According to the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), 77 out of 130 countries that have been studied can be classified as “overpopulated" - most in Europe and Asia. The best ways to solve the population problem are through epidemic disease, war and engineered famine.
What Malthus could not predict is the convergence greater overall wealth generated by industrial societies, advancements in agriculture, women's rights, and birth control leading to negative reproduction rates WITHOUT coercive population reduction policies.
The population explosion is happening in the "Third World". The solution is bring the third world up to the same level of modernity as Europe, N. America, Australia, and Japan.
@lexilicious74 The population density in Europe (134 people per square mile) is TWICE bigger and more disgusting than in Africa (65 people per square mile). Europeans also need to be sterilized and exterminated.
Any one here with a modicum of math-savvy? The state of Texas can hold EVERY living human with 31 square feet per person, leaving the ENTIRE rest of Planet Earth to produce supporting goods, and maintain all the rest of Earth's inhabitants. Only drooling fools accept the over-population deceptions of the de-populating Elitists, who demand ever-growing control over Earth, and the remaining human population. Get your facts from reliable points of reference!
IT IS All about resources. That's the point, for slow mental patients, for showing how LITTLE resources Humanity requires for health and industry, to locate humanity to Texas, and thereby illustrate the vast resources to support such a small contingency of users. Remember, the social engineers that bring you reports of overpopulation also are determined to hog all earth as their private property. Believe their lies at your own peril, for your life means nothing to them.
You know, I tried to leave a comment on your YouTube page, but it was blocked - what gives?
Absolutely I am Certain that the earth has all necessary potential to sustain health and quality of living for many times present population, because, ALL media propaganda opposing this fact is filled with half-truth deceptions and ALL present famines are politically motivated by World Banker-controlled leaders.
The YouTube CEO is also involved with these tyrants.
I captured the 12 parts of the video series you feature; "How The End Began." It is interesting, but you would do better with a careful study of "The True Story of the Bilderberger Group," with clear documentation about the reasons behind world population reduction plans now well underway, including forced population reduction of U.S. citizens, by trash diets, death-medicines, and banning all healthful home gardening, now, today, in Congress.
Drooling fools is correct, what else could you call them? Pathetic, brainwashed imbeciles are being led by the power-elite pied pipers happily to their own destruction. It's quite sad really but it's true.
Henry George's "Progress and Poverty" explained the limitations of Malthus and how unscientific he was. Many intellectuals 100 years ago understood this
@ultramagellan i hear ya. as a videographer myself in an academic setting I can only tell you that it takes a while for non-video people to realise that you simply must MIC THE PERSON SPEAKING with a lavalier mic. you cannot, CANNOT rely on any kind of microphone that's on the camera itself. otherwise...well you get the audio problems that are a pain in the ass as experienced in this vid.
You claim technology is more for selfish comfort of people already alive, or for improving human life. That's merely the byproduct. Come on, what happens when people are more secure and comfortable? If I think I have a great secure future, why have just 2 children? Why not 5 or 6 children like in other more pronatalist countries? And maybe my neighbor likes to have 3 or 4 children as well?
Conspiracy theory: Income tax developed, lest people get rich and breed.
Actually, it IS to make people more comfortable. Typically, countries with higher standards of living have a lower than average number of children per household. Nor are higher numbers of children typical to more "kind" cultures. It could reflect anything from a need for more children to sustain farms or boost household income, to a denigration of women to the role of sexual objects.
Please do not confuse "quality of life," with "sanctity of life." Because each and every human life is sacred, we should always welcome people to become pregnant, be visibly pregnant in public places, say like college or highschool classrooms, especially when students are obviously old enough to be possibly married, and even to breastfeed in public as is common in the developing countries.
I agree with LDC's criticism of America somewhat, for thinking breasts to be sexual.
I understand pronatalist culture, for I am very pro-life. Pro-life position doesn't say we need to unnaturally "limit" the quantity of human life upon the planet.
I like your saying about "candy with the wrapper still on." Hadn't heard that one. Even nature tells us that's wrong or strange. Sex is obviously a procreative act, supposed to be loving, not selfish. So let the sperm have its natural chance to find the egg.
The irony in this is that as I type, I'm listening to a band called Dying Fetus.
There's the whole idea that sex is meant exclusively for procreation, or that human life is necessarily sanctified. I don't submit to either belief, because that's not what happens, and I certainly don't think it's divinely mandated. Your perspective is, once again, touching on the "it's natural, so it's right" argument, which, as I said before, is sketchy and unreliable.
I am not familiar with band "Dying Fetus," but the name sounds sick. I am very disappointed with much of "modern" so-called music. Music is largely about feelings and emotions, so I don't mind music that tends to be perhaps a bit erotic or to have a primal sexual relations beat. I don't mind music dealing with sex sometimes, especially in a more moral or pleasant way. But so much "music" isn't even musical anymore
Pregnancy is natural outlet for powerful reproductive urges
Dying Fetus certainly isn't! Then again, I'm more of a fan of more melodic metal (DF is very brutal death metal). I wouldn't judge all music based on that standard, though. Different peopel derive different feelings from different genres.
So much of what passes for music, shows that people's minds are increasingly deranged and deluded, or they would quickly turn off the unpleasant, unmusical noise. I'm not commenting necessarily upon your band, as what do I know of it, other than the name? I like some Rock 'N Roll, but the term comes from what people do in the back seat of a car. So I suspect that Hip-Hop means something similar, probably among promiscuous people not married.
That's still very subjective. Let people listen to what they want. There's no way to qualitatively classify music, even what might be perceived as the worst.
Oh yeah? I can go to the Rap section of the music CD store, and find more Parental Advisories for bad language, in that one section, than in all other sections combined. Bill Cosby says Rap is not music. Maybe some old school Rap was, back when the lyrics were intelligible, told a story, and the song actually sounded nice. Now please don't write off, as some do, such objective measures, as being only opinion or subjective. Rap shows a huge disfunction in our culture.
That's all subjective, and not even scientific. You're appealing more to moral panics than anything. Rap correlates with violence, but nobody is sure if it causes it. I don't think it's even near as much of a factor as poverty or adverse living environments either. Not that I care, because I don't listen to rap.
Why debate what causes what? Does it technically even matter? Rap associates with crime and immorality. Even trying to discern lyrics tells you that. I'm not concerned about Pieces of a Dream "Sensual Embrace," showing naked couple on cover maybe soon to have sex. Nice soft sensual music. They're probably married and love each other? I think populous world ought to be somewhat "erotic" anyway. But get rid of ugly gang graffiti, drug paraphenalia, Rap, trash, condoms, etc.
If we don't have causation, then we don't have a reason to consider it dangerous. If it doesn't cause crime, there's no reason to treat it as criminal.
Okay, I know "causation" is important. I just don't like everybody "passing the buck," making excuses for the stupidity. We have people wasting gasoline, going to the club to get drunk and behave foolishless, because the mind deranging Rap tells them that's what ordinary people do. People listen to Rap, because their foolish peers and the club does. Monkey see monkey do? Don't you want to break the cycle? Why do we have to pass laws against pants sagging?
That's no defense for today's vile Rap. That might be a defense, for some video games. Some video games go out of their way to be immoral and shocking. But some, are apparently, as some people claim, just "escapes" from everyday reality, where driving like a maniac, and other "uncivilized" behaviors, wouldn't be fun at all, at least not for long.
While we are on the topic, what's pants sagging all about? Advertising for sex? Being rude and crude? Mocking decent society?
"Good" Catholics are against "artificial" methods of "birth control." Yeah, there's side effects. But world balks and says too much "self-control" is needed for rhythm or NFP. I also agree. That leaves age-old much-sex "no method" method, the ideal for spreading and promoting human life. I don't ask that humans use any "birth control." As cities grow/fill with people, city can also be seen as place for to welcome people to have "traditionally very large" families.
That's an issue of culture which I agree on, and obviously a big one. It's not as simple as saying that we should promote condom use, especially in areas like Africa where people complain about having "candy with the wrapper still on." That's why population control is a very difficult practical issue, though I wouldn't call it insurmountable. Many Western countries have fairly stable populations, and in some countries, the population is slowly decreasing.
I was so angered to hear of deception from recent UN pop conference, of them supposedly trying to find "culturally appropriate ways" to rampant push their shoddy contraception. What if there are no culturally appropriate ways? What if villages kindly tell family planning workers to "get lost?" Are UN propagandists saying they are content to let pop explode naturally? Why don't they admit they hate people?
LDCs still quite pronatalist, proud to have 5, 7, 9 or more children
A lot of the problem with the UN, is that it attracts insane power-mongers. It's not what it claims to be, and does little or nothing to actually serve reasonable interests of humanity.
I do not at all agree with UNFPA, UN Fund for Population Activities, as I do not at all agree that societies have any moral or practical right to "regulate" their pop size. Big Brother government can't hold everybody's hands, to make sure they don't have "too many" babies. Let nature flow.
They do a lot of goodwill and peacekeeping stuff. Granted, they're weak and don't have a standing army so it's mostly political theatre, but it's just plain ridiculous to say they're the international branch of Planned Parenthood.
Maybe some people in the UN, use the vehicle organization as a framework to go places and do good things. But the organization itself is power-hungry, unaccountable, and anti-people. If the UN was for people, then it wouldn't be much if at all interested in promoting "birth control," but rather in assisting in adapting the planet and cultures for welcoming natural rising density of people throughout more and more land. Promoting public sanitation, toilets, for huge human #s
You can't judge it for ONE stance it has. That shows nothing but tunnel vision, and doesn't help anyone. These people have families and kids. They're not out to destroy humanity. Your views sound more like a conspiracy theory.
Who are "these people?" They're not out to destroy humanity? You speaking of the UN? Or people with large families? They say where's there's smoke, there's fire, so at least some of the conspiracy theories, have to be true
But I can't stand, the smug intellectual overpop theory, that says people should average only around 2.1 children per family, "replacement" level reproduction. No, the 10th child is worth as much as the firstborn. Who's to say human race can't be denser?
I speak of the U.N. So you dismiss something that's rooted in statistics, but accept some crackpot idea about the U.N. being the moral equivalent to an abortion clinic? You really like to selectively believe things.
People can tell most any lie they want, with selectively chosen statistics. But you want to look at UN more objectively? Fine. I can do that as well. Let's compare track record, with presumably stated goals, and efficiency of return-on-investment. Quite many people hate the UN, the UN doesn't serve U.S. interests very well at all, they are a huge cesspool of moral and religious confusion, and like tossing money down the drain. The UN is full of cults and incompetents.
Religious obstacles to you. Practical obstacles, now that I see. As I said before, I never advocated that populations should go DOWN. I'm ambivalent on that particular issue. You're not just missing my point, you're overshooting it by a mile.
No, I don't see practical obstacles to letting human pops rise naturally around the world, but I do see practical obstacles to the use of "birth control." To try to impose pop control, how many ridiculous billions of condoms must China's anti-people "government" foist upon every village, for people to often reject contraceptive use regardless?
You let people have children, the we have to let those children have still more children. But we should welcome the natural flow!
The anti-family, anti-people, unnatural idea that humans must somehow more tightly regulate their fertility, meets with all sorts of religious and practical obstacles, which I would readily agree with most any of such compelling reasons for parents to go on enjoying having their children
Suggesting such a strange idea, is like suggesting shame/hiding of pregnancies. But it's so much healthier and productive, to let pregnant bellies bulge naturally and proudly!
Not all religions or spiritual philosophies hold humans to a higher level than other creatures? Perhaps some don't as readily state the specialness of humans as quickly, but it helps if they do. Regardless, quite many people can see some curious advantage to humans, for our own kind, to be benefiting from the growth of our own human numbers. Even some claimed atheists, have stated in forum discussions, that they favor the continued growth of the human race.
That's not amazing. I'd be willing to bet that most do. Humanism is a natural outgrowth from Judeo-Christian ideals, just cutting out the theology. You're viewing this issue from a very narrow scope, trying to assign values to ideologies you know next to nothing about. Calling them less because they don't necessitate growth is grossly ethnocentric.
It's an obvious natural function of the human body, to push out human babies, and since more and more people would be glad to live, society says sex is so wonderful and all, I see no practical or moral/religious objection to letting the numbers of people, and of human penises and vaginas throughout the world, to rise and proliferate naturally, within the context of responsible families and personal responsibility, but of course.
Ethnocentric is a better term. First, by saying it's natural is not equivalent to saying it's right. It's a logical fallacy. By assigning your views on sex and children to real-life issues, you constrain our options. It's even worse when you judge other ideologies by the standards of your own, though that's something that is unavoidable. It doesn't "help" if a particular culture embraces your views. You just think it does.
Most all human cultures naturally incline towards welcoming their pop growth, because it's so ingrained into our history and tradition, also works along with economic theories of growth.
Supposedly Malthus said, that somebody must die, to make room for each birth. Really? Why? Sounds far too cruel. What if human birthrates were allowed to outpace deathrates, and pops welcome to ACCUMULATE and ADAPT? Surely that would meet at least somebody's useful definition of "progress"
That they do. I'm talking about civilizations that see humans as something above other organisms. It's an idea that humans follow very similar, if not the same rules as other populations.
Once again, I'm not Malthusian, but I am not inclined to be optimistic about technological adaptations being some kind of panacea, because that's really far more of a faith statement.
World pop growth is beautiful, so much like a wondrous flower unfolding. There's underlying intelligent design, that too many secularly "educated" people, just refuse to see, because their minds are so deluded and wicked. Even in supposed "overpop" photos, I see beautiful human faces, of people who appear very much to enjoy living.
Humans are already designed possibly for extreme pop size and density. We don't need technology "breakthroughs," so much as trend 4 denser pop.
I'm not even gonna touch "intelligent design." Nor am I gonna keep telling you to stop making subjective arguments from your own personal defenition of beauty.
NO species is designed for growth without some means of innovation to artificially buoy up their numbers. To grow, there has to be a significant absence of predators and an abundance of resources. Without technology, we could never have come this far in terms of population.
I wish to get the world to more fairly consider, that humans are very much different and curious and special, amongst other creatures. That's largely why there are so incredibly many of us, and why nature seems so utterly unable or uninterested in "controlling" our naturally burgeoning billions.
Technology is largely pop-driven, not really about convenience or cleverness, but about further enlarging human power and numbers to dominate nature in favor of more human life.
No, there are a lot of us because, as I mentioned before, we're inclined to have sex and make babies. The number of any given species of ants is greater than the population of Earth. Are they any more "gifted?" I'd argue that the technology we create is more to improve human life, not to expand it and make it more prolific.
Humans are among the slowest reproducing of God's creatures. But we also have longer lifespan, and most babies born seem to now live long enough to grow up and have still more babies.
Ants? So ants are little and efficient, instinctive little armies. So what? What do ants and beehives show us, other than that human pops could similarly be vaster and denser throughout the world? Our housing complexes could be built like pop arcology beehives too, if we so choose or need.
They do that in Japan with some hotels, and it's basically a bed and a TV in a room more suited to be a closet than a habitation. It's dismal to imagine that as humanity's future. Insects are actually BETTER suited to live on Earth than humans, because they're very much ale to survive. If you really want to get into survivability though, look at some microorganisms, which can live in the harshest of environments and dwarf human population ratios easily.
And what's so wrong with "beehive" hotels in Japan? American spoiledness and culture shock? Let's see, do I want a nice spacious or traditional hotel room, 20 by 18 feet or whatever it is, at $250 a night, or "beehive" room at $15 a night? Why am I going to Japan again? That's right, hypothetical example. I would rather spend money on something more tangible than a hotel room to leave behind.
I did that in Korean hotel, cheap place-no speak English, but still enough room.
It goes along witht he "quality of life" thing that you don't seem to get. People have a need for space, and clustering them together like insects is not likely to yield positive results. It works for them, but humans have more needs than the average termite. I'd advise you to visit the subways where people have to be crammed in like sardines. It's like a nightmare. If you're talking permanent structures, that sort of thing shouldn't be an ideal. It's a warning that the density is too high.
Some enviro-wackos opine that high density is a good thing, to supposedly keep so many people, out of all the forests and wilderness. I disagree. People need to expand human habitat, to make place for our many progeny without overcrowding too much. And to keep housing affordable for the working poor
But when naturally-growing villages swell into towns and cities, space in between shrinks. We should also be modernizing towards that possible eventuality as well. We can ADAPT
@pronatalist The trade-off would be overcrowding, more susceptibility to airborne diseases and epidemics, lower amount of living space, more crime, higher and less efficient resource use due to poor city design and planning and more pollution.
Adaptation depends on time, resources and space for human beings to think as well as to live comfortably. If you have none of these then scarcity of resources will limit your options.
Anybody notice how Malthusianism, is but another wicked offshoot of atheism?
Introduce a divine Creator, who apparently designed humans to multiply exponentially, capable of helping us, creating technologies for us to discover, apparently capable of "miracles" like Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes, and the whole "educated beyond their intelligence" overpop theories start to unravel. So that's why we have such a growing global obesity pandemic? "Carrying capacity?"
Malthus was a priest, theologian, and economic theorist? So what? That doesn't mean he was qualified expert on any of those perspectives. Too many liberals stand on any soapbox society allows them, pretense of supposed credentials, just another excuse to tell lies and deceive people.
To Quandary121:
Coughing? Who cares? Why not bask in the wisdumb of the mentally retarded? Look at public image of intelligence. Old, parroting trendy pseudo-scientific theories with no proof
HUH? How the hell did you pull that out of your ass? I'm not Malthusian and never claimed that he was qualified or un-qualified. I was simply proving the point that Malthusianism is not an atheistic concept. Not to nitpick, but I'm not a liberal either.
How do you figure that Malthusian gloom-and-doom, is compatible with faith and belief in God then? God multiplied humans into the "burgeoning billions," for just no reason at all? Malthusianism is more consistant, with a worldview of rejecting faith, not accepting of faith.
Bible speaks of "doctrines of demons." Why wouldn't overpop theory, be such a "doctrine of demons?" It's very disparaging of God's masterpiece of Creation, the human race, created in the image of God.
Because Malthus was a priest. It doesn't get plainer than that.
You can say it "rejects faith" as much as you'd like, but it doesn't negate the fact that it was done by a man of considerable faith. I could imagine Christians believing in such a theory. In fact, I KNOW that one of them did.
So scientists, so-called are seemingly our modern-day "priests." To a world of non-believers. And so anybody who puts on the "white lab coat" of a "scientist," speaks the "science" lingo, and doesn't deviate substancially from the "accepted" "scientific" dogmas of the age, can be the false deceiving priests of the day?
There's so many compelling reasons for humans to have to let our pop size rise, that any caring position of "faith" must say there's ways to embrace growth.
Once again, what the hell are you talking about?! I never even mentioned scientists! You're going off on these really weird tangents, and not making any sense. Yes, population growth might be accepted by Christianity, but it is not a requirement. Maybe to you, but not necessarily to the faith. I find your defenition of "faith" as being very narrow, as well. Not all religions or spiritual philosophies hold humans to a higher level than other beings.
I have read all the Bible, so I might actually tend to perceive, when somebody is trying to "rewrite" my religion, whether it be so-called priests, scientists, earth worshipers, cults, etc.
How do you say that accepting pop growth is not a requirement of Christianity? What part of "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," do we not understand? Sounds rather like accepting that successive human generations, should naturally grow larger and larger, than the previous.
Those are blessings permitting growth, not exponential, meaningless breeding. The same blessing was given to animals in Genesis, as well, but their populations are naturally checked. The right to unbridled growth is NOT guaranteed in the Bible.
How are you going to permit growth, but not exponential? Growth in human pop size, also enlarges the number of human birth canal holes from which babies may emerge. How does that lend itself to "control?"
And how do you call people having their precious darling babies, "meaningless breeding?" Most all the breeders, would insist that their children have much meaning and value.
Humans are the only creatures for which I advocate "unbridled" growth, as we ADAPT far easier.
I never said humans DON'T grow. Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. What I said is that a population explosion is not justified BIBLICALLY, because the blessings given do not seem to NECESSITATE a great deal of growth.
Don't you understand? Human pop size is inherently "unstable." Human pops tend to rise dramatically, naturally, or creep up to larger size over time. Of course I am for pop growth, to welcome people's darling precious babies. But let China creep upwards to 2 billion people, and next thing you know, it's pushing 3 and 4 billion.
I don't believe in imposing some "curb" upon spread of human life. Let human pops "explode" in size naturally. More people to enjoy life,pop heaven
I am aware that human populations are inclined toward growth. So are all populations, unless there is a predatory agent to check growth. Humans don't have any significant predators. Do you even know the situation in China? It's jam packed with people, and that sort of thing DIMINISHES quality of life.
But didn't you suggest welcoming further human pop growth, somewhat? Somebody in another forum, claimed pop growth is like a "fire." I corrected and said a "creation fire," as there musts been be emphasis upon the creation, not destruction aspect. Would you suggest to let a forest fire grow "somewhat" bigger, to more easily control it later? Yes, if "control" is not likely to be needed anyway
Why can't China be "packed" with people, and their children still welcomed/loved?
Because areas packed with people are typically less safe, less sanitary, and less able to be satisfied in an economic sense. Calling that an ideal is like calling a clown car comfortable.
When I add up the powerful reproductive primal urges that most all humans continually feel, plus so many compelling reasons why parent have as many children as they do, I get a global goal and natural desire, to ENLARGE the entire human race, for the greater good of the many.
How can people go on enjoying having their babies, in a world with so many people already? There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Pop denser.
Don't you think I know that? I know that people like to FUCK, and that most all people do naturally fuck, and most people want or end up having babies. People also like to eat and sleep and breathe. It's a natural process of life.
They say what populates the planet, is extremely pleasurable. Do you think I am some party pooper? I want for more of the world to be sexually active. Sex=babies. Natural process. Just be personally responsible, form stable families, love kids.
I don't think you understood, not when you suggested that humans only keep having babies because they have a desire to crowd the earth. People reproduce because it's fun, otherwise it wouldn't be nearly as important.
Sex isn't only fun, but many people won't use contraceptives, because they want children and want to get pregnant. Everybody try to understand why pop grows and grows.
I am very concerned to read of vilages in Africa becoming small towns, people having often as many children as they can, proud to bring forth human life. I read that growth is often haphazard and poorly planned. Why? I think because of the "magic condom." Detracts from otherwise planning to welcome growth.
WHAT?! Condoms INCREASE POPULATION?! Okay, I think that's the line for me. I can argue with irrationality, but downright lunacy is a tough nut to crack.
Where do you get that condoms increase pop? Most all contraceptives have "failure" rates, but the ideal "no method" supposedly, has the highest track record for "failure" to prevent pregnancy. Abstinence is highly effective, but apparently the "wishful thinking" method, isn't. Although prayer and "let nature takes its course," works quite well for stable families not too afraid of possible babies.
But I do consider shoddy condoms same category as awful drug paraphenalia.
Oh, my God, Malthus is such a plagiarist. A plagiarist of a raving Venetian oligarch! There is no such thing as carrying capacity. Ugh, oh, and Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham. These people make me want to vomit in disgust and loathing. We are actually teaching classes on how we should limit human population. That sounds about as progressive as the Dark Ages?
Well, whatever he is, I have to teach seniors at Rock Island High School what he said tomorrow, so I am very grateful to whoever authored this clip, because before now I knew very little about the finer points of what he argued. Also, though he was proven wrong in hindsight by our advancements in technology, in retrospect his theory did fit the evidence available at the time.
The Malthusian theory is an in-between between Communism and Nazism, which either society can look at and realize, only difference is Nazism and hate groups are a direct result of overpopulation, thus Nazism is like a natural plague to limit overpopulation, much like fungus growing off a tree.
Malthus wants you to believe that man is an animal with no self-control, conscious, or cognition; and that his plagiarized, brute, and Cartesian reductionist ramblings on man should be the centerpiece of international policy.
Certain countries are now to limit their growth through genocidal austerity because they have been denied the ability to develop. What a charlatan he was.
And, Malthus, the mouthpiece of the British oligarchy, a genocidalist, and a plagiarist par excellence.
The whole notion of "carrying capacity" was invented, not by Malthus, but as an epistemological weapon of the dying Venetian Republic. It is based on the ravings of Giammaria Ortes in his 1790 Reflections on the Population of Nations in Relation to National Economy.
-individual cost/benefit decisions regarding sex, work, and children determine the expansion or contraction of population and production
-checks will come into operation as population exceeds subsistence-level
-the nature of these checks will have significant effect on the rest of the sociocultural system — Malthus points specifically to misery, vice, and poverty
-when the means of subsistence increases, population increases
-population-pressures stimulate increases in productivity
-increases in productivity stimulate further population-growth
-since this productivity can not keep up with the potential of population growth for long, population requires strong checks to keep it in line with carrying-capacity (urk! means war etc)
This has been flagged as spam show
According to the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), 77 out of 130 countries that have been studied can be classified as “overpopulated" - most in Europe and Asia. The best ways to solve the population problem are through epidemic disease, war and engineered famine.
WarmongerWW3 2 months ago
Comment removed
WarmongerWW3 2 months ago
What Malthus could not predict is the convergence greater overall wealth generated by industrial societies, advancements in agriculture, women's rights, and birth control leading to negative reproduction rates WITHOUT coercive population reduction policies.
The population explosion is happening in the "Third World". The solution is bring the third world up to the same level of modernity as Europe, N. America, Australia, and Japan.
lexilicious74 1 year ago
@lexilicious74 The population density in Europe (134 people per square mile) is TWICE bigger and more disgusting than in Africa (65 people per square mile). Europeans also need to be sterilized and exterminated.
WarmongerWW3 2 months ago
Any one here with a modicum of math-savvy? The state of Texas can hold EVERY living human with 31 square feet per person, leaving the ENTIRE rest of Planet Earth to produce supporting goods, and maintain all the rest of Earth's inhabitants. Only drooling fools accept the over-population deceptions of the de-populating Elitists, who demand ever-growing control over Earth, and the remaining human population. Get your facts from reliable points of reference!
claudius2u 1 year ago
@claudius2u -
er, so lets all move to texas and see how it pans out..
its about resources not land!
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz
IT IS All about resources. That's the point, for slow mental patients, for showing how LITTLE resources Humanity requires for health and industry, to locate humanity to Texas, and thereby illustrate the vast resources to support such a small contingency of users. Remember, the social engineers that bring you reports of overpopulation also are determined to hog all earth as their private property. Believe their lies at your own peril, for your life means nothing to them.
claudius2u 1 year ago
@claudius2u
>>"social engineers ..determined to hog all earth as their private property"
>>"how LITTLE resources Humanity requires for health and industry, to locate humanity to Texas, "
... surely if Texas could support so many, the people who 'own' it would already have populated it with their own offspring ?
are you really sure this is possible?
walter0bz 1 year ago
@walter0bz
You know, I tried to leave a comment on your YouTube page, but it was blocked - what gives?
Absolutely I am Certain that the earth has all necessary potential to sustain health and quality of living for many times present population, because, ALL media propaganda opposing this fact is filled with half-truth deceptions and ALL present famines are politically motivated by World Banker-controlled leaders.
The YouTube CEO is also involved with these tyrants.
claudius2u 1 year ago
@walter0bz
I captured the 12 parts of the video series you feature; "How The End Began." It is interesting, but you would do better with a careful study of "The True Story of the Bilderberger Group," with clear documentation about the reasons behind world population reduction plans now well underway, including forced population reduction of U.S. citizens, by trash diets, death-medicines, and banning all healthful home gardening, now, today, in Congress.
Just don't believe their lies.
claudius2u 1 year ago
@claudius2u
Spot on Claudius! Those Malthusian social engineers want it all for themselves.
n8tureboy 1 year ago
@claudius2u
Drooling fools is correct, what else could you call them? Pathetic, brainwashed imbeciles are being led by the power-elite pied pipers happily to their own destruction. It's quite sad really but it's true.
n8tureboy 1 year ago
Henry George's "Progress and Poverty" explained the limitations of Malthus and how unscientific he was. Many intellectuals 100 years ago understood this
paulagloria 1 year ago
cough cough
Doidgeee 2 years ago
Was there a deliberate plot amongst the students to subvert this lecture by coughing as much as possible?
ultramagellan 2 years ago
@ultramagellan i hear ya. as a videographer myself in an academic setting I can only tell you that it takes a while for non-video people to realise that you simply must MIC THE PERSON SPEAKING with a lavalier mic. you cannot, CANNOT rely on any kind of microphone that's on the camera itself. otherwise...well you get the audio problems that are a pain in the ass as experienced in this vid.
MrAnthromajor 2 years ago
Bacterial "Staff Germs" in the condos and buildings of our cities will almost distroy the human race in about 60 years form now. Mark my words.
ThomasDeLello 2 years ago
To AmericanApostate (wrap-up):
You claim technology is more for selfish comfort of people already alive, or for improving human life. That's merely the byproduct. Come on, what happens when people are more secure and comfortable? If I think I have a great secure future, why have just 2 children? Why not 5 or 6 children like in other more pronatalist countries? And maybe my neighbor likes to have 3 or 4 children as well?
Conspiracy theory: Income tax developed, lest people get rich and breed.
pronatalist 3 years ago
Actually, it IS to make people more comfortable. Typically, countries with higher standards of living have a lower than average number of children per household. Nor are higher numbers of children typical to more "kind" cultures. It could reflect anything from a need for more children to sustain farms or boost household income, to a denigration of women to the role of sexual objects.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Please do not confuse "quality of life," with "sanctity of life." Because each and every human life is sacred, we should always welcome people to become pregnant, be visibly pregnant in public places, say like college or highschool classrooms, especially when students are obviously old enough to be possibly married, and even to breastfeed in public as is common in the developing countries.
I agree with LDC's criticism of America somewhat, for thinking breasts to be sexual.
pronatalist 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate (wrap-up):
I understand pronatalist culture, for I am very pro-life. Pro-life position doesn't say we need to unnaturally "limit" the quantity of human life upon the planet.
I like your saying about "candy with the wrapper still on." Hadn't heard that one. Even nature tells us that's wrong or strange. Sex is obviously a procreative act, supposed to be loving, not selfish. So let the sperm have its natural chance to find the egg.
Google "Contraception Why Not Janet Smith"
pronatalist 3 years ago
The irony in this is that as I type, I'm listening to a band called Dying Fetus.
There's the whole idea that sex is meant exclusively for procreation, or that human life is necessarily sanctified. I don't submit to either belief, because that's not what happens, and I certainly don't think it's divinely mandated. Your perspective is, once again, touching on the "it's natural, so it's right" argument, which, as I said before, is sketchy and unreliable.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
I am not familiar with band "Dying Fetus," but the name sounds sick. I am very disappointed with much of "modern" so-called music. Music is largely about feelings and emotions, so I don't mind music that tends to be perhaps a bit erotic or to have a primal sexual relations beat. I don't mind music dealing with sex sometimes, especially in a more moral or pleasant way. But so much "music" isn't even musical anymore
Pregnancy is natural outlet for powerful reproductive urges
pronatalist 3 years ago
Dying Fetus certainly isn't! Then again, I'm more of a fan of more melodic metal (DF is very brutal death metal). I wouldn't judge all music based on that standard, though. Different peopel derive different feelings from different genres.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
So much of what passes for music, shows that people's minds are increasingly deranged and deluded, or they would quickly turn off the unpleasant, unmusical noise. I'm not commenting necessarily upon your band, as what do I know of it, other than the name? I like some Rock 'N Roll, but the term comes from what people do in the back seat of a car. So I suspect that Hip-Hop means something similar, probably among promiscuous people not married.
Pearl Jam is reproductive fluid
pronatalist 3 years ago
That's still very subjective. Let people listen to what they want. There's no way to qualitatively classify music, even what might be perceived as the worst.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Oh yeah? I can go to the Rap section of the music CD store, and find more Parental Advisories for bad language, in that one section, than in all other sections combined. Bill Cosby says Rap is not music. Maybe some old school Rap was, back when the lyrics were intelligible, told a story, and the song actually sounded nice. Now please don't write off, as some do, such objective measures, as being only opinion or subjective. Rap shows a huge disfunction in our culture.
pronatalist 3 years ago
That's all subjective, and not even scientific. You're appealing more to moral panics than anything. Rap correlates with violence, but nobody is sure if it causes it. I don't think it's even near as much of a factor as poverty or adverse living environments either. Not that I care, because I don't listen to rap.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Why debate what causes what? Does it technically even matter? Rap associates with crime and immorality. Even trying to discern lyrics tells you that. I'm not concerned about Pieces of a Dream "Sensual Embrace," showing naked couple on cover maybe soon to have sex. Nice soft sensual music. They're probably married and love each other? I think populous world ought to be somewhat "erotic" anyway. But get rid of ugly gang graffiti, drug paraphenalia, Rap, trash, condoms, etc.
pronatalist 3 years ago
If we don't have causation, then we don't have a reason to consider it dangerous. If it doesn't cause crime, there's no reason to treat it as criminal.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Okay, I know "causation" is important. I just don't like everybody "passing the buck," making excuses for the stupidity. We have people wasting gasoline, going to the club to get drunk and behave foolishless, because the mind deranging Rap tells them that's what ordinary people do. People listen to Rap, because their foolish peers and the club does. Monkey see monkey do? Don't you want to break the cycle? Why do we have to pass laws against pants sagging?
Read our Bibles.
pronatalist 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
That's no defense for today's vile Rap. That might be a defense, for some video games. Some video games go out of their way to be immoral and shocking. But some, are apparently, as some people claim, just "escapes" from everyday reality, where driving like a maniac, and other "uncivilized" behaviors, wouldn't be fun at all, at least not for long.
While we are on the topic, what's pants sagging all about? Advertising for sex? Being rude and crude? Mocking decent society?
pronatalist 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate (wrap-up):
"Good" Catholics are against "artificial" methods of "birth control." Yeah, there's side effects. But world balks and says too much "self-control" is needed for rhythm or NFP. I also agree. That leaves age-old much-sex "no method" method, the ideal for spreading and promoting human life. I don't ask that humans use any "birth control." As cities grow/fill with people, city can also be seen as place for to welcome people to have "traditionally very large" families.
pronatalist 3 years ago
That's an issue of culture which I agree on, and obviously a big one. It's not as simple as saying that we should promote condom use, especially in areas like Africa where people complain about having "candy with the wrapper still on." That's why population control is a very difficult practical issue, though I wouldn't call it insurmountable. Many Western countries have fairly stable populations, and in some countries, the population is slowly decreasing.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
I was so angered to hear of deception from recent UN pop conference, of them supposedly trying to find "culturally appropriate ways" to rampant push their shoddy contraception. What if there are no culturally appropriate ways? What if villages kindly tell family planning workers to "get lost?" Are UN propagandists saying they are content to let pop explode naturally? Why don't they admit they hate people?
LDCs still quite pronatalist, proud to have 5, 7, 9 or more children
pronatalist 3 years ago
I don't think I've ever heard anyone call the U.N. misanthropic. I can't think of a good word to describe that statement, so I'll settle on "insane."
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
A lot of the problem with the UN, is that it attracts insane power-mongers. It's not what it claims to be, and does little or nothing to actually serve reasonable interests of humanity.
I do not at all agree with UNFPA, UN Fund for Population Activities, as I do not at all agree that societies have any moral or practical right to "regulate" their pop size. Big Brother government can't hold everybody's hands, to make sure they don't have "too many" babies. Let nature flow.
pronatalist 3 years ago
They do a lot of goodwill and peacekeeping stuff. Granted, they're weak and don't have a standing army so it's mostly political theatre, but it's just plain ridiculous to say they're the international branch of Planned Parenthood.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Maybe some people in the UN, use the vehicle organization as a framework to go places and do good things. But the organization itself is power-hungry, unaccountable, and anti-people. If the UN was for people, then it wouldn't be much if at all interested in promoting "birth control," but rather in assisting in adapting the planet and cultures for welcoming natural rising density of people throughout more and more land. Promoting public sanitation, toilets, for huge human #s
pronatalist 3 years ago
You can't judge it for ONE stance it has. That shows nothing but tunnel vision, and doesn't help anyone. These people have families and kids. They're not out to destroy humanity. Your views sound more like a conspiracy theory.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Who are "these people?" They're not out to destroy humanity? You speaking of the UN? Or people with large families? They say where's there's smoke, there's fire, so at least some of the conspiracy theories, have to be true
But I can't stand, the smug intellectual overpop theory, that says people should average only around 2.1 children per family, "replacement" level reproduction. No, the 10th child is worth as much as the firstborn. Who's to say human race can't be denser?
pronatalist 3 years ago
I speak of the U.N. So you dismiss something that's rooted in statistics, but accept some crackpot idea about the U.N. being the moral equivalent to an abortion clinic? You really like to selectively believe things.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
People can tell most any lie they want, with selectively chosen statistics. But you want to look at UN more objectively? Fine. I can do that as well. Let's compare track record, with presumably stated goals, and efficiency of return-on-investment. Quite many people hate the UN, the UN doesn't serve U.S. interests very well at all, they are a huge cesspool of moral and religious confusion, and like tossing money down the drain. The UN is full of cults and incompetents.
pronatalist 3 years ago
Religious obstacles to you. Practical obstacles, now that I see. As I said before, I never advocated that populations should go DOWN. I'm ambivalent on that particular issue. You're not just missing my point, you're overshooting it by a mile.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
No, I don't see practical obstacles to letting human pops rise naturally around the world, but I do see practical obstacles to the use of "birth control." To try to impose pop control, how many ridiculous billions of condoms must China's anti-people "government" foist upon every village, for people to often reject contraceptive use regardless?
You let people have children, the we have to let those children have still more children. But we should welcome the natural flow!
pronatalist 3 years ago
To American Apostate (continued):
The anti-family, anti-people, unnatural idea that humans must somehow more tightly regulate their fertility, meets with all sorts of religious and practical obstacles, which I would readily agree with most any of such compelling reasons for parents to go on enjoying having their children
Suggesting such a strange idea, is like suggesting shame/hiding of pregnancies. But it's so much healthier and productive, to let pregnant bellies bulge naturally and proudly!
pronatalist 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate (continued):
Not all religions or spiritual philosophies hold humans to a higher level than other creatures? Perhaps some don't as readily state the specialness of humans as quickly, but it helps if they do. Regardless, quite many people can see some curious advantage to humans, for our own kind, to be benefiting from the growth of our own human numbers. Even some claimed atheists, have stated in forum discussions, that they favor the continued growth of the human race.
pronatalist 3 years ago
That's not amazing. I'd be willing to bet that most do. Humanism is a natural outgrowth from Judeo-Christian ideals, just cutting out the theology. You're viewing this issue from a very narrow scope, trying to assign values to ideologies you know next to nothing about. Calling them less because they don't necessitate growth is grossly ethnocentric.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
It's an obvious natural function of the human body, to push out human babies, and since more and more people would be glad to live, society says sex is so wonderful and all, I see no practical or moral/religious objection to letting the numbers of people, and of human penises and vaginas throughout the world, to rise and proliferate naturally, within the context of responsible families and personal responsibility, but of course.
Do you accuse me of being athropomorphic?
pronatalist 3 years ago
Ethnocentric is a better term. First, by saying it's natural is not equivalent to saying it's right. It's a logical fallacy. By assigning your views on sex and children to real-life issues, you constrain our options. It's even worse when you judge other ideologies by the standards of your own, though that's something that is unavoidable. It doesn't "help" if a particular culture embraces your views. You just think it does.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Most all human cultures naturally incline towards welcoming their pop growth, because it's so ingrained into our history and tradition, also works along with economic theories of growth.
Supposedly Malthus said, that somebody must die, to make room for each birth. Really? Why? Sounds far too cruel. What if human birthrates were allowed to outpace deathrates, and pops welcome to ACCUMULATE and ADAPT? Surely that would meet at least somebody's useful definition of "progress"
pronatalist 3 years ago
That they do. I'm talking about civilizations that see humans as something above other organisms. It's an idea that humans follow very similar, if not the same rules as other populations.
Once again, I'm not Malthusian, but I am not inclined to be optimistic about technological adaptations being some kind of panacea, because that's really far more of a faith statement.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
World pop growth is beautiful, so much like a wondrous flower unfolding. There's underlying intelligent design, that too many secularly "educated" people, just refuse to see, because their minds are so deluded and wicked. Even in supposed "overpop" photos, I see beautiful human faces, of people who appear very much to enjoy living.
Humans are already designed possibly for extreme pop size and density. We don't need technology "breakthroughs," so much as trend 4 denser pop.
pronatalist 3 years ago
I'm not even gonna touch "intelligent design." Nor am I gonna keep telling you to stop making subjective arguments from your own personal defenition of beauty.
NO species is designed for growth without some means of innovation to artificially buoy up their numbers. To grow, there has to be a significant absence of predators and an abundance of resources. Without technology, we could never have come this far in terms of population.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
I wish to get the world to more fairly consider, that humans are very much different and curious and special, amongst other creatures. That's largely why there are so incredibly many of us, and why nature seems so utterly unable or uninterested in "controlling" our naturally burgeoning billions.
Technology is largely pop-driven, not really about convenience or cleverness, but about further enlarging human power and numbers to dominate nature in favor of more human life.
pronatalist 3 years ago
No, there are a lot of us because, as I mentioned before, we're inclined to have sex and make babies. The number of any given species of ants is greater than the population of Earth. Are they any more "gifted?" I'd argue that the technology we create is more to improve human life, not to expand it and make it more prolific.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Humans are among the slowest reproducing of God's creatures. But we also have longer lifespan, and most babies born seem to now live long enough to grow up and have still more babies.
Ants? So ants are little and efficient, instinctive little armies. So what? What do ants and beehives show us, other than that human pops could similarly be vaster and denser throughout the world? Our housing complexes could be built like pop arcology beehives too, if we so choose or need.
pronatalist 3 years ago
They do that in Japan with some hotels, and it's basically a bed and a TV in a room more suited to be a closet than a habitation. It's dismal to imagine that as humanity's future. Insects are actually BETTER suited to live on Earth than humans, because they're very much ale to survive. If you really want to get into survivability though, look at some microorganisms, which can live in the harshest of environments and dwarf human population ratios easily.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
And what's so wrong with "beehive" hotels in Japan? American spoiledness and culture shock? Let's see, do I want a nice spacious or traditional hotel room, 20 by 18 feet or whatever it is, at $250 a night, or "beehive" room at $15 a night? Why am I going to Japan again? That's right, hypothetical example. I would rather spend money on something more tangible than a hotel room to leave behind.
I did that in Korean hotel, cheap place-no speak English, but still enough room.
pronatalist 3 years ago
It goes along witht he "quality of life" thing that you don't seem to get. People have a need for space, and clustering them together like insects is not likely to yield positive results. It works for them, but humans have more needs than the average termite. I'd advise you to visit the subways where people have to be crammed in like sardines. It's like a nightmare. If you're talking permanent structures, that sort of thing shouldn't be an ideal. It's a warning that the density is too high.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago 4
To AmericanApostate:
Some enviro-wackos opine that high density is a good thing, to supposedly keep so many people, out of all the forests and wilderness. I disagree. People need to expand human habitat, to make place for our many progeny without overcrowding too much. And to keep housing affordable for the working poor
But when naturally-growing villages swell into towns and cities, space in between shrinks. We should also be modernizing towards that possible eventuality as well. We can ADAPT
pronatalist 3 years ago 4
@pronatalist The trade-off would be overcrowding, more susceptibility to airborne diseases and epidemics, lower amount of living space, more crime, higher and less efficient resource use due to poor city design and planning and more pollution.
Adaptation depends on time, resources and space for human beings to think as well as to live comfortably. If you have none of these then scarcity of resources will limit your options.
technatezin 1 year ago
This would not be so bad if the guy talking could be heard above the dam coughing..!!! fuk sake go get a drink or something.....
Quandary121 3 years ago
Anybody notice how Malthusianism, is but another wicked offshoot of atheism?
Introduce a divine Creator, who apparently designed humans to multiply exponentially, capable of helping us, creating technologies for us to discover, apparently capable of "miracles" like Jesus multiplying the loaves and fishes, and the whole "educated beyond their intelligence" overpop theories start to unravel. So that's why we have such a growing global obesity pandemic? "Carrying capacity?"
Why do we oppose God?
pronatalist 3 years ago
I noticed how you don't seem to know history too well. Malthus was an Anglican priest and a theologian, as well as an economic theorist.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Malthus was a priest, theologian, and economic theorist? So what? That doesn't mean he was qualified expert on any of those perspectives. Too many liberals stand on any soapbox society allows them, pretense of supposed credentials, just another excuse to tell lies and deceive people.
To Quandary121:
Coughing? Who cares? Why not bask in the wisdumb of the mentally retarded? Look at public image of intelligence. Old, parroting trendy pseudo-scientific theories with no proof
pronatalist 3 years ago
HUH? How the hell did you pull that out of your ass? I'm not Malthusian and never claimed that he was qualified or un-qualified. I was simply proving the point that Malthusianism is not an atheistic concept. Not to nitpick, but I'm not a liberal either.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
How do you figure that Malthusian gloom-and-doom, is compatible with faith and belief in God then? God multiplied humans into the "burgeoning billions," for just no reason at all? Malthusianism is more consistant, with a worldview of rejecting faith, not accepting of faith.
Bible speaks of "doctrines of demons." Why wouldn't overpop theory, be such a "doctrine of demons?" It's very disparaging of God's masterpiece of Creation, the human race, created in the image of God.
pronatalist 3 years ago
Because Malthus was a priest. It doesn't get plainer than that.
You can say it "rejects faith" as much as you'd like, but it doesn't negate the fact that it was done by a man of considerable faith. I could imagine Christians believing in such a theory. In fact, I KNOW that one of them did.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
So scientists, so-called are seemingly our modern-day "priests." To a world of non-believers. And so anybody who puts on the "white lab coat" of a "scientist," speaks the "science" lingo, and doesn't deviate substancially from the "accepted" "scientific" dogmas of the age, can be the false deceiving priests of the day?
There's so many compelling reasons for humans to have to let our pop size rise, that any caring position of "faith" must say there's ways to embrace growth.
pronatalist 3 years ago
Once again, what the hell are you talking about?! I never even mentioned scientists! You're going off on these really weird tangents, and not making any sense. Yes, population growth might be accepted by Christianity, but it is not a requirement. Maybe to you, but not necessarily to the faith. I find your defenition of "faith" as being very narrow, as well. Not all religions or spiritual philosophies hold humans to a higher level than other beings.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
I have read all the Bible, so I might actually tend to perceive, when somebody is trying to "rewrite" my religion, whether it be so-called priests, scientists, earth worshipers, cults, etc.
How do you say that accepting pop growth is not a requirement of Christianity? What part of "be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth," do we not understand? Sounds rather like accepting that successive human generations, should naturally grow larger and larger, than the previous.
pronatalist 3 years ago
Those are blessings permitting growth, not exponential, meaningless breeding. The same blessing was given to animals in Genesis, as well, but their populations are naturally checked. The right to unbridled growth is NOT guaranteed in the Bible.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
How are you going to permit growth, but not exponential? Growth in human pop size, also enlarges the number of human birth canal holes from which babies may emerge. How does that lend itself to "control?"
And how do you call people having their precious darling babies, "meaningless breeding?" Most all the breeders, would insist that their children have much meaning and value.
Humans are the only creatures for which I advocate "unbridled" growth, as we ADAPT far easier.
pronatalist 3 years ago
I never said humans DON'T grow. Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. What I said is that a population explosion is not justified BIBLICALLY, because the blessings given do not seem to NECESSITATE a great deal of growth.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Don't you understand? Human pop size is inherently "unstable." Human pops tend to rise dramatically, naturally, or creep up to larger size over time. Of course I am for pop growth, to welcome people's darling precious babies. But let China creep upwards to 2 billion people, and next thing you know, it's pushing 3 and 4 billion.
I don't believe in imposing some "curb" upon spread of human life. Let human pops "explode" in size naturally. More people to enjoy life,pop heaven
pronatalist 3 years ago
I am aware that human populations are inclined toward growth. So are all populations, unless there is a predatory agent to check growth. Humans don't have any significant predators. Do you even know the situation in China? It's jam packed with people, and that sort of thing DIMINISHES quality of life.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
But didn't you suggest welcoming further human pop growth, somewhat? Somebody in another forum, claimed pop growth is like a "fire." I corrected and said a "creation fire," as there musts been be emphasis upon the creation, not destruction aspect. Would you suggest to let a forest fire grow "somewhat" bigger, to more easily control it later? Yes, if "control" is not likely to be needed anyway
Why can't China be "packed" with people, and their children still welcomed/loved?
pronatalist 3 years ago
Because areas packed with people are typically less safe, less sanitary, and less able to be satisfied in an economic sense. Calling that an ideal is like calling a clown car comfortable.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
When I add up the powerful reproductive primal urges that most all humans continually feel, plus so many compelling reasons why parent have as many children as they do, I get a global goal and natural desire, to ENLARGE the entire human race, for the greater good of the many.
How can people go on enjoying having their babies, in a world with so many people already? There can come to be more places with lots of people and fewer places far from lots of people. Pop denser.
pronatalist 3 years ago
BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKE TO FUCK!!!!!!
How is something like THAT lost to you?! People like to kill each other too, but it doesn't mean that it's something to be preferred and advocated.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Don't you think I know that? I know that people like to FUCK, and that most all people do naturally fuck, and most people want or end up having babies. People also like to eat and sleep and breathe. It's a natural process of life.
They say what populates the planet, is extremely pleasurable. Do you think I am some party pooper? I want for more of the world to be sexually active. Sex=babies. Natural process. Just be personally responsible, form stable families, love kids.
pronatalist 3 years ago
I don't think you understood, not when you suggested that humans only keep having babies because they have a desire to crowd the earth. People reproduce because it's fun, otherwise it wouldn't be nearly as important.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Sex isn't only fun, but many people won't use contraceptives, because they want children and want to get pregnant. Everybody try to understand why pop grows and grows.
I am very concerned to read of vilages in Africa becoming small towns, people having often as many children as they can, proud to bring forth human life. I read that growth is often haphazard and poorly planned. Why? I think because of the "magic condom." Detracts from otherwise planning to welcome growth.
pronatalist 3 years ago
WHAT?! Condoms INCREASE POPULATION?! Okay, I think that's the line for me. I can argue with irrationality, but downright lunacy is a tough nut to crack.
AmericanApostate 3 years ago
To AmericanApostate:
Where do you get that condoms increase pop? Most all contraceptives have "failure" rates, but the ideal "no method" supposedly, has the highest track record for "failure" to prevent pregnancy. Abstinence is highly effective, but apparently the "wishful thinking" method, isn't. Although prayer and "let nature takes its course," works quite well for stable families not too afraid of possible babies.
But I do consider shoddy condoms same category as awful drug paraphenalia.
pronatalist 3 years ago
Oh, my God, Malthus is such a plagiarist. A plagiarist of a raving Venetian oligarch! There is no such thing as carrying capacity. Ugh, oh, and Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham. These people make me want to vomit in disgust and loathing. We are actually teaching classes on how we should limit human population. That sounds about as progressive as the Dark Ages?
ludachris475 4 years ago
Well, whatever he is, I have to teach seniors at Rock Island High School what he said tomorrow, so I am very grateful to whoever authored this clip, because before now I knew very little about the finer points of what he argued. Also, though he was proven wrong in hindsight by our advancements in technology, in retrospect his theory did fit the evidence available at the time.
elnino103083 4 years ago
The Malthusian theory is an in-between between Communism and Nazism, which either society can look at and realize, only difference is Nazism and hate groups are a direct result of overpopulation, thus Nazism is like a natural plague to limit overpopulation, much like fungus growing off a tree.
XionXXXX 4 years ago
Malthus' thesis is so bestial.
Malthus wants you to believe that man is an animal with no self-control, conscious, or cognition; and that his plagiarized, brute, and Cartesian reductionist ramblings on man should be the centerpiece of international policy.
Certain countries are now to limit their growth through genocidal austerity because they have been denied the ability to develop. What a charlatan he was.
ludachris475 4 years ago
let me guess you're a fan of tarpley?
gosciu555 4 years ago
A yes, the Dismal Science.
And, Malthus, the mouthpiece of the British oligarchy, a genocidalist, and a plagiarist par excellence.
The whole notion of "carrying capacity" was invented, not by Malthus, but as an epistemological weapon of the dying Venetian Republic. It is based on the ravings of Giammaria Ortes in his 1790 Reflections on the Population of Nations in Relation to National Economy.
ludachris475 4 years ago
...cont
-individual cost/benefit decisions regarding sex, work, and children determine the expansion or contraction of population and production
-checks will come into operation as population exceeds subsistence-level
-the nature of these checks will have significant effect on the rest of the sociocultural system — Malthus points specifically to misery, vice, and poverty
trunkeight 4 years ago
thanks for posting this!
Mini Macro on Malthusianism:
-subsistence severely limits population-level
-when the means of subsistence increases, population increases
-population-pressures stimulate increases in productivity
-increases in productivity stimulate further population-growth
-since this productivity can not keep up with the potential of population growth for long, population requires strong checks to keep it in line with carrying-capacity (urk! means war etc)
trunkeight 4 years ago
Superb video
PeterSodhi 5 years ago