africa could provide all th food needs of the world ? what if you destroyed the majority of the natural environment and replaced it with farming ? that sounds ecological ? just like brazil has cut vast swathes of natural rainforest to farm food ?
do you think singapore can get happily more populated ? than it is ? a borderless world with no separate cultures has the greatest potential for totalitarianism on a scale as yet unimagined in human history, growth in food productivity per area of land mess, has been acheived most often through poisoning the food chain and environment to acheive those increases ? pesticides herbicides, ie a greater toxic or untested biochemical or genetically altered load on people.
your videos do not take into account peoples tangible life experiences ? when western population decline and do not have enough children its not because people dont want children or larger familys its because they are priced out of access to the resources to have them, and raise them at the standard even their parents could afford ? this is not natural population balancing ?
You are an absolute TWAT.Don't you know that theres 7 BILLION people on this planet NOW. DICKHEAD, do YOUR maths and get your figures right and come back with something worth watching. Its a pity your dad dumped his load in your mother...
So what's your point? 7 billion seems like "a lot," until one also considered how huge the planet is also.
Although the video might be a tad boring, because it doesn't have the alarmism gloom-and-doom Malthusian poverty religion nonsense of so many stupid "overpop" videos, you don't have to insult the effort to get out the truth, shown in videos such as these.
Nor would I insult somebody's parents for not using unnatural "birth control." Sperm belongs in vagina
King James, the one who was responsible for ordering the KJV Bible translation, was a black man and had 9 children.
Why do you try to make it sound crude, that people's Dads dump their loads in their Mothers? That's what people in love, married, do all the time. That's what the reproductive organs are for. For REPRODUCTION. I believe sex was designed to be natural, without any form of "birth control." Not so much for people's selfish jollies, but to spread LIFE.
Interesting video but this is actually false... this scenario is only happening in some society's, not enough to make an impact on the rest of the world
The producers of this video aren't so much concerned with a stable population as they are concerned with having more followers being born for their church. Same sad old story for thousands of years......
you're not thinking about how we treat our resources or how we take care of our planet. remember, all these childeren need to be fed,clothed and housed. the choices we are making right now, this might not happen. its not the population, its how we take care of it.
Assets - Liabilities = equity... Your video is PROPAGANDIST and unrealistic. Try to have a government of 10000 employees that manages 5 workers... you will see how much they will suddenly care for the life of their workers... carelessness = plenty - waste... "To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction." - Isaac Newton
1:43 It says Irelands birth rate is 1.85 ( Yea right ) The CIA fact book says its : "2.20 children born/woman (2011 est.)" This does not even take into consideration other countries overpopulation the world ffs. Afghanistan : 5.39 Angola:5.97 Belize : 3.21 Congo:5.68 Ethiopia:6.02 Ghana:3.48 Then these people emigrate to Europe! Bunch of half-truths and lies. Look at the lowest stats on the map and act like there the problem countries hrr drr american "Facts" at their purest.
@BanColm in America we would have a birth rate of 1.8 or so had it not been for immigration America would be depopulating. that in a way should make the haters of humanity happy seeing entire cultures die. instead look at the immigration rate for Ireland. besides the CIA has two sets of books one for public consumption the other for their own use and is closer to the truth. don't trust the CIA they make a tradition out of lies
@vinbuik antimatter bombs? you do know the air force stated they are looking into this type of weapon and if they are just now saying they are looking into something you can count on them already having them in secret. take the new gamma ray bomb it dose not leave fallout and can be used to kill what the government deems as undesirables.
- The video also goes on to say that people are barely replacing themselves in some parts of the world. But have you dug deeper to understand why that is so? Could it be that they themselves have concerns about quality of life and the planet's wellbeing? Could it be that they have a different perspective and opinion on the subject and that they don't think overpopulation is a myth?
@secampbell99 the thing is without replacement a culture dies and is replaced with one that dose not have your values, one that has babies, one that may enjoy the tender mercies of sharia law, one that dose not place the same value on the well being of the planet. in Germany that culture is now dead they just don't know it yet, the government sure know they killed their country, but the German people do not.
- You seem to say that since people are getting older, that more people would be needed to support them. But, given mathematics (more and more people can't be a sustainable solution), doesn't this just continue the problem? China's policies might not be ideal, but allowing the population to grow without any thought whatsoever would produce its own set of problems, no?
"sustainability is just another word for death, slavery and oppression" & "in Germany that culture is now dead they just don't know it yet".
Tell you what, mechanicalbu11, instead of getting into a long debate about how impoverished your perspective of the world is, please focus on this - do not have children if you can't afford them. What your outlook is during that process (whether it's a doomsday/dystopian one or not matters little to me).
@secampbell99 Are you saying you disagree with a core Darwinian concept? like found in this statement: "without replacement a culture dies and is replaced with one that dose not have your values, one that has babies"
sustainability is a death sentence for many poor people, but that should not matter the global elite own this world or they think they do. so it's their right to limit resource to one group and allow the other to enjoy the fruit of their forced sacrifice.
Why are you so learning-disabled? mechanicalbu11 made a very good argument, and yet you just blow it off, and suggest that just because the NWO criminal elites rob people of their money by debasing the currency, they should also be robbed of their children because they now "can't afford" many children?
I've long known that "sustainability" is a RELIGIOUS word to the pagans, that has no real "scientific" meaning. But I agree, sustainability is death sentence to poor.
Why do you think we pro-growthers, want pop to grow "without any thought?" No, that would violate one of the very principles by which we defend the natural increase - our intelligence ability to ADAPT. Sure, it's great to let families grow large, without giving it much thought. These things to some people "just happen." But what's even wiser, is to grow a family large on purpose, and be ready to defend and advocate as to why.
I see that logic isn't your forte. How can we help you improve your logic skills?
Why do "ponzi schemes" not work? Because they eventually run out of people, is probably one of the main reasons. But what happens when we grow the pop, so that we have enough people to take care of all the elderly? We run out of people, right? Uh, NO, for the pop is now huger than ever. So even "runaway" world pop growth, is NOT a ponzi scheme. Consider benefit of MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE.
Here's how you give "some thought" to the growing pop. Tell China to fill their "empty cities" with people. Discourage "birth control," and welcome large families to occur naturally. Besides, it would honor commie chairman Mao's memory, to keep growing China's pop. Will cities eventually get too full of people? Of course, that's why you build more cities, to keep the economy going, and welcome huge cities to grow and even merge into each other. Build freeway bypasses
Nature doesn't want the human race to stop growing its numbers. If China refuses to enjoy the honor of being "world's most populous" country, then it will transfer to India, which is still growing.
I welcome emerging pop giants to go on naturally growing. If China let pop grow "wild," what would that do to planet? Encourage more countries to also grow faster. But I already advocate denser world, as how else can we have precious darling babies in a world of so many?
@pronatalist - "Why are you so learning-disabled?" Pronatalist, I have bowel movements smarter than you.
You've read all my comments. They're all reasonable concerns from a rational person. I found the overpopulation-is-a-myth website in hopes that it might shed some light on this legitimate global concern. Unfortunately, I found the videos to be woefully incomplete, misleading, and biased (spearheaded by Christian fundamentalist, Steve Mosher). There's nothing else for me to share. I'm out.
@checkyoursources "You need to look up hybrid vigour in agriculture to appreaciate why wild populations of both pollinators and wild species of crops are more important than ever."
"It is perfectly possible that a mass extinction of [...] 60%, or more of the Earth's species would not be pragmatically catastrophic for human beings. [...] over the face of the Earth, wild nature's services might become massively tweaked -- and substituted for -- by life-support enterprises of engineered nature."
Extinction & Overpopulation go hand in hand. Just as do reduced growth rates and immigration reliance. Overpopulation is not just a counting game, its a resource allocation puzzle. (So no Texas as the solitary state) Plague, wars, etc, weed out the weaker. G-8 countries provide aid, which keeps African populations growing - the new source of immigration in 25 years. By 2070, we'll have a good handle finally on population growth internationally. Education & starvation are the best prophylactics.
Over 75% of jobs can be replaced through the proper application of current technology. Breeding in order to produce a future workforce will not be necessary. Furthermore, if humans survive long enough to achieve immortality via biotechnology in the next half century, breeding will become redundant.
@Omni956 You're probably right about wars significantly reducing the population in the future. Combine typical human animalistic behavior with bio weapons, enhanced nukes, kinetic energy kill weapons, relativistic kill vehicles, antimatter bombs, radiation emitters, swarm bots, and good ol' fashioned terminators, and i don't think our chances for survival are too good. You know what, screw it, don't use condoms, have all the kids you want, people. in the end it ain't gonna matter one bit.
@vinbuik oh yeah, it's probably worth it to mention that the vast majority of wars are fought due to lack of resources becauseo too many humans have over consumed in a particular region.
@MoreInfo24 profiteers do usually coincide with wars, but they are not usually the sole causes of them. examples....hmmm, Rwanda genocide: overpopulation and lack of opportunity polarized the Hutu against the Tutsis. WW2: Germany wanted more coal, oil and iron for its industries, Japan wanted more territory and natural resources for its people.
Didn't I hear that Rwanda people repented of their tribal rivalries?
Isn't the pop of Rwanda still growing? Why aren't they at war now? I have some book, that blames Rwanda upon United Nations meddling and the gun control agenda, such that people can't defend themselves against the attacks of evil people.
Sorry I can't comment more specifically upon that book as it's in my "To Do Read Later" pile of unread books. I have so much stuff I read all the time, it piles up.
the vast majority of wars are fought for greed... resources are abundant for most places on earth nations simply get greedy and go "shopping" in other regions, singapore can manage 4 million people on a land mass smaller than a town in some countries I think the rest of the world needs to lean a lesson.
Population isn't the problem... management is, smaller populations means people can be lazy, large means they have to work...which is hard.
@mrh112 wars are fought for greed, yes, greed of relatively scarce resources (a transient tribe encrouches on anothers territory and begins hunting the game, making life more difficult for the resident tribe. Germany wants more iron and coal and oil, so it's people can have a higher percieved quality of life, so they start invading their neighbours). I do not value "hard" work. My hunter gatherer ancestors got by "working" 3 to 6 hours a day. A 40 hour plus work week is for suckers.
These days, the wars are not created by the common people, but by the evil NWO criminal elites, who deceive us and conspire to make wars, to make profits for their greedy corporations, and push along their unworkable globalist depop agenda utopia. Why would the common people ever agree to "just enough worker drone slaves so that the evil NWO elitists don't have to do any real work themselves?" Their NWO utopia CAN'T work, so tell the truth and stop letting them try to build it
Do you really think that the only reason parents have children, is so that their children can grow up to be corporate wage slaves in an oppressive work force or economy? What does it matter, if we have supposedly, far more people alive than is needed to do the work? We aren't just cogs in some terrible socialist society machine. We have individual worth, sacred value imputed to us by God.
If in The Jetsons future, robots do all the work, that's more time to GROW our families.
@pronatalist We aren't in the Jetsons future yet. Large, less mobile populations have less capacity to survive changes than smaller more mobile ones. If we don't sort out this climate change and increased energy cost business, all them rivers are gonna dry up, irrigation and transportation systems will fail and there will be a human population crash. Suffering will increase to ridiculous levels. So when you grow your family, just try to consider that quality is perhaps better than quantity.
And when will we ever be in the Jetsons future, if we aren't allowed to progress as we should?
I have long advocated large pop, because the reasons that parents have children, I am sure, are PLENTY GOOD ENOUGH.
Less mobile? What? When have I ever said that people in China or India, shouldn't also have cars? I want people to be more mobile, and to have tools to gain wealth, that way, they can ADAPT better to rising pop, without any need to impose pop "control" upon people.
You can't have "quality of life" without also quantity of life and sanctity of human life. Can't people see, they go hand-in-hand? People who have good quality of life, might feel more free to procreate more children, so pop rises. Poor people have many natural incentives to have large families. Shall I list some? Quality of life, implies freedom for individuals, including obviously, right-to-life, which necessarily includes the God-given right to have (even many) children.
You've also overlooked an argument for continued pop expansion, you should have seen. If World War 2 was supposedly caused by "overpop," and "lebensraum" (living room) for Germany was such a concern, then why is world pop now triple the size, and yet the planet did not grow any bigger? Rather than acquire additional territories, most every country simply grew DENSER with people, like I have long advocated.
We can still have traditional big families, by growing denser globally
Pronatalist I cannot go on with this line of debate as you have no real knowledge of the world or experience of things and having this lack of knowledge and such ingrained rhetoric is a sad reflection on religion and how it goes about its business without evidence or proof being used as a basis of brainwashing vulnerable people. So wrong.
This won't be a problem if we change our way of living, especially our socio-economic monetary system. Look at the Venus Project and the Resource Based Economy.
I've looked at that stuff you said, and that's nothing but New Age false religion repackaged to fool the gullible. Do you really think that those who are manipulating our economy, are going to just give up their power and corruption, and liberate resources for the growing numbers of people?
We have too many stupid "laws" already. Why don't we use those laws against the NWO criminal elites, and formally remove them from power, since they are already in violation of law?
@pronatalist Ok, I have 2 questions: Where did you look at "that stuff" I said? and Why do you think it's "New Age false religion etc"?
"Do you really think that those who are manipulating our economy, are going to just give up their power...?" - No, that's why we need to take it from them.
"Why don't we use those laws against the NWO criminal elites...?" - Because the rules of the "game" have been corrupted with money, we need to change the rules, not the players.
What? Each married couple can enjoy sex twice a day, or however often they like.
Just do it natural, respect the natural flow of human life, don't pollute the human body directly with nasty unnatural Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons.
I don't believe in "stop at 2," for if more families grow large, pop can also enjoy growing, each generation growing ever larger and more populous, than the previous generation.
There's lots of place all around to put more people.
@pronatalist Moronic suggestions fuelled by psychoevangelical disorder I think would be the diagnosis on this one. There is not enough space for the sort of exponential growth in human population there is not enough power to support this and not enough resources to provide so get back to school and read something written in the last century at least an put away the ancient text so many have been brainwashed with
Why is your mind so small, that you don't even want to consider anything great? Of course there is space for continued exponential growth in human pop. We could double and double again. But forget about having the small sparse pops of the past then.
Even libs would say we have to allow more people to become sexually active, as the number of women of childbearing age continues to rise in many regions of the world. Where I disagree, is with the lib rampant contraceptive pushing
@pronatalist Most of the places that experience growth in population cant support that with the amount of food that their country can produce, Also the economies cannot provide work or opportunity for more and more young people. The result of this is stress and conflict as competition becomes greater and prices rise, Get the picture? More people will also create more pollution leading to less fertile land and seas. The outcome of that being less food available, Get the picture?
The more land taken for people to live on will mean less land to grow food increasing prices and stress. Simple logic which for those who rely on superstition for their way of life rather than logic and reason is probably irrelevant. You seem to be an extremist right winger who sees environmental exploitation as their right irrespective of the impact of such action..Sad they let you spout your selfish attitude in public. Compassion for those who cannot defend themselves against humanity
Of course, the "unchecked" spread of cities, which may be required so as to allow for natural increase of so many 100s of millions of people in some countries, both inside and outside of cities, without cities growing too crowded, could be a concern. But I trust INDIVIDUALS to make decisions better than faraway corrupt politicians.
Abraham and Lot's growing tribes, spread farther apart, as told in Genesis. Which bought time to ADAPT, as pops continued to naturally grow bigger
@pronatalist More superstition. However:Trust people? The one species on the planet who has done more damage to the planet than ALL other species! The one who enslaves it's own through threat of damnation if they don't follow the 'code' (wonder who wrote that code? what was their agenda for doing so?) Are you kidding. Individuals who have so many kids that they cannot support or bring them up properly? How gullible are you? The planet has a limit to the amount of life possible.
I said to trust INDIVIDUALS, more so than corrupt Big Brother gov faraway politicians who obviously don't care about us.
Yes, I do trust people, that if they let their families grow "traditionally very large," that they do in fact, know what they are doing, it is their right, and it both for their good and the public good
On "A Popular Little Planet" child shuts door on other child "about to be born." "Getting kind of crazy in here" - world pop party. So leave door open then
But why are they having problems supporting the inevitable, or to-be-expected pop growth? Isn't it because of corrupt gov, and dishonest paper fiat currencies? Large families don't cause poverty, but poverty does all the more encourage large families, because what else is there for poor people to do in their dark villages, having to go to bed early, but the recreation that doesn't require light, which produces babies?
I don't want to "control" pop growth, but ADAPT to growth.
@pronatalist poverty is caused lack of intelligence/education/responsible moral guidance i.e. churches who encourage large families. If you cannot support them don't have them. Your example is a prime case of irresponsible baby farming (more bums on pews) and is perfect for encouraging the use of contraceptives. You don't HAVE to screw all the time. It's like eating and drinking irresponsibly.
Don't blame the burger or the booze for being fat/unhealthy/sick or injuring yourself/someone/DUI. People HAVE to take responsibility before they can accept the freedoms afforded them by society.
Your comparison is ridiculous. You don't have to screw all the time? Even though you are responsibly married, building the family nest, love your spouse, and often feel so horny? It's like eating irresponsibly? What? So we don't need to eat every day? Maybe just eat, once every several years or so? Of course married people are in fact entitled to "unlimited" sex. We have every right to allow "baby after baby" to push out, unhindered
We mass-produce most everything else. Why can't we "mass produce" babies then? Or should we let automation just put us out of our jobs, and have a stagnant economy that never grows nor advances?
It's not just about filling pews of some Catholic cult giant church organization or building. It's about the altruistic goal, of welcoming all the more fellow human beings to experience life.
The responsibility is in taking responsibility for your kids. Not in blocking flow of life.
How does a lack of jobs in a region, translate into a lessening of the natural desire to procreate? It doesn't. When mothers aren't working, they are more free to raise children. When people aren't working, they might be procreating. If they live by subsistence farming, aren't they more likely to view children as useful for farmhands, and "old age security?"
Pop is rising throughout much of the world, regardless whether you and I think it's good or not. Answer: more toilets.
@pronatalist lack of jobs/income means you don't have the means to support the NEEDS of a child. The rest of the community should not be expected to support them for your selfish desire or irresponsible behaviour. Saving for old age is more likely to do good than children. Children cost money, having none and popping sprogs is immoral and selfish. There are enough unwanted children in the world and orphans who NEED someone to support them rather than selfishly popping your own.
So not only should we be deprived of jobs, but also our children? So when do you plan to promote the mass murders?
Do you really think that unemployed married parents, don't ever have sex anymore? Of course they do. Do you think that practical or "religious" objections to use of "birth control," magically go away when people are currently between jobs? I thought that's what emergency savings are for, but seems these days, gov schemes to steal our savings too.
I'm quite sure that nature can deal with rising amounts of pollution, and rising volumes of human wastes pouring into rivers. I welcome rising volumes of human wastes, as it's necessary for human pops to go on expanding. But we could do a better job managing wastes, install underground sewer systems, more flush toilets for growing cities and denser pops. They say that pollution is an untapped resource. Perhaps, but pop-driven technologies allow us to do ever more with less.
@pronatalist you are mad I am certain of this. You promote nature as the answer to our excesses. Superstitious belief that nature is an infinite garbage bin we use without consequences is nuts. Some glimmer of sense and responsibility is at last creeping in to your ideas. Better application of technology to deal and utilise our waste is uncommonly forward thinking for the superstitious zealot you seem to be.
If libs like sex so much, then why not allow human reproduction to naturally grow to become a "mighty force of nature," if it isn't already? Allow babies to push out naturally, unhindered, out of ever more fertile vaginas, without use of any methods of "birth control." Not all aspects of nature were meant to be "controlled" by man, especially our own rising numbers that benefit so many more people now.
Not enough power? There's energy all around us. Is gov hiding free energy?
@pronatalist What next cannibalism as the answer to food shortages? People live as cattle to serve the corporates who need their lifeblood to gain ever more power over the planets resources. No thanks I like the world as it is a haven for life not a corporate controlled consuming machine.
But if land for people to spread into, starts lacking in some countries without a lot of land, now with more technology options driven by the global pop growth, we have even more than before, the options of allowing people to spread closer together. Allowing cities to grow into supercities, and some even coalescing. We can stack people into highrises. Steel and air conditioning makes tall buildings, ever more practical and possible
I understand some concerns, I don't want to be treated like worth-little cattle, nor as mere cogs in a massive dehumanizing system. But if the powers-that-be, or corporations, or whatever, seem to rather like human pops booming "wildly out of control," be very glad for that, for alternative of forced abortions and draconian pop "controls" is very much to be avoided and very undesirable.
I agree with allowing baby booms to spread and intensify, more people to benefit from life
There are good reasons that cannibalism is taboo. It doesn't help grow pop. Why is it so traditional for husband and wife to always share the same bed? I've heard it's for maximum opportunity and temptation to procreate. Think about it. It's to encourage frequent coitus. I suppose in modern times, separate beds is okay, if frequent natural coitus still occurs.
People eat many times their weight, so human flesh doesn't begin to feed us. We need morals for a populous world.
@pronatalist Reasons against eating a dead person then? Natural urges are tempered with self control with consideration for the consequences which involves freedom of thought. It appears you lack this with your superstitions about supreme beings. Men on the whole have urges to procreate with as many DIFFERENT women as possible as is the case in the animal kingdom in many species. Some though don't and are monogamous (humans can use self control to avoid the consequences of this)
Being American I am sure you'll be aware of the 'naturally' higher rates of divorce in areas where religion is a major influence over peoples lives or perhaps that is propaganda. The basis of marriage is a social pressure initially put on by of all groups the CHURCH and yet there homelands in America are the least able to maintain such a moral pillar so engrained in the psyche of RELIGIONS.
Why do mad scientists do bizarre "overpop" on animals giving them unlimited food? I think it's because they know, that food isn't any real restraint on how enormous human pops might eventually grow. There's an "overpop" theory that we have TOO MUCH food, which fuels "wild" pop growth, at least in the animal kingdom. Food grows on trees. Condoms don't. People will continue to grow ever more food, if the evil NWO criminal elitists stay out of our wayThey're trying to reduce food
@pronatalist conveniently forgetting the CONSEQUENCES of this. More and more food needs more and more land, more and more people needs more and more land. more and more people means more and more rubbish, more and more rubbish means more and more land to put it in (or do we pop it into the sea and poison the major source of oxygen?), more and more people means more and more pollution. Will some supernatural force will clean the air and sea for us with unlimited and everlastingly?
It's a natural fact of life, that cheap organic matter (food) naturally over time, converts into additional human bodies. That's what happens when we allow people to eat
To convert cheap organic matter into human beings of great, immense, sacred value, is a great investment, at least philosophically. Food isn't just for selfish consumption, but also has a proper and natural role in growing human pops
All people have right to live and procreate, so answer is, pop world denser
Then let landfills grow more numerous and\or bigger. People are worth far more value than the cost of proper trash collection and disposal. Besides, aren't I already paying for that, in the unjust property tax?
People don't really produce all that much trash. We could bury it in our own yards, if the gov didn't collect it. But that wouldn't be as convenient. And a mere shovel, doesn't very well go very deep.
Star Trek Enterprise: When you flush toilet, where does it go?
Enterprise's answer: to a "biomatter resequencer." It's converted into a boot, or whatever people may need.
Increasingly, trash is being sorted by robots, and more is being reprocessed in some way, although I'm not so sure it's actually cost-effective. Aluminum only saves but 4¢ a soda can. Better idea, quit smoking.
Why do you insist upon seeing people as nothing but a detriment or liability?
Reason not to eat a dead person? Not cool, might not even be healthy? Cremation?
Natural urges are tempered with self-control? Tell that to the radical "family planning" pushers, who foisted their evil idea of "unlimited" sex without the "burden" of "unwanted" children upon us. Before, there were few (contraceptive) options, so families were often large. There was the "done with sex" option, but that wasn't practical for most normal people.
I agree with the "family planners" on the 1st part, of "unlimited sex" with my spouse. Reject 2nd part = BIG family?
Of course self-control is a virtue. But did you miss the part in the Bible, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth? What does the Bible say about sexual morality? Flee fornication, and Thou shalt not commit adultery. I've read the Bible from cover to cover, and nowhere does it even suggest we "limit" how many children we have. Onan pulled out, and God killed him. Was it for spilling his seed, disobedience, or both?
Marriage, monogamy - YES. Promiscuity, contraceptives NO
Why are you liberals so rebellious against God, that you insist upon getting it all backwards? You are all for the "unlimited" sex, but reject the blessings of babies, for which the natural sex was designed to procreate?
Even nature tells us that the human vagina was designed to receive the human seed from the penis. There must be some logical reason why what populates the planet, is so extremely pleasurable. The vagina is shaped exactly, for the penis to be inserted into it.
Why does sin love company so much? Why do you want me to "get back to school," so I can be brainwashed to talk of the Emperor's New Clothes? (yes, that children's fable) When I can clearly see the emperor is naked? You think you can mock me, and call me stupid, for failing to go along with the mass insanity peer pressure? I can clearly see the nakedness. What do I care what you think?
High pop may just be the future. How is it in my interests, to oppose what simply must be?
@pronatalist Simply mist be according to who? what? Dodgy Texts written about events that occurred in a small part of a barely developed part of the world over 2000 years ago? Or KNOWLEDGE gained by great minds using powerful tools that has brought advances in technology (at the expense of the environment), with the power to predict and warn of impending danger using INFORMATION not religious rhetoric perpetrated by narrow minded crooks in churches. THINK FOR YOURSELF.
The Bible warns against people trying to rebuild the Tower of Babel again. Oh, maybe not quite the same tower, but coming together with their evil rebellion plans against God, and against the poor.
What is your resistance to seeing the natural blossoming of the human race, as a beautiful thing? Even liberals would agree that as the number of women of childbearing ages grows throughout much of the world, we have to allow more people to become sexually active. I agree, let them
@pronatalist Using superstition to base your illogical arguments paints you to be stupid. As for the blossoming of the worst thing to happen to this oasis of life in an otherwise dead and desolate universe I think the human race ought to start using its OWN intelligence to solve the problems we have caused here and not the supernatural beings and rants of those ones who abuse vulnerable peoples with companionship with talk of magic as truth as being the right way=psychological rape
Why is a natural blossoming of the human race, such a bad thing to happen to this world? Future generations wouldn't think so. Imagine some time in the distant future, after you and I are long gone, world pop has rapidly grown, or slowly risen to 100 billion people. You come along and say, that only 7 billion people should have been allowed to live at once. That would mean that only 1 in 14 people would have been able to live. That's very poor odds to ever have existed.
What I don't agree with, is the liberal NWO rampant pushing of contraceptives, as if they were a magical cure-all. They are contrary-to-nature, and aim to prevent the natural spread of human life.
No, I don't believe all aspects of nature were meant to be "controlled" by man. I think some remote forest fires should be allowed to grow naturally. I believe that babies should be welcome to freely push out of ever more fertile vaginas, without any effort to "control" fertility.
While some societies, Japan for example, are shrinking, the world population is increasing. The answer is to move people from high population areas to low population areas.
While simple, it is not easy because of country boundaries.
If you move people from high pop areas to low pop areas, it doesn't necessarily reduce their reproduction rate. I agree with migration as a pop accommodation tool, but only if such migration is voluntary, according to where people themselves choose to live.
I welcome the entire world to become a vast high pop growth region, as people with high fertility might spread to more areas of the world?
Because of country borders, that's all the more reason to welcome HIGH density
@pronatalist The vid infers that if we dont have + growth in all areas on the planet the human race will go the way of the dodo.
The reality is that while some areas of the world are having a - Pop growth, other parts not only take up the slack but have more children then is needed for a stable population.
As such the overall pop of the world is increasing at this time, making the vids point at the end moot.
I do disagree with the video somewhat, as there's too much argument that world pop is increasingly "stabilizing" (stagnating), therefore why worry about pop growth? Presumably, only stupid people would think that the planet can't at least support a few more billions
The problem with that argument, is that it relies too much upon the rampant contraceptive pushing continuing, and that enough people will be duped, that coercion isn't necessary. But what if pop surges? Let it
So I generally don't like to argue that world pop is "stabilizing," even if that is the apparent trend. Seems an unreliable argument, for then it would need to be improved or amended, if people finally wisen up and discard "family planning" and "wild" baby booms break out all over the planet.
I have long advocated large families worldwide, and in favor of the natural increase of man. I have long harped on the need to welcome world pop density to rise naturally, to ADAPT.
I think some people are having problems understanding why world pop continues to swell, if the world is reducing average family size towards the pidly 2.1 children per family figure that is commonly referred to as "replacement" level fertility.
If the video was to get into details like "pop momentum" it would be longer than a few minutes. It's old people who die, but younger people who have kids. Thus, past growth, tends to continue for a while, as pop resists "control."
There's also the complicating issues, that those countries who multiply faster than the world average, such as India, are growing to a larger proportion of the total pop, and increasingly dominating the trend.
And what if world family size average, is heading towards 2.5 or 3 children eventually? World pop will just keep right on growing and growing, even if at a slowed or more creeping rate.
But the truth is, there's plenty room for everybody to have their big families!
@pronatalist While there is plenty of land, there is not plenty of potable water. This is why central Australia is by and large unpopulated compared to coastal areas, due in part, to the lack of potable water to sustain larger populations.
The earth has about 3% fresh water, of that almost 70% is icecaps and glaciers, so that brings it down to around 1% available water, and much of that 1% is contaminated in some way.
This is the defining resource that determines world population
I am so sick and tired of hearing Australian crybabies, whine that Australia can't possibly hold a mere 35 or 50 million people, that the pop may grow to in the 21st century.
Already they are ridiculously low pop level compared to the average for the rest of the world. Some countries even desalinate some of their water from the ocean. Isn't Australia surrounding by ocean?
That's not why their pop is so low. Lack of people and lack of procreation. Eventually grow higher.
Explain to me Israel then. Desert-land Israel CAN, but pathetic desert Australia can't? So what's wrong with Australia? Too much socialism? Are Aussies retarded?
I had once considered moving from "has been" America to Australia. But I think not, for Aussies, at least some of them, are too pop phobic, which I'm afraid wouldn't assure a good future for me there. It will make them soon a pathetic failing country, perhaps even begging for Anti-Christ to come and destroy them?
Australia area - 7,617,930 km2 - ~368x the area of Israel
--
Some Australian Deserts by area.
Great Victoria Desert - 348,750 km2 - ~17x
Great Sandy Desert - 284,993 km2 - ~14x
Tanami Desert - 184,500 km2 - ~9x
You are a troll and a poor one at that. Might I suggest you take on those with the same level of intellect, I think the local kindergarten should be about your level of debate skill.
Didn't I say that Israel is denser than Australia? And yet, according to YT videos, which country are the pop phobic crybabies in? Australia. So what do you want to know? Perhaps how many times denser is Israel? Well you didn't give me any pop figures, so let's use 7 million Israel, 24 million Australia. Close enough.
Israel - 338 people/sq. km
Australia - 3 people/sq. km
ans(2)/ans(1) ENTER 107 times as dense. (rounding discrepancy)
Did you just claim that you are smart than me? So who's the troll then? You're trying to be funny?
So just how many profound things have you said, defending people's God-given basic right to life and procreation? What have you said in defense of large families?
What have you really contributed to the discussion, well other than those handy figures? And what difference do the figures make anyway? What did anybody really prove with them?
@pronatalist No place did you say that Israel had a denser population. Your figures show that even at ~3 people / KM2, yet we still have potable water shortages, as well as droughts.
No, I said Kindergarten children are smarter then you. Well not smarter, just better debating skills. You really should go see a doctor about your eyes.
Since there is unlikely to be a god, your 2nd comment about ''god given rights'' is moot.
So you are one of those Aussie pop whiner crybabies too?
What was I thinking, that Australia might have more freedom than "has been" America? You all are a bunch of British crown morons? Isn't Australia where they sent the criminals some time ago? Gee, are you Aussies still so retarded?
If you all can't manage 3 people/sq. km, why do you think you'd be better off with 2 people/sq. km? Then you'd have even fewer competent people to repair your decaying infrastructure.
So you Aussies don't believe in any real foundation for human rights? And you let guns for personal protection be banned, and now your crime rates are up? What's causing your stupidity? Denial that there is a God to hold us morally accountable? Or is it the chem-trails? Maybe your government monopoly schools, spewing earth worship propaganda? Maybe you Aussies have small weak minds?
Contributed amusement? Where in the title of video, did it suggest this was a jokes forum?
@pronatalist I contributed to my amusement if nobody else. :)
I see your best 'argument' is to try and insult when you have nothing to counter with. Since you don't have anything interesting, or even witty to say, I'll move onto other people and conversations.
There's also the demographic matter, that most people don't understand, because they are mostly clueless about the basics of demographics, and of the immense and sacred value of each and every human life, and that people are not animals - that it takes around a BILLION births per decade, just to maintain the present huge pop size.
And I think if a pop poll is asked correctly, most people understandably want to stay at least the present "huge" size. I've posted such polls.
@Knightyme You are suggesting Ethnic cleansing by corporations in other words. The availability of opportunities, logistic and desire to decrease environmental impact also factor in with this idea.
@Knightyme the suggestion that groups of people get migrated by some entity ie forced rather than natural migration. it is an extreme interpretation of your suggestion but my view is that locally people should make the life they can with the resources available. Popping babies willy nilly is no way to behave and relying on other parts of the world to support this irresponsible behaviour. All that would happen is that the density of population would become more even but continue rising
Well that is what I promote, allowing pop density to spread out more even, but go right on rising unhindered.
We can't very well push the babies back in, and I've said that everybody and their progeny, have the right to live.
I promote the natural migration, and yes, allowing people to spread from "overcrowded" regions to less populous regions, is among the pop accommodation tools. Abraham and Lot's tribes deliberately spread further apart so as to keep right on growing.
People should not be expected to directly pollute their bodies with nasty Big Pharma contraceptive devices and drugs.
Yes, let babies keep popping out unhindered, but it's hardly "willy nilly" when it's done on purpose with design and preparation. I wouldn't say that of the Duggars, who have what? 19 children now? I believe in keeping the door to life open, allowing coitus to always welcome prospect of pregnancy. They built their own big house. Great example of self-reliance.
What's this quibbling I see, about "ethnic cleansing?" I didn't bring that up, I don't think.
But are you all accidentally proving my points?
How hard it is to "control" the natural human pop increase?
Yeah, "who do we get rid of?" What if some countries have just "too many" people? Where do we put them? Should so many people be allowed to continue living and reproducing?
Why is breastfeeding in public such a controversy, when it's natural in fast-growing pops?
So why is world pop still rising? Basically 2 reasons: "Demographic momentum," and because faster-reproducing regions are growing to a larger proportion of the total.
If "replacement" reproduction of 2.1 children was going on, many societies are so youthful due to past growth, that more people are entering childbearing years, than old people dying. Births come sooner, deaths later. This is the tendency in nature,for something moving to keep moving, hard for pop growth to stop
@pronatalist actually you will find better living conditions, access to medicines, better child and aged care and a host of other technological support mechanisms brought about by scientific advances and not magical miracles. Lack of education and ability to support this growth will challenge us all
Why do you refuse to consider, that many of these technological advances, are largely the result of expanding human pops? Humans advance technology by small incremental steps. As the billions burgeon, there's more minds working on things, and larger and more profitable markets? Somebody comes up with a better way, and soon competitors find ways to copy the good ideas. Because entire world is growing in pop, countries with their own swelling pops, can import ideas like toilets.
@pronatalist advances are not a result of too many people. It is as a result of stable population that supports ALL human endeavour rather than the selfish consumerist ideology you seem to support. Where is most of current day technological advances made? In countries that have stable populations not the China/Brazil/India that is economic advance (consider the environmental impact in those nations before responding).
Expanding markets contribute only to more poverty, more reliance on consumerism and greater wealth polarisation. Pollution and environmental impact also increases as you seem to ignore the fact that people maker a mess and the toilet doesn't just magic the waste away like your great book and preachers would have convinced you of. It goes somewhere and causes harm as does the rest of the crap we can no longer consume and are finished with.
How about this. You "excessive" people are a clutter to my view, so how about we reduce the pop, by eliminating everybody except for myself, and whoever I might wish to grant a waiver to? What do you think of that? Do you want a waver? Know anybody else who you'd like to give a waiver to? If you agree to such a thing, you are an idiot. And yet, most every pop "control" proposal I have heard, is just about as stupid.
Expanding markets contribute to more diversity of products.
Ask Intel or Apple, how much more a computer chip or iPad would cost, if they only produce but a few. Why do we have so many Android tablets, copycat tablets? Because the market, or the pop, is so massive. Not long ago, cellphones were mainly for making phone calls. Now they browse the internet, check email, play games, take pictures, probably even update your Facebook? Even electricity wouldn't work, if pops were still small. Cars are way too complicated, to make only a few.
@Shiprex actually you will find on the tedtalksdirector channel, innovative people from those and other less tech advanced countries coming up with some great ideas.
They might not be cutting edge, but still great ideas.
---
I think it is less a stable population, but a stable environment that allows people to think, experiment, and so forth without the worries of where the next meal is coming from that allows new tech to be made and discovered.
@Knightyme totally agree with a caveat that the environment needs to be able to provide sufficiently for the population there and if it is strained through impacts (famine/flood etc.) then this will affect the human population much more drastically.
Why won't you pop phobics admit that human pops naturally tend to self-accommodate? The more populous we become, the more we ADAPT and BENEFIT from growing more populous. History has already confirmed this, and it's not my fault, you are so blind to see the truth. That's a practical and moral reason why humans have to be allowed to grow in numbers "unchecked," leaving pop size up to God.
Our ancestors understood this, for family size was thought "uncontrollable."
That people would even consider by what method we can impose some "control" upon the natural-expanding human pop sizes around the world, shows how corrupt we have become. The importance of the INDIVIDUAL has been diminished in the public mind, "individual" human rights hardly seem to matter anymore, and all is about the almighty state and how it can more efficiently trample even basic human rights. The consent of the governed is diminished, and we are headed towards chaos, war
But "demographic momentum" could be expected to "run out of steam," when so many young people eventually become old, and "momentum" runs down. Well unless they wisen up and reject the rampant contraceptive pushing, and family size becomes larger again?
In 1975, 1 in 7 people lived in India. Now it's 1 in 6, and 1 in 5 babies are born in India. Since developed countries reduced birthrate, "third world" countries are growing to larger proportion of world total, growing faster.
Nature favors those who reproduce, and attempts to do "endruns" around any effort to "control" world pop growth. If China refuses to enjoy being "world's most populous" country, then India will soon take their place and continue adding babies faster than China.
I am disgusted by the rampant contraceptive pushing, the real underlying reason behind "Demographic Transition Theory," and I have long advocated more populous and denser world, so as to welcome precious darling babies
The doubling time for 1.2% is 58 years, that means population will double in 58 years. To everyone responsible for the creation of these videos; STOP BREATHING MY AIR.
It's not just your air only, but is coming to be breathed by more billions of people. This would be a good reason to convince your friends to stop smoking, stop spreading "second hand" smoke through an increasingly "crowded" planet.
So what? Let pop double in 58 years, we ought to be doubling faster, and warning people against the side effects of contraceptives, encourage more families to grow larger, grow more naturally, without using any method of "birth control."
"Many societies are facing a very real danger: extinction."
Please. 60 years ago the population of the ENTIRE planet was 2 billion. In just 60 years we have TRIPLED the world's population. More people are alive right now than the total sum of our entire human history.
"Economic problems appear when elderly outnumber young"
This is a phase we MUST go through if we want to return to a population size the world can sustain. Right now the earth takes 1.5 years to regenerate what we consume in 1.
@amonaghan 'This is a phase we MUST go through if we want to return to a population size the world can sustain' and in the meantime? Can the planet support our ability to consume at an exponential rate before it gives up the ghost and fails us in our need(greed) for more consumption? What effect will this have on the rest of the living part of the planet? The innocent ones who are not having such a drastic effect on the environment,
A drop in pop size is not good, for it either means massive numbers dying in some NWO criminal elitist caused war, or that people don't love their children anymore, since they have so few.
People aren't going to stop consuming, unless we enter a Dark Ages, or massive poverty caused by NWO criminal elitists. Rich people especially aren't going to give up mansions, cars.
People aren't just "consumers" we also produce, usually most people produce more than they consume.
@pronatalist your last comment shows you really have no idea about the reality of the situation and must live in some kind of theistic bubble where you are shielded from the world yet can access it so readily. Sad for you,
That's why wealth increases, people have more square footage and more bathrooms in homes than there was decades before. Because people produce more than they consume, so there is more to go around, not less.
Pop phobics jeopardize this trend, for they support economic models that don't work, and have never worked anywhere all through history.
If we care about the innocent children, then we must allow them to be born, and welcome families to grow large, pop to go on rising.
@pronatalist You are truly an idiot, Where does the material come from to make all the things around us? Are we putting more into the earth's resources provision than we take out? Is there a limitless supply of materials to make more bathrooms etc.? Is the world getting larger/swelling/growing? Are more and more natural resources like coal and oil being produced to support the ballooning plague of humans? I don't think so but the good book may prove me wrong (proof ? nah not really
What a shame, that you are so into the world's poor low-value view of human beings, that you would dare call us a "ballooning plague of humans." God promised Abraham descendents so numerous as to be uncountable like the dust, stars of the sky, or grains of sand of the seashore. I hear that's used as a reason for large families, in Israel.
The planet is not getting bigger. Why do you think I have been harping for so long, we have to let global human pop density rise naturally?
@pronatalist there you go with the superstition based argument. What next David Copperfield as world leader? David Blaine for president. Magic and superstition are for entertainment not the real world and the sooner you and your kind are proved wrong with your baseless ideologies on reality the better.
What a shame, those with the ridiculous "overpop" theories, seem to know so little how the world really works? What? Your mind is so small, you can't imagine how we can build more bathrooms? People want big, and AFFORDABLE homes. So building materials are chosen from ABUNDANT materials. Toilets are made of clay, porcelain. What is that? Melted glass, sand, abundant. What is bathroom tile made of? Same thing. Sheetrock\wallboard? Ground up rock, cheap stuff. Wood\metal studs.
@pronatalist And these resources are everlasting and free? Get over yourself. If you can't afford to have a child then don't expect the rest of us to pay for it. responsibility before freedom.
I'm not just talking about the supposed "need" for reproductive urges relief. I'm also talking about the right to deliberately procreate. It's a God-given basic right. If we don't have the right to life (which obviously must include procreation), then how can we enjoy our other rights, if we aren't allowed to live?
Who's asking you to support my children? What a bogus argument. Many large families are not on any "public assistance," and I already oppose gov intrusive welfare.
And why do you attack me anyway? You just can't stand truth? The few large families we have in developed countries, don't add all that much to the swelling world pop anyway. Don't you understand the theory of the bell curve? Most of the pop growth, doesn't come from the largest families, but more from that there's just SO MANY PEOPLE NOW HAVING BABIES. Most everybody has babies. Unlike with animals, almost all humans reproduce. So it's most unfair to blame a 10th child for pop
Where in the world, are the most commonly large families found? In Africa. How many representatives who live in Africa, are included in this discussion? So is it me that you would need to convince if you think that somehow humans can further slow their already stagnant low rate of pop growth?
You think anybody will have a big family, just because I think it's a good idea? No, I expect they will consider my arguments, then find their own reasons to let their families grow more
I'm a natural introvert. What use have I for crowds? I don't much seek crowds, but neither do I much fear crowds either
A friend of mine, finally confided to me, they had decided to try for a 5th child, after having had 4 already. Why would I oppose their joy? Their child probably won't be living with me. It's their home that they are allowing to get maybe a wee bit "crowded," not mine. I'd like to crowd my home with my own children, plus a few adopted, if it was easier to ad
I am not a nature worshiper, so why would I excessively consider the "environmental impact?" That's a reason we can't get anything done anymore, and why the cost of everything seem to ever go up. I hear that Europe is considering putting a carbon cap on people, trying to limit how often they can fly somewhere or whatever. Well no wonder there's no jobs and our freedom is diminishing. All based upon junk science nature worship. And you have the nerve to call me "superstitious?"
China has such a problem with environment, not because they have so many people, but because they are ruled by unaccountable communist thugs, who have to have a certain number of jobs and productivity, no matter how inept they are, or the people will soon revolt and throw them out of power.
When individuals lack freedom, then all that matters is getting their food onto their plate, not how the environment might suffer. People need freedom, to enable exploring better options.
So you admit that "my kind" hasn't been proven wrong yet? Oh, that must have been a Freudian slip, right? Perhaps you didn't mean to let that slip?
"... and the sooner your kind is proved wrong with your baseless ideologies on reality the better"
I was previously making a reference to my observance that the pace of technological advancement has greatly accelerated, at just about the same time that world pop began surging so much. A positive vicious circle feeding each other?
They say you can't stop people from having sex. Do you agree? Should we put all the males on 1 side of the planet, and females on the other? Ban orgasm, so that people have no distractions from listening to and obeying Big Brother cruel gov?
Or do you trust INDIVIDUALS to have freedom? If responsible parents think they can squeeze even more children into their homes, what business is it of yours? Who's to say they are wrong?
If world bulges with people, LET IT PROUDLY BULGE.
@pronatalist Its not the sex that is the problem. Plenty people do it often enough and avoid the unnecessary consequence/expense/health/environmental impact etc another consumer/polluter to add to the worlds burden. You know that as contraception not abstinence With freedom there is responsibility and if my lifestyle is adversely affected by price rises because of increased demand or my clean/open environment is affected then I have every right to oppose it.
And why should those who don't have children subsidise those who do through taxes to pay for schools and community activity centres because parents can't cope with brining their children up because they are selfish (main reason you give for having them to satisfy their NEED(?). Yeah I think I am well within my rights to oppose freedom to baby farm by selfish individuals who are brainwashed by irresponsible superstitious organisations groups (religions) into believing it is their right
You do not have any right to oppose my children. You do not have any right to an "open" environment, if someday the soaring pop level makes it not obtainable in your country. Sure, there is room for land reforms, but exactly how, while respecting the sovereignty of countries and their borders?
Why can't we INDIVIDUALS ever get any benefits of this much-hyped "globalism?" I think that similar countries ought to be able to form some deals to allow citizens to switch countries.
africa could provide all th food needs of the world ? what if you destroyed the majority of the natural environment and replaced it with farming ? that sounds ecological ? just like brazil has cut vast swathes of natural rainforest to farm food ?
beingatliberty 18 hours ago
do you think singapore can get happily more populated ? than it is ? a borderless world with no separate cultures has the greatest potential for totalitarianism on a scale as yet unimagined in human history, growth in food productivity per area of land mess, has been acheived most often through poisoning the food chain and environment to acheive those increases ? pesticides herbicides, ie a greater toxic or untested biochemical or genetically altered load on people.
beingatliberty 18 hours ago
your videos do not take into account peoples tangible life experiences ? when western population decline and do not have enough children its not because people dont want children or larger familys its because they are priced out of access to the resources to have them, and raise them at the standard even their parents could afford ? this is not natural population balancing ?
beingatliberty 19 hours ago
You are an absolute TWAT.Don't you know that theres 7 BILLION people on this planet NOW. DICKHEAD, do YOUR maths and get your figures right and come back with something worth watching. Its a pity your dad dumped his load in your mother...
dannyboyspain1 4 days ago
@dannyboyspain1
So what's your point? 7 billion seems like "a lot," until one also considered how huge the planet is also.
Although the video might be a tad boring, because it doesn't have the alarmism gloom-and-doom Malthusian poverty religion nonsense of so many stupid "overpop" videos, you don't have to insult the effort to get out the truth, shown in videos such as these.
Nor would I insult somebody's parents for not using unnatural "birth control." Sperm belongs in vagina
pronatalist 3 days ago
@dannyboyspain1
King James, the one who was responsible for ordering the KJV Bible translation, was a black man and had 9 children.
Why do you try to make it sound crude, that people's Dads dump their loads in their Mothers? That's what people in love, married, do all the time. That's what the reproductive organs are for. For REPRODUCTION. I believe sex was designed to be natural, without any form of "birth control." Not so much for people's selfish jollies, but to spread LIFE.
pronatalist 3 days ago
@pronatalist are you an authodox religious person with zillions of children by any chance ? neccessity to justify ?
beingatliberty 19 hours ago
@pronatalist also the book you speak of lives in the fiction section of the library by all realistic judgement.
beingatliberty 19 hours ago
Interesting video but this is actually false... this scenario is only happening in some society's, not enough to make an impact on the rest of the world
matt510245 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video went viral on Peru
dinobecker614 2 weeks ago
The producers of this video aren't so much concerned with a stable population as they are concerned with having more followers being born for their church. Same sad old story for thousands of years......
vinbuik 2 weeks ago
that equation is one person, per person. ahahahha
cmiller8492 2 weeks ago
you're not thinking about how we treat our resources or how we take care of our planet. remember, all these childeren need to be fed,clothed and housed. the choices we are making right now, this might not happen. its not the population, its how we take care of it.
BloodRose123100 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
secampbell99 2 weeks ago
Assets - Liabilities = equity... Your video is PROPAGANDIST and unrealistic. Try to have a government of 10000 employees that manages 5 workers... you will see how much they will suddenly care for the life of their workers... carelessness = plenty - waste... "To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction." - Isaac Newton
MrUteriof 2 weeks ago
Underpopulation is the problem... really? You want me to believe that bullshit.
sweetsteph3 2 weeks ago
The're*
There*
BanColm 2 weeks ago
BanColm 2 weeks ago
@BanColm in America we would have a birth rate of 1.8 or so had it not been for immigration America would be depopulating. that in a way should make the haters of humanity happy seeing entire cultures die. instead look at the immigration rate for Ireland. besides the CIA has two sets of books one for public consumption the other for their own use and is closer to the truth. don't trust the CIA they make a tradition out of lies
mechanicalbu11 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
BanColm 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@vinbuik antimatter bombs? you do know the air force stated they are looking into this type of weapon and if they are just now saying they are looking into something you can count on them already having them in secret. take the new gamma ray bomb it dose not leave fallout and can be used to kill what the government deems as undesirables.
mechanicalbu11 3 weeks ago
- The video also goes on to say that people are barely replacing themselves in some parts of the world. But have you dug deeper to understand why that is so? Could it be that they themselves have concerns about quality of life and the planet's wellbeing? Could it be that they have a different perspective and opinion on the subject and that they don't think overpopulation is a myth?
secampbell99 3 weeks ago
@secampbell99 the thing is without replacement a culture dies and is replaced with one that dose not have your values, one that has babies, one that may enjoy the tender mercies of sharia law, one that dose not place the same value on the well being of the planet. in Germany that culture is now dead they just don't know it yet, the government sure know they killed their country, but the German people do not.
mechanicalbu11 3 weeks ago
- You seem to say that since people are getting older, that more people would be needed to support them. But, given mathematics (more and more people can't be a sustainable solution), doesn't this just continue the problem? China's policies might not be ideal, but allowing the population to grow without any thought whatsoever would produce its own set of problems, no?
secampbell99 3 weeks ago
@secampbell99 sustainability is just another word for death, slavery and oppression.
mechanicalbu11 3 weeks ago 2
@mechanicalbu11
"sustainability is just another word for death, slavery and oppression" & "in Germany that culture is now dead they just don't know it yet".
Tell you what, mechanicalbu11, instead of getting into a long debate about how impoverished your perspective of the world is, please focus on this - do not have children if you can't afford them. What your outlook is during that process (whether it's a doomsday/dystopian one or not matters little to me).
secampbell99 2 weeks ago
@secampbell99 Are you saying you disagree with a core Darwinian concept? like found in this statement: "without replacement a culture dies and is replaced with one that dose not have your values, one that has babies"
sustainability is a death sentence for many poor people, but that should not matter the global elite own this world or they think they do. so it's their right to limit resource to one group and allow the other to enjoy the fruit of their forced sacrifice.
mechanicalbu11 2 weeks ago
@secampbell99
Why are you so learning-disabled? mechanicalbu11 made a very good argument, and yet you just blow it off, and suggest that just because the NWO criminal elites rob people of their money by debasing the currency, they should also be robbed of their children because they now "can't afford" many children?
I've long known that "sustainability" is a RELIGIOUS word to the pagans, that has no real "scientific" meaning. But I agree, sustainability is death sentence to poor.
pronatalist 2 weeks ago
@secampbell99
Why do you think we pro-growthers, want pop to grow "without any thought?" No, that would violate one of the very principles by which we defend the natural increase - our intelligence ability to ADAPT. Sure, it's great to let families grow large, without giving it much thought. These things to some people "just happen." But what's even wiser, is to grow a family large on purpose, and be ready to defend and advocate as to why.
Barely replacing themselves, means dying
pronatalist 2 weeks ago
@secampbell99
I see that logic isn't your forte. How can we help you improve your logic skills?
Why do "ponzi schemes" not work? Because they eventually run out of people, is probably one of the main reasons. But what happens when we grow the pop, so that we have enough people to take care of all the elderly? We run out of people, right? Uh, NO, for the pop is now huger than ever. So even "runaway" world pop growth, is NOT a ponzi scheme. Consider benefit of MORE PEOPLE TO LIVE.
pronatalist 2 weeks ago
@secampbell99
Here's how you give "some thought" to the growing pop. Tell China to fill their "empty cities" with people. Discourage "birth control," and welcome large families to occur naturally. Besides, it would honor commie chairman Mao's memory, to keep growing China's pop. Will cities eventually get too full of people? Of course, that's why you build more cities, to keep the economy going, and welcome huge cities to grow and even merge into each other. Build freeway bypasses
pronatalist 2 weeks ago
@secampbell99
Nature doesn't want the human race to stop growing its numbers. If China refuses to enjoy the honor of being "world's most populous" country, then it will transfer to India, which is still growing.
I welcome emerging pop giants to go on naturally growing. If China let pop grow "wild," what would that do to planet? Encourage more countries to also grow faster. But I already advocate denser world, as how else can we have precious darling babies in a world of so many?
pronatalist 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pronatalist - "Why are you so learning-disabled?" Pronatalist, I have bowel movements smarter than you.
You've read all my comments. They're all reasonable concerns from a rational person. I found the overpopulation-is-a-myth website in hopes that it might shed some light on this legitimate global concern. Unfortunately, I found the videos to be woefully incomplete, misleading, and biased (spearheaded by Christian fundamentalist, Steve Mosher). There's nothing else for me to share. I'm out.
secampbell99 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@checkyoursources "You need to look up hybrid vigour in agriculture to appreaciate why wild populations of both pollinators and wild species of crops are more important than ever."
"It is perfectly possible that a mass extinction of [...] 60%, or more of the Earth's species would not be pragmatically catastrophic for human beings. [...] over the face of the Earth, wild nature's services might become massively tweaked -- and substituted for -- by life-support enterprises of engineered nature."
hitssquad 3 weeks ago
That was a quote of Eileen Crist: w w w. sts. vt. edu/faculty/crist
"2003 Limits-to-growth and the biodiversity crisis, Wild Earth, Spring, pp. 62-65."
w w w.sts. vt. edu/faculty/crist/ Limits-to-Growth_and_the_Biodiversity_Crisis. pdf
hitssquad 3 weeks ago
Extinction & Overpopulation go hand in hand. Just as do reduced growth rates and immigration reliance. Overpopulation is not just a counting game, its a resource allocation puzzle. (So no Texas as the solitary state) Plague, wars, etc, weed out the weaker. G-8 countries provide aid, which keeps African populations growing - the new source of immigration in 25 years. By 2070, we'll have a good handle finally on population growth internationally. Education & starvation are the best prophylactics.
SiberianWrath 3 weeks ago
Over 75% of jobs can be replaced through the proper application of current technology. Breeding in order to produce a future workforce will not be necessary. Furthermore, if humans survive long enough to achieve immortality via biotechnology in the next half century, breeding will become redundant.
vinbuik 3 weeks ago
@vinbuik Well of course there will be wars and murders, so it won't entirely be redundant.
Omni956 3 weeks ago
@Omni956 You're probably right about wars significantly reducing the population in the future. Combine typical human animalistic behavior with bio weapons, enhanced nukes, kinetic energy kill weapons, relativistic kill vehicles, antimatter bombs, radiation emitters, swarm bots, and good ol' fashioned terminators, and i don't think our chances for survival are too good. You know what, screw it, don't use condoms, have all the kids you want, people. in the end it ain't gonna matter one bit.
vinbuik 3 weeks ago
@vinbuik oh yeah, it's probably worth it to mention that the vast majority of wars are fought due to lack of resources becauseo too many humans have over consumed in a particular region.
vinbuik 3 weeks ago
@vinbuik Can you name some wars fought for the needs of resources for the people and not the greed a the few profiteers?
MoreInfo24 3 weeks ago
@MoreInfo24 profiteers do usually coincide with wars, but they are not usually the sole causes of them. examples....hmmm, Rwanda genocide: overpopulation and lack of opportunity polarized the Hutu against the Tutsis. WW2: Germany wanted more coal, oil and iron for its industries, Japan wanted more territory and natural resources for its people.
vinbuik 2 weeks ago
@vinbuik
Didn't I hear that Rwanda people repented of their tribal rivalries?
Isn't the pop of Rwanda still growing? Why aren't they at war now? I have some book, that blames Rwanda upon United Nations meddling and the gun control agenda, such that people can't defend themselves against the attacks of evil people.
Sorry I can't comment more specifically upon that book as it's in my "To Do Read Later" pile of unread books. I have so much stuff I read all the time, it piles up.
pronatalist 2 weeks ago
@vinbuik
the vast majority of wars are fought for greed... resources are abundant for most places on earth nations simply get greedy and go "shopping" in other regions, singapore can manage 4 million people on a land mass smaller than a town in some countries I think the rest of the world needs to lean a lesson.
Population isn't the problem... management is, smaller populations means people can be lazy, large means they have to work...which is hard.
mrh112 3 weeks ago
@mrh112 wars are fought for greed, yes, greed of relatively scarce resources (a transient tribe encrouches on anothers territory and begins hunting the game, making life more difficult for the resident tribe. Germany wants more iron and coal and oil, so it's people can have a higher percieved quality of life, so they start invading their neighbours). I do not value "hard" work. My hunter gatherer ancestors got by "working" 3 to 6 hours a day. A 40 hour plus work week is for suckers.
vinbuik 2 weeks ago
@vinbuik
These days, the wars are not created by the common people, but by the evil NWO criminal elites, who deceive us and conspire to make wars, to make profits for their greedy corporations, and push along their unworkable globalist depop agenda utopia. Why would the common people ever agree to "just enough worker drone slaves so that the evil NWO elitists don't have to do any real work themselves?" Their NWO utopia CAN'T work, so tell the truth and stop letting them try to build it
pronatalist 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
mechanicalbu11 3 weeks ago
@vinbuik
Do you really think that the only reason parents have children, is so that their children can grow up to be corporate wage slaves in an oppressive work force or economy? What does it matter, if we have supposedly, far more people alive than is needed to do the work? We aren't just cogs in some terrible socialist society machine. We have individual worth, sacred value imputed to us by God.
If in The Jetsons future, robots do all the work, that's more time to GROW our families.
pronatalist 2 weeks ago
@pronatalist We aren't in the Jetsons future yet. Large, less mobile populations have less capacity to survive changes than smaller more mobile ones. If we don't sort out this climate change and increased energy cost business, all them rivers are gonna dry up, irrigation and transportation systems will fail and there will be a human population crash. Suffering will increase to ridiculous levels. So when you grow your family, just try to consider that quality is perhaps better than quantity.
vinbuik 2 weeks ago
@vinbuik
And when will we ever be in the Jetsons future, if we aren't allowed to progress as we should?
I have long advocated large pop, because the reasons that parents have children, I am sure, are PLENTY GOOD ENOUGH.
Less mobile? What? When have I ever said that people in China or India, shouldn't also have cars? I want people to be more mobile, and to have tools to gain wealth, that way, they can ADAPT better to rising pop, without any need to impose pop "control" upon people.
pronatalist 2 weeks ago
@vinbuik
You can't have "quality of life" without also quantity of life and sanctity of human life. Can't people see, they go hand-in-hand? People who have good quality of life, might feel more free to procreate more children, so pop rises. Poor people have many natural incentives to have large families. Shall I list some? Quality of life, implies freedom for individuals, including obviously, right-to-life, which necessarily includes the God-given right to have (even many) children.
pronatalist 2 weeks ago
@vinbuik
You've also overlooked an argument for continued pop expansion, you should have seen. If World War 2 was supposedly caused by "overpop," and "lebensraum" (living room) for Germany was such a concern, then why is world pop now triple the size, and yet the planet did not grow any bigger? Rather than acquire additional territories, most every country simply grew DENSER with people, like I have long advocated.
We can still have traditional big families, by growing denser globally
pronatalist 2 weeks ago
what a crock of shit propaganda.
FloridaRaider 4 weeks ago 2
@FloridaRaider
let me guess you believe in overpopulation... right.?
GearZNet 4 weeks ago
And women should not be considered baby farms for the church.
Shiprex 4 weeks ago
Pronatalist I cannot go on with this line of debate as you have no real knowledge of the world or experience of things and having this lack of knowledge and such ingrained rhetoric is a sad reflection on religion and how it goes about its business without evidence or proof being used as a basis of brainwashing vulnerable people. So wrong.
Shiprex 4 weeks ago
This won't be a problem if we change our way of living, especially our socio-economic monetary system. Look at the Venus Project and the Resource Based Economy.
erasmusso 1 month ago
@erasmusso
I've looked at that stuff you said, and that's nothing but New Age false religion repackaged to fool the gullible. Do you really think that those who are manipulating our economy, are going to just give up their power and corruption, and liberate resources for the growing numbers of people?
We have too many stupid "laws" already. Why don't we use those laws against the NWO criminal elites, and formally remove them from power, since they are already in violation of law?
pronatalist 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@pronatalist Ok, I have 2 questions: Where did you look at "that stuff" I said? and Why do you think it's "New Age false religion etc"?
"Do you really think that those who are manipulating our economy, are going to just give up their power...?" - No, that's why we need to take it from them.
"Why don't we use those laws against the NWO criminal elites...?" - Because the rules of the "game" have been corrupted with money, we need to change the rules, not the players.
erasmusso 1 month ago
We get to have sex TWICE then haha yeaah!
BEARiiZM 1 month ago
Yeay! Each couple can have sex TWICE! Hahaha
BEARiiZM 1 month ago
@BEARiiZM
What? Each married couple can enjoy sex twice a day, or however often they like.
Just do it natural, respect the natural flow of human life, don't pollute the human body directly with nasty unnatural Big Pharma contraceptive potions and poisons.
I don't believe in "stop at 2," for if more families grow large, pop can also enjoy growing, each generation growing ever larger and more populous, than the previous generation.
There's lots of place all around to put more people.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist Moronic suggestions fuelled by psychoevangelical disorder I think would be the diagnosis on this one. There is not enough space for the sort of exponential growth in human population there is not enough power to support this and not enough resources to provide so get back to school and read something written in the last century at least an put away the ancient text so many have been brainwashed with
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Why is your mind so small, that you don't even want to consider anything great? Of course there is space for continued exponential growth in human pop. We could double and double again. But forget about having the small sparse pops of the past then.
Even libs would say we have to allow more people to become sexually active, as the number of women of childbearing age continues to rise in many regions of the world. Where I disagree, is with the lib rampant contraceptive pushing
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist Most of the places that experience growth in population cant support that with the amount of food that their country can produce, Also the economies cannot provide work or opportunity for more and more young people. The result of this is stress and conflict as competition becomes greater and prices rise, Get the picture? More people will also create more pollution leading to less fertile land and seas. The outcome of that being less food available, Get the picture?
Shiprex 1 month ago
The more land taken for people to live on will mean less land to grow food increasing prices and stress. Simple logic which for those who rely on superstition for their way of life rather than logic and reason is probably irrelevant. You seem to be an extremist right winger who sees environmental exploitation as their right irrespective of the impact of such action..Sad they let you spout your selfish attitude in public. Compassion for those who cannot defend themselves against humanity
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Of course, the "unchecked" spread of cities, which may be required so as to allow for natural increase of so many 100s of millions of people in some countries, both inside and outside of cities, without cities growing too crowded, could be a concern. But I trust INDIVIDUALS to make decisions better than faraway corrupt politicians.
Abraham and Lot's growing tribes, spread farther apart, as told in Genesis. Which bought time to ADAPT, as pops continued to naturally grow bigger
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist More superstition. However:Trust people? The one species on the planet who has done more damage to the planet than ALL other species! The one who enslaves it's own through threat of damnation if they don't follow the 'code' (wonder who wrote that code? what was their agenda for doing so?) Are you kidding. Individuals who have so many kids that they cannot support or bring them up properly? How gullible are you? The planet has a limit to the amount of life possible.
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
I said to trust INDIVIDUALS, more so than corrupt Big Brother gov faraway politicians who obviously don't care about us.
Yes, I do trust people, that if they let their families grow "traditionally very large," that they do in fact, know what they are doing, it is their right, and it both for their good and the public good
On "A Popular Little Planet" child shuts door on other child "about to be born." "Getting kind of crazy in here" - world pop party. So leave door open then
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
But why are they having problems supporting the inevitable, or to-be-expected pop growth? Isn't it because of corrupt gov, and dishonest paper fiat currencies? Large families don't cause poverty, but poverty does all the more encourage large families, because what else is there for poor people to do in their dark villages, having to go to bed early, but the recreation that doesn't require light, which produces babies?
I don't want to "control" pop growth, but ADAPT to growth.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist poverty is caused lack of intelligence/education/responsible moral guidance i.e. churches who encourage large families. If you cannot support them don't have them. Your example is a prime case of irresponsible baby farming (more bums on pews) and is perfect for encouraging the use of contraceptives. You don't HAVE to screw all the time. It's like eating and drinking irresponsibly.
Shiprex 1 month ago
Don't blame the burger or the booze for being fat/unhealthy/sick or injuring yourself/someone/DUI. People HAVE to take responsibility before they can accept the freedoms afforded them by society.
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Your comparison is ridiculous. You don't have to screw all the time? Even though you are responsibly married, building the family nest, love your spouse, and often feel so horny? It's like eating irresponsibly? What? So we don't need to eat every day? Maybe just eat, once every several years or so? Of course married people are in fact entitled to "unlimited" sex. We have every right to allow "baby after baby" to push out, unhindered
Drinking alcohol isn't even a life function
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
We mass-produce most everything else. Why can't we "mass produce" babies then? Or should we let automation just put us out of our jobs, and have a stagnant economy that never grows nor advances?
It's not just about filling pews of some Catholic cult giant church organization or building. It's about the altruistic goal, of welcoming all the more fellow human beings to experience life.
The responsibility is in taking responsibility for your kids. Not in blocking flow of life.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
How does a lack of jobs in a region, translate into a lessening of the natural desire to procreate? It doesn't. When mothers aren't working, they are more free to raise children. When people aren't working, they might be procreating. If they live by subsistence farming, aren't they more likely to view children as useful for farmhands, and "old age security?"
Pop is rising throughout much of the world, regardless whether you and I think it's good or not. Answer: more toilets.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist lack of jobs/income means you don't have the means to support the NEEDS of a child. The rest of the community should not be expected to support them for your selfish desire or irresponsible behaviour. Saving for old age is more likely to do good than children. Children cost money, having none and popping sprogs is immoral and selfish. There are enough unwanted children in the world and orphans who NEED someone to support them rather than selfishly popping your own.
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
So not only should we be deprived of jobs, but also our children? So when do you plan to promote the mass murders?
Do you really think that unemployed married parents, don't ever have sex anymore? Of course they do. Do you think that practical or "religious" objections to use of "birth control," magically go away when people are currently between jobs? I thought that's what emergency savings are for, but seems these days, gov schemes to steal our savings too.
Babies happen.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
I'm quite sure that nature can deal with rising amounts of pollution, and rising volumes of human wastes pouring into rivers. I welcome rising volumes of human wastes, as it's necessary for human pops to go on expanding. But we could do a better job managing wastes, install underground sewer systems, more flush toilets for growing cities and denser pops. They say that pollution is an untapped resource. Perhaps, but pop-driven technologies allow us to do ever more with less.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist you are mad I am certain of this. You promote nature as the answer to our excesses. Superstitious belief that nature is an infinite garbage bin we use without consequences is nuts. Some glimmer of sense and responsibility is at last creeping in to your ideas. Better application of technology to deal and utilise our waste is uncommonly forward thinking for the superstitious zealot you seem to be.
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
If libs like sex so much, then why not allow human reproduction to naturally grow to become a "mighty force of nature," if it isn't already? Allow babies to push out naturally, unhindered, out of ever more fertile vaginas, without use of any methods of "birth control." Not all aspects of nature were meant to be "controlled" by man, especially our own rising numbers that benefit so many more people now.
Not enough power? There's energy all around us. Is gov hiding free energy?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist What next cannibalism as the answer to food shortages? People live as cattle to serve the corporates who need their lifeblood to gain ever more power over the planets resources. No thanks I like the world as it is a haven for life not a corporate controlled consuming machine.
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
But if land for people to spread into, starts lacking in some countries without a lot of land, now with more technology options driven by the global pop growth, we have even more than before, the options of allowing people to spread closer together. Allowing cities to grow into supercities, and some even coalescing. We can stack people into highrises. Steel and air conditioning makes tall buildings, ever more practical and possible
If corporations want us to grow, that's good
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
I understand some concerns, I don't want to be treated like worth-little cattle, nor as mere cogs in a massive dehumanizing system. But if the powers-that-be, or corporations, or whatever, seem to rather like human pops booming "wildly out of control," be very glad for that, for alternative of forced abortions and draconian pop "controls" is very much to be avoided and very undesirable.
I agree with allowing baby booms to spread and intensify, more people to benefit from life
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
There are good reasons that cannibalism is taboo. It doesn't help grow pop. Why is it so traditional for husband and wife to always share the same bed? I've heard it's for maximum opportunity and temptation to procreate. Think about it. It's to encourage frequent coitus. I suppose in modern times, separate beds is okay, if frequent natural coitus still occurs.
People eat many times their weight, so human flesh doesn't begin to feed us. We need morals for a populous world.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist Reasons against eating a dead person then? Natural urges are tempered with self control with consideration for the consequences which involves freedom of thought. It appears you lack this with your superstitions about supreme beings. Men on the whole have urges to procreate with as many DIFFERENT women as possible as is the case in the animal kingdom in many species. Some though don't and are monogamous (humans can use self control to avoid the consequences of this)
Shiprex 1 month ago
Being American I am sure you'll be aware of the 'naturally' higher rates of divorce in areas where religion is a major influence over peoples lives or perhaps that is propaganda. The basis of marriage is a social pressure initially put on by of all groups the CHURCH and yet there homelands in America are the least able to maintain such a moral pillar so engrained in the psyche of RELIGIONS.
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Why do mad scientists do bizarre "overpop" on animals giving them unlimited food? I think it's because they know, that food isn't any real restraint on how enormous human pops might eventually grow. There's an "overpop" theory that we have TOO MUCH food, which fuels "wild" pop growth, at least in the animal kingdom. Food grows on trees. Condoms don't. People will continue to grow ever more food, if the evil NWO criminal elitists stay out of our wayThey're trying to reduce food
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist conveniently forgetting the CONSEQUENCES of this. More and more food needs more and more land, more and more people needs more and more land. more and more people means more and more rubbish, more and more rubbish means more and more land to put it in (or do we pop it into the sea and poison the major source of oxygen?), more and more people means more and more pollution. Will some supernatural force will clean the air and sea for us with unlimited and everlastingly?
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
It's a natural fact of life, that cheap organic matter (food) naturally over time, converts into additional human bodies. That's what happens when we allow people to eat
To convert cheap organic matter into human beings of great, immense, sacred value, is a great investment, at least philosophically. Food isn't just for selfish consumption, but also has a proper and natural role in growing human pops
All people have right to live and procreate, so answer is, pop world denser
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Then let landfills grow more numerous and\or bigger. People are worth far more value than the cost of proper trash collection and disposal. Besides, aren't I already paying for that, in the unjust property tax?
People don't really produce all that much trash. We could bury it in our own yards, if the gov didn't collect it. But that wouldn't be as convenient. And a mere shovel, doesn't very well go very deep.
Star Trek Enterprise: When you flush toilet, where does it go?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Enterprise's answer: to a "biomatter resequencer." It's converted into a boot, or whatever people may need.
Increasingly, trash is being sorted by robots, and more is being reprocessed in some way, although I'm not so sure it's actually cost-effective. Aluminum only saves but 4¢ a soda can. Better idea, quit smoking.
Why do you insist upon seeing people as nothing but a detriment or liability?
Reason not to eat a dead person? Not cool, might not even be healthy? Cremation?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Natural urges are tempered with self-control? Tell that to the radical "family planning" pushers, who foisted their evil idea of "unlimited" sex without the "burden" of "unwanted" children upon us. Before, there were few (contraceptive) options, so families were often large. There was the "done with sex" option, but that wasn't practical for most normal people.
I agree with the "family planners" on the 1st part, of "unlimited sex" with my spouse. Reject 2nd part = BIG family?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Of course self-control is a virtue. But did you miss the part in the Bible, Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth? What does the Bible say about sexual morality? Flee fornication, and Thou shalt not commit adultery. I've read the Bible from cover to cover, and nowhere does it even suggest we "limit" how many children we have. Onan pulled out, and God killed him. Was it for spilling his seed, disobedience, or both?
Marriage, monogamy - YES. Promiscuity, contraceptives NO
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Why are you liberals so rebellious against God, that you insist upon getting it all backwards? You are all for the "unlimited" sex, but reject the blessings of babies, for which the natural sex was designed to procreate?
Even nature tells us that the human vagina was designed to receive the human seed from the penis. There must be some logical reason why what populates the planet, is so extremely pleasurable. The vagina is shaped exactly, for the penis to be inserted into it.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Why does sin love company so much? Why do you want me to "get back to school," so I can be brainwashed to talk of the Emperor's New Clothes? (yes, that children's fable) When I can clearly see the emperor is naked? You think you can mock me, and call me stupid, for failing to go along with the mass insanity peer pressure? I can clearly see the nakedness. What do I care what you think?
High pop may just be the future. How is it in my interests, to oppose what simply must be?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist Simply mist be according to who? what? Dodgy Texts written about events that occurred in a small part of a barely developed part of the world over 2000 years ago? Or KNOWLEDGE gained by great minds using powerful tools that has brought advances in technology (at the expense of the environment), with the power to predict and warn of impending danger using INFORMATION not religious rhetoric perpetrated by narrow minded crooks in churches. THINK FOR YOURSELF.
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
The Bible warns against people trying to rebuild the Tower of Babel again. Oh, maybe not quite the same tower, but coming together with their evil rebellion plans against God, and against the poor.
What is your resistance to seeing the natural blossoming of the human race, as a beautiful thing? Even liberals would agree that as the number of women of childbearing ages grows throughout much of the world, we have to allow more people to become sexually active. I agree, let them
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist Using superstition to base your illogical arguments paints you to be stupid. As for the blossoming of the worst thing to happen to this oasis of life in an otherwise dead and desolate universe I think the human race ought to start using its OWN intelligence to solve the problems we have caused here and not the supernatural beings and rants of those ones who abuse vulnerable peoples with companionship with talk of magic as truth as being the right way=psychological rape
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Why is a natural blossoming of the human race, such a bad thing to happen to this world? Future generations wouldn't think so. Imagine some time in the distant future, after you and I are long gone, world pop has rapidly grown, or slowly risen to 100 billion people. You come along and say, that only 7 billion people should have been allowed to live at once. That would mean that only 1 in 14 people would have been able to live. That's very poor odds to ever have existed.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
What I don't agree with, is the liberal NWO rampant pushing of contraceptives, as if they were a magical cure-all. They are contrary-to-nature, and aim to prevent the natural spread of human life.
No, I don't believe all aspects of nature were meant to be "controlled" by man. I think some remote forest fires should be allowed to grow naturally. I believe that babies should be welcome to freely push out of ever more fertile vaginas, without any effort to "control" fertility.
pronatalist 1 month ago
makes me feel good to have sex!
goldberg4323 1 month ago
What a load of rubbish.
While some societies, Japan for example, are shrinking, the world population is increasing. The answer is to move people from high population areas to low population areas.
While simple, it is not easy because of country boundaries.
Knightyme 1 month ago
@Knightyme
If you move people from high pop areas to low pop areas, it doesn't necessarily reduce their reproduction rate. I agree with migration as a pop accommodation tool, but only if such migration is voluntary, according to where people themselves choose to live.
I welcome the entire world to become a vast high pop growth region, as people with high fertility might spread to more areas of the world?
Because of country borders, that's all the more reason to welcome HIGH density
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist The vid infers that if we dont have + growth in all areas on the planet the human race will go the way of the dodo.
The reality is that while some areas of the world are having a - Pop growth, other parts not only take up the slack but have more children then is needed for a stable population.
As such the overall pop of the world is increasing at this time, making the vids point at the end moot.
Knightyme 1 month ago
@Knightyme
I do disagree with the video somewhat, as there's too much argument that world pop is increasingly "stabilizing" (stagnating), therefore why worry about pop growth? Presumably, only stupid people would think that the planet can't at least support a few more billions
The problem with that argument, is that it relies too much upon the rampant contraceptive pushing continuing, and that enough people will be duped, that coercion isn't necessary. But what if pop surges? Let it
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Knightyme
So I generally don't like to argue that world pop is "stabilizing," even if that is the apparent trend. Seems an unreliable argument, for then it would need to be improved or amended, if people finally wisen up and discard "family planning" and "wild" baby booms break out all over the planet.
I have long advocated large families worldwide, and in favor of the natural increase of man. I have long harped on the need to welcome world pop density to rise naturally, to ADAPT.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Knightyme
I think some people are having problems understanding why world pop continues to swell, if the world is reducing average family size towards the pidly 2.1 children per family figure that is commonly referred to as "replacement" level fertility.
If the video was to get into details like "pop momentum" it would be longer than a few minutes. It's old people who die, but younger people who have kids. Thus, past growth, tends to continue for a while, as pop resists "control."
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Knightyme
There's also the complicating issues, that those countries who multiply faster than the world average, such as India, are growing to a larger proportion of the total pop, and increasingly dominating the trend.
And what if world family size average, is heading towards 2.5 or 3 children eventually? World pop will just keep right on growing and growing, even if at a slowed or more creeping rate.
But the truth is, there's plenty room for everybody to have their big families!
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist While there is plenty of land, there is not plenty of potable water. This is why central Australia is by and large unpopulated compared to coastal areas, due in part, to the lack of potable water to sustain larger populations.
The earth has about 3% fresh water, of that almost 70% is icecaps and glaciers, so that brings it down to around 1% available water, and much of that 1% is contaminated in some way.
This is the defining resource that determines world population
Knightyme 1 month ago
@Knightyme
I am so sick and tired of hearing Australian crybabies, whine that Australia can't possibly hold a mere 35 or 50 million people, that the pop may grow to in the 21st century.
Already they are ridiculously low pop level compared to the average for the rest of the world. Some countries even desalinate some of their water from the ocean. Isn't Australia surrounding by ocean?
That's not why their pop is so low. Lack of people and lack of procreation. Eventually grow higher.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Knightyme
Explain to me Israel then. Desert-land Israel CAN, but pathetic desert Australia can't? So what's wrong with Australia? Too much socialism? Are Aussies retarded?
I had once considered moving from "has been" America to Australia. But I think not, for Aussies, at least some of them, are too pop phobic, which I'm afraid wouldn't assure a good future for me there. It will make them soon a pathetic failing country, perhaps even begging for Anti-Christ to come and destroy them?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist You don't even try do you?
Israel area - 20,700 km2
Australia area - 7,617,930 km2 - ~368x the area of Israel
--
Some Australian Deserts by area.
Great Victoria Desert - 348,750 km2 - ~17x
Great Sandy Desert - 284,993 km2 - ~14x
Tanami Desert - 184,500 km2 - ~9x
You are a troll and a poor one at that. Might I suggest you take on those with the same level of intellect, I think the local kindergarten should be about your level of debate skill.
Knightyme 4 weeks ago
@Knightyme
Didn't I say that Israel is denser than Australia? And yet, according to YT videos, which country are the pop phobic crybabies in? Australia. So what do you want to know? Perhaps how many times denser is Israel? Well you didn't give me any pop figures, so let's use 7 million Israel, 24 million Australia. Close enough.
Israel - 338 people/sq. km
Australia - 3 people/sq. km
ans(2)/ans(1) ENTER 107 times as dense. (rounding discrepancy)
Israel 1+ people/acre
Au. 0+ p./acre
pronatalist 4 weeks ago
@Knightyme
Did you just claim that you are smart than me? So who's the troll then? You're trying to be funny?
So just how many profound things have you said, defending people's God-given basic right to life and procreation? What have you said in defense of large families?
What have you really contributed to the discussion, well other than those handy figures? And what difference do the figures make anyway? What did anybody really prove with them?
If Aussies are really like that?
pronatalist 4 weeks ago
@pronatalist No place did you say that Israel had a denser population. Your figures show that even at ~3 people / KM2, yet we still have potable water shortages, as well as droughts.
No, I said Kindergarten children are smarter then you. Well not smarter, just better debating skills. You really should go see a doctor about your eyes.
Since there is unlikely to be a god, your 2nd comment about ''god given rights'' is moot.
I have contributed amusement for others.
Knightyme 4 weeks ago
@Knightyme
So you are one of those Aussie pop whiner crybabies too?
What was I thinking, that Australia might have more freedom than "has been" America? You all are a bunch of British crown morons? Isn't Australia where they sent the criminals some time ago? Gee, are you Aussies still so retarded?
If you all can't manage 3 people/sq. km, why do you think you'd be better off with 2 people/sq. km? Then you'd have even fewer competent people to repair your decaying infrastructure.
pronatalist 4 weeks ago
@Knightyme
So you Aussies don't believe in any real foundation for human rights? And you let guns for personal protection be banned, and now your crime rates are up? What's causing your stupidity? Denial that there is a God to hold us morally accountable? Or is it the chem-trails? Maybe your government monopoly schools, spewing earth worship propaganda? Maybe you Aussies have small weak minds?
Contributed amusement? Where in the title of video, did it suggest this was a jokes forum?
pronatalist 4 weeks ago
@pronatalist I contributed to my amusement if nobody else. :)
I see your best 'argument' is to try and insult when you have nothing to counter with. Since you don't have anything interesting, or even witty to say, I'll move onto other people and conversations.
Fair thee well o' jester.
Knightyme 4 weeks ago
@Knightyme
There's also the demographic matter, that most people don't understand, because they are mostly clueless about the basics of demographics, and of the immense and sacred value of each and every human life, and that people are not animals - that it takes around a BILLION births per decade, just to maintain the present huge pop size.
And I think if a pop poll is asked correctly, most people understandably want to stay at least the present "huge" size. I've posted such polls.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Knightyme You are suggesting Ethnic cleansing by corporations in other words. The availability of opportunities, logistic and desire to decrease environmental impact also factor in with this idea.
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex ?? At what point did I even infer ethnic cleansing?
I view the world as the world not as countries. I proposed a simple solution and you get ethnic cleansing. That is a most odd reaction.
Knightyme 1 month ago
@Knightyme the suggestion that groups of people get migrated by some entity ie forced rather than natural migration. it is an extreme interpretation of your suggestion but my view is that locally people should make the life they can with the resources available. Popping babies willy nilly is no way to behave and relying on other parts of the world to support this irresponsible behaviour. All that would happen is that the density of population would become more even but continue rising
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Well that is what I promote, allowing pop density to spread out more even, but go right on rising unhindered.
We can't very well push the babies back in, and I've said that everybody and their progeny, have the right to live.
I promote the natural migration, and yes, allowing people to spread from "overcrowded" regions to less populous regions, is among the pop accommodation tools. Abraham and Lot's tribes deliberately spread further apart so as to keep right on growing.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
People should not be expected to directly pollute their bodies with nasty Big Pharma contraceptive devices and drugs.
Yes, let babies keep popping out unhindered, but it's hardly "willy nilly" when it's done on purpose with design and preparation. I wouldn't say that of the Duggars, who have what? 19 children now? I believe in keeping the door to life open, allowing coitus to always welcome prospect of pregnancy. They built their own big house. Great example of self-reliance.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Knightyme
What's this quibbling I see, about "ethnic cleansing?" I didn't bring that up, I don't think.
But are you all accidentally proving my points?
How hard it is to "control" the natural human pop increase?
Yeah, "who do we get rid of?" What if some countries have just "too many" people? Where do we put them? Should so many people be allowed to continue living and reproducing?
Why is breastfeeding in public such a controversy, when it's natural in fast-growing pops?
pronatalist 1 month ago
So why is the population going up then?
ben9345 1 month ago
@ben9345
So why is world pop still rising? Basically 2 reasons: "Demographic momentum," and because faster-reproducing regions are growing to a larger proportion of the total.
If "replacement" reproduction of 2.1 children was going on, many societies are so youthful due to past growth, that more people are entering childbearing years, than old people dying. Births come sooner, deaths later. This is the tendency in nature,for something moving to keep moving, hard for pop growth to stop
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist actually you will find better living conditions, access to medicines, better child and aged care and a host of other technological support mechanisms brought about by scientific advances and not magical miracles. Lack of education and ability to support this growth will challenge us all
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Why do you refuse to consider, that many of these technological advances, are largely the result of expanding human pops? Humans advance technology by small incremental steps. As the billions burgeon, there's more minds working on things, and larger and more profitable markets? Somebody comes up with a better way, and soon competitors find ways to copy the good ideas. Because entire world is growing in pop, countries with their own swelling pops, can import ideas like toilets.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist advances are not a result of too many people. It is as a result of stable population that supports ALL human endeavour rather than the selfish consumerist ideology you seem to support. Where is most of current day technological advances made? In countries that have stable populations not the China/Brazil/India that is economic advance (consider the environmental impact in those nations before responding).
Shiprex 1 month ago
Expanding markets contribute only to more poverty, more reliance on consumerism and greater wealth polarisation. Pollution and environmental impact also increases as you seem to ignore the fact that people maker a mess and the toilet doesn't just magic the waste away like your great book and preachers would have convinced you of. It goes somewhere and causes harm as does the rest of the crap we can no longer consume and are finished with.
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
How about this. You "excessive" people are a clutter to my view, so how about we reduce the pop, by eliminating everybody except for myself, and whoever I might wish to grant a waiver to? What do you think of that? Do you want a waver? Know anybody else who you'd like to give a waiver to? If you agree to such a thing, you are an idiot. And yet, most every pop "control" proposal I have heard, is just about as stupid.
Expanding markets contribute to more diversity of products.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Ask Intel or Apple, how much more a computer chip or iPad would cost, if they only produce but a few. Why do we have so many Android tablets, copycat tablets? Because the market, or the pop, is so massive. Not long ago, cellphones were mainly for making phone calls. Now they browse the internet, check email, play games, take pictures, probably even update your Facebook? Even electricity wouldn't work, if pops were still small. Cars are way too complicated, to make only a few.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex actually you will find on the tedtalksdirector channel, innovative people from those and other less tech advanced countries coming up with some great ideas.
They might not be cutting edge, but still great ideas.
---
I think it is less a stable population, but a stable environment that allows people to think, experiment, and so forth without the worries of where the next meal is coming from that allows new tech to be made and discovered.
Knightyme 1 month ago
@Knightyme totally agree with a caveat that the environment needs to be able to provide sufficiently for the population there and if it is strained through impacts (famine/flood etc.) then this will affect the human population much more drastically.
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Why won't you pop phobics admit that human pops naturally tend to self-accommodate? The more populous we become, the more we ADAPT and BENEFIT from growing more populous. History has already confirmed this, and it's not my fault, you are so blind to see the truth. That's a practical and moral reason why humans have to be allowed to grow in numbers "unchecked," leaving pop size up to God.
Our ancestors understood this, for family size was thought "uncontrollable."
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
That people would even consider by what method we can impose some "control" upon the natural-expanding human pop sizes around the world, shows how corrupt we have become. The importance of the INDIVIDUAL has been diminished in the public mind, "individual" human rights hardly seem to matter anymore, and all is about the almighty state and how it can more efficiently trample even basic human rights. The consent of the governed is diminished, and we are headed towards chaos, war
pronatalist 1 month ago
@ben9345
But "demographic momentum" could be expected to "run out of steam," when so many young people eventually become old, and "momentum" runs down. Well unless they wisen up and reject the rampant contraceptive pushing, and family size becomes larger again?
In 1975, 1 in 7 people lived in India. Now it's 1 in 6, and 1 in 5 babies are born in India. Since developed countries reduced birthrate, "third world" countries are growing to larger proportion of world total, growing faster.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@ben9345
Nature favors those who reproduce, and attempts to do "endruns" around any effort to "control" world pop growth. If China refuses to enjoy being "world's most populous" country, then India will soon take their place and continue adding babies faster than China.
I am disgusted by the rampant contraceptive pushing, the real underlying reason behind "Demographic Transition Theory," and I have long advocated more populous and denser world, so as to welcome precious darling babies
pronatalist 1 month ago
The doubling time for 1.2% is 58 years, that means population will double in 58 years. To everyone responsible for the creation of these videos; STOP BREATHING MY AIR.
IntoLimbo 1 month ago
@IntoLimbo
It's not just your air only, but is coming to be breathed by more billions of people. This would be a good reason to convince your friends to stop smoking, stop spreading "second hand" smoke through an increasingly "crowded" planet.
So what? Let pop double in 58 years, we ought to be doubling faster, and warning people against the side effects of contraceptives, encourage more families to grow larger, grow more naturally, without using any method of "birth control."
pronatalist 1 month ago
"Many societies are facing a very real danger: extinction."
Please. 60 years ago the population of the ENTIRE planet was 2 billion. In just 60 years we have TRIPLED the world's population. More people are alive right now than the total sum of our entire human history.
"Economic problems appear when elderly outnumber young"
This is a phase we MUST go through if we want to return to a population size the world can sustain. Right now the earth takes 1.5 years to regenerate what we consume in 1.
amonaghan 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@amonaghan 'This is a phase we MUST go through if we want to return to a population size the world can sustain' and in the meantime? Can the planet support our ability to consume at an exponential rate before it gives up the ghost and fails us in our need(greed) for more consumption? What effect will this have on the rest of the living part of the planet? The innocent ones who are not having such a drastic effect on the environment,
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
A drop in pop size is not good, for it either means massive numbers dying in some NWO criminal elitist caused war, or that people don't love their children anymore, since they have so few.
People aren't going to stop consuming, unless we enter a Dark Ages, or massive poverty caused by NWO criminal elitists. Rich people especially aren't going to give up mansions, cars.
People aren't just "consumers" we also produce, usually most people produce more than they consume.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist your last comment shows you really have no idea about the reality of the situation and must live in some kind of theistic bubble where you are shielded from the world yet can access it so readily. Sad for you,
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
That's why wealth increases, people have more square footage and more bathrooms in homes than there was decades before. Because people produce more than they consume, so there is more to go around, not less.
Pop phobics jeopardize this trend, for they support economic models that don't work, and have never worked anywhere all through history.
If we care about the innocent children, then we must allow them to be born, and welcome families to grow large, pop to go on rising.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist You are truly an idiot, Where does the material come from to make all the things around us? Are we putting more into the earth's resources provision than we take out? Is there a limitless supply of materials to make more bathrooms etc.? Is the world getting larger/swelling/growing? Are more and more natural resources like coal and oil being produced to support the ballooning plague of humans? I don't think so but the good book may prove me wrong (proof ? nah not really
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
What a shame, that you are so into the world's poor low-value view of human beings, that you would dare call us a "ballooning plague of humans." God promised Abraham descendents so numerous as to be uncountable like the dust, stars of the sky, or grains of sand of the seashore. I hear that's used as a reason for large families, in Israel.
The planet is not getting bigger. Why do you think I have been harping for so long, we have to let global human pop density rise naturally?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist there you go with the superstition based argument. What next David Copperfield as world leader? David Blaine for president. Magic and superstition are for entertainment not the real world and the sooner you and your kind are proved wrong with your baseless ideologies on reality the better.
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
What a shame, those with the ridiculous "overpop" theories, seem to know so little how the world really works? What? Your mind is so small, you can't imagine how we can build more bathrooms? People want big, and AFFORDABLE homes. So building materials are chosen from ABUNDANT materials. Toilets are made of clay, porcelain. What is that? Melted glass, sand, abundant. What is bathroom tile made of? Same thing. Sheetrock\wallboard? Ground up rock, cheap stuff. Wood\metal studs.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist And these resources are everlasting and free? Get over yourself. If you can't afford to have a child then don't expect the rest of us to pay for it. responsibility before freedom.
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
I'm not just talking about the supposed "need" for reproductive urges relief. I'm also talking about the right to deliberately procreate. It's a God-given basic right. If we don't have the right to life (which obviously must include procreation), then how can we enjoy our other rights, if we aren't allowed to live?
Who's asking you to support my children? What a bogus argument. Many large families are not on any "public assistance," and I already oppose gov intrusive welfare.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
And why do you attack me anyway? You just can't stand truth? The few large families we have in developed countries, don't add all that much to the swelling world pop anyway. Don't you understand the theory of the bell curve? Most of the pop growth, doesn't come from the largest families, but more from that there's just SO MANY PEOPLE NOW HAVING BABIES. Most everybody has babies. Unlike with animals, almost all humans reproduce. So it's most unfair to blame a 10th child for pop
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
Where in the world, are the most commonly large families found? In Africa. How many representatives who live in Africa, are included in this discussion? So is it me that you would need to convince if you think that somehow humans can further slow their already stagnant low rate of pop growth?
You think anybody will have a big family, just because I think it's a good idea? No, I expect they will consider my arguments, then find their own reasons to let their families grow more
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
I'm a natural introvert. What use have I for crowds? I don't much seek crowds, but neither do I much fear crowds either
A friend of mine, finally confided to me, they had decided to try for a 5th child, after having had 4 already. Why would I oppose their joy? Their child probably won't be living with me. It's their home that they are allowing to get maybe a wee bit "crowded," not mine. I'd like to crowd my home with my own children, plus a few adopted, if it was easier to ad
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
I am not a nature worshiper, so why would I excessively consider the "environmental impact?" That's a reason we can't get anything done anymore, and why the cost of everything seem to ever go up. I hear that Europe is considering putting a carbon cap on people, trying to limit how often they can fly somewhere or whatever. Well no wonder there's no jobs and our freedom is diminishing. All based upon junk science nature worship. And you have the nerve to call me "superstitious?"
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
China has such a problem with environment, not because they have so many people, but because they are ruled by unaccountable communist thugs, who have to have a certain number of jobs and productivity, no matter how inept they are, or the people will soon revolt and throw them out of power.
When individuals lack freedom, then all that matters is getting their food onto their plate, not how the environment might suffer. People need freedom, to enable exploring better options.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
So you admit that "my kind" hasn't been proven wrong yet? Oh, that must have been a Freudian slip, right? Perhaps you didn't mean to let that slip?
"... and the sooner your kind is proved wrong with your baseless ideologies on reality the better"
I was previously making a reference to my observance that the pace of technological advancement has greatly accelerated, at just about the same time that world pop began surging so much. A positive vicious circle feeding each other?
pronatalist 1 month ago
@Shiprex
They say you can't stop people from having sex. Do you agree? Should we put all the males on 1 side of the planet, and females on the other? Ban orgasm, so that people have no distractions from listening to and obeying Big Brother cruel gov?
Or do you trust INDIVIDUALS to have freedom? If responsible parents think they can squeeze even more children into their homes, what business is it of yours? Who's to say they are wrong?
If world bulges with people, LET IT PROUDLY BULGE.
pronatalist 1 month ago
@pronatalist Its not the sex that is the problem. Plenty people do it often enough and avoid the unnecessary consequence/expense/health/environmental impact etc another consumer/polluter to add to the worlds burden. You know that as contraception not abstinence With freedom there is responsibility and if my lifestyle is adversely affected by price rises because of increased demand or my clean/open environment is affected then I have every right to oppose it.
Shiprex 1 month ago
And why should those who don't have children subsidise those who do through taxes to pay for schools and community activity centres because parents can't cope with brining their children up because they are selfish (main reason you give for having them to satisfy their NEED(?). Yeah I think I am well within my rights to oppose freedom to baby farm by selfish individuals who are brainwashed by irresponsible superstitious organisations groups (religions) into believing it is their right
Shiprex 1 month ago
@Shiprex
You do not have any right to oppose my children. You do not have any right to an "open" environment, if someday the soaring pop level makes it not obtainable in your country. Sure, there is room for land reforms, but exactly how, while respecting the sovereignty of countries and their borders?
Why can't we INDIVIDUALS ever get any benefits of this much-hyped "globalism?" I think that similar countries ought to be able to form some deals to allow citizens to switch countries.
pronatalist 1 month ago