Then I'll release the virus...
Are we really overpopulated?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
Wonderful posts, Pronatalist. Modern day environmentalists play into the hands of elite corporatists and globalists, telling us children harm our environment. The only reason these environmentalists exist is because they're tools for global depopulation, which is a concept supported by many rich and powerful men. When you hear of Bill Gates or Warren Buffet donating millions of dollars to charity, what they're really doing is donating money to population control agencies across third-world countries. When somebody such as Pronatalist comes along and shows how "overpopulation" is a sham, I am forced to take my hat off. Those who see the bigger picture behind "environmentalism" should have ten children each, if only to spite the globalists.
Kadark
Kadark
Babies don't decline in size.... Is english your first language, or are you just being obtuse, prontalist?
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Of course I don't expect for birth restrictions to be imposed in the human hives, although it should be noted, that that is treading into the highly hypothetical and improbable. There's no "maximum capacity" sign upon the planet, other than obviously God's destiny for us. In The Jetsons futuristic cartoon, living in highrises doesn't necessarily do anything to stop human populations from growing. Yes, I know that Mr. George Jetson only has but 2 children, but that's just 1 family. Another family probably has 5 children. And the 2 children was likely really just an American average "prejudice."
How do you suppose colonization of more worlds for humanity, would ever occur, if ever? Might "overflowing hives" be a possible motivation? Or more likely, the already population-driven natural growth of technology?
I am for using both the artificial and the natural in favor of better supporting the natural human population growth. It would be ludicrous to propose that only "natural" means may be used to support the present 6.7 billion and growing global population. Is farming really so "natural" come to think of it? How about refrigerators to store food, and gas and electric cookstoves and microwave ovens to cook food in growing cities conveniently eliminating millions of smoky cooking fires?
They say the places with the least room for more people, have the most babies. Probably due to the larger numbers of prospective parents. Even bees live in hives, suggesting that supposedly intelligent humans, could also live in "hives," if ever we found we have to.
Just because some regions of developing countries, may slightly resemble "hives" of people, doesn't mean that more people wouldn't be glad to live in such conditions, if that is the only way that more people may be admitted now to become alive. When entire families with maybe 7 children, live in a 10 by 10 foot room, or maybe a couple of rooms or a small hut, children are probably rather aware of the sexual behavior of their parents, and know all about how babies are made, and view it as a normal and healthy natural process. When people live in overcrowded shantytowns, with only but a thin wall between them and their neighbors, I imagine that hearing neighbors naturally reproducing, encourages others to also reproduce, at the same time. While orgies would be immoral, I don't think "virtual orgies" would be, married couples merely reproducing at the same time as neighbors sometimes, making even the "less sex" or rhythm methods of "family planning," all the more unworkable, as overcrowded communities become a bit "erotic" sounding at night? The answer is simply to build more human housing, promote economic/political justice, allow free markets and leadership to reduce poverty, not at all to blame the innocent babies. Welcome the natural flow of human life to keep on flowing, and invite people to multiply and fill additional constructed housing, and build more housing, for the jobs people need anyway.
I know of some missionary, to Bangadesh, a place with obviously no "shortage" of people, who himself had a baby there, as to-be-expected as he was married. They went to Malaysia to birth their baby, for the better hospitals. Of course I previously told this missionary when he visited our Church, that I don't believe any country really has "too many" people, and why I believe large families should be encouraged worldwide.
I don't believe in imposing population control, so more people coming alive and more large families, helps to protect our freedom to have our precious darling babies, by making natural population growth all the more "uncontrollable." I do believe there are some natural restraints, but not the brutal ones that population phobics imagine. People with more wealth do find other things to do than make babies all the time, but not necessarily. Well-to-do families can be naturally large as well. It also takes some time for human populations to grow dratically, time well spent in ADAPTING to and preparing for the reasonably predictable growth.
Kadark-I guess that makes me a moderate-6 kids, but I pee outside sometimes.
My goal is to break my grandparents' record of ten. Or ... was it eleven?
I've lost count. I honestly don't know how many uncles and aunts I have.
Kadark
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Do you have any idea how much such a hive would cost ? I really don't think they'd build spare ones.
And could you shut up about The Jetsons already, you sound like a 10 year old.
Thank you Enmos and Mr. Hamtastic for reassuring me that I am conversing with actual human beings.
Kadark I have since lost the respect I held for you if you are now grasping at support from Pronatalist.
On average, every person needs roughly one acre on which to live: this acre provides their food, their electricity, their water, their place of work, their home, their recreational space and in fact everything else they need with which to live. Now that's one acre completely for the use of humans - no natural green areas or reserves for wildlife included.
Including uninhabitable areas like deserts and oceans, if the world's land were to be shared equally between its inhabitants, every man, woman and child would receive 100 square feet.
Yet you still claim there is plenty of room for millions more of us.
Are you so short-sighted that you cannot see that the 'replication bomb' as Dawkins puts it will eventually be our downfall?
Kadark I have since lost the respect I held for you if you are now grasping at support from Pronatalist.
On average, every person needs roughly one acre on which to live: this acre provides their food, their electricity, their water, their place of work, their home, their recreational space and in fact everything else they need with which to live. Now that's one acre completely for the use of humans - no natural green areas or reserves for wildlife included.
Including uninhabitable areas like deserts and oceans, if the world's land were to be shared equally between its inhabitants, every man, woman and child would receive 100 square feet.
Yet you still claim there is plenty of room for millions more of us.
Are you so short-sighted that you cannot see that the 'replication bomb' as Dawkins puts it will eventually be our downfall?
A political problem?
Perhaps. But which end?
Ending Famine, Simply by Ignoring the Experts
www .nytimes .com/2007/12/02/world/africa/02malawi.html
"Malawi hovered for years at the brink of famine. After a disastrous corn harvest in 2005, almost five million of its 13 million people needed emergency food aid."
"Over the past 20 years, the World Bank and some rich nations Malawi depends on for aid have periodically pressed this small, landlocked country to adhere to free market policies and cut back or eliminate fertilizer subsidies, even as the United States and Europe extensively subsidized their own farmers."
"Malawi’s leaders have long favored fertilizer subsidies, but they reluctantly acceded to donor prescriptions, often shaped by foreign-aid fashions in Washington, that featured a faith in private markets and an antipathy to government intervention."
"In the 1980s and again in the 1990s, the World Bank pushed Malawi to eliminate fertilizer subsidies entirely. Its theory both times was that Malawi’s farmers should shift to growing cash crops for export and use the foreign exchange earnings to import food, according to Jane Harrigan, an economist at the University of London."
"Here in Malawi, deep fertilizer subsidies and lesser ones for seed, abetted by good rains, helped farmers produce record-breaking corn harvests in 2006 and 2007, according to government crop estimates. Corn production leapt to 2.7 million metric tons in 2006 and 3.4 million in 2007 from 1.2 million in 2005, the government reported."
Sorry for the broken link, but the system doesn't trust me yet.
Perhaps. But which end?
Ending Famine, Simply by Ignoring the Experts
www .nytimes .com/2007/12/02/world/africa/02malawi.html
"Malawi hovered for years at the brink of famine. After a disastrous corn harvest in 2005, almost five million of its 13 million people needed emergency food aid."
"Over the past 20 years, the World Bank and some rich nations Malawi depends on for aid have periodically pressed this small, landlocked country to adhere to free market policies and cut back or eliminate fertilizer subsidies, even as the United States and Europe extensively subsidized their own farmers."
"Malawi’s leaders have long favored fertilizer subsidies, but they reluctantly acceded to donor prescriptions, often shaped by foreign-aid fashions in Washington, that featured a faith in private markets and an antipathy to government intervention."
"In the 1980s and again in the 1990s, the World Bank pushed Malawi to eliminate fertilizer subsidies entirely. Its theory both times was that Malawi’s farmers should shift to growing cash crops for export and use the foreign exchange earnings to import food, according to Jane Harrigan, an economist at the University of London."
"Here in Malawi, deep fertilizer subsidies and lesser ones for seed, abetted by good rains, helped farmers produce record-breaking corn harvests in 2006 and 2007, according to government crop estimates. Corn production leapt to 2.7 million metric tons in 2006 and 3.4 million in 2007 from 1.2 million in 2005, the government reported."
Sorry for the broken link, but the system doesn't trust me yet.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Rockefeller visited Asia in the 1950s, and decided they had too many people, and pushed for them to use the shoddy contraceptives. Or so I heard somewhere.
But who died and made him to be "god," to decide such things? Why is his opinion of any more weight that anybody else's opinion? Did the common Asian person agree? Probably not.
And yes, to have children just to take the world back from the humanistic, evolutionistic, communistic, atheist "environmentalists," even that would be a great reason to have a large family.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Go back and re-read. I was speaking metaphorically. Just like a human baby wouldn't normally decline in size, in a healthy pregnancy, neither should we expect the naturally-growing human race, to decline in size and be healthy. Good health should encourage and allow the growth. Population growth is quite possibly a measure of success in solving various problems. Even Deut 28, I think it is, speaks of God multiplying the people, as a reward for obeying God's commandments.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
Hives cost too much? Well who's saying to build human "hives" now? That's but a sci-fi distant future speculation. Even demographers don't expect so much population anytime within the forseeable future. Build supercities or whatever the people want now. According to where they choose to live and what work they choose to do.
By that time, the robots would be building all the hives, giving people all the more time to spend with, and grow their families.
I sound like a 10-year-old? Your opinion. The Jetsons didn't even seem to suggest much about controversies like population growth or nuclear power, that's just an interpretation of their "futuristic look." You don't ever watch any cartoons? Not a "grown up" thing to do? I bought The Jetsons DVD collection. Who says adults can't still like cartoons? My little nephews are well under 10 years old, and like the Star Trek movies I brought over. Is watching Star Trek "childish" as well, in your view?
I think I may be trying to make a point, that people are sufficiently naturally restrained from having "too many" children already, without having to hatch up some anti-child scheme against them. Presumably, nature has its limits, although not the sort of cruel limits some Malthusians like to fantasize about. If people felt too crowded in the "hives," they could maybe on their own, without anti-people propaganda, stop filling their homes with ever more children? Maybe, maybe not, but then, that scenario isn't so probably to begin with, so maybe it's an absurd question? Or they could move on, towards building more and taller hives, or spreading to the moon, out into orbit, or to Mars, or beyond? The main "limit" I see then, isn't upon eventual population size so much, but upon natural rate of growth, by the natural womb "bottleneck," that mothers already "with child" probably won't get pregnant again naturally, for another year or so, as their wombs are already "occupied." Faster population growth also results in a higher proportion of new women of childbearing age, still being too young to have babies yet, naturally limiting somewhat, the natural pace at which human population growth can progress, to within some range to which humans may actually find ample time to prepare and ADAPT for their naturally-rising numbers.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
What? Other people like to multiply, other than just me? How is this possible?
Or maybe people have a natural resistance to know-little outsiders telling them how many children they may have.
Every person needs an acre? Who says? Sounds like a very arbitrary, nice round number to me. Some countries already have less than an acre per person, such as The Philippines and India, and yet they continue to grow in human numbers, so isn't that empirical evidence that people probably don't really need an acre per person on average, to survive and thrive?
Your numbers are off. Divided evenly, not counting Antartica, each person would have about 5 acres of land. And most would still go largely unused. I say that the average person needs maybe 1000 square feet or 100 square meters of living space, but that's an obvious arbitrary round number. People could obviously live in squashed RV-like efficiency spaces as well, and be stacked high into the sky.
Millions more? We add more than another million people, each and every week. Around 70 or 80 million more per year. Perhaps you meant, billions more? With 6.7 billion officially now, it would take billions more, just to make a substancial increase, relative to what we have now. Millions more is but a "drop in the bucket" to the present world population level, but everything to those babies who are born as a result. Millions more, would be like adding a few more people to each village. What village couldn't easily find some place for "just a few more" people?
Also, consider that it takes around a billion births per decade, just to maintain the present "huge" world population size. There's many reasons why humans should at least want to maintain their population size. Not only do the elderly people need younger people around to provide care for them as their health fails, but without so many people, our technology would begin to falter and fall apart. Much of the technology we so take for granted, is quite complicated, takes many skillful people to build and maintain it, and just wouldn't be viable for smaller populations or smaller markets.
Jesus commanded people to love God with all our heart, mind, and soul, and to love thy neighbor as thyself. Why wouldn't failure to do that, be more likely our downfall? Are you so short-sighted, that you can't see the difference between the multiplication of bacteria or of rabbits, and that of people? People are a bit, as they say, like the "ultimate weed." Not only can we live almost anywhere, but perhaps "everywhere" as well, and we even alter our environment, to make more comfortable room, for more of ourselves. I see no better path for us right now, than to fulfill our apparent nature or God-given destiny. If humans are supposedly a "replication bomb," then we are what we are. Good thing for you and me, lest without so many billions having come to be born, neither you or I would be around to experience life either.
"World population is barely big enough for you and I to have been born." somebody said
superstring01
Moderator
Well, it depends.
Keeping in mind that Mexico has over a hundred million people and that the birth rate has been dropping dramatically over the past decade, I don't think it's too much. Fact is, Mexico doesn't have enough good housing for its current citizens. If it did, then the boarder situation might be a little better.
~String
Keeping in mind that Mexico has over a hundred million people and that the birth rate has been dropping dramatically over the past decade, I don't think it's too much. Fact is, Mexico doesn't have enough good housing for its current citizens. If it did, then the boarder situation might be a little better.
~String
superstring01
Moderator
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
This is real housing in Mexico (not photoshop or lego):
I wanna see whole Montana like this!!!
That is real housing? Obviously not so in the image, but computer-rendered somehow, as where's the people? Where's the valley and hill variations found in most any city?
Yeah, some cities look something like that, miles and miles of human housing, as far as the eye can see. Note that in the picture, there are lawns and rooftops where children could presumably go outside and play. But most of the people in the city, don't seem to care that it looks like that, as they are well used to it, and the city functions well for them.
Cities do function as sort of mild "population arcologies" in my view, helping much, for the planet to easily absorb lots more people potentially, as need be. We put people into "crowded rat cages" and tell them to breed, but these are nice spacious rat cages, disguised to look like homes and beautiful comfortable cities. We humans tend to be rather civil about it all, especially where people have freedom and are valued. I could easily live in a place like that image.
Pronatalist
Registered Senior Member
100 million people would easily fit into Montana as well, as long as people aren't too ridiculously fussy, about having an excessive amount of elbow room between themselves and their neighbors. Actually, still Montana would be far less dense than the image, well unless people clustered into just a few major cities.
I've read of somebody making some reference on some forum, to hearing neighbors having sex, through nearby summer open windows at night. Ah, just some of the nature's sounds of the natural flow of human life.
Why should only China and India get to be "population billionaires?" Mexico could join the growing prestigious "population billionaire club" as well, if they like to have children still.
Without even getting into quality of life there is a limit not only to resources but biological waste.