too smart? Then why couldn't you figure out, that "common sense" isn't common anymore?
Animals would freeze? What? How do you claim to know how cold it was? And inside an Ark, isn't there some shelter? Not too sure how much animal body heat would help, because if ventilation was too little, animals would probably stink. Need water? Uh, the rain? Noah probably thought of that, and any ship or boat on any journey, carries fresh water.
What do you mean, makes no sense? Other words, you simply don't understand.
There's many mysteries in the Bible, when man figures them out, it can lead to amazing discoveries. Anesthesia was invented by someone thinking there had to be a way to do surgery without the agonizing pain. Noticed in the Bible, that God put Adam into a deep sleep when removing his rib, from which God made wo-man.
If light existed before stars, explains vastness of space, =young universe?
I recall reading something in the Bible, about to bury that which comes from you. Isn't that an answer as to how to deal with human wastes not fouling rivers as human pops grow denser and denser throughout the world? Isn't that pretty much what the flush toilets do for massive urban pops? The sewage sludge, isn't that sort of buried, or however sterilized, used for fertilizer or whatever they do with it?
Today's "burgeoning billions" were foretold in Gen 24: 60 KJV.
@pronatalist Okay about this Noah's Ark thing, the animals would be above Mount Everest since the waters were above mountains. That would cause lack of oxygen and they would freeze. Food is also a problem. Do you know how much food elephants/lions need each day? Also, the Titanic was 3 times bigger than noahs ark, how was this ship supposed to fit all these animals. When the flood was over, what did the predators eat, and the herbavors would starve because the plants would be wiped out. Think
Why do I have to answer all your questions? I answered many question, and still you object? Do you really expect me to have all the answers?
The Great Deluge was a global cataclysm. It's very possible that the mountains raised up, as the oceans descended, to give the waters some place to drain to. During the global flood, the planet may have been flatter (more of a perfect sphere). That would make it easier for everywhere to flood.
Younger animals wouldn't eat as much, nor would take up as much room. I think the movie Evan Almighty may have got it partly right, the animals may have come to Noah. Noah may not have gathered them. God could have let the chosen animals know, their only safely would be with Noah on the Ark. Animals sometimes sense things anyway, while humans are out-of-touch with nature.
Titanic wasted lots of space on boilers, propeller shafts. Ark had none of those things.
@pronatalist There are 5,500 mammals on earth,10,000 birds, 10,000 reptiles, 5,000,000 insects, and 600,000 arachnids. Double that by two. It is late and I am too exhausted to even do the math, but you are right. Why are we even arguing about this? We should just go on with our lives, you believe in what you believe, and I'll believe in what I'll believe. Sorry about this.
People are so sloppy with their reasoning. Bible says that there were pairs of each KIND on the Ark. God created animals to reproduce after their KIND. Not species, which is more specific. Most birds are small, and I don't know if Noah had cages. What for? Where would the birds go anyway? 8 people with so many animals? Imagine the work, shoveling out the manure each day.
I didn't say you couldn't ask me, I said Creationist websites would be good place to look.
The world is a mess. Could it be, that we aren't reading our Bibles enough? Only but a couple of centuries ago, much of the emphasis in teaching children how to read, was so that they could read the Bible.
The world is way too crowded, for 7 billion different religions. Bible says to be ready to give an account, for the hope that lies within you. When I discuss what I believe with people, it helps confirm even to me, what do I believe?
If there is a common morality, based upon the truth of the Bible, then the world isn't crowded at all. It would be much easier to live and survive and thrive, even at massive and dense pop levels, if everybody was friendly and of similar religion and family values.
It would be fine to let baby booms persist and spread "unchecked," with nobody fighting them, and everybody's work, contributing in whatever natural ways, towards a world more dense and ADAPTED for people
@pronatalist If all atheists left America, 10% of the population would decrease there. Lots of the great thinkers and nobel peace prize winners would have to leave and only 0.25% of the prisoners would be gone.Poverty and crime rates would increase. If you look at places like Iran and the middle-east, only 0.01% of there country is Atheist. Just imagine a world of Atheism, tons of technology, no crime and great discoveries! I am not atheist, but I think this is amazing.
Do you really expect me to believe that atheists comprise but less than 1% of the prison pop? Aren't you forgetting of the millions slaughtered in communist (atheist) purges?
You blame religion for the world's problems? But which religion(s)? Muslims cause a lot of problems, but maybe not as many as some think, if 9-11 was an inside job? Maybe Muslims are used as a handy scapegoat for some problems, by the NWO criminal elitists, since Muslims are so problematic?
@pronatalist Yes, it is a true statistic that only 0.25% of the people in prison are Atheists. Hitler was Catholic, and you are pretty much saying all Atheists are bad because of things that have happened. That is like saying all Catholic priests rape little children. And, religious people actually started the argument with Atheists by trying to convert them, so they need to keep their religion to themselves and we will respect them more.
Why do you make up obvious lies, and then act like I am supposed to believe them? I told you less than 1% is unbelievable. That defies explanation. Or are you in some way admitting, "There are no atheists in foxholes?"
Hitler was Catholic? So what? A phony claim? I hear Hitler thought he was the Anti-Christ. What about his antisemitism, his raving lunatic speech-storms, his murdering of millions, was in any way remotely Christian?
If you think atheism is so great, rather than corrupt supposedly free countries, why don't you move to some communist country, since you think it's so great? After all, atheism is their state religion, most of the people live in poverty, except for certain communist elites who steal wealth from the people and contribute nothing worthwhile to their society.
How do you suggest that people should behave like animals? Genesis 1: 26 says we humans are not animals.
@pronatalist I believe humans mostly animals. Animals have hearts, brains, skin and sometimes hair. That is enough for me to believe that we have some animal in us.
Why should we keep our faith to ourselves when we are commanded by God to take the good news to the world?
You atheists are the ones into rebellion against God, not the true believers who seek God
Why don't you atheists, keep your false religious beliefs to yourself, set the example, stop telling us to limit the size of our families, stop telling us what kind of light bulbs and toilets we can use, and stop enlarging gov corruption,waste. We aren't nature worshipers
You aren't the one to lie, and yet, where are your morals? Who are atheists accountable to?
If you aren't lying, then why do you make up ridiculous stats like 0.25%? Show your source. Show your math. It doesn't jive with what I know to be true, so it's obviously in err, made up, either your lie, or some lie you parroted that you heard somewhere? So which is it?
But we humans obviously do have dominion over nature and other creatures, thus, we are NOT animals.
Now I'm not talking so much about what the stupid mad scientists may choose to classify us as. I know we humans share a few traits with mammals, in fact, I hear humans may already be among the most populous of the large mammals. My concern is mostly with the legal definition of human beings.
Too many laws are assuming us to be animals, unable to control ourselves, and thus, seeking to rob us of our dignity and rights and worth. Genesis 1: 26 proves that WRONG.
If humans were really animals, why would I argue for the "unchecked" natural expansion of the human race? How would I distinguish people from the mere pets that we take to get fixed, so that they can be better pets? Pets don't have "human rights." Animals hardly even seem to have individual rights, as hunting helps keep the species strong, not the individuals.
Procreation is such a mighty force of nature, it must be governed by a HIGHER POWER. For people, it's God.
The same God who made clear his intentions for us, in Genesis 1: 26, and again in Genesis 9: 1, that we people are to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That probably means, seek to get married, and don't use any form of "birth control," because wouldn't refusing to multiply, be rebellion?
Now what about animals? What is their "higher power?" Well since man was given dominion over the animals, then man must be their higher power. So we can decide for them.
@pronatalist Let's just stop this before we say something we will regret. You have a good arguement and I respect that you are using common sense, but we both have our own beliefs.
I thought the topic was, is pop growth a good thing or not, and how should we, or should we not, "control" it? If the world is a ticking "pop bomb," then isn't the purpose of a "pop bomb" to "explode?" So let world pop "explode" in size, naturally then. Of course, world pop doesn't grow to 1000s of times its original size, in less than a second, so maybe "explosion" isn't the best word to use.
But you try to change the subject and attack my credibility? Why?
I think Star Trek tries to paint a future world of atheism, and how well it supposedly works. But don't even they, show some respect for religion? Gene Roddenberry was praised for how humanistic his show was. But Star Trek is mostly in favor of the spread of human pops to more worlds. So even some of the atheists disagree with the globalist NWO depop agenda? Or did the world grow so incredibly populous, that people were forced to invent food replicators, warp drive?
@pronatalist And I dislike religion because most of them preach hate and intolerance. Gays will burn in hell for loving someone? You do know that even animals like zebras, baboons, hyenas, and elephants are gay by most of the things they do with the same sex.
What would the animals eat? Noah might have had some food left over. But read the Genesis account carefully. What bird was it, that finally didn't return, had found some place? Plants survived or regrew. Where we see floods today, do all plants and trees die? And it wouldn't take a lot, because the earth was huge, and the inhabitants of the Ark very small in comparison. By the time the fast-reproducing animals could repopulate, plants would have become re-established
Why do you ask me all this? You don't want me to believe? There's Creationist websites out there, that might explain some of this stuff better than me. My thing is promoting the natural human pop growth, as my screen-name is pronatalist. That's what I know a lot about, for I have studied that stuff for decades.
We find Mammoths frozen in glaciers, with undigested food in their stomachs. How could they have frozen so quickly? Kent Hovind thinks very cold snow trapped
Climate has changed radically, in such earth-shaking events. Adam and Eve were naked. And they didn't know it? Must have been quite warm. No mention of rain in the Bible, before the Great Deluge. Earth must have been warm climate like a greenhouse, terrarium, or something?
Poles of the planet might not always have been so cold, and glaciers could have formed during Great Deluge, or after?
Noah's family seemed anxious to get off the Ark,couped up with stinky animals
One day I was wondering, why does pop graph really take off, around 1950? "The Pill" wasn't until 1960. Maybe for some parents, not all, some, when they were "done" having children, they were "done" having sex? Then comes along the "family planners" preaching "unlimited" sex without many children? So what happens when people discover evil history of contraception, or find practical or "religious" objections to "birth control?" "Uncontrolled" birthrate"unlimited" sex?
Why would a highly populated or "crowded" world, have to be disgusting? We can enjoy even eerie levels of urban "crowding," with people conveniently hidden behind the walls of apartment complexes or highrises, where it's not so apparent. We can have cities actually designed to efficiently hold so many millions of people. We could build SkyTram or flying cars, research or use already-existing technologies.
I'd much rather be "crowded," than denied of having children.
Don't Worry, We need more billion people to occupy the space or other planets, thats the purpose but we need to develop our minds to 100% since we have only 5% percent right now I think thats the purpose of the scientist they are the beginning that we dont have to limit our minds start to open our mind and thats the beginning . . .
Don't Worry, We need more billion people to occupy the space or other planets, thats the purpose but we need to develop our minds to 100% since we have only 5% percent right now I think thats the purpose of the scientist they are the beginning that we dont have to limit our minds start to open our mind and thats the beginning . . .
Consider that 99% of the problems of the world are a direct result of deception and lies. When Politicians & Government Officials lie, they have murdered the truth which affects all of us. Appropriately label world bankers, World Terrorists & divide their wealth equally all Nations. All Public Officials who can't pass a lie detector while seated in an electric chair, should find a new. Reduce the population of lying Politicians & Government Officials, the rest of humanity get along just fine.
Might as well run a study and find out, could be 100%. Anyone who has never told a lie in their entire life, please write a post this chat. Thank you.
The introduction of the Piltdown Man was not a careless mistake. Scientists are human and do make mistakes, thats normal. Give me other examples where renown scientists suddenly abandon their code of ethics to participate in a fraud, 911? The attributes of being a scientist don't mandate lying. Established standards are adopted to avoid false evidence. Piltdown Man was not a simple mistake. Huge difference, intentions of calculating manipulative liars vrs innocent mistakes.
I remember what the last icon was. The chain link icon, is for linking or associating files. Installing or downloading a group of files would leave them "linked," so that anytime a user tries to delete or uninstall or copy one of the files, the system can respond intelligently, "Do you want these other files to go with it?" No more forgotten file fragments from Applications or games long since deleted? No more corruption from mixed version installs not cleaning out the old
Sounds like you want to take some linux apps (openoffice, kde etc) or window-managers & customize them, that world is full of scope for UI experimentation. Great fun.
Yes, I might like to play with Linux, but I have only Macintosh, not a PC, and I don't have enough time for quite some time. Maybe I could have time in heaven, but then, computers are probably ridiculously obsolete.
I did make significant process on a GUI-like program on my graphing calculator, but then it lost my programs, and I haven't had time to see if there remains any possibility of a PEEK function reconstruction of stray text from the flash memory. Sort of faked windows.
I made some vaporware paintings of my OS, but so far, I haven't had time to take it much farther. My idea was to have sort of a universal standard feature set, in which features and menus would remain in almost any context. Edit menu could spell-check a filename. Animated text effects something like those lighted scrolling signs, apply to any typed text, so a word could flash or jump up/down in a filename or screensaver. New Document, Insert Table=spreadsheet w/o run Application.
you play sim city. well it all most the same. as soon you use up the map you find your self a problem. there going be more people and no room. there will be food but not all of them will have food. sadly you will need more job but no where to put them. like i say before, life will end up fixing it self and some one got to pay for it. i just say if they don't know that. it there lost. making more post will not help. it cant be fix. it just way of life.
Is Sim City real life? I don't think so. Any video game's reality is based upon the interpretation of its creators, who are also influenced by "political correctness" and liberal bias. No matter how real video game environments look, they are but a thin fascade, not near as detailed and resilient as the global biosphere.
If I was to play such a game, I probably would build about the biggest mansion, biggest city, population filling the entire planet, as I could, because it's cool!
I'm looking forward to regular humanity being out-dated once we get more understanding of the genome.. we should be aiming to create 'hybrid-vigour' between geniuses and elite athletes.
Knowing that this is coming, I can't understand why the dysgenic masses bother to breed :) how will they compete ?
What could eugenics possibly accomplish for humans, other than horrors? I would rather not see stupid retards or people with attitudes in wheelchairs. So what do we do? Slay all the handicapped people, and breed the "perfect master" race? What? No more jobs for electric wheelchair manufacturers? Oh well, we can just always make more babies?
Star Trek TNG had such a "perfect society" that was substancially less than perfect. No place apparently for "blind" engineer Jorde with visor
From a Eugenic perspective, I think materialism is good* the concept of the 'gold-digger' allows attempting hybrid-vigour between wealth-creators & physically pure human specimens, and besides that hereditary family homes would keep population stable.
* sadly debt allows people to pretend they have more wealth than they really do, creating a hazard for a less numerate population.. hence why we've been destroyed by debt-fueled consumption (including home-loans)
But it isn't wealth that apparent produces the most rapid natural human population growth, but more so, poverty. What else do people in dark villages without electricity to do at night, to stay warm, but to make more and more babies? Wealth at least helps expand options to accomodate vaster and denser populations of people more safely and comfortably, but does nothing to slow population growth without the underlying rampant pushing of shoddy contraceptives to damage people's bodies
I couldn't make advanced principle payments, because even with my frugal budget, it took way too long to save up and accumulate sufficient many month's expenses safety net, and if money runs out, how do I make house payment then? I can't just tell employer, You have to give me more money? Not on low-skilled corporate wage slave job. But faithful to my complaint, when I received money, I did what Dad would have wanted, and now feel even more free, with no debt at all, less overhead
As you well know, I don't believe the huge human population size should be stable or stagnated, but people should feel free and be urged to all grow their families naturally, all nations naturally swelling in population all at the same time, for the greater altruistic good of the many, for people to go on having all their precious darling babies, blessings from God
People obviously reproduce easily enough, even more so without sufficient wealth. Debt is an option people can refuse
I don't agree with home loans giving poor people or less educated people, a false picture of the world's "carrying capacity." The world could hold far more people breeding naturally in burgeoning filthy slums. But wouldn't anybody altruistic, prefer that the world's populous breeding masses be housed in better accomodations? You think mansions for them will just drop out of the sky?
God provided plenty of resources, but scattered them to make people come together and trade.
IMO the religions are essentially competing Eugenic schemes, (e.g. polygamy vs monogamy) and modern eugenics is simply a reformulation based on recent understanding.
Sadly in your (well-intentioned) desire for population growth all I see is 2000 year old 'software' designed to breed [i]soldiers[/i].
Thats why I say the Eugenic approach is more humane... compete constructively for breeding-rights, rather than breed to the max then cull the excess in warfare when we overstep our limits.
Yes, taxes should be very low and family-friendly. And eliminate most death/inheritance taxes/probate fees. Yes hand down family homes. But that doesn't eliminate mortgages, because most people refuse to build own small homes, want nice big homes. If people have naturally big families, 5 children or more, housing soon becomes overcrowded, need more cities, more houses and condos built. How to finance?
It's not about soldiers/war only, but altruistic motive of more people to live.
You can't breed maximally without banks, so by following 'breeding' software, you are empowering them, making them ever more powerfull.
In debt-funded breeding I see a gamble, a numerical simulation of "r-selection" in nature.. i.e. rapid breeding with culling of offspring creating evolution.
IMO this symbiosis between the powerfull elite & rapidly breeding masses is the root cause of the threat to the middle-classes.
Why do you speak of banks, as if they are the devil? It's the politically manipulating fraudulent central banks that are more to blame. Rarely do banks force us to borrow money? Incurring debt is one option. There's other options, other ways of obtaining money, but people lack patience to save up first the money, or to arrange inter-family no-interest trusting informal loans, as we have done in my family
Yes you can eat a house. If it's a gingerbread house. Sorry, obvious joke
Want to know how family helped me pay off my house last year? I used my half of the sale of Dad's house, after he passed on, to just barely pay off my house. Ironically, Dad kept saying like a broken record, that I should make advanced principle payments to pay off my home mortgage faster. With what money?, I always blurted back. Does every budget have leftover waste/fluff? Not mine, unless don't need heat?
Don't you suppose the people breeding most maximally, aren't even users of the banks?
Supposedly, people tend to have smaller families, when they have a more modern standard of living, although I say it's really the rampant contraceptive pushing that is responsible for the Demographic Transition. But what better reason to have larger more Western-like homes, but for large and naturally-growing families?
Banks arrange trade between investors and people hasty to own homes. Win-win
btw. if no one know this by now. kick them. there is no fix for this problem. life will fix it self. at the end some one got to pay for it. well. some one have told me that much. it be nice if this can be fix but it cant.
Kick them? Kick who? Those poor people who breed maximally? Why? Why should poor people, cheated out of proper participation in an unjust hostile political/economy environment, be cheated out of their children as well?
People need to breathe. We let them breathe. People need to eat. We let them eat. People want or need to reproduce, shouldn't we let them reproduce, provided they have committed to their mate in marriage?
You say life will fix problems? Yeah, by denser population.
Read the book they are pushing again, The Creature from Jeckyl Island; a Second Look at the Federal Reserve. It speaks against the evils of an easily government-manipulated currency, fiat paper "money," not against supposed "overpopulation." While such manipulation supposedly helps stabilize the economy, many know it destablizes economies, and if helping, who do you think may benefit? Filthy rich elites pulling the levers of power, not the common working poor. Fiat produces bubbles
Poor people tend to know other poor people within their families. Some rich people, such as neomarxist Obama, when they come into wealth, share little or nothing with relatives. How are you going to borrow money to buy a house from other poor people? In my example, we did intra-family loans to help everybody have debt-free used cars, far cheaper than houses.
There's also the issue of family friction, in which you don't want to borrow from somebody manipulative that you know.
Breeding out the hazards, even if it worked, would take too long, as doesn't that take many generations? Where's the benefit in the here and now for all those people presumably making the sacrifice, assuming that the most stupid people, those who supposedly breed the most according to "better than thou" eugenics theory, can be duped to go along with the plan?
While people are capable of change and repentence, allowing people to improve personality without any numbers reduction.
The immediate effect of denying a future child life. Do you want Nazi-like eugenics horrors? Should we turn on one another and slay each other, something like the wicked days of Noah in which God flooded most of the people to death, for their sins that grieved God? Is any form of culling, humane?
Isn't the alternative to eugenics, that a civilized society must allow most everybody who responsibly marries to breed "unlimited" babies and leave it to God just how populous we become?
People often don't react enough when people warn of impending dangers, and then tend to overreact, after the crisis done hit. Is that any way to drive a car, swerving all over the road? Isn't smooth and steady often the better path? That means you look far ahead, be cautious, maybe start slowing down at some sign of trouble ahead
You paint debt-lending banks with unfair stereotypical brush. At the top there's problems, but I as investor want somebody to borrow and pay me interest
For eugenics to possibly get rid of faulty genes, wouldn't we need people who aren't descendents of Adam & Eve to breed? But there are none! Jesus had to be a virgin birth, just to get around whatever flawed genes, as the whole linage line of man was corrupted by original sin. Death entered in.
There's plenty of space for building lots more homes, but these days, few people build homes, and government restricts land usage. People would screw/reproduce if all the planet was city.
Why are population phobics so unconcerned to consider the so many compelling reason why, why people have to have apparently, as many children as they do?
Even supposed "running out of space" isn't much any excuse to deny people their children, for so many reasons. First, it's not even true. Also, children aren't expendable nor negotiable, they sort of come when they come. 3rd, babies want to come alive, no matter how crowded. 4th, there's still gaps/ways to squeeze in more people
By 'space' we really mean resources, in the agrarian age it was farmland but now that we're matrix-esque slaves to industry it's oil,metals,factories etc, abstracted by capital/'money' as you probably know.
If you think we AREN'T running out, I guess the UK must be imagining it's trade deficit.
I suggest you invest in our currency or government bonds, since running out of resources isn't really a problem!
What plan do you have, for ridding us of corrupt socialist and neomarxist politicians that run up government spending to such insane levels as to bankrupt entire countries? Can you guarantee that corrupt people with lust for power will never gain power under your plan?
Such economic problems don't indicate a lack of actual resources at all, but a lack of morality or a lack of intelligence on the part of decisionmakers and those who vote for them.
I can only attempt to make peace with the world by understanding it from the outside (e.g. like an alien observer).
I think nature will always create heirachies* (=some with power, some in servitude), and fighting this off would require eugenics :)
The threat to the middle-class will always exist.
*why ? - because just like individual braincells creating your 'soul', Nature uses us as processing elements in a greater machine. (like networked computers) The matrix is a VERY good analogy.
If you want to consider "matrix" movie analogies, seems to me, nature wants humans a lot more vast and crowded, not less. Consider how close together our body's cells are, or how comfy and confining our mother's womb was to us. However, the human race does not work together nor has reasonable comformity as how our cells work more together.
Enviro wackos trying to destroy cheap abundant fuel and coal, push us back to Dark Ages of slavery and animal labor. Machines require ENERGY!
With people, it does appear there will always be heirachies. I've seen even in a Church fellowship meeting in somebody's home, where everybody is expected to contribute and share something, no prepared "formal" meeting, "everybody's equal," some people share more than others. Some still seem to dominate.
But freedom principles of Constitution, guard against involuntary servitude, and defend freedom and uniqueness of the individual. Pronatalism stresses sacred value of individuals
r.e. Heirachies - as a programmer I love open-source - individual freedom - but I can see exactly why commercial software based on (dynamic) capitalist heirachies usually beats it.
The same pattern in nature - alpha male, ants-nest etc.
This observation really depresses me - because I can see the natural force directed against Individualism/Freedom/middle-class, where a collective (with Leaders & Led) can be more efficient.
I've very much into individual freedom, inspiring and urging the creativity and innovation of people. I prefer such models I think as open-source and shareware. I don't want to deny people use of my software, even if they never pay me, and I think a few occasional annoying shareware fee reminders are sufficient motivation to pay up?
I like universal rich-featured user-friendly software. I wanted to write OS with built-in integrated word processing/spreadsheet w/o run Application.
Objects would keep their appropriate properties regardless of context, so an animated gif could be pasted in as a character in a filename, and it would still animate anytime visible, normally. A list of files would expand for the extra height of such a filename while other filenames keep their original height
Good program design would allow others to tack on other cool features via Control Panels. A Patch filetype would patch programs while retaining original code
>> why people have to have apparently, as many children as they do?
because we still have monkey genes. In the jungle, monkeys had lots of babies, as half would be eaten by lions or starve. The survivors were faster, more intelligent, whatever.
Without this continuous, inhumane, natural culling, I beleive we need Eugenics & Population Control to preserve civilization... keeping us in balance with the land & machines that support us.
Humans have lots of babies, because God promised Abraham so many descendents as to be nearly uncountable like the stars of the sky or the grains of sand of the seashore. So that incredibly numbers of people may experience life. There's so many great reasons for human reproduction, that's why I advocate continuous population expansion of the human race, and urge all nations to naturally populate denser and denser.
Are we in the (very crowded) matrix? If so, it's not really so bad?
Unlike how false evolution theory tells us, we are to live civilized moral lives, not "survival of the fittest" brutal beast lives.
I do not at all believe nature requires either culling nor eugenics, but that even nature tells people to pair up, prepare stable marriage family nests, and to reproduce naturally without awkward unnatural birth control. With proper use of faith, technology, and development, nature MUST accept natural rising population density. More people benefit!
#1 I do beleive in the "ascent of complexity" as a layer over Darwin which gives intelligence morality over that predicted by the Price-Equation. (evolution of Memes is faster than Genes).
still as with computer-software, you want the best program running on the fastest computers, hence eugenics to raise IQ would be usefull.
I guess you consider abortion/contraception a form of Culling, wheras my viewpoint is "look after life once created, but be carefull to pick the right genes"
I suppose I do consider contraception a form of culling, as is it really seeking to prevent "potential" human life, or actual future life, since imaginary life wouldn't need to be prevented, so it must be "actual?" It's interfering with the natural flow of human life, sabotaging a vital function of the human body, reproduction as valid and essential as any other function.
Eugenics says, there's not room enough for everybody's children. I disagree even if we find it a bit crowded.
I also had a painted screen snapshot, of a File Info window, having its standard 5 option icons. Clicking on them would open a window for standard built-in security such as password restricted access and encryption, automatic backup scheduling, open the programming resource fork/editor built into the OS, the trash can icon could shedule automatic purging of old files or for that entire folder. I think I even had a display as folders/forum option, but it's all only vaporware
Isn't big portion of individual or business or government credit-worthiness rating, having low proportion of debt, so as to easily repay without difficulty with low risk of default?
Yes, there is "population competition," but I believe very much we should aim for the more friendly sort, where all nations all grow in population at the same time, and seek to cooperate in trade of ideas and technology, to altruistically ENLARGE THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE for the greater good of the many.
Why do you say that? You have no creative mind to consider better alternatives? What if human populations continue to grow hugely, and the people ADAPT? What kind of "catastrophe" is that? Enviro-radicals whine that so many people get to be alive at once? But so few would even be old enough to even remember a world without so many people, so I suspect those future people may whine far less than we do, about such stupid things
Don't POLLUTE body directly with shoddy contraceptives
I beleive Eugenics is the way forward, create fewer offpsring by being more selective over who can breed, amplifying the rare adaptations as Nature intended, but without the culling.
Increase future IQ, health, creativity, beauty etc and improve living conditions.
At the minute we pollute earth with mediocrity ... leading to inequality, jealousy, destructive conflict, etc etc.
You claim you are not an eco-nut, and yet hold to one of their main tenets, pidly small human population? Eugenics?
Selective breeding is for farm livestock and pets, animals that lack human rights. Basic human right and duty, is that most anybody responsible to form stable family nest, be allowed to breed prolifically as God may allow them so many children.
Science of eugenics is really stupidity and racism. For one thing, so many generations to affect change?, no benefit NOW!
What I hear is basic to true freedom, is property rights, which the leftist globalist statists, such as Obama's crowd, are on the warpath against.
Check out Mark Levin's new book, Freedom and Tyranny. I haven't bought mine yet. Says U.S. is a casteless system, rich people can become poor, poor can become rich. We aren't locked into our group, but can move from one to another. Statists want rich against poor, so they can "redistribute" wealth, foster gov dependence, spread misery.
My hypothesis is that many humans today are bred by elites (states or banks) as cattle (just as in the feudal era) - e.g. bank lends breeding space to the poor to create more debt-slaves.
Thats why I see 'malthusian catastrophe' written behind the numbers in the banking crisis.
My Utopia? No-one should need a mortgage - family homes should be handed down from generation to generation; a family should increase it's space via earned wealth, hence sustainable, gradual growth.
The problems of which you speak, won't be reduced by reduced population
Yes, powers-that-be often want people more populous, for more profits, more people to exploit. But even that, is a reason why powers-that-be aren't as dangerous as they might otherwise be. As we people want to reproduce for other reasons, and powers-that-be then have to allow?
We can't eliminate all home mortgages, as that would put big families into tiny makeshift slums. What we can do, is fast pay down debt
Debt is not the problem, it's the abuse and too-high proportion of debt. There are very good reasons to borrow money. Even though Bible says borrower is servant (slave?) to the lender. To start a business. To buy a home and not have to rent. Even a car may be okay reason to borrow, in order to be able to go to work. Bad debt is consumer credit card debt, and speculative debt. Making promises to repay that likely can't be kept. Debt should be quickly repaid as possible.
I can't produce my own electricity, because the economic realities and current technology won't let me. I have no river on my property to dam up and drive a water wheel. A natural gas standby generator would cost even more. My yard is too small for huge wind energy turbine. I could do solar cells and forklift/picker batteries, but cost and trouble is greater than simply paying power bill
I want to disconnect from grid because I don't trust economy and politics. But cheaper not to
I can't be "half a person." Neither can you. Much was determined either by God or our ancestors letting human population rise naturally into the billions, and so many of us came alive and benefitted. The deed is already done, can't put the genie back into the bottle now.
Some enviros spread "guilt" and want us to revert back to ye old outhouse and no toilet paper. Compost toilets. That wouldn't impress nature.
Be frugal maybe, but welcome nature babies pushing out
I would like to have 11 or 15 children, at least 5, or however many children God gives me. You can have your 5 or 7 children as well, along with billions of parents having their 3 or 5 children. There's plenty of room that can be found or made for all. Until you toss in whatever stupid snail darters and spotted owls.
Complexity in other not as smart species don't count for much, towards enlarging the human race for the greater good of the many.
A complex system must be adjusted with small changes to give the whole time to adjust. Trippling our numbers in 60 years then just hoping for the best is very unwise.
We are just one part of nature.
Another angle- if we move to Solar Power, why are we any more usefull than trees ?
I say as a species our purpose is to spread life to other planets - a long term goal jeapordized by short term growth.
It's very wise to let human numbers naturally triple in 60 years or less, as how else are people to remain free to enjoy having "all the children God gives," than to welcome that prospect, however likely or unlikely demographers opine that to be.
I welcome use of technology, in fact, aren't we supposedly so numerous, that we should be using most all economically viable energy options, all at once? Nuclear, coal, water, biomass, etc.
Who is to say that the interaction of the remaining species doesn't create 'complexity' and 'intelligence' in ways we can't perceive? (e.g. hive-mind)
For example, the rest of nature created man via evolution so can it be considered 'more intelligent' just as we are 'more intelligent' than our computers & machines?
It is not wise for one species to threaten the whole as we do.
So why don't you cease to be, so that there can be more room for my 10 or 12 children to come? That way, there can be slightly more room for those spotted owls, snail darters, or whatever dumb kinds of creatures, that you seem so concerned about.
You see, that stupid enviro idea about "stop at 2" hasn't caught on, you can't even convince me, and I know all about it. Just 2 children to barely "replace" the parents supposedly towards population "stabilization" (stagnation).
Pronatalist, I respect your belief in God. I myself believe in the Green Pig, since my father told me stories about him when I was a child. You say that overpop is not a problem and we should NOT control it, because God likes it that way. FYI 6 out of 7 scientists are atheist. I give a small chance for God to exist, you should give a small chance that God does not exist. In case God does not exist, humans (and many other animals) will end up dying out because of the ruined planet.
i really don't like taking side on god. but your right. life have way fix it problem. no one like the idea but that life. when life is overpop earth. there food end up short. so the overpop end up huger. see how human running earth. we may end up eating every thing to nothing left. but new life all way show up. but with man trash. life will have to make do what they got. they fail or live as well. it take more to end kill for ever. like the sun fail.
The more populated we get, the more people there are wanting children. This is practical reason to advocate that the world grow naturally, swelling up with people something like an advancing pregnancy
There is perverse idea of "Lifeboat Ethic" that says not to help people. Supposedly, it says, if we give (or sell) food and medicine to poor countries, people live longer, infant mortality decreases, and more childbearing is encouraged. Making overpop worse. But I advocate denser pop
Watch movie GATTAGA for great warning against social dangers of trying to move beyond God or nature's way of making human babies, towards "designer babies," and such. According to that movie, any improvement was so minor, but they institutionalized job and social discrimination contrary to the needs of the people.
To rwmtiger:
Fixing problems does lead to huger population. But fixing problems reduces overpop, even though numbers rose. Pop phobics are wrong. Food can't limit pop.
IMO eugenics is the humane way to fulfill natures' directive.
My convictions are from a fear of human nature. Eco just gives popular arguments to reduce our numbers :)
I beleive exploitation and inequality are inevitable in a world where your survival depends on a complex international machine controlled by individuals who you've never met... you are merely cattle to them.
For true freedom you need to own farmland, a luxury in this overcrowded world.
No, eugenics is not humane, not at all consistant with the most basic and primal of human rights. Eugenics is about sinful man trying to pretend he is smarter than God.
I too fear human nature. But culling "excess" human population by whatever means, even "under the rug" attacks upon birthrates, brings out the worst in people, while pronatalism doing nothing to reduce the crowds, makes them far friendly and easy to cope with
Luxuries such as privacy are not rights, while life is
I don't even want my own farmland. Why would humans have any right to be born into an "uncrowded" world, when it is the crowded world that would be having more births? True freedom would suggest we probably have to let people procreate their children, no matter what, especially if they have been faithful to marry and are preparing responsibly their family nest.
But I do own my own house and okay yard, could grow a garden if I wanted. I wish to produce own electricity, but can't.
You said, "My hypothesis is that many humans today are bred by elites (states or banks) as cattle (just as in the feudal era) - e.g. bank lends breeding space to the poor to create more debt-slaves."
Yes, be a questioning cynic, but not that cynical. Yes, when I see some new apartment complex, I see in a sense, NICE crowded rat cages urging to be filled with breeding people to later fill more apartment complexes. But it's not conspiracy, but profit-reaction to our breeding urge.
While bankruptcy is painful, it usually isn't life-threatening, as people these days live so far materially beyond what is needed for basic survival. What do people really need to survive? 3 hots and a cot in a crowded homeless shelter?
Be thankful that we don't still throw people into debtor's prison for defaulting on loans, until what's left of their family can somehow pay off their debt. We usually let broke people keep both the shirt on their back and a $1 in their wallet.
Secular "education" confuses people, because it neglects sacred value of life. I heard some story that "family planners" warned some African village that at current rate, they would double #s in 25 years. All started clapping. Whoops! Forget to tell them that's "bad." Some poster said villages growing into small towns haphazardly, no plans for growth.
I say then plan for to welcome growth. Plan to welcome people. Let villages/towns and cities grow larger and closer together.
The narrater said each dot represents 1 million people and if you pause at :39 afghanistan is covered in them when they only have like 20 million or less so this is B.S.
You're missing the point. Obviously such a population map, isn't very detail-accurate. It's more a "dramitization" of the supposed global pop "explosion" of humanity.
But it's inaccurage even, to call natural human pop growth an "explosion." It doesn't become 100s of times bigger, in a fraction of a second. And if my bank account or investments grew so "fast," I would be quite disappointed. What? A measly 1.2% annual return on investment? At that rate, I would never become rich
I think the "explosive" world pop growth, as portrayed by such a dramatization, is actually quite beautiful, like a flower unfolding, curiously amazing to see the "huge" human pop naturally "blossoming" in size.
Problem is, it's about scare-tactics to deceive people into draconian anti-pop, anti-freedom, anti-family measures, not about how beautiful nighttime satelite composite photos of human impact/lights/cities, can appear. Not all human impact is "bad."
In the past, education didn't seem to reduce family size. Many of the founding fathers of our USA country, were educated, and yet they didn't practice any sort of contraception. Perhaps education centered more on truth and how to think correctly, than it does today.
Even the environmental movement has been hijacked by political activists using it for their own anticorporate, antibusiness agenda, resorting to unscientific scaremongering to raise money.
Population numbers, economics, social conditions, cost of living, ways and means of living, etc. etc. etc. were very different during the Founding Fathers' time as compared to now. Education in the 21st century implies learning job skills for modern professions, which are often highly demanding and do not allow for much family time etc. Not like in the 18th century when there was more room, more resources and the family worked together on the farm. Thanks yet again for affirming my nick
Ecclesiastes says there is no new thing, under the sun. People are as smart, as stupid, as selfish, as sinful, as ever. Their behavior unfortunately, tends to be "predictable." Wrong and oppressing people needlessly.
There was more room, but old ways wasted the room. When I was born, there was 10 acres/person. Now only 5. And still shrinking. Why do you think I so advocate letting density rise?
The world needs to do something.They changed the birth rate in China.They need to do it with Africa too.But it wont happen and the white people will suffer.We will be slaves.
Why no one is trying to save this..
pickainis1 1 month ago
russias population is around 130mil. why not on the map?
levthelion 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Never trust anybody who says the world is overpopulated and needs fewer people since they logically aren't talking about themselves or they'd have committed suicide,,,which leaves you and the rest of the human race they're planning to murder at the first opportunity most likely to steal all your property for themselves.
Texasjim2007 7 months ago
bye, your pratically already gone
datzfast 8 months ago
At first I was like oh..then i was like OH
NothingbutNothin 8 months ago in playlist Geo 40
at the end i was like HOLY S****
SovietLenin1 9 months ago
@SovietLenin1 You don't have to censor yourself this is youtube saying shit in the comments is just fine noone cares
radiofreak56 9 months ago
@radiofreak56 I was ironic XD Even tough i know it was not fun :/
SovietLenin1 9 months ago
Check out Emmanuel jal
xxjogabonitoxx09 1 year ago
fucking virus
mcnabj 1 year ago
blue chicken,by all means,you go first and depopulate!don;t be a hypocrite!by 2010,its all white in certain areas?what a bunch of crock!i've been to those areas many times for business and i can tell you theres so much space out there in many areas!the cities are very crowded i admit but this inaccurate map is greatly exaggerated!the depopulation agenda is to have only about 1billion people but what happens to the other 5 billion?
brittko 2 years ago
Disgusting that theres that many people in the world.
BlueChicken5 2 years ago 2
To BlueChicken5:
Why should it be "disgusting" that there's so many people in the world? They have just as much right to live and procreate their children, as you do.
So aren't you pointing the finger of blame back at yourself, when you opine against your fellow humans, merely for supposedly having grown "too numerous?"
What's disgusting is nasty awkward unnatural contrary-to-nature Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons.
An important function of human life is to make more human life.
pronatalist 2 years ago
Unprecedented pro creation is the fate sealed off our demise as a species.
Your denial is saddening and reflects the collective human ignorance.
Cyanidal187 2 years ago 2
@Cyanidal187 retard, slowing population growth seals our doom.
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast: Your ignorant response sadly just proved my point. Ignorance is what seals our doom.
Cyanidal187 9 months ago
@Cyanidal187 at least i wont have to worry about your kind much longer
datzfast 9 months ago
@datzfast No you should worry about 'your own kind' because ignorance is the origin of all man made disasters.
Cyanidal187 8 months ago
@pronatalist vote down blue chicken
datzfast 1 year ago
@pronatalist What is disgusting is millions of children in latin america, asia and africa growing up on the streets without ever having known their parents who were street children too.
Are you taking care of these children, providing them with food, shelter and education?
No, all you want to do is have more children born into complete despair.
You should visit the slums of Rio, Mumbay, Djakarta or Johannesburg and see the suffering with your own eyes.
Cyanidal187 8 months ago
@Cyanide 187 someone, doesnt like slum cities. well not to worry, all these cities are but 1 percent of global population. i suggest you stay out of slums because its not world population you dont enjoy , its slums. the rest of the world doesn't need these slum cities to exist. We might wise up and outlaw them.
datzfast 8 months ago
@Cyanidal187
Contraceptives do nothing to help parents take responsibility for their sometimes many children, for contraceptives imply that children aren't even worth the "burden" of raising, and many people won't use the nasty Big Pharma contraceptive devices and drugs anyway.
Babies should always be welcome to push out at the full natural fertility rate unhindered.
People should not have to live in slums, but have jobs, but evil NWO criminal elites destroy economy and jobs.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist It is disgusting. Are you kidding me? We reached 7,000,000,000 PEOPLE. We need sex SO much that this happened. Guess what. We are already dead. We destroyed ourselves and no god is going to save us. There is no hope left, we are already gone.
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
It's not disgusting that so many people are alive now. To expand pop is great progress for the human race, for more and more people would be glad to live.
Birthing babies is as natural as the heart beating, and hindering the natural flow and spread of human life, is unhealthy, much like clogged arteries.
I agree with married parents enjoying "unlimited" sex without any "birth control," letting babies push out however fast God may allow. Of course we need much sex.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist How is this a progress? We are all going to make our world more disgusting and crowded by all these people. There will be no space whatsoever. You know what? Just because of our stupid sex addiction, people are planning on decreasing the population by 95%. People are going to die now because of this.
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Global density has to increase, for the world to hold more billions. But local density doesn't have to increase very much. We could prepare and plan, and make economic reforms, so that people can have jobs again, and be able to afford to buy or build new homes, in new cities or suburbs of growing cities, or in the countryside.
Our "huge" numbers are in no way responsible for the evil depop agenda of the NWO criminal elites. We are "too many" to govern, they claim.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Now let's talk about our "stupid sex addiction." Where did it come from, that what populates the planet is extremely pleasurable? God designed and commanded people to multiply. Seems good so far.
But where did we get idea that married people are entitled to "unlimited" sex? Yes, they are, but wasn't it Margaret Sanger, the founder of American Birth Control League, later renamed Planned Parenthood, who promoted "unlimited" sex without "burden" of "unwanted" children?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist God doesn't exist
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Why do you try to make my job more difficult?
I've had even a claimed atheist, tell me he agrees that pop growth represents progress for the human race. It's possible that quite many benefits can come from having so many people alive. There's more individuals to benefit, bigger society to benefit, even more inventions and innovations.
But without assuming that God exists, it's harder to explain or prove how it all works out for good. Not impossible, but harder.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist Okay okay, you have a good point. This is good for the human race but it is also bad. If we keep populating the earth, we will need to find a new place to live. I am just worried that because more and more people are being born, we wont be able to find a new place in time.
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
It's both good and bad? No, I think we can go further than that, and say, it's only for the good. Is it both good and bad, for a baby to outgrow the womb? That's silly, isn't it, for we know that the womb is but a TEMPORARY home for the baby. Well Bible says that people won't live on earth forever, at least not in this fallen state.
There really is no huge rush to spread to colonize other worlds, for there's enough room here, for the foreseeable future.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Let's say that hypothetically, Mars, the moon, or some faraway planet was just begging for colonists. "Make your stake to free land." Would I go? As much as the corrupt politics of this world disgusts me, I'd hesitate, have to weigh my options. I've seen movie Total Recall. I think we could depend on technology, but technology + corrupt rulers could = disaster? The journey may also be long, and they might not allow many suitcases. Do we really want to go so bad?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Multiplying naturally in the "crowded" Old World, might seem a lot easier, than the grand adventure of migrating to a New World, that may be too far away to ever return? But if so, than this "old world" really isn't yet so "crowded," is it, or more people would be desperate to sign up for a ticket lottery or whatever?
If we keep populating the earth, then the world will simply grow more dense and urbanized. But still cheaper to live here than to travel elsewhere.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist We will run out of water eventually. We will run out of space eventually. We polute our earth so badly that we might even run out of air eventually.
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
How will we run out of water? The majority of the planet is covered with water. Ocean water can be desalinated if needed. All the unutilized water drains to the oceans.
There's 3 perceptional dimensions we can yet grow into: Outwards, Inwards, and Upwards. That's plenty of space, well into the foreseeable future.
There is no shortage of air.
To say that there aren't enough resources to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, isn't that to say there is no God?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
As the world has turned away from God, have you noticed how much crazier the world is becoming? Isn't there a verse that says that the fool has said in his heart, there is no God. What is the cause of all the mass insanity of our age? We are so "smart," we need no God anymore?
If the world continues to fill with people, what is the end of that? It pushes us towards "birth" into a far better era. World is better than confined womb? To heaven or colonize more planets?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist We are too smart, use common sense. Noah's Ark: Animals would freeze and need water. God said "let there be light" and THEN he created stars. Makes no sense.
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
We are too smart? Then why couldn't you figure out, that "common sense" isn't common anymore?
Animals would freeze? What? How do you claim to know how cold it was? And inside an Ark, isn't there some shelter? Not too sure how much animal body heat would help, because if ventilation was too little, animals would probably stink. Need water? Uh, the rain? Noah probably thought of that, and any ship or boat on any journey, carries fresh water.
We are smart? Grow denser
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
What do you mean, makes no sense? Other words, you simply don't understand.
There's many mysteries in the Bible, when man figures them out, it can lead to amazing discoveries. Anesthesia was invented by someone thinking there had to be a way to do surgery without the agonizing pain. Noticed in the Bible, that God put Adam into a deep sleep when removing his rib, from which God made wo-man.
If light existed before stars, explains vastness of space, =young universe?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
I recall reading something in the Bible, about to bury that which comes from you. Isn't that an answer as to how to deal with human wastes not fouling rivers as human pops grow denser and denser throughout the world? Isn't that pretty much what the flush toilets do for massive urban pops? The sewage sludge, isn't that sort of buried, or however sterilized, used for fertilizer or whatever they do with it?
Today's "burgeoning billions" were foretold in Gen 24: 60 KJV.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist Okay about this Noah's Ark thing, the animals would be above Mount Everest since the waters were above mountains. That would cause lack of oxygen and they would freeze. Food is also a problem. Do you know how much food elephants/lions need each day? Also, the Titanic was 3 times bigger than noahs ark, how was this ship supposed to fit all these animals. When the flood was over, what did the predators eat, and the herbavors would starve because the plants would be wiped out. Think
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Why do I have to answer all your questions? I answered many question, and still you object? Do you really expect me to have all the answers?
The Great Deluge was a global cataclysm. It's very possible that the mountains raised up, as the oceans descended, to give the waters some place to drain to. During the global flood, the planet may have been flatter (more of a perfect sphere). That would make it easier for everywhere to flood.
Animals could have been babies.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Younger animals wouldn't eat as much, nor would take up as much room. I think the movie Evan Almighty may have got it partly right, the animals may have come to Noah. Noah may not have gathered them. God could have let the chosen animals know, their only safely would be with Noah on the Ark. Animals sometimes sense things anyway, while humans are out-of-touch with nature.
Titanic wasted lots of space on boilers, propeller shafts. Ark had none of those things.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist There are 5,500 mammals on earth,10,000 birds, 10,000 reptiles, 5,000,000 insects, and 600,000 arachnids. Double that by two. It is late and I am too exhausted to even do the math, but you are right. Why are we even arguing about this? We should just go on with our lives, you believe in what you believe, and I'll believe in what I'll believe. Sorry about this.
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
People are so sloppy with their reasoning. Bible says that there were pairs of each KIND on the Ark. God created animals to reproduce after their KIND. Not species, which is more specific. Most birds are small, and I don't know if Noah had cages. What for? Where would the birds go anyway? 8 people with so many animals? Imagine the work, shoveling out the manure each day.
I didn't say you couldn't ask me, I said Creationist websites would be good place to look.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
The world is a mess. Could it be, that we aren't reading our Bibles enough? Only but a couple of centuries ago, much of the emphasis in teaching children how to read, was so that they could read the Bible.
The world is way too crowded, for 7 billion different religions. Bible says to be ready to give an account, for the hope that lies within you. When I discuss what I believe with people, it helps confirm even to me, what do I believe?
If there is common morality,
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
If there is a common morality, based upon the truth of the Bible, then the world isn't crowded at all. It would be much easier to live and survive and thrive, even at massive and dense pop levels, if everybody was friendly and of similar religion and family values.
It would be fine to let baby booms persist and spread "unchecked," with nobody fighting them, and everybody's work, contributing in whatever natural ways, towards a world more dense and ADAPTED for people
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist If all atheists left America, 10% of the population would decrease there. Lots of the great thinkers and nobel peace prize winners would have to leave and only 0.25% of the prisoners would be gone.Poverty and crime rates would increase. If you look at places like Iran and the middle-east, only 0.01% of there country is Atheist. Just imagine a world of Atheism, tons of technology, no crime and great discoveries! I am not atheist, but I think this is amazing.
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Do you really expect me to believe that atheists comprise but less than 1% of the prison pop? Aren't you forgetting of the millions slaughtered in communist (atheist) purges?
You blame religion for the world's problems? But which religion(s)? Muslims cause a lot of problems, but maybe not as many as some think, if 9-11 was an inside job? Maybe Muslims are used as a handy scapegoat for some problems, by the NWO criminal elitists, since Muslims are so problematic?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist Yes, it is a true statistic that only 0.25% of the people in prison are Atheists. Hitler was Catholic, and you are pretty much saying all Atheists are bad because of things that have happened. That is like saying all Catholic priests rape little children. And, religious people actually started the argument with Atheists by trying to convert them, so they need to keep their religion to themselves and we will respect them more.
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Why do you make up obvious lies, and then act like I am supposed to believe them? I told you less than 1% is unbelievable. That defies explanation. Or are you in some way admitting, "There are no atheists in foxholes?"
Hitler was Catholic? So what? A phony claim? I hear Hitler thought he was the Anti-Christ. What about his antisemitism, his raving lunatic speech-storms, his murdering of millions, was in any way remotely Christian?
Celibacy of priests isn't biblical
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist I am not making this up, but you may believe what you want. I am not one to lie.
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
If you think atheism is so great, rather than corrupt supposedly free countries, why don't you move to some communist country, since you think it's so great? After all, atheism is their state religion, most of the people live in poverty, except for certain communist elites who steal wealth from the people and contribute nothing worthwhile to their society.
How do you suggest that people should behave like animals? Genesis 1: 26 says we humans are not animals.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist I believe humans mostly animals. Animals have hearts, brains, skin and sometimes hair. That is enough for me to believe that we have some animal in us.
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Why should we keep our faith to ourselves when we are commanded by God to take the good news to the world?
You atheists are the ones into rebellion against God, not the true believers who seek God
Why don't you atheists, keep your false religious beliefs to yourself, set the example, stop telling us to limit the size of our families, stop telling us what kind of light bulbs and toilets we can use, and stop enlarging gov corruption,waste. We aren't nature worshipers
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
You aren't the one to lie, and yet, where are your morals? Who are atheists accountable to?
If you aren't lying, then why do you make up ridiculous stats like 0.25%? Show your source. Show your math. It doesn't jive with what I know to be true, so it's obviously in err, made up, either your lie, or some lie you parroted that you heard somewhere? So which is it?
But we humans obviously do have dominion over nature and other creatures, thus, we are NOT animals.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Now I'm not talking so much about what the stupid mad scientists may choose to classify us as. I know we humans share a few traits with mammals, in fact, I hear humans may already be among the most populous of the large mammals. My concern is mostly with the legal definition of human beings.
Too many laws are assuming us to be animals, unable to control ourselves, and thus, seeking to rob us of our dignity and rights and worth. Genesis 1: 26 proves that WRONG.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
If humans were really animals, why would I argue for the "unchecked" natural expansion of the human race? How would I distinguish people from the mere pets that we take to get fixed, so that they can be better pets? Pets don't have "human rights." Animals hardly even seem to have individual rights, as hunting helps keep the species strong, not the individuals.
Procreation is such a mighty force of nature, it must be governed by a HIGHER POWER. For people, it's God.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
The same God who made clear his intentions for us, in Genesis 1: 26, and again in Genesis 9: 1, that we people are to Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. That probably means, seek to get married, and don't use any form of "birth control," because wouldn't refusing to multiply, be rebellion?
Now what about animals? What is their "higher power?" Well since man was given dominion over the animals, then man must be their higher power. So we can decide for them.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
I meant Genesis 1: 28 in that last comment.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist Let's just stop this before we say something we will regret. You have a good arguement and I respect that you are using common sense, but we both have our own beliefs.
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
I thought the topic was, is pop growth a good thing or not, and how should we, or should we not, "control" it? If the world is a ticking "pop bomb," then isn't the purpose of a "pop bomb" to "explode?" So let world pop "explode" in size, naturally then. Of course, world pop doesn't grow to 1000s of times its original size, in less than a second, so maybe "explosion" isn't the best word to use.
But you try to change the subject and attack my credibility? Why?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
I think Star Trek tries to paint a future world of atheism, and how well it supposedly works. But don't even they, show some respect for religion? Gene Roddenberry was praised for how humanistic his show was. But Star Trek is mostly in favor of the spread of human pops to more worlds. So even some of the atheists disagree with the globalist NWO depop agenda? Or did the world grow so incredibly populous, that people were forced to invent food replicators, warp drive?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist And I dislike religion because most of them preach hate and intolerance. Gays will burn in hell for loving someone? You do know that even animals like zebras, baboons, hyenas, and elephants are gay by most of the things they do with the same sex.
mscrumpster1 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
What would the animals eat? Noah might have had some food left over. But read the Genesis account carefully. What bird was it, that finally didn't return, had found some place? Plants survived or regrew. Where we see floods today, do all plants and trees die? And it wouldn't take a lot, because the earth was huge, and the inhabitants of the Ark very small in comparison. By the time the fast-reproducing animals could repopulate, plants would have become re-established
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Why do you ask me all this? You don't want me to believe? There's Creationist websites out there, that might explain some of this stuff better than me. My thing is promoting the natural human pop growth, as my screen-name is pronatalist. That's what I know a lot about, for I have studied that stuff for decades.
We find Mammoths frozen in glaciers, with undigested food in their stomachs. How could they have frozen so quickly? Kent Hovind thinks very cold snow trapped
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Climate has changed radically, in such earth-shaking events. Adam and Eve were naked. And they didn't know it? Must have been quite warm. No mention of rain in the Bible, before the Great Deluge. Earth must have been warm climate like a greenhouse, terrarium, or something?
Poles of the planet might not always have been so cold, and glaciers could have formed during Great Deluge, or after?
Noah's family seemed anxious to get off the Ark,couped up with stinky animals
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
One day I was wondering, why does pop graph really take off, around 1950? "The Pill" wasn't until 1960. Maybe for some parents, not all, some, when they were "done" having children, they were "done" having sex? Then comes along the "family planners" preaching "unlimited" sex without many children? So what happens when people discover evil history of contraception, or find practical or "religious" objections to "birth control?" "Uncontrolled" birthrate"unlimited" sex?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@mscrumpster1
Why would a highly populated or "crowded" world, have to be disgusting? We can enjoy even eerie levels of urban "crowding," with people conveniently hidden behind the walls of apartment complexes or highrises, where it's not so apparent. We can have cities actually designed to efficiently hold so many millions of people. We could build SkyTram or flying cars, research or use already-existing technologies.
I'd much rather be "crowded," than denied of having children.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@BlueChicken5
Don't Worry, We need more billion people to occupy the space or other planets, thats the purpose but we need to develop our minds to 100% since we have only 5% percent right now I think thats the purpose of the scientist they are the beginning that we dont have to limit our minds start to open our mind and thats the beginning . . .
HUCY1000 1 year ago
@BlueChicken5
@BlueChicken5
Don't Worry, We need more billion people to occupy the space or other planets, thats the purpose but we need to develop our minds to 100% since we have only 5% percent right now I think thats the purpose of the scientist they are the beginning that we dont have to limit our minds start to open our mind and thats the beginning . . .
HUCY1000 1 year ago
@HUCY1000 vote bluechickens coment down and watch it dissapear
datzfast 1 year ago
@datzfast and just like that your gone.
datzfast 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BlueChicken5 please kill your self NOW
datzfast 1 year ago
I definitly agree wit dude below me!
The1phillykid 2 years ago
Consider that 99% of the problems of the world are a direct result of deception and lies. When Politicians & Government Officials lie, they have murdered the truth which affects all of us. Appropriately label world bankers, World Terrorists & divide their wealth equally all Nations. All Public Officials who can't pass a lie detector while seated in an electric chair, should find a new. Reduce the population of lying Politicians & Government Officials, the rest of humanity get along just fine.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago 2
can you prove that statistic?
fudge1monkey 2 years ago
Might as well run a study and find out, could be 100%. Anyone who has never told a lie in their entire life, please write a post this chat. Thank you.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
i say kill em all and let god sort em out. "gets gun"
fudge1monkey 2 years ago
Your option still on the table? Starting to think you have a point.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
the 1% are natural disasters. hard to gather the evidence on the remaining 99% can't trust the people reporting have told the truth.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
The introduction of the Piltdown Man was not a careless mistake. Scientists are human and do make mistakes, thats normal. Give me other examples where renown scientists suddenly abandon their code of ethics to participate in a fraud, 911? The attributes of being a scientist don't mandate lying. Established standards are adopted to avoid false evidence. Piltdown Man was not a simple mistake. Huge difference, intentions of calculating manipulative liars vrs innocent mistakes.
waketheoblivious 2 years ago
To walter0bz (P.S.+):
I remember what the last icon was. The chain link icon, is for linking or associating files. Installing or downloading a group of files would leave them "linked," so that anytime a user tries to delete or uninstall or copy one of the files, the system can respond intelligently, "Do you want these other files to go with it?" No more forgotten file fragments from Applications or games long since deleted? No more corruption from mixed version installs not cleaning out the old
pronatalist 2 years ago
Sounds like you want to take some linux apps (openoffice, kde etc) or window-managers & customize them, that world is full of scope for UI experimentation. Great fun.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
Yes, I might like to play with Linux, but I have only Macintosh, not a PC, and I don't have enough time for quite some time. Maybe I could have time in heaven, but then, computers are probably ridiculously obsolete.
I did make significant process on a GUI-like program on my graphing calculator, but then it lost my programs, and I haven't had time to see if there remains any possibility of a PEEK function reconstruction of stray text from the flash memory. Sort of faked windows.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
I made some vaporware paintings of my OS, but so far, I haven't had time to take it much farther. My idea was to have sort of a universal standard feature set, in which features and menus would remain in almost any context. Edit menu could spell-check a filename. Animated text effects something like those lighted scrolling signs, apply to any typed text, so a word could flash or jump up/down in a filename or screensaver. New Document, Insert Table=spreadsheet w/o run Application.
pronatalist 2 years ago
you play sim city. well it all most the same. as soon you use up the map you find your self a problem. there going be more people and no room. there will be food but not all of them will have food. sadly you will need more job but no where to put them. like i say before, life will end up fixing it self and some one got to pay for it. i just say if they don't know that. it there lost. making more post will not help. it cant be fix. it just way of life.
rwmtiger 2 years ago
To rwmtiger:
Is Sim City real life? I don't think so. Any video game's reality is based upon the interpretation of its creators, who are also influenced by "political correctness" and liberal bias. No matter how real video game environments look, they are but a thin fascade, not near as detailed and resilient as the global biosphere.
If I was to play such a game, I probably would build about the biggest mansion, biggest city, population filling the entire planet, as I could, because it's cool!
pronatalist 2 years ago
Sim city - a case of art mimicks life.
I'm looking forward to regular humanity being out-dated once we get more understanding of the genome.. we should be aiming to create 'hybrid-vigour' between geniuses and elite athletes.
Knowing that this is coming, I can't understand why the dysgenic masses bother to breed :) how will they compete ?
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz
What could eugenics possibly accomplish for humans, other than horrors? I would rather not see stupid retards or people with attitudes in wheelchairs. So what do we do? Slay all the handicapped people, and breed the "perfect master" race? What? No more jobs for electric wheelchair manufacturers? Oh well, we can just always make more babies?
Star Trek TNG had such a "perfect society" that was substancially less than perfect. No place apparently for "blind" engineer Jorde with visor
pronatalist 2 years ago
more hypothesising :)
From a Eugenic perspective, I think materialism is good* the concept of the 'gold-digger' allows attempting hybrid-vigour between wealth-creators & physically pure human specimens, and besides that hereditary family homes would keep population stable.
* sadly debt allows people to pretend they have more wealth than they really do, creating a hazard for a less numerate population.. hence why we've been destroyed by debt-fueled consumption (including home-loans)
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz
But it isn't wealth that apparent produces the most rapid natural human population growth, but more so, poverty. What else do people in dark villages without electricity to do at night, to stay warm, but to make more and more babies? Wealth at least helps expand options to accomodate vaster and denser populations of people more safely and comfortably, but does nothing to slow population growth without the underlying rampant pushing of shoddy contraceptives to damage people's bodies
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
I couldn't make advanced principle payments, because even with my frugal budget, it took way too long to save up and accumulate sufficient many month's expenses safety net, and if money runs out, how do I make house payment then? I can't just tell employer, You have to give me more money? Not on low-skilled corporate wage slave job. But faithful to my complaint, when I received money, I did what Dad would have wanted, and now feel even more free, with no debt at all, less overhead
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz
As you well know, I don't believe the huge human population size should be stable or stagnated, but people should feel free and be urged to all grow their families naturally, all nations naturally swelling in population all at the same time, for the greater altruistic good of the many, for people to go on having all their precious darling babies, blessings from God
People obviously reproduce easily enough, even more so without sufficient wealth. Debt is an option people can refuse
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
I don't agree with home loans giving poor people or less educated people, a false picture of the world's "carrying capacity." The world could hold far more people breeding naturally in burgeoning filthy slums. But wouldn't anybody altruistic, prefer that the world's populous breeding masses be housed in better accomodations? You think mansions for them will just drop out of the sky?
God provided plenty of resources, but scattered them to make people come together and trade.
pronatalist 2 years ago
IMO the religions are essentially competing Eugenic schemes, (e.g. polygamy vs monogamy) and modern eugenics is simply a reformulation based on recent understanding.
Sadly in your (well-intentioned) desire for population growth all I see is 2000 year old 'software' designed to breed [i]soldiers[/i].
Thats why I say the Eugenic approach is more humane... compete constructively for breeding-rights, rather than breed to the max then cull the excess in warfare when we overstep our limits.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz
Yes, taxes should be very low and family-friendly. And eliminate most death/inheritance taxes/probate fees. Yes hand down family homes. But that doesn't eliminate mortgages, because most people refuse to build own small homes, want nice big homes. If people have naturally big families, 5 children or more, housing soon becomes overcrowded, need more cities, more houses and condos built. How to finance?
It's not about soldiers/war only, but altruistic motive of more people to live.
pronatalist 2 years ago
So there you go, my point is proven :(
You can't breed maximally without banks, so by following 'breeding' software, you are empowering them, making them ever more powerfull.
In debt-funded breeding I see a gamble, a numerical simulation of "r-selection" in nature.. i.e. rapid breeding with culling of offspring creating evolution.
IMO this symbiosis between the powerfull elite & rapidly breeding masses is the root cause of the threat to the middle-classes.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
What point of yours is proven?
Why do you speak of banks, as if they are the devil? It's the politically manipulating fraudulent central banks that are more to blame. Rarely do banks force us to borrow money? Incurring debt is one option. There's other options, other ways of obtaining money, but people lack patience to save up first the money, or to arrange inter-family no-interest trusting informal loans, as we have done in my family
Bankruptcy rarely is fatal condition,painful
pronatalist 2 years ago
intra-family loans as you speak of are probably the way forward, r.e. cohesive society.
The point with a bank / state / corporation is that you can't expect the same altruism from someone who isn't genetically related. w delta z ..
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
Yes you can eat a house. If it's a gingerbread house. Sorry, obvious joke
Want to know how family helped me pay off my house last year? I used my half of the sale of Dad's house, after he passed on, to just barely pay off my house. Ironically, Dad kept saying like a broken record, that I should make advanced principle payments to pay off my home mortgage faster. With what money?, I always blurted back. Does every budget have leftover waste/fluff? Not mine, unless don't need heat?
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
Don't you suppose the people breeding most maximally, aren't even users of the banks?
Supposedly, people tend to have smaller families, when they have a more modern standard of living, although I say it's really the rampant contraceptive pushing that is responsible for the Demographic Transition. But what better reason to have larger more Western-like homes, but for large and naturally-growing families?
Banks arrange trade between investors and people hasty to own homes. Win-win
pronatalist 2 years ago
btw. if no one know this by now. kick them. there is no fix for this problem. life will fix it self. at the end some one got to pay for it. well. some one have told me that much. it be nice if this can be fix but it cant.
rwmtiger 2 years ago
To rwmtiger:
Kick them? Kick who? Those poor people who breed maximally? Why? Why should poor people, cheated out of proper participation in an unjust hostile political/economy environment, be cheated out of their children as well?
People need to breathe. We let them breathe. People need to eat. We let them eat. People want or need to reproduce, shouldn't we let them reproduce, provided they have committed to their mate in marriage?
You say life will fix problems? Yeah, by denser population.
pronatalist 2 years ago
>>Banks arrange trade between investors and people hasty to own homes. Win-win
yikes! Incase you haven't been paying attention western economies have been devastated by a speculative-debt-fueled-housing bubble.
I think that home loans give less numerate peple a false picture of the worlds "carrying-capacity".
The UK in particular has suffered very badly for this. Investment diverted from productive industry into home-improvement = Capital Misallocation.
You can't eat a house...
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz
Read the book they are pushing again, The Creature from Jeckyl Island; a Second Look at the Federal Reserve. It speaks against the evils of an easily government-manipulated currency, fiat paper "money," not against supposed "overpopulation." While such manipulation supposedly helps stabilize the economy, many know it destablizes economies, and if helping, who do you think may benefit? Filthy rich elites pulling the levers of power, not the common working poor. Fiat produces bubbles
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
Poor people tend to know other poor people within their families. Some rich people, such as neomarxist Obama, when they come into wealth, share little or nothing with relatives. How are you going to borrow money to buy a house from other poor people? In my example, we did intra-family loans to help everybody have debt-free used cars, far cheaper than houses.
There's also the issue of family friction, in which you don't want to borrow from somebody manipulative that you know.
pronatalist 2 years ago
From my perspective, I beleive the hazards you mention are heritable personality flaws which should be bred out.
A mutually co-operative bloodline can in time become wealthy - IF it can balance reproduction with the available resources.
For the record I am personally refusing to breed for a long list of reasons.
I think we can best serve our species by paying attention to Eugenics, refusing to breed for the greater good if we have any faulty genes.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
Breeding out the hazards, even if it worked, would take too long, as doesn't that take many generations? Where's the benefit in the here and now for all those people presumably making the sacrifice, assuming that the most stupid people, those who supposedly breed the most according to "better than thou" eugenics theory, can be duped to go along with the plan?
While people are capable of change and repentence, allowing people to improve personality without any numbers reduction.
pronatalist 2 years ago
Refusing to pass on a defective gene has immiediate effect.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
The immediate effect of denying a future child life. Do you want Nazi-like eugenics horrors? Should we turn on one another and slay each other, something like the wicked days of Noah in which God flooded most of the people to death, for their sins that grieved God? Is any form of culling, humane?
Isn't the alternative to eugenics, that a civilized society must allow most everybody who responsibly marries to breed "unlimited" babies and leave it to God just how populous we become?
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
People often don't react enough when people warn of impending dangers, and then tend to overreact, after the crisis done hit. Is that any way to drive a car, swerving all over the road? Isn't smooth and steady often the better path? That means you look far ahead, be cautious, maybe start slowing down at some sign of trouble ahead
You paint debt-lending banks with unfair stereotypical brush. At the top there's problems, but I as investor want somebody to borrow and pay me interest
pronatalist 2 years ago
IMO: The UK has been brought to the brink of collapse by this issue.
Most bubbles are based on a genuine story (railway, internet etc)
This recent one - Housing - was based on the notion that [i]we're running out of space[/i].
Alarm bells should have gone off when the ratio of "average-salary:house price" got out of step;
the market "supercomputer" was telling us "we're over-populated", but the sheeple refused to listen.
Now we're screwed.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
For eugenics to possibly get rid of faulty genes, wouldn't we need people who aren't descendents of Adam & Eve to breed? But there are none! Jesus had to be a virgin birth, just to get around whatever flawed genes, as the whole linage line of man was corrupted by original sin. Death entered in.
There's plenty of space for building lots more homes, but these days, few people build homes, and government restricts land usage. People would screw/reproduce if all the planet was city.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
Why are population phobics so unconcerned to consider the so many compelling reason why, why people have to have apparently, as many children as they do?
Even supposed "running out of space" isn't much any excuse to deny people their children, for so many reasons. First, it's not even true. Also, children aren't expendable nor negotiable, they sort of come when they come. 3rd, babies want to come alive, no matter how crowded. 4th, there's still gaps/ways to squeeze in more people
pronatalist 2 years ago
By 'space' we really mean resources, in the agrarian age it was farmland but now that we're matrix-esque slaves to industry it's oil,metals,factories etc, abstracted by capital/'money' as you probably know.
If you think we AREN'T running out, I guess the UK must be imagining it's trade deficit.
I suggest you invest in our currency or government bonds, since running out of resources isn't really a problem!
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
What plan do you have, for ridding us of corrupt socialist and neomarxist politicians that run up government spending to such insane levels as to bankrupt entire countries? Can you guarantee that corrupt people with lust for power will never gain power under your plan?
Such economic problems don't indicate a lack of actual resources at all, but a lack of morality or a lack of intelligence on the part of decisionmakers and those who vote for them.
Invest in precious metals?
pronatalist 2 years ago
I can only attempt to make peace with the world by understanding it from the outside (e.g. like an alien observer).
I think nature will always create heirachies* (=some with power, some in servitude), and fighting this off would require eugenics :)
The threat to the middle-class will always exist.
*why ? - because just like individual braincells creating your 'soul', Nature uses us as processing elements in a greater machine. (like networked computers) The matrix is a VERY good analogy.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
If you want to consider "matrix" movie analogies, seems to me, nature wants humans a lot more vast and crowded, not less. Consider how close together our body's cells are, or how comfy and confining our mother's womb was to us. However, the human race does not work together nor has reasonable comformity as how our cells work more together.
Enviro wackos trying to destroy cheap abundant fuel and coal, push us back to Dark Ages of slavery and animal labor. Machines require ENERGY!
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
With people, it does appear there will always be heirachies. I've seen even in a Church fellowship meeting in somebody's home, where everybody is expected to contribute and share something, no prepared "formal" meeting, "everybody's equal," some people share more than others. Some still seem to dominate.
But freedom principles of Constitution, guard against involuntary servitude, and defend freedom and uniqueness of the individual. Pronatalism stresses sacred value of individuals
pronatalist 2 years ago
r.e. Heirachies - as a programmer I love open-source - individual freedom - but I can see exactly why commercial software based on (dynamic) capitalist heirachies usually beats it.
The same pattern in nature - alpha male, ants-nest etc.
This observation really depresses me - because I can see the natural force directed against Individualism/Freedom/middle-class, where a collective (with Leaders & Led) can be more efficient.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
I've very much into individual freedom, inspiring and urging the creativity and innovation of people. I prefer such models I think as open-source and shareware. I don't want to deny people use of my software, even if they never pay me, and I think a few occasional annoying shareware fee reminders are sufficient motivation to pay up?
I like universal rich-featured user-friendly software. I wanted to write OS with built-in integrated word processing/spreadsheet w/o run Application.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz (round wrap-up):
Objects would keep their appropriate properties regardless of context, so an animated gif could be pasted in as a character in a filename, and it would still animate anytime visible, normally. A list of files would expand for the extra height of such a filename while other filenames keep their original height
Good program design would allow others to tack on other cool features via Control Panels. A Patch filetype would patch programs while retaining original code
pronatalist 2 years ago
>> why people have to have apparently, as many children as they do?
because we still have monkey genes. In the jungle, monkeys had lots of babies, as half would be eaten by lions or starve. The survivors were faster, more intelligent, whatever.
Without this continuous, inhumane, natural culling, I beleive we need Eugenics & Population Control to preserve civilization... keeping us in balance with the land & machines that support us.
opposing views, I know :)
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
Humans have lots of babies, because God promised Abraham so many descendents as to be nearly uncountable like the stars of the sky or the grains of sand of the seashore. So that incredibly numbers of people may experience life. There's so many great reasons for human reproduction, that's why I advocate continuous population expansion of the human race, and urge all nations to naturally populate denser and denser.
Are we in the (very crowded) matrix? If so, it's not really so bad?
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
Unlike how false evolution theory tells us, we are to live civilized moral lives, not "survival of the fittest" brutal beast lives.
I do not at all believe nature requires either culling nor eugenics, but that even nature tells people to pair up, prepare stable marriage family nests, and to reproduce naturally without awkward unnatural birth control. With proper use of faith, technology, and development, nature MUST accept natural rising population density. More people benefit!
pronatalist 2 years ago
#1 I do beleive in the "ascent of complexity" as a layer over Darwin which gives intelligence morality over that predicted by the Price-Equation. (evolution of Memes is faster than Genes).
still as with computer-software, you want the best program running on the fastest computers, hence eugenics to raise IQ would be usefull.
I guess you consider abortion/contraception a form of Culling, wheras my viewpoint is "look after life once created, but be carefull to pick the right genes"
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
I suppose I do consider contraception a form of culling, as is it really seeking to prevent "potential" human life, or actual future life, since imaginary life wouldn't need to be prevented, so it must be "actual?" It's interfering with the natural flow of human life, sabotaging a vital function of the human body, reproduction as valid and essential as any other function.
Eugenics says, there's not room enough for everybody's children. I disagree even if we find it a bit crowded.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz (P.S.):
I also had a painted screen snapshot, of a File Info window, having its standard 5 option icons. Clicking on them would open a window for standard built-in security such as password restricted access and encryption, automatic backup scheduling, open the programming resource fork/editor built into the OS, the trash can icon could shedule automatic purging of old files or for that entire folder. I think I even had a display as folders/forum option, but it's all only vaporware
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
Isn't big portion of individual or business or government credit-worthiness rating, having low proportion of debt, so as to easily repay without difficulty with low risk of default?
Yes, there is "population competition," but I believe very much we should aim for the more friendly sort, where all nations all grow in population at the same time, and seek to cooperate in trade of ideas and technology, to altruistically ENLARGE THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE for the greater good of the many.
pronatalist 2 years ago
malthusian catastrophe it is then.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
Why do you say that? You have no creative mind to consider better alternatives? What if human populations continue to grow hugely, and the people ADAPT? What kind of "catastrophe" is that? Enviro-radicals whine that so many people get to be alive at once? But so few would even be old enough to even remember a world without so many people, so I suspect those future people may whine far less than we do, about such stupid things
Don't POLLUTE body directly with shoddy contraceptives
pronatalist 2 years ago
I'm not really an eco-nut :)
I beleive Eugenics is the way forward, create fewer offpsring by being more selective over who can breed, amplifying the rare adaptations as Nature intended, but without the culling.
Increase future IQ, health, creativity, beauty etc and improve living conditions.
At the minute we pollute earth with mediocrity ... leading to inequality, jealousy, destructive conflict, etc etc.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
You claim you are not an eco-nut, and yet hold to one of their main tenets, pidly small human population? Eugenics?
Selective breeding is for farm livestock and pets, animals that lack human rights. Basic human right and duty, is that most anybody responsible to form stable family nest, be allowed to breed prolifically as God may allow them so many children.
Science of eugenics is really stupidity and racism. For one thing, so many generations to affect change?, no benefit NOW!
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
What I hear is basic to true freedom, is property rights, which the leftist globalist statists, such as Obama's crowd, are on the warpath against.
Check out Mark Levin's new book, Freedom and Tyranny. I haven't bought mine yet. Says U.S. is a casteless system, rich people can become poor, poor can become rich. We aren't locked into our group, but can move from one to another. Statists want rich against poor, so they can "redistribute" wealth, foster gov dependence, spread misery.
pronatalist 2 years ago
My hypothesis is that many humans today are bred by elites (states or banks) as cattle (just as in the feudal era) - e.g. bank lends breeding space to the poor to create more debt-slaves.
Thats why I see 'malthusian catastrophe' written behind the numbers in the banking crisis.
My Utopia? No-one should need a mortgage - family homes should be handed down from generation to generation; a family should increase it's space via earned wealth, hence sustainable, gradual growth.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz
The problems of which you speak, won't be reduced by reduced population
Yes, powers-that-be often want people more populous, for more profits, more people to exploit. But even that, is a reason why powers-that-be aren't as dangerous as they might otherwise be. As we people want to reproduce for other reasons, and powers-that-be then have to allow?
We can't eliminate all home mortgages, as that would put big families into tiny makeshift slums. What we can do, is fast pay down debt
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
Debt is not the problem, it's the abuse and too-high proportion of debt. There are very good reasons to borrow money. Even though Bible says borrower is servant (slave?) to the lender. To start a business. To buy a home and not have to rent. Even a car may be okay reason to borrow, in order to be able to go to work. Bad debt is consumer credit card debt, and speculative debt. Making promises to repay that likely can't be kept. Debt should be quickly repaid as possible.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
I can't produce my own electricity, because the economic realities and current technology won't let me. I have no river on my property to dam up and drive a water wheel. A natural gas standby generator would cost even more. My yard is too small for huge wind energy turbine. I could do solar cells and forklift/picker batteries, but cost and trouble is greater than simply paying power bill
I want to disconnect from grid because I don't trust economy and politics. But cheaper not to
pronatalist 2 years ago
To water0bz (round wrap-up):
I can't be "half a person." Neither can you. Much was determined either by God or our ancestors letting human population rise naturally into the billions, and so many of us came alive and benefitted. The deed is already done, can't put the genie back into the bottle now.
Some enviros spread "guilt" and want us to revert back to ye old outhouse and no toilet paper. Compost toilets. That wouldn't impress nature.
Be frugal maybe, but welcome nature babies pushing out
pronatalist 2 years ago
To water0bz:
I would like to have 11 or 15 children, at least 5, or however many children God gives me. You can have your 5 or 7 children as well, along with billions of parents having their 3 or 5 children. There's plenty of room that can be found or made for all. Until you toss in whatever stupid snail darters and spotted owls.
Complexity in other not as smart species don't count for much, towards enlarging the human race for the greater good of the many.
We can't help we are so numerous.
pronatalist 2 years ago
A complex system must be adjusted with small changes to give the whole time to adjust. Trippling our numbers in 60 years then just hoping for the best is very unwise.
We are just one part of nature.
Another angle- if we move to Solar Power, why are we any more usefull than trees ?
I say as a species our purpose is to spread life to other planets - a long term goal jeapordized by short term growth.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
But humans are complex and intelligent beings.
It's very wise to let human numbers naturally triple in 60 years or less, as how else are people to remain free to enjoy having "all the children God gives," than to welcome that prospect, however likely or unlikely demographers opine that to be.
I welcome use of technology, in fact, aren't we supposedly so numerous, that we should be using most all economically viable energy options, all at once? Nuclear, coal, water, biomass, etc.
pronatalist 2 years ago
Who is to say that the interaction of the remaining species doesn't create 'complexity' and 'intelligence' in ways we can't perceive? (e.g. hive-mind)
For example, the rest of nature created man via evolution so can it be considered 'more intelligent' just as we are 'more intelligent' than our computers & machines?
It is not wise for one species to threaten the whole as we do.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
So why don't you cease to be, so that there can be more room for my 10 or 12 children to come? That way, there can be slightly more room for those spotted owls, snail darters, or whatever dumb kinds of creatures, that you seem so concerned about.
You see, that stupid enviro idea about "stop at 2" hasn't caught on, you can't even convince me, and I know all about it. Just 2 children to barely "replace" the parents supposedly towards population "stabilization" (stagnation).
pronatalist 2 years ago
Pronatalist, I respect your belief in God. I myself believe in the Green Pig, since my father told me stories about him when I was a child. You say that overpop is not a problem and we should NOT control it, because God likes it that way. FYI 6 out of 7 scientists are atheist. I give a small chance for God to exist, you should give a small chance that God does not exist. In case God does not exist, humans (and many other animals) will end up dying out because of the ruined planet.
DyingEarth2050 3 years ago 2
i really don't like taking side on god. but your right. life have way fix it problem. no one like the idea but that life. when life is overpop earth. there food end up short. so the overpop end up huger. see how human running earth. we may end up eating every thing to nothing left. but new life all way show up. but with man trash. life will have to make do what they got. they fail or live as well. it take more to end kill for ever. like the sun fail.
rwmtiger 3 years ago
To rwmtiger:
The more populated we get, the more people there are wanting children. This is practical reason to advocate that the world grow naturally, swelling up with people something like an advancing pregnancy
There is perverse idea of "Lifeboat Ethic" that says not to help people. Supposedly, it says, if we give (or sell) food and medicine to poor countries, people live longer, infant mortality decreases, and more childbearing is encouraged. Making overpop worse. But I advocate denser pop
pronatalist 3 years ago
To walter0bz:
Watch movie GATTAGA for great warning against social dangers of trying to move beyond God or nature's way of making human babies, towards "designer babies," and such. According to that movie, any improvement was so minor, but they institutionalized job and social discrimination contrary to the needs of the people.
To rwmtiger:
Fixing problems does lead to huger population. But fixing problems reduces overpop, even though numbers rose. Pop phobics are wrong. Food can't limit pop.
pronatalist 2 years ago
IMO eugenics is the humane way to fulfill natures' directive.
My convictions are from a fear of human nature. Eco just gives popular arguments to reduce our numbers :)
I beleive exploitation and inequality are inevitable in a world where your survival depends on a complex international machine controlled by individuals who you've never met... you are merely cattle to them.
For true freedom you need to own farmland, a luxury in this overcrowded world.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
No, eugenics is not humane, not at all consistant with the most basic and primal of human rights. Eugenics is about sinful man trying to pretend he is smarter than God.
I too fear human nature. But culling "excess" human population by whatever means, even "under the rug" attacks upon birthrates, brings out the worst in people, while pronatalism doing nothing to reduce the crowds, makes them far friendly and easy to cope with
Luxuries such as privacy are not rights, while life is
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
I don't even want my own farmland. Why would humans have any right to be born into an "uncrowded" world, when it is the crowded world that would be having more births? True freedom would suggest we probably have to let people procreate their children, no matter what, especially if they have been faithful to marry and are preparing responsibly their family nest.
But I do own my own house and okay yard, could grow a garden if I wanted. I wish to produce own electricity, but can't.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
You said, "My hypothesis is that many humans today are bred by elites (states or banks) as cattle (just as in the feudal era) - e.g. bank lends breeding space to the poor to create more debt-slaves."
Yes, be a questioning cynic, but not that cynical. Yes, when I see some new apartment complex, I see in a sense, NICE crowded rat cages urging to be filled with breeding people to later fill more apartment complexes. But it's not conspiracy, but profit-reaction to our breeding urge.
pronatalist 2 years ago
I guess I do sound cynical but this is the inevitable conclusion I reach when I look holistically at all the forces behind this economic collapse.
walter0bz 2 years ago
To walter0bz:
While bankruptcy is painful, it usually isn't life-threatening, as people these days live so far materially beyond what is needed for basic survival. What do people really need to survive? 3 hots and a cot in a crowded homeless shelter?
Be thankful that we don't still throw people into debtor's prison for defaulting on loans, until what's left of their family can somehow pay off their debt. We usually let broke people keep both the shirt on their back and a $1 in their wallet.
pronatalist 2 years ago
To gregducati999:
Secular "education" confuses people, because it neglects sacred value of life. I heard some story that "family planners" warned some African village that at current rate, they would double #s in 25 years. All started clapping. Whoops! Forget to tell them that's "bad." Some poster said villages growing into small towns haphazardly, no plans for growth.
I say then plan for to welcome growth. Plan to welcome people. Let villages/towns and cities grow larger and closer together.
pronatalist 3 years ago
THIS IS B.S.!!!!
The narrater said each dot represents 1 million people and if you pause at :39 afghanistan is covered in them when they only have like 20 million or less so this is B.S.
MrHairyNutz 3 years ago
To MrHairyNutz:
You're missing the point. Obviously such a population map, isn't very detail-accurate. It's more a "dramitization" of the supposed global pop "explosion" of humanity.
But it's inaccurage even, to call natural human pop growth an "explosion." It doesn't become 100s of times bigger, in a fraction of a second. And if my bank account or investments grew so "fast," I would be quite disappointed. What? A measly 1.2% annual return on investment? At that rate, I would never become rich
pronatalist 3 years ago
thanks for the explanation
MrHairyNutz 3 years ago
To MyHairyNutz:
You're welcome.
I think the "explosive" world pop growth, as portrayed by such a dramatization, is actually quite beautiful, like a flower unfolding, curiously amazing to see the "huge" human pop naturally "blossoming" in size.
Problem is, it's about scare-tactics to deceive people into draconian anti-pop, anti-freedom, anti-family measures, not about how beautiful nighttime satelite composite photos of human impact/lights/cities, can appear. Not all human impact is "bad."
pronatalist 3 years ago
I like this video, it displays how people still behave the same way bacteria does
antiantiduck1987 3 years ago
To FundiesRStupid (continued):
In the past, education didn't seem to reduce family size. Many of the founding fathers of our USA country, were educated, and yet they didn't practice any sort of contraception. Perhaps education centered more on truth and how to think correctly, than it does today.
Even the environmental movement has been hijacked by political activists using it for their own anticorporate, antibusiness agenda, resorting to unscientific scaremongering to raise money.
pronatalist 3 years ago
Population numbers, economics, social conditions, cost of living, ways and means of living, etc. etc. etc. were very different during the Founding Fathers' time as compared to now. Education in the 21st century implies learning job skills for modern professions, which are often highly demanding and do not allow for much family time etc. Not like in the 18th century when there was more room, more resources and the family worked together on the farm. Thanks yet again for affirming my nick
FundiesRStupid 3 years ago
To FundiesRStupid:
Things have changed, and yet not so much really.
Ecclesiastes says there is no new thing, under the sun. People are as smart, as stupid, as selfish, as sinful, as ever. Their behavior unfortunately, tends to be "predictable." Wrong and oppressing people needlessly.
There was more room, but old ways wasted the room. When I was born, there was 10 acres/person. Now only 5. And still shrinking. Why do you think I so advocate letting density rise?
Change society for family time
pronatalist 3 years ago